If he will make a statement on the change in the number of police officers in Wales since 1997. [142069]

On 31 August, there were 7,354 police officers in Wales, an increase of more than 12 per cent. since 1997. In addition, Welsh police forces have received funding for 113 community support officers.

I thank my hon. Friend for that encouraging answer, and should like to declare that my eldest son is now part of those statistics.

I am aware of the case of Mr. Kennerley and I pay tribute to him for his bravery and for his commitment to tackling the scourge of antisocial behaviour. I also pay tribute to the police officer involved.

Morriston hospital in Swansea has already made it clear that some of the extra police officers will be used to police its accident and emergency unit during Christmas to deal with any drunks who turn up. Will the Minister make it absolutely clear that if anybody—especially someone who is drunk—turns up at an accident and emergency unit over Christmas and attacks a nurse or a doctor, they will receive a hangover that lasts well into 2004?

I endorse the hon. Gentleman's point, especially given the efforts to provide care and attention in our hospitals, particularly in accident and emergency departments. I have witnessed situations in London where staff have had to take considerable abuse from people who were much the worse for drink, so I endorse his remarks. If anybody is involved in an incident that brings harm to doctors or nurses caring for the public, I hope that they are punished with every severity.

What recent discussions he has had with the First Secretary regarding the importance of the aerospace industry to the economy of Wales. [142070]

Both my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I hold regular discussions with colleagues in the Assembly on a range of issues, including the aerospace industry in Wales.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. I am sure that he recognises the success and importance of Airbus at Broughton, so will he help to build on that success by using the short delay on the future air tanker, which the Ministry of Defence is expected to announce, further to press the case for the Airbus-AirTanker project that will help to secure many thousands of jobs in Wales?

I am aware of my hon. friend's strong commitment to Airbus and to the work at Broughton in north-east Wales. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have already visited that world-class facility several times. I certainly join my hon. Friend in welcoming the strong Airbus bid for the MOD contract to provide air-to-air refuelling aircraft, and I hope that it is successful. It will underpin our commitment to the continuing development of that important manufacturing industry in north-east Wales.

Given the importance of the aerospace industry not only in Wales but throughout the United Kingdom, there is no doubt that it must not go overseas. Airbus Industries has made a long-term commitment in this country, so will the Minister guarantee, on behalf of the British people and especially the Welsh, to press his right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Defence and the Prime Minister to ensure that no aerospace jobs are moved overseas?

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman need have any worries about the efforts made by me, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State or any of my colleagues, as we shall be exerting all the pressure that we possibly can to ensure that the industry in north-east Wales goes from strength to strength. Much public investment has already gone in: £500 million for the Airbus project at Broughton and £77 million for the Red Dragon project at the Defence Aviation Repair Agency in St. Athan. The Government are committed to that development. That important manufacturing base in Wales has a strong future and we want it to succeed.

What recent discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the impact of the Barnett formula on the economy of Wales. [142071]

Regular ones. The Barnett formula is a means of calculating changes to the Welsh block from its historic base. Welsh gross domestic product per head increased by 15.6 per cent. between 1997 and 2001.

The Barnett formula has now reached its quarter century, and its eponymous creator has said that it has become terribly unfair. Does the Secretary of State agree that that deeply unsatisfactory way of distributing Government grant should be replaced by a needs-based formula throughout the United Kingdom—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—as that would be more equitable for the people of the English regions such as my own, the east midlands, as well as for the people and the economy of Wales?

I thought it interesting that my hon. Friend was cheered by the Welsh nationalists—he might want to reflect on his position—but I understand the very fair point that he makes on behalf of his constituency, North-West Leicestershire, and what I want and what the Government are delivering is record investment right across Britain, rising employment and improved public services. He is nodding his head in agreement. Of course he will understand that Wales has much higher deprivation historically and ill-health problems. There were 35 per cent. more incapacity benefit claimants in Wales than in the east midlands, despite the fact that the population of the east midlands is 1 million higher. So those problems have to be tackled, and the Barnett formula was designed to address that.

Is the Secretary of State aware of a large, possibly Barnett-related deficit in mid-Wales health provision? For some years, the Royal Shrewsbury hospital has generously subsidised its services to Welsh patients. Does he accept that, with the best will in the world, that cannot continue? Is he willing to discuss whether the extra funding needed to remedy the problem should rightly come from the Welsh Assembly's existing budget, or possibly result from an adjustment to the Barnett formula?

The hon. Gentleman will understand that there is record spending on health provision in Wales, including in his constituency—I am grateful to him for nodding his head in agreement—and that the Welsh health budget has nearly doubled. I understand, however, that the subsidy in his constituency in respect of patients who are treated in Shrewsbury is an issue. I will certainly look into that and discuss it with the Secretary of State for Health and the First Minister.

My right hon. Friend will be well aware that, apart from the national health service providing excellent care for people in Wales, it makes an important contribution, through employment, to the Welsh economy. What consideration has he given to the fact that it has now been established, through the Yvonne Watts case, that there is such a thing as a waiting time that can be regarded as too long? What implications does that have for the health service and the Barnett formula, given the fact that waiting times in Wales are generally longer than in England?

These matters are being addressed. Of course the health budget that comes from applying the Barnett formula and the consequentials that flow across from the Treasury to Wales are now funding health services, reducing waiting times and improving health services in Wales. That should encourage my hon. Friend to say that things are improving under Labour, both here in Westminster and down in Cardiff as well.

Professor Maclean of Nuffield college has recently estimated that the Welsh Assembly Government would receive £620 million a year extra under the needs-based allocation. Since there is a range of views on this subject, will the Wales Office consider commissioning an independent study, so that we can have an objective assessment of whether Wales would be better off under a needs-based formula or the present arrangements?

We will continue to keep these matters under review. I note that the hon. Gentleman takes a close interest in them, but he will agree, because this is demonstrated by the facts, that wealth per head, spending and employment have been rising in Wales since 1997, and that Wales has been doing much better than most other parts of the United Kingdom and, indeed, most other parts of the world. He will also be aware that, partly because of the higher deprivation and need, total identifiable Government spending in Wales is 13 per cent. above the equivalent UK average and 18 per cent. above the English average. If the nationalists got their way, as he would wish, and Wales broke away from Britain, it would be plunged into poverty. That is the price that nationalism would have to pay.

What plans he has to prevent jobs in Wales moving overseas. [142072]

I will continue to fight to ensure that jobs stay in Wales, and not move overseas. Foreign firms are still choosing Wales as an attractive place to do business. Last year, employment in Wales rose by 61,000.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. What would he say to the staff at Tesco house in Maes-y-Coed road in the Cardiff, North constituency, who in July were taken to the city hall and praised by Tesco for their loyalty, and a few weeks later were told that 230 of their jobs were to go to Bangalore?

I would join my hon. Friend in saying that that treatment is unacceptable, and that we continue to fight, as she does, for more call centre and finance centre jobs in Cardiff and right across Wales. The record shows that more and more jobs in this sector are being created. For example, The Number, which is part of the new directory inquiries network, recently opened a call centre in Cardiff creating 467 full-time and 105 part-time jobs in Cardiff. Whatever the plight of her constituents, under this Government, more and more job opportunities are being created, and her constituents will be helped to find other jobs. I agree with her, however, on her criticism of Tesco.

Can the Secretary of State confirm whether Hansard was correct when it reported that he thought that the transfer of call centre jobs to India could actually create a big return for the Welsh economy? Alternatively, was the The Western Mail wrong when it said that he would fight for every call centre job in Wales? Surely he did not make both statements.

First, I welcome the hon. Gentleman to the Front Bench. We look forward to his pronouncements. May I mourn the passing of the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), who brought a certain chippy style to the Front Bench, which we very much enjoyed? I am sure that his replacement, with his old Etonian gravitas, will provide us with a different dimension, although with his boss, the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) sitting next to him, I am not sure who actually speaks for Wales. We might learn that later from the Conservative party. In respect of his question, were he to read further in Hansard, he would find that both the The Western Mail and Hansard were correct, because I said that I wanted

"to see all jobs preserved"—[Official Report, 4 December 2003; Vol. 415, c. 655.]

My right hon. Friend will have heard the announcement last week of 170 job losses at a garment factory in Aberbargoed in my constituency. I thank him for the support that he has given to those workers in that difficult situation, but will the Government reaffirm their commitment to long-term investment in quality jobs and quality training? That is the only way forward.

I very much agree with my hon. Friend that that is the only way forward. It is the way forward being driven by our Government in Westminster and by the Labour Welsh Assembly Government in Cardiff. I am sure that he will recall many details of coal communities in his and surrounding constituencies that were absolutely devastated under the Conservatives. I find it astonishing that, given our record of investment, to which he referred, the Leader of the Opposition on a visit to Wales last Saturday said that coal communities had

"revived very considerably under Margaret Thatcher".

The question asked the Secretary of State what plans he had. So far, the only plan that he has brought forward to stop jobs going out of Wales is to put tolls on the M4. Will he now look at one aspect of the Welsh economy—the 700 jobs lost in Welsh agriculture in the past year? To help prevent those jobs from being lost, I suggest a plan to help local authorities to buy local food to keep Welsh farmers in jobs. Will he do that?

I share the hon. Gentleman's desire and interest in seeing that local produce is used by the local public sector, schools and others. Since he raised the issue of the effect on jobs of the situation on the M4, may I explain to him the reality? The truth is that the M4 at the Brynglas tunnel is increasingly choked with traffic, which affects jobs and the economy of south-east Wales. That is why the Assembly would have the option, as I discussed when I was Minister with responsibilities for transport in Wales a few years ago, of building the M4 relief road around Newport to provide an alternative, which could be tolled and built by the private sector as has been achieved around Birmingham. In that way, drivers in Wales, whether lorries or cars, would have a choice: to travel at perhaps 40 mph through the Brynglas tunnel, or to go around the new relief road and pay a toll. In the end, however, that is a matter for the Assembly.

What recent discussions he has had with (a) the First Secretary and (b) the Secretary of State for Education and Skills on the future of higher education in Wales. [142073]

Regular ones—we and our officials have worked closely to agree our proposals to transfer to the National Assembly for Wales responsibility for the remaining elements of higher education funding, including responsibility for student support in Wales.

I thank the Secretary of State for that reply. He will be aware of the successful and excellent widening access strategies in Welsh higher education. For example, at the North East Wales institute of higher education, 50 per cent. of the students are over the age of 30. May I invite him to join me on a journey of hope whose destiny is to guarantee sustainable, fair and equitable opportunities for part-time and full-time adult students?

Indeed, we are increasing the grants for part-time and mature students, and this is part of a new package, under this Government, of raising and widening opportunities for students right across the income level. Since he referred to this matter, may I congratulate my hon. Friend on his work prior to becoming a Member of Parliament with the Community university of the valleys that he initiated—am I right in saying—in Banwen in my constituency? That work, together with the wider work that the Government are doing both here in Westminster and in Wales, is giving new hope to part-time students and to students who never thought that they would have a chance to go to university.

Does the right hon. Gentleman think that it is fair that the Assembly has suggested that it will pay the top-up fees for Welsh students studying at English universities or should it be using its money to support students at Welsh universities?

The longer that the hon. Gentleman is on the Front Bench—and I hope that it will be the Opposition Front Bench—he will understand that, if the higher education Bill goes through, this matter will be devolved to the National Assembly so that decisions can be made in Wales. I hope that he will speak up for Wales and encourage that devolution.

We think that students should go to university based on the size of their brain and not on the depths of their wallet. How many Welsh MPs does the right hon. Gentleman think agree with him that the Government's policy on top-up fees needs to be tweaked, or is this similar to his comments on the European constitution and is just a "tidying-up exercise"?

We are looking in detail at all the representations made to us in terms of the final proposals that come in the Bill. I remind the hon. Gentleman and the House what the choice is. The choice is between a Labour Government, who are increasing opportunities for students in Wales, who are removing the up-front fee and who are also offering more and more students the chance to go to university, and his policy, which will plunge Welsh universities back into the bankruptcy from which we have rescued them and deny thousands of students in Wales the chance of studying at university. That is the choice; we are confident that the people of Wales will back us in the choice that we are making.

To see excellent examples of widening access, may I invite my right hon. Friend and other Members to visit the exhibition in the Upper Waiting Hall that is being held by the North East Wales institute of higher education in Wrexham? All Members will see what can be achieved and how lives can be changed by widening access to higher education. Is he aware, however, of the difficulties that a border university faces in dealing with students from England and Wales? Does he think that the Government's proposals will improve the position or make it more difficult?

May I first acknowledge the excellent job that the North East Wales institute of higher education does with my hon. friend's support as its local Member of Parliament? I have visited that fine institute and hope that everyone will have the chance to see the exhibition. My hon. Friend will also agree that we are putting record investment into universities and creating record opportunities for students. I am sure that the specific issues that he wants to address will be solved by the new proposals that we are bringing forward—with his support, I hope.

What discussions he has held with (a) the Secretary of State for the Home Department and (b) the National Assembly for Wales Government on future policing funding. [142074]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have regular discussions with colleagues about matters affecting Wales, including future police funding.

I thank the Minister for that very illuminating answer. May I draw his attention to the fact that the district auditor said recently that all police authorities are being—[Interruption.]

Order. The House is far too noisy. It is unfair to the hon. Gentleman.

The district auditor recently reported that central Government are underfunding all police authorities drastically at this time. North Wales police authority is a responsible authority with an excellent work force and record, but it recently received a settlement that was £1.7 million down on last year. That means that it is in considerable difficulty given that it faces a £2 million increase in pension costs and a £3 million increase in staff costs. Will the Minister lend his support to increasing the authority's funding and also put right the misleading line given by the Home Office saying that Airwave would be paid for centrally because a further £330,000 needs to be brought forward for that?

Funding in the police service remains a top priority for the Government—indeed, it has increased by 30 per cent. since 2000 and there will be a 3.25 per cent. increase in the general grant for police services in next year's settlement. It is important to recognise that the Government are committed to investment and reform in the police service. We are putting in a funding increase of 4.2 per cent.—£403 million in cash terms—for 2004–05.

When my hon. Friend meets Home Office Ministers, will he draw their attention to the letter from the chief constable of Gwent about the need to maintain resources so that the high detection rate that Gwent has successfully achieved may be sustained and the fight against crime can continue? Will he also join me in paying tribute to the chief constable, Mr. Keith Turner, on his impending retirement?

I echo the points that my hon. Friend makes about the retiring chief constable of Gwent. He has been a good and able officer who has had a considerable impact on policing in Gwent. Of course, the Government recognise that financial pressures exist and that they vary from one police authority to another. As I said in reply to the previous question, the Government are putting in resources and it is important for the police service to manage them effectively. I certainly urge all members of police authorities to scrutinise carefully the budget and spending proposals put forward by chief constables to ensure that we get value for money.

In the Dyfed-Powys police area, the proportion of the cost of policing that falls on council tax payers has increased from 15 per cent. to 35 per cent. in the past five years due to inadequate police grants. Why do a Labour Government insist on funding local police services through the iniquitous and regressive council tax, which bears most heavily on the lowest paid in society while the rich pay only 1 per cent. of their income?

In truth, the hon. Gentleman will recognise that there have been all sorts of pressures on the police service over recent years. As I said, the Government have put considerable extra funding into the police service throughout the United Kingdom. It is important that those resources are properly husbanded and managed, and I urge police authorities to ensure that they get value for money. When I chaired a local authority finance committee in a previous incarnation, I often had discussions with the police about various aspects of their budget and I was told that I could not question this or that because they were operational matters. I do not accept that. Such matters should be transparent and the public should know exactly what is going on with funding for the police service. The Government are putting in a great deal of extra resources, which should be welcomed. It is important for the police service to husband them and use them to the best of its ability.

What discussions he has had with National Assembly for Wales Secretaries concerning progress in reducing waiting times. [142075]

In the last fortnight, I have met both the First Minister and the Health Minister and discussed waiting times in Wales.

When my right hon. Friend next meets the Health Minister in Wales, will he bring to her attention the excellent chief executive's report on the health service in England, which speaks of increased new capacity, rapidly reducing waiting times and increased choice? Does he agree that one of the great benefits of devolution is that it allows the Governments in Cardiff, Edinburgh, Belfast and London to compare the success of their policies, and that the most successful should be adopted?

I agree that we can learn from each other. My hon. Friend will understand that, under the Labour Government, the health budget in Wales will have doubled by next year compared with what we inherited from the Tories. We are seeing nearly 200,000 more patients than when we took over from the Tories, recruiting more staff, including nurses, consultants and doctors, and building more hospitals—10 new hospitals are being built, compared with 70 closed under the Tories. In addition, waiting times in key areas are decreasing.

If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 10th December.

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.

Does the Prime Minister agree with the conclusions of the Audit Commission that the council tax is "fundamentally flawed" and that this year's increases have a great impact on citizens,

"particularly those on low and fixed incomes",

I do agree that, as the Audit Commission said in the main part of its report, there are fundamental flaws in the council tax system—which was introduced after the poll tax, I think. However, we have put huge additional sums into local government this year, and it is important that councils understand that they have a measure of responsibility.

May I bring to my right hon. friend's attention the excellent work done in schools in my constituency? Perhaps he can find time to pay a visit to one of those schools. However, may I also bring to his attention the dismay felt by heads and parents in my constituency on learning that we were left out of the transitional funding for schools this year? Our schools face a serious financial crisis. Perhaps he can look into the matter—I know that in the past he has taken a personal interest in it—and see what he can do to ensure that our schools have the money that they need to continue to provide high-quality education.

My hon. Friend is right to say that schools in his constituency have had substantial additional investment, and that results in those schools at every level—primary, GCSE and A-level—have improved. However, he has written to me about the difficulties regarding transitional funding, and I assure him that I am looking into the matter.

Is the Prime Minister aware that his Government are spending taxpayers' money advertising his proposals for student funding, including top-up fees, even though, as we all know, there has not been a vote in the House of Commons?

It is important that we bring to people's attention exactly what is going to happen to our universities, but it is also important to recognise that, of course, that can only go through after there has been a debate in this House. I repeat that, every day. the alternatives become clearer: either an abolition of all upfront fees and a fair system of repayment under the Labour party; or, under the right hon. and learned Gentleman's proposals, a huge cut in the number of young people who are able to go to university. He was talking about this subject last week, so I say to him that the more the public look at it, the more they realise that his proposal is elitist, backward and reactionary.

No, no, I am afraid that will not do at all. Let me try again. This was a specific question arising from a radio advertisement—I have the text here, and it says:

"You cough up zip 'til you're blingin'",

Surely, the issue is what is the right policy for the country—(Interruption.] Oh yes, it is.

Order. Let the Prime Minister answer.

The issue is not some radio advertisement—it is what is the right policy for Britain. Let us look at the alternative, which the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not want to do. Either we abolish up-front fees, and all graduates then pay something back under a fair system of repayment, or we end up cutting by 100,000, possibly 250,000, the number of young people going to university. That is the choice that he wants to run away from.

There is a rather important question that the Prime Minister has to answer here. Does he not think that it is just a little presumptuous to start advertising the new student finance policy when 157 of his own Members of Parliament have signed a motion against it? As a result, the Bill has not even been published yet, and the Prime Minister, with his majority of 170, has had to put back the vote.

I will tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman what I think is presumptuous: it is presumptuous is for the Conservative party to say that it is going to cut taxes at the same time that it is going to cut the funding for universities. Let us be clear about this. The Conservatives" policy is not merely to starve the universities of money in future but to make an immediate cut of £500 million a year—he can put me right if I am wrong—which means 100,000 fewer people at university. Instead of debating radio advertisements, let us debate policy.

That is what the Prime Minister thinks about the proper use of taxpayers" money. Let me remind him of his Government's own rules:

"Government publicity for proposals which are, or may become, the subject of legislation in Parliament remains a particularly sensitive area. Until such measures have become law, any Government publicity must neither assume nor anticipate Parliamentary approval."

Let us indeed debate taxpayers" money. There is a very simple choice on student fees—[Interruption.] Oh yes, there is. Conservative Members can try to duck the choice, but they cannot duck it either now or until the next general election. The issue about taxpayers" money is this: either taxpayers pay for all student finance, irrespective of whether they have been to university, or they have our system. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman come clean and accept that his provision means that there will be 100,000 fewer students, and in time a quarter of a million fewer? That is unfair, regressive and reactionary, and we will have nothing to do with it.

rose—

Order. Before the Leader of the Opposition starts, Mr. Fabricant is shouting louder than anyone else—

indicated assent.

Order. The hon. Gentleman is nodding in agreement, but he is out of order. I have told him not to shout—[Interruption.] Order. I am telling the hon. Gentleman not to shout. He is far too near me.

Is the Prime Minister so indifferent to the abuse of taxpayers" money in contravention of his own Government's rules that he is not even prepared to answer this question? If the Minister responsible for that abuse of taxpayers" money is found to have broken those rules, will he resign?

It is unbelievable. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has five questions on the issue of student finance, and not once is he prepared to debate the real choice. It is not about some advertisement but what is the right thing for the future of this country. In our view, it is right to allow young people to go to university if they have the ability, abolish up-front fees and say that there should be a balance between the taxpayer's contribution and a fair system of repayment after graduation. That is our choice. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has an additional question, so let him, just for once, confirm that under his policy the universities would lose £500 million immediately and hundreds of millions of pounds in future, which could be paid for only by cutting student numbers at university.

Does not the Prime Minister's refusal to answer the question show his arrogance, his indifference to the opinions of his own party and his utter contempt for the views of Parliament?

No, because Parliament will make its decision. The question is what is the right decision for the country. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I should have thought that if we are debating university finance, the question is indeed what is the right policy for the country. The right hon. and learned Gentleman can sneer, jeer and make his jibes, but it becomes clearer day by day that when we get down to policy, he has nothing to say about the future of Britain.

Does my right hon. Friend welcome the Joseph Rowntree report published this week, showing reduced poverty in the United Kingdom, but does he share my concern about even the reduced level of child poverty that still persists? How much more can we do to tackle that?

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the progress that the Joseph Rowntree report indicates. With about a million children being helped, there are half a million fewer children in poverty. There have been additional sums in the tax credit system and child benefit, and in the new deal, which has helped many people off benefit and into work. However, he is right to say that we still have more to do. For the first time in a long time, the reduction of poverty and unemployment has become a key Government priority. It is a priority under this Government, but not under the previous Government. My hon. Friend should wait for the announcements of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor shortly.

Will the Prime Minister confirm his Government's parliamentary answers to the Liberal Democrats that if one were to levy a 50p top rate of tax for every pound above £100,000 of income, that would generate £4.7 billion? As he knows from my letter to him this week, we would use that money to stop tuition and top-up fees, introduce fair grants, deliver free personal care and lessen the impact of council tax rises—nothing more, nothing less. The Prime Minister may not agree, but will he confirm that those figures add up?

As I constantly try to say to the right hon. Gentleman, if I had to read out his spending commitments, we would need—[HON. MEMBERS: "Go on."] I can, but not in half an hour of Prime Minister's questions. He has spending commitments that total well over £15 billion. Yes, it is correct that he could raise the money to pay for student finance from a top rate of tax of 50 per cent., but he could not do that and meet all his other spending commitments.

The Prime Minister says that he wants a serious conversation across the country, but he clearly does not want a serious conversation across the Floor of the House. That is why he continues seriously to misrepresent our policies. May I ask him about his policies? In reply to me last week, the Prime Minister said that raising the top rate of tax to 50p on every pound over £100,00 income would be "unfair"—his word—yet under his current proposals, a graduate who earns above £35,000 a year will pay a combined tax rate and loan repayment of 50 per cent. How can that be unfair for those with an income above £100,000, but fair for those earning above £35,000? Justify that, Prime Minister.

I will justify it. The plain fact is that the rate would not be 50 per cent. for those above £100,000, because the right hon. Gentleman's commitments total far more than any sum—[HON. MEMBERS:"No."] Let me read some of his commitments. He cannot be saying that the only spending commitment he has is on student finance. He also has a commitment on the national health service, on the basic state pension—[HON. MEMBERS:"No."] Well, he has. I have looked—

Answer the question.

Order. Mr. Heath, I understand that the Prime Minister is answering the question in his own way.

At the moment, I am answering it in the Liberal Democrat way, because I am reading out spending commitments. There is a £2 billion extra commitment for railways. [Interruption.] They either have these spending commitments or they do not. [Interruption.] Apparently, they do not—so the alternative Budget that they have just produced, which contains more than 40 spending commitments, has now gone as well, has it? I have to say to the right hon. Gentleman that until he gets a serious economic policy, we will not take him seriously on this or anything else.

The Gleadless Valley community in my constituency is very pleased to have a Sure Start scheme. However, there are difficulties in obtaining premises for the scheme, because of some of the regulations that must be met. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that regulations for Sure Start schemes do not prevent these valuable services from coming into communities such as Gleadless Valley?

I am very happy to look into the point that my hon. Friend makes. She will know that Sure Start is now helping 400,000 children in some of the most disadvantaged areas of the country. It has been an immensely successful programme and all the evidence is that it is a good long-term investment for the future of the country. I entirely understand the point that she makes, however, and I will look into it and get back to her with a reply.

According to figures from the House of Commons Library, by next year, and since the Prime Minister's Government came to power, the total tax burden will have risen by a staggering £172 billion. That means that every man, woman and child in this country is paying an average of £3,000 a year more in taxes. [Interruption.] I can give him the figures. but what I wanted to ask him was whether they are correct.

That takes no account of the fact that 1.5 million more people are in work, so of course the tax take goes up. It is like the Tories and their 60 tax rises: if the same computation is used for the Conservatives, the figure was 130 when they were in power. Let us take the £170 billion figure that the hon. Gentleman has just given: when the Conservatives were in power, the figure was £370 billion. Actually, it is all meaningless, because it depends on earnings and the tax take. The real issue is the tax burden, which is less today than in most of the years when his party was in government.

Does my right hon. Friend share my concerns about the activities of loan sharks who exploit the poor and elderly and appear at the doors of the vulnerable bearing gifts on the never-never? Is it not the case that we must exploit these loan sharks and ensure that they do not rip off our poor and vulnerable?

The point that my hon. Friend makes is addressed by the White Paper on consumer credit, which was published earlier this week and amounts to the biggest shake-up in consumer credit for about 30 years. The point to which he draws particular attention has led to the new proposal for powers for the Office of Fair Trading to fine and raid the premises of some of these cowboy lenders, if we can put it that way. Loan sharks do enormous damage to some of the poorest people in the poorest communities in the country. He is right to raise the issue, but we are satisfied that the powers that we announced on Monday will make a significant difference.

Despite the challenging but achievable target of the timetable to which we are working to put an Iraqi face on Iraqi security, does the Prime Minister understand that such operations inevitably fix large numbers of our troops? Will he ensure that the armed forces can recruit to make up the numbers that they require?

First, in case I have not done so before, let me thank the hon. Gentleman for the service that he gave in Iraq, for which the House and the country should be grateful. Secondly, of course the armed forces have to be able to recruit properly. That is one of the reasons why we are increasing defence spending in real terms. If he will allow me, I would simply pay tribute once again to the magnificent work that is being done by British troops in Iraq. I am delighted to say that other countries such as Japan, notwithstanding the terrorist attacks, are also going to provide troops. He is right that the challenging timetable for handover to the Iraqis is difficult, but I remain confident that, in the end, what we will have in Iraq is a stable and prosperous country. That will be a huge boost to the whole middle east, and it will be due in no short measure to the bravery and courage of our armed forces.

The Prime Minister must know that the majority of the public, including the majority of Labour supporters, want a referendum on the outcome of any European constitution. As he is in listening mode at the moment, will he listen to those people?

I will of course listen to people carefully on that. It is, however, important to wait until we get the results of the intergovernmental conference, which, as everyone knows, we hope will be negotiated this weekend, if not in the coming months. I believe that the constitution will protect all the red lines that we have set out, and as I have said on many occasions, the best way to deal with this is through the House of Commons, just as the previous Government did.

In the course of the Prime Minister's big con… versation with the electorate, will he speak to people in the Scottish fishing industry, who see the European Convention strengthening the hold of the disastrous common fisheries policy, or to those in the oil and gas industry, who want the energy chapter to be made a red line issue? The Prime Minister cancelled a visit to Scotland tomorrow in order to deal with a crisis in the Convention. When is he going to start representing Scotland's vital interests in Europe?

The way to represent Scotland's vital interests is to go to the European Council properly to negotiate our positions on issues such as energy, not to peddle the complete deception that withdrawal from the common fisheries policy will somehow help the fisheries industry in Scotland or the UK: it will not, and to say that it will is a cruel deception—but that is not untypical of the hon. Gentleman.

May I tell my right hon. Friend that compensation payments for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and vibration white finger are now reaching mining families and former miners? However, despite the fact that all the legal fees and disbursements in those cases are paid to solicitors by the Department of Trade and Industry, some—I must emphasise that it is a small number—are charging a success fee. Will he look into the matter and take advice on how we might compel those solicitors to repay miners and their families?

First, as my hon. Friend fairly and rightly says, £1.8 billion will soon have been paid out to former miners and their families under the coal health compensation schemes. I know that he would accept, and believe that many of the mining communities accept, that this would never have happened under any Government other than a Labour Government. It has made an enormous difference to those families. He is right, however, that—in a minority of cases, it is fair to say—there has been concern about difficulties with legal representation. I understand that the Law Society has said that it will investigate all cases of that type as a matter of urgency—and there is the power to refer complaints to the legal services ombudsman—but in the light of my hon. friend's question, I will look further into the matter myself.

Does the Prime Minister see any prospect of progress being made in Northern Ireland after the recent Stormont elections? Is he aware that in the meantime, taxpayers—and, no doubt, the Chancellor of the Exchequer—are concerned that those who were successful in those elections are being paid 70 per cent. of their parliamentary salary, although they have no parliamentary duties, and 100 per cent. of their office costs allowance, although they do not have offices? That is costing about £40 million, which seems to be a huge waste of money. How long will the Prime Minister let it go on?

I will let it go on for as long as we can try to get a deal together that saves the institutions and allows Northern Ireland to move forward. I am of course aware that it is an anomaly in the present situation. I hope, however, that the hon. Gentleman recognises the enormous boost that the peace process has given to Northern Ireland, and not least to its economy. When we came into office, Northern Ireland had easily the highest unemployment level of anywhere in the UK—now, it does not, and investment and jobs have poured in. Overall, the peace process has been immensely beneficial. Yes, it is true that the anomaly is there, and obviously it cannot go on for ever in these circumstances, but it is still worth maintaining the current situation to see whether we can find a way through, because in the end that is manifestly in the interests of the people of Northern Ireland and of the UK.

Like many of my generation and background, I did not have the opportunity of going to university, and it therefore never ceases to amaze me that such excitement is generated in this House about university top-up fees. During my right hon. friend's deliberations with the appropriate bodies, will he not forget the many youngsters in all our communities who may not have the necessary qualifications to get into university but are equally important to the long-term prosperity of this country, because they actually produce things that we need?

My hon. Friend makes a very valuable point. It is right that many people need the benefit of good vocational training and of modern apprenticeships, and this Government have implemented a modern apprenticeship programme with 200,000 people in it. It is also important to realise that many people—some from poor backgrounds who are trying to get better skills—will of course have to pay for a certain amount of that themselves. It is important that we have a system that is fair for university students and also fair for people who do not go to university. In the end, this is all about creating a modern, knowledge-based economy in which we have high levels of university education and high levels of vocational skills as well.

If the Prime Minister gets his top-up fees through the House, will he consider the plight of A-level students who started their course this term? They will finish their exams in 2005, but because of the likely introduction of top-up fees in 2006, none of them will take a gap year. Many of them will therefore forgo doing valuable charity work. Worse, this will also create a logjam for university admissions in October 2005. Will the Prime Minister allow those particular students the chance to opt out of top-up fees?

Let me tell the hon. Gentleman two things. First, our proposal is to abolish up-front tuition fees altogether, so students will not be paying the money that they are paying now at all. Secondly, I suggest that he goes back to his constituency and tells his constituents how many of their children would not be able to go to university at all under his proposals.

Does the Prime Minister share my confidence that the recent announcement of job losses by Hoverspeed and P&O Ferries in Dover is a reflection of a short-term downturn in passenger demand, and that there is every prospect of a return to growth? Does he also agree, however, that this only emphasises the urgent need to continue to regenerate the frail economies of east Kent, and that the best way to achieve that would be to extend the new high-speed channel tunnel rail link into Dover, thus connecting one of the busiest cities in Europe to the busiest ferry port in the world?

I know that my hon. Friend has campaigned hard on this issue, and he will know that we are still considering whether services to Dover could use the channel tunnel rail link. The Strategic Rail Authority is also consulting on improving services throughout Kent. His point about unemployment is right. As I have said to him before, I deeply regret the loss of jobs at P&O, but the most important thing is to help people to get new jobs when their jobs are at risk. I hope that the rapid response service is doing all that it can to help people to find alternative employment. He will know that one of the benefits of the sound economic management of the past few years has been that we now have 1.5 million extra jobs in the British economy.

I shall not make a habit of this. but I must say to the Prime Minister that I am very grateful for the settlement for Somerset. It is not adequate, but it will do. Is he aware, however, that the Liberal Democrat-controlled county council is now morally blackmailing the taxpayers of Somerset into deciding what services we want to have cut over the next year? Does he not find it repugnant that a county council should resort to using the web to discuss what services people want cut?

I was not aware of that, but I am now. It will surprise the hon. Gentleman to know that I totally agree with him. It is important that people recognise that, when the Liberal Democrats get into power on any of these councils, the tune that they sing in here—which is "spend, spend, spend" without there ever being a price—is usually reversed into "cut, cut, cut" in the local authorities.

I would like to thank my right hon. Friend for meeting me, my parliamentary colleagues and representatives of those who work with the poorest in our country, at a recent meeting in his office, and for his interest in and commitment to eradicating poverty, especially among children, by 2020. Does he agree that that is in contrast with the scandal of the Conservatives, who doubled child poverty? In Warwickshire, children's centres are now coming into being because of the hard work of the Labour-led Warwickshire county council in delivering the Government's agenda, which is to end this scandal once and for all.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I would like to make one additional point, which is to stress again the importance of the new deal in reducing poverty in this country. About 800,000 people have now been helped by the new deal: lone parents have been helped off benefit into work; long-term unemployment has been cut; and young people who were consigned to the scrap heap and the dole for years under the Conservatives have been able to get a job. That is why any party pledging to scrap the new deal does not have the interests of the poorest in our country at heart.

Returning to higher education, but not tuition fees, is the Prime Minister aware of an anomaly preventing federated universities from encompassing campuses that use a local name? For example, Cardiff must call itself university of Wales, Cardiff, not Cardiff university. Given the organisational and branding implications, will he support a simple amendment to remedy that, which I hope to achieve using my private Member's Bill, without charging him a fee?

The answer that I have to give the hon. Gentleman is not exactly earth-shattering, but here it is. We all want Cardiff to maintain its position as a world-class university. The Secretary of State for Wales will consider any proposals for changes to the constitutions of universities in Wales in his capacity as Privy Councillor.