If she will make a statement on her policy towards development aid to Ethiopia. [127737]

Our current bilateral programme in Ethiopia is small, our work on food security is on-going and, so far this year, we have contributed £9 million for food aid directly and another £14 million through the EC. The recent signature by Ethiopia and Eritrea of a cessation of hostilities agreement is a welcome and positive development. We are encouraging the international financial institutions and the European Union to re-engage as the peace process unfolds and we will, over the coming months, review our bilateral programme.

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that reply. She is right to bear in mind the conflict that took place between the two countries. However, it is urgent to renew development aid, because the last thing that we want three, four or five years down the line is a repeat of the situation that we have just seen in Ethiopia. Will she therefore think very carefully about how she can speed up the development aid that that country so desperately needs?

I applaud the hon. Gentleman's objective, but we have to make a distinction. Humanitarian aid and food aid go to anyone regardless, and we do not stop them because of war—people have to eat. However, development aid must not support countries arming themselves and going to war, so we have to nuance that. Of course, we want to reinforce peace and get on with development. Both Ethiopia and Eritrea are desperately poor countries, and the people there are subject to hunger because they are so poor. We shall do all that we can to help development and to maintain the peace.

What discussions she has had with EU officials on reform of the aid budget. [127738]

My right hon. Friend and I have frequent exchanges with Commissioners Nielson and Patten about reform of the European Commission aid budget. We are working for the implementation of our strategy, a copy of which I have here and a copy of which is in the Library of the House. We are constantly pressing the Commission and other EU member states to improve the poverty focus and effectiveness of EC development assistance.

Given the description of the rotten heart of Europe that the Secretary of State gave to the Select Committee on International Development yesterday, what prospect is there of the United Kingdom regaining control of the budget so that it might be deployed according to our own exemplary standards?

We have a much better prospect of that with the Labour party in power than we would have if the Conservative party were in power. I remind the hon. Gentleman that, in 1992, his Government renegotiated the financial perspectives, and the amount of Britain's aid budget that we contributed to Europe went up from 20 to 30 per cent. When we negotiated the financial perspectives last year, we kept the figure constant. With an increasing budget for development, that means that we have, unlike the previous Government, more money to spend on bilateral assistance. The percentage spent on bilateral assistance will be increasing.

What steps can the Secretary of State take to refocus EU aid spending towards poorer countries?

That is exactly what we are discussing with the Commissioners. In 1987, about 75 per cent. of European Community aid was spent on the poorest countries of the world, but 10 years later the figure was just over 50 per cent. That is not good enough and we argue that there has to be a switch towards a poverty-focused programme. At last, the European Commission has published a draft policy statement that is moving in that direction. Commissioner Nielson strongly supports that, and we are backing him 100 per cent.

The House does not need a history lesson from the Minister. We need something specific in terms of action to make the situation better. Will he confirm that the Government will table paving reforms at the current intergovernmental conference so that a mechanism is put in place to enable member states who choose to do so to take urgent and immediate action to spend most of their aid budgets bilaterally if the Patten reforms do not prove to be a success within the next 12 months? Is that not a proper response to the EU aid fiasco? We want not empty words but positive, constructive and common-sense action.

I do not know about you, Madam Speaker, but I think that the hon. Gentleman does need a history lesson. He has the barefaced cheek to come here to try to lecture us. As I pointed out in reply to the main question, it was under his Government that the percentage of money spent in Europe increased substantially and yet no action was taken to make that spending more effective. We have taken action to make the spending more effective. We have produced a strategy paper and we are working to get it implemented. The number of Commissioners dealing with development assistance has been reduced from five to two; we have renegotiated the Lomé convention; and we have financial perspectives that do not increase development assistance. It is about time that the hon. Gentleman took a history lesson and learned from us.

I assume that that was a very long no to my specific question. The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I that if steps are not taken at this year's IGC to effect radical surgery of the EU aid budget, no action will be possible for several years—unless he knows the date of the next IGC, which I know he does not—during which the world's poorest countries will continue to be cheated out of vital help and support by bungling Brussels bureaucrats. If they do not seize this heaven-sent opportunity to implement a framework for a better aid policy, will it not be just another example of this Government being long on rhetoric and short on delivery?

This is barefaced cheek from the Opposition; what is more, it is carefully rehearsed barefaced cheek. The Government whom the hon. Gentleman supported did absolutely nothing to reform the European Community development programme. In fact, they increased it by 50 per cent. We are moving in the right direction: there is a poverty focus and an agreement to streamline the programme and delegate it to the countries concerned. We are moving in the right direction, and under this Government we will continue to do so.

If she will make a statement on the final report of the Beijing plus 5 review. [127739]

The principles laid down at Beijing were reaffirmed despite the efforts of some hard-line states to reverse previous gains. The report by the United Nations Development Fund for Women—UNIFEM—on progress worldwide since Beijing will be placed in the Library.

Does my hon. Friend agree that 70 per cent. of the world's poorest people are women? Is he aware that, next week, the United Nations Fund for Population Activities will launch a special report to mark world population day that will highlight the fact that reproductive health and rights are human rights? Will he do everything possible to ensure that the sexual health and reproductive rights of adolescents and women are regarded as human rights and are part of the Government's international development policy?

Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. I can reassure her that the gains made in Cairo were successfully defended in Beijing, despite the persistent efforts of hard-line states to undermine them. We would like much more explicit commitments to women's sexual rights, particularly the right to control their own sex lives, but a number of conservative countries are still blocking that.

Does the Minister agree that many of the world's conflicts occur in some of the world's poorest countries and that often many of the non-combatants affected are women and children? Does he also agree that those women often suffer sexual violence as well as the violence of the wider war? What measures is his Department taking to ensure that those women's rights and children's rights will be central to its emergency aid for such conflicts?

The hon. Gentleman has pinpointed something that we have said on several occasions during Question Time: poverty is exacerbated by conflict. It is difficult for us to implement programmes to help the poorest people, particularly women and children, during conflict.

Of the 12 specific promises agreed in Beijing, how many has the United Kingdom fulfilled?

We have made substantial progress on the promises that were made. If I had the time, I would spell out each of them one by one. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that, at Beijing plus 5, there was no retreat from previous agreements on abortion; there were many strong references to the threat to women posed by HIV; the key role of the women's movement in non-governmental organisations was recognised and the importance of women's rights at work is underlined in the report; the need fully to extend inheritance and property rights to women was accepted; and, as I said earlier, real gains were made in relation to violence against women. I am sure that even the hon. Gentleman would agree that that is substantial progress.

Has my hon. Friend had any discussions with the Chinese about the spread of HIV-AIDS from Burma? I should like to congratulate the Department on its excellent publication on that country, which came out yesterday.

I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. I am pleased to tell him that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State plans to visit the border area to look at the project that he identified. I am sure that he agrees that that will be a great step forward.

What her policy is in respect of the China western poverty reduction project. [127740]

Britain supported the China western poverty reduction project at the World Bank board meeting in June 1999 because it is designed to bring significant benefits to 1.7 million of the poorest people in China. The hons. Gentleman will know that there was a campaign against the project. We therefore scrutinised it carefully and were convinced that, basically, it was beneficial. We also supported the board's conclusion that no funds should be disbursed on the Qinghai component of the project until an independent inspection panel had conducted an investigation, and it had been subject to further environmental and social assessments.

I am interested to know what the Secretary of State's position will be on 6 July—that is a key question. Is the Secretary of State aware that the World Bank inspection panel found seven major violations of World Bank policy in that particular project, including a lack of proper consultation, inadequate environmental assessment and a climate of fear in the area in question? With even the US opposed to the project, will she consider the matter carefully and conclude that it is not in the UK Government's interest, and certainly not in the Tibetan interest, to support this project?

We have not yet decided exactly what position we will take at the board meeting. There will be a discussion but not a final decision on 6 July. We are trying to maintain the project and benefits to some of the poorest people in China, some of whom have an annual income of only £23 a year. They live in remote villages for and represent four different ethnic minorities. We want to preserve a good project, but make sure that there is proper protection. We agree with a lot of criticisms in the panel report and, indeed, expressed some of those criticisms at the last meeting. We want to secure all those provisions, but also the project—that is our intention.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that many in the House welcome the Government's priority on the alleviation of poverty? Does she also accept that, no matter how desirable and well intentioned they are, schemes must comply with the regulations laid down by the World Bank? Given that the independent panel review found that seven out of l0 of the World Bank regulations have been violated, will my right hon. Friend make it as clear as possible that until the Government are satisfied that all those regulations have been complied with, they will not support the scheme?

I am very well aware that people are concerned about the situation in Tibet. I share the concern of those who have opposed this project from the start. My duty is to try to use UK influence to protect the interests of very poor people in China and make sure that that the project is good, but not to be swayed by a strong international campaign. I promise the House that I shall try to do that.

It is very alarming that the Secretary of State will not have made a decision when the meeting takes place tomorrow. Why, when the vote was taken, was it not supported by the United States, Canada, France and Australia, although Britain was for it? When will we see some vestiges of an ethical policy in our dealings with China in a policy that purely legitimises Chinese population transfer and all its obscene implications? The Government are kowtowing to the Chinese again. When will they stop?

The hon. Gentleman is deeply misinformed. China is opening up to the world. Its decision to join the World Trade Organisation is of crucial importance to humanity and the people of China, and will ensure that there is less oppression in China. China's record in reducing poverty in recent years has been very good, but in the most remote and the western parts of the country some of the poorest people live in some of the most inaccessible places. They have human rights to development, to education and to a decent livelihood. We will do all in our power to ensure that all human rights, including those of the poor, are protected everywhere, and that is what we are doing in China.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that a principal thrust of the DFID's programme in China thus far has been the development of judicial and civic structures to aid social development and, in particular, the development of human rights? Against that background, is it not right that when the Chinese have decided to switch their attention from the coastal provinces to the poorer inland provinces, we should do our part to assist that project, provided that we can get the assurances that we seek?

My hon. Friend is right. We have been conducting judicial training, and helping not only in state enterprise reform but with access to education, health care and water in remote provinces with some of the poorest ethnic minorities. I am sure that the House would agree that that is the right thing to do.

If she will make a statement on progress towards the global provision of primary education by 2015. [127741]

Since the publication of our White Paper, we have worked hard to mobilise the international community to meet the target of universal primary education by 2015. We welcome the strong political commitment at the world education forum in Dakar to achieve universal primary education by 2015 and significantly to enhance investment in primary education.

I thank the Secretary of State for her response. Does she accept that, regrettably, gender equity in primary and secondary education is unlikely to be reached by 2005? What new targets will the Government argue for? Can she reassure the House that the matter will be discussed at the Okinawa summit?

Certainly, all the international development targets will be discussed at Okinawa for the first time, and one of them is progress on gender equity in education. In the poorest countries, girls tend to be excluded from school, and educating girls is profoundly developmental for a country. I am not willing to agree with the hon. Gentleman and to write off significant progress by 2005, because we are now making progress on the objective. Let us drive that forward. If we have not achieved the objective in all countries in 2005, we can reassess the matter, but let us not give in now; let us make further progress. I promise the hon. Gentleman that the subject will be discussed at Okinawa.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that when the target is reached, it will be an enormous step forward because never in human history has it been achieved? Being able to read and write, and to answer back, will make an enormous difference to the ability of people worldwide to cope with all that the world can throw at them.

My hon. Friend is right. There are 900 million adults in the world who are illiterate. We now have an international commitment to ensure that all children in the world get primary education, and widespread recognition that it is the most powerful development intervention that any country can have. Including girls in education, in particular, transforms a country as the girls grow up and increases the likelihood that their children will survive.

Uncharacteristically, I agree with the Secretary of State in that I support the objective of providing universal primary education by 2015. Does she agree that no money earmarked for development should be wasted on bureaucracy and that every penny should be focused on the front line? Why then, since she took office, has she increased her staff by 321, increased her administration costs by £20 million and doubled her Department's publications, including bumf such as vanity publications that cost more than £400,000—enough to double the basic education programmes in Colombia, Mozambique and Nepal? Is it not about time that she spent a little more on the education of children in developing countries and a little less on publicising her own Department?

The hon. Lady is characteristically wrong, misinformed, inaccurate and not attached to the truth. The Department's spending has grown by £1 billion under this Government, but the budgets shrank and shrank under the administration supervised by the Government of which she was a member. Slightly more staff are needed to have a bigger programme, but our staffing is small. There has not been a big increase in administration costs, but we have published the details of all our strategies and programmes—that is freedom of information that was hidden by the previous Government. Publication costs money, but it allows people in developing countries to know about the programmes that are for their benefit. The hon. Lady is misinformed as ever.

If she will make a statement on the proposed Chad-Cameroon oil pipeline project. [127742]

The World Bank is supporting Chad and Cameroon to build a pipeline to take Chad's oil to the Atlantic coast. Chad and Cameroon are both very poor countries. We believe that the World Bank's involvement in the project will help to ensure that measures will be taken to protect the environment and that the benefits of the development will reach the poor.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does she agree that, in the long-term, it is far less likely that the exploitation of fossil fuels will bring prosperity to countries such as Chad and Cameroon, and that the World Bank should consider more seriously the development of renewable energy, the potential for which those countries have in abundance? Can she assure the House that she will use her influence at the board of the World Bank to give greater attention to renewable energy projects in future?

No, I do not agree with my hon. Friend. I agree that renewable energy—solar energy—is very important for the future of humanity and will bring benefits to countries with lots of sun. Chad is one of the poorest countries in the world, but it has substantial oil reserves. Of course Chad must be allowed to exploit those oil reserves, and the World Bank's involvement will ensure that that is done responsibly and that the poor benefit from that. That must be right. I support renewable energy, but Chad has a right to exploit its oil.

Will the Secretary of State tell the House what contribution the Prime Minister's initiative group at the Department for International Development makes to the proposed Chad-Cameroon oil pipeline project? [Interruption.]

I did not fully hear the hon. Gentleman; there is an awful lot of noise in the Chamber, Madam Speaker.

Order. Conversations are much too noisy. The House must come to order. I cannot hear, neither can Ministers. Secretary of State, did you hear the question correctly? Will the hon. Gentleman repeat the question? [Interruption.] Order. We cannot hear. Repeat the question.

Will the Secretary of State tell the House what contribution the Prime Minister's initiative group at the Department for International Development makes to the proposed Chad-Cameroon oil pipeline project?

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's initiative involves working with the private sector to use information technology in various countries, especially those in Africa, to improve teacher education to meet our primary education objective and to ensure that an educated group of people has access to the new technologies. It is too soon to say whether Chad will benefit, but we are currently reviewing whether we can drive that forward and which countries will benefit. I am very hopeful that Rwanda will benefit, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will share my pleasure at that.

What plans she has for setting up permanent stand-by arrangements for emergency relief. [127743]

A mechanism for international emergency relief already exists under the co-ordination of the United Nations. We are supporting the strengthening of the UN Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs. Our strategy paper on that work is available in the Library. The emergency relief operations of my Department are widely recognised as one of the most effective in the international system. [Interruption.]

Order. Before I call Mr. Bruce, I remind hon. Members that I have asked them to cease noisy conversations. I cannot hear, neither can the Secretary of State. Will hon. Members have quiet conversations, if they have any at all? They are here to listen to questions and answers, not to have conversations among themselves.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

We have stand-by arrangements with health professionals, logisticians, former military people, firefighters and all sorts of people who, overnight, will drop everything to go out to an emergency. Britain should be very proud of them. It is not wise to send helicopters from northern Europe to southern Africa if they can be hired in southern Africa. That is what we did, because it was cheaper and quicker. It was the right thing to do.

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

This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. I will have further such meetings later today.

Does my right hon. Friend recall meeting GPs from the primary care group in my constituency last week? Was he impressed, as I was, by their great success and the real changes that they are now able to achieve for patients as they move towards trust status? Is not the last thing that GPs and their patients need a return to the divisive two-tier system that we inherited from the Tories?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The primary care groups have replaced the vastly discredited two-tier system, but more than that, as a result of the additional money that we are able to get into the health service, both primary care services and acute hospital services will be increased. We now know from the Conservative party that it would take £1 billion out of the national health service. That is why every time the issue turns to substance and policy, the Conservatives have nothing to say.

I join the Prime Minister in his tribute to Australia and ask him to join me in welcoming to the Palace of Westminster five Australian Prime Ministers, including the current Prime Minister, Mr. Howard. On the centenary of the passing of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, will he join me in celebrating the close links between Britain and Australia and the sacrifice made by the people of Australia in upholding freedom and democracy in two world wars? Does he share the hope that the ties between our two great countries will be as strong throughout the next hundred years as they have been over the past hundred?

I am delighted to join in those sentiments. At my meeting with the Australian Prime Minister yesterday, we agreed that we should establish here a proper and fitting war memorial to those American service men and women who lost their lives—[HON. MEMBERS: "Australian!"] Forgive me: Australian service men and women. [Interruption.] Forgive me. Well, there were many good allies in those conflicts.

Australians are straightforward people, so let me ask the Prime Minister a straightforward question. Does he remember announcing a new Government policy last Friday, to a chorus of derision—something that he must be getting used to these days? In what was billed as a major announcement, he said that drunken and violent thugs would be picked up by the police, taken to a cashpoint and asked to pay an on-the-spot fine. Can he tell the House which person in the Government came up with that brilliant idea?

The essence of the proposal of course is that—[Interruption.] The essence of the proposal is that there should be summary justice for disorderly conduct and that there should be—[Interruption.] I am sorry to disappoint the right hon. Gentleman; he should just listen. There should be on-the-spot fines for those people who engage in disorderly conduct. It is correct that it may be better to do that by fixed penalty notice, but summary justice, on the spot, is the essence of the proposal. Perhaps when the right hon. Gentleman gets to his feet, he will say whether, if we introduce the proposal for summary fixed penalty notices, he will support it.

Answer!

If there were a fixed penalty notice for evading the question, the right hon. Gentleman would be bankrupt by now. The shadow Home Secretary has said that we are happy to look at the principle of using more fixed penalty notices, but what we want to know about is last Friday's announcement, copiously leaked to the press as usual, of

Blair's shock proposal to stop street violence—

On-the-spot fines—[Interruption.] Let us get the right hon. Gentleman off what he likes to talk about, and get him on to the substance. Was he saying a moment or two ago that if we introduce fixed penalty notices on the spot for disorderly conduct, he will support that?

Actually, I was asking the Prime Minister a question, to which he does not give the answer. I am happy to give the answer, as I have about fixed penalty notices. I will be happy to give the answers about Government policy in the future, which he will not give at the Dispatch Box today. The truth is that the proposal was yet another gimmick from a Government of gimmicks.

The child curfew orders and the anti-social behaviour orders were part of a Government strategy to deal with unruly behaviour. They are being used, and we want to see them being used more. However, I take it from what the right hon. Gentleman has just said that he will support on-the-spot fines. [Interruption.] The issue for people out there, when there are people drunk in the street, kicking in their gates, and engaging in drunken disorderly conduct, is whether the police will be given the powers that they need.

We called for the Prime Minister to deal with football hooliganism two years ago. Just because he did nothing and has mismanaged the parliamentary timetable does not mean that he can get legislation through in a matter of hours.

As the right hon. Gentleman well knows, that proposal was supported by his party. On football hooliganism, we now know today—[Interruption.] The Tories do not like to talk about the substance of the policy. On football hooliganism, we now know today that the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to support the measures going through the House of Lords. Let me tell the House also that we have introduced a measure whereby, for breaches of community service orders, benefit is lost. The Opposition oppose that as well. They also oppose the fines on illegal trafficking in illegal immigrants and asylum seekers. As for their record on crime, many people in the country remember that it was under the Conservatives that crime doubled. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to be taken seriously on crime, let him stand at this Dispatch Box—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Maybe he should give us a few answers to some questions. Let him stand there now and tell us whether he will back these measures on crime, or whether he will carry on talking about them but doing nothing.

I will stand at the right hon. Gentleman's Dispatch Box and be taken seriously on crime, which he never will. We will support tougher measures on crime going through the House, but we will subject them to proper parliamentary scrutiny, which he has never favoured. The number of people—a figure which, again, he has not given—released early who have committed grievous bodily harm is now 1,654, many of whom have offended again. Three years into the Government—[Interruption.]

Order. I hear what the hon. Member for Halton (Mr. Twigg) is calling out. I shall have to move him out of the Chamber if he continues.

Three years into the Government, is it not the truth that they are failing to deal with the real issues, such as crime, because they are so busy with leak and counter-leak, spin and counter-spin, and doing each other down in the press. Is not the fact that the Prime Minister spends his time clutching for another empty headline with a cashpoint announcement instead of getting a grip on his divided and shambolic Government a sure sign of weakness and failure of leadership?

Let us deal with "spin rather than substance". I notice that the right hon. Gentleman did not raise today the record number of jobs created by inward investment in this country; the 1 million extra jobs since the election—not spin, substance; the new hospital building programme—not spin, substance; the building work for up to 11,000 schools—not spin, but substance; today's £1 billion programme for science—not spin, but substance; the minimum wage; paid holidays; the right to union representation; the new deal; the working families tax credit—all substance. The truth is, when the debate turns to policy, we will see who is standing.

More!

Resign.

Order. Any more of that and the hon. Gentleman will be out.

One of the things that I hope that my right hon. Friend will do today is have a look at the petition with 70,000 signatures gathered in Glasgow in support of Govan shipyard. There are voices this morning saying that the future for our yard is bleak. Does my right hon. Friend have any encouraging things to say to the men and women in that yard who have campaigned so hard and so long to save its future?

My hon. Friend will recognise that the Ministry of Defence receives the bids tomorrow and will consider them carefully. Other United Kingdom warship orders are coming up, and Scotland can expect to benefit from them, too. For example, it is probable that a type 45 destroyer, first of class, will be assembled and launched on the Clyde. In addition, the Government have spent about £500 million on defence equipment from contractors based in Scotland. We must obviously make decisions in the best interests of our shipbuilding industry, but we are well aware of the anxieties of those who work in the Govan yard.

While I acknowledge the welcome level of investment that has been recorded today, what does the Prime Minister make of the opinion that was expressed to him and the Foreign Office by our ambassador in Japan? The ambassador said that there is a perception among Japanese business men that, unless this country gets firmly on track for membership of the euro, additional future investment will entail unnecessary costs and doubts. Does the Prime Minister agree with his ambassador's analysis?

Before I answer that question, I shall refer to a question that the right hon. Gentleman asked last week and to which I promised an answer. He asked whether the health action zone money had been cut. I have examined the matter carefully. Five different streams of money go to health action zones. The right hon. Gentleman was right to say that one had been reduced. However, the other four have been substantially increased, and there will be an overall increase of 37 per cent. in health action zone funding.

On health action zones, the Prime Minister is right about the 37 per cent., but the point of last week's question was that the 37 per cent. increase is a decrease when compared with what the Treasury proposed initially. It will still result in cuts. That is the heart of the matter.

outside the Euro…we will be much poorer both as a nation and as individuals.

No, because it is a "prepare and decide" policy. Depending on the economic conditions, membership of a successful single currency would be good for British jobs, mortgages and industry. However, membership must depend on the economic tests for the simple reason that if the conditions were not met, membership would not have the beneficial impact that we have discussed. The majority of those who are in favour of our joining the euro in principle recognise that joining now would not be right. It is therefore important to keep to the "prepare and decide" policy, the "in principle" commitment and the tests. We must do that because it is best for British people and British industry. Adopting the crazy policy of the Conservative party would prove the fastest way of removing inward investment from this country.

Now that the Home Office accepts that it costs more to police rural areas, can my right hon. Friend assure the residents of rural Staffordshire that Staffordshire police will get more money? Does my right hon. Friend agree that wherever people live in Britain, they should be entitled to a police service that is consistently good?

I note that my hon. Friend's force will get an additional 83 officers from the 5,000 extra national recruits in the next two years. I also note that recorded crime has fallen in my hon. Friend's area by 3.3 per cent. The comprehensive spending review is coming up shortly. The extra resources that we are able to invest in the police show the importance that the Government attach to investing in our essential public services—schools, hospitals, law and order and transport. All those investments would be put at risk by the Conservative party's policy, which would mean that, whatever the economic circumstances, tax cuts always come first. When we undertake the comprehensive spending review, the choice will be simple: it will be between investment in the future and a stable economy on one side and an unstable economy and cuts in investment on the other.

Is the Prime Minister satisfied that the illegal arms in the Provisional IRA dumps recently inspected by the two international inspectors are now secure and unavailable for use? When will they be put beyond use on a permanent basis, as required by statute, and when will the arrangements be made to deal with the remaining dumps?

It is important that this was a confidence-building measure. It is not the end of the decommissioning process, as I said on the day the measure was announced. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will welcome the fact that we have a chance in Northern Ireland, with an inclusive Executive now and with a Government who are able to represent all parts of the community, to take the process forward. We know that the confidence-building measure is not the full decommissioning that we need. However, it is a significant step along the way to a more peaceful future for people in Northern Ireland. I believe that the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland and in the whole of the United Kingdom will welcome it.

Last Friday, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health announced an allocation of £658,000 for the Royal Bolton hospital to build a dedicated eye operating theatre. That is in addition to a doubling, under the Government, of intensive care beds and a significant increase in capacity of the accident and emergency department. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has been invited to Bolton to open one or all of these facilities. May I say on my 60th birthday what a wonderful present it would be if he accepted the invitation? I promise to pay for the plaque.

That does not seem to be an offer that I can refuse. I am delighted that that investment is going into my hon. Friend's constituency. Every accident and emergency department throughout the country that needs it is being refurbished. In addition, there is the largest hospital-building programme since the war. [Interruption.] Before the Tories start shouting out, I might add that when we came to office not one hospital was being built under their programme.

Labour Governments are famous for soaking the rich, but with exorbitant petrol taxes the Government are guilty of milking the poor. The car is not a luxury in rural constituencies such as Ribble Valley; it is a necessity. The Prime Minister tells us that the tax is all being earmarked for public services. However, there is a VAT element on higher petrol prices that has given the Chancellor of the Exchequer a windfall VAT tax. Why cannot that tax now be returned to the motorist? When will the Prime Minister stop caning the motorist?

I remind the hon. Gentleman that it was the Government he supported who introduced the fuel duty escalator. In the past year, less than 2p of the 18p per litre rise in the price of petrol has been fuel duty. The hon. Gentleman is an Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, is he not? When the Leader of the Opposition was asked another substance question—another policy question—about whether he would take off any of the petrol duty, he said that he would not because

We have to be very careful

Will the Prime Minister join me in welcoming the £1 billion investment in science that was announced today, a radical improvement for our national science base which was reduced to impoverishment under the Tories? Further, is he aware that north-west senior scientists, academics, politicians and industrialists are meeting this Friday in Manchester to put, in partnership, the north-west right at the front of the biotech revolution? Will he take a personal interest in the North-West Science and Daresbury taskforce to ensure that we get the continued new investment in our north-west science base which our excellence merits?

That is right. I gather that the principal of the university of Manchester has welcomed today's announcement. It is a major investment in science in this country. We do it to ensure not merely that we are educating our people properly, but that we can carry on being the number one place to do business in the whole of Europe. I quote from what the US consultants said just a few weeks ago when asked to look into this:

The UK rose to 2nd place in the worldwide index as a destination of choice for foreign investors.

continued pro-business stance of the Blair Government…all underlie this favourable British market position.

As a precaution, may I ask the Prime Minister if he would be kind enough to answer the specific question that I am about to ask, rather than the question that he hopes I am going to ask? Is he aware that, today in mid-Essex—I am not interested in the rest of the country—1,600 more people are on a hospital waiting list than on 2 May 1997? Can he explain to my constituents and to me why, in mid-Essex, there has not been a single day since 2 May 1997 when hospital waiting lists have been lower than when the Conservative Government left office?

I will not respond to the hon. Gentleman about the detail of his own constituency because I do not know it, but I will make sure that I get the response. However, if we are to reduce hospital waiting lists—of course, the in-patient lists have come down nationally by 100,000—we have to make an investment in more nurses, doctors and facilities in the health service. [Interruption.] It is no use the hon. Gentleman shaking his head: he is against that extra investment in the health service. He is going to go into the next election—[Interruption.] Oh, yes. I am afraid that at some point Conservative Members are going to have to answer a few questions on policy. If they go into the next election holding to their tax guarantee, then, as my predecessor, the former leader of the hon. Gentleman's party, said, the only way that their tax policy can be made to add up is swingeing cuts in education and health. That is the fact; so although there are people in his area entitled to ask for more money in mid-Essex to cure the waiting list problem, he is not one of them.

The earlier noise in here must have made our Australian visitors feel quite at home.

Yes, we did discuss that and they are supportive of setting up the rapid reaction force. Of course, we have to be very careful of the sensitivities of non-NATO EU member countries, but the whole purpose of the force is to allow us that greater facility to deal with situations that may arise on the doorstep of the European Union, where it is important that European Union member countries co-operate. In defence policy, the work that has been done by the Government in co-operation with other Governments is a classic example of how a positive, constructive attitude in Europe yields the best results for Europe and for the country.

So that the Bill on football hooliganism can receive swift passage and proper parliamentary scrutiny, will the Prime Minister agree today to drop from his legislative programme his Bill to restrict trial by jury?

No, I certainly will not. Both those matters go to the heart of the law and order debate on policy. The mode of trial legislation was recommended by a royal commission, it is supported by the Lord Chief Justice, it will hugely increase the efficiency of the criminal justice system and we will be able to use some of the money thus saved in front-line policing.