If she will make a statement on the outcome of the World Trade Organisation Seattle meeting on trade with reference to prospects for better trade access for the world's poorest countries. [100348]

As I think everyone noticed, the ministerial conference in Seattle failed to reach agreement on the agenda for the next round of trade negotiations. That is disappointing, but of course it is not the end of the story. Given that three quarters of the members of the World Trade Organisation are from developing countries, we are hopeful that big gains can be made. Under the Uruguay round, it was agreed that new talks would take place on trade in agriculture and services; other agreements are up for review. We will be working with others in Geneva to try to secure agreement on a new round that will bring real benefits to developing countries.

Will my right hon. Friend ensure that third-world debt and tariff reductions in the developed countries will be high on the agenda? That would facilitate trading arrangements so as to help the third world. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend: given the adverse conditions in Seattle, she did a tremendous job on our behalf.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is surprising that there was so much enthusiasm for reducing third-world debt, which we all fully share, but not for trading opportunities to allow developing countries to make use of that reduction to build up their economies. That is surely the other side of the equation. We agree strongly that various specific improvements are needed, but a reduction in industrial tariffs could be most important and would bring major benefits to developing countries.

Does the right hon. Lady agree that developing countries have a problem with their capacity to negotiate trade deals with the World Trade Organisation? I understand that 30 members of the WTO from the developing countries were not able to send delegates at all, and many others sent only tiny delegations. Does the right hon. Lady agree that it was little wonder that the developing country delegations felt angry and humiliated, with the result that the Latin American, Caribbean and African delegations issued statements on the negotiation process itself? Will she ensure that the Government and the European Union build up the capacity of developing countries before the next trade round, so that those countries can ensure that their voices are heard?

The hon. Lady is right. During the past two years, we have worked hard to put resources and expertise into training negotiators, analysts and the business people who have to implement the rules and take the benefits of trading opportunities. We have persuaded the EU to put more effort into that initiative, which was announced at Seattle and will continue.

Was the Secretary of State able to hold discussions with members of the Indian delegation on the proposals that they were trying to float, on the need for developing countries legitimately to protect parts of their domestic agriculture to the point of food security? They want us to draw new distinctions allowing for the use of agricultural subsidies to promote food security rather than product dumping, and they want to be allowed to protect themselves against the theft of their biodiversity on which food security will depend.

I did not talk to the Indian delegation in Seattle, but I have held various discussions on trade with representatives of the Indian Government. By and large, India takes a protectionist position. The greatest food security is not internal to a country; it is the capacity to purchase enough food from wherever it is needed, and the capacity of all the individuals in the country to purchase the food that they need. Considering food security as an internal issue is not the best way of approaching the subject.

Does the Secretary of State agree with the historian Macaulay that free trade is by far the best thing ever to help the prosperity of mankind, but that it is most difficult to persuade the self-appointed spokesmen of mankind of its merits? In the light of all the criticisms and the organised coalition of attacks on the WTO, will the Government speak out vigorously in favour of free trade and against those who try to use pseudo-humanitarian arguments for protectionism?

I have been doing my very best to speak out for the benefits of free trade in promoting the economic growth that the poorest countries need to reduce poverty. The fastest reduction in poverty in human history was part of the east Asian advance when those countries attracted inward investment, created exporting opportunities and then invested in education. Other poor countries need the same opportunity. Those who benefit from all the technology that multinational capital brings are somehow calling for the poorest in the world not to have access to that technology; they are mistaken in that call. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman completely.

Does my right hon. Friend think that, despite the failures at Seattle, there is still a chance that all the rich countries will make a binding commitment to tariff and quota-free access on the exports of the 48 poorest countries? If not, does she think that the European Union could unilaterally pursue such a course?

Yes; that was one of the EU's big pushes in the negotiations, and the EU is committed to zero tariff access for "essentially all products" from the least-developed countries. We will go ahead and implement that and we will try to get others to agree to do so too. The United Kingdom believes that such access should apply to all products and not just "essentially all". The least-developed countries have the poorest economies on earth and they make up 0.25 per cent. of world trade. Surely, we can all agree to give them the chance of more trade, and zero tariff access might draw in investment. The EU will go ahead and implement that agreement.

May I congratulate the Secretary of State, because, in her speech in Seattle, she spoke up for free trade? Does she agree that the collapse of the Seattle talks is a huge setback for the cause of free trade? Does she also agree that the apparent winners were the extremists and anarchists who believe that they wrecked the WTO talks, and that the clear losers were the world's poorest who have so much to gain from steady progress towards global free trade? Is not the credibility of the WTO now in need of urgent restoration? What are her proposals for doing that?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the consequences of that strange alliance of forces thinking that it had been successful. To damage the WTO is to damage the interests of the poorest nations on earth. The irony is that the WTO is only five years old and that, for the first time, developing countries make up the majority of its members and have a chance to make real gains out of trade negotiations. It is ironic that the negotiations were wrecked.

This is an important point. Can the right hon. Lady give a little more detail about the reform of the decision-making procedures of the WTO, because there are probably only three options? Does she agree that, whatever decision is finally arrived at, it is vital that developing countries have a fair say and a louder voice in the decisions made by the WTO? The humiliation that they suffered in Seattle by being locked out of the greenroom, as it came to be called, while the EU and the United States negotiated has set back their confidence in our commitment to free trade. We need to reform the procedures to resolve that problem.

The hon. Gentleman slightly overstates the position on the views of developing countries. They were not at the table before. One of the things that may have happened in Seattle is that the United States may have grown up to the fact that the world is globalising and that we need different international instruments to manage it, and certainly all countries and blocs woke up to the fact that developing countries are now at the table. That was a creative outcome of the failure in Seattle.

Finally, as this is such a huge and important issue, is the right hon. Lady aware that, if she pushes our EU partners to drop unilaterally the EU's tariffs and quotas for all goods and exports from the 48 poorest countries in the world, she will receive the wholehearted support of Conservative Members? We should unilaterally drop our tariffs, set an example and move to global free trade by 2020.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and I pleased that there is agreement on both sides of the House on the need for zero-tariff access for the least developed countries. We need to get other countries to support that. We have been pushing the EU very hard and, despite the protectionist instincts of some of its members, we have agreement on "essentially all" products, but we need to follow the negotiations about what "essentially all" means, and try to make sure that only a very small number of products are excluded. I should be grateful for the hon. Gentleman's help in taking forward those negotiations.

If she will make a statement on actions taken to unblock the Danube since 1 December. [100349]

We remain prepared to provide assistance through the European Commission to unblock the Danube, provided that agreement can be reached among the member states of the Danube Commission to allow the work to start.

Is my hon. Friend aware that, when my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) and I were visiting the technical officials of the Ministry of Reconstruction in Belgrade in September, they made it clear that we would be whistling in the wind to think that there would be any co-operation until such time as the dollars and deutschmarks are on the table not only for pulling out the debris but for the reconstruction of the bridges themselves? In those circumstances, given the dire situation for Bulgaria, Romania and other countries caused by the severing of one of Europe's main arteries, cannot some agreement be reached that does not rely on saying that Mr. Milosevic is a dreadful man?

My hon. Friend must accept that the real problem rests with Milosevic. His Government have consistently refused to allow the river to be cleared unless we agree to rebuild the bridges, and he knows that that is unacceptable. Let me tell my hon. Friend also that the blockage can be bypassed by using a section of the Belgrade canal system—but Milosevic will charge the countries that my hon. Friend has just mentioned exorbitant prices for the privilege of using that section. My hon. Friend must at last realise that the villain of the piece is Mr. Milosevic.

Will the Minister accept that the blockage of the Danube means that Romania and Bulgaria have paid a heavy economic price for their support of NATO in the action over Kosovo? What impact does he believe the blockage has had on those countries' economies, and how much development assistance and aid are Britain and the international community giving them to make up for the price that they have paid?

Of course those countries are suffering, and I said in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) that there is a way round that problem. The key lies with Mr. Milosevic. In the meantime, we are providing substantial aid. Over £90 million has been provided by the British Government alone for reconstruction and help in Kosovo and the region. We continue to discuss with the other countries ways in which we can help them in the future. The Stability Pact is an important area of co-operation. Of course we want to do everything that we can to help those countries to prosper.

I have recently had meetings with the Bulgarian ambassador, the Ukrainian ambassador and Romanian MPs, one of whom represents a Danubian port and whose constituents have lost 2,500 jobs because the Danube is blocked. Does my hon. Friend accept that the country that is least hurt by that problem is Serbia? Will the Government stop taking this rather petulant line and look after the emerging democracies, which after all supported the Minister's point of view?

I, too, have spoken to the Ukrainian ambassador and to Ukrainian and Bulgarian Ministers. They recognise where the problem lies. It is a pity that there are not good Back-Bench Members of Parliament like my hon. Friend raising this question with Mr. Milosevic, but of course it is a different story there: we have a vibrant democracy—that is the difference.

What plans she has to visit the island of St. Helena. [100350]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no plans to visit St. Helena. However, officials from our Department will be visiting the island in January 2000 to discuss with the St. Helena Government the country policy plan for the next three years.

It is just as well that the Secretary of State has no plans to visit that remote island because it has no airstrip, and the only ship, which is the only way to reach the outside world, is currently off the high seas undergoing repairs. I sincerely hope that it will be repaired in time for the January visit.

The Government recognise the problems of access to St. Helena. I am pleased to tell the House that this week we have agreed to a comparative study that will investigate the relative costs of air and sea access. It will identity the most effective, least costly permanent solution to the island's international passenger and cargo transportation needs. I am sure that it will be widely welcomed.

Given its importance to the increased self-sufficiency of the economy and to its sustainable prosperity, will the Minister tell the House what steps the Government envisage taking to assist in the diversification of the island's economy?

That is what my officials will be discussing with the councillors of St. Helena when they visit in January next year. That is part of the country's policy plan. We are keen to see diversification. We are keen also to see private investment and enterprise. At present, the Government are subsidising St. Helena more than any other area, island or country other than Montserrat, by about £2,000 per person. We want to see economic development so that that subsidy does not have to continue at that level.

What steps are being taken to help developing countries combat malaria and other endemic tropical diseases. [100351]

Malaria is one of the world's biggest killers. One million people die as a result of it each year—90 per cent. in Africa and many of them children. The World Health Organisation is leading a roll back malaria campaign more systematically to apply the best treatment and prevention methods. We have committed £60 million to this programme. We are working with others on polio. I made an announcement of our final tranche of commitment today: polio will be eradicated from the world within five years. That is about to be achieved, and it will be a wonderful achievement. We are also working to improve TB treatment and AIDS prevention and supporting the elimination of river blindness in Africa and elephantiasis worldwide.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. As the overwhelming emphasis of interest of pharmaceutical companies lies in diseases of the developing world, and given that expertise in developing medically useful drugs lies almost exclusively with those companies, will my right hon. Friend consider meeting them to discuss how the development of relevant drugs for tropical diseases might be given greater emphasis in future?

Yes, indeed; my hon. Friend is absolutely right. All the science, skills and research lie with the big pharmaceutical companies. The poverty of the countries that need new drugs means that the market will not bring those drugs to the people. I have already met Glaxo and SmithKline Beecham. We talked with the World Bank about the way in which we can get the public and private sectors working together both to engage in research and to bring products to the market. I am pleased to say that there is some co-operation. That is part of the WHO's roll back malaria campaign. We need new drugs because an immunity is developing to the existing drugs.

Is the right hon. Lady aware that, because of global warming, there are projections that the malaria area will spread northwards and southwards? Given that, what assessment has she made of the economic impact of the United Nations, decision that DDT might be banned in future, will have on developing nations?

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Malaria is spreading, including dangerous forms of it that go straight to the brain and can kill quickly. In the interests of people in the developing world and of ourselves, we need to roll back malaria. The systematic application of what we know—such as bed nets for children with the appropriate chemicals on them—can massively reduce the incidence. I have not examined the DDT question specifically. We are putting a great deal of effort into the roll back malaria campaign. I am optimistic that we can reduce the incidence of malaria, thus preventing the spread and saving many lives in the developing world.

If she will make a statement on progress made on the repair of damaged houses and provision of alternative warm accommodation for refugees returning to Kosovo and on the support given by her Department. [100352]

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees is co-ordinating efforts to provide warm winter shelter for the 700,000 people in need.

While it is welcome news that a contribution is being made to ensure that people do not starve or freeze to death, is my hon. Friend aware of the pressures on the non-ethnic-Albanian communities, and will he ensure that every possible support is given to those communities, as well as to the ethnic Albanian communities?

Yes, I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. We are concerned about violence against Serbs. We have made known our concern, which I know is shared not just by my hon. Friend but by the whole House.

Have the Government managed to persuade all those involved to clear the backlog of trucks that are waiting at the Macedonian border? Has the essential equipment that has been held up for so long got through to all corners of Kosovo?

The hon. Gentleman has identified one of the problems. The road at Blace is a minor road, but it now serves as a major international communications route. That is causing problems. We have done everything possible, along with the international agencies involved, to try to get it cleared, and we shall continue to do so.

By how much the poorest countries qualifying under the heavily indebted poor countries initiative will benefit from the agreement on debt reached at the Cologne summit. [100353]

The proposals for enhanced debt relief agreed at the annual meeting of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund in September, which were originally put forward at the Cologne summit, will provide $50 billion of debt relief, which is more than twice as much as before, and will provide a sharper focus on poverty reduction.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. Can she confirm that the Government are prepared to consider a 100 per cent. debt cancellation in certain circumstances, and can she outline the criteria that will be used to determine eligibility for that extra help?

My hon. Friend is right. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has made it clear that, after countries have qualified for HIPC, he, together with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry—I emphasise that, because who pays for the initiative is important—will be willing to increase the debt relief to 100 per cent. The countries that qualify will be spelled out. I am sure that they will be those that are focusing on the economic change needed to improve their economies and reduce poverty.

Does the Secretary of State agree that the debt relief programme for the poorest countries, like access to world trade, should be tied to the treatment of children, and that countries that use child labour without providing a proper education and opportunities for children to broaden their lives should not have access to debt relief programmes, any more than they should have access to world markets?

I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman at all. He adopts the same position as the American trade union movement, with which I also disagree. There are 250 million child labourers in the world. They are in the very poorest countries, and only 5 per cent. of them are in traded sectors. It is not that their parents do not care for them; their families are poor and the children work to get food. We need development programmes that help those countries to grow their economy and reduce poverty. Trade sanctions would entrap them in perpetual poverty and perpetuate child labour. It is the wrong remedy. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman should not heckle me. He is wrong.

What steps she is taking to assist the relief of Afghan refugees in Iran. [100354]

The Government and people of Iran have shown great generosity in hosting large numbers of Afghan refugees. My Department has recently agreed to fund a number of projects in order to improve health and education services and to promote small businesses.

I welcome what my hon. Friend has had to say about recent improvements, but does he recognise that the fate of those 1 million Afghan refugees in Iran could be a major destabilising factor in the politics of that troubled region? Will he continue to offer every possible assistance to alleviate that problem?

I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. We are providing £1.5 million for the refugee assistance programme, which we shall continue to support. The Afghan donors support group is meeting today in Ottawa. I was going to be there, but I felt it more important to be here to answer my hon. Friend.

If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 8 December.

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

What hope and reassurance can the Prime Minister give to distressed families in Bristol, Liverpool and elsewhere, including my constituency, who years ago underwent the grief of burying babies only now to discover that hospitals retained hearts and other organs without telling them? Given the breakdown of NHS accountability in Bristol when I and others first began asking questions, how confident are the Government that hospital authorities will give full and frank answers to the chief medical officer's investigation? Will the Government keep open the possibility of a public inquiry to examine witnesses under oath and recommend changes in the law?

I entirely share the concern of the hon. Gentleman's constituents and, indeed, many people up and down the country whose original tragedy has been compounded by this dreadful affair. It is precisely for that reason that the Health Secretary has announced an independent and full inquiry. That will be completed as soon as possible. We are quite determined that the practice should be stamped out.

Does the Prime Minister agree that Steven Spielberg's project, which is worth tens of millions of pounds to our economy, is simply excellent news for Britain? Thus encouraged, will he support Lord Puttnam's campaign to preserve some of Britain's oldest cinemas, so as to pass that physical aspect of our heritage to the 21st century?

I am delighted at the news that Steven Spielberg and Tom Hanks are to make their new production in this country. It is tremendous news for the entire British film industry, and shows the good state of British art and culture.

Does the Prime Minister accept that the Deputy Prime Minister's strategy of persecuting the motorist, undermining the road haulage industry, botching the sale of air traffic control and abandoning even the pretence of a policy on London underground is a complete failure and does not remotely represent an integrated transport policy?

I do not accept a word of what the right hon. Gentleman said. In this area, as in many others, what is actually happening is that, after 18 years of Conservative neglect, we are having to sort out the problems that we inherited—but we are sorting them out.

What an utterly complacent answer. If the Prime Minister thinks that transport is improving, he is viewing it from the window of a Daimler heading down the M4 bus lane.

"Develop an integrated transport policy."

"I will have failed if in five years' time there are not fewer journeys by car … I urge you to hold me to it."

Let us leave aside the jokes and consider the policy position. It is correct that road usage has increased, but there has also been a 15 per cent. increase in rail usage, a 12 per cent. increase in London underground usage, and, for the first time, an increase in the use of buses. In other words, there is an increase in demand on the whole system. We will spend more on transport, more on London underground, more on London transport, more on road maintenance and more on railways than the plans that we inherited from the Conservative Government proposed. That is not a joke; it is policy, which will make a difference to the people of this country.

The question was about what had been achieved. The Government's annual report states: "integrated transport policy—done." I shall outline their achievements: shambolic U-turn on the tube—done; botched plans for air traffic privatisation—done; hypocritical attacks on car drivers—done; attacks on the haulage industry—done; complete failure of the railways—done. We do not know where the Deputy Prime Minister is, but now that the Prime Minister has appeared on the front cover of "Hello" magazine, is it not time that the Deputy Prime Minister was in "Goodbye" magazine?

I have already explained the increased pressures and the increased usage of public transport and the roads. How do we ensure that we spend more money on transport—[HON. Members: "What have you done?"] Conservative Members ask what we have done—I shall tell them. We are spending £500 million more on transport than the plans that we inherited proposed; indeed, we are spending over £500 million more on London transport. In addition, there are 1,800 new rural bus services under this Government; we have completed the Jubilee line, which the previous Government botched; and we have sorted out the channel tunnel rail link, which was a total mess when we took over. Of course, there is more to do, but we are doing it far better than Conservative plans and policies ever accounted for.

I call Mr. McDonnell.

Me?

McDonnell is the name.

It is nice to be recognised. The Prime Minister will know that this morning a listening device was found in the car of the president of Sinn Fein. Will he launch an immediate inquiry and make it clear to all sides—possibly even to our security forces—that nobody will be allowed to undermine the peace process?

I never comment on security allegations and I do not intend to do so now.

Given the Prime Minister's statements on the road this week, has he had an opportunity to examine the main findings of today's Joseph Rowntree Foundation report into deprivation and poverty in our country? Two and a half years into a Labour Government, with a rock solid majority and supported by a benign economic scenario, which of the main conclusions depresses him most: the greater proportion of people on low incomes; the growing gap between those on low and medium incomes; the increasing number of young people who have to be counselled for drug abuse; or the steady increase in premature deaths, especially in the north of England and Scotland?

First, the right hon. Gentleman does not point out, as the authors do, that the report covers only a short period of the Government's tenure, before the main policies that we introduced have taken effect. Those policies include: a record rise of 20 per cent. in child benefit; the working families tax credit; and the new deal for the unemployed. The Liberal Democrats opposed the latter policy, which has meant that approximately 360,000 young people have got the chance of gaining work or skills for the first time—150,000 are now in unsubsidised jobs. The issue is not whether we agree that poverty exists, but what we do about it. We are acting on it.

I am sure that the Prime Minister, like the whole House, would acknowledge that there is a correlation between income, environment and life expectancy. That being the case, is it not profoundly concerning for us all, and most of all him, that the life expectancy statistics are that much notifiably worse in the north of England and in Scotland than in other parts of the country? Does that not point to the need for a drastic upgrading of Government policy to give more help to those most in need—not only middle England, but those who elected the Government and are looking to them for most but getting least?

Again, the life expectancy variations are far greater within nations or regions than between them. Rather than trying to divide up the country, surely we should be united around policies that target need wherever it exists—whether in inner-city Glasgow, London, Liverpool, Manchester, Plymouth or any of our main cities. All have problems.

While the Government are clearly right to tackle poverty and inequality wherever they exist, will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to say from the Dispatch Box that it is Government policy to create prosperity throughout the nation and, at the same time, to reduce the disparities— especially those relating to infrastructure—between the more and the less prosperous regions of the United Kingdom?

Of course it is, and my right hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that there are disparities between regions as well. My point, simply, is that the disparities that stand out as starkly, if not more so, are those between different income groups within regions. As for regional development and infrastructure, he is absolutely right, which is why 60 per cent. of the increased spending on development agencies is going to the northern parts that need it most. We have to get more investment into those areas to attract jobs and companies, and that is precisely what we are doing. [Interruption.] As for the hecklers on the Conservative Front Bench, let me tell the House that the one thing that I found, whatever part of the north-west I went to in the past two days, was that, whether people debated the north-south divide or not, everyone knew who was responsible for inequality in this country: Conservative Governments who, for 18 years, not only created social division but managed to wreck the economy in the process.

As revealed in the diaries of my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) in The Sunday Times last week, it appears that the Prime Minister considers that being effective at one's job is a qualification for the sack. Given the ineffectiveness of Government policies, inasmuch as half our air space is being privatised and 500,000 homes are being built in the south-east in spite of the protestations that there is no north-south divide, how much more effective does the Deputy Prime Minister have to be before the Prime Minister will consider it safe to fall under a bus, if he can find one?

I cannot remember what I am supposed to have said about the hon. Gentleman according to the diaries, but I think that it may have been right, whatever it was. He should look at the policies that are being pursued. We are increasing transport expenditure. In relation to air traffic control, of course safety has to remain in the public sector. We are trying to strike the right balance between public and private finance to do the reconstruction work necessary to make our air traffic control system work properly. It is the same with the tube. Only under the Labour party's proposals does the private sector take the risk on construction contracts with the public sector running the essential service. It is called public-private partnership, and it is the right policy for the country.

Will my right hon. Friend assure the 3 million workers who are now entitled to four weeks' paid holiday a year that we will protect those rights to the utmost? The Conservative party has said that it would scrap them. It would also scrap the minimum wage and the 26 new rights at work that we have introduced. Is that not typical of a scrap heap Opposition? [Laughter.]

Conservative Members can laugh as much as they like, but my hon. Friend is absolutely right. Come the next election, we will remind people that the Government introduced paid holiday and the Conservatives would take it away; that we introduced a minimum wage and they would scrap it; that we introduced the working families tax credit and they would take that away; and that the Conservatives opposed the extra increase in child benefit and are opposed to the £100 that pensioner households are receiving this week. I suspect that, when the Conservatives fight the next election on those policies, there may be a little less smiling.

Now that the Prime Minister has returned from his visit telling people in the north-west that there is no north-south divide, will he turn his attention to the very real divide in the provision for cancer services across the country? The Christie hospital in Manchester receives half the revenue funding that is given to the Royal Marsden, even though the two hospitals are the same size and do the same things for the same number of patients. Will he come up with the resources that the Christie needs to have its own intensive care unit, so that it can be declared a cancer centre for surgery for the north-west, which is the only region that does not have one?

When the hon. Gentleman compares the Christie hospital with the Royal Marsden, anyone would think that this problem had suddenly appeared in the past two and a half years. We applaud the work that Christie hospital is doing, especially on cancer.

It is not applause but money that it wants.

I was asked to stop applauding and give money. It is being awarded—£4 million from the new opportunities fund for specialist cancer equipment. That is giving money.

This Christmas, 500 dealers in the City of London will each receive bonuses of £1 million or more, whereas, as my right hon. Friend knows, every family in the north-east of England will be touched by the facts about poor health, low skills and poor opportunities which he set before the country this week. Will he assure all his many friends in the north that the formula for spending will reflect our needs and will enable the gap in health and hopes to be closed?

Of course we want to remove the gap in health and the education inequalities that exist up and down the country. It is precisely for that reason that we have committed the £40 billion of extra spending. The new deal for school buildings will benefit thousands of schools, including many in our constituencies. Health inequality is undoubtedly linked to poor income levels. Poverty is one of the great factors in poor health. We are targeting these inequalities through our policies such as the new deal for the inner cities, which will put £800 million into some of the most deprived inner-city areas. We are tackling these issues at source, wherever they exist. I really believe that, whether it is north, south, east or west, that is the best way to do it.

The Prime Minister should know that, on 25 November, the director of nursing at Radcliffe infirmary in Oxford wrote to general practitioners in my constituency saying that there was now extreme pressure on the hospital, and asking them to slow down their rate of referral. A few days later, on 1 December, the director of nursing wrote again, saying that the hospital had now adopted the level 3 escalation procedure. Hon. Members may know, but others may not, that level 3 means that accident and emergency cubicles are full, that an overwhelming number of patients are on trolleys and that patients can no longer readily be taken off ambulances.

The decision about Burford was made by the local health authority. I understand the hon. Gentleman's unstinting support for the hospital, and I do not in any way diminish the point that he has made or the pressures that people are under. I witnessed some of those pressures when I visited a hospital in Manchester. We are trying to improve the situation by reducing the pressures, through new services such as NHS Direct, large amounts of additional funding and the recruitment of extra doctors and nurses—there are thousands more in the system than when we came to office. Improving the situation will take some time, however, because the accumulated problems are extremely serious.

In the context of the recent national debate on the way forward for health care, is the Prime Minister aware of events in Warrington? While the local hospital was modernising and improving its services, a private hospital that had been built in its grounds went bust and has now been bought by the NHS. Does the Prime Minister conclude from those events that the Tory plans to privatise health care are not only morally indefensible but economically illiterate? What would he say to the health care workers whose service was described by the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) as thoroughly second rate?

I congratulate everyone at Warrington hospital on the work that is being done there. We are trying to provide new services to make access to the health service easier. Yesterday and today alone, 1.5 million people have visited the service NHS Direct on-line, and nearly 1 million have now contacted NHS Direct.

How much have the Government spent so far on the national changeover plan in preparing to join the euro?

As we announced at the time, we will spend some tens of millions of pounds on that, but it is absolutely the right thing to do, ensuring that British business is prepared for something that will affect us in any event.

The question was how much has already been spent on the national changeover plan. The Government are spending millions of pounds of taxpayers' money on preparing to join the euro early in the next Parliament, but they will not say how much has been spent. When challenged, the Northern Ireland Office gave details of the tens of thousands of pounds that it had already spent, but other Departments have been instructed not to do so.

"Unnecessary secrecy in Government … has long been held to undermine good governance … and my party has long been committed to change."—[Official Report, 7 December 1999; Vol. 340, c. 714.]

As I said a moment ago, when we announced the plan we said what the cost would be. [Interruption.] We announced what the cost would be, and people therefore know how much we will spend on the changeover plan. [Interruption.] People know how much we are going to spend. The issue is whether it is sensible to have a changeover plan. Our answer is that it is sensible, because otherwise we would not be in a position either to be prepared for the euro—which will affect business in this country—or to join the euro, even if the country voted for it later.

Well, "people" evidently know how much we have spent so far. Will someone tell the Ministers in the Government where the people are who know the answer because Ministers are not able to provide the answer? Only the Northern Ireland Office is able to provide the answer—congratulations to the Northern Ireland Office.

That is a fascinating example of the difference between the right hon. Gentleman's jokes, lines and gags and policy, because the two people he has mentioned—the Governor of the Bank of England and Lord Levene—are actually both in favour of the changeover plan. There is no point the right hon. Gentleman looking dazzled by that; it is true. Therefore, as ever with him, he can make as many smart comments as he likes, but, in the end, the question is: is it sensible to have the changeover plan or not? The two people whom he has just quoted support the changeover plan. They support the policy of prepare and decide. I quote the Governor of the Bank of England—[Interruption.]

Order. I have had enough of Members who are shouting from sedentary positions.

The moment we move to policy, Conservative Members are disconcerted by it. They cannot work it out. The Governor of the Bank of England said:

"This, in my view"—

"provides a solid foundation for a continuing, positive and constructive relationship between the United Kingdom and other EU member states, including those participating in … the euro."

Is my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister aware that 39 towns have applied for special city status to celebrate the new millennium? Can he confirm that, overwhelmingly, the most coherent and convincing bid has come from Dover? Considering our proud history and our attractive gateway location and given that, in the British Isles, the very first sunshine of the new millennium will break over our famous white cliffs, does he agree that, on 1 January 2000, when Dover gets its special status, it will be the best reason for celebrating since we won the seat of Dover from the Tories on 1 May 1997?

I can certainly tell my hon. Friend that no one puts the case for Dover better than him. However, if I had to adjudicate between all the bids now, it would be very difficult. What is absolutely sure is that, while Dover and the Government are marching forwards into the 21st century, the Tories will be marching backwards.

A very important decision will soon have to be taken on the next British synchrotron, and that decision will have big implications for future investment in big science and important implications for international collaboration. Will the Prime Minister take a personal interest in that important decision?

I certainly will take a personal interest in it. As I explained to people in the north-west when I was asked about the project, in which they also have an interest, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is closely considering it, and I shall closely consider it, too. We will have to take the best decision in the interests of science and technology.