When she last met British non-governmental organisations to discuss the situation in Rwanda; and if she will make a statement. [123169]

I met representatives of United Kingdom and Rwandan non-governmental organisations during my visit to Rwanda last month. Rwanda is a desperately poor country recovering from a terrible genocide in 1994, which the international community shamefully failed even to try to prevent. Progress since 1994 has been considerable. The UK is playing a major role in supporting the Government and people of Rwanda in trying to promote development and reconciliation.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. I preface my supplementary question by observing that representatives of all the UK NGOs to whom I have spoken and who have a presence in Rwanda applaud the Government's decision on bilateral debt. That said, I recall that it was intended once that heavily indebted poor countries such as the very poor Rwanda would be fast-tracked for international debt relief. What has happened to that proposed action, and when can we expect debt decision day for Rwanda?

The importance of that decision was that Rwanda is a post-conflict country. Under previous arrangements, it would have requited a much longer track record of good economic management before it qualified for all sorts of International Monetary Fund and World Bank support, which would in turn have been required before HIPC relief could be achieved. Rwanda has been fast-tracked, and is now working on an interim poverty reduction strategy. I cannot remember the exact date, but that will be finalised in a matter of months, taking Rwanda to the point of beginning the debt relief process. I am pleased to say that it is doing well.

The Secretary of State will know that the United Nations has just produced a report tracking the progress of women since the Beijing conference five years ago. With that in mind, and given the experience that the Select Committee on International Development and I had in Rwanda of talking to women survivors of the genocide and hearing of their terrible suffering and problems, can she say what influence she has had on the Rwandan Government over how they deploy the survivors fund? Can she ensure that the benefit of that fund goes to the survivors of the genocide, and no one else?

Yes, indeed. When I went to Rwanda, I met one of the young women who runs the surviving widows organisation, which represents about 30,000 women. Many of those women have HIV because they were raped. Many were mutilated. Many have children. Many have memories of seeing all the members of their family slaughtered before their eyes. What they went through is unimaginable, and that is what reconciliation must deal with in Rwanda. We are providing support to the survivors fund, as well as to that organisation. I have not heard criticism of the use of the fund. The problem in Rwanda is with capacity; most educated people were slaughtered, so even when good will exists, often there is not the administrative capacity to follow through on policy. I share the hon. Lady's objectives, and we are doing all we can.

Given the progress made on conflict resolution in Rwanda, will the Secretary of State say why she believes Rwanda is engaged in conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo?

Rwanda has what I might call the best case for being involved in the DRC. Fighters there wish to return to Rwanda to complete the genocide. For Rwanda, to fight back means that the north of the country has been pacified, and things in Rwanda are better accordingly. The war is using resources, which obviously is not beneficial. We need implementation of the Lusaka peace accords, which Rwanda backs strongly. Rwanda needs peace in the DRC and security. The Ex-FAR and Interhamwe, who want to complete the genocide, must be disarmed so that low-level members may return to Rwanda and international criminals go to the international tribunal.

If she will make a statement on the provision of education in countries involved in conflict. [123171]

Conflict seriously disrupts lives and livelihoods, and education is a major casualty. The needs of displaced children are particularly acute. While all possible effort must be made to provide education to displaced children, progress in meeting the target of universal primary education by 2015 will depend on the resolution of conflict and a return to a focus on development.

Is education not part of the solution to the conflicts? Given that smart aid has proved effective at delivering humanitarian assistance in many countries, can the same approach not be used for development aid? Given that education is a key way to unlock potential and reduce conflict, how can it be right that countries such as Ethiopia and Sudan have had their budgets cut? Generation after generation of children have not had education. Surely the Government should do more through smart aid to get money to assist those children.

Of course education is part of the solution, and poverty eradication is the key to getting rid of some of the major causes of conflicts. However, it is very difficult to ensure that there is proper education, and to get children into schools, and schools running properly, where conflicts exist. Where conflicts are escalating, as they are in Ethiopia and Eritrea, it is doubly difficult to achieve those goals.

Does my hon. Friend agree that no Government who are committed to delivering universal primary education should be prevented from doing so because of a lack of resources? Will the Department for International Development be able to make progress on that issue at the United Nations millennium summit?

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. In the past three years, the Department has spent £300 million—11 per cent. of our Budget—on education, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa and south-east Asia. Nevertheless, I give my hon. Friend this pledge: we aim to do a great deal more.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree with me—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]—that in areas of conflict, people lose their lives not only because of the conflict itself, but because of the disease that ravages such areas? What role does the Department have in providing education for young people—particularly in Africa, but, unfortunately, increasingly in south-east Asia, too—on the dangers of AIDS? Specifically, what is the Department doing to support the excellent work being done by the World Health Organisation?

Given the response that the hon. Gentleman received from my hon. Friends, I am a bit reluctant to agree with him. On this occasion, however, I agree with him 100 per cent; he is absolutely right. [HON. MEMBERS: "No"] He cannot be wrong every time.

What financial support the European Union is providing for the administration of elections in Kosovo. [123172]

The European Commission has contributed 5 million euros to the combined civil registration and electoral enrolment exercise currently in progress in Kosovo. The United Kingdom share of that contribution is almost 1 million euros. We have also directly contributed £1.25 million.

I offer my compliments to my hon. Friend's officials who are administering aid programmes in Kosovo. Not long ago I was in Kosovo, and I saw that they are doing great work there. Given the turbulent conditions in Kosovo, it will be extremely difficult to administer fair municipal elections. Is there not a case for ensuring that some municipal seats are reserved for Serb candidates and other representatives of minority communities?

I am aware that my hon. Friend visited Kosovo with the Foreign Affairs Committee in March, when some of our officials were there on an assessment mission—which we are following up with a great deal more help to Kosovo. We are trying to encourage the Serbs to register and to participate, but so far, very few of them have registered. That is due in part to intimidation from Belgrade. We think that more has to be done to encourage Serbs to participate, and we are examining how, in terms of voter education, we can support them in doing so.

What action is the Department taking to ensure that there are enough international police officers in Kosovo to ensure that those elections will indeed be fair and free?

I understand that the Government have taken action by providing police officers from Northern Ireland. I am not sure of the exact details of the arrangement, but I undertake to reply in detail to the hon. Gentleman's question.

Given the recent increase in murders of members of minorities by the Kosovo Liberation Army, how can the Government guarantee anyone's safety? Is it not clear that Kosovo is now being run by a bunch of terrorists?

We cannot guarantee that. We do not have responsibility for it; the United Nations Mission in Kosovo has the responsibility. We do whatever we can to support UNMIK: we have made a substantial financial contribution and provided personnel support. I hope to be able to visit Kosovo in July, and I and undertake to look into any problems or issues raised by my hon. Friend or by any other hon. Member.

We getting used to hearing the Government announce plans for new expenditure, only to find that they involve a re-announcement of the same money, but it is worrying when doubts are cast on this country's aid budget. Today, yet again, the Minister has said that this country will give a great deal more help to Kosovo. Will he answer the question raised in the Foreign Affairs Committee report on Kosovo, which was published today? Of the £100 million aid announced at the Brussels conference in March by his colleague the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz), on stability pact financing, how much was new money and how much had already been announced? Is the Financial Times right to suggest that the Government are callously redirecting the Balkan aid programmes?

With respect, I did not announce any additional assistance. I dealt with the question of the registration of Serbs and with the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon). The European Commission is spending 865 million euros. That has already been announced; I am merely repeating it. Bilateral assistance from European countries provides an almost equivalent sum. There are, of course, other calls on our budget—from Africa, south Asia and elsewhere. On other occasions, the hon. Lady has accused us of spending too much in Europe and not enough in Africa.

If she will make a statement on progress in reforming the EU's development work. [123173]

We have been working since 1997 to try to improve the very poor quality of EU development efforts, which take up one third of my budget. I welcome the commitment of the new European Commission to reform. A statement of overall EC development policy and an action plan to implement the reform process are now being negotiated, but the impact of the promised reform has yet to be felt on the ground and there is, as yet, no plan for implementation.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is it true that over the past 10 years, the European Union has reduced spending on the poorest countries? If so, can that be explained or justified?

I am afraid that my hon. Friend is right: 75 per cent. of EU aid went to the poorest countries in 1987, whereas the proportion is now 51 per cent. That cannot possibly be justified. It arises from a fractured decision-making structure and lots of gesture spending, whereby large amounts are announced—often without any analysis of how the money will be spent or how it will promote development—in response to the political concerns of the day. That leads to extremely poor development assistance, as has been demonstrated by all the evaluations that we have requested. We have a well argued reform agenda, but there is a long way to go.

Does the Secretary of State agree that to those of us who are glad to be members of the EU and proud of much of what it has achieved, its total failure to manage its aid budget is an obstacle to our support? Will she commit herself to doing her best either to ensure that the EU has the resources to put in place the administration necessary for the swift disbursement of aid, or to repatriate a large proportion of the budget that we provide?

I completely agree that such failures bring the EU into disrepute. The Commission and member states together provide 60 per cent. of worldwide overseas development aid and comprise the world's biggest single donor. If Europe had a clear vision of how to promote development in the poorest countries, it could be a major force for good—more powerful than any individual European country could be, because it could gather critical mass and exploit the international reach of all the countries of Europe. However, the EU's current performance is not good enough. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are working hard on a reform agenda. Chris Patten said recently that if Europe cannot do better in the next few years, it should be less ambitious in what it asks member states to provide, perform well on that basis and then build up again. In that way, we might achieve a better quality effort.

In which areas of Mozambique the main British aid effort is concentrated. [123174]

We are working at national level to support Mozambique's impressive commitment to reform. We are supporting customs reform, health and education reform and providing budgetary aid. I am happy to tell the House that I have recently decided that Mozambique should have a further £40 million in budgetary aid. Our provincial focus is in Zambezia province, which is one of the poorest areas of Mozambique and was a major centre of fighting during the civil war. We are focusing there on de-mining, land reform, rural roads and micro-finance.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does she agree that before the floods, Mozambique was almost a model in Africa for progress in its economy and efforts to heal the divisions following the brutal civil war? What progress is the country making in recovering from the devastating effect of the floods?

My hon. Friend is right; Mozambique is a star. After years of war and bad economic management, it raised its economic growth to 9 per cent. a year. That is the kind of level that countries in Africa need to move the economy forward and reduce poverty. Mozambique is a country of desperate poverty, but with a very powerful commitment to reform and making great progress. The floods set it back, and this year's economic growth will probably be 5 per cent.—but still positive. The expectation of all donors in the international financial institutions is that Mozambique will recover and get back on its path of growth and reform.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that her departmental report this year includes a cut of £24 million in spending on Mozambique over the next three years? Is that not a reflection of the fact that under Labour the British aid budget expressed as a percentage of gross national product has fallen from 0.27 per cent. in 1997 to 0.23 per cent. in 2000? Will she confirm that that is a clear breach of the manifesto commitment that she gave to increase the aid budget expressed as a percentage of GNP?

No, I cannot confirm that. The hon. Gentleman's questions confirm the fact that he has serious numeracy problems. There has been no cut in our aid programme. This year, there has been the biggest increase in aid spending in one year—an all-time record in the British aid programme. Because the OECD development administration committee in Paris counts in calendar rather than financial years, there is a technical flaw in the figures, as it says in its announcement. The hon. Gentleman needs to go back to school for some arithmetic lessons.

The Secretary of State's excuses simply will not do. She used to attack us on the basis of the GNP figures, and she must accept those figures herself. She cannot confirm my points—though she is wrong—so will she confirm that she is presiding over the lowest GNP spend on aid for 30 years? Will she confirm that for the first time in a decade, despite all her spin and hype, the British aid spend is less than the average of OECD countries? Will she confirm that even according to her Department's figures, the average GNP spend on aid over this Parliament will be less than that over the previous Parliament? She said that under Labour, GNP spend would go up; it has gone down. Is it any wonder that the British people are beginning to reject this Labour Government?

The hon. Gentleman has got serious problems with any attachment to accuracy and truth. It is the job of Oppositions to oppose. but it is also their job to accept facts as facts. I have just told the hon. Gentleman that, after years and years under the Government of whom he was a member—in a junior capacity, admittedly—there was decline and decline in Britain's aid budget. That has been reversed. This year there is the largest ever increase in a single year. There is a technical measure in the OECD development administration committee's announcement, but it adds that that is a technical measure, and that Britain's programme is going up. So, no: the hon. Gentleman is wrong, wrong, wrong, not attached to the truth, and has real numeracy problems.

Does not the Government's record on aid to Mozambique underline their policy of helping countries that show positive signs, as Mozambique has done since the end of its civil war? The fact that so much has been done to overcome the disastrous floods shows that the Government have responded in a positive way. Does not Mozambique send out a positive signal to Angola, on the other side of Africa, about what could happen if it got over its civil war and went forward in a positive way?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Important studies have recently been conducted on where aid is effective. It is effective where there are reformers, and big resource transfers come behind them to leverage and speed up economic reform, and then reform in education and health care. We are moving away from the gesture spending of the European Commission and the previous Government and towards backing reformers. That says to any country that if it goes down that road we will be behind it, and it can have fast economic growth and improved social programmes. We are beginning to get reformers setting good examples for others.[Interruption.]

If she will make a statement on aid to Zimbabwe. [123175]

If she will make a statement on her Department's activities in Zimbabwe. [123176]

I apologise for being slow in responding to these questions, Madam Speaker, but I could not hear for all the noise.

Order. It is very noisy. No wonder the Secretary of State cannot hear, and neither can I. The House is so noisy that I could not even hear whether she is taking Questions 6 and 7 together. I understand that she is. Let us have a little less noise.

With a country such as Zimbabwe, whose economy has been so ruined by corruption and cronyism, is not the lever of British aid a significant one? Has sufficient weight been applied to that lever, or is the truth that, with their policy of appeasement of the dictator Mugabe, the Secretary of State and her colleague are the Neville Chamberlain and Lord Halifax of the situation? They are dithering while our passport holders are being ethnically cleansed, humiliated and driven from the country.

President Mugabe has made it clear, repeatedly and on the record, that he had a much more friendly relationship with the previous Government than with the current Government, and found them much more helpful. There has been no appeasement by the Government. The situation in Zimbabwe is an absolute tragedy. The economy is shrinking, inflation is at 80 per cent. and there is political thuggery, killing and intimidation to prevent people from standing for election. We have not appeased Zimbabwe in any way. The House, the hon. Gentleman and Opposition Members should not do exactly what Mugabe wants, which would allow him to go back to his heyday and pretend that he was fighting the defenders of the white regime in Zimbabwe. That is what he wants, because he is in so much difficulty with his people. We should stand up for what is right and let the people of Zimbabwe control their future.

The right hon. Lady will know that I support her projects for fighting AIDS and HIV, and the water purification projects, but although she has referred to the dreadful Government-inspired campaign of intimidation, violence and murder, the has not mentioned the fact that the Mugabe Government are spending millions each week on a war in Congo that is all about lining the pockets of Mugabe and his cronies. Does she accept that the people of Zimbabwe will perceive our aid programme as support of the Government, even though that perception may be wrong? Would it not be better to stop all our aid programme until this dreadful man is thrown out of office?

I agree with everything the hon. Gentleman says, except his underestimation of the intelligence of the people of Zimbabwe. Their President has told them clearly what he thinks of the UK Government and their view of his policies. For us to withdraw from programmes that are trying to prevent the spread of HIV and AIDS—in a country where one in four of the adult population has the infection—would do nothing to hurt President Mugabe. We have that problem in many other badly governed countries. To withdraw completely would not help those who are being oppressed. I agree with the hon. Gentleman's analysis of what is taking place in Zimbabwe, but to withdraw from preventing the spread of HIV and AIDS and the provision of water and sanitation to very poor people would not hurt President Mugabe.

If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 7 June.

This morning, I went to the Women's Institute, where I had an interesting exchange with some of its members. 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.

I am sure that I speak for the whole House if I first briefly congratulate my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and his family on their newest arrival. We all wish them well.

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend and, what is more, I am delighted to see today that teaching applications are now up 30 per cent. That is a direct result of the measures that the Government have taken and, along with the best ever literacy and numeracy results this country has seen, it shows that, slowly but surely, we are getting the education system right.

I very much join in the personal congratulations to the Prime Minister and his wife, and I very much welcome him back to the Floor of the House of Commons. We all know how difficult it must have been, with sleepless nights, a lot of noise and a refusal to settle down, and that was just the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Was it not a shame that the Chancellor reignited class war, plunged the Government into a complete shambles, made statements that he could not then back up, and exposed a whole catalogue of hypocrisy at the heart of new Labour? If the Prime Minister agrees with the Chancellor, as he says he does, is he prepared to repeat the assertions made by the Chancellor that Oxford admissions are scandalous and based on the old school tie?

It is only the Tories who could be satisfied with the numbers of children going from state schools to universities. Let me quote from the Sutton Trust's report on Monday. It said that children from independent schools are 25 times more likely to enter a top university than those from a lower social class or living in poverty. The Conservatives are happy with that situation: we believe that it has to change.

The Prime Minister knows all about going to university from independent schools, but it looks like the Chancellor is being hung out to dry. Should not Ministers be helping universities bring in students from all backgrounds by raising the standards of schools, rather than denouncing university admissions departments out of ignorance and spite? Does not this whole affair tell us more about the internal politics of the Labour party than the Government's approach? Has it not occurred to the Prime Minister that when the Chancellor whinges about public schoolboys getting the top jobs, he is not just talking about Oxford university? If the Prime Minister agrees with the Chancellor, is he prepared to use the same words as Chancellor about this matter?

First, we are investing more money to help recruit and retain the brightest students everywhere, but the issue is surely how we increase the level and quality of state education in this country. We are raising education spending as a proportion of our national income, whereas the Leader of the Opposition would cut education spending. Interruption.] Well, I shall give the figures. In the two years when the right hon. Gentleman was in the Conservative Cabinet, education spending as a proportion of national income fell. Under this Government, it has risen. Who cares more about state education—the people increasing spending, or the person who cut it?

The Prime Minister has been asked twice to agree with the Chancellor, and twice he has hung the Chancellor out to dry. Is not the real lesson that this Government say one thing and do another? Have they not now taken hypocrisy in government to a new extreme? The Leader of the House of Lords says that her fee-paying school was a pretty standard grammar school. The Government criticise people who go to Oxford from private schools, even though their leader did so himself. Ministers attack privilege as they leave their ninth bathroom on their way to their third home in their second Jaguar.

We do not have to talk about theory, we can talk about the record—of the Conservative Government when they were in power, and of this Government. Who put 3 million people on the dole? The Tories. Who doubled homelessness? The Tories. Who trebled child poverty? The Tories. Who doubled crime? The Tories. Who doubled the national debt? The Tories. [Interruption.] They do not like the facts, do they?

With reference, for a change, to the euro currency, may I tempt my right hon. Friend to go just a little further than he has done previously? If the Chancellor of the Exchequer is successful with his five economic tests and economic convergence, will my right hon. Friend recommend entry to the euro to the British people?

I am afraid that my right hon. Friend cannot tempt me to go further than the policy that the Government have set out, but I will, of course, restate it. In principle, we are in favour of joining a successful single currency, but in practice the economic conditions have to be met. What would be absolute folly would be for this country to rule out the possibility of joining the euro even if it were in our economic interests to do so.

In adding my personal congratulations to the Prime Minister, may I welcome him back to Prime Minister's Question Time? After what he was subjected to at this morning's Women's Institute performance, it must seem a warm and comfortable experience.

Such decisions are entirely up to the Scottish Executive: that is the point of devolution. However, I must tell the right hon. Gentleman that I do not regret changing the system here. The latest figures indicate that 40 per cent. of families in this country are exempt from tuition fees. In the end, the only way that we were able to get the numbers of people going into university away from the old cap applied under the Tories was to change the basis of student finance. In doing so, we followed the all-party Dearing committee report. It is completely absurd for political parties who joined in that report to deny its implementation.

Mr. Tam Dalyell.

rose—

No, I am sorry—your second question, Mr. Kennedy.

I consider this one a top-up, Madam Speaker. Are the Government doing any research into the fact that the figures show that the number of applications from Scottish students wanting to go to Scottish universities is up, and the number of applications from English and Welsh students wanting to attend universities is on the slide? Will the Prime Minister acknowledge that? Is it completely unconnected with the imposition of tuition fees? If we are really about opportunity, would not that be the opportunity to concentrate on, rather than the opportunism of the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

No, in fact, enrolment of school leavers in English universities is up, not down. It is important to recognise that if we are to expand university education, we will, like virtually every country around the world, have to have a balance. We are actually putting more money into higher education and universities, but if we want to invest properly in the facilities of those universities, and increase the numbers available to go to university, we simply have to change the system of finance. Virtually every major country around the world has had to do the same, and I think that it is right that the Government made the difficult, but right, choice to reform student finance. It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman: as he knows, his party can sit there promising to spend limitless amounts of money, but it never says where the money comes from.

If he will hold discussions with the Governments of (a) Bahrain, (b) the United Arab Emirates, (c) Saudi Arabia, (d) Iran and (e) Turkey on the future of UN sanctions against Iraq.

We maintain regular contacts with all these Governments on a wide range of issues, including the UN sanctions regime against Iraq.

As four of the countries mentioned in the question have already sent embassies to Baghdad; as the Government of Italy have sent an embassy to Baghdad since the question was tabled; and as even the Saudis are extremely ambivalent about the Qatar proposals, has not the time come to reflect on whether the policy of sanctions is not counter-productive?

Security Council resolution 1284, as my hon. Friend knows, is a way forward that would allow us to get to the point of suspending sanctions. However, that can be done only if Iraq complies with the international community's demands to halt the manufacture of weapons of mass destruction.

As a former naval person, I am very concerned to learn that the interval between ordering new warships for the Royal Navy is longer now than since the reign of Henry VIII. Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity of telling the House why, since he came to power more than three years ago, not one new warship has been ordered for Royal Navy?

We have, in fact, a very full procurement programme, but I do not think that we should take any lessons from a political party that cut defence spending by 30 per cent. It is this Government who are increasing the procurement programme.

Does my right hon. Friend agree with my constituents and the many ex-service men in this country that the Hollywood film "U-571", which portrays American sailors retrieving the Enigma machine and codes, is an affront to the memory of the British sailors who lost their lives in this action? I refer in particular to Lieutenant Tony Fasson and Tamworth-born Colin Grazier. They were both awarded the George medal posthumously, and were both local heroes.

I agree entirely with what my hon. Friend says. The two people he mentioned fought with great distinction and bravery; of course, we honour their memory. We hope that people realise that those were people who, in many cases, sacrificed their lives in order that this country remained free.

While the Prime Minister was away, did he have the opportunity to study the election results in Basildon—[Interruption.]—where Labour lost overall control, or in Southend where every Labour candidate lost? If he did not have time to do that, was he able to study the remarks of his right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), and of his hon. Friends the Members for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle), for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) and for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright)—[Interruption.] They can be summed up by his noble Friend, Lord Sawyer who said that the right hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.]

Order. The House will come to order—[Interruption.] Order. Mr. Amess will be heard.

If the Prime Minister could not take in the election results, can he take in the remarks of his right hon. and hon. Friends, summed up by the noble Lord Sawyer, who said that the right hon. Gentleman was remote and completely out of touch, unlike the noble Baroness Thatcher. Before the Prime Minister looks for an answer in the book in front of him, what is his answer to the senior citizen who came to my surgery on Friday and said that the right hon. Gentleman's party is interested only in young people and could not care less about the elderly?

Was that a planted question?

When does my right hon. Friend expect fox hunting to be banned?

The Burns report will be published next week. The Home Secretary will make a statement and I am sure that the House will want to make its views known then.

Statistics in the past week show that health service waiting lists are up by 16,000 and that the number of new general practitioners joining the NHS is at its lowest for a decade. Last week, the Government also sent out 13 million survey forms, saying that they did not know how to run the national health service and would someone please let them know. Those forms were meant to be in on Monday. What proportion of the 13 million have been returned?

Waiting lists are 100,000 below the level we inherited when we came into office. There are almost 4,000 extra doctors. It is perfectly sensible to consult people on the future of the health service. We will publish a plan in July, which will allow us to use the huge amount of extra money the Chancellor put into the health service.

The closing date was 5 June—two days ago. The Prime Minister is obviously embarrassed, because he talks about a first-class health service, but the Government could not deliver a second-class letter. Was that not a costly public relations exercise? Is it not true that the money should have been spent on operations? Was it not another example of the distorted priorities that doctors have complained about since the right hon. Gentleman came into office?

On health service funding—just to get it right for the right hon. Gentleman—whereas, when we took office, that funding was actually falling as a proportion of national income, it has now risen. No one should ever forget that he is committed to cutting the amount of health spending that the Chancellor has put in.

The Prime Minister clearly has no idea why it happened and it is a mark of an out-of-touch Prime Minister that he does not know why he is out of touch. He is now totally out of touch with what is happening in the health service where more consultants are taking early retirement than ever before, more managers are leaving, fewer doctors are joining and 400,000 people are on a waiting list for a waiting list. This is a Government of gimmicks, empty words, empty gestures and public relations exercises. They are no longer even competent at them. Have we not seen in the past few weeks that the right hon. Gentleman has abandoned middle Britain and that middle Britain is abandoning him?

Are 5,000 more nurses in the health service an empty gesture? There are 4,000 more doctors and every single accident and emergency department in the country will be refurbished if it wants it. There are 100,000 fewer people on the waiting lists and there has been the largest ever increase in health spending. People remember the national health service as it was under the Tories and what is more they now know that if the right hon. Gentleman's party came back to power, because of his plans on private health, £1 billion would be taken out of the health service tomorrow. Ours are the priorities that middle Britain wants.

Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the support that the House gave last month to raising the age of recruitment to the armed forces from 16 to 18? In the light of the vote, will he undertake to reconsider the issue with a view to bringing UK practice into line with that of our European partners?

I am afraid that I cannot offer my hon. Friend the assurance that she wants. We have had a long tradition in this country of tying the age at which people go into the armed forces to the school-leaving age. Many of the people who join before the age of 18 are among those who stay on longest in the armed forces. I understand the arguments, but I am not convinced by them.

Why does the Prime Minister disagree with those 63 per cent. of his constituents in Sedgefield who oppose abolishing the pound and joining the euro? When will he have the courage to tell them the answer, because it is manifestly obvious that he does not have the courage to tell the House?

Neither my constituents nor, indeed, any of our constituents have been asked to join the euro now. The question is whether we should rule it out for the next Parliament. We are the party that is offering people a referendum so that they have a choice. If we recommend joining the euro, people will have a choice. However, the Conservative party would take that choice away from them. The constituents of mine to whom I talk would prefer to have the choice.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that Skelmersdale in my constituency has one of the country's lowest rates of entry into our universities? That is not the result of a lack of talent, but the result of a lack of tradition of entry into higher education, and a whole range of social obstacles. Nevertheless, the citizens there help to finance the universities through their taxes and particularly the extra funding that Oxford and Cambridge receive from the taxpayer. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is a duty of the Government to ensure that the citizens of Skelmersdale and millions like them have an equal opportunity to get into our universities and perhaps especially our most prestigious universities? Does he further agree that, if the Leader of the Opposition is correct and a class war is brewing, the citizens of Skelmersdale and the millions like them should win it?

It is extraordinary that the Conservatives should want to tolerate such a situation. May I give another fact from the Sutton report? Some 65 per cent. of those getting three A grades at A-level are from state schools , but they make up only 53 per cent. of the intake at the top universities. I should have thought that it was sensible to say that we all have a responsibility: the schools to encourage their pupils, the universities to go out to try to draw in a larger number of people, and us, as a Government, to fund education properly. That is why we are the party of opportunity for all and the Conservatives are the party of the few.

The Prime Minister has bizarrely claimed that abolishing the historic right to trial by jury for hundreds of offences is a modernising measure. Will he now confirm—as the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke) was forced to do in Committee yesterday—that the measure's real purpose is to save the Treasury money because most convicted criminals will serve much shorter prison sentences that will be imposed by magistrates rather than by Crown courts?

I said that it will allow us to save money, which is a good thing as it allows us to put money into the criminal justice system. It was recommended by a royal commission and the Lord Chief Justice said that it was right. Scotland has not done it for ages, and has not experienced any of the problems that have been raised. Finally, at the moment, the system is being abused. It is no good Conservatives touring the country with the piddling little measures that the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) is going on about when they are not prepared to take on the major issues that will clean up the criminal justice system. Unless we are prepared to take measures against drug dealers and abusers of criminal justice, the criminal issue will never be dealt with properly.

Is the Prime Minister aware that, despite the overall strength of the economy, the textile sector has suffered over the past few years? Will he join me in welcoming the £10 million in aid that was announced yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, and ensure that that is not the end of the story but the first step in strengthening that industry, which has a proud future in our economy?

It is important to help the textile industry through a great period of restructuring and change. There is no doubt that the high level of sterling has caused it particular problems. However, in future, it must increase productivity, and produce goods with higher value added. The purpose of the money and programme that we are introducing is to try to help it do that and is the best way of guaranteeing the security of people's jobs.

If he will visit west Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly in the St. Ives constituency.

I am sorry to say that I have no immediate plans to do so.

That is a pity because as I am sure the Prime Minister knows Cornwall has a distinctive culture and identity that allows it to play a full part in the celebration of diversity here and in the wider world. Has he heard yesterday's truly shocking news from Marazion in my constituency? It is alleged that a group of youths abused, physically and racially, a visiting party of young people from Berlin. Does the Prime Minister agree that, if certain members of the political elite in the Chamber abuse their privilege by appealing to base instincts and artfully blaming asylum seekers, blaming Europe and blaming foreigners at every opportunity it is little wonder that we find in Marazion, as elsewhere, that we reap what we sow.

I agree entirely. Of course, we condemn that attack and detest xenophobic racism of any sort. We are glad and proud to be a country that welcomes people from abroad and engages in proper cultural ties with other countries. I hope that we all welcome that.

Is not one of the Government's most significant achievements the fact that, since May 1997, the number of people forced to depend on income support and job seeker's allowance has fallen by no less than 1 million? Does the Prime Minister agree that when the Tories talk about scrapping the new deal they reveal that they have learned nothing from the tragedy of unemployment that they created?

Unemployment is at its lowest level for 20 years or more. [Interruption.] Opposition Members say that it would have fallen anyway. However, 250,000 jobs have been created through the new deal, which the Tories are committed to scrapping. As a result of 1 million extra jobs, there has been an £8 billion saving on welfare during this Parliament. The economic policy of reducing unemployment and the social policy of spending more on schools and hospitals therefore go together.

On the fundamental charter of rights, will the Prime Minister veto any proposal that those rights should be made binding and subject to the jurisdiction of the European Court? Will he restate that it is intended to be no more than a political showcase, as he said in a previous Question Time? Does he agree with the Minister of State responsible for European issues that proposals on those rights deal only with existing rights and will not amend anything in future?

They are not legally binding rights and I reiterate entirely what I have said to the hon. Gentleman in the Chamber and elsewhere. I would have hoped that he and his colleagues would welcome the fact that we are to set up in a charter the basic rights of people in Europe. It is unfortunate that, when the notion of civil and democratic rights comes from Europe, that affronts the Conservative party.