With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the NHS improvement plan. Almost four years ago, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister came to this House and made a statement to launch the NHS plan. He said then:

"The challenge is to make the NHS once again the health care system that the world … envies."—[Official Report, 27 July 2000; Vol. 354, c. 1261.]

Order.

From a sedentary position, I am being asked what is different from the policy put forward yesterday. I will oblige the House. Let me make it clear that it would be nothing short of hypocrisy to come to the House and promise that greater choice will be open to everyone, while reducing or diverting resources away from the national health service to a privileged few, allowing unlimited waiting times by removing targets and proffering an advantage in access to those with money. That combination would in reality, reduce choice for the many in this country and in practice extend it only to those able to pay the charges outside the NHS in the private sector. That hypocrisy would be precisely the effect of yesterday's proposals from the Conservative party. We will not do that.

Order. The House must come to order.

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for sending me a copy of his statement, but we knew yesterday morning what he intended. He told the "Today" programme that what the NHS needs is "more targets". No one in the NHS tells me that they need more targets. They tell me that they need less bureaucracy, fewer targets, more autonomy and more resources which reach the front line. Today, we have heard the Secretary of State reiterate Labour's pigheaded belief that setting a target is the same as getting things done. It is not. It is the staff in the NHS who get things done. It is the doctors, the nurses—[Interruption.] Is the Minister arguing with me? It is the doctors, the nurses, the professionals in the NHS, the support staff and the managers—[Interruption.]

Order. This is an important statement; we will have some order.

It is the doctors, nurses and professionals, it is the support staff and, indeed, the managers in the NHS who deliver health care. They tell me that targets distort clinical priorities and that red tape and bureaucracy stop them devoting the time that they wish to devote to caring for patients.

"an end to the postcode lottery in the prescribing of cancer drugs",

"7,500 more consultants by 2004",

"we now know the way the target was originally constructed was not as helpful as it could have been".

"old Nightingale wards will be phased out",

"From 2000, when a patient's operation is cancelled"

"another binding date within 28 days",

"firmly committed"—

"to making high quality NHS dentistry available to all who want it by September 2001",

Order. Once again, I implore the House to hear these important statements with some civility.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

"we are admitting a higher proportion of long waiters off the list and the median is rising."

"Traditional waiting lists for surgery will become a thing of the past."

That seems to have had a salutary effect on the hon. Gentleman's audience. In congratulating him on his appearance on the Front Bench, I must say that he was a bit let down by his colleagues. Only 19 of them were present, and one of them, who has now woken up, fell asleep during his contribution.

All managers.

40 new hospitals and 2000 refurbished premises—[Interruption.] I am coming to the comment that the additional staff are all managers. Do not worry. On behalf of the staff, I will not miss the Conservative party and hit the wall on that question. If after all those injections of capacity we are still so short, does not that show how dilapidated the NHS was under the Conservative Government?

I thank the Secretary of State for the courtesy of allowing me a chance to see his statement and the White Paper before he rose this afternoon.

I shall respond as briefly as I can. The question of choice goes much wider than hospitals. It is about giving people power. We all know that in the real world there are some people in this country who get choice. There are people outside the NHS who have money. They can get choices that are not available, or have not been until now, to others. Within the NHS there are people who might have connections, influence, a degree of affluence, relations, knowledge and social capital that others do not have, which informally gives them choice.

I warmly commend the Secretary of State on his statement and the Government's positive progress in health policy. I have been concerned over the past few years about the increasing consensus between the two major parties on a range of policy issues, including health. I am delighted that at the end of this week there is clear distance between them, on which I commend the Government. I should also like to commend the Opposition, because their policies are extremely helpful to the Labour party.

It is no longer the case that when someone goes into the independent sector they will automatically be seen by someone who also works for the NHS. Some of our actions—incidentally, they brought a new efficiency to private sector services, for which there was previously an unlimited demand because of rising waiting lists—have resulted in the introduction of additional assets in the form of treatment centres staffed by the best clinicians from the United States, South Africa, and Germany. In their own countries, those people provide the best health care only to the rich but they are now here to assist and add capacity to the NHS by providing services that are free at the point of need. That supplements the NHS and is not a substitute for it, and I hope that all Labour Members accept that.

rose—

Order. Many Members are hoping to catch my eye, so I ask for brief comments, questions and responses, so that more of them are successful.

Does the Secretary of State not accept that all waiting times are personal, as they affect individuals? I failed to discover from his statement whether he could meet the considerable concern about the amount of bureaucracy, control from the centre and the fact that people are not free enough, which would allow my constituents to know that they would not have to wait six months to get a hearing aid, would not have to raise private money to provide accommodation for children with diabetes in Ipswich hospital, and would no longer have to wait on trolleys all day in hospital, which is a current issue. Can he explain how he will stop centralisation and enable people to make those decisions locally?

If I may say so without ruining the right hon. Gentleman's career, those are sensible points, and I agree with all of them. If people are waiting on trolleys all day that is not acceptable, so I urge him to contact me about that.

I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, unlike the Opposition spokesmen, who behaved disgracefully while he was making it. As my right hon. Friend knows, most people's contact with the national health service is with their GP, so what does he propose to offer GPs so that they can improve and expand local services at their surgeries?

The first, best and most important contact is in primary care, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), the Chairman of the Select Committee on Health, said. We have already extended choice in that sector, as I can demonstrate. A few years ago, a mother whose child was coughing late at night could not visit a walk-in centre where an appointment is not needed. She could not pick up the phone and ask for advice from NHS Direct, as 6.3 million people did last year. She could not go to accident and emergency and be seen within four hours. All those options are now available, quite apart from someone being able to see their doctor or a nurse practitioner within two days. We are therefore opening up the sector but, in addition, we have a new contract for doctors that encourages them to expand in an entrepreneurial fashion by bringing in chiropodists, nurse practitioners, and physiotherapists at primary care rather than hospital level. We have increased primary care funding for doctors by 33.3 per cent., which represents a genuine advance, and shows that we are taking radical action for everyone's benefit.

A constituent of mine told me yesterday about his appalling experiences after he was diagnosed with cancer two years ago at a London hospital. His CAT scans went missing several times, his notes were mixed up with those of another patient, and his consultant's demand that he be treated immediately was ignored by administrative staff. Is that not the result of poor-quality management and administrative incompetence, which are also the principal cause of the spread of MRSA and high levels of waste in the NHS? How will the Secretary of State's announcement today tackle the deep-rooted management problem in the NHS? Will not policies such as foundation hospitals, which increase the diffuse nature of accountability in the NHS, do nothing to bring about high quality modern management methods?

The hon. Gentleman will forgive me if, after yesterday, I do not attempt to respond to the accuracy or otherwise of what he claims he was told by someone else who is a constituent. Yesterday should be a lesson to all of us, as the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) said, not to use constituency cases, especially when we have not checked the facts against what we are told for propaganda purposes.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on bringing forward the fruits of investment, which the Conservative Opposition have traditionally opposed, and reform, which the Liberal party has traditionally opposed. My right hon. Friend has brought those fruits to us in England, but will he do all he can to encourage a situation that allows his constituents, my constituents and perhaps the family of Madam Deputy Speaker also to benefit?

I am always willing to help when asked. Wherever people are—England, Scotland or Wales—there will be a choice at the next general election between two philosophies as regards the national health service. One of them believes in continuing investment for the 95 per cent. of the population who are dependent upon it, continuing reform and efficiency, greater output driven not only by the staff, but by objectives such as any business would have, decreased waiting times, and greater choice in real terms. The philosophy of the other party would offer the old theoretical choice that we all have—of dining at the Ritz, were it not for the fact that we were too skint to do so. The Opposition would divert money away from the NHS to the minority to help the relatively rich jump the queue, they would reduce capacity and, above all, they would introduce the right to charge. That seems to me a pretty clear choice.

I welcome the Minister's commitment to fairness and equity and the NHS being free at the point of delivery, but that is all very well unless one happens to be old. He said little about choice in long-term care, and little about the fact that people have to supplement that care from their own pockets. What do the old look forward to? Would it be better to provide free personal care for the elderly?

It is a little unfair to say that I said nothing about the elderly or chronic care. I did speak about chronic care. On personal care, let us be quite straight. We have made a decision in this country that there will be free medical care for everyone, and that in the vast majority of cases there will also be free personal care. About 30 per cent. of people who are the better-off have to contribute towards their own personal care, not medical care. If we were to say that everyone including the best-off in Britain—including millionaires—would also get free personal care, it would cost us £1.7 billion, which we would have to take from elsewhere. We have made a decision, consistent with our priorities, that it is better to allocate that to those who cannot afford the medical and the personal care. That is a judgment that we have made.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the most important decision taken by the Government in the past two or three years was the brave decision to increase national insurance by 1 per cent. in order to ensure that we had the wherewithal to make the massive improvements that we have made in health and to make even greater improvements in the future? May I also inform him that I am pleased that there is a manager in the national health service—the Opposition call it red tape—who sends me a letter to go for a cancer check-up every six months? I am pleased that he is a manager looking after me. As for being a target, yes, I am pleased to be a target when I go for another treadmill test in order to look after my heart. In an era when technology is so important in the health service, we do not see all the people who are helping us dressed in white uniforms. In all the policies that we present, we have to please people and persuade them, but with the national health service, we must please, persuade and inspire. That is what we are doing today.

That is certainly what my hon. Friend did, as he always does, to me. If we were looking for the living embodiment of the huge benefits that the NHS brings to the country, we could not find a national treasure comparable with my hon. Friend. He is right about inspiration. Let us remember when this country decided that everyone, irrespective of their background or their money, would be an equal partner in the fight against that great disease. It was after everyone in this country, irrespective of their background, had fought against the great evil of fascism on the continent, when the country was on the verge of bankruptcy and after it had come through six long years of war. If we could afford a system that gave everyone in the country health care irrespective of the money in their pocket at a time of such difficult circumstances, surely to God everyone in the country apart from those on the Opposition Front Bench believes that we can provide it in this century as well.

My constituents in Chesham and Amersham will not be impressed by the self-congratulatory statistics trumpeted by the Secretary of State, not least because they get 18 per cent. less per head than the average funding in the national health service. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be grateful to me, as I shall give him an opportunity today to put his money where his mouth is. He will be familiar with the National Society for Epilepsy in my constituency, which looks after people in the NHS from across the country who have a chronic and long-term medical condition—epilepsy. The NSE does not have the money to modernise its care homes. If the Secretary of State really means that he will provide those people with the personalised support and care that they need and deserve in order for them to live fulfilling lives, and that he will make that a priority, as he said in his statement, will he now agree to fully fund the Government-required upgrades at the entire site of the National Society for Epilepsy? When can I tell the chief executive that he can expect the cheque for £17 million?

First, whatever the hon. Lady thought about the deficiencies of what I said. I hope that at least she welcomes the fact that I prioritised chronic care in terms of people and resources and gave it the attention that it should receive. I do not blame her at all for raising one specific charitable cause and asking me to agree immediately to pay that £17 million. I know she will understand if I do not give her an instant decision on that. I look forward to even closer work between the state sector and the charitable sector. I know that the National Society for Epilepsy and others do a huge amount of good. I do not know the details of the case, but I hope she will write to me about it. I will demur from making a rash decision. We have had enough cobbled-together decisions from the Opposition Front Bench in the past few days without my making a sudden one before giving the matter the fullest consideration.

The health service is now improving dramatically, and if we can avoid the idiocies of the Conservative party, it will continue to do so. I was interested in what my right hon. Friend said about giving guarantees to patients on waiting times. Can he tell us exactly what he means by guarantees in that context and what will happen if the guarantees are not met?

What I mean is that we already have plans, from December next year, at the point of referral, which is when a patient goes to the doctor, to put in the technology, establish the rights and customs and put in the resources to ensure that people are not simply told, "You will go to your local hospital, but go home; it will write to you in due course, perhaps in a week or a month, to tell you when you will go." We have already established a system in which people will be given not only a degree of choice—a choice between four other hospitals or treatment centres apart from their own—but an ability to book online at their convenience a time and date that is most convenient to them. We are going to retain that arrangement, but in addition, by 2008—we will be able to have the IT in place by that time—people will be able to get rough information about other hospitals and treatment centres throughout the country to enable them to say that they want to go somewhere else in England.

I am sure that the Secretary of State will agree that hon. Members in all parts of the House have shown total commitment to the health service. With that in mind, I wish to follow up the point raised by the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) in respect of chronic and long-term medical conditions. Will the Secretary of State give the House a commitment that the Government will look at funding long-term chronic conditions and that they will not expect people to pay either in full or in part when they have diseases such as Alzheimer's, and also not expect them to he charged by social services when they need to go into a nursing home for ongoing care and treatment? That is critical. The situation has been neglected by successive Governments, and I believe that it is an injustice that needs to be rectified.

First, I understand that some people in all parts of the House are committed to the national health service. I do not question that, although it applies to some people, not all. Secondly, I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes and the passion and sincerity with which he makes it. It is a difficult choice. Of course, I would not want it to be thought that we do nothing for the chronically ill, and I have made further announcements today in that regard. We help with social work costs, and the idea of the community matrons—I mentioned that there will be 3,000 additional ones—is to help people to stay at home rather than go into homes. We pay all the medical care and, for about 70 per cent. of people—I speak from memory—all the personal care. We try to make that distinction at the same time as using the money efficiently in allocating the £1.7 billion that would otherwise be spent in giving everyone free personal care. We think that we are making the right decision. I do not pretend that it is an easy judgment. Of course, we keep it under review every time we look at expenditure, but I cannot tell him today that we are going to change the position.

I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, which I believe was powerful and persuasive. In particular, I see community matrons as an excellent innovation, but I am seeking reassurance. Labour's 2001 manifesto stated:

"We will give more patients choice."

I can absolutely give my hon. Friend that assurance. Those of us on the Labour Benches have known too well over the decades how the incantation of "We are all free to choose to buy a Rolls-Royce" and the theoretical freedoms that are always espoused on the Conservative Benches mean nothing if we do not have the means to exercise that choice. Indeed, the whole mission of the party in which I was brought up was converting that theoretical choice for the many into real choice by giving decent wages and public provision. That will be the case. We will not introduce charges, unlike the Opposition. What we will do is take the public services, which are already fair, and make them more personal by building them around the convenience of today's individuals.

The Secretary of State has referred time and again to the national health service and to England, Scotland and Wales. Has he consulted his colleague who deals with the health service in Northern Ireland, bearing in mind that some of the specialist units have to be located in England or elsewhere other than Northern Ireland because its population is too small?

The hon. Gentleman will allow me to explain that the only reason why I did not mention Northern Ireland and referred to Scotland, Wales and England was that I was speaking in the context of a choice between the Conservative and the Labour parties. He would not want me to misportray the important role that he and his party play in Northern Ireland. Of course, the facilities that are used here and extended to the people of Northern Ireland will continue. We keep in close touch with the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Angela Smith). The last point is a matter for her, but I will see that we bring to her attention the fact that the hon. Gentleman has raised it today.

On the subject of choice, is it not clear that there are now two visions for the national health service in this country? When people reflect on those two visions, the choice of the nation will be the vision espoused in my right hon. Friend's excellent statement.

I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. Indeed, I think that the Minister of State, Department of Health, my right hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), has begun to look at some of those matters, and he will be happy to continue his discussions with my hon. Friend.

Despite the best efforts of the East Cheshire NHS trust, which serves my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton), some of my elderly constituents face very long waits for the fitting of digital hearing aids. Will the Secretary of State allow those constituents to go to other hospitals in the region that might be able to fit such hearing aids sooner and greatly improve their quality of life?

We have made progress, but I note what the hon. Gentleman says. We are investing more money on this matter. While such hearing aids were technologically available under the previous Government, they were not available in practice because the money was not there to get them. Any delay for someone in such a distressing position is a bad thing, and we will try to look at what we can do to speed up the process. What he cannot do, however, is one day demand more efficient production of more equipment by more people in the NHS, and then tell us the next day that the Conservatives are going to take out £1.5 billion to help the relatively well-off to jump the queue.

At a recent consultation with the families and friends of chaotic drug users, the top recommendation on the treatment and care of such drug users was more targets. Not only those who work in the service, but those who use the service recognise that targets are an important driver in improving services. Does my right hon. Friend agree that those who advocate an alternative to targets are making a huge mistake?

Absolutely. No one was surprised when the Conservative party introduced incompetent and unjust proposals, and no one expected those proposals to be competent and fair. Those of us who remember the claims that the Conservative party used to make thought that its plan might encourage efficiency, but when it abandoned the drive for efficiency and reform through targets to match the big investment in the public sector, and announced that it would subsidise with public money anybody to pay any price whatsoever in the private sector, without regard to limitation or efficiency, it abandoned any pretence of being a serious contender to form the Government of this country.

We have heard little about psychiatric care, other than the important topic of Alzheimer's. Good psychiatric care can transform an individual's life, but excessive delays and a lack of resources can be disastrous for individuals and for those around them. Far too many problems occur in my constituency because of delays and a lack of resources. What hope can the Secretary of State give to me and to my constituents in Guildford that improvements will be made?

For a start, we are putting in more resources and more money, but I will not pretend that instant solutions are available in psychiatric care, dentistry and one or two other areas. Last night, I was amazed when the Leader of the Opposition revealed to the assembled world that, if he waves his magic wand, waiting lists will somehow disappear, meaning that nobody would ever have to wait for anything. Indeed, under the Leader of the Opposition, people would be operated on before they were ill in order to avoid any Form of waiting list. I cannot make such promises, but I can promise greater resources and more personnel. It is difficult to recruit psychiatrists and psychologists, but we are minded to do so and mental health care is a priority.

Order.

Oh.

Order. The Select Committee stated one hour; I have allowed an hour and 10 minutes. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should examine the Select Committee's recommendations before he mutters and complains.

With permission, I shall make a statement about the business for next week.

I thank the Leader of the House for the business and apologise to him for the unavoidable absence of my hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House, who is, as the Leader of the House knows, on important House of Commons Commission business and, despite his strenuous attempts, simply cannot be here.

I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new position. I fully understand the important duties that the shadow Leader of the House is undertaking, and we all accept his explanation.

Oh please.

The former shadow Leader of the House shouts out in his normal fashion, but I suggest that he makes that comment to Lord Butler, with more courtesy than he uses towards me.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that opinion polling and the opinion polling industry are of central concern in a modern parliamentary democracy? Can he help me in my attempts to hold a debate on the opinion polling industry in the Chamber or at least in Westminster Hall? I have spent three weeks trying, with great help from the Speaker's Office, to get a Department to take responsibility for that. The Department of Trade and Industry passes the matter to the Department for Constitutional Affairs, which passes it back. I am not getting anywhere. Will my right hon. Friend intervene and bang some heads together so that the important subject is debated at an early date?

I acknowledge my hon. Friend's expert ferreting on opinion polls. He has developed a powerful case, which everybody needs to answer, about the role of opinion polls and their regulation, especially during election periods. The more he is encouraged to pursue that, the more everybody involved, including opinion poll companies, will have to respond to his points.

We greatly welcome the debate on Zimbabwe. Will the Leader of the House guarantee clarification of the Government's position on sporting links, especially cricket tours, including one-day fixtures? In his radical, Liberal days, the Leader of the House took a strong view on the extent to which such connections can give apparent support and endorsement to dictatorial regimes. I hope that he agrees that that remains an important issue. On 6 May, my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) and I raised the matter with him. My hon. Friend said that we should seek

"an opportunity for all parties in the House to join together to pressure the International Cricket Council to change its rules to allow the cancellation of such tours on the ground of moral issues, without fines being imposed".

"I am at one with the hon. Gentleman on this. Undoubtedly, the villain of the piece at present is not just Robert Mugabe's despotic regime, but the way in which the ICC is turning a blind eye to that."—[Official Report, 6 May 2004; Vol. 420, c. 1503.]

"I am not persuaded to lobby the ICC to change their rules so that moral issues can be a legitimate reason for tour cancellation."

Government policy on voting and whipping on the Human Tissue Bill remains unchanged.

Did my right hon. Friend read an article in one of yesterday's papers, entitled, "Women fight late nights for MPs"? It refers to correspondence that was sent to members of the Modernisation Committee for yesterday's private session. In the article, the shadow Leader of the House, who is a member of the Committee, makes a party political point. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is a sorry state of affairs when papers are leaked, without the correspondents being informed, from a Committee, one of the aims of which is to re-establish the reputation of Parliament? Does he also agree that leaking documents from Select Committees is a breach of parliamentary standards, does nothing to enhance Parliament's reputation and is a serious matter?

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. I regret that the papers that the Modernisation Committee was due to discuss yesterday were made available to The Daily Telegraph on the previous day by, I have been informed, at least one Conservative member of the Select Committee. "Erskine May" makes it clear:

"Once received by the Committee as evidence, papers prepared for a Committee become its property and may not be published without the express authority of the Committee."

You will know, Mr. Speaker, that some important new clauses are up for discussion on Monday, including one that I tabled on transplants. I hope that you will be inclined to select it for debate. Is the Leader of the House sure that we shall have enough time for the important debate, given that he has tabled other business for Monday?

Yes, I am confident that there will be enough time.

The Leader of the House will have noted the generosity of the Chair in allowing time for discussion on the national health service improvement plan. Given the interest in the subject in the country and in all parties, will he consider allowing time for a full parliamentary debate on it, especially on some of the representations that the Secretary of Health will receive from the Conservative party? Hon. Members could then examine in detail the consequences for the NHS of providing a £1 billion-plus subsidy for those who are already sufficiently wealthy to have private medical care.

I should love to find an opportunity, in a compressed business timetable, for such a debate. It will be interesting to note whether the Opposition use any of their time for it. I believe that they will become increasingly shy about their intention to rob the NHS of £1 billion. That means £1 billion-worth of doctors, nurses, consultants, beds and hospitals in the NHS. The money will be used to allow those who can already afford to go private to have a subsidy and take it to a private hospital. That policy will mean the cuts, privatisation and charges in the NHS for which the Conservatives have become renowned.

May I tempt the Leader of the House to comment a little more on the timing of the EU constitution measure? He told us that the process known as toilettage will last at least until October, that the Bill may be in the Queen's Speech and will not receive Royal Assent until well into 2005. Does that imply that the referendum will not take place until the following year? That means that we cannot flush the EU constitution down the toilette until 2006.

I have explained the situation fully to the House on a number of occasions, but perhaps I should remind the right hon. Gentleman of what he has said about the European constitutional treaty. He said:

"With hindsight the European Union is not acceptable since we joined … The whole thing was probably a mistake".

"The process of renegotiation is a precursor to withdrawal".

A slow train?

Well, if the right hon. Gentleman became Leader of the Opposition, it would be a fast train out of the European Union.

Given that the commitment to allow people in the regions their say over whether to establish regional assemblies was in the Government's manifesto both in 1997 and in 2001, does my right hon. Friend agree that, rather than those referendums being rushed through, they have actually taken a more leisurely route than many of us would have liked? Will he assure us that there will be no slippage, either in the draft powers Bill that is supposed to be published soon, or in the holding of the referendums, whatever voting system is used?

I applaud my right hon. Friend's forthright support for a north-east regional assembly, and her eloquent advocacy on its behalf. I want to reassure her that Parliament needs to approve the necessary orders to trigger the assembly elections, so as to allow adequate campaigning periods and the timely distribution of public information in line with the autumn timetable. Three such orders have been laid today, which are subject to an affirmative resolution. The Government will shortly be laying a further order, which will set the date of the referendums, and the local government options to be put to the voters in two-tier local government areas. I think that my right hon. Friend can be reassured about that.

In April 2003, a constituent of mine in Carrickfergus received unsolicited mail regarding Government policy on Iraq from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, which apparently acknowledged a letter that he was purported to have sent. My constituent wrote to the sender, S. M. McHugh of the middle east department, on 22 April, and then to the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary on 2 September 2003, asking for the alleged letter to be removed from the record and not attributed to him. He was concerned because the postscript to the letter that he had received stated:

"The Foreign and Commonwealth Office holds and uses data … Such personal data may be disclosed to other UK Government Departments and public authorities."

Obviously, I am not sighted of any of those details. I make no complaint about that; the hon. Gentleman has raised this matter quite properly, and I am sure that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and particularly the Foreign Secretary's office, will want to investigate the points that he has raised.

May I remind my right hon. Friend that, in October last year, the United Nations General Assembly unanimously adopted a resolution on the Olympic truce, with the support of the United Kingdom? Since 1992, when the truce was revived, it has had some success—for example, during the winter Olympics in Lillehammer, when a ceasefire was negotiated in Sarajevo to allow the inoculation of all the children from both sides in that terrible conflict. With the Olympic torch passing through the United Kingdom this weekend, does my right hon. Friend agree that this would be an apposite time for us to consider, in a debate in the House of Commons, what we can do to support the Olympic truce?

I very much endorse the sentiments of my hon. Friend and the way in which he has made his point. He has the opportunity to apply for a private Member's debate in the normal way.

Reverting to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff), was not the real reason why the Leader of the House cannot give us a date for the comprehensive spending review statement published in the papers yesterday, namely that the Chancellor remains in serious disagreement with his colleagues and the statement has been postponed? Will the Leader of the House promise that, whenever we have the statement, we shall have a full day's debate in Government time before we rise, so that the House can examine whether the Chancellor's sums actually add up?

I completely reject the right hon. Gentleman's assertion that the statement has been postponed. No date has been fixed, and no firm date has been discussed either with me or with other business managers. As that has not happened, it could not, by definition, have been postponed. On the question of a full day's debate, we are seeking to find time in the business programme for a debate following the comprehensive spending review, and we shall see what time can be allocated to that. In principle, both the Chancellor and I are at one in seeking an opportunity to examine the review in detail and, in the course of so doing, no doubt to embarrass the Conservative Opposition Front Bench even more than we already have, thanks to Labour's excellent economic record.

Some newspapers in this country carry a corrections and clarifications column. Will my right hon. Friend find a 15-minute slot each week so that hon. Members can come to the House to correct any comments that they might have made in the House? I am particularly concerned that, yesterday, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) asserted that a constituent had a 20-month wait for cancer treatment, when the national health service trust in question has stated that nobody waits longer than 14 weeks. Whether that comment was made deliberately or inadvertently, would not such a slot provide an appropriate opportunity for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to come and apologise to the House?

I fear that 15 minutes would not be long enough for all the apologies that the Leader of the Opposition needs to make to the House, not only for the appallingly irresponsible use of that case yesterday but for the consistent way in which he comes to the House every week and takes an opportunistic line, yet is nowhere to be seen when it comes to pursuing it the week after. The same applies to his appearances in the media, so we should need rather more than 15 minutes in his case.

The Leader of the House hinted that there would be debates either next week or the following week on the NHS improvement plan, which was the subject of the statement earlier in which the Secretary of State said that

"no one will gain unfair advantage in medical treatment because of their financial position."

I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman has been correctly informed about the debate that he mentioned. The important point here is that, under Labour, there have been 450,000 more NHS operations each year than there were under the Conservatives. That is the key. Under Labour, the private sector is clearly experiencing great difficulty now because the NHS is becoming better and better, and is therefore offering a much more competitive alternative to those who, for one reason or another—particularly during the Conservative years and as a result of their legacy—chose to go private because they were not getting decent treatment under the NHS.

May we have a debate on the music industry, and in particular on the very welcome development of legal downloading services available on the internet? Is it not the case, however, that such services will not be taken up if they are not available at a reasonable price to the consumer? Will my right hon. Friend ask his colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry and, perhaps, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to look into why British consumers have to pay more to download tunes from Apple's iTunes service on the internet than people in continental Europe or the United States?

I am not sure that I understood all that, but it sounded very convincing. May I just say that I hope that Cliff Richard's songs will feature prominently in any downloading of music from the internet? The Leader of the Commons is right behind Tony Blackburn in his choice of music.

May we have a proper debate about how our immigration policy is being applied across the constituent parts of the United Kingdom? Something clearly is not working. A young constituent of mine, Miss Jemimah Speed, is an Australian citizen who has been forced out of Scotland even though she very much wants to stay there. She has a job with prospects and is even planning to marry. In fact, she is an ideal candidate for the Scottish Executive's fresh talent initiative to get people back to an underpopulated Scotland. Will the Leader of the House look into this case, and do what he can to encourage the Home Office to allow us in Scotland to attract and retain people such as Jemimah Speed?

Obviously, the Home Secretary will want to examine the case closely. When the hon. Gentleman talks about fresh talent, I assume that he is searching desperately for fresh talent in the Scottish National party after losing its leader.

Will the Leader of the House arrange for an urgent debate on financing for development? That would give the opportunity, during these last few days when decisions on the comprehensive spending review are being taken, for the more than 200 MPs who signed the early-day motion calling for a timetable for us to achieve the target to spend 0.7 per cent. of our income on international aid, which was agreed 34 years ago, to put not only the moral and political case but the case that it is affordable. Millions of people in the third world who are seeing their relatives die from lack of water, food and basic health services cannot afford for us not to reach that target.

The whole Government are seeking to reach that target. The Chancellor and the Secretary of State for International Development are among the most well respected international champions of support for the poorest countries of the globe. The Labour Government have led the campaign to lift the burden of debt off the poorest countries, of which we can be proud. We have also been responsible for doubling the overseas aid and development budget in real terms, from the desperate situation that we inherited from the Opposition. We are getting there, and I know that the Chancellor will have noted my hon. Friend's comments carefully.

May I reiterate a request that I made prior to the Whitsun recess for a debate in Government time on failures in the Royal Mail's delivery network? Since the changeover to the single delivery system, there has been a range of operational problems around the country. A recent "Panorama" documentary highlighted just how much mail has gone missing and the vulnerability of the new system even to fraud. That affects Members on both sides of the House and it is a serious problem. As the Government own Royal Mail, they have a moral duty to allow the House to debate this serious matter before the House rises for the summer recess.

The hon. Gentleman has the opportunity to apply for a debate in the normal way. He will understand, however, that while we have all experienced difficulties from time to time, and the Royal Mail managers, the trade union concerned and the workers are anxious to improve the quality of service—because we and all our local postmen and women take pride in the service that they seek to achieve—the Royal Mail is responsible for delivering 85 million letters a day. We should concentrate on its fantastic achievements as well as remedying its shortfalls and defects, as everybody, including the Government, is determined to do.

During Second Reading of the Human Tissue Bill, Members on both sides of the House, although the majority were Labour Members, explained how they were looking forward to a proper debate on the question of an opt-in or opt-out system for transplantation. On Monday, on Report, an all-party amendment is to be tabled on that issue. It is a true conscience issue and a matter of life and death for people on transplant waiting lists. My question, of which I gave the right hon. Gentleman notice, is: given that there are strongly held views on both sides, what possible justification can there be for the Government to impose a three-line Whip on the Labour party, which would force scores of his colleagues to go back on how they voted on the measure when it was in a private Member's Bill promoted by the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer)? Is it that the Government are worried about losing the argument, or that they cannot make an argument, or is it simple control freakery?

I was going to answer the hon. Gentleman's question much more sympathetically than his last comments have allowed me to do. It is nothing to do with control freakery, and I am sure that he will regret those remarks—

I might withdraw them in that case.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I understand his position, and the different position of many Members on both sides of the House who may honourably disagree. I emphasise that Government policy remains that presumed consent has no place in the Bill. It is a Government Bill, however: we are responsible, and it has been subject to a great deal of consultation and scrutiny in the other place, which will also take place in the House of Commons. It is important that the Bill proceeds.

Will my right hon. Friend organise a debate on industrial investment, job creation, and the role of Government offices for the regions in that? In that debate, I could discuss the excellent news that Polestar, the largest printing company in Europe, has planning permission to invest £100 million in a new factory in my constituency, creating around 1,000 jobs. That shows the resurgence of the Sheffield economy under a Labour Government and a Labour council. The planning department of Sheffield city council has worked tirelessly on this matter and the Department of Trade and Industry has been supportive, but right at the last minute the Government office for Yorkshire and the Humber has intervened with a section 14 stop notice that prevents the development going ahead on the grounds of some basic, spurious environmental objections, even though the regional officer has known about the proposal from its inception. I want that intervention by the Government office for Yorkshire and the Humber to be subject to the strongest parliamentary scrutiny, because my view is that its work should be to assist developments of this kind, not obstruct them.

I can well understand my hon. Friend's concern about this important project. The Secretary of State has been asked by a third party to consider directing that an environmental impact assessment be prepared in respect of the planning application involving Polestar. The relevant papers were received by the Government office today, and I assure him that a decision will be made as soon as possible. In view of the statutory requirements incumbent on the Secretary of State in this case to fully consider the request made, it is not appropriate for me to comment further on the request or the scheme involved.

May I ask the Leader of the House, who is also, of course, the Secretary of State for Wales, whether we can have an urgent debate on discrimination and prejudice faced by the Gypsy, Romany and travelling community in Wales, and particularly the use of that discrimination by political parties to whip up feelings against that community? I refer him to an awful and disgraceful leaflet published in Cardiff recently that alleged that a vote cast for the Liberal Democrats would bring more Travellers and Gypsies into Cardiff. That breaks every code, including the code of conduct to which all political parties are signed up with the Commission for Racial Equality. Unfortunately, that leaflet was published by his party, the Labour party. Perhaps a debate could clarify the issue and allow him to condemn his party for producing such an awful, disgraceful leaflet.

I am not seeking to defend that leaflet any more than the hon. Gentleman, I am sure, would defend a leaflet that circulated in Cardiff either in the name of his party or that of the Liberal Democrats, which had a picture of Lynndie England with a whip, and an Iraqi prisoner being subject to abuse, saying, "This is what you get if you vote Labour". I cannot recollect whether it was his party or the Liberal Democrats. Whichever party was responsible, it should apologise, too. The last day for tabling questions for Wales questions is Tuesday. He may want to take advantage of that.

Yesterday's reference in this Chamber to a 20-month wait for cancer treatment prompted a constituent of mine from Bungay in Suffolk, who was a cancer patient last year, to contact me. His experience was that within seven days of seeing his GP he was seen by a specialist, and seven weeks after he went to see his GP he had an operation, and he had a second operation three weeks later. This is not a false statement but a true case and, I believe, a much truer reflection of the national health service—a national health service that is not failing people but succeeding for the majority of people in this country thanks to the investment and reform of the Government. May we have a debate on this matter so that the true state of the national health service can become even clearer?

Again, I would love to have such a debate, and I will certainly examine the opportunities for doing so. Under the policy announced by the Secretary of State, the maximum waiting time by 2008 will be 18 weeks, compared with 18 months and more under the Conservatives. Patients are getting a better and better deal, month by month and year by year, as the investment pours in under Labour. Under Labour, there is a right to choose decent health care. Under the Tories, there is a right to be charged for it. That is the choice.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Given that it is now abundantly clear that the Leader of the Opposition grossly misled the House yesterday at Prime Minister's Question Time—

Order. Neither the Leader of the Opposition nor any other Member would grossly mislead the House.

Apparently misled.

Order. Inadvertently.

Inadvertently. It may well have been inadvertent, Mr. Speaker. I pass no judgment on that. What I want to know is whether the Leader of the Opposition has a message for your Office to apologise not only to the House for misleading it but to the people who work in the national health service in his area.

That is not a matter for the Chair.