What measures her Department is taking to reduce the availability of small arms in developing countries. [679]

In the post-cold war world, conflict and the suffering arising from conflict are concentrated in the developing world. The widespread availability of small arms is feeding conflict and blocking development. The United Kingdom supports stronger international controls on the supply of such weapons and supports local programmes to destroy weapons and resolve and prevent conflict.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does she agree that one of the major problems is the lack of licensing controls on arms dealers? Can we expect her to take advantage of the forthcoming Export Control Bill to give us much tougher regulation of this unsavoury business?

Yes, I agree. There are two sets of problems. Many small arms are circulating, for example, in Africa, so we need to extract them. However, arms are also being exported—particularly from the former Soviet countries that have big arms industries—and they are not controlled. Some of those sales do not come through Britain—people are not allowed to sell arms without a licence from Britain—but they are brokered from Britain. We shall take control over that in the forthcoming Bill, and that is a very important change to clean up our act.

In the previous Parliament, four Select Committees, including the Select Committee on International Development, recommended that there should be prior scrutiny by a Committee of the House of the United Kingdom's defence sales, including small arms sales. Does the Secretary of State support that approach?

No, the Government's view is that that would not be helpful. The hon. Gentleman might know that, since our Government were formed, we have been allowed to object to a licence on the ground that an arms sales would prevent development and the proper spending of money even if the arms were not to be used for external aggression or internal repression. As yet, we cannot cumulate those sales, so the power is not as effective as it might be. That is my greatest concern, and if he could help me with that, I would be very grateful.

What action her Department has taken to improve the quality of EU development programmes. [680]

The European Community's record on the efficient delivery of aid has been poor. That is why the United Kingdom has pressed hard since 1997 to improve the effectiveness of EC development programmes, focus their range of activity and make poverty reduction their central objective. The reforms now put in place go some way towards achieving these improvements, but we intend to keep up the pressure.

I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend on his appointment. What plans does he have to raise these serious issues with Members of the European Parliament and Commissioners, so that we, the Council, Commissioners and the European Parliament together can strengthen the EU's significant contribution to poverty reduction and to development?

I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words. In return, I welcome him to his first International Development questions.

I, too, congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his elevation to ministerial office. Is he aware that the 1998 Court of Auditors report into EC aid to South Africa showed that significant proportions of money for the AIDS programme went unspent for nearly four years? Does he not think that, if the EU were to add its support to the new global AIDS fund, yet another layer of bureaucracy would be created? Can he also ensure that EU spending on AIDS goes on improving existing projects on health care, education and the development of vaccines and not on delivering cheaper drugs?

I also thank the hon. Lady for her kind words. As she is well aware, the basic problem with EU spending is precisely that the EU cannot spend the money that it has. She gave the example of South Africa, which is one of a number to which we could refer. We certainly wish the EU to make a contribution to the global health fund, but the most important thing is to make sure that the money that is allocated is spent effectively. That is what we are working to achieve.

I warmly welcome my hon. Friend to his portfolio. Does he recall that the European Union played a significant part in the removal of Fujimori from Peru and in the democratic elections that followed, which led to President Toledo being elected? Given the earthquakes of the past few weeks, and our bilateral contribution, as well as that of the EU, does my hon. Friend welcome the policies to improve the relationship between Peru, the EU and this country?

I thank my right hon. Friend for his welcome. The action taken in response to the earthquakes in Peru, both bilaterally and through the EU, was very important, and it gave me an early insight into the effectiveness of the Department's disaster response arrangements. He makes the important point that the EU has considerable potential to make a difference, which is why we are putting so much time and effort into trying to make sure, through the reform process that has begun, that the EU can fulfil more of that potential than it has in the past.

On behalf of Her Majesty's loyal Opposition, may I warmly welcome the hon. Gentleman to his no doubt rightful place on the Front Bench? I know that he is carrying on a proud family tradition, and I think that he is a sound addition to the International Development team.

I thank the hon. Lady for her warm welcome—at the risk of boring the House. I agree that it makes sense for ourselves and the EU to examine the way in which the European Community Humanitarian Office, in particular, operates. ECHO has probably been more successful than other parts of the EU in spending the available resources, but not as good as it could be. There is, in Ms Adinolfi, a new director general who is very committed to implementing the agenda for reform. We will need to reflect on that. The hon. Lady makes a good point about the EU's effectiveness and about the limits on spending to deal with humanitarian disasters.

I, too, would like warmly to congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister and Leeds colleague—

Order. We now come to Question 3.

How she intends to encourage (a) more spending on primary education and (b) less spending on arms in the world's poorest countries. [681]

I am sorry about that, Mr. Speaker. I was basking in the glow of all those warm words.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. I know that the Secretary of State attended the Dakar United Nations world education forum in April last year, when the declaration was made about the establishment of universal primary education by 2015. He will know that Oxfam has set up its global initiative for a monitoring programme and a budget of £8 billion per annum to ensure that the targets set by Dakar are met. Does my hon. Friend agree that £8 billion for universal primary education is considerably less than the world spends on arms in one month? Does he agree also that it is essential that the targets set for primary education ensure that girls have equal access?

I agree, especially with my hon. Friend's point about the education of girls. As the House will be aware, of the 113 million primary age children who are not in school, two thirds are girls. If we can get developing countries to ensure that girls have equal access to education, considerable benefits will flow for development in those countries as a result.

Will the hon. Gentleman consider marking his welcome assumption of office by taking an initiative? Will he appoint a special articulate ambassador to go to some of those poorer countries, and will he consider for that role the reluctantly noble and former right hon. Member for Chesterfield?

I am being led into dangerous waters. I thought for a moment that the hon. Gentleman's offer was a job application. However, he will not take it amiss if I decline it on the ground that we already have a most formidable advocate on those issues—my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State

If she will make a statement on recent progress made in debt relief for heavily indebted poor countries initiatives. [682]

Twenty three countries have now qualified for relief under the heavily indebted poor countries—or HIPC—initiative. More than $53 billion of debt relief has been agreed for those countries, which together owe $74 billion, so most of their debt is written off. The money released is directly linked to poverty reduction.

I thank my right hon. Friend for her answer and congratulate her on leading the world in a vital initiative which may do more than many other things to relieve poverty. She has mentioned that the money will be spent on things such as health and education. How is that spending being monitored and what can we do to ensure that countries that arc benefiting from debt relief do not fall into new debt?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The most important achievement of the enhanced HIPC package is the commitment of countries to preparing poverty reduction strategies, openly consulting their people about all their economic policies, including how they mean to grow the economy and how they will use aid, debt relief and their own revenues to drive forward social programmes for all. The new instrument will be used for monitoring and for countries' better accountability to their own people. That is a transformation of the way in which the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank work in such countries—it is more open, more poverty focused and more participatory.

I congratulate the right hon. Lady on continuing in her important role of spearheading our country's attack on global poverty, which is possibly the greatest moral challenge facing our generation. I pay tribute to the genuine work that has been done on debt relief.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and agree that this is the most important moral issue for the world; it is also the most important issue in terms of the sustainability of the planet. If we do not make progress, we will have increasing catastrophes, so it is in our self-interest to pay much more attention to these matters.

I thank the Secretary of State for her answer. Is not this weekend's summit in Genoa an opportunity, however, for our country to continue to take the lead in debt relief? Is she aware that if her Government continue to lead the international community on the forgiveness of unpayable debt and pursue the issue ruthlessly until all the world's poorest nations receive a real dividend, she and her Government will have and will deserve the full support of Opposition Members?

It is very important in Genoa to drive on and to keep the 23 countries on track. There were wobbles in Zambia and it would be a terrible setback if its programmes fell away. We must move Ghana forward; it has just had elections and needs some help, as do Sierra Leone and Ethiopia. We need to keep everyone to the agreement that, as countries are exiting the initiative, we consider sustainability, as oil price rises are throwing things out of kilter. The other thing that we want to achieve at Genoa is the establishment of a health fund for the supply of drugs and commodities, to bring down prices, increase availability and lever in research. That needs to be complemented by the establishment of health systems through poverty-reduction strategies. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support for those efforts.

If she will make a statement on the progress of her Department's commission on intellectual property. [683]

The commission on intellectual property rights promised in our White Paper was established in April. It is tasked with considering how international intellectual property agreements can most benefit developing countries and poor people. Its membership includes an impressive range of experts originating from Argentina, India, the United Kingdom and the United States of America. It has embarked on a series of studies and consultations. Its recommendations will be submitted to me in spring 2002.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does she agree that it is particularly important that the views of developing countries are properly heard on all aspects of the intellectual property regime, particularly those concerning access to genetic resources and the development of drugs to treat terminal disease? How will she specifically ensure that the voices of developing countries will be heard in the commission's deliberations?

Two members of the commission are prestigious intellectual property experts—one from Argentina and the other from India—so it is an international body. It will be taking evidence and visiting developing countries to do so.

If she will make a statement on delivery of EU aid. [685]

As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary was saying, the UK has led the effort over the past four years to expose the ineffectiveness and lack of poverty focus in European Community development programmes and to implement a strong reform agenda. It has now been agreed that, in order to increase effectiveness, poverty reduction should be the central objective of EC development programmes, implementation procedures should be streamlined and the EC's range of activity limited. We will continue to keep up the pressure, and I hope that all parties represented in this House will encourage their representatives in the European Parliament, who tend to be silent on these matters, and their sister parties to support that reform effort.

This is all words. Back in January, the European Court of Auditors made a devastating criticism of the delivery of EU aid. With her usual admirable candour, the Secretary of State endorsed that criticism, yet the Government did not ensure that the issue was discussed at Nice, and they have meekly allowed the next review to be delayed until 2006. Why?

The hon. Gentleman might not have noticed, but Parliaments deal in words. The question is whether the words are implemented. The record of his party in power was to take no action whatever to challenge or reform EU effort, and to increase massively the proportion of British development assistance that went through the EU. We are now starting to put things right. I should be grateful for his support.

May I take up one point that my right hon. Friend mentioned? She said that we need allies in the matter. What can we do to increase the support that Parliament gives her in the attempt to improve EU aid? What does the European Parliament intend to do? Does she have any proposals for enlisting the assistance of other Parliaments in Europe to tackle this important issue?

My hon. Friend is right. Because the money is committed until 2006, either we get it better spent or it will go on being badly spent. We do not have a chance to review the amount until then, so we must improve performance. The European Parliament tends to think that anything that comes through Europe is additional. That is simply wrong. It is the same money, spent by member states or by the EU. The Parliament is therefore very uncritical, as my hon. Friend knows.

Why cannot all our aid be delivered to those who need it most, instead of going in part to the EU and being siphoned off in the process?

The proportion of British aid going through the EU under the previous Government whom the hon. Gentleman supported leapt from 10 to 30 per cent. That is the situation that we inherited. We cannot change the proportion till 2006, but we must try to improve spending before that, and examine whether it is effective. If not, we must reduce the proportion thereafter.

What progress she plans to make towards meeting the UN target of national GDP devoted to international aid over the next five years: and if she will make a statement. [686]

We are committed to working towards the UN target for official development assistance of 0.7 per cent. of gross national product. At current prices, that would be about £7 billion. The UK ODA:GNP ratio will rise from the 0.26 per cent. of GNP that I inherited to 0.33 per cent. by 2003–04, which represents a 45 per cent. increase since 1997. Our manifesto committed the Government to further substantial increases during this Parliament. I should be grateful for the support of the entire House in ensuring that they are, indeed, substantial.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does she agree that assisting the world's 1.2 billion poorest people is perhaps the highest goal that the Government of any civilised country could have? Is she aware that between 1979 and 1997, the percentage of gross national product de voted to aid under the Conservatives fell from 0.51 to 0.26 per cent., but that under Labour in the 1970s, it went from 0.36 to 0.51 per cent.? Will she endeavour to match that record of a previous Labour Administration in this Parliament?

I should be delighted to achieve that objective, but it is quite an increase. I shall need the help of all hon. Members if we are to achieve it. I agree with my hon. Friend's fundamental point: one in five of the world's population are living in abject poverty. That is a moral disgrace, given the world's wealth, technology and knowledge. It is also a danger to the future stability, sustainability and safety of the world. We must give greater priority to making progress, or we will hand on a catastrophic set of crises to the next generation.

The Secretary of State will be aware that there is another, higher UN target of a 1 per cent. transfer of public and private resources from the developed world to the developing world. That was achieved by only two countries under the previous Conservative Government—the United Kingdom and Holland. What progress has been made since 1997 in meeting that target?

The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that the investment required for the improved infrastructure needed by developing countries will come largely from the private sector, and that will bring with it modern technology—telecommunications, information and communications technology, better transport and sanitation, and better water and electricity supplies. That is not something that can be delivered by the public sector in an OECD country increasing flows of investment to developing countries.

If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 4 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.

Will the Prime Minister praise the work of the special constabulary? He will he aware that there are 7,500 fewer special constables than there were four years ago. In Lichfield, which is typical of many cities, we have only two or three regular police officers on duty on Friday and Saturday nights. What steps is the right hon. Gentleman taking to restore the balance and recruit more special constables? I am referring not to the regular police but to the special constabulary.

The hon. Gentleman is entirely right: we do need to recruit more special constables. As he knows, changes to the health and safety regulations impacted on the number of special constables, but we are taking measures to increase their number. The hon. Gentleman is also right to suggest that those increases run alongside the increase in numbers of the regular police. We need both to police the country properly.

As we are likely to be giving Railtrack between £20 billion and £25 billion of taxpayers' money during the next 10 years, can we not use it as a lever to block the fat-cat pay-offs to some of the former directors of Railtrack who have so clearly failed the public?

We do not have power to do that, but we do have power to make sure that the money that we are putting into the railways—a huge £60 billion investment during the next 10 years—is used to provide not just the track, which is in desperate need of renovation, but the trains and capacity that the transport infrastructure of the fourth largest economy in the world demands.

The House will regret the resignation as First Minister of Northern Ireland of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), who has shown the utmost courage, integrity and statesmanship. Does the Prime Minister agree that we should be in no doubt about what has forced the right hon. Gentleman to take that action? It is the IRA's refusal to keep the promise that it made more than a year ago to put its arms beyond use, despite all the gains that they have pocketed, including the release of prisoners. On a day when another fatal shooting has tragically taken place in Northern Ireland, will the Prime Minister assure the House that no more ground will be given, such as more policing reforms or the scaling down of security, in advance of the decommissioning of weapons, which remains a fundamental obligation under the agreement?

First, I join in the condemnation of the killing of the Catholic man by paramilitaries. It is a tragic and terrible event which is a mark of precisely the past in Northern Ireland that we want to leave behind.

We wish the Government every success in dealing with this problem, but does the Prime Minister agree that it would be wholly wrong to reward republicans for their intransigence and to punish democrats such as the right hon. Member for Upper Bann and others, who have done everything required of them? On Monday, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said that a range of sanctions was open to the Government. Can the Prime Minister tell us what any of those sanctions are? In his published letter to the right hon. Member for Upper Bann, on 10 April 1998, he said that if the existing provisions on excluding people from office turned out to be ineffective, he would support changes to them. Will that now include enabling the Government to exclude Sinn Fein Ministers from the Executive if there is still no movement on arms?

We have a range of powers available to us, one of which the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned. Obviously, we keep the use of all those powers under review. We are about to go into a process of protracted—I hope not too protracted—negotiation about how we resolve the current impasse. I do not think that it is sensible for me to say what we will or will not do in circumstances that may arise if that negotiation fails, but I do say this: the outstanding issues are absolutely clear. Obviously, we need to ensure that we have a police service that attracts support from all parts of the community, that the institutions have stability, and that, as we can do so, and in accordance with the proper demands of security, we bring about a more normalised situation in Northern Ireland. There has already been huge change in that regard in the past few years, but it is also important that those who sit in government and want to be part of the democratic process are committed to exclusively democratic means. There has always been a point, right from the beginning of the process, when people had to choose between the democratic process and having alongside it a paramilitary organisation that is still capable of exerting force and pressure of an unacceptable kind.

Does the Prime Minister recall that, in 1997, a Bill was brought to the House to cut benefits for lone parents? It was not the brightest thing my right hon. Friend did, and towards the end of that year he admitted that it was almost certainly a mistake. The press is filled today with stories of cuts in disability benefits. Can I have an assurance that we are not going to travel down the road we travelled down in 1997, because it is bound to be strewn with difficulties? If my right hon. Friend wants a Bill off the shelf to do some good for the Labour movement, he should get stuck into those fat cats like Gerald Corbett and the rest, but leave the sick and disabled alone.

Well, the road may be strewn with difficulties, but I must say to my hon. Friend that the proposals made today on incapacity benefit by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions are entirely sensible and justified. It cannot be right that people coming on to incapacity benefit will be paid on average about £4,000 a year for, say, 10, 15 or 20 years, with no one ever checking whether they have recovered from their injuries and are able to work. It is therefore important that we apply a proper test and ensure that the vast amount involved—£7 billion a year—is spent properly, and that we will do.

Does the Prime Minister agree with the conclusion of London Transport Commissioner Bob Kiley that the Government's proposed public-private partnership for the future of the London underground should now be terminated and that control of the London tube should instead pass to Transport for London?

No, I do not agree with that view. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, there was a meeting yesterday between my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and Mr. Kiley. We will make our position clear on Mr. Kiley's representations to us in due course. Given the vast amount of extra investment that we are putting into the tube—we are prepared to guarantee it over a period which has never before been guaranteed for investment in the tube, in terms of amount as well as the fixed term for which we are putting the money in—it is essential that we get value for money and that we ensure in the building work that is done that there is risk transferred to the private sector. Otherwise, we will repeat the mistakes of the Jubilee line and end up with a huge cost overrun, and the building work will not take place on time. Again, it may be difficult, but it will he done.

The Prime Minister says that, but in the past 48 hours the talks, according to the commissioner, have been getting nowhere, and commuters and travellers have suffered well-publicised distress on the London underground. After four years of a Labour Government, is that not a pathetic verdict on the right hon. Gentleman's ability to deliver an effective, safe and affordable quality transport system for the capital?

Of course the tube is not of the standard that London deserves. For precisely that reason, we are committed to some £13 billion worth of investment in the next few years. It is essential that the money is spent wisely and that we get the best value for money. We need a modem tube that is publicly run but privately built. The Jubilee line is the classic example of the old way of doing things: a cost overrun of more than £1 billion and the work being done two or even three years late. It is therefore essential to get value for money.

The Prime Minister is aware of the urgent need to equip our armed forces with a modern, reliable and secure communications system, which is fully integrated across our armed forces and inter-operative with NATO systems. I am sure that, in the next two weeks, he will give full and proper consideration to several competing bids from around the world to provide such a system, including one from Thales, which employs 200 people in my constituency. Does he agree that considerable benefits would accrue to the manufacturing base and the skills base in this country, and that our exports in the high technology sector would receive a great boost, if such a system could be built and delivered in the United Kingdom?

If it could be built and delivered in the UK, of course it would benefit our manufacturing industry and protect jobs. However, we have to go through a specific negotiating and bidding process. I understand that the decision will be made in a few weeks.

Why did the Prime Minister tell the House in the previous Parliament that incineration was an essential part of a waste strategy? Is he not aware that other countries recycle more than 50 per cent. of their waste, compared with the pathetic 8 per cent. that we manage in this country? Will the right hon. Gentleman rule out incineration and thereby remove the toxic cloud that hangs over Newhaven in my constituency? Will he also undertake not to fiddle the public inquiry system to drive through incineration?

It is true that we need to increase the amount of recycling, and we are doing that. However, pulling out of all incineration, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, would cost a great deal of money. That can be done over time, but we face many demands. Indeed, almost every question that I am asked is a demand for money. We have to balance those competing claims. We shall make progress as we can, but if we peremptorily pulled out of incineration altogether, we would have a financial shortfall that we could not cover, and there would be nothing that we could do with the resulting waste.

On President Bush's madcap scheme for missile defence, may I gently suggest to the Prime Minister that, rather than our trying to act as an honest broker between the United States and the European Union, British interests would be better served by telling the Americans the truth, which is that it will not work, that there are no takers and that the real threats to our security are climate change, the AIDS pandemic and impoverishment caused by the grossly unfair workings of the global market?

I agree—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Ah."] Perhaps I can begin by stating the points on which I agree with my hon. Friend. I agree with him about Kyoto, the AIDS pandemic and the impoverishment of a large part of the world's population. That is precisely why, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development explained earlier, we are doing so much to combat AIDS in the developing world. We are also pushing forward the Kyoto protocol and we have considerably increased the amount of aid that we give the developing nations.

May I warmly commend the Prime Minister on that reply? Any remaining puzzle as to why the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) is no longer in the Government has been resolved.

I do not accept that it is. The private finance initiative in the national health service, for example, and with our schools, is delivering huge benefits. That co-operation with the private sector is an important part of rebuilding our schools and hospitals.

The Prime Minister is one of the few people who thinks that that is clear. The head of the British Medical Association has said:

"The Government's thinking is opaque and unclear."

"There is confusion and lack of clarity from the Government."

"There needs to be more done to clarify the boundaries."

"a cocktail of policy confusion."

"there hasn't been any clarity about what's envisaged."

As we have said throughout, there is no intention to privatise clinical services—neither have we ever said that primary care trusts will privatise clinical services. It is important to enable primary care trusts and others, where appropriate, to work with the private sector. For example, 3.000 general practitioner premises are being renovated throughout the country, bringing in more than £1 billion worth of investment with the private sector. The right hon. Gentleman may be opposed to that—indeed, there may be many who are opposed to it—but I think that it is a thoroughly good thing.

Well, now we know why everybody apart from the Prime Minister finds his policy completely unclear. We have just had a typical example. The question to which he failed to give a simple yes asked him to support a statement straight out of his concordat with the private sector, which was signed by the Government last October. I shall ask the question again, and I shall read from the document. It refers to primary care groups or primary care trusts commissioning directly from a private or voluntary health care provider. Is that still the position?

Of course, and they do it every day. For example, when we have severe winter pressures, they should be entitled to use private sector or voluntary sector providers. There is a difference between privatising a public service, which is the policy of the Conservative party, and providing a better public service in co-operation with the private sector, which is the Government's policy.

Well, I have to tell the right hon. Gentleman that saying no to one question and yes to the same question a moment later does not constitute a clear policy on behalf of the Government. Is it not time that he stopped facing both ways on this policy? He wants services to be managed by the private sector, but not run by private companies. He signs up to primary care groups buying from private providers, but the Secretary of State for Health says that private companies should not provide any clinical services. The right hon. Gentleman makes bold statements about radicalism, but feeds trade union leaders on a diet of reassurance and asparagus tips. Is it not time for him to admit that his plans to involve the private sector while not allowing it to do anything will turn out yet again to be words without substance and spin without delivery?

No, because when we can work with the private sector to provide a better public service, we will. I have given one example: the private finance initiative. When we came into office, it had completely stalled under the previous Government. It is now delivering the biggest-ever hospital building programme and being extended to the new GP premises. If the new surgical units, for example, can be better managed by the private sector—even though the staff are employed by the national health service—to give better value and service to the patient, let it happen. When we can commission private sector care—for example, under winter pressures or in other circumstances—within the national health service, free at the point of use, we do so.

Pensioners in my constituency are very pleased that they no longer have to pay £6 a year for their concessionary half-fare bus pass. However, the pass is primarily valid only in the area covered by the local authority—in my case. Suffolk. Pensioners are, therefore, asking for a concessionary scheme for longer-distance travel. What plans does my right hon. Friend have further to extend concessionary travel for pensioners?

We are going to extend it so that it will also be available for long coach journeys. This is all part of trying to provide pensioners with a better deal: the winter fuel allowance, the higher than normal basic state pension rise, the free TV licences for the over-75s, and now concessionary fares for pensioners. It is all part of making sure that they get the security and the dignity that they need in old age.

Is the Prime Minister aware that the crisis in social services funding is now so severe that Bristol city council has been forced to adopt a policy of not moving an elderly person from hospital into residential care until two elderly people in residential care have died first? Does he accept that it is not in the interests of elderly people to be kept in hospital when they are ready for discharge? Does he also accept that the bed blocking that results is not in the interests of the NHS? What is he going to do about it?

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that bed blocking is probably the most urgent problem that we face in the national health service. We need to do two things. First, we need to provide substantial additional funding, which we are doing. There will be some £900 million additional funding for social services. Secondly, we need a far better system of co-operative working between social services and local hospitals. Although it is absolutely true that we have severe bed blocking problems in Bristol and in other places, there are parts of the country in which these problems have been resolved. So, once again, I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that we need the money going in, but we also need the change. I agree that this is an urgent problem, and we are seeing what other measures we can take to deal with it.

Has my right hon. Friend had the opportunity to read the Huddersfield Daily Examiner? On the front page, he will learn what can happen when GPs embrace change. The primary care group in south Huddersfield has embraced real change and, as a result of co-operation, has been able to give a £1.5 million cash boost to the local hospital. By embracing the talents of its own GPs, it has been able to use those talents and to cut waiting lists. Is not that the kind of appropriate reform that we can achieve—unlike what has been said by the British Medical Association, and unlike the failed individual GP fundholding of the Conservative party?

First, may I apologise for not having read the Huddersfield Daily Examiner? In retrospect, I wish I had. May I also commend the GPs in my hon. Friend's area for the changes that they have made, and say once again that the vast majority of our doctors do a wonderful job in the national health service? However, it is important that we make changes as well as ensuring that the money is going in.

By way of contrast with the question asked by the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Kali Mountford), is the Prime Minister aware of the enormous pressures on GPs on the south coast, and in particular in Worthing, where surgeries have more than three times the national average of over-85s on their books and most have closed their lists? A recent survey of doctors in West Sussex showed that as many as 90 per cent. are planning to leave the profession well before the age of 60, and an alarming number are at their wits' end. What is the right hon. Gentleman doing to make it easier for those experienced GPs to stay on in their profession, rather than constantly giving us those fantasy figures about new recruitment, as if doctors could be grown from packets of seeds?

They are not fantasy figures on recruitment. There are about 1,000 extra GPs compared with four years ago. As opposed to the previous Government, who cut the number of training places for doctors, we have increased it. I shall come to the hon. Gentleman's specific problem in a moment, but, overall in the country, GP home visits have dropped by half and night visits by a third since 1990. The number of GPs seeking early retirement is down, not up. However, it is correct that in certain parts of the country—the hon. Gentleman's may well be one—the position is very difficult indeed.

Not enough.

The hon. Gentleman says that that may not be enough, but, with the greatest respect, it is more than was ever done in 18 years of Conservative government. We still have a great deal more to do, but money is not all we need. We also need to change the way that GP services work in the hon. Gentleman's area and in others. To those who were critical at the BMA, I say that we are prepared to work with them in a partnership for change, but it is important that we have genuine change in the NHS.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is bound to be concern if the severely disabled are forced to undergo reviews every few years? Following on from the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), will he bear in mind the anxiety that exists among so many of the disabled over what is in the news today? Will he give a commitment now that he is willing to meet the organisations representing the disabled before any firm proposals are put before the House, because we do want to avoid a row, don't we?

I am happy to meet groups representing the disabled. However, I will not apologise for the reforms that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has proposed, because they are important. Let me repeat that we are spending some £7 billion a year on incapacity benefit. The numbers trebled between 1979 and 1997. I think every Member of the House knows that people were transferred on to incapacity benefit to disguise the true levels of unemployment in the 1980s. Therefore, it is important for new claimants that we do not leave people on benefit for 10, 15 or 20 years, but that we are prepared to make sure that those who take money from the state have that money justified. If people are severely disabled and cannot work, we will give them every protection—indeed, we will increase it. However, if people can work, it is our responsibility to help them do so.

Does the Prime Minister recall that, at about this time last week, the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) asked him a rather penetrating question about appointments to the peerage? Does he remember trying to put his hon. Friend down by accusing him forgetfulness? He said:

"My hon. Friend forgets that the independent Appointments Commission has taken away prime ministerial patronage".—[Official Report, 27 June 2001; Vol. 370, c. 638.]

Order. I call the Prime Minister.

The independent Appointments Commission has indeed taken away prime ministerial patronage. It is for the hon. Gentleman's party and my party to appoint the people whom they want to be working peers.

Will my right hon. Friend loin me in congratulating the teachers and pupils at two of my local schools, Twydall infants and Parkwood infants, for their hard work and commitment, which has been recognised by the award of beacon status? Although many of the measures that we have taken have helped to raise standards, will my right hon. Friend inform the House of the steps that are being taken to deal with the serious matter of teacher shortages, which concerns head teachers in my constituency and elsewhere?

First, after years of Conservative cuts, we are increasing the number of people coming into training by between 25 per cent. and 30 per cent. Secondly, we are offering bursaries to teachers. Thirdly, for certain shortage subjects we are writing off student loans for trainee teachers. Finally, we are putting substantial extra investment into schools, which will yield more teachers, more classroom assistants and better buildings. That is all part of the investment-plus-reform programme that is essential for the school service. I pay tribute to the work of teachers, pupils and parents in Gillingham, which I am sure mirrors the achievement of teachers and pupils in many parts of the country.