What progress is being made in developing a cross-departmental policy for the countryside.[116384]

The Government's countryside policy will be set out in detail in the rural White Paper to be published later this year.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that response. I recognise the positive steps proposed in the Government's legislation to improve access to the countryside for the public and at the same time to protect existing rural amenities. Will my right hon. Friend endeavour to encourage Departments to recognise and support the constructive and helpful contribution made by farming and other rural industries to that process?

I thank my hon. Friend. We will do exactly that. In preparation for the completion of the rural White Paper, we are trying to ensure that all Departments are signed up to the parts that they will implement. The Ministerial Committee on Rural Affairs, which I Chair, will ensure that all Departments think in terms not just of the rural White Paper, but of other legislation with a rural dimension. As a result, I hope that farming families, who have faced many serious difficulties, will be helped by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's £200 million package—and he met them last week. Efforts are also being made to help people in rural communities to diversify economically and to give them a broader base from which to work.

Does the right hon. Lady accept that one of the problems of the countryside is that younger people often feel that they have very little to do? When she holds the discussions with other Departments, will she bear in mind that recreation facilities are very important in rural areas and that there is a feeling—certainly in my constituency—that there are not enough of them?

I welcome the hon. Gentleman's contribution. Our policies, such as the new deal in rural communities, aim to find work for young and older people. Work is the first priority for young people.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the critical issues in putting together the rural White Paper is to provide one-stop advice for farmers seeking to diversify and enhance their businesses in various ways? That means providing access to the range of advice services that are available, including those on the resolution of planning issues that are often identified as being of critical importance in rural areas.

Yes is the short answer. We are not just considering planning issues, but, when we consulted in rural areas, planning came top of the list for many people. We are considering how we can simplify the planning system and make it a quicker process so that it does not hold-up developments. However, as with any other policy, we have to make a judgment. We have to do what we can to speed up and simplify the system so that it is easier for people to use. However, at the same time, we must not affect the beauty of rural communities and we must do all that we can to protect the countryside. It is not a zero-sum game; we can have a win-win situation, as we have with rural housing policy where we are primarily considering brownfield sites for developments. Benefits can be obtained for all sides.

Now that the Food Standards Agency has been established, will the right hon. Lady tell the House whether any consideration has been given to moving countryside and rural issues to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food so as to create an enhanced ministry of rural affairs and agriculture?

Such structural change would be carried out by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. With the Food Standards Agency, we have set up an independent body that is not a part of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The people to whom I have spoken want an independent body that is made up of experts from across the board. There is no scientific agreement on many issues, genetic modification being a prime example. The agency contains representatives from the community and from different scientific perspectives. It will provide advice and information and will produce reports. I am not sure that making it a part of MAFF would help the community response to the issues that affect rural areas.

What plans she has to make quangos accountable to elected regional and local bodies.[116385]

The Government have already transferred 220 public bodies to the devolved Assemblies in Edinburgh and Cardiff. It is the Government's intention in due course to transfer a number of public bodies to the Greater London Assembly.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is entirely unacceptable for the Government to announce plans to make quangos accountable to devolved government in Scotland and in Wales, and to the proposed devolved government in Greater London, when he has no answers on what is to happen to unaccountable quangos in the English regions?

The Government intend to bring forward legislation that will enable the electorate within the regions to determine whether they want an elected assembly. If they do, that will completely change the terms of the debate on the relationship of that elected assembly to any quangos.

Does my hon. Friend agree that quangos would be far more accountable, as outlined in the question, if no one is appointed to them who is not fully domiciled in the United Kingdom and who is not acting as an ambassador from a foreign country to the United Nations? In other words, we do not want on quangos any more Michael Ashcrofts.

It has been the Government's policy to follow the Nolan procedures for appointments to quangos and to ensure, following the paper on the opening of quangos' doors, both that people presented to quangos have been "Nolaned" and that the quangos themselves operate in an open and accountable way. I am not aware that the gentleman to whom my hon. Friend refers has been appointed to any quangos in this country.

What recent representations she has received on the effectiveness of the Government's targets for the electronic delivery of Government services. [116386]

There have been two reports on the monitoring of the targets, which have been openly debated. In the light of the two reports, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has determined to bring forward the date to 2005, when 100 per cent. of those services that are appropriate to electronic communications will be brought online.

May I be permitted to congratulate the Minister and his colleagues on the huge enthusiasm—[Interruption.] Oh, yes, the huge enthusiasm that the Government display for matters electronic. Does he think that the Government's competence in delivering is evidenced by the fact that they appear to have chosen for themselves a web name that is already occupied by somebody else?

No, I do not think that it affects the effectiveness of the Government that somebody has been trading under the internet provider named previously. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind comments, but the important point is that the Government are taking e-government and e-commerce seriously. We are speeding up the process to ensure that Government services are online so that we do not get behind in the international race.

While it is important that e-government becomes a way for the future, what steps is my hon. Friend taking to ensure that Members play their role in delivering e-government to their constituents?

In many ways, the most important help that can be given to Members in using e-government is the greater availability of information that the Government are making available on their websites at all possible opportunities.

If the Government's intentions on electronic government were serious, two things would have been done in the document published on Monday: first, managed call centres would have been taken out of the definition of electronic service delivery; and secondly, the target date for the proportion of services delivered genuinely electronically would have been 2002, not 2005. Why did the Minister do neither of those things?

On the first point, the hon. Gentleman misunderstands the definition of communication with Government: it includes someone who calls a centre and speaks to a person who has access to all the available information, as opposed to just chatting about the information. If the information is available to the person contacted—for example, as it is in NHS Online—it counts towards the Government's targets; if not, it does not. I hope that the hon. Gentleman finds that definition helpful.

I am grateful to the Minister, but I am afraid that he is the one who has got it wrong, speaking about NHS Online when he means NHS Direct. To the public, managed call centres are not a form of electronic service delivery, however desirable and accessible they may be. I have two specific questions: first, what proportion of Government services will be able to be delivered electronically—that is, by internet, digital television and electronic data exchange—by 2002; and secondly, what proportion of services will be able to be delivered by digital television by 2002?

The hon. Gentleman asks questions—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Changing the target date from 2005 to 2002 for 100 per cent. electronic service delivery would obviously change the objectives and definitions for 2002. Precisely because of the nature of those questions, the Government are reviewing the current definitions of electronic communication.

What role does my hon. Friend envisage for rural post offices in the delivery of Government services in the countryside? Is provision being made now to ensure that, if people increasingly want to use post offices to access Government services electronically, post offices will be able to offer such facilities? Are we putting the right technology into post offices now?

Via the Horizon project, £500 million is going into post offices. The performance and innovation unit is considering the criteria for post office access and it is the Government's policy to maintain a national network of post offices.

If she will make a statement on the Government's strategy for combating drug abuse among young people and teenagers. [116387]

Young people are the main focus of the Government's anti-drugs strategy. One of our four key objectives is to reduce by 50 per cent. the incidence of drug misuse among the under-25s by 2008. We are working with all relevant Departments to ensure that young people receive the help and advice that they need to resist drug misuse.

Bearing in mind that 78 per cent. of teenagers in a school's education unit survey thought that Ecstasy was always unsafe, what impact will the proposal to downgrade Ecstasy, as recommended in the recent Police Foundation report, have on drugs prevention programmes in schools? Does the right hon. Lady agree that Leah Betts' death alerted young people to the fact that Ecstasy can kill? Does she also agree that research shows clearly that the use of Ecstasy can have a degenerative effect on the brain?

The Government have made clear their position on the recommendations of the Police Foundation report: we do not support the recommendations in respect of cannabis and Ecstasy. I have met Leah Betts' parents; I recognise the pain and suffering that they have experienced and acknowledge their work to stop other young people from suffering their daughter's fate. I hope that that work, together with other preventive educational programmes that we are implementing, will make a difference to young people and ensure that no other family goes through the pain suffered by the Betts family.

Does my right hon. Friend share my frustration at the fact that debate on the issue is generally about whether one is hard or soft on drugs, instead of examining the complex issues involved and concentrating on practical measures that would help to get all people off drugs and ensure that teenagers and young people do not go on to drugs?

That is a helpful contribution. It is important for people to understand that drug abuse cannot be broken overnight. It takes years to break the cycle. We are working hard with those in education to make sure that preventive measures are put in place to stop young people getting addicted in the first place. We are also working on treatment and on trying to stop the drugs coming in. Last Monday, we launched "Positive Futures" with people from Sport England, including Trevor Brooking and Kevin Keegan, and the youth offending teams, to try to get 10 and 11-year-olds to look more positively at the future—a future that can be sports-related, and not drugs-related.

I am concerned about what seem to be conflicting reports in the newspapers about Ministers' views on so-called soft drugs. Will the Minister tell the House clearly the Government's view on cannabis? Will she also comment on a poll published today, which found that one in five 15-year-olds has been offered heroin? Roger Howard, the chief executive of DrugScope, said that young people felt that they did not know enough about the dangers of heroin. Will the Minister talk to the Secretary of State for Education and Employment to ensure that young people are given sufficient warning about the dangers of heroin?

The hon. Gentleman asks two questions. The Government have made clear their position on the recommendations in the Police Foundation's report on cannabis and Ecstasy: we do not agree with the recommendations. There are, however, many recommendations in the report which we welcome. Like my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, I look forward to an open and frank debate.

What discussions she has had with ministerial colleagues in her role as chair of the ministerial network on social exclusion.[116388]

Since I was appointed chair of the ministerial network in December 1999, I have held one meeting, in January, at which I agreed with ministerial colleagues a future work programme to chase progress on the implementation of previous social exclusion reports. I plan to hold three further meetings in May and June to follow up implementation on school exclusions, truancy, rough sleeping and teenage pregnancy.

In welcoming my right hon. Friend's role in ensuring that Government policy on social exclusion is implemented on the ground, I remind her that in London teenage pregnancy is an especially serious problem. Will she congratulate organisations such as Homestart, a voluntary group in my constituency? It supports the valuable work of Barnet health authority and Barnet council in advising young teenagers who are at particular risk of becoming pregnant, and works with them to ensure that they get the best help to improve their parenting skills if they become young mothers.

I join my hon. Friend in acknowledging the contribution of organisations such as Homestart, which work in partnership with the Government and use some of the £60 million that we have put in to try to meet our target of ensuring that the number of teenage pregnancies is halved in 10 years. We have one of the highest rates of teenage pregnancies in Europe. We hope that, by working with local groups and using the extra money, and through better education and support, the numbers will be reduced drastically.

Given that the social exclusion unit undertook, as long ago as June 1998, to devise approaches to tackling some of the problems on our worst housing estates, will the Minister tell the House what discussions she has held this week with the Deputy Prime Minister about the Audit Commission's report? It stated that the five local authorities that perform worst on empty properties, and thus deny people the opportunity of having a home, were all run at the relevant time by the Labour party.

The hon. Gentleman should consider the seriousness of the matter. He tries to score political points by counting councils; Conservative Members have few to count. We do our best to work with all councils—Labour, Liberal or Conservative—on housing. As my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister made clear in the housing package that he announced yesterday, money will be available for all communities to get more housing at lower cost and fairer rents.

My right hon. Friend knows that last week the social exclusion unit published a report on young people. It suggested that a ministerial group at the highest level, with representatives from each Department, should consider young people's interests and how each Department affects their lives. We can thus join up the thinking across Government to ensure that young people get a decent service. That national structure should be reflected locally through local youth forums in which young people would have a voice. It is essential to implement that new strategy for young people as soon as possible.

I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution. I agree that a strategy for Departments to join up to consider young people's interests is a positive step, which will make a difference to many young people. Again, the suggestion of doing the same locally has a lot to offer. However, I add a footnote and a warning. We must ensure that we do not tell people in our communities how best to implement a policy. There must be flexibility so that local communities can make decisions, which depend on factors such as size and urban-rural mix, for themselves.

If he will make a statement on the better government for older people programme. [116389]

The 28 pilot projects are formally at an end as pilot projects, but some are continuing because they have been successful. The Government will evaluate them over the coming months and it is our intention to report by June.

I am grateful to the Minister for that answer, but given that all the news releases issued about the programme boast of a series of "listening to older people" events across the country involving Ministers, can he tell us how seriously people can take those meetings when the Government have shown only this week how deaf they are to the voices of pensioners by failing to give them a decent increase in the basic state pension—just 75p? Are not the Government listening to but not understanding pensioners?

What was in the hon. Gentleman's party's previous manifesto? Absolutely nothing on that issue. It is clear that, over their period in office, the Government will have put £6.4 billion into pensioners' pockets. After 20 years of Conservative rule, the disparity between pensioners on the lowest incomes and those on the highest incomes was higher than it had ever been. By providing the minimum income guarantee to pensioners and free eye tests, the Government have done more for pensioners than his party or the Conservative party would do.

If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 5 April.

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.

In a recent letter to me, Philip and Ruth Bull of Evesham wrote:

We qualify for our state pension within the next few weeks but will not benefit from the same tax allowance as other 65 year old pensioners who were born a few days earlier.

First, I hope that the hon. Gentleman pointed out to his constituents that the Conservative party reduced the married couples allowance from 40 per cent. to 15 per cent. Secondly, they are getting the basic rate cut in income tax. Thirdly, they will be entitled to the £150 winter fuel allowance. Those two things would be taken off them by a Conservative Government. In addition, we are putting in a lot more support for younger families with children through the extra child benefit, which would also be taken off the hon. Gentleman's constituents' grandchildren by a Conservative Government.

Is it not the case that the Government's plans to modernise the national health service will meet their objectives only with a substantial increase in the number of nurses and with an expansion of nurses' role that recognises their talent and expertise? Does my right hon. Friend therefore welcome today's news that 5,500 more nurses are working in the health service and the announcement that those nurses will have more power? Is it not a mark of nurses' good judgment that at yesterday's Royal College of Nursing conference, 81 per cent. were not reassured by the words of the leader of the Conservative party because they know that he would privatise the NHS?

It is the case that the number of nurses has increased by 5,500. When we came to office, the number of nurses in training had been cut. Now we are seeing an increase in the number of nurses. Also, the £5,000 for each ward—the capital help that nurses will get—will give them more power, and will also allow us to improve some 10,000 wards. We already know that the Conservative party's promises on health spending are hollow because it is committed to two things: first, private medical insurance tax relief—£1 billion out of the health service budget, half of which is a deadweight cost going to those who already have private medical insurance—and, secondly, refusing to support the increase in tobacco duty, which is £400 million. There is a £1.5 billion hole in its health spending plans already.

May I ask the Prime Minister about a matter that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry dodged and evaded this morning?

If the structural aid is not approved, the BMW Group has to reconsider its investment plans for Longbridge.

No. The Secretary of State has given the fullest possible account. I think that what the right hon. Gentleman is saying is absolute nonsense. Of course the grant aid was very important, which is precisely why they had the conversation. As I explained to him last week, we were trying to make sure that the process was hastened. However, it had nothing to do with the ultimate decision.

The Prime Minister seems to be extraordinarily sensitive about who knew what when. Of course this is about things other than the grant aid. Do not this morning's documents show that BMW says the decision was also due to

uncertainty in the UK car market..?

charges made for workplace parking.

Order. The House will come to order.

We know that Labour Members do not want to hear it, Madam Speaker, but they had better hear.

The Government should have known, how could they not have known, the true situation of Rover Cars. We had given them the regular figures that left them in no doubt we were in a critical situation.

Blair's attitudes and opinions seemed to be many and varied. I have heard him say different things.

The series of meetings with BMW took place because everyone knew there was a critical situation. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] Of course they did. That was the very reason for the meeting that took place on 10 March.

If the Secretary of State is concentrating on the future, why is he spending his time doctoring BMW's statements—[Interruption.]—which he had agreed with BMW, and then denying that he made the statement in the first place?

First, of course I do. This exchange only shows the right hon. Gentleman's lack of judgment. Rover employees—who, understandably, are really anxious about the future—will know that the people who sold the plant to BMW are the people sitting on the Opposition Benches.

Will my right hon. Friend join me in condemning the brutal murder by terrorists of 35 Sikhs in a small town in Kashmir? Will he also confirm the Government's commitment to fight against international terrorism—which is engaged in killing innocent civilians to destabilise communities, and is promoted and supported by countries that are well known to the international community?

We condemn all acts of violence that bring suffering to the people of Kashmir. We are of course appalled by the murders on 20 March, and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary immediately made a statement condemning the massacre.

Why is the Prime Minister spending a smaller share of our national wealth on pensioners than the Tories did?

We have not merely increased the amount of money that we are spending on pensioners, we have increased the amount of money far beyond anything that the Liberal Democrats have ever promised pensioners. Over the whole of this Parliament, we are increasing the amount by £6.5 billion. So that the electors know it: that is £6.5 billion that the Liberal Democrats never promised they would spend.

In a written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb), the Government have confirmed that the share of national wealth—which is increasing—going to pensioners will decrease steadily over the course of this Parliament. In its manifesto at the previous general election, the Labour party said—[Interruption.]

Order.

Labour Members do not like to have their own words quoted back to them, Madam Speaker, but they are going to have them quoted back. At the last general election, Labour said:

pensioners should share fairly in the increasing prosperity of the nation.

First, I think that people should understand that the Liberal Democrats never promised that they would re-link the state pension to earnings. Furthermore, every time they say to people that that is what they would do, they have not the faintest idea how they would pay for it.

Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge the genuine concerns about the possibility of a significant increase in air traffic, notably from London airports? In particular, will he note the on-going fears of many of my constituents and those in surrounding areas about the idea that RAF Northolt in west London could be expanded to become a feeder airport for Heathrow, with all the resulting pollution, noise and environmental damage for those under the flight path?

I can indeed give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks. I know that he has been campaigning on the issue for some time. He will be aware that the Government do not believe that the circumstances have changed to warrant reopening the issue of RAF Northolt and we do not intend to consider any proposals to develop it as a major civil airport, because it is clear that the environmental consequences would be unacceptable.

According to the Child Support Agency, only one third of absent parents pay maintenance in full for their children. Will not the Treasury be the only beneficiary of the removal of tax relief on maintenance?

No, I think that everyone will benefit, in particular from the new system that we are introducing for the Child Support Agency. It will be a far simpler and far fairer system. As the hon. Lady knows, the great problem with the Child Support Agency is that many of the costs are eaten up by bureaucracy. As a result of the simpler system, that will not be the case. We will get the money in more fairly and there will be a benefit not to the Treasury, but to those who have to pay maintenance.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the new Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, which came into force this week, is welcomed by my constituents and is already having an effect in Dover? Will he ensure that the provision for asylum will continue and that we will not be diverted or deflected by the disgraceful and shameful behaviour of the tabloids and the Tories, who seek to link increases in local council tax with asylum support?

Despite what the Conservatives say, my hon. Friend is right that we are establishing a national asylum support system to replace the shambles that we inherited from the previous Government. The Conservatives have proposed an extra £500 million of spending a year, because they want to revert to the cash benefit system in place of the system that we are introducing. They also oppose our action on road hauliers who bring in illegal immigrants. That is an extraordinary position, but it means that never again should my hon. Friend or any other Labour Member take lessons about asylum from the Conservatives.

This week, the UK managing director of Cisco, one of the world's largest companies, said:

The UK is a great place for us. But, if tax remains the same we will have to look seriously at where we develop our products and where we have our European support operations.

It is precisely because of the concerns that have been raised that we have a consultation paper with three options. We shall discuss the issue with those concerned. If firms such as Cisco have legitimate concerns, of course we have to deal with them, but we also have to deal with tax avoidance. If the right hon. Gentleman is saying that we should not attempt to deal with that, perhaps he will get up and say so.

Of course we should deal with tax avoidance. [Interruption.]

Order.

We should deal with tax avoidance, but that is not what one of the world's largest companies is talking about. It is talking about the extension of national insurance contributions—another stealth tax introduced by the Chancellor—on which there has been no consultation paper. The Prime Minister poses for pictures with computers but, when one of the world's largest computer companies threatens to pull the plug on UK investment, he does not know what it is talking about. That is not a good sign.

The right hon. Gentleman is talking absolute nonsense. Of course there is a paper about the share options, as it is important that we ensure that there is no tax avoidance. We will listen to legitimate concerns and act on them, but it would be wholly wrong to allow tax avoidance to take place on the back of any of those practices.

So either the Prime Minister is unaware of what is happening in the high-technology sector, or he does not care about it. The British Chambers of Commerce said yesterday that

the Government seems to be unaware that its actions are working against creating a better climate for business.

I was thinking that there is at least one economic migrant who has come back to this country instead of staying abroad. They are not all leaving—some are coming back.

More, more!

No. No more. I call Mrs. Gilroy.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that a most welcome aspect of this year's Budget is what it does for older people with modest savings? Will the Government build on that by recognising thrifty pensioners in future Budgets?

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to this matter. The Government are consulting on the idea of a pensioner credit that will help pensioners who are above benefit levels but who are not well off. For example, we have rejected Liberal Democrat calls to put everything on the basic state pension because pensioner income levels vary in this country.

Why should the council tax payers of Uxbridge be penalised for the Government's policy failures on asylum seekers?

I am afraid to have to tell the hon. Gentleman that the fact of the matter—I hope that his constituents understand this—is that if we pursued the policies that he is advocating, we would restore cash benefits. That is one big way to reduce the number of asylum seekers! The Conservative party was in favour of restoring cash benefits—[Interruption.] Well, Conservative Members do not seem to think that it is their policy, but I am afraid that it is.

Millions of people are threatened with famine in Ethiopia. What are we doing to help?

From memory, I think that according to the latest figures from the Department for International Development we are providing about 10 million tonnes of food aid for people in Ethiopia. I think the total cost is more than £2.5 million, but we are also attempting to do other things. As my hon. Friend knows, the continuing conflict in Ethiopia and Eritrea is one of the main reasons why this is such a problem. We are doing everything that we can to bring the sides together. We are providing immediate aid and we are trying to work on a long-term solution.

Will the Prime Minister now condemn the absurd attack by the Secretary of State for Education and Employment last week on grammar and high schools in the borough of Trafford—the local education authority that achieves the best results in the north-west of England and which the right hon. Gentleman accused of standing in the way of the Government's objective of increasing standards?

I am pleased to say that we are increasing standards. The hon. Gentleman will know that in primary schools, for example, they have never been higher. If he wants to get into a debate about grammar schools—this will not appeal to everyone in the House—I remind him that the party that closed more grammar schools than any other was the Conservative party.

Earlier today, during the Adjournment debate in the Scottish Grand Committee on alleviating pensioner poverty in Scotland, the Sutherland commission on the long-term care of the elderly was mentioned. Is the Prime Minister in a position to tell us when the Government will announce the response to the last of those recommendations?

Yes. The response will be announced as part of the comprehensive spending review. The royal commission recommendations, which have a number of spending implications, will be considered within the overall context of the Government's spending proposals. When that review is brought forward, we will state our views on the royal commission's report. In the meantime, we have allocated additional money over three years to help fund respite care and we are extending direct payments to people aged 65 and over. Again, that is a change from the spending plans of the previous Government.

Parents of schoolchildren in Northumberland have written to the Prime Minister to protest that the county council has cut £1 million from school budgets and are asking how that squares with the right hon. Gentleman's much-publicised commitment to education. How will the Prime Minister reply to those letters?

I do not know the facts of the case that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, although I will obviously look into them. One of the best ways in which we are dealing with the matter is through the Budget, which is putting money directly into schools to enable them to spend it on the things that they want. In addition, I am sure—although I do not know the specific examples—that schools in Northumberland will have benefited from new deal money, which is money that the Conservative party would take off because it opposes the new deal, and from the literacy and numeracy strategy which has raised standards in primary schools—a programme that the Conservatives opposed. We all remember that when we put education money into the education budget in the previous comprehensive spending review, those on the Opposition Front Bench called it "reckless and irresponsible". The one thing of which I can be sure is that more is happening—and better—in education in Northumberland than under the previous Government.

Next week, the Secretary of State for International Development will be meeting with other people in the education forum. I know that she will do a good job because I have seen half the brief that she is preparing. Because of the fears of some organisations that some members of the forum are dragging their feet, will the Prime Minister lend his support to the aims, principles and objectives of universal primary education? The future of literally millions of children depends on it.

This is a very important initiative—indeed, we support it 100 per cent. I am delighted, again, that the Department for International Development has been at the forefront of the notion of bringing in universal worldwide primary education. It is immensely important for developing countries, and it goes alongside the work that has been pioneered both by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development and by the Chancellor in debt relief.

Oh!

Order. Prime Minister.

Yes—years of ignoring the pledge to raise overseas aid and development as a proportion of national income. One of the things I am most proud of is that, whereas it fell under the previous Government, under this Government it is now rising. That is yet another difference between them and us.