When he next expects to visit the Government office of the north-west to discuss regeneration of the region. [30883]

My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has no immediate plans to visit the Government office of the north-west. He last visited it in September and I visited it in November.

:I am sure that the Minister is aware that not even a borough such as Macclesfield, which currently has an unemployment rate of just 1.1 per cent.—and is brilliantly represented—can rest on its laurels. We must look to the future not least because of the tragic announcement of 993 redundancies on the periphery of the constituency by BAE Systems at Woodford. Does the hon. Lady not accept that it is absolutely essential for the future prosperity and economic growth of my area that the regional planning guidance receives an early approval? The matter currently rests with a Minister in another place, Lord Falconer.

I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern in this matter. I know that he and other Members of Parliament have taken a great interest in the redundancies, and we extend our sympathies to all those affected. Of course it is right that we need to move as quickly as possible, which is why the Government office and all the other agencies, including the Employment Service, are working hard. It is right that we move ahead with the plan, and we shall do so as soon as we practically can.

When my hon. Friend next meets representatives of the Government office of the north-west to discuss these issues, will she stress the important role that sport and sports development can play in regenerating deprived communities in the north-west, especially those such as mine which have proved to be the hardest to regenerate and turn round? In particular, will she ask the Government office of the north-west to give whatever support it can to Wigan council's exciting proposals for a new community sports complex and a new stadium and home for Leigh RMI and Leigh Centurions?

I am aware of the interest that my hon. Friend takes in these matters, and I know that he used to play cricket for Lancashire Schoolboys. We can all admire his sporting prowess, from which the Commons team may benefit.

Pursuant to his answer of 9 January 2002, Official Report, column 530, on civil emergencies, if he will make a statement on the updating of guidance to local authorities.[30884]

The Government have issued guidance to local authorities on the response to a deliberate release of chemical or biological agents. The guidance is under continual review, and the civil contingencies secretariat at the Cabinet Office remains in dialogue with local authorities on the matter.

:What guidance is being given about the horrendous eventuality of smallpox?

Many Members will be aware of the BBC 2 television programme broadcast on that subject yesterday, which described a hypothetical situation. I emphasise that smallpox has been eradicated and that good contingency plans are in place. We have substantial stocks of vaccine but, clearly, their size and location are not in the public domain for security reasons. The Public Health Laboratory Service is always updating its guidance, which is available to GPs on its website, and that guidance has also been sent out by public health directors.

Does the Minister agree that civil emergencies occur for different reasons, be they climatic, medical—as he has described—or terrorist? What consideration has he given to the appointment—or what consideration has he given to talking to the Prime Minister about the appointment—of a Minister, perhaps not a Ministry, who can co-ordinate the activities of different Departments? Does he not accept that appointing a senior civil servant for such a role is not enough?

Last year all Members were sent a letter on the matter by the Home Secretary, who chairs the Civil Contingencies Cabinet Committee. To make sure that we have the generic capability to co-ordinate emergency planning and civil contingencies, the new secretariat has been established at the Cabinet Office to allow us to be flexible and respond as necessary to whatever eventualities may arise.

What preparations and plans exist for the possibility of a major aircraft failure or collision over central London? That is increasingly possible because of the intensification of the use of Heathrow airport and the aviation industry's wrong demand for an extra runway at Heathrow.

I would not want to open up a discussion on the extra runway, but in terms of risk, new technology is being developed all the time to improve air traffic control. My hon. Friend will know that response and recovery activities fall in the first instance to local authorities and the police. We are ensuring that the tools are available so that those organisations are well placed to cope in the unlikely eventuality of anything happening.

What preparation has been made for a major offshore incident that could result in a massive oil spill, similar to the Braer disaster or the Sea Empress disaster off the coast of Pembrokeshire? Both reports on those disasters recommended placing a statutory duty on local authorities to deal with offshore oil spillages, but that has still not been put in place. Will the hon. Gentleman promise to introduce that?

I will submit the hon. Gentleman's comment to the emergency planning review that the Cabinet Office is undertaking. The maritime authorities and, indeed, local authorities ensure that we learn lessons from the accidents that occur from time to time. I shall certainly try to give the matter closer consideration.

Which Departments and agencies are involved in the development of rural policy for whose co-ordination his office is responsible. [30886]

I am responsible for the Government office network which provides a strategic presence in the regions for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and, indeed, for the social exclusion unit whose work covers issues of relevance to rural areas.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to look again at the written answer given by the Prime Minister last Friday at column 571 in which he describes in detail all the responsibilities of the Deputy Prime Minister? There is no mention of rural affairs or the co-ordination of rural policy. Can the Deputy Prime Minister give a single example of when his intervention has secured an improvement in rural policy since the general election?

The hon. Gentleman seems to have missed the fact that we have established a Department for rural affairs specifically to deal with such matters. Many of the issues that he raises, which he used to refer to the Cabinet Office before the last election, are now dealt with by another Department.

The rural White Paper said that we need to have a vibrant living and working countryside and that to achieve that aim a range of essential services needs to be in place in rural areas. I am pleased to say that there are plans to open two new rural post offices in my constituency. Will my right hon. Friend do everything he can to ensure that the work of all relevant Departments is co-ordinated so that our rural communities have those services?

Many of those issues were highlighted in the rural White Paper, for which I had responsibility in my previous job. We thought that it was important to separate rural areas from urban areas and not to get the two mixed up. We made it clear that special programmes were needed, which we identified in the rural White Paper and which are being carried out by the Department. Many of my hon. Friend's points are being attended to directly by the Department and the relevant Minister.

The Deputy Prime Minister said today and, indeed, in the past in response to written questions that lead responsibility for rural policy now rests with the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. He however, is, responsible for the work of the social exclusion unit. Does he recognise that there are serious problems of social exclusion in many rural areas? Will he specifically ask the social exclusion unit to consider rural policies?

The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point; it is all the more valid after 18 years of a Tory Administration under whom we saw a doubling of poverty and a decline in bus transportation, the provision of schools and post offices in rural areas. That is why the social exclusion unit has been deliberately designed to look specifically at those problems, which we identify as existing as much in rural areas as they do in urban ones. Indeed, a specific study is under way on transport in rural areas because without an adequate transport system many people in those areas cannot get access to the services that they need. That is why we have increased considerably the amount of transport resources in rural areas, set against the decline that we saw in those 18 years.

What research his Department has carried out into the educational attainment of children in care. [30887]

The social exclusion unit is investigating what more might be done to raise the educational attainment of children in care. It is currently gathering evidence and undertaking an intensive programme of visits to schools and children's homes. It is also consulting widely with professionals and with children in care.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. The work of the social exclusion unit has been critical in sending a message to all local government departments that the record of educational attainment of looked-after children has been woeful. It is something for which we all have responsibility, particularly since we gather that 75 per cent. of young people leaving care do so without educational qualifications.

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. The record of attainment of educational qualifications among young children in care is woeful, and we all need to take that very seriously. Looked-after children need our absolute commitment, which is why I am delighted that the social exclusion unit is pursuing the matter. I welcome my hon. Friend's news.

What mechanisms are in place to assess the relative success of the social exclusion unit compared with its costs?

The social exclusion unit takes on projects at the direction of the Prime Minister and under the direction of the Deputy Prime Minister. So far, it has had a tremendous success rate. A good example is the meeting of targets on reducing rough sleeping and on reducing teenage pregnancy. Those are extremely good developments. Of course, there are more projects on the way, such as that on transport which my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has already mentioned.

Whether the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster made a submission to Sir Donald Curry's report on the future of farming. [30889]

No Cabinet Minister made submissions to Sir Donald Curry's commission, as it was established by the Government in the first place.

I am sorry that the Minister cannot say that the duchy itself made a submission to the Curry commission, which has produced the most significant report on British food and farming for many years, and offers an important way forward. In the light of its findings and the worries of duchy tenants as they see, for example, investment in more housing and changes in land management arrangements for the estate, what investment will be made in duchy farms in Lancashire to unlock their potential? When will the Minister be able to give the House those details?

I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's recognition of the importance of the commission's findings on the future of farming. The report is full and comprehensive, and aims to make the farming industry more sustainable and profitable. Clearly, many of those issues rest with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Although the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Lord Macdonald, is in another place, I shall certainly ensure that he is made aware of the right hon. Gentleman's questions and comments.

I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's comments. Is it not important that central and local government take a lead in ensuring that Curry's proposals are advanced? Anything that my hon. Friend and his right hon. Friends can do must only be to our advantage.

Rural affairs cut across all Departments. As Ministers, we all must be aware of rural as well as urban dimensions. The Royal Society study by Sir Brian Follett will provoke discussion on a number of important issues that need to be considered, but I shall ensure that I pass on my hon. Friend's comments to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

What action he has taken to co-ordinate policy on the duties of special advisers among Government Departments. [30891]

As recommended by the Committee on Standards in Public Life and the Select Committee on Public Administration, a code of conduct for special advisers is now in place, with duties and responsibilities also set out in a model contract of employment.

We all know what Jo Moore said on 11 September about burying bad news, but since then she has tried unsuccessfully to have a crony appointed as her Department's head of media and, more recently, has succeeded in damaging the Prime Minister by suggesting, heaven forfend, that he regards the trade union movement as wreckers. Is she setting a good example for special advisers in other Departments to follow?

I am worried about the hon. Gentleman's obsession with these matters. On the particular case that he mentioned, there was an open competition for that appointment; somebody else got the job and the Cabinet Secretary cleared the appointment. It is now time to move on.

May I repeat my oft expressed view that the way to see off the Opposition's absurd fixation with special advisers is to move ahead, building on the code that we have already established; introduce the civil service legislation that we promised; set a cap on the number of special advisers; and define their relations with civil servants? That would put a stop to the nonsense that the Opposition keep bringing up.

As I said to the Select Committee on Public Administration last week, we need to make sure that we enshrine certain principles in a code of conduct for special advisers. That code is a new initiative from this Administration and will create more transparency in those areas. We can look at a cap on numbers and we shall want to consult on those matters when any future civil service legislation is introduced.

Does the Minister recognise that it is important that a clear boundary between political advisers and civil servants, who must be politically impartial, is maintained? What action has the First Secretary of State taken to ensure rigorous enforcement of that code in the light of what has happened, and when will the civil service Bill to which the Minister referred be published?

The code of conduct makes plain, as does the ministerial code of conduct, the parameters of special advisers' work and operations. We are working on civil service legislation and will publish it when we are ready to do so. The code of conduct should be welcomed all round; indeed, the Public Administration Committee noted that it was both a welcome step forward and progress that should be acknowledged.

In the light of the excellent fourth report of the Public Administration Committee, which was published last February, does my hon. Friend intend to take any further action in that respect? In particular, he should take note of the fact that the report says that the official Opposition

"were unable to give a categorical assurance that its Short Money funding"—

"was used exclusively for parliamentary business."

That is an interesting question. Not many people realise that the Opposition benefited from a threefold increase in the Short money, which goes to support their work—it is purely for parliamentary business, of course, and I am sure that it is true that central office is not propped up by that £3.4 million. I tried to do a bit of research the other day and it seems that in their annual report and accounts, the Tories simply lump Short money with the rest of the income that they generate— [Interruption.]

Order.

Since the Minister is on the subject of threefold increases, can I point to the threefold increase, from roughly £50 million to just under £150 million, in the Government's spending on advertising through the Central Office of Information? Since the most senior special adviser of them all is Alastair Campbell, how does the Minister justify this morning's reports that Mr. Campbell will get his sticky fingers on taxpayers' money and have direct control over Government advertising?

Another conspiracy theory from the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Central Office of Information undertakes extremely important marketing campaigns—for example, on public health and protection or on recruiting extra doctors and nurses. If he feels that that is money poorly spent, I shall start to worry for him.

:The Minister is renowned for being a man of his word, so will he give the House a categorical assurance that Mr. Alastair Campbell will not be in any position to give orders to the Central Office of Information as a result of the restructuring, and that any official of the Central Office of Information will be entitled to decline to follow any instruction given by Mr. Alastair Campbell—yes or no?

The Central Office of Information has recently undergone its quinquennial review and the results were published yesterday. Those involved closer working with the Government information and communications services, as well as the strategic communication unit. We must have coherent government, which has a strong corporate strategic management. We must make sure that those recruitment exercises and public health campaigns are undertaken as effectively as possible.

What his estimate is of the salary bill for special advisers in Government Departments in the financial year 2002–03. [30892]

The Government have already announced changes to the pay system for special advisers based on civil service job evaluation. The process of evaluation is not yet finished, so the salary costs for the next financial year will be provided once the exercise is completed.

There's a surprise—that the figures are not available. Will the Minister confirm that part of those salaries is paid to Alastair Campbell? From the hon. Gentleman's answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins), he made it clear that the Central Office of Information will be answerable to a political appointee. Does not the hon. Gentleman understand that that is a corruption of government?

Is it not amazing that the hon. Gentleman forgot to mention that he is a former special adviser? That level of masochistic self-loathing in the Conservative party is deeply distressing. The hon. Gentleman should realise that we believe that the Government must be led strongly from the centre, and that we must make sure that we have effective and successful communications campaigns for the benefit of the recipients of public services across the country.

When he last met representatives of UK poverty organisations. [30893]

On 23 January I met the all-party parliamentary group on poverty. The meeting was attended by, among others, the Poverty Alliance, ATD—Altogether towards Dignity—Fourth World, and the UK Coalition against Poverty. I also gave a keynote speech on 15 January at the Fabian society conference, which was attended by 200 organisations associated with poverty relief. I maintain regular contact with the groups in London and on my visits to other areas of the United Kingdom.

The Government have done a great deal to tackle the problem of low income, including the introduction of the minimum income guarantee for pensioners, the minimum wage and the working families tax credit. Does my right hon. Friend agree that poverty is not just about money? It is also about power. What steps is he taking to ensure that people with direct experience of poverty can have a bigger say in the development of Government policy?

That important point was made by the all-party parliamentary group, the representatives of which come from all parts of the House. The group has made it clear that people who suffer from poverty should be actively involved in advising and in decision making here in the House. That is absolutely right. We have commissioned a report to see how we can improve on that process. Those people want a say in the programmes that we are bringing in to relieve the poverty that they are suffering.

What plans there are to revise paragraph 122 of the ministerial code of conduct. [30895]

None.

The Minister will know that paragraph 122 of the ministerial code forbids financial dealings between Ministers and trade unions. When will the Deputy Prime Minister enforce the ministerial code for himself and end his financial dealings with the RMT, which are worth between £12,000 and £14,000 a year to him?

The hon. Gentleman has been pursuing the matter for some time.

What about the ministerial code?

If the hon. Gentleman refrains from shouting, I will give him his answer. He knows that his question is nonsense. The Select Committee on Standards and Privileges has ruled that there has been no benefit at all. It has also ruled that the code has not been broken. The hon. Gentleman should move on and get a life.

If he will make a statement on the accountability of special advisers. [30896]

As with all civil servants, special advisers are accountable to Ministers. Ministers are accountable to Parliament.

That system would work if Ministers answered questions about special advisers. As well as continually blocking questions and refusing information, they do not even stick to the code of conduct introduced by the former right hon. Member for Huntingdon, Mr. Major. That system does not work. Why will the hon. Gentleman not answer questions and ensure that the special advisers are accountable to this House?

We went through all this nonsense yesterday in Westminster Hall, where the hon. Gentleman was pulled up by the Deputy Speaker for his intemperate language. I really think he needs to get a grip.

:If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 6 February.

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

Has my right hon. Friend had time to examine the scientific and medical opinion on the MMR vaccine? Does he agree that, whatever our view, this matter is so important that it must not be allowed to become a political football?

I do urge people not to pay attention to what is sometimes called Government advice. The Government are in fact giving advice on the basis of the advice given to them by independent experts. That advice, which is that the MMR vaccine is safe and is best done in combination rather than separate jabs, is supported not only by the Government's independent advisory committee, but by the British Medical Association, the Royal College of Nursing, the Royal College of General Practitioners, the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, the Community Practitioners and Health Visitors Association and the Faculty of Public Health Medicine. No fewer than 90 countries around the world use the MMR vaccine, including every major industrialised country, and 500 million doses of the vaccine have been given since 1972. I say to people that the scaremongering—and it is scaremongering—about this vaccine is wrong. Often, such scaremongering does not matter, but in this case it does. If anybody has any doubts, the full evidence is available and can be given to any parent who wants it.

May I join the Prime Minister in congratulating Her Majesty on the 50th anniversary of her accession?

It has risen; however— [HON. MEMBERS: "How much?"] It has risen by about 20,000; however, the number of operations as a whole has also risen by more than 500,000; 19 out of 20 operations are done on time; the average waiting time for an operation has fallen since 1997; and, therefore, although it is correct that the number of cancelled operations has risen, if we look at the number of operations as a whole—more than 5.5 million in this country—I think that the national health service has a record to he proud of.

The answer is quite correct: 50 per cent. I have to tell the Prime Minister that that is not just a figure. He talks about the rise in the number of operations done, but the numbers that have been cancelled have risen as well, and that is a real tragedy for those who have to wait. [Interruption] Well, the reality—he may not want to hear this—is that this is not one or two cases, but 80,000 people who have had their operations cancelled on the day when they were expecting to have them. That is a matter of fear and anxiety for 80,000 people—many more than when he came to power. So, as those numbers have risen and 80,000 people have had their operations cancelled, will he now tell us the reason why?

As I explained a moment ago, far more operations have been done by the national health service—about 500,000 more. Less than 2 per cent. of operations are cancelled, which should put the matter in perspective. The only answer is indeed to increase the capacity of the health service, including more nurses, doctors and consultants, as well as other staff, and more beds. That is precisely why we are increasing investment in the national health service. The right hon. Gentleman is in favour of cutting that investment. Therefore, whatever the problems of cancelled operations—I say that they should be put in perspective—the remedy that he has, which is to cut that investment, is the wrong remedy. The remedy that we have—invest and reform—is the right one.

Before the Prime Minister talks about what he supposes is our programme, perhaps he will pay attention to the comments of the Institute for Fiscal Studies on his record. It stated:

"public sector net investment over the five-year period since Labour came into power"

"the lowest figure for any five year period since the Second World War".

Public sector investment in the health service has increased under the Government and is continuing to increase. We are roughly the only major industrial country anywhere in the world that is increasing expenditure on health and education as a proportion of national income. Is it the Conservative party's case that we are not spending enough on health and education? When we announced our spending plans, Conservatives called them reckless and irresponsible. We know that the right hon. Gentleman wants to run down the national health service because he does not believe in it. The clearest evidence of that came yesterday, when the Leader of the Opposition said:

"The health service doesn't serve anybody…It doesn't serve doctors or nurses. It doesn't help the people who are treated."

Will my right hon. Friend make representations to the United States authorities about a British national who is currently on death row in Georgia? His name is Tracy Housel and he is severely brain damaged. Although he has been on death row since 1986, his execution date is likely to be set this month. Will my right hon. Friend say what representations he believes he can make? Will he please act quickly, before the date is set?

The Foreign Secretary has written to the Governor of Georgia and the state board of pardons and parole, urging them to commute the death sentence to a term of imprisonment. We shall continue to make representations to the state of Georgia. I hope that my hon. Friend understands the position and that we shall continue to make representations on behalf of that individual, who I believe is a joint US-UK national.

I fully associate Liberal Democrats with the Prime Minister's congratulations to Her Majesty on this special day.

I explain it by saying that, of course, the Committee is entitled to its view, but the value-for-money reports are being considered at the moment. They will be published and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions will make a statement about that. The safety case—in so far as that is a point of criticism—is being assessed by the Health and Safety Executive; that is entirely proper. The right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends must explain—if they oppose the public-private partnership which allows major infrastructure work that is urgently necessary to be done on the London underground—how they would make up the £5 billion shortfall if they took out the private element.

Everybody in the country knows that the railway system is in a state of chaos, thanks to privatisation. Why do not the Government listen to the majority view of Londoners, and to the advice of the Labour-dominated Transport Committee and decide not to go down the route of part-privatisation for the tube? Should not the Prime Minister swallow his pride and stop this disaster in the making?

Let me explain to the right hon. Gentleman again why we believe that this is important. The London underground will remain in the public sector from the time that the tube opens until the time that it closes. The reason that we are engaged in this public-private investment partnership is so that the infrastructure work, which is urgently needed in the tube, can be done. [Interruption.] I urge Liberal Democrat Members to listen to the arguments, rather than heckling. If we decide to do this in the old public sector financing way, we will lose the billions of pounds of private investment necessary, and all the evidence is that, if we do it in that way, the work will run over budget and over time. It is important, however difficult the decision may be, to take the right decision for the future. This plan is ready to go; it will get immediate money into the tube; and we are doing it not out of pride but because we believe it to be the right thing to do.

When my right hon. Friend is preparing his in-flight reading for the next couple of days, would he care to take with him the report on the Chinook crash? I hope that he will look, in particular, at paragraph 174, in which Lord Jauncey and his colleagues unanimously come to the conclusion that

"the reviewing officers were not justified in finding that negligence on the part of the pilots caused the aircraft to crash."

Order. I call the Prime Minister.

My hon. Friend is obviously right to say that this is a complex issue, although I hope that he would also acknowledge that those who conducted the original inquiry are wise and celebrated people as well, and experts in that particular area. Obviously, we have to study the report, and we shall do that. We shall study its complex technical detail and give a proper response in due course.

Is the Prime Minister aware that some 350 jobs had been lost in the town of Malmesbury before yesterday's devastating news of 820 redundancies as a result of James Dyson moving some of his business to the far east? The Prime Minister will understand that that is appalling news for a town of only 4,500 people. Nationally, 350,000 manufacturing jobs have been lost since the right hon. Gentleman came to power, and manufacturing industry is now officially in recession. Will he accept personal responsibility for this, or will he seek to blame someone else?

It would be right, surely, to point out that there have been 1.2 million extra jobs altogether since we came to office. It is correct to say that manufacturing has gone through a difficult time; of course it has. It has done so in many parts of the world, but I believe the best thing for manufacturing is low interest rates, low inflation and a stable economic environment, and that is what manufacturing has. If we were to go back to the policies that the hon. Gentleman used to support under the Conservative Government, which caused massive manufacturing job losses and a huge cut in manufacturing output and investment, that would be the worst thing. Having said that, of course we are deeply disappointed at Mr. Dyson's decision, but that is a decision for his company.

The Prime Minister will be aware that the performance and innovation unit's report on future energy supply is now widely available on the internet, and that it confirms that renewable sources should have a vital and increasing role in the future. [HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] The UK is uniquely rich in wave and tidal energy sources, but if this potential is to be unlocked, it will require a lead from the Government. [HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] If this can be given, there is the potential for a new green industry, providing thousands of jobs. Will—

Order. The hon. Gentleman is taking far too long.

Over the next three years, we have committed about £260 million in an extensive capital grants programme for renewable energy. We have a target to reach 10 per cent. renewables by 2010. [HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] [Laughter.] There will be a—[Laughter.] I am told— [Laughter.]

Order. Let the Prime Minister answer.

These issues will be further canvassed in the PIU report next week.

What the Prime Minister just said on the MMR vaccine deals with the world as he wishes it to be, not as it is. The fact is that tens of thousands of parents do not accept his assurances that the vaccine is safe, however good the medical evidence. Instead of calling them scaremongers, should he not give them the choice of three separate vaccinations on the NHS?

I really have to say to the hon. Gentleman that the position that the Conservative party has adopted today is, in my view, totally irresponsible. Let me tell him why that is the case. The evidence that I have read out is evidence not just about the importance of the MMR vaccine but about the importance of having it in combination, rather than in separate jabs. Let me just say to the hon. Gentleman that the evidence that that way is better comes from right round the world—not just this country. It comes from 90 different countries. [Interruption.] Can I say this to the Opposition? This is important, so let me at least give them the evidence, as that is what people are asking for.

"the available evidence does not support the hypothesis that MMR vaccine causes autism or associated disorders."

"Separate administration of measles, mumps and rubella vaccines to children provides no benefit over administration of the combination MMR vaccine and would result in delayed or missed immunisations."

Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to deny today's story in Newcastle's The Journal, which says that he, or his office, has personally intervened in the drafting of the forthcoming regional government White Paper to insist that it contain a clause stating that regional government cannot go ahead without the abolition of the county councils?

The regional government White Paper will be published in due course and my hon. Friend will be able to see the proposals that are made there.

On Sunday the Prime Minister said that the trade unions were "standing in the way of good public services". Does he stand by that?

I said that anyone who opposed the necessary reform of public services was standing in the way of improvements necessary for public services. I also said that those who, like the right hon. Gentleman, want to cut essential investment in public services were grossly undermining them.

I think that answer says it all.

In no shape or form are we giving way on the reform programme in the health service and the education service. [HON. MEMBERS: "How much?"] Well, the amount of money given to the Labour party—thanks to the procedures we introduced—is there for people to see.

The Prime Minister took a long time not to answer the question. Let us now give him the answer. The figure is £8 million, in a six-month period last year—and in the case of two unions that are either on strike or about to strike, it is nearly £1.25 million.

Order. I am reluctant to interrupt the Leader of the Opposition, but I must tell him that the Prime Minister is here to answer questions as Prime Minister, not as leader of the Labour party. [Interruption.] Order. I am talking about the rules of the House, which the House has given me to protect. Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition could ask another question.

Order. Please allow the Leader of the Opposition to ask his question.

This issue goes right to the heart of the Government. While I fully respect what you say, Mr. Speaker, I must point out— [Interruption] —if I may—that it is about what is happening on the railways and in the Post Office. I am simply raising an issue, and asking a question about whether there are links with and reasons for Government policy. I would like to pursue that line if you are agreeable, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps I can ask the question—[Interruption.]

Order. The Leader of the Opposition is using some ingenuity. Let us see how he puts his question—whether he puts it in another way.

Order.

I will certainly ask the question, Mr. Speaker, but perhaps in a slightly different way.

In regard to the actual industrial dispute, we have made it clear that we believe the strike action is totally unjustified and should not take place. In relation to the national health service, however, there is a real issue, as there is in relation to investment in our public services. The strategy of the Conservative party is absolutely clear, and that is why we will not adopt it as a Goverment—

Order.

rose—

Order. I must ask Members to be seated. Let me also say to the Prime Minister that the policy of the Conservative party is nothing to do with the Prime Minister.

Fortunately, the policy of the Conservative party will never be the policy of this Government, but there is a real issue in respect of public services. What is important is that we end up with the investment and reform that our public services need. They are getting substantial investment over the next few years. In each of these areas, there is a substantial reform programme. As I have said, whether it is those who are opposed to reform, or those who are opposed to investment, we will take both of them on and we will win that battle for our public services

Is The Prime Minister aware that tomorrow will see the naming of the 2,500 runners in the Queen's jubilee baton relay, which will effectively launch the run-up to the Commonwealth games in Manchester later this year? Will he join me in congratulating those runners, who literally straddle the world? Every one has been picked because of their contribution to local communities. Will he join me in wishing them every success in launching what will be the most successful multi-sports event in this country for many years?

I certainly join my hon. Friend in his congratulations for all those who are organising the Commonwealth games. The Queen's jubilee baton relay will be launched by Her Majesty the Queen at Buckingham palace on 11 March 2002, Commonwealth day, from where it will depart on a tour of some 22 Commonwealth countries before returning to the United Kingdom on 6 June. The baton will then tour the length and breadth of the UK for 50 days before arriving in Manchester for the opening by the Queen of the Commonwealth games on 25 July. I believe that the Commonwealth games will be not just a fantastic success story for the north-west but a great showcase for the country.

On 19 December at Prime Minister's questions, the Prime Minister said about Railtrack:

"the longer the administrator's work has gone on, the more financial difficulties he has uncovered."—[Official Report, 19 December 2001; Vol. 377, c. 288–9.]

The petition that was presented to the court announced debts of about £1.7 billion, which is exactly why Railtrack was put into administration. The Railtrack administrator will publish the full details of what the debts were at a later time. When that happens, the hon. Gentleman may have to withdraw the implication of his question.

Will my right hon. Friend consider visiting Kettering general hospital to look at the new orthopaedic theatre, the new CAT scanner, the £900,000 investment in intensive care and the £1 million plans for a new dermatology unit? Does he agree that, after that massive investment in our health service, the real wreckers are those on the Conservative Benches?

I would be delighted to visit my hon. Friend's constituency hospital in Kettering, although preferably not as a patient—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] I think that most of us would like to maintain our good health if we possibly can. What my hon. Friend has described in his constituency could be described in most constituencies up and down the country. There is a massive amount of investment going in. Figures published yesterday on recruitment to the health service show, for example, that we have met the target on the number of nurses in the national health service plan some two years early. I say to my hon. Friends and indeed to Opposition Members that, with the progress over the next few months, I think that people will start to see in their constituencies exactly the same level of investment and change as people already notice in respect of the school system.

Is The Prime Minister aware that on the day of the Twin Towers disaster, there took place in this city an arms trade fair sponsored by the Ministry of Defence? Among the customers at that fair for state-of-the-art weaponry were both sides in the civil war in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Would it not be a useful start to The Prime Minister's mission to Africa if he announced that henceforth this country will not sell arms to both sides in African civil wars?

I do not know about the particular point that the hon. Gentleman makes, but I will investigate it and write to him. Our arms sales to Africa run at about 1 per cent. of total arms sales, so it is important to put that in context. There are also, incidentally, jobs and industry in this country to consider. Of course it is important to take care who we sell arms to, and we do. The desire of African nations is for the partnership for change in Africa—which covers a whole range of issues, including aid and trade, investment and governance—to be satisfactorily put together for the G8 summit in July, so that the developing and developed world can give Africa the chance that it needs.

The Prime Minister will be aware that, even before the dropping of cluster bombs in Afghanistan, it was one of the most heavily land-mined countries in the world. In fulfilling his pledge not to walk away from that country, will he outline what the Government are doing to help clear land mines there?

We are, I think, providing several million pounds for the clearing of mines in Afghanistan. Part of the function of the international security assistance force is precisely to ensure that we give every help to the Afghan authorities in clearing mines from the area. My hon. Friend would be pleasantly surprised by the amount of progress being made there in very difficult circumstances. On the humanitarian side, although there are still real problems as a result of drought, and some instability in certain parts of the country, the World Food Programme now reckons that it is getting more aid into Afghanistan than ever before.