If he will make a statement on the impact on the UK economy of the level of the single European currency [154596]

If he will make a statement on the means by which he will evaluate compliance with his five economic tests for joining the euro. [154606]

What assessment he has made of the impact of the UK's adoption of the euro on the prospects for the competitiveness of UK manufacturing industry. [154607]

Despite the euro-sterling exchange rate, exports to Europe have increased by 5.2 per cent. in the past year. Overall, manufacturing exports have increased by 12.6 per cent. as manufacturing productivity has risen by 5 per cent. Our position on the five economic tests for the euro remains unchanged since the 1997 statement to the House. So that British business is prepared for the introduction of euro notes and coins in 2002, I am today in consultation with business, authorising an enhanced small business information campaign. which includes an updated website, and bringing Treasury expenditure on business preparations for this Parliament up to £9 million, thus helping British business to compete effectively in the single market, whether we are in or out of the euro. I hope that there will be all-party support for this extra help for business preparation. Total spending on preparation across government in this Parliament is around £24 million.

As the Government have been involved in direct intervention to prop up the euro and the Chancellor has instructed the Bank of England that 30 per cent. of the proceeds of its gold sales must be invested in euros, and as the Bank of England is now issuing substantial eurobonds, will the right hon. Gentleman give us some indication of the size of the mountain of euros now in our reserves? Does he think that that will be a good investment? Finally, in the light of what he said about the exchange rate mechanism, will he comment on the resolution passed at the Amsterdam summit, which states that

"member states with a derogation can be expected to join the exchange rate mechanism"

First, we have no intention of rejoining the ERM. Secondly, on the question of the sales of gold, I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the National Audit Office report, which answers all his points and criticisms. Thirdly, on euro preparations—in other words, preparations for British firms to deal with the advent of notes and coins in 2002—I should have thought that the Conservative party would want to join business in making proper preparations. Am I to believe, however, that the whole Conservative party is not only against the euro in principle, but against assisting British business when it asks us for help in preparing for the advent of euro notes and coins?

What are today's figures for the five economic tests?

The assessment of the five economic tests was made in 1997.

Today's figures.

The assessment was made in 1997. We have said that we will make an assessment early in the next Parliament. We have said also that we will not provide a running commentary on the issue. The hon. Gentleman has a question that he must answer. He is opposed to any assessment and to considering the issue because his party has ruled out the single currency as a matter of dogma.

A decade ago, the disastrous Tory currency experiment with the ERM bankrupted 100,000 firms and doubled unemployment. What does my right hon. Friend say to those who believe that sustainable British convergence with the euroland economies is a chimera? Will he confirm that a one-size-fits-all interest rate policy would assuredly bring about the boom and bust that he has so successfully banished?

My hon. Friend knows that it is precisely to deal with the questions that have been asked about the effect on employment, investment, financial services and the flexibility of the economy, and about the durability of convergence, that we have set the five economic tests. It is precisely to answer those questions that we will make an assessment of the five economic tests in the next Parliament. I have already said that we have no intention of repeating the Conservative experiment with the exchange rate mechanism, for which the Conservative party must accept full responsibility as it formed the previous Government. At the same time, given that we announced measures that will help business to prepare for the advent of euro notes and coins, it is now for the Conservative party to tell us whether it will move against business by refusing to support even those measures.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the strangest features of the current Parliament is the official Opposition's refusal to join the cross-party group on the euro, which I chair? The group meets regularly, monitors preparations and checks that no money is spent on promoting the euro. What sort of Opposition is it who bury their heads in the sand and refuse to take the empty chair in the preparations group of this House?

Mr. Speaker will know that we invited every political party in the House of Commons to join the group that would consider preparations for the euro. Every political party—including the Liberals, the nationalist parties and the Irish parties—accepted, except one: the Conservative party. It is hardly surprising that the deputy director general of the Confederation of British Industry said:

"The Tory party's more Euro-sceptic view is not one that most CBI members would feel comfortable with. It's not in our commercial interests to have a Euro-sceptic government.

The Chancellor seems to have forgotten some facts: since 1997, a third of a million jobs have been lost in manufacturing and 60,000 jobs have been lost in farming. The CBI and the National Farmers Union agree that much of the blame for that lies with the current overvaluation of the pound, and with Britain losing its share of international investment and trade and experiencing a rapidly increasing deficit. Yet the Chancellor does not include the exchange rate in his conditions for entry. Liberal Democrats say that on top of his conditions, there must be a more competitive exchange rate—

Order. I call the Chancellor.

Some people would never join the euro because of dogma; others would join without considering the tests that we have set out. We will make a proper assessment of the tests. When I listened to the hon. Gentleman's description of the economy, I thought that he was referring to what happened in the Conservative years. Manufacturing productivity and output have increased; there are 1 million more jobs; and interest rates that were 15 per cent. under the Conservatives are now half that rate, with mortgages £1,200 a year lower. It is not surprising that business perceives the Conservative party as not only anti Europe but anti-business.

While I welcome my right hon. Friend's assistance to British business and support our entry into the eurozone, will he consider that, besides the fives tests that he has set out, there is a possible sixth test: entry into the eurozone at a competitive rate? What are his views on that?

We have set five economic tests, which will be applied. We will assess them and report the results to Parliament. If Parliament so decided, there would be a referendum whereby the British people could make their assessment. We are not in the business of speculating about the exchange rate.

Will the Chancellor give a straight answer to a question that is on many people's minds? The Government will not want the euro to be an issue at the general election because they know that the moderate majority of people are opposed to their determination to scrap the pound. If the Chancellor continues to refuse to debate the issue between now and the general election, despite the fact that it is the most important question that confronts this country, will he promise that a Labour Government will put a fair and straightforward question in a referendum? What will that question be?

Of course we shall put a fair question.[Interruption.]The problem with Conservative Members asking about a referendum is that they totally oppose it—

Con man!

Order. I heard the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) make an unparliamentary remark. Will he withdraw it?

Of course, Mr. Speaker. I withdraw it immediately.

The Conservative party asking a question about a referendum does not make sense to the British people. The shadow Chancellor said that a single currency would mean giving up government of the United Kingdom and that no British Government could do that. He is therefore against the single currency for reason of dogma. He would never accept a referendum or its result. He is against it on the ground not of economic interest but of ideology. I challenge him to confirm his statement.

I think that people will draw their own conclusions from the Chancellor's refusal to state what the question in a referendum would be. It is clear that the Labour party would not give people a fair and straightforward opportunity to vote on whether to scrap the pound.

Following those remarks, I am happy for the general election campaign, whenever it comes, to be fought with a considerable amount of debate on the issue of the euro. The Conservative party has shown today not only that it is against the single currency as a matter of dogma, and not only that it is against any assessment of it while expecting us to call a referendum, but that it will not even support our business preparations to enable British businesses in or out of the euro to deal with the question of trading in the single currency area.

I believe that many people will conclude that the Chancellor is behaving disgracefully in not even attempting to answer the perfectly fair and perfectly serious questions that I have put to him. I cannot understand why he refuses to debate the real issues. I cannot understand why a man like he Chancellor has so little intellectual pride that he is willing, if he possibly can, to hoodwink the British people into giving up their own currency.

I am even more happy to continue this debate on the issue of the euro, because ours is a reasonable position that we are presenting to the British people. First, we do not rule out the euro on the basis of issues of dogma. Secondly, we will conduct a series of tests—the five economic assessments—and we will report to the British people within two years of a general election and the start of a new Parliament. Thirdly, the tests will be applied rigorously, in such a way that people can see the effect on employment, investment, flexibility and financial services. What we will not do is rule out the euro on ground of dogma or of ideology.

My right hon. Friend will know that in the last few days the euro has again begun to slide in value against the dollar to levels that it reached last autumn, when the G7 central bankers had to intervene to prop it up. Can he tell us whether the G7 bankers have any plans to do that again?

My right hon. Friend was a Minister in the Treasury—[HON. MEMBERS: "When?"] He was a Treasury Minister in the 1970s, and he knows perfectly well that no Treasury Minister answers questions about speculation on such issues. What we do, as the G7 Ministers said in their statement at Palermo, is to continue to review these matters.

What recent representations he has received on Government policy in relation to trends in UK competitiveness; and if he will make a statement. [154597]

We are promoting UK competitiveness in partnership with business and trade unions through policies for stability, skills, investment and enterprise, all dedicated to closing the productivity gap with our competitors.

Does the Chief Secretary agree that a constructive resolution of the long-running Whitehall farce over the London underground, which has had an effect not just today but over the past four years, would do more for the competitiveness of this great city than any other single act?

It is in everybody's interests—long-suffering travellers in London, the economy of London and the wider economy of the UK—that we achieve the modernisation in the London underground that is so clearly needed and that was so neglected when the previous Government were in office. The best way to do that cost-effectively, to time, to standard and with the high safety standards that we must secure is through the public-private partnership and through safety remaining in the public sector.

Does the Chief Secretary accept that one industry in which international competitiveness is key is tourism? Does he also accept that Britain's international position is being undermined by the impression overseas that Britain is in crisis? Does he agree that one of the best ways to give the impression that everything is back to normal in Britain is to have a general election now?

The timing of the general election, as we all know, is a matter for the Prime Minister. I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of the British tourism industry, the enormous contribution that it makes to the economy and the damage being inflicted on it by overseas perceptions of the foot and mouth crisis. The best way we can help the tourism industry and the agriculture industry is to eradicate foot and mouth through all the measures that we are taking to tackle it.

Why has the rate of productivity gone down since the Government took office?

The rate of productivity is rising and, moreover, it is rising at twice the level that it was when the Conservative Administration left office. We are acting to raise the rate of productivity growth. After all, the Government introduced the 10p corporation tax starting rate for small firms, cut the main and small rates of corporation tax by 3p and introduced the research and development tax credit for small firms, which has been widely welcomed by the CBI and business. We are considering extending it to large firms. We also announced in the Budget wide-ranging reforms of VAT, which, again, were widely welcomed because of the simplification and the benefit achieved for business. Of course, there is more to do, but through our policies of stability, investment and promoting skills, we have set the platform on which productivity can further increase.

How many families are entitled to the children's tax credit. [154598]

Some 800,000 people have responded to our recent advertising campaign. An additional 500,000 have already claimed, making 3.4 million employees—and, with the self-employed, 4.4 million—already expected to benefit. To make sure that all eligible families can benefit as soon as possible, I shall write to MPs on both sides of the House enclosing material that they can send to organisations that serve parents in their constituencies, such as local schools, parent-teacher associations, child care providers and local charities.

I welcome the initiative that my right hon. Friend is taking to disseminate information about the children's tax credit. It occurs to me that, if the pack that he mentioned is to be used with credibility by Conservative Members, it might need to include a statement as to why they now support a policy that they previously described as a gimmick. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the pack contains explicit material to show that ordinary working families will be substantially better off as a result of this tax credit? Will he also confirm that no child benefit book will go out from now on unless it contains a page that spells out the eligibility for children's tax credit?

Every available source of information will be used to get the message across that the children's tax credit is up and running from the beginning of April. Many people will receive the credit in their pay packet at the end of April. This additional rate—the £8.50 rising to £10—will be made available in the May pay packet. I will take on board the suggestions that my hon. Friend made about the information that should be provided in the pack. He is absolutely right to say that the Conservatives called the children's tax credit a gimmick. They are completely wrong.

Has the Chancellor had a chance to view the work of the Childcare Commission, which is chaired by the right hon. Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) and on which I had the honour to serve? Will the Chancellor address his attention to one particular problem? A family where both parents earn £30,000 a year is entitled to children's tax credit. However, there is no such entitlement for a family where the mother, say wants to stay at home to look after the children and the father earns £45,000 a year. Surely that is unfair. We should not dictate through the tax system how people run their lives. There should be an equitable decision between partners as to how they run their lives in their own way.

That is exactly why we are integrating the children's benefits into the new integrated child credit in 2003, when the issue that the hon. Gentleman raised will be dealt with. I applaud the work of the Childcare Commission and the hon. Gentleman's service on it. However, he should look at why the problem has arisen. It is a function of the independent taxation introduced by the previous Government, and of the way in which it was introduced. The problem will be dealt with in 2003. Until then, nearly 5 million families will benefit from the children's tax credit, and I hope that his party will stop calling it a gimmick and start recognising that it is vital to improving the standard of living of millions of families.

How many of the 600,000 families eligible for children's tax credit in the north-west does my right hon. Friend think will receive it? Is he satisfied about the progress of his general policy, which combines measures to make work pay with investing in local economies? Will he give us a progress report on his efforts to secure regional investment funds, in the discussions that he is having in Europe?

Every family with children in my hon. Friend's constituency will receive child benefit. Almost every family that is eligible will receive the children's tax credit, and those who have not yet applied can still do so. That is why the information packs are going out. On the general question about the standard of living among families, the key to that is to create employment opportunities in my hon. Friend's constituency and region that were denied for so long. I think that she will agree that the north-west is benefiting from the increase in employment and will benefit from the Budget measures that target public expenditure and tax assistance to regenerate some of the high unemployment areas of this country. There should be consensus on the need for helping family prosperity in the way that we propose and on the need for increased work, including the new deal. It is unfortunate that the Conservatives want to abolish the new deal and the working families tax credit.

If he will make a statement on his policy on the taxation of personal service companies. [154599]

If he will make a statement on his policy on the taxation of personal service companies. [154600]

We want to make the United Kingdom the most competitive environment for business in the world. Our policy on the taxation of personal service companies helps to do this by making sure that the tax measures intended to support genuine businesses can be properly targeted at those businesses and do not, instead, go to those that are essentially no different from employees.

Is the Minister not ashamed of having introduced a stealth tax on enterprise? Is she not ashamed of having introduced a tax that will drive skilled information technology professionals overseas? What is her estimate of the number of those professionals who have already been driven out of the country by her proposals?

The legislation is fair, proportionate and compatible with the United Kingdom's obligations under EU legislation. There is no evidence to support the allegation that there is a flood of IT specialists leaving the UK. The hon. Gentleman should look at some of the various publications; for example, an article called "Contractor UK" by David Houston of Glow International Ltd. He warns IT specialists that despite the widespread press speculation concentrating on UK contractors post-IR35, it is a fallacy that they would be better off overseas. He reminds them that in western European countries where there are vacancies for freelance professionals, in every case taxation is higher than in the UK. The hon. Gentleman's allegation that thousands are leaving is not the case, and his suggestion that the tax proposals are unfair is not the case. He should bear in mind that the measure is to deal with an avoidance mechanism in the tax system whereby those working through personal services companies were paying tax and national insurance at the rate of 21 per cent., whereas an employee earning the same amount in the same circumstances was paying, on average, 35 per cent.

Nobody in this House, and certainly no independent IT specialist or anyone running a consultancy company outside this House, will be impressed by the verbose filibuster of the Paymaster General in response to the sensible question from my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady). Does she deny that the Government are looking into changing the immigration rules to attract IT specialists and other high technology personnel, who could inject entrepreneurship in the UK? Is not it high time that this cretinous imposte was removed? Is it not thoroughly welcome that the Conservative party is proposing to do just that in its election manifesto?

rose—

Order. Before the Minister replies, may I appeal for a shorter answer?

I will, of course, do your bidding in this Chamber, Mr. Speaker.

May I congratulate my hon. Friend on plugging this tax loophole? Does not the Opposition's attitude to this matter reveal them to be, as always, the tax dodger's friend?

The proposals contained within IR35 are intended to close a tax loophole that meant that a huge amount of resources was being lost to the UK Exchequer. Opposition Members who so gladly say that they will abolish the measure need to explain to the House where they would find nearly —1 billion of expenditure, which would result from their actions.

My right hon. Friend will be aware that IT contracting has gone through ups and downs. particularly when the Tories changed the tax rules several times in the 1980s. The key area for those companies is investment in skills and continual reskilling. Will she give an assurance that she will look to provide investment in those areas for such companies?

The suggestion that IR35 is targeted only on IT consultancies is not true. It is to deal with a mechanism for service companies where those involved were essentially employees. A legitimate business that is not caught by the regulations in IR35 can continue to be able to invest in training, as it could before IR35.

If he will make a statement on his policy regarding the savings ratio. [154601]

What recent representations he has received on the taxation of savings. [154605]

The Government's strategy involves creating the right environment for saving—sound money and low inflation—the right incentives for people to save and ensuring that people have the right information to make good saving choices.

But the Chief Secretary obviously does not know that in 1995 the Chancellor wrote:

"We will never raise the level of investment in our economy if we do not encourage savings",

The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is that of course investment is increasing; it is now almost 15 per cent. of GDP. As for the savings ratio, that is increasing as well. The hon. Gentleman obviously did not see the latest figures which were released on Monday and showed that the savings ratio is up to 5.5 per cent.

Will the Chief Secretary admit that, despite what he has just said, and as figures that I have show, the savings ratio is as low now as it has ever been since records began and that the Treasury itself admits that any further weakening of savings would pose a serious risk to the United Kingdom economic outlook? Does he think that taking —200 annually, in the form of the Government's pension tax, from the average 30-year-old encourages or discourages savings? Surely we want to encourage savings, and that is what the Conservative party is going to do.

I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman has not checked his facts more carefully. As I said and as the figures published on Monday showed, the savings ratio has increased to 5.5 per cent. Moreover, in every quarter under this Government, the ratio has been higher than the depths that it reached, in 1988, under the previous Tory Administration. Furthermore, since the previous general election, personal sector net financial wealth is up by 31 per cent. We also have robust levels of long-term saving in the economy. The debt-to-wealth ratio is less than half of what it was in the 1990s, and individual savings accounts are attracting one third more in savings than TESSAs and PEPs were even in their most successful year.

But is it not a paradox that, although the United States is the zone with a negative savings ratio and Europe is the zone with a positive savings ratio—the European ratio is more positive than ours—Conservative Members are fanatically anti-European? Is not one of the best ways of encouraging saving to allow employees to have a stake in their company through employee share ownership? After the general election, when he and every other Labour Member have been returned, will my right hon. Friend meet a delegation to take forward the idea of employee share ownership? A stakeholding, partnership economy is the one that we want—not the confrontational, anti-European one being offered by Conservative Members.

Of course my hon. Friend is right. This Government have introduced the most ambitious and successful programme for employee share ownership that the United Kingdom has ever seen. I shall be very happy to meet a delegation at any time to discuss how we can build on that successful programme.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, prior to 1997, great numbers of people in the United Kingdom were excommunicated from savings? Will he comment on the viability of credit unions and the contribution that the Government have made to establishing those programmes in our communities?

Yes, given the damage of boom and bust and instability and the 3 million unemployed, Conservative Members should be ashamed of their record when they were in government. As my hon. Friend said, that Government threw people on the scrap heap and did not give them an opportunity to save. As for credit unions, they make an invaluable contribution, and we are pleased to see the credit union movement growing. We are simplifying the regulation of credit unions and enabling them to expand their activities. That is greatly to the benefit not only of saving, but of people in our most disadvantaged communities because it gets them out of the hands of the loan sharks.

Does the Chief Secretary accept that the halving of savings—which is the halving of the savings rate, of which the Government are Well aware—has been the result of Government policies and presents a serious threat to the economy? As Ministers know, there has been a substantial increase in personal borrowings because disposable incomes have increased by only 1.6 per cent. annually whereas, in the previous decade, they increased by 2.75 per cent. annually.

Order. We must have brief questions, as well as brief answers

I find it extraordinary that the hon. Gentleman is predicting a rise in the savings ratio, when Conservative Members have been complaining endlessly that it was too low. The truth is that the best prospects for savings, as for the strength of the economy as a whole, is to maintain the platform of stability that the Government have put in place and avoid the £16 billion worth of cuts and the boom and bust threatened by Conservative policies.

if he will make a statement on his plans for future investment in the health service. [154602]

The Government are providing by far the biggest, most sustained growth in NHS resources in the history of the service. Taken together, the Chancellor's Budget and spending review plans provide for real-terms growth in NHS expenditure of 6.4 per cent, 5.2 per cent. and 5.4 per cent. over the next three years, compared with an average of 3.3 per cent. average annual real growth since the foundation of the NHS and only 3 per cent. annual real growth between 1978-79 and 1996-97.

At Basildon hospital, we are now seeing the effects of that, with three new wards, new theatres and a new breast cancer unit currently being built. However, we still face long delays for treatment after admission through accident and emergency. Those problems occurred in the past because of lack of investment in the future. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that we will have long-term sustained investment, because only if the public sector and the health service have confidence in the Government's continuing support can they plan their investment for the future?

Yes, indeed. It is because of that record increase in resources that the Chancellor has been able to announce that we are to modernise every accident and emergency unit in the country that needs it. Moreover, thanks to the resources that we are providing, the staff will be there to meet the patients care needs, with the recruitment over the next three years of 7,500 extra consultants, 2,000 extra GPs, 20,000 nurses and 6,500 therapists and other health professionals.

Yesterday, in a shameless piece of cynical electioneering, the Health Secretary suspended the transfer of accident and emergency and paediatric services from Crawley hospital to East Surrey hospital in Redhill in my constituency, at the request of the hon. Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt)—a decision that he would not have been able to make in a week's time if we were in an election campaign, because it is politically controversial. The decision will cost the local health care trust money because of the delayed accrual of savings from the concentration of services. Will the Chief Secretary undertake to repay that money?

The hon. Gentleman will know that, as a consequence of the Chancellor's Budget announcements, extra money is going directly to every acute trust in the country. That will benefit his constituents as much as anyone else's.

Can my right hon. Friend assure me that the investment will be in primary care as well as acute care? We all recognise the need for investment in hospitals, but it is vital also to invest in GPs and care-at-home services in the community. Can he also settle the debate that has been raging on these Back Benches over the past half hour: is the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo) Mr. Boom or Mr. Bust?

My hon. Friend is quite right about the importance of primary care and the contribution it makes both to the quality of service to patients and to achieving better health outcomes. That is why, as the Prime Minister recently announced. 3,000 GP premises are to be modernised over the next three years and 500 new one-stop primary care centres are to be completed by 2004. With the recruitment of 2,000 extra GPs and other health professionals, that will enable us to continue the progress that we are already making in substantially raising standards of care, increasing the rapidity of treatment and cutting waiting lists.

Will the Chief Secretary now admit that, whatever his future plans for NHS investment may be, in this Parliament his record is even worse than the Conservatives' record in the previous Parliament? Does he not realise that that poor record on NHS spending means that in my constituency there are severe shortages of nurses, bio-medical staff and doctors, and we have long and rising out-patient waiting lists? Will he not admit that, as a proportion of national income, average spending on the NHS in this Parliament is even lower than in the previous Parliament?

The hon. Gentleman's figures are nonsense. [HON. MEMBERS: "They are your figures."] He would do well to remember that at the last general election the Liberal Democrats promised to increase health spending by a total of £3.5 billion across the Parliament, whereas this Government are increasing health spending by more than £5 billion, year on year. As for shares of GDP, when the previous Administration left office 5.7 per cent. of GDP was spent on health; this year the figure is 6.2 per cent.

If he will make a statement on the work of the Office for National Statistics. [154603]

This month is the fifth anniversary of the establishment of the Office for National Statistics, and we are now making major advances in statistics. We have a new index of services, and we are the first country to update our national accounts to meet the new European system of accounts. We also have new data capture initiatives and initiatives to make small area data available for social statistics. In line with last year's White Paper, we have also launched "National Statistics".

As my hon. Friend is the Minister in charge of the veracity of Government statistics, I want to draw to her attention the fact that in countless hospitals throughout England and Wales, death certificates are not being completed in a proper and frank manner. Is she aware that for the past 20-odd years, although death certificates may mention pneumonia or septicaemia, there is often a cover-up of the fact that at least some contribution to death was made by MRSA. I shall attempt to pronounce that: methicillin resistant staphylococcus aureus—[Laughter.] This is not a matter for levity—not hundreds but thousands of people die in our hospitals because of it, and the hospitals are contriving not to tell the truth. They are covering up because of political considerations, resource considerations, possible litigation—

Order. I think that the Minister knows what the hon. Gentleman is asking.

I will not try to emulate my hon. Friend's pronunciation; I will stick to the term MRSA. This is a serious matter, and I appreciate his raising it. Doctors are required to complete certificates showing the cause of death to the best of their knowledge and belief. Guidance is included at the front of every book of death certificates. Indeed, they are not available without it, and it stresses the need to complete the sequence of conditions that led to death, so death certificates are being correctly completed. However, I am sure my hon. Friend will be interested to know that the Department of Health has decided to make all invasive forms of MRSA infection reportable by NHS trusts to the Department of Health, from April.

Will people be able to describe themselves as English in the coming census?

People will be able to describe their place of birth by whatever means they wish, including ticking a box or writing in the word "English".

Will my hon. Friend recognise the important work that my constituents do in the statistical office in Runcorn, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Mr. Hall)? She will know that, because of the review that has taken place, they are concerned about their future. Will she be in a position to make a decision about the office in the not-too-distant future, and will she take into account the representations that the unions want to make to her soon?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend; I know that he takes a keen interest in the concerns of his constituents who work in Runcorn. As he knows, I have been considering the matter for a little while and I need to give it further thought. However, as soon as I make a decision, I shall alert him.

Was not the Economic Secretary right in her first answer that the Government have taken more initiatives on statistics than any previous Government? Is she not concerned about the growing number of statistics that provide clear evidence of declining confidence in the economy? Is not the only statistic about which we can be confident under a Labour Government the one showing that taxes will go up? Will the Economic Secretary please tell us whether national statistics show that the tax burden is higher or lower than it was when the Government came to office in 1997?

We have published endless details of the tax burden. As the hon. Gentleman knows full well, it is lower than it was under the previous Government's plans. On his point about the figures, through the framework for national statistics, we have set out new arrangements that guarantee the independence of statistics that are produced. That is in contrast to the previous Government, who fiddled the figures on unemployment statistics on numerous occasions—dozens of revisions were made to unemployment figures to present a picture to the country that was different from the reality of unemployment under the Tories.

As the Government target more resources on disadvantaged areas, will my hon. Friend urge the Office for National Statistics to produce more statistical information at constituency and ward level so that we can better assess the difference that that investment is making?

I welcome my hon. Friend's interest in the subject, which is shared by the Government. In response to PAT 18—the policy action team report—we have put in place an initiative with additional funding to produce local area, statistics on a ward-by-ward and, indeed, other area basis. I am sure that all hon. Members will find that extremely useful.

If he will make a statement on his policy towards energy taxation. [154604]

The climate change levy, which comes into effect next week, will help to deliver the reductions in carbon emissions needed for the United Kingdom to meet its Kyoto and domestic targets. I am delighted to inform the House that European state aid clearance was given yesterday for the package of negotiated agreements for energy-intensive users, including the full 10-year duration that we sought, and for exemptions for renewable energy and combined heat and power.

Following the announcement yesterday by the President of the United States that he will not proceed to ratify the Kyoto protocol because it is not in the best interests of American industry, will the Financial Secretary put British industry first? Will he look again at the enormous cost of the climate change levy, regardless of the package that he has just announced? Throughout the country, including the north-west, the levy will do enormous damage to manufacturing industry which, in any event, is in general decline. The President of the United States is putting American industry first; is not it about time that the Chancellor started to put British industry first and scrapped the levy?

It is the interests of every inhabitant of the globe that the Kyoto process proceeds and that the problem of climate change is addressed. It was disappointing that The Hague conference failed to reach agreement, but our aim is to work with the US Administration to advance the process. The climate change levy is a key element in meeting our Kyoto obligations and is revenue-neutral. All the proceeds will be recycled back to business, and the whole levy has been designed to protect the competitiveness of UK firms.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the message of President Bush's deplorable decision to turn the Kyoto agreement on its head is that no Government anywhere should ever let themselves be compelled by vested interests and that our Government are right to put the environment first?

I have certainly seen the press reports this morning. Our aim is to work with the United States Administration to take this very important process forward. It is in the interests of every citizen of the globe that we do so.

When the lower rate of value added tax on residential conversion works will be introduced. [154608]

From the date of Royal Assent to the Finance Bill.

Does the Paymaster General agree that the higher rate of VAT on existing buildings is a disincentive for urban renewal and that the nil VAT on new building encourages greenfield development? That being the case, why has it taken the Government four years to get around to sorting out this mess?

I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. The package that was introduced in this year's Budget by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor on VAT on contaminated land and on development in disadvantaged areas builds on Lord Rogers' report. It is specifically targeted at the regeneration of contaminated sites in inner-city areas and has been widely welcomed as the right way forward for developing these policies. Indeed, the empty homes initiative welcomed those proposals as the Government recognise how to deal with these problems.

Will my hon. Friend comment on the fact that a charity in Ilkley in my constituency may well have to pay a levy of £10,000 over and above the cost of building a bandstand because Customs and Excise does not regard a bandstand as a building? If a bandstand is not a building, what is it?

I will not speculate on whether or not a bandstand is a building. However, I have noted my hon. Friend's comments, and I will certainly look closely at her point about the problems that her constituents seem to be experiencing with Customs and Excise.

What impact his policies have had on unemployment levels in Kettering since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [154610]

In Kettering, as in the rest of the United Kingdom, we are continuing to deliver a platform of economic stability that will help us attain our objective of high and stable levels of employment. Since the previous election, claimant unemployment in the Kettering constituency has fallen by 35 per cent, long-term unemployment by 81 per cent. and youth unemployment by 83 per cent.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Is he aware that more than 398 young people have taken part in the new deal in my constituency and that more than 200 of those have found full-time employment? Will he join me in congratulating these young people, the gateway provider and the jobcentre staff for the excellent work that they are doing? Does he have a message for young people in the Kettering constituency who were abandoned by the previous Government?

Yes, indeed. I am pleased to join my hon. Friend in congratulating the young people concerned and to record the House's appreciation of all the efforts made by the personal advisers, the providers and, of course, the employers who have given them work opportunities. The message is very clear—the greatest threat to the progress that we have made in tackling youth unemployment and to the future of those young people would be the return of a Conservative Administration who would want to abolish the new deal.

What representations he has received regarding the fall in the value of pension funds. [154614]

Pensions, by their very nature, are investments for the long term. Investors should not be deterred from making sensible provisions for their retirement by short-term volatility in the investment markets.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Can she give any assistance to pension schemes such as that of the William Cook group, which is based in Sheffield? Its pension fund had a shortfall of some £4 million when valued in October last year, causing the pension scheme to ask its members either to increase their contributions or to change to a money purchase scheme, which will be to the detriment of those workers. Can my hon. Friend offer any advice to such pension funds?

My hon. Friend was perhaps not aware of the previous difficulties. I am concerned to hear what he has to say, and I shall be delighted to meet him and discuss the matter further.

Has the hon. Lady received any recent representations from the pension funds about the cost of the withdrawal of payable tax credits? Does it amount to more than £5 billion a year, and is she proud of that record?

As the hon. Gentleman knows well, the reason for making the change was to increase and maintain investment in funds, rather than to encourage artificial withdrawal of money. At the same time as the change has taken place, stock market values have gone up and the values of the funds have increased.