What action is planned to reduce expenditure by way of deregulation. [15969]

Mr. Speaker, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has asked me to apologise to you and to the House for his absence today. Deputising for the Prime Minister, he is undertaking a series of international meetings on a number of matters, including the coalition against terrorism and climate change.

The Transport Research Laboratory has claimed that changing just one regulation would reduce casualties, avoiding the deaths of 140 people a year and 520 serious injuries. The Policy Studies Institute also claims that there would be immense benefits for the tourist trade and the elderly if we adopted European standard time and dumped the absurd practice of changing our times twice a year. Does my hon. Friend, who is in the infancy of what I am sure will be a brilliant career, do his best to bring more light to the nation and ensure that our waking hours more precisely match our working hours?

I am not sure whether that is a compliment. There are pros and cons on both sides of the argument about keeping British summer time. One advantage would be lighter afternoons, and I suppose that the disadvantage would be darker mornings. I understand that an experiment took place in the late 1960s to retain summer time—that was definitely before my time.

Does the Minister believe that yesterday's Budget statement will lead to less bureaucracy and red tape for business, or more? Can he give a commitment that the Cabinet Office will undertake a regulatory review and assessment on that Budget?

The answer is yes. The Government are always making sure that we reduce red tape and burdensome bureaucracy wherever possible. Conservative Members object to measures such as the minimum wage, family leave and working time protection. They regard them as over-burdensome pieces of bureaucracy—I regard them as essential pieces of social reform.

The Minister will recall that none of the initial orders under the Regulatory Reform Act 2001 that were subject to consultation implied any decrease in Government expenditure. However, one would have meant an increase—the vaccine damage payment scheme consultation. Can the Minister tell the House when that order is expected to be introduced to the House?

I am afraid that I do not have that information to hand, but I will write to the hon. Gentleman about it. The programme of regulatory reform orders is beginning within Government so that we can use that tool as a mechanism for removing over-burdensome regulations wherever possible. I shall try and find out more information on that for the hon. Gentleman.

If it is the case, as the Minister claims, that the Government are deregulating and relieving burdens on business—I pay tribute to him for being able to say that with a straight face—why did the Director General of the CBI complain recently that last year more regulations had been passed than in any previous year in history?

We have heard this story before. I think that the hon. Gentleman is talking about statutory instruments, 95 per cent. of which have no burdensome impact on business. He needs to distinguish between measures that introduce support and help for ordinary working people in this country. He regards those as unnecessary costs, whereas the mass of working people think that they are essential.

How many regulations have been abolished since the Government came into office in May 1997?

A number of changes are made all the time in terms of reducing regulation. We are genuinely engaged in an earnest effort to reduce those regulations that are burdensome. If the hon. Gentleman has specific suggestions to make to the House and the Select Committee on Deregulation and Regulatory Reform, many Members will he willing and able to listen to them.

If he will make a statement on the operational priorities for Government regional offices. [15970]

The Government offices for the regions bring together the activities and interests of many different Departments. The operational priorities of the Government offices are to deliver programmes to specific Departments and to achieve a joined-up approach.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. From my conversations with the Government office of the south-east, I know that it is committed to adding value to the work of other agencies and local authorities. I applaud it for that commitment. However, when it administers funds, such as the European social fund, on behalf of local authorities, there are times when it issues the funds in short-term tranches. That makes it difficult to build quality projects because it is difficult to recruit people under short-term funding. Will my hon. Friend ensure that any red tape—whether UK or European—that limits the projects to short-term funding is swept away so that we can build quality projects?

I know of the interest that my hon. Friend has taken in the subject and that he has held constructive meetings with the Government office of his region. I understand his point. European programme funds cover a six-year period, but some of the match funding can be for all that period or it can be reviewed annually. I shall certainly consider the points that he raises.

Will not the increase of regional government lead to the death of the county councils?

No. The hon. Gentleman should consider the commitment on regional governance that we made in our manifesto. We said that we would examine the issue and we have already told the House that we would introduce a White Paper on it. We particularly highlighted the case of unitary authorities.

Will my hon. Friend ensure that, when regional development agencies adjoin each other, they work across regional boundaries in a seamless fashion and do not create new artificial boundaries?

Yes, absolutely. The boundaries of the Government offices of the regions are always a contentious matter, and everyone will have a view on where the boundaries should be. I think that we have now settled the matter, but it is important that Government offices of the regions work together. We have the co-ordination unit to make sure that they do just that.

What steps he is taking to co-ordinate the promotion of Government policy en (a) health care and (b) transport. [15971]

Policy on health care and transport is obviously the responsibility of the respective Departments. However, the Prime Minister's delivery unit is working with those Departments to monitor effective efforts towards key targets, to take stock of progress made and to help to overcome the barriers or obstacles to delivery as rapidly as possible.

I thank the Minister for that helpful answer. Does he agree that the job of promotion, which is what my question is about, is the responsibility of Government information officers? Will he join me in praising the work of the information officers who are employed by the civil service? Will he explain precisely why 16 out of 18 senior Government information officers have been sacked or pensioned off before their time by this Government since 1997?

I am very happy to pay tribute to the information officers who work for the civil service. They do a fantastic job. There is obviously a constant change of personnel in all sorts of divisions. I am not sure to what the hon. Gentleman is alluding, but it is no wonder that his question relates to promotion. I know that he is always angling on that point.

Following the change in direction on health care so clearly articulated by the Chancellor yesterday and so warmly welcomed by many Labour Members, does my hon. Friend believe that greater investment will go into the promotion of what is without doubt a more democratic and more socialist agenda?

As a democratic socialist, I certainly share my hon. Friend's view. Some £8 billion worth of new hospitals are being built, and 17,000 extra nurses and 7,000 extra doctors have been employed since 1997. We have still a long way to go. We have to maintain progress to ensure that we deliver a health service that is free at the point of use, available to all who need it and is of a high standard fit for the 21st century.

If he will make a statement on the work of the regional co-ordination unit. [15972]

In particular, the work of the regional co-ordination unit is achieving better scrutiny of proposals for new area-based initiatives and the review of existing ones.

When my hon. Friend tries to co-ordinate the work of regional public bodies in the eastern region, will she examine the East of England Inward Investment Agency, which was set up by the previous Government? Will she consider the serious under-performance of that organisation and its failure to attract any inward investment to those parts of the region that need it? Why are we spending public money supposedly attracting firms to places where they would go anyway? Is that not rather like giving grants to people to sell ice creams on a hot day?

I know that the agency is targeting potential investors in the oil, gas and renewable energy sector, but I will certainly consider the points that my hon. Friend raises. He might also like to know that a seminar organised by Business Link Suffolk, which involves the Government office, is taking place shortly. It will also involve a number of local businesses. I am sure that my hon. Friend's interest in that matter will be greatly appreciated.

Will the Minister establish whether the unit was consulted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the distribution, as from Friday, of the exemption from stamp duty of 4,000 deprived wards in the United Kingdom? Will she also try to discover—this has astonished us in Southend—why the Milton ward, to which the Minister made an excellent visit, is not covered by those regulations, bearing in mind that it is more deprived than almost any other area of England or Wales?

I know of the great interest that the hon. Gentleman has in deprivation, in particular how we can get help to the most deprived wards in the country. I am grateful to him for his remarks on my visit, which I greatly enjoyed. I will certainly consider the issue and bring it to the attention of my right hon. and hon. Friends across the Government.

Can my hon. Friend assure me that the regional co-ordination unit and her Department in general will work closely with regional development agencies in the run-up to the publication of the promised White Paper on regional government? Although regional government involves more than just economic development, does she agree that it will be essential for the RDAs to be at the heart of such governments when they are established?

I can give my right hon. Friend that assurance. I have made a number of regional visits, as has my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, to discuss that subject. We have met representatives of the Assemblies and the RDAs It is clear that a great deal of good work is being undertaken on economic regeneration.

What recent assessment his Department has made of the delivery of public services in the regions in England. [15973]

Delivering improved local public services across all regions of the country is our top priority, and the Cabinet Office is working to ensure that Government offices for the regions play a key role in helping to deliver results.

My hon. Friend will know that the Deputy Prime Minister visited Burnley and east Lancashire twice recently. He will also be well aware of the problems that that north-west region faces, in particular the large number of empty private sector houses and the heavy dependence on manufacturing sector jobs. More than 30 per cent. of the work force are employed in manufacturing, which is experiencing major problems following 11 September. Will my hon. Friend make it clear that the RDA will play a key role in the regeneration of that part of the north-west and in the delivery of public services and jobs?

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his work and efforts to rebuild the community, especially that in his constituency. He voices important concerns about the need to tackle crime and housing problems, and it is essential to rebuild the local economy. The Deputy Prime Minister considered such matters during his visit. The task force chaired by Lord Clarke will publish its report in December and is considering the issues that my hon. Friend raises.

Does the Minister understand that if he closed down the hapless Government regional office in the south-east tomorrow there would be no tears in Bracknell or elsewhere in the region because we think that it creates unnecessary extra Government bureaucracy and is a huge waste of taxpayers' money?

If the regional office in the right hon. Gentleman's area is such a waste of time why did his Government set it up in the first place? The Government offices for the regions need to be enhanced and supported so that we ensure that they work not just on traditional housing and regeneration issues, but on planning, environment and anti-crime measures. The area-based initiatives—not least those started by the right hon. Gentleman's Government—need to be properly reformed so that they make a difference on the ground. [Interruption]

Order. Once again, I call for quiet in the Chamber. It is only fair to the Minister and to those who are asking a question.

May I say how pleased I am to hear that the Minister is taking joined-up thinking so seriously? Some months ago I was promised someone on secondment from the Cabinet Office to assist with urban regeneration in Burslem. Will he consider whether those resources can now be made available to assist with the regeneration that is so urgently needed in north Staffordshire?

It is important that there are secondments from central Government to localities where extra efforts are required. I shall certainly endeavour to look further into the case that my hon. Friend mentioned. We should not only focus on regeneration at the grass roots but delegate people from central Departments to areas where it matters most.

Does the Minister agree that the efficient delivery of public services can be disrupted and delayed by extended staff absences? Will he initiate an in-depth analysis to determine whether Departments and public services need to put in place arrangements to prevent such disruption and delay?

I am responsible for overseeing the day-to-day running of the civil service, and I can certainly assure the hon. Gentleman that attention to sickness and absence levels throughout public services is central to ensuring good performance by a happy and healthy work force. I shall continue to try to monitor those important factors.

Does the Minister agree that the effective delivery of high quality public services depends less on the grand panjandrums of Whitehall and more on the morale and enthusiasm of the civil servants who work directly with the public throughout the country? To that end, does he agree that there is a need for a civil service Act and a national framework for civil servants' pay?

The Government are certainly committed to introducing a civil service Bill when parliamentary time allows. On a national framework, my own feeling is that departmental managers need the flexibility to incentivise good performance in their own Department. We are in discussion with civil service unions and others about these issues.

Is it an aim of Government regional policy to reduce the north-south gap?

There are differences within regions just as there are differences between them, and we have to ensure that each has an opportunity to develop its economic strategies in as fair and equal a manner as possible. There are serious issues that require attention. Of course, making sure that the most deprived areas of our country get the assistance that they need is a priority, and one which I would hope the hon. Gentleman shares.

It was a very simple question and it needed only a yes or no answer. Is it Government policy to reduce the north-south gap, or not? I have to say that if it is, Government policy is failing because the latest independent figures show that the gap is widening. Would the Minister like to try again? Is it his policy to reduce that gap—yes or no?

Well, if the hon. Gentleman thinks that the policy is as simple as saying that the north is poor and the south is wealthier, I really think that he needs to get a grip. There are significant pockets of poverty and deprivation in the south of England, just as there are wealthier areas in the north of the country. We need to take a more sophisticated approach to the whole question.

What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of Government offices for the regions. [15975]

Government offices contribute to the delivery of the programmes of a number of different Departments. Those are set out in the corporate plan for the Government office network.

Does the Minister agree that, when Government offices for the regions primarily deliver social policies, and regional development agencies primarily deliver the economic agenda, it is important that their aims and objectives fit closely? Is not the best way of ensuring that to work towards elected regional government across England as quickly as possible?

If one looks at the different programmes, one certainly sees that some have an economic aspect and some a social aspect. It is clear that an area cannot be regenerated socially without economic regeneration A White Paper on regional governance will be published as soon as possible.

What steps he is taking to implement the Freedom of Information Act 2000 in his Department. [15977]

The Cabinet Office established a new unit to ensure open government early last year, whose tasks include specifically implementing the provisions of the Government's Freedom of Information Act in the Department.

I thank my hon. Friend for his answer. Will he try not to be too timid about this excellent legislation, perhaps considering in the Cabinet Office at least embarking on full implementation of the Act next year, so that other Departments and, indeed, the 300 or 400 quangos covered by the legislation, can follow its lead?

I am pleased to say that the Cabinet Office will be making progress on issuing publication schemes from—I think—next November. It is important that we get the whole area right, so that freedom of information legislation is implemented properly and thoroughly, and not in a half-hearted fashion. We want to put a greater volume of information into the public arena, and I shall certainly try not to be as timid as my hon. Friend suspects.

If the Government are so keen on freedom of information, why is a mole hunt under way to find the identity of the public servant who leaked the existence of Jo Moore's disgraceful e-mail? Will the Minister give an assurance that if that person is found he will be promoted for furthering freedom of information, and not sacked?

The hon. Gentleman is discussing a conspiracy theory, which is unusual for him. If he is looking for moles, the best we can find is the one from last week's by-election in Ipswich. If that reminds him of the true moles in this place, then so much the better.

The Minister will know that there is disappointment about the Government's decision to delay implementation of the legislation. Will he ensure that the civil service does not take that as a lack of seriousness on our part and put it on the back burner, and that it is told that we are proud of being the first Government to have introduced such legislation and that we mean business with it?

We are certainly proud to introduce the Freedom of Information Act, but we must ensure that we actively consider the new publication schemes, putting more information into the public arena. We must ensure that our commitment to open government is not only genuine but effective and efficient. Getting it right operationally is extremely important.

Is not the Government's commitment to freedom of information becoming a little threadbare? First, the Minister who was responsible for implementing it was sacked for being too radical, and then the proposals were watered down. Now we have an implementation date of 2005. Will the Minister publish the information that led him to conclude that 2005—an absurdly faraway date—would be an appropriate date for implementation, or is that too subject to exclusion from publication?

I feel that sometimes a little congratulation from the Liberal Democrats would be in order, particularly since the idea of a freedom of information Act was opposed by the Conservative party during the 1997 election campaign. Ensuring that we implement publication schemes from next November is extremely important, and the Government are committed to that. We will find ways of ensuring that we get right the implementation of the Act.

When he last met representatives of the Government office for the north east. [15978]

My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister visited the Government office for the north east on 13 August, and I visited Government offices on 22 November.

During the discussions, was mention made of the forthcoming White Paper on regional government, in particular the role of the regional development agencies? Dees my hon. Friend agree that regional government without economic development powers would be a timid beast indeed; will she resist those forces in the Department of Trade and Industry who would retain powers over RDAs even after regional government is introduced; and will she assure me that RDAs will form an integral part of regional government?

There have been discussions on regional governance. As for what fiat will be, my hon. Friend will have to wait until the White Paper is published.

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

This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

Recently in Ulster, Her Majesty's Government have removed the royal title and the Crown insignia from the Royal Ulster Constabulary and prohibited the flying of the Union flag from police stations, and they plan to remove the royal coat of arms in courtrooms. Does the Prime Minister believe that those changes symbolise a deep-seated republican tendency at the heart of his Government? Do the Government intend to apply similar changes to police forces and the judiciary in England and Wales?

Let me make two points. First, the principle of consent—that Northern Ireland remains part of the United Kingdom as long as the majority of people there wish it—is absolute; it is the founding principle of the Belfast agreement. Secondly, the proposals are for consultation. It is important to ensure that we get the broadest possible support for a police service and criminal justice system that command support right across the communities. I hope very much that the hon. Gentleman will play his part in that effort, because it is an essential part of the new dispensation in Northern Ireland that we have both a police service—I pay tribute to the work that the RUC has done over many years—and a criminal justice system that command support and can be part of the new Northern Ireland that is being built.

Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to update the House on the position of the 12 British tourists held in jail in Spain—[HON. MEMBERS: "Greece."]—sorry, Greece for plane-spotting, especially Wayne Groves, a resident of Tamworth? Will he pass on to the British consulate the thanks of the family for the work its staff have done? Will he also take this opportunity to assure the many British tourists who are considering booking holidays in Greece that it is a safe place to visit?

I have spoken to the Greek Prime Minister about the issue and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary spoke to his Greek counterpart today. I hope that the case can be resolved. Whatever the difficulties, most people understand that those people are indeed tourists. I hope that the issue can be resolved as swiftly and satisfactorily as possible.

Has the number of patients waiting more than an hour in casualty gone up or down since the right hon. Gentleman became Prime Minister?

The number of patients waiting more than an hour in casualty has gone up—that is correct. However, the overall number of patients waiting has fallen by more than 100,000. In particular, the number of patients waiting more than six months has fallen.

In that case, will the Prime Minister tell us in what areas the health service has gone backwards under his Government, as his party chairman says?

I have just mentioned one, but perhaps I should read the entire quote from the chairman of the Labour party. He said:

"The fact is there have been massive improvements in some parts of the NHS but other areas where we've…gone backwards".

I remind the Prime Minister that his chairman said that they had "gone backwards". The right hon. Gentleman does not want to answer that part of the question. Let me tell him that the number of people waiting over a year for their operations is up; the number of people waiting over three months to see a consultant is up; the number of people waiting more than an hour in casualty is up; and the number of unfilled GP posts is up.

If the right hon. Gentleman wants to look at areas where the NHS has improved, we find that the number of people waiting over six months has improved. The number of people waiting for cancer treatment has improved. The number of people waiting for cardiac treatment for over a year has improved. The number of doctors is up. The number of nurses is up. The number of beds in hospitals this year is up. The number of new hospital buildings is up.

The policy of the Conservative party is to improve the health service, not make excuses for it. [Interruption.] Oh yes, that is right.

The right hon. Gentleman denied specifically that it was the policy of the Conservative party to say that people should pay for some of their treatment. Perhaps he would like to comment on the memorandum from the shadow Treasury spokesman to the shadow Chancellor dated 12 November—just two weeks ago—in which he said:

"As you are aware, we remain vulnerable to the irritating attack that we are the party who will be cutting back on health care expenditure to reduce taxation."

"The only propositions which make sense are…

(iii) the reforms which we will be proposing will end the NHS monopoly and will entail those who can afford it making some payment for their health care services."

Perhaps I ought to remind the Prime Minister that all taxpayers in this country pay for their health service. He said only a couple of months ago that reforming the NHS was

"a vital test for the modern Labour party".

"it's not reform that is the enemy of public services it's the status quo".

There is a perfectly simple distinction between a national health service that should indeed be reformed, as the Chancellor said yesterday and as I say today, and the right hon. Gentleman's proposals to force people out of the health service to pay for their treatment—[Interruption.] There can be no other explanation of the words that he used. There are two issues in the debate. First, do we need more resources for health care in this country? Answer, yes. Secondly, do we get those extra resources from general taxation payments, from specific payments like social insurance in France and Germany, which is also a form of taxation, or by making people pay directly for their health care? We believe in the first. What on earth does the right hon. Gentleman believe in?

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the time has come for a much more rational airports policy? Is it not ludicrous that congestion is being increased by the building of a fifth terminal at Heathrow, when many people, business men and tourists who live in the north of England have to traipse down to London before they can start their journey abroad? Is it not time to expand airports such as Liverpool, Leeds-Bradford and Newcastle? Is that not the rational approach to airports policy?

If my hon. Friend will allow me, I hope that he will add Teesside, in which I have a particular interest, to that list. We have to do two things. Because of the greater demands on air travel by a range of different sources, we will have to develop Heathrow, but we will have to develop our regional airports as well. That is one reason why the recent developments in Manchester are welcome. We therefore need to do both things, but I entirely agree that additional pressures on air travellers will mean that we need increased capacity.

In January last year, the Prime Minister gave a specific personal commitment on national television that his Administration would raise spending on health provision in this country to the European Union average by 2005. What significance should we all read into the Chancellor's statement yesterday afternoon which made no mention of that whatsoever?

Only the Liberal Democrats could read the Chancellor's statement as being ungenerous in funding the national health service. The fact is, we need to increase substantially the resources going into the health service. The benefit of what the Chancellor said in the report that he launched yesterday is that, for the first time, we can have a serious and proper debate about where that money comes from. The one thing that is ludicrous to suppose, although there are parts of the media that did so this morning, is that the choice is between, on the one hand, a health care system funded by general taxation and, on the other, a better funded health care system that somehow comes for free. The issue in all cases will be how to fund that health care properly, given that we need a substantial increase in resources. We have made it clear that along with that increase in resources must come substantial reforms in the national health service to make it work efficiently.

Methinks the Prime Minister does protest too much. I just want a straight answer to a straight question—[Interruption.] I am trying to be generous. The Prime Minister committed himself to raising health expenditure in our country to the European Union average by 2005. Is that still the policy of his Government?

Of course it is. That is precisely the point of the Chancellor's announcement yesterday. With respect to the right hon. Gentleman, he is not being generous—we are. Whatever system we have, the money must come in the end from general taxation, from social insurance, or from people paying—[Interruption.]

Order. Let the Prime Minister answer.

The purpose of what the Chancellor is saying is to get additional money into our health care system. After yesterday's statement, only the Liberal Democrats could still be saying that it is riot enough.

We all share concern for the people of Afghanistan, but will my right hon. Friend show compassion for the animals of Afghanistan? Has he seen the pictures of the animals in Kabul zoo such as Marjan the lion and that poor black bear that had its nose sliced off by some barbarian? Will my right hon. Friend call to Downing street the concerned animal welfare organisations so that a relief operation could be mounted to save the animals in Kabul zoo and in Afghanistan? If he is prepared to do that, I know that millions of animal lovers throughout the country will be eternally grateful to him.

I understand the point that my hon. Friend raises; it has been raised by many people in the past few weeks. I cannot undertake to arrange the specific meeting for which he asks, but I will consider carefully what he said, and make sure both that the issue is taken up by Government and that he is given a satisfactory reply.

Why cannot we have a proper public inquiry into the foot and mouth disaster? What does the Prime Minister have to hide?

There are inquiries into the foot and mouth outbreak, which will indeed be public. On any basis, those inquiries must look at all the various aspects of the matter. I do not believe that a full-dress statutory tribunal costing millions of pounds and probably lasting two or three years would be helpful to the farming industry or the future of farming production.

Some health authorities are spending well below their target funding levels—about £13 million, in the case of Wigan and Bolton. Does my right hon. Friend agree that yesterday's announcement of extra money for the national health service, along with the fact that we are setting up new primary care trusts next year, provide an excellent opportunity to tackle that problem? That, in turn, would allow the Royal Bolton hospital to increase its capacity in order to meet an ever-increasing demand for its services?

My hon. Friend is right. It is not just the additional resources that are needed in the health service; we also need to carry out the reforms, in particular so that by 2004, 75 per cent. of the money in the health service will be spent through primary care trusts. That is a huge reform in itself. A series of negotiations is under way that will change the contracts of doctors, consultants and nurses to provide greater flexibility and better incentives. The national service frameworks in each main disease area will give us national minimum standards right across the piece. My hon. Friend is right. We must make sure that the money is properly spent to deliver better health care. The reform and the investment go together.

What are his plans for the financing of London Underground; and if he will make a statement.

Our plans for the modernisation of the tube will unlock some £13 billion for investment and maintenance over the next 15 years. We believe that the public-private partnership is the best way to do that.

I asked the Prime Minister what his plans were, not how he is getting on. Does he recall his manifesto pledge on the underground:

"Better transport is crucial to the future of London…Labour plans a new public/private partnership to improve the Underground"?

We will proceed with the plans that we have. I say to the hon. Gentleman that he is probably in a worse position than any other Member of this House to raise the issue of the tube. If we are quoting what people said in 1997, let me quote what he said in July of that year. He referred to the

"now glaringly obvious success of railway privatisation"

"admit that the privatisation of London Underground is the best way forward."—[Official Report, 29 July 1997; Vol. 299, c. 139.]

Will the Prime Minister confirm that, of the 416,000 stakeholder pensions that have been sold to date, a miserable 1 per cent. have been sold to the target group?

It is important, as we have said, that the stakeholder pensioner group is expanded, but as a result of the reforms that we have introduced, for the first time, many of the people in that group will have access to low-cost pensions; otherwise, they would simply have no access to pensions at all.

In the light of repeated statements by senior United States politicians and officials, including President Bush, suggesting that countries other than Afghanistan may become targets for the United States, will the Prime Minister confirm that he will not support the extension of military action to countries such as Iraq, Sudan, Somalia or Yemen?

First of all, it might be helpful to quote what President Bush actually said. He said:

"Afghanistan is still just the beginning. If anybody harbours a terrorist, they're a terrorist…If they house terrorists, they're terrorists…I can't make it any more clearly to…nations around the world. If they develop weapons of mass destruction that will be used to terrorise nations, they will be held accountable. And as for Mr. Saddam Hussein, he needs to let inspectors back in his country, to show us that he is not developing weapons of mass destruction."

While I acknowledge that equality of opportunity for our young people is something that you support—[HON. MEMBERS: "He supports."] While that is something that he supports, is the Prime Minister aware that funding for young people in our sixth-form colleges is approximately 30 per cent. less than that provided for young people attending sixth forms in schools? I acknowledge that that problem arises from the formula created by the last Conservative Government, which provides roughly £1,000 a year less, but when will he increase the funding to the same level?

What we can say is this: we recognise that there is a gap between the way in which schools and sixth-form and further education colleges are funded. It is for that reason that an increase of, I think, about 12 per cent. in real terms, will be going to further education colleges. It is also for that reason that we have changed the way in which funding is provided to sixth forms in schools, sixth-form colleges and further education colleges, through the Learning and Skills Council. What we need to do, without in any way penalising sixth forms in schools, is to lift up the funding that is given specifically to sixth-form and further education colleges.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, despite the significant additional funds given to Swindon schools under this Labour Government, it is wrong that areas with better exam results, such Chingford and Woodford Green, get £1,000 more per student than Swindon schools? Will he take steps to ensure that that inequality is addressed, not in two years' time, but in next year's settlement?

I think that what I can promise my hon. Friend is that we will make sure that Swindon gets the extra resources that are, of course, going to schools up and down this country. I understand the arguments about the standard spending assessment and how it is calculated. She will know that the Government are consulting on that now. I think that it is probably wise not to say anything more a this stage.

Does the Prime Minister think that the transportation of nuclear fuel and the production of nuclear power are more or less safe in Britain following the terrorist outrages of 11 September? What conclusion does he draw?

The conclusion that I draw is that the very strict regulations covering the transportation of nuclear waste should continue. They are, and have been, in force and are very carefully monitored. I do not believe that there is any increased terrorist threat in this respect.

Does the Prime Minister agree that it is time that pensioners were rewarded for saving, and got a guaranteed income and guaranteed increases? Does he think that pensioners in households that receive £200 every winter for the rest of this Parliament will agree that that is a cock-eyed way of increasing pensions?

I do not know whether the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) will remember that those words were used to describe, I think, the minimum income guarantee and the winter fuel allowance, but that was wrong. What was announced yesterday for pensioners is in addition to the £200 winter fuel allowance and the free TV licences for the over-75s. Almost 5.5 million pensioners will benefit from the new pension credit, and there is also the minimum income guarantee. All this is about creating a stronger and fairer country, particularly for those people who have reached the end of their working lives and who need some security in their old age.

Will the Prime Minister give a personal guarantee that there will be no change in the sovereignty of the people or the territory of Gibraltar without the self-determination of the people of Gibraltar?

We stick absolutely by the 1969 resolution, which makes it clear that there should not be a change in the constitutional status of Gibraltar without the consent of the people there. I strongly believe that the Brussels process—which was, after all, started under the previous Conservative Government—which allows Britain and Spain to discuss these issues sensibly, should go forward. It would be very unfortunate if it did not do so. I also believe—I say this frankly to the people of Gibraltar—that it would be better if the Chief Minister of Gibraltar and the Gibraltar Government participated in that process.

My right hon. Friend spoke last week of missed opportunities in Europe. Does he agree that a European constitution which defined the rights of the nation states as well as the duties of the European Union, and which placed subsidiarity at the head of that text, would place a road block in the way of those who want a European superstate and reassure those who see Britain and Europe's future together?

I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that an important part of the debate on the future of Europe is to try to draw up a proper list of the competencies of the European Union. It is also important to ensure that when Europe needs to co-operate more effectively, it can do so, and to identify areas in which Europe may decide to do less. What was interesting about the paper prepared by France and Germany at the end of last week was that there was widespread acknowledgement across Europe that there may well be areas in which we need to work more closely together—for example, the single market, immigration and asylum, organised crime, and defence policy. There are, however, other areas—notably those relating to the regulation of the European Union—in which it is important that we take powers back from Brussels to the nation states.

Seeing that it is now clear that taxes are going to have to rise, will the Prime Minister give an assurance that the zero rate on children's food and on clothes will be maintained?

They are fine ones to be telling us about VAT being extended. We have made those commitments quite clear, and they remain our commitments. The hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have to address this issue. If we believe that more resources are needed for health care, there are only three sources for those resources: general taxation, specific taxation such as social insurance, or forcing people to pay for private medical care. At some point, Conservative Members are going to have to say where they stand on this issue, and not simply in internal memorandums in the Opposition Treasury team.

Following the sad decision in the case of the terminally ill woman, Diane Pretty, who was told that the law would not allow her to die with dignity at the time of her choosing, does the Prime Minister think that it is time for a review of the Suicide Act 1961?

I am not in favour of reviewing that legislation. I understand the strong feelings it arouses, but this is a matter of conscience for hon. Members on both sides of the House. I am afraid that I am not in favour of amending the Act. I am sorry to give my hon. Friend the reply he does not want, but that is what I believe.

Is the Prime Minister prepared to meet me later today to discuss yesterday's announcement by BAE Systems of 1,669 redundancies, a thousand of which are at Woodford on the periphery of my constituency? BAE Systems—British Aerospace that was—is ending regional jet production in this country. That is serious; the job losses in my constituency are serious. Are the Government prepared to consider what might be done to assist in this serious situation?

First, let me express my sympathy for the hon. Gentleman's constituents who are affected by the announcement. I understand that, later today, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions will make announcements on how we can achieve the right rapid reaction response to job losses such as those in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. As for meeting me, I do not know whether that can be done today, but I am happy for us to meet as soon as we possibly can.