What assessment he has made of the impact on the membership of North-West Leicestershire parish councils of the implementation of the new codes of conduct and registers of interest. [64154]

Local government at all levels, including parishes, will be strengthened by the new code of conduct and register of interests that we are introducing. By aiming for higher standards in local councils, the Government hope that public confidence in and respect for the valuable work of councillors will be increased.

Although the Government's policies for parish councils appear broadly well-intentioned, their requirements on registration of interests seem over the top for smaller authorities. Where, for example, parish councillors such as my fellow parish councillors in Appleby Magna, Kegworth, Measham, Snarestone and Swannington decline to sign and resign, are we not losing a wealth of experience and commitment? Does my hon. Friend agree that the present code is more rigorous for councillors in communities of 600 with a budget of £4,000 than it is for Ministers in a country of 60 million with Government budgets of more than £400,000 million? Is that not rather perverse for those of us who are parish councillors and unaccountably not yet Ministers?

I am not sure that my hon. Friend has interpreted the code of conduct and the register of interests requirements accurately. I believe that it is a fundamental principle of democratic accountability that elected positions should carry a requirement to adhere to standing lists of registers of interests. That is fundamental for local communities that are concerned about where their elected representatives make decisions, and it is the right and proper step to take, not least because it came out of a recommendation from the Committee on Standards in Public Life.

I welcome the Minister to his new post. Like everyone else, he is well aware that this disproportionate code will affect not only the parish councillors in North-West Leicestershire but all parish councillors, whose financial interests and those of their wives, of their children—even of their nephews' wives—will have to be declared. That is wholly disproportionate, and a monstrous slur on our fellow citizens who give of their time voluntarily to help their communities. Will the Minister, even at this stage, exempt small parish councils with a precept of under £5,000 from these excessively burdensome proposals?

No, because I believe that the requirements in the code of conduct and the ethical framework for councillors and those holding elected offices, which I am slightly surprised the hon. Gentleman is opposing. are perfectly fair and not at all onerous. I recommend him to read the details again. They affect only those matters relating to official duties. I seriously believe that, as a fundamental democratic principle of accountability, we need a system whereby relevant interests are declared and a register is available for communities to see. It is important that that should apply to councillors at all levels when making decisions that affect local communities.

How area-based studies are being used in the social exclusion unit's inquiries. [64155]

Area-based studies are currently being used in two social exclusion unit projects to identify examples of good practice and gaps in local services; to analyse the likely impact of policies at community level; and to include front-line workers and local people in that policy process.

Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that, although absolute poverty is a good indicator of social exclusion, it is also important to consider inequity within an area? May I draw his attention to the fact that Woughton ward in Milton Keynes, which is one of the 10 per cent. most deprived wards in England, has an index of multiple deprivation of 6.8 and is adjacent to a ward with an index of 66? Does he agree that such inequities deepen the sense of social exclusion? Will he assure me that his Department will take that into account in further studies on social exclusion?

My hon. Friend makes a good point. The index of multiple deprivation identifies the problem at ward level. We are working on a new neighbourhood statistics programme at sub-ward level, which will be helpful. We constantly review the position, and the identification of poverty and deprivation is an essential concern.

Has the Deputy Prime Minister had time to study the new research paper issued by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, which claims that the decline in child poverty is much less than has been confidently expected? In the light of that, will he look into what we believe to be an exaggerated statement in the Budget Red Book last year? It said that 1.2 million children have been taken out of poverty, whereas the figure is probably less than half that.

:No, I have not had chance to read that article, but I shall do so.

In the light of what my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) said, is the Deputy Prime Minister aware that we have a similar problem in Loughborough, where two of the richest wards in the county are adjacent to two of the poorest. That causes enormous difficulty in getting Government programmes into those areas, although we welcome the impact of the sure start programme on local areas. The Deputy Prime Minister has already referred to sub-ward levels. Will he give further details on that and say how it would impact on constituencies such as mine?

Again, I very much agree with my hon. Friend. The Government are concerned to look at the issue with some urgency, and as soon as the information becomes available to us, we will make it available. However, we have to enter into a lot of consultations about this. We are consulting on how to measure child poverty, which is a real problem in this country, and the Government's record shows that we have done a great deal to reduce it.

Are not the homeless some of the most socially excluded people in this country? How does the Deputy Prime Minister justify keeping his flat in Clapham—

Order. There is no need for the Deputy Prime Minister to answer.

What progress has been made by the social exclusion unit towards reducing the number of people classed as socially excluded since June 2001. [64156]

The social exclusion unit delivers long-term strategies for tackling specific aspects of social exclusion. It is not possible to get comparative figures for June 2001, but good progress has been made. For example, there has been a 71 per cent. reduction in the number of people sleeping rough since June 1998, and the proportion of teenage parents in Great Britain who are in education, employment or training rose to 29 per cent. in 2001, compared with 18 per cent. in 1997.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. In relation to the social exclusion unit's work with ex-prisoners, 58 per cent. of whom reoffend after their release, is she sure that, having been tough on crime by putting people in prison, we are tough enough on one of the main causes of crime, namely social exclusion, when they come out?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We need to tackle reoffending rates. Figures show that something like I million crimes a year are committed by those coming out of prison after serving sentences, which is why we need to do something with prisoners from the moment they start their sentence. This is what the new plan is all about, and we will come back with detailed proposals shortly.

I am sure that the Minister agrees that one of the most socially excluded groups of people are young people who have been excluded from school, many of whom drift into crime, drug dependency and underachievement. Does she agree that until we have a clear and coherent strategy on what to do with excluded young people, we will never get to the heart of the problem? What is the Minister's strategy, and how is it progressing?

The hon. Gentleman is right to mention those who have been excluded from school, who might give in to the temptations of crime or become very vulnerable. That is why we have pupil referral units, which are very successful. There are also programmes in schools which have seen a drop in the number of pupils who are excluded permanently. However, there is clearly a lot more that we want to do, which is why the Department for Education and Skills is taking forward this strategy.

Regarding the social exclusion unit's study into transport obstacles faced in trying to get unemployed people back into work, will my hon. Friend look at ways of incentivising employers to lay on coaches to get people to work? That form of transport is an efficient means of getting people to work; it is also flexible and possibly the only means of getting people in rural areas to work. Will she consider that possibility?

We will certainly look at that very important matter. There is no doubt that in looking to regenerate communities, whether urban or rural, which have high levels of unemployment among certain groups of people, particularly the young, transport is a factor. We will discuss the issue with employers and consider my hon. Friend's comments.

What involvement has the Deputy Prime Minister's Office had in discussions on tackling social exclusion in Scotland where, under a Labour Government, one in three children continues to be brought up in poverty and one in four of our pensioners lives in poverty?

The hon. Lady is right to talk about the problems of social exclusion. That is exactly why we have the social exclusion unit in England, and why the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament have been active in this area. They have made a number of proposals and my officials in the unit are in close contact with others in the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly.

London has the highest rate of child poverty in England and two thirds of the most deprived council estates in England. To the Government's considerable credit, child poverty has been cut in all regions of the United Kingdom but, in London in the late 1990s, child poverty remained constant. Will my hon. Friend assure me that, in terms of tackling social exclusion, London will get its fair share of resources in the comprehensive spending review and the standard spending assessment calculations to be announced shortly?

As a London Member of Parliament, I understand the picture that my hon. Friend presents, but the Government have moved a long way to tackle those issues. I will certainly pass on her views to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor.

If he will make a statement on his methods for assessing levels of demand in each English region for the introduction of regional Government. [64157]

We plan to say more about this in the next few weeks, but I can say now that we will strongly encourage people in all the regions to come forward with their views about the level of interest in holding a referendum in their region during this Parliament. This will be the main factor in our decision on where referendums should be held first.

The White Paper said that the Government would explicitly seek the views of key stakeholders on this issue. I do not know whether the Government include Members of Parliament in that category, but perhaps I can start the ball rolling, as an elected representative from the north-west of England, by telling the Minister that, in the last five years, I have never met a single member of the public—[Laughter]—a single member of the public who believes that we should have regional government in the north-west of England. Furthermore, most people in the north-west of England would regard a referendum on regional government as a ludicrous distraction from the real challenges of improving standards in public services for the people whom we are meant to represent.

The hon. Gentleman's admission of his lack of contact with the public is an interesting indication of the extent to which he is in touch with public opinion. We recognise that there are variations between individual regions in their appetite for an elected regional assembly. That is exactly why we are setting up a permissive framework, under which those regions with the greatest appetite will be able to move quickest to holding referendums. That is a policy based on choice and I advise the hon. Gentleman to wait and see the views of the British people in each of the regions when the choice is put to them. He might be in for a surprise.

Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that the last thing people want is yet another layer of salaried politicians and a hugely disruptive local government reorganisation? But if we go down this path—I do not think there is a demand out there for it—does my right hon. Friend agree that the number of Members of Parliament here in this House would have to be reduced drastically, perhaps by 40 per cent.?

We believe that if a regional tier of government is introduced, there should be a rationalisation of two-tier local government so that there is not an unnecessary number of tiers. That is a logical approach and we are adopting a pragmatic way forward because we accept entirely my hon. Friend's concern that a wholesale reorganisation of local government, as undertaken by the previous Government, is unnecessarily disruptive; we do not wish to repeat the experience of the Banham years. We want efficient government working well at a regional level as well as at the local level.

Will not the level of demand for regional government be weakened significantly by the inexplicable linking of the referendum question on regional government with plans to reorganise local government? Does not the Minister accept that the democratisation of the plethora of regional quangos demonstrates that we have regional governance already? We are not adding an additional tier. Whatever the merits of the reorganisation of local government, it will weaken his proposal to get regional government on to the statute book. Does he really want to win this one, or not?

We certainly do not accept the hon. Gentleman's first premise. In the delightful environment of the Liberal Democrats' party the proliferation of tiers of government may seem a welcome activity, but we take a rather more sensible view. We believe that three separate tiers of government below the national and European level would be one too many. That is why we say that, where an appetite for regional government exists, there should be a rationalisation of the existing two tiers of local government. That sensible framework is set out in the White Paper, and will guide the way forward. Most people who are concerned about efficiency and effectiveness will welcome that, although I understand that the Liberal Democrats are far away from that position.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is quite difficult to secure support among local councillors while a degree of uncertainty exists about the structure of councils under regional government? That issue is likely to reduce support for regional governance, if he cannot get local councillors on his side.

I have had discussions with councillors and advocates of regional government in all parts of the country, and my experience is that those who understand the importance of introducing regional government will remain wholly supportive of our proposals. I fully accept that there are concerns—no councillor will welcome the prospect of their council perhaps ceasing to exist—but we must take a broader view and recognise that, in the interests of efficient administration and of the public, there is a need to avoid a proliferation of local government tiers where a regional tier of government is introduced. That is the basis of our proposals.

Does the Minister accept that not a single one of the many thousands of representations from constituents that I have received in the past two years asked for more expensive government at a south-east level? Is he not merely trying to carry out the will of Brussels against that of the British people?

The right hon. Gentleman was interestingly quiet when the county of Berkshire was abolished by the Administration in which he served, so I am not sure that many people would regard him as a suitable guide of public opinion. However, we recognise that variation exists between different regions in the appetite for regional government, and we accept that there is a lot less enthusiasm in the south-east than in some other regions, such as the north-east. That is exactly why we are introducing the permissive framework, which will allow the introduction of elected regional assemblies in regions that wish to have them, but not in others.

What proposals he has to give more financial autonomy to local authorities. [64158]

Our comprehensive agenda for reform of the local government finance system was set out in last December's White Paper. Our finance reforms will give councils more space to innovate, and to respond in ways that are appropriate to local circumstances, by providing local authorities with significant new freedoms to borrow, invest, trade, charge and set their own spending priorities.

My hon. Friend is doubtless aware that one constant criticism of local authorities is the rising level of ring-fenced grants. Will he take an early look at that difficulty, which impacts on local authorities' room for manoeuvre and on local working partnerships? Will he try to introduce some early proposals to address that problem?

My hon. Friend raises an extremely important point, and the Government are discussing this very matter with the Local Government Association—not least in the context of the forthcoming spending review. The local government White Paper spells out clearly our aim gradually to restrict ring-fenced grants to genuinely high-priority areas.

The Minister will be aware that the review of standard spending assessments is reportedly reaching a conclusion. As the Government prepare to issue a consultation document on their findings, I ask them to ensure that authorities that are part of the town and country finance issues group—they include Rochford district council, which is in my constituency—are not disadvantaged by the Government's proposals. Many of those councils suffered under the old regime, but they are hoping to do better under the new proposals.

The hon. Gentleman is right and consultations are due to begin shortly. On the question of the grant distribution, there are no easy solutions. Many difficult and competing pressures from local authorities must be faced, but I will take his comments as an early submission.

Can my hon. Friend confirm that when the review comes out it will be based on the principles of transparency and, more importantly, fairness, to take account of the needs of local authorities and their abilities to raise resources from all sources?

My hon. Friend makes an important point. I believe that the fairness and simplicity of any grant formula is crucial. Competing pressures include deprivation and the recruitment and retention of staff, and all those matters will be addressed in the options for the future consultation document.

If he will make a statement on the position of county councils within the proposals in the regional government White Paper. [64159]

Before a referendum on whether a region wants an elected assembly, the Boundary Committee will carry out an independent review. The review will consider how those parts of the region with county and district boundaries can be restructured on a unitary basis. It will be for the committee to decide whether unitary authorities will he based on existing counties.

Will the Deputy Prime Minister accept that some areas have strong regional ties but that in some, such as my own, local links are much more important? What estimate has been made of the cost of reorganisation and the annual running costs of the new regional assemblies?

:The estimates that have been made for the establishment of the authorities are for some £20 million to begin with, which is similar to the sum for the new London authority. We will make further estimates as the process continues. The judgments about the powers and resources of the authorities have been spelled out in the White Paper and the committee that will consider the boundaries will take them into account.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that a recent BBC opinion poll showed that 54 per cent. of people of England and 65 per cent. of people in the north-east want regional government regardless of its effect on local government? Does he agree that the best way to assess public opinion is to have a referendum? Whether people are in favour of or against regional government, they should join forces to call for a referendum and settle the matter once and for all.

:I agree very much with my hon. Friend and indeed, the White Paper is entitled "Your Choice". It is the people's choice. We will have a referendum and the people will make the decision.

I welcome the Deputy Prime Minister back to the redoubt of his once mighty empire. We will try to make his stay as comfortable as possible. If the people of Kent reject regional government in a referendum, why will he impose a system of regional government on them?

:I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his role as shadow spokesman for local government, housing and the regions, although the Leader of the Opposition has not seen fit to make him shadow deputy Leader of the Opposition. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman does not wish to suggest who should succeed him.

So if the people of Kent say no, the right hon. Gentleman will say yes. Can he demonstrate the homogenous nature of the south-east by naming three things that Aylesbury and Folkestone have in common?

:I do not understand what the hon. Gentleman means. If the referendum result is a rejection of regional government, the local government structure will stay exactly as it is. It is the people's choice, and that is what we will observe.

If he will make a statement on travellers and unauthorised encampments. [64160]

I fully appreciate the concerns of my hon. Friend and his constituents regarding unauthorised encampments over the last few years. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is working closely with other Government agencies to develop policies and initiatives on the management of unauthorised encampments by travellers. The Department is issuing new guidance jointly with the Home Office on managing unauthorised camping in the very near future.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. The guidance will certainly be warmly welcomed by my constituents and, indeed, in the many villages in my constituency, but may I ask for an assurance that he will consult those parish councils that are involved before he issues the guidance?

I do not think that we will be able to consult parish councils before the guidance is issued because it is imminent, but I assure my hon. Friend that we very much welcome and encourage the views of parish councils, along with a range of other stakeholders, because we want to get the whole issue of travellers and unauthorised encampments right.

If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 3 July.

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

How does the Prime Minister reconcile his professed belief in devolution with what the Government are doing to local parish and town councils by imposing a highly bureaucratic and intrusive code of conduct and register of interests on those voluntary councils? In my own constituency alone, that has caused the resignation of two entire councils and many individual councillors. The Prime Minister should be aware of that policy, since he sacked the Secretary of State and the junior Minister responsible for it last month; so will he use the opportunity to withdraw those measures, or is it the aim—(Interruption.]

Order.

No, I understand that there were extensive consultations before those proposals were introduced, and we believe in greater openness and transparency in parish and local councils.

Does the Prime Minister agree—I am sure he does—that the new £70 million investment in linear accelerators, which, incidentally, are manufactured in my constituency, is a fantastic contribution to our cancer plan and will ensure that we reach our target? Will he make sure that we redouble our efforts so that we have enough trained people to get the best from that equipment?

Of course it is true that the number of linear accelerators has increased by more than 20 per cent. By 2004, it will have increased by more than 40 per cent. That will, of course, dramatically improve cancer treatment, and it is in addition to the recruitment of extra staff, extra specialists, extra nurses and the extra beds in the national health service. There is one big difference: we are in favour of that money and investment going in; the Conservative party would take it out.

May I join the Prime Minister in wishing you many happy returns today, Mr. Speaker?

"I do not think that anything that exposes children to more contact with drugs should be tolerated."

What is important is that we assess the experiment that has taken place; we need to ensure that it is right. I do not think it right to give a firm opinion until we have studied all the available evidence. Of course we will listen very carefully to what the Commissioner says.

Community leaders in the area are all complaining about the scheme, and one of them has said:

"The police have abandoned the streets to the dealers. If we can see it, why can't the police?"

"to make Britain the hardest and toughest place to be a drug dealer in the western world."—[Official Report, 27 June 2001; Vol. 370, c. 631.]

It is surely important that we learn the lessons and, of course, discuss the scheme with local community leaders. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has just indicated to me that what the right hon. Gentleman said a moment or two ago is not correct. There are differences of opinion about whether or not the scheme has worked, but I can assure him that, if sensible people come to the view that it is not working, of course we shall not do it.

The police figures are absolutely clear already. They show that drug trafficking has doubled and total drug offences have trebled in Lambeth over the last year.

indicated dissent.

It is absolutely true. It is absolutely clear that the Home Secretary has indicated that he is minded to extend the pilot nation wide. If one of the Prime Minister's hon. Friends, the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), has said that he should stand up for local people, should he not make absolutely clear now who will be responsible for assessing and making the decision as to whether to go ahead and extend the pilot? If he has now made himself the chief of the nation's police, why does he not say, "We are going to stop it now"?

This is a pointless line of questioning, as we must evaluate the evidence carefully. That is what the right hon. Gentleman would want to do, and what we want to do. His point that the pilot has resulted in increases in the number of offences is disputed by what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has just told me in relation to category A offences. What we must do is evaluate the pilot properly to see whether it works or not. Of course, if it does not work, we will not extend it, but it is important that we take into account all the relevant views that are put to us.

I know that the Prime Minister sets great store by being able to identify with the needs, aspirations and fears of ordinary families throughout the United Kingdom. Nearly 10,000 of those families in and around my constituency have contacted me saying, "Enough is enough. We are fed up with the fear and misery that is caused by the misuse of fireworks." That fear and misery is felt by young people, by the elderly and even by household pets. Will the Prime Minister agree to consider an early measure to fight the misuse of fireworks throughout the United Kingdom?

As my hon. Friend may know, as a result of the representations that we have received we are examining this urgently with the industry, consumer groups and safety groups, to see what more can be done. We are not proposing additional legislation at present, but we are giving urgent consideration to the problem. Perhaps I can respond further to my hon. Friend when the outcome of those discussions is known.

Does the Prime Minister agree that the single European currency debate deserves better than being reduced to gross caricature, playing on people's fears and prejudices, of the type that we have seen in the already notorious broadcast issued today by the no campaign?

A joke is a joke, but in so far as a serious point lay behind the broadcast, it is a shame if the anti-euro campaign wants to base itself on a view of Europe that is more than half a century out of date. I am sure that, if the economic tests are passed and there is a referendum, the debate will be conducted on a better and higher level.

The Prime Minister may dismiss the matter lightly, saying that a joke is a joke, but the fact is that, for many communities in this country, this broadcast has generated considerable offence. What action will he take to sanction the Labour MPs who lent their names and their presence to this deplorable piece of advertising?

The best response to this or any other campaign of that nature is to mount an argument as to why it is right in principle in terms of industry, jobs and investment to be in favour of the single currency. That is why we have taken the position that we have, which is to be in favour of the single currency in principle and to say that, in practice, the economic tests are going to be met. In the end, the issue will not be decided by celebrities, pop stars, comedians or anyone else; it will be decided on the basis of what is right for British jobs, British industry, British investment and the British economy.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is utterly insensitive of ITV to broadcast next week a programme on Harold Shipman—the very same week when 500 families will find out whether he murdered their relatives?

I entirely understand the concern that my hon. Friend has expressed on behalf of his constituents. Very sensitive and difficult issues are involved, and I hope that those broadcasting material about the Shipman case will take account of them.

If the Prime Minister were to visit Somerby in my constituency, he would probably be roasted on a spit. Like the characters in "The Archers", the people there are furious at the closure of their local doctor's surgery. Notwithstanding the important lessons that must be learned from the issue that has just been raised. may I draw the Prime Minister's attention to an increasing failure in the structure—not the financing—of the health service? His policy of not wanting single doctor practices is, in fact, making people in rural areas travel miles when they are ill. What initiative might he introduce to alleviate this growing problem?

Obviously, I do not know, and cannot comment on, the individual circumstances in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. There has been a move over time away from single-handed practices so as to improve the quality of care that people receive. That has been based on a great deal of evidence over a long time. Of course, the move has to be done sensitively, and as I said, I do not know enough about the circumstances of this particular case. However, let us be clear. Overall, we are increasing the number of doctors, we are increasing investment in the health service and we are increasing investment in primary care. Whenever Conservative Members want more resources for the health service in particular, we must point out that they are opposed to them in general.

In my constituency, there has been £14 million of investment in mental health and we have a new day-case surgery unit. Nightingale wards are being removed and today we have had the wonderful announcement that Clatterbridge will be part of the linear accelerator programme. Whom should my constituents believe—Ian Bogle and his statement that this is part of the sustained investment until 2020, or those people who suffer from Conservative amnesia?

I simply point out that the most important thing for us is to get the investment going into the health service year on year on year. In the Budget, we put additional resources into our health care system and that will allow us to sustain that investment over many, many years. That means more nurses, more doctors, more equipment for cancer and better treatment for heart patients. It will take time, but the only answer is to increase capacity through investment. We are in favour of that investment; the Conservative party is opposed to it.

Since the Prime Minister took office, what proportion of care homes for the elderly have closed?

Since we took office, it is correct to say that the number of care homes is down by a net amount in the hundreds and that the net number of beds down is somewhere in the region of 19,000. However, it is also correct to say that there are more than 40,000 additional home care packages since we came to power; and of course we are now increasing substantially the investment in social services.

The figure that the Prime Minister never gives is that 50,000 beds have been lost since the Government came to power. The answer is that nearly one in six of all homes have now closed. That means that 250 frail and vulnerable people are shunted from one place to another because their home is closing. Does he accept that the burden of regulation that the Government have imposed since they came to power has resulted in this terrible crisis?

Let me deal first with the figures. The right hon. Gentleman is wrong. The net figure is the one that I gave—19,000 beds.

The Prime Minister carefully does not explain to his less intelligent colleagues that the money he plans to give from the last Budget is dwarfed by the extra costs from the increased regulation. It is an absolute clear fact. All independent inquiries show that the majority of care homes are closing because of the burden of regulation, not because of the levels of money—[Interruption.] Yes, they do. The worst aspect of that is that two thirds of the homes that have closed have done so with reports that have found them to be excellent or good. So the Prime Minister is losing not the bad ones, but the good ones, which is the tragedy. Will he admit that the Government's policy for the past five years of imposing extra regulations, which has forced homes to think about closing, has resulted in this crisis?

Again, let me repeat that the regulations that are complained of do not come into effect until 2007. That is why it is important to take some account at least of the fact that the real complaint of many care homes has been about the level of fees, especially when those homes are situated on very high-value property areas, such as in London and the south.

Is the Prime Minister aware that there are families in this country that have been living in temporary accommodation for 16 years? Does he share my anguish at the case of a 23-year-old woman who has shared a bedroom with her father her entire life because the family has been on the council waiting list for years and cannot possibly afford to rent or buy in London? While commending the Government for trebling the money available for social housing—we will not hear a word from the Conservatives, who left people on council estates to rot—[Interruption.] If they realise what their legacy was, I do not know how they can sleep at night. Can I ask—

Order. The Prime Minister will be able to answer.

I think I got the point, Mr. Speaker.

The Prime Minister may be interested to learn that the independent mayor of Northleach in my constituency said in a recent letter to me:

"I am writing to you on behalf of Northleach Town Council to express our profound dismay at the impact of the new Care Standards Act, which has now led directly to the closure of the Glebe Care Home in Northleach."

It is also a mark of a civilised society that we have proper standards of care for those people who are in a home. I point out to the hon. Gentleman and to the Conservative party that when the Bill passed through the House of Commons, my understanding is that they did not oppose its Second or Third Reading. I simply ask them to understand that the vast bulk of the regulations are intended to improve the quality of life for people in homes, and they would probably be supported by most people. As I said, many of those about which there is controversy will not be introduced for five years.

My right hon. Friend will be aware that this week the British Medical Association is holding its annual conference, and he may have seen some of the comments of its leader, Dr. Ian Bogle, broadly supporting what the Government are doing to improve health services. Given that health is still a No. 1 priority for people, particularly in my constituency, what plans does he have to ensure that they see real improvements in health services on a day-to-day basis?

There are of course real changes taking place, and it was heartening to hear people in cancer services saying today that although there is still a great deal to do, genuine improvements are being made. With the additional nurses and consultants, the hospital building programme and the additional equipment, people can see that even though there is still much to do, a lot of progress is being made. However, none of that can work without increased capacity in the health service financed by investment. I say to my hon. Friend and his constituents that the best way to preserve that investment is to keep on supporting the party that advocates it, not the party that opposes it.

May I refer the Prime Minister to his reply today to the letter written to him yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition, and incidentally thank him for the belated concession to common sense signalled in the other place on the Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill?

"There needs to be clearer evidence that the transition away from paramilitarism is proceeding. A half way house will not be sustainable."

I utterly condemn paramilitary violence, whether it is from republicans or loyalists. Indeed, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, there has been violence from both quarters over the past few months, and that is unacceptable. I do not mean to be passive about the situation at all. As he knows, the reason I will engage in talks with people about how we make progress is that it is not acceptable to have a halfway house in which paramilitaries of whatever description believe that there is a tolerated level of violence; there is no level of violence that can be tolerated.

Does the Prime Minister agree that the latest tragic killings at the wedding in Afghanistan could further alienate Muslim opinion and weaken the coalition that he worked so hard to put together? Will he use his influence with the Americans to persuade them that that sort of warfare only causes more suffering to an already suffering nation?

The facts of the incident are still being debated and are not yet fully known, but if innocent civilians have died, that is a tragedy and deeply regrettable. However, let me point out two things to my hon. Friend. First, most people in Afghanistan, whatever their concerns about the continuing campaign, feel a profound sense of liberation from the Taliban who were in power before. They have greater freedom and greater potential for prosperity than they had even a year ago.

May I bring to the Prime Minister's attention the situation of my constituent Mrs. Biz Ivol, who is being prosecuted for the cultivation of cannabis which she uses to get some relief from the pain that she suffers as a result of having multiple sclerosis? Does the Prime Minister really believe that the war against drugs will be won by making a criminal of a 54-year-old woman who has led an otherwise blameless life and who is now confined to a wheelchair? When will the Government act to legalise the medicinal use of cannabis and bring an end to the nonsense of prosecutions such as the one facing my constituent?

I understand the concerns that the hon. Gentleman raises and those of his constituent. As he probably knows, we are currently reviewing the issue of cannabis and people with diseases such as multiple sclerosis. We are not yet in a position to state the findings of that review, but we are giving it urgent consideration. We understand that there is potentially a distinction between those who need cannabis for medicinal purposes and those who do not. I am sure that people will take a sympathetic view of the position of the hon. Gentleman's constituent, although that must remain a matter for the authorities, not the Government.

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate), I welcome the statements made earlier this week by Ian Bogle. He recognises that there will be significant investment in the national health service in the next five years. Although there will be investment in bricks and mortar, what we really need are additional doctors and nurses, not more managers. Will the Prime Minister give an assurance on that?

We have increased enormously the number of nurses in the health service, and the numbers of doctors and consultants are rising too. It is also important that the national health service be properly managed. The most important point that Ian Bogle made is that five years ago there had been such cuts in investment, beds and nurses—such flagrant dereliction of duty by the previous Government in respect of the health service—that part of the investment we made in our first few years in government was used to make good the deficit that we had inherited. However, people can see the effects of much of the investment that is now being made in increased provision in their constituencies. That increased provision is real delivery, on the ground, for people, and if we continue it year on year on year, we will have the health service that we need in this country.

The Prime Minister's recent difficulty at Seville was due to his being unable to gain the unanimous agreement of all 15 member states. Does he therefore accept that unanimity is necessary—and indeed essential—for any future direction changes to European Union treaties that would, for example, return more powers to nation states? Does he accept that that will become more difficult to achieve after enlargement, when there may be 28 members?

I could not quite follow that train of thought. If the hon. Lady is saying that she wants to retain unanimity at all levels, I point out that it was precisely because we had to take the unanimity route that we were unable to make the progress that we wanted at Seville, even though we were in the majority. That is why the previous Conservative Government—the Conservative party had a slightly more sensible position on Europe in those days—supported the largest extension of qualified majority voting that this country has ever seen.