When she last discussed with her colleagues from other member states of the European Union matters relating to the funding of training programmes designed to equip individuals and political parties in Kosovo to create local administrations and prepare for self-government for the province. [119351]

The support that we are providing to Kosovo is principally directed at the development of capacity to enable Kosovars to run their own administration. We are providing support for the establishment of Radio Television Kosovo as an impartial public broadcasting service, for civic and voter education and for the training of election officials. The European Union has committed 360 million euros this year, focused on energy, water supply, housing and transport. The United Kingdom's share is 61.2 million euros, which is the equivalent of £35.5 million at today's exchange rates.

I compliment my hon. Friend and his officials on the work that they are carrying out in Kosovo. However, there are conflicting views there on whether a Kosovo-wide election for an assembly should come before local elections. It would make good sense to hold local elections in the near future. Funding will be necessary, but at the heart of the setting up of such elections must be a guarantee of protection for minority groups throughout the province.

I understand that there may be different views about the timing of elections. We are prepared to provide support for the administration of the election and I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend that the Westminster Foundation has also provided support to the political parties in Kosovo. We hope that there will be free and fair elections at all levels.

I call Mr. Pa—?

Fabricant. Ominous! That was very off-putting.

I understand why the hon. Gentleman was disconcerted. Perhaps Madam Speaker does not regularly read The Guardian sketch.

The writer is not in the Press Gallery.

That means that I will not be in it, oh dear.

What are her Department's priorities in Sri Lanka for the financial year 2000–01. [119352]

Finding a lasting solution to the long-running conflict is the major priority in reducing poverty in Sri Lanka. Our country strategy was published in September 1999. I will be happy to send the hon. Gentleman a copy. It commits us to a small programme focused on improving the quality of education, particularly at primary level, which is deteriorating I am afraid; improving the livelihood security of the very poor in conflict areas; and working for inter-communal reconciliation.

I am grateful for that answer. The Secretary of State will know that civil war is rapidly escalating, causing injury and death in Sri Lanka. In the light of that, will she consider providing further cross-Government, co-ordinated help with medicines, gaining access to people in war-torn areas and protecting civilians, many of whom are now trapped? Is there any possibility of an initiative by the British Government, together with others in the Commonwealth, to reduce the conflict and get the two sides to back off, so that we can achieve some of the reconciliation and settlement that the right hon. Lady wants as much as we do? Will she give an absolute undertaking on behalf of the Government that none of the arms that we have sold will be used to repress or attack civilians in Sri Lanka?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. The long-running conflict is a disaster for the people of Sri Lanka and it has escalated recently, which is worrying. We are trying to provide help and support for the poor who are affected by the conflict. That work will continue and we remain committed always to providing humanitarian relief where it is needed and where we can. Sometimes that is difficult where there is conflict.

Does the Secretary of State accept that a long-term solution in Sri Lanka can be secured only when the legitimate rights of all peoples there are respected? In any dealings with the Government in Sri Lanka, will she emphasise the need to ensure fair play for the Tamil peoples as part of their policy? Without that, there will not be long-term stability.

I certainly agree with the right hon. Gentleman that peace always requires justice for all people, but I am afraid that, whatever the historical origins of the conflict, continuing fighting by the Tigers is bringing enormous suffering to all the people of Sri Lanka. It is time for peace.

What progress was made on speeding up debt relief for heavily indebted poor countries at the spring meetings of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. [119353]

At the spring meeting of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, agreement was reached to establish a joint World Bank-IMF committee to oversee the implementation of the enhanced heavily indebted poor countries initiative. The Chancellor and I have pressed for that, and hope that it will provide a focus for efforts to ensure that commitments made at the Cologne G7 meeting—that three quarters of eligible countries would start to receive debt relief before the end of the year—are met. It looks as though that target is slipping.

Do the current World Bank and IMF estimates of the number of countries that will qualify for enhanced debt relief look as though they will reach the G7 target of three quarters, to which the Secretary of State referred?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. I did not attend the meeting, because my voice—which is still croaky—collapsed completely when I was meant to be in Washington. I am sad to say that the communiqué the Development Committee stated that it was hoped that at least 20 eligible countries would start to receive debt relief before the end of the year. That is a reduction in the number in the Cologne commitment. All those who are concerned about debt relief—a concern shared widely throughout our society and across the world—should exert pressure to speed up the process. We are doing that as a Government, but other Governments are causing delays; that is a big worry.

Would the Secretary of State be good enough to tell us which countries are responsible for the delay? Does she accept that members of the Jubilee 2000 all-party group are extremely concerned about the situation? I pay tribute to her for the honesty with which she has just expressed herself on the subject—she, too, is obviously deeply concerned. How much debt has been paid off? What steps are being taken to liaise with the proposed summit on the matter which the Pope is organising towards the end of this year?

I do not think that it would be wise for me to name countries that are causing delays. We need to exert that beautiful pressure that comes from civil society throughout the world on all the countries involved so that we can move forward. I ask the hon. Gentleman and all those involved in campaigning to do that. In the United States of America, there has been difficulty in obtaining the support of Congress for commitment to the multilateral debt fund. I know that the Administration are trying to get that support and that they would be grateful for any help to achieve that.

Although it is important that we have made progress on this issue, there obviously remains much work to be done. I urge the Secretary of State to give us at least a hint as to which countries are holding matters up, so that those of us who are involved with the Jubilee 2000 coalition can encourage others around the world to apply pressure on their own Governments, if they are holding things up. There is a feeling of real frustration that we have come so far, but have not yet delivered a real change for people in the third world.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his offer of support. It would be invidious to have a list of guilty parties. Not many major countries were involved in the G7 meeting at Cologne. We are about to go to Okinawa. Pressure on all to speed up the process and to keep to their commitments should be exerted across the international system. The new unit in the bank and the fund gives us an opportunity to put the pressure on, which is important. One of the great achievements is the decision that debt relief should go behind poverty reduction strategies. Some countries are calling for absolute perfection in those strategies. We are saying that we should put broad poverty reduction strategies in place, so that initial debt relief can flow and then be strengthened as time goes on. That is the right way forward.

I know that the Secretary of State will be as disappointed as many of us are at the lack of progress in this special year, the year of Jubilee, when we want to make unique progress on debt relief. I know that she will share the concern of Kofi Annan, who said in March:

The deeper, faster and broader relief promised last year has yet to materialise.

I am sorry to disagree, as usual, with the hon. Gentleman. There has not been a lack of progress. The most stupendous achievement has been made, primarily by the Church and faith groups across the world and by other parts of civil society, in pressing the leadership of the richest countries in the world to agree more generous debt relief to mark the year 2000. The enhanced heavily indebted poor countries initiative and the decision to put the focus on poverty reduction strategies are considerable achievements. Five countries are already on track and one has completed the process. So that is all good, and it is considerable progress.

I know that the Secretary of State is working hard on the matter, but I am sure that she will agree that the granting of debt relief to only five countries after all these years and after four months of the year 2000 is not a significant achievement. May I put a practical suggestion to her? Between now and the G8 summit in Japan in July, will she make debt relief her highest priority? Will she engage in a round of shuttle diplomacy with her counterparts in G8 countries, the IMF and the World Bank? Will she put every last ounce of effort into the project between now and July so that, for all those living under the crippling burden of unpayable debt, the year 2000 really will be a year of delivery?

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's concern, but he is wrong to suggest that, only this far into the year, to have five countries on track for the much more generous debt relief that has been agreed as a result of the international campaign is a disaster. It will be a disaster if we do not get three quarters of eligible countries through by the end of the year. Pressure from him and all of us, including me, could achieve that objective. I certainly promise him that I and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will continue to exert all the pressure that we can. I am not in favour of shuttling around the world, as some politicians do, for its own sake, but I promise that I shall do everything in my power, as will my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. I hope that with the help of the hon. Gentleman and all hon. Members, we shall make sure that we keep to the Cologne commitment.

What assessment she has made of the impact of her Department's work in Kosovo. [119354]

We have recently reviewed our work in Kosovo, Albania and Macedonia. Our contribution last year totalled £110 million. As well as assisting refugees returning to Kosovo, we have supported the United Nations mission, mine action, human rights, health care and restoring basic services. We believe that our work has made a significant contribution to the process of getting life in the province back to normal after the conflict.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. I visited Kosovo last year with Mr. Geoffrey Morris, on behalf of London and South East Direct Aid to Kosovo, and saw at first hand the excellent work of the Department. I am a patron of LASEDAK and we work alongside the Scottish Charities Kosovo Appeal on humanitarian relief and development projects in Kosovo. Is my hon. Friend aware of the concerns of such organisations about the relative scaling back of the work of his Department within the overall framework of the EU stability pact? Non-governmental and voluntary organisations working in Kosovo depend very much for their effectiveness on the work of the Department and, with 10,000 refugees returning to the region, in which LASEDAK and SCKA are involved, there is a real danger that next winter will be worse than last.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the kind things that he said about my Department's work. The main burden of reconstruction should now rightly be taken on by the European Union and the new agency for reconstruction, which started its work at the end of February. As I said earlier, 360 million euros has been provided through the European Union and our contribution is £35.5 million. However, we are anxious to make sure that the operation is not hampered by Brussels bureaucracy. We want resident advisers and devolved responsibility to make the operation effective and to ensure that there is quick and effective reconstruction in Kosovo.

Has the hon. Gentleman had a chance to study the United Nations Economic Commission report that was published today? It slams the aid efforts in the Balkans, saying that the big gap between funding pledges and disbursements delayed action and created disillusionment. The report also highlights poor co-ordination, the lack of coherent vision and the failure to place individual projects within a broader programme of development at national and regional level.

The picture described by the hon. Lady is a travesty of reality. The Kosovo crisis saw the largest and fastest movement of population in Europe since world war two. The international community managed to get people under shelter in the winter, with heat, light and water, in spite of the dire predictions. The £110 million that we have provided is the largest humanitarian programme that DFID has ever undertaken, and 90 per cent. of operational targets were achieved on schedule and within budgeted costs. That is a great achievement, and the hon. Lady should recognise that.

What evaluation she has carried out of the impact of export credit guarantees on arms exports to developing countries. [119355]

My Department commissioned a review by Dr. Valpy Fitzgerald of Queen Elizabeth house, which found that export credit guarantees could promote sustainable development in poor countries, but expressed reservations about the appropriateness of ECGD support for arms exports to developing countries. The position paper of my Department to the ECGD review argues that we should be willing to support arms expenditure when it is part of a responsible and properly accountable security sector that is needed to create the stability necessary for development—but only then. Copies of the review and the position paper have been deposited in the Library. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing attention to them.

Is the right hon. Lady aware of the work of the Select Committee on Defence, which suggested that up to £250 million a year of taxpayers' money is provided in the form of subsidy for arms exports to developing countries through the ECGD? Does she regard that as a useful additional flow of finance, or does she agree with the retiring director of the IMF that it seriously undermines development?

I agree that excessive arms expenditure undermines development, but countries need stability. When there is an over-bloated security sector or no order and peace, one cannot achieve development. Therefore, a properly sized and democratically accountable security sector is what developing countries need. There have been no ECGD-backed arms exports to HIPC countries or to countries eligible under the International Development Agency, the most concessional arm of the World Bank, in recent years and 80 per cent. of the ECGD cover for arms expenditure in developing countries goes to Saudi Arabia and Oman. We have improved the record, but the hon. Gentleman raises an important point. I hope that more hon. Members will take an interest in the review of ECGD, because we could tighten up and improve it.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the conflict in many developing countries is exacerbated by the activities of arms brokers, who ply their trade from the United Kingdom, largely in an unregulated fashion? Indeed, there is evidence to suggest that, dealing through Uganda, arms brokers from this country are providing arms to both sides of the conflict in the Congo. In the context of the Government's review, will my right hon. Friend ensure that the voice of those who wish to see such activity licensed in this country is heard loud and clear?

My hon. Friend raises an extremely important point. There have been worrying examples of arms brokers based in the United Kingdom brokering deals with disreputable sources for countries that do not need more arms. As I think my hon. Friend knows, the issue is under review. Unfortunately, I am not in a position to make an announcement this afternoon.

Do the Government take pride in their banning of ECGD credits for arms acquisitions by 63 of the poorest countries in the world? Of those countries, only Kenya has been a recipient of such credits over the past 13 years. Would it not be a much more ethical foreign policy for the Government forthwith to ban all exports of British armaments to Zimbabwe, which is using them in a civil war in the Congo?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will make a statement on Zimbabwe later this afternoon. He will probably have something to say of interest to the hon. Gentleman.

What progress was made at the world education forum in Dakar on putting in place policies to deliver high-quality primary education for all children? [119356]

The Dakar forum resulted in a strong political commitment by national governments and the international community for education for all and the development of national action plans, and agreement on the need for significantly enhanced investment by governments and donors for primary education. United Nations conferences cannot require sovereign Governments to prioritise primary education, but can encourage and monitor progress. I am confident that developing country Governments are now aware that educating a generation of children even to primary level, including girls, is the most effective development intervention that a country can make. I hope that we will be able to drive this commitment forward.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that full and frank reply. In terms of her Department, what are the implications of the Dakar forum for the future? What steps does she think may be necessary to ensure that Governments of developing countries and donors fulfil the commitments that they made at Dakar, so that all children have the right to primary education?

My hon. Friend will probably know that the bulk of the spending on education by most developing countries is directed to higher education. The reason is that elites are powerful in very poor countries. They live in the cities and they can usually pre-empt expenditure. It is a difficult political task to get a commitment to spending on the poorest children in rural areas.

Does the Secretary of State share my anxiety that in certain countries in sub-Saharan Africa primary education has become susceptible to charging for various elements of it, whether it be books, uniforms or whatever? This is proving a disincentive to families. Did the Dakar forum address that issue?

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Kenya, for example, is a big spender on education, but 98 per cent. of its expenditure goes on teachers, and there is nothing for books, chalk or anything else, so parents are charged and poor children do not go to school. That distortion applies throughout the system, which is why a special top-up fund will not do. It is important to get Governments committed to educating all children, including poor children—and particularly girls, who tend to be excluded. As the hon. Gentleman knows, countries such as Uganda and Malawi, which is very poor, are giving a lead, and we must spread that commitment internationally.

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

This morning, I met Nelson Mandela, as well as having meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Does the Prime Minister accept that it is not enough for the international community to sit back until elections are held in Zimbabwe? If the present scale of killings and intimidation of political parties continues, the results of any such elections will be meaningless. Will the Government now do more, in collaboration with our international partners, to seek to restore the rule of law in Zimbabwe?

I entirely agree that the situation in Zimbabwe is very serious, but the hon. Gentleman will have seen yesterday's statement by the Commonwealth ministerial action group, which made it clear that the elections should be free and fair and that the violence and killing must stop. He will also know from the negotiations that took place in this country last week that we have made it clear, as we have done throughout the situation, that we are prepared to help, but only if the violence and illegal occupations cease.

My right hon. Friend will know that one of the meetings that he held this morning was with a delegation of stewards from the Longbridge plant in Birmingham. Is he aware of the strength of their feeling about safeguarding both the future of that plant and the future of car manufacturing in Birmingham? Will he comment on the fact that sales of Rovers have risen dramatically in the past two months and that the company's market share is now 12 per cent? Will he do all that he can to safeguard the future of the plant, including providing tangible support for a credible business plan, so that we can retain the industry, which is strategically important for the west midlands?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and the Rover is a good car, as sales show. It is essential that we put together a plan that will give Longbridge a viable future; that we safeguard as many jobs as possible, and that for those people who unfortunately lose their job we stand ready to help them through the process of change. I made it clear to the people from Longbridge whom I saw this morning that the Government stand willing to do whatever we can to safeguard the existing jobs and to make sure that anyone who does lose their job gets the best possible chance of a decent job in the future. We shall carry on, as we have been doing over the past few weeks, working night and day to bring about that solution.

Last year, vandals rioted in the City, destroying property and terrifying law-abiding people. On Monday, the same groups defaced the Cenotaph and dishonoured our war dead. The Prime Minister has said that such events cannot happen again, so will he now abandon the Government's wretched weakness on law and order? Will he support the call of mayoral candidate Steve Norris to do all in his power to see that annual display of violence banned for next year?

As the Home Secretary indicated yesterday, and as I have said, of course we shall do everything possible to ensure that those appalling, disgraceful scenes do not happen again. I have to say to the right hon. Gentleman that his capacity to exploit any situation is absolutely unlimited. As for his mayoral candidate, I read his Evening Standard advertisement today, and there was one word missing, and its first three letters are "con".

The right hon. Gentleman talks about exploiting the situation, but he is the one who went down to the Cenotaph yesterday, peeled an onion, and said, "It can never happen again." We want to know what he is going to do to make sure that it never happens again. After last year's events, the Home Secretary said that the Government would do everything possible to prevent a repetition; now, the Prime Minister says that it cannot happen again—but it has already happened twice. The violence of that demonstration was widely predicted and advertised; my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary wrote to the Home Secretary about it. Why not say now that it should be banned next year?

First of all, it is unfortunately not the first time that riots have occurred in London: some people remember a few in the 1980s and 1990s. Of course, we have to sit down sensibly with the police and other authorities to make sure that those disgraceful scenes do not happen again. That we shall do. Nothing is helped by the right hon. Gentleman, as ever, leaping on any passing bandwagon.

We remember the 1980s, when the right hon. Gentleman was parading around with a CND badge—he knows all about what happened in the 1980s. Do not these events require a change from utter weakness on law and order? Is he not soft on crime and soft on the causes of crime? What sort of signal does it send to rioters that he has released early more than 700 people convicted of violent disorder or affray, when the Home Secretary promised not to release serious offenders? Is it not time that we stopped releasing thugs before their sentences have been served?

On the last point, I would cite the unanimous support of the all-party Home Affairs Committee, which at the time included the person who is now the Conservatives' Front-Bench spokesman on law and order. The fact is that it is the Labour Government who have introduced "three strikes and you're out" for burglars and toughened up the youth justice system; it is we who have put more money into law and order, when the right hon. Gentleman was pledged to cut the money going into law and order.

At the time that that Committee expressed support for the policy, the Home Secretary said:

We have no plans…whatever…to facilitate the early release of serious or sexual offenders…none whatever.—[Official Report, 29 November 1999; Vol. 340, c. 27.]

The fact is that, under the Tories, crime doubled—they never like to be reminded of it, but crime doubled. Under the Labour Government, crime has fallen. It is this Government who have introduced the measures on burglary and youth justice. What contribution did the right hon. Gentleman make to tougher sentencing the other day? He has now said that he rules out a mandatory life sentence for murder. Am I right, or am I wrong?

For self-defence, as the Prime Minister knows full well.

Some of us recall the shadow Home Secretary talking about the riots yesterday. Whom did the right hon. Lady decide to attack? She attacked the police. We should support the police in this situation. We will take no lessons on law and order from the Conservative party, which doubled crime and, when the right hon. Gentleman was in the Cabinet, cut police numbers as well.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, as we sit in this Chamber, there is a count in the Conisbrough ward in my constituency, where there has been a full postal ballot as part of our pilot scheme to modernise the way in which people vote? I am pleased to tell my right hon. Friend that we are looking at a 45 per cent. turnout. Will he extend his congratulations to the person who I know will be re-elected: Councillor Gerard McLister?

I hope that my hon. Friend is right in her predictions. The point that she makes is serious. It is important that we raise the numbers of people participating in local democracy. Early results indicate that the experiment is well worth pursuing. We shall obviously have to evaluate results carefully, but if we get 10 or 15 per cent. higher turnouts as a result of the new system, it will be one reform that will hugely strengthen the whole of our democracy.

In condemning utterly the evil thuggery that we all witnessed in central London two days ago, may I turn the Prime Minister's attention to another form of evil in our society: the evil of racism? Does he agree that the appalling attack on the black care worker in Birmingham two days ago—he was racially abused and then set on fire—should act as an important pointer to every politician in this House that we should not conduct ourselves in a way that plays or panders to the worst fears of racial prejudice?

I agree with every word that the right hon. Gentleman has said.

Does the Prime Minister further agree that, when one is talking about issues such as asylum and immigration, particularly with elections approaching, to use saloon-bar language is nothing more than gutter politics?

The right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) may laugh, but it is extraordinary that he has not from the Dispatch Box put the positions that he has been putting in the country. The reason that he does not do so is that he knows perfectly well that his arguments would not stand up in proper debate.

Three thousand pensioners in my constituency qualify for the minimum income guarantee. For a single pensioner, that means £16 a week—a 25 per cent. cash increase—more than they were receiving at the general election. What can the Government do to ensure that those who qualify for the minimum income guarantee get it?

We are trying to ensure that people who are entitled to the minimum income guarantee get it. Altogether, this Government will put in some £6.5 billion additional expenditure for pensioners. There is of course now the £150 winter fuel allowance and free eye tests and free television licences for those aged over 75.

The right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) has said that he does not know how to cast his second preference vote in the election for which he is the Labour candidate. This morning on the "Today" programme, the Secretary of State for Education and Employment announced that it was no good asking him how he would do so because he was opposed to the very electoral system. As that electoral system was designed by the Prime Minister, perhaps he would give us his advice on how he will cast his second preference vote.

No.

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister should be thanked—[Interruption.]

Order. Let the hon. Gentleman finish.

I thank my right hon. Friend on behalf of the miners who suffer from emphysema, bronchitis and white finger, but one group of people in the coalfields has been left out: the sacked miners, who suffered injustice, according to the inquiry conducted by the Select Committee on Education and Employment. May I suggest as a start the reinstatement of those miners to the miners pension scheme for them and their families?

As my hon. Friend knows, the Department of Trade and Industry has undertaken a review of what happened with regard to dismissals and re-employment around the time of the 1984–85 miners strike, and will shortly announce its findings. I hope that those in the mining industry recognise that we have given support to the mining industry, most particularly for those people who suffered as a result of working down the pit. After years and years during which people fought and were not able to gain compensation, it is this Government who have come up with the compensation scheme. It is taking time to push that through, but we are pushing it through, and I hope that over the next couple of years, people will see the benefits.

Doubtless, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will have told the Prime Minister that more than half the Bank of England's gold and currency reserves are now held in euros. Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity of telling the House by how much the value of the nation's reserves has slumped since the decision was taken to sell off the nation's gold? On gold, is he aware that Germany has increased its holdings of gold threefold, from £10 billion 12 months ago to more than £30 billion today?

I cannot work out the precise point that the hon. Gentleman is making, but I am sure that it is against Europe; of that we can be sure. The Bank of England has a diverse range of assets, as do other countries. Some countries have sold gold; some countries have not. I am entirely content with the way in which the Bank of England has handled the matter. I suggest to Conservative Members that they get a new obsession, as that one is wearing rather thin.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the comments of the Leader of the Opposition on law and order will sound pretty hollow to the people of Halifax, where the Conservatives are fielding a would-be councillor with a long criminal record, some of it as recent as last September? [Interruption.] The Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Home Secretary recently visited Halifax and the local police station, and must be aware of that man's activity. Will my right hon. Friend comment on the message that that sends to the people of my constituency?

Order. The Prime Minister has no responsibility for Conservative candidates.

Following his meeting with the Royal British Legion last month, will the Prime Minister give favourable consideration to the case for a gratuity to former far east prisoners of war? More than 7,000 of them still survive, British heroes every one. Is not such a gesture to the living the best answer to those who would deface our monuments to the dead?

I have heard first-hand from former prisoners of war and from their relatives and friends about the appalling suffering that they endured when they were held prisoner in the far east. They are immensely brave people, to whom we owe a great debt. A few weeks ago, I, along with the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, met the chairman and secretary general of the Royal British Legion, and we agreed then that we would look again at the policy on the far east prisoners of war, including the question of compensation. That we are doing. I make no commitment at this stage, but we told them that we would consider carefully the points and the representations that they had made, and we will do so.

After years of Tory dithering, the Prime Minister will be aware how pleased we were in my constituency when the new Scottish air traffic control centre was given the go-ahead. However, in the light of recent suggestions that that will be put at risk in the longer term by the proposed public-private partnership for National Air Traffic Services, what further assurances can my right hon. Friend give me today about the security of the 700 jobs in my constituency?

I know that my hon. Friend has campaigned long and hard on the issue and I can assure her that the strategic partnership agreement, which will be concluded under the NATS PPP, will guarantee the construction of the new Scottish centre at Prestwick and its continued operation as part of the two-centre strategy, and that construction will provide and guarantee the 700 jobs in Ayrshire.

As the Prime Minister is presiding over severe damage to the UK manufacturing base with the consequent harm to jobs, will he take the announcement of the welcome merger of the London and Frankfurt stock exchanges as an opportunity to give a clear signal of positive measures that he will take to bring the sterling crisis under control?

There was a moment during that question when Conservative Members stopped cheering.

Is not it unacceptable that decades of inequalities in health should continue, and should not the record expenditure announced recently in the Budget be targeted towards reducing that inequality? That is particularly important in areas such as mine which has the highest child mortality in England, and that is why it is so welcome to have the extra £1.5 million for Halton general hospital and the 8 per cent. increase in spending for the North Cheshire health authority, in stark contrast to the Opposition's policies.

As a result of the extra money that has now gone into the health service, we shall be able not only substantially to increase funds in the next four years, but to bring about the necessary changes and modernisation to expand hospital service provision and to deal with patients in a better way. Again, everyone should understand that that additional expenditure in the health service would immediately be taken away by a Conservative Government because the Opposition are committed to changing the tobacco duty and do not support that part of the health service funding plan, and their private medical insurance scheme would cause an immediate £500 million loss just for those who already have private medical insurance. Therefore, if ever there was a Conservative Government, there would be a £1 billion shortfall and the money that has gone to my hon. Friend's constituency would go out again.

Does the Prime Minister agree that one of the contributory factors to the growth of xenophobia towards asylum seekers, after the Tory leader, is the impact on council budgets in London and the south-east of England? Why did the Government capitulate to the shrill right-wing populist campaign from Kent county council, reimbursing all its costs, while London boroughs of all three parties, which behaved calmly and responsibly, will have to pick up the bill which, in my borough, amounts to £30 on an average council tax bill?

I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's comments about Kent. It was important for the Home Secretary to react in the way that he did because of the pressures on Kent county council. My right hon. Friend has made it clear that he is happy to see the hon. Gentleman to discuss the position in his constituency. There is a problem with the increasing number of cases, but we have dealt with that in the right way: by changing the system, making sure that the removals happen faster and that the cases are processed faster, and penalising those who bring people into this country illegally. That is the right way of dealing with the problem, not the wrong way, which is exemplified by the Conservative party.

Is the Prime Minister aware that Labour-run Exeter city council levies a lower council tax but delivers a higher level of service than any of the surrounding Tory or Liberal Democrat-run councils? It is the only council in Devon to be awarded beacon status for excellence. Does not that show that people are better served and better off—locally and nationally—with Labour?

I agree with my hon. Friend entirely.

In the final advertisement of the official Labour party candidate in today's Evening Standard, he asked people to "Vote Frank", not for the Labour party. Is that because the party to which he belongs has deserted him throughout this campaign, or because the appalling scenes in Parliament square and at the Cenotaph have led the candidate to desert his party?

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman heard what I said earlier about the Conservative party candidate. The right policy for the tube is for the private sector to do what it does best: the building and construction work; and for the public sector to do what it does best: running the service and being responsible for safety. The Tory party plans to privatise the tube. Nobody wants that.

Is the Prime Minister aware that while unemployment in my constituency has dropped by about a third since the general election, it is still the highest in Scotland? Does he agree that the removal of assisted area status from most of my constituency is not likely to be helpful in those circumstances? Does he further agree that it would be best if Govan Shipbuilders was kept on the Clyde?

Of course I believe that, but discussions are on-going about how the new map is allocated in the United Kingdom as a result of the changes that are happening all over Europe because of enlargement. My hon. Friend's point about unemployment is well taken: 800,000 or more jobs have been created since the general election, 200,000 of them through the new deal. Many people in every constituency throughout the country have managed to get work that they would not otherwise have got because of the new deal. [Interruption.] Conservative Members are trying to shout us down because people should know that the Conservative party is committed to scrapping the new deal and putting people on the unemployment scrap heap.

With further reference to Monday's events, when will the Government raise the pay of both uniformed and civilian police staff, especially in London, to maintain recruitment and particularly quality?

An offer is currently before the negotiating board. There is a real problem. It is difficult for many police officers to live in London because of the cost of housing here. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has put an offer before the police negotiating board, and we are in discussion about it. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman's question means that he will support us when we make additional public investment available for the police service.

While the Prime Minister rightly recognises that what is happening to the Rover Group is primarily a west midlands problem, does he acknowledge that it is causing major job losses throughout the motor components industry, including in constituencies such as mine, where 600 redundancies have already been announced? That is especially worrying at a time when we, too, are losing assisted area status. Will my right hon. Friend make it clear that whatever hope is given to the west midlands will ripple to other areas that are affected by job losses in the motor industry?

Yes, we certainly see that as our task. When economic structural change affects people's jobs, it is our job as a Government to be on their side and to help them through that process of change. That type of economic and structural change is happening all over the western world and Europe. We cannot prevent some of that change, but we can try to help people through it, help them find new jobs when they lose their jobs and help to support industry in any way we can. That is precisely what the Government are doing and will carry on doing.

May I ask the Prime Minister personally to look into the case of Colin Hughes? He is well known to many of us as a BBC producer, despite the fact that he is a wheelchair user and dependent on a carer for almost all his essential personal functions. His support from the independent living fund is being subjected to a means test, which will effectively halve his income. Does the Prime Minister think that that can possibly be fair?

I do not know the facts of the individual case. I am perfectly happy to look into them, following the hon. Gentleman's question.