What assessment she has made of the impact of writing off the debt of heavily indebted less-developed countries on the poorest in those countries. [132182]

What decisions were taken at the recent World Bank and IMF meetings on debt relief. [132184]

There are 35 heavily indebted poor countries that could qualify for enhanced debt relief, 30 of them in Africa. At the World Bank and International Monetary Fund meetings in Prague, it was agreed that all possible efforts would be made to get 20 countries on track for debt relief by the end of the year. After that we will face great difficulty because, of the remaining 15 countries that could qualify, 11 are affected by conflict. We are hopeful that six countries may qualify next year.

I am grateful for that reply, and I think that the Government should be thoroughly congratulated on what they have achieved so far. I know that many Members on both sides of the House are anxious for the debt write-off to be a success.

There is no doubt that Bangladesh contains a large number of very poor people, but it does not qualify for the heavily indebted poor countries initiative. We should be careful not to suggest, in our enthusiasm for debt relief, that all debt should always be written off. Poor countries need to be able to borrow and repay responsibly, so that they have a good track record and can secure foreign investment and enable their economies to grow. Bangladesh, with its new textile industry, has been expanding its economy very well. Bangladesh has problems, but debt relief is not the best remedy. It needs good international development assistance, and we in the United Kingdom have a growing programme.

I congratulate the Government on their 100 per cent. debt cancellation initiative. It is not matched by multilateral institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank, which are responsible for more than 35 per cent. of long-term debt in these countries. As a result, the first five heavily indebted countries receiving help pay more than half a million dollars to foreign creditors each year. That is more than they spend on health. Will the Government ensure that the multilateral institutions live up to their responsibilities, so that we can finally get the debt cleared?

The IMF and the World Bank are international public sector institutions, funded by taxpayers internationally. They will find it difficult to fund debt relief in, for instance, Zambia, which has enormous debts, unless the American Congress votes for United States contributions. We have real difficulties in funding the existing initiative, and it would not be possible for the IMF and the World Bank to commit themselves to more.

Does the Secretary of State agree that even if all the debt of the world's poorest countries were written off, they would still remain poor unless we reformed the world's trading system? In that context, can she tell the House what she is doing to ensure that the United Kingdom and the European Union wipe out duty and quota systems so that the poorest countries can sell their goods all over the world and become less poor? Can she also update the House on progress with the Cotonou agreement, which has replaced the Lomé agreement?

I agree very much with the hon. Lady that we need a more just trading system and that developing countries need better trading opportunities. That is especially true in agriculture—the EU needs to reform that sector—and, in particular, the trade in processed agricultural goods, in which those developing countries have a natural advantage. That is one of the reasons why I believe passionately, and the Government in general believe strongly, that we need another trade round and that developing countries could make great gains from it. I am afraid, however, that there is no immediate prospect of reaching an agreement, not just because of the United States election, but because many developing countries are so burdened with their commitments under the Uruguay round that they are not demanding a round themselves. We have to keep up the argument and the agenda for trade reform that would bring real benefits to developing countries.

We welcome the initiatives that have been taken. I understand that, for example, Cameroon's debt has been reduced by a welcome $100 million, but that still leaves it paying $400 million a year in interest alone—a great deal of money, as my right hon. Friend would agree. What further steps can be taken with the IMF and the World Bank to ensure that the HIPCs initiative makes a substantial difference to some of those countries? Although we have taken welcome steps so far, I am sure that she would agree that there is much further to go. So far, this country has taken a lead internationally, but can we push that effort much further as we head towards the end of the year 2000, in which we hoped to make such progress?

No. It is my view that we will not persuade the international community to finance a more generous debt relief programme than the current one. As I have said, we have not received the American contributions—that is still in doubt—and we shall be in difficulty if we do not get them. Under the HIPCs initiative, $100 billion will be written off. People talk as though that is nothing, but it is a massive sum by any account, certainly given the budgets of those very poor countries.

Everything that the Secretary of State has said does not change the fact that the timetable for debt relief has been badly misjudged by the Government. Last year, the Prime Minister said that 25 countries would get relief by the end of 2000. This year, the Chancellor confirmed that, saying that 25 countries would get relief by the end of 2000, and he should know because he chaired the IMF committee. However, by May this year the Chancellor admitted that the figure had fallen to 20. As we stand here today, only 11 countries have qualified and there are only nine weeks to go to the end of the year. What possible confidence can we have in the commitments of the World Bank, the IMF and the Government when the targets for helping the world's poorest and most vulnerable have been allowed to slip so dramatically? Is the Secretary of State prepared to guarantee the current timetable predictions of her colleagues, the IMF and the World Bank? We need to know.

Thank heavens, the Conservative party is in opposition because the hon. Lady clearly does not understand the problem of debt or the international system. For example, Côte d'Ivoire has had a coup and is therefore unlikely to qualify for debt relief. We need co-operation from all the countries that give debt relief and the qualifying countries must adopt the necessary reforms to receive it.

Order. I will decide what is appropriate behaviour. It is for the Minister to answer the question.

I am pleased to hear it.

What projects on good governance her Department is supporting in Kenya. [132183]

High levels of corruption and poor economic management have caused enormous damage to the economy and people of Kenya. The UK, along with all other development agencies, has made it clear over the past three years that support to Kenya would be conditional on firm action on corruption. A strong package has been negotiated with the IMF, which we support. We are now at the beginning of a difficult reform process in Kenya, which will require sustained Kenyan and international support.

I am grateful for that answer, but the Secretary of State will be aware that concerns are increasing over political stability in Kenya, with daily rumours about early elections and whether President Moi will stand down as required by the constitution. Two separate constitutional review processes are in competition. In that context, will the Minister consider increasing direct support from her Department to good government initiatives in Kenya, so that we see a successful election process? Small investment in such initiatives now may avoid the huge economic, social and human costs of further instability in east Africa, which would be caused by a flawed election process in Kenya.

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The situation is fragile. On top of the history of corruption, poor economic management and growing poverty, there is a very serious and terrible drought in Kenya, which is having bad consequences, so we should all worry for the future stability of that country. We are already providing assistance to try to ensure that there are fair and proper elections. We will do all that we can to ensure that that happens.

My right hon. Friend is highly regarded in Kenya for her on-going commitment. What discussions is her Department having with Richard Leakey in view of his commitment to change the long-standing political system in Kenya? Will she always bear it in mind that it is ordinary men, women and their families in Kenya who suffer enormously in terms of education and employment opportunities and health care? Whenever we talk about loans from either the IMF or World Bank, it is ordinary people who, sadly, suffer.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why one must constantly make difficult judgments. There is no such thing as a perfect Government, even in the UK. Therefore, one is always trying to offer assistance and support for reform to improve the life of ordinary people, working with whatever Governments one can find. He is also right that President Moi's decision to appoint Richard Leakey and his team to take over the leadership of the reform process in Kenya represents a big commitment to change, reform and to tackle corruption. That has led us to back a new IMF and World Bank package, which we hope will focus on improving the lives of ordinary people, which are getting worse because of the drought.

Does not the Secretary of State share my concern about reports in The Eastafrican newspaper on 5 October that the Kenyan drive against corruption lost steam the very second that the IMF endorsed its $198 million aid package, causing many diplomatic sources to comment that the Kenyan Government were simply out to hoodwink donors? Given that Britain has just increased bilateral aid to Kenya, is she confident that our aid is not simply propping up a Government who have no real intention to reform? Is it not time to make it crystal clear that British aid to Kenya and all other Governments will in future be more closely linked to specific delivery on governance and corruption, and that if they fail to deliver their aid will be stopped and the same amount of money will be pumped through non-governmental organisations and charities in that country, where it has a better chance of reaching those really in need?

The hon. Gentleman must learn that one cannot reform Governments who are performing badly by giving aid to NGOs and charities. That happens when one is simply bringing humanitarian relief and cannot lever any reform. That is an important point that the hon. Gentleman needs to learn. Our recent increase in aid to Kenya was £10 million for drought relief because people are going hungry. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) did not heckle me, I could answer his question.

If she will make a statement on the percentage of the United Kingdom's bilateral aid which goes to Commonwealth countries. [132185]

About 62 per cent. of our bilateral programme supports Commonwealth countries, of which 85 per cent. goes to low income countries.

I thank the Minister for that answer and I am sure that the House agrees with his sentiments about the role and potential of the Commonwealth. Given that we have to give a fairly substantial amount of our aid budget to multilateral aid through the European Union, does the Minister have any proposals to increase the 60 per cent. of our bilateral aid budget that we give to the Commonwealth? Given that we can give to other countries through the EU multilateral aid budget, should not the first claim on our bilateral aid be Commonwealth countries rather than spreading it too thinly?

Yes, we want more of our direct assistance to go to the least developed and poorest countries, whether they be Commonwealth countries or others. We want the European Community to put its aid into the poorest countries as well and we are pressing strongly for that.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that we all want to see Pakistan return to democracy and full membership of the Commonwealth as soon as possible? Will he also confirm that we still regard Pakistan as a member of the Commonwealth and that we are still helping with many projects in that country to deal with its problems and poverty?

Yes, we are certainly concerned about the poor people in Pakistan. Whatever the Government, there are still many poor people and we look at ways to ensure that our help gets to them as quickly and effectively as possible.

How can the Minister justify the recent announcement of increased bilateral aid to Malawi, a Commonwealth country, when we learn that it has just spent vast sums on buying 39 brand new Mercedes cars for Government Ministers? Does he agree with our high commissioner in Malawi, Mr. Finlayson, who said that the British Government would be embarrassed by that, particularly as it is not yet known whether it happened with the benefit of what he called

British balance of payments support?

As usual, the hon. Gentleman is trying to use diversionary tactics. Malawi is one of the poorest countries in the world, and 64 per cent. of its people are malnourished. I give the hon. Gentleman and the House the absolute assurance that we ensure that our assistance goes to help the poorest people—

To buy Mercedes.

We will continue to provide that assistance, despite the hon. Gentleman's continual heckling. He talks and he shouts, but we act to help poor people.

I have just returned from Bangladesh, where I witnessed for myself some of the most devastating floods that it has had for a century. Can my hon. Friend outline whether, and how, Bangladesh will benefit from the United Kingdom's disaster relief fund?

Our long-term development programme in Bangladesh is increasing in the next two years from £70 million to £90 million. Moreover, we have just approved about £1 million for flood-related assistance to the affected populations in the west of Bangladesh. We also anticipate approving more immediate flood relief and contributing to flood rehabilitation once the floods recede. I hope that my hon. Friend will be very pleased that this Government are taking quick and effective action.

If she will make a statement on the United Kingdom's international aid budget for disaster relief. [132186]

Internationally, 5 per cent. of development assistance is usually spent on disaster relief. The United Kingdom does not set itself a pre-ordained limit, but spends according to need. In the previous financial year, 11 per cent. of my Department's budget was spent on disaster relief. That compares with 5 per cent, in 1997–98, and 8 per cent, in 1998–99. This year, we have provided relief for floods in west Bengal, Bangladesh, Vietnam and Cambodia, a hurricane in Belize, and a typhoon and tidal wave in North Korea. [Interruption.] We are also continuing to provide humanitarian assistance to people affected by conflict in many parts of the world. [Interruption.]

Order. I must ask the House to come to order.

I thank the Secretary of State for her reply. She will remember stating about the Mozambique floods;

The problem is not money. The problem is deploying on the ground, getting the helicopters and boats where they are needed, and getting food and water to people.—[Official Report, 28 February 2000; Vol. 345, c. 22.]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: an individual's chances of surviving a flood or other disaster are determined largely by the help available in the immediately succeeding hours. Although subsequent international assistance helps the country to recover, it is immediate action that saves people's lives, their animals and their livelihoods. Immediate action depends on strong systems already being in place in disaster-prone countries.

Would my right hon. Friend like to acknowledge the brilliant work that has been done by British civil engineers in disaster relief efforts around the world? May I also take this opportunity to congratulate her on her honorary fellowship of the Institution of Civil Engineers, which was awarded to her to acknowledge her efforts in international disaster relief?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend—my grandfather would be proud of the fact that I am now a properly qualified engineer—and agree with him. We have in Red R—Registered Engineers for Disaster Relief—an association of United Kingdom engineers who, at a moment's notice, will drop everything and work on projects to provide water and sanitation and to build dams. They proudly serve our country, and we should be enormously proud of them. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House take great pride in what they do.

Does the Secretary of State agree that, sometimes, the most effective disaster relief should be delivered by the people living in the country? Does she not find it almost obscene that one of the richest countries in the world should be sending teams to sub-Saharan Africa to recruit nurses for the national health service, when those nurses should be left in the countries in which they have been trained?

I strongly agree with the hon. Gentleman's fundamental point. Although it is good for people to share their skills internationally and to travel to other countries, and although we and other countries may have skill shortages and want to recruit internationally, we should not recruit highly skilled and expensively trained people from some of the poorest countries. As we develop our policy we must balance those two imperatives and my Department is trying to make sure that the Government do just that.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 25 October.

First, may I welcome you, Mr. Speaker?

I am sure that the whole House shares in those condolences.

I am not entirely unsympathetic to what the hon. Gentleman has just said. A rural White Paper will be published shortly. We must emphasise the importance of services in our rural areas—services such as the health service, schools, rural post offices and transport services on which people rely. So I entirely agree that it is appropriate that we take all that into account and make sure that money is spent wisely for the benefit of people who live in the countryside.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the excellent work of the Coalfields Regeneration Trust, which is based in Doncaster, in regenerating the former mining communities in England, Scotland and Wales? Does he agree that the Government need to give serious consideration to extending the lifespan of the CRT beyond its present three-year period?

Of course we keep that matter under constant review, but we have made a big financial commitment to the former coalfield communities. That money is an important part of regeneration. Without that investment, many people would have no chance whatever of getting a job again. That is why the Government are committed to making that investment over the next few years. We will then review the position. It is important to make that investment, rather than cutting it as the Opposition intend to do.

I join the Prime Minister in his welcome to you, Mr. Speaker, and in the tributes that he paid to the late Audrey Wise and the late Donald Dewar, whom we will remember across the House as a most courteous, charming and talented man. We also join the right hon. Gentleman in his tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), the end of whose 50 years in the House will be regretted by hon. Members in all parties.

We know from the great fly-on-the-wall documentary that the right hon. Gentleman rehearses his jokes very carefully. He should rehearse his policy a little better. It has always been the case that we do not say that we want to join the euro now, but neither do we rule it out. We keep the option open. The dividing line at the election will be between this party, which says that we keep the option open and give people a choice in a referendum, and his position, which—at least at the last telling—was to rule it out for the next Parliament.

Is it not the case that if the Government were not so arrogant and out of touch, their policy would have changed? Does he not agree that the pound and the euro are diverging, not converging, making any argument for early entry weaker, not stronger? Does he not agree that the idea that the euro is inevitable for everyone in Europe has now been blown away by the people of Denmark? Will he confirm that, in spite of all that, his policy remains to prepare for a referendum early in the next Parliament, which could mean, next year, scrapping the pound?

Our policy is, yes, to prepare and decide; that remains our policy. In principle, we are in favour but, in practice, the economic tests have to be met. The very things that the right hon. Gentleman is talking about show the wisdom of having a policy based on the national economic interest. The question that he has failed to answer throughout is how he can be against the euro in principle, but only for five years. That is an absurd policy and it will continue to be an absurd policy.

Nothing is more absurd than a Prime Minister who has committed us in principle to joining the euro saying last week that he was against it. He talks about his five tests; we know what they are: "Does Peter want it? Will Gordon let me? Will the French like it? Will Robin notice? Can I get away with it?" Why does he not listen to the Governor of the Bank of England, who said yesterday that it would not be in Britain's interests to risk membership of the single currency in the near future and that paving the way for joining it could destabilise our entire economy? Does not that mean that a policy of preparing for a referendum early in the next Parliament should now be changed, or is the Prime Minister as out of touch with the Bank of England as he is with the people of Britain?

The Governor of the Bank of England's policy is exactly the same. It is decided on the economic tests: jobs, investment and industry. The difference between the right hon. Gentleman and the Government is that, even if the euro were in our interests in terms of jobs, industry and investment, he is committed, as a matter of politics, to ruling it out in the next Parliament. If we ruled it out for the next Parliament as a matter of principle and on the basis of politics, it would have a devastating effect on British jobs and investment because industry wants to know that we will take the decision on what is best for the economy. That is why I say that we do not go in today because it is not right for the economy. However, if the economic tests are positive early in the next Parliament, we put it to the British people in a referendum. That policy is clear and right. A policy that is as clear as mud is to say that the right hon. Gentleman is against it in principle, but only for five years.

Is there no end to how out of touch the Prime Minister has become? Is he never prepared to admit that he has made a mistake? If he cannot admit a mistake on committing the country to join the euro, will he now admit that it was a mistake—[Interruption.]

Order. Hon. Members should not shout so loudly, as I cannot hear the right hon. Gentleman.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

No. I believe that the position set out in the Budget was right. What is more, that is the position that the right hon. Gentleman supported—[Interruption.] I am sorry, in July, when the shadow Chancellor was asked whether the Conservative party was committed to cutting petrol duty, he said no. On the Jimmy Young programme on 14 September, the Conservative leader was asked about cutting fuel duty, and said:

It's my job to provide the country with an alternative government, not to ride around on whatever bandwagon from time to time.

So the Prime Minister believes that the petrol price rises are nothing to do with him. We all voted against the Budget increases in petrol duties. We voted against them in March and April, at the time of the Budget, which is different from supporting them. Now the Prime Minister thinks that petrol price rises have nothing to do with him. What a load of unleaded nonsense he believes in. He has increased petrol duties twice as fast as the previous Government, and by more in three years than any Prime Minister in history. As First Lord of the Treasury, he has given us the most expensive petrol in Europe and brought the country to a standstill. Will he now accept that those increases in the last Budget were a mistake?

I continue to say that these decisions should be made in the proper way in the Budget process. We must not do anything that takes risks with economic stability or vital investment in public services. The truth is that the right hon. Gentleman's policy is a policy for boom, bust and instability, and for £16 billion worth of cuts in our public services. We reject both those policies and, from now until the general election, we shall carry on until we get answers to questions about them.

We simply want to give back to the people of this country the money that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have stolen from them, which the Prime Minister wants only for re-election purposes. This autumn, we see a Government who are still determined to scrap the pound, not listening to the people of this country on petrol taxes, presiding over rising crime, facing a growing shortage of teachers, and turning the national lottery into a national shambles. Is not the real story of the Government this autumn that they are lost in their own spin and failure and that we have a Prime Minister who will not listen, will not learn and will not lead?

When the right hon. Gentleman is on the jokes, he is fine, but when it comes to policy he does not have a clue. He says that we have a big surplus, but three months ago he and the shadow Chancellor told us that our spending plans were reckless, irresponsible and would lead to higher interest rates. The right hon. Gentleman is still saying that, but now he wants to spend the surplus in every way possible.

I will take no further action against the Shadow Cabinet as I told them to give truthful answers.

Order. The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) is very noisy today. She should be quiet.

Do the Government have any plans to introduce into the national curriculum the geography of north-east England, given that the Tory party website puts Tyne Bridge in Sunderland, and Cleveland in Durham above Northumberland? Does not that show the Conservative party's contempt for the north-east as a region?

I think that the Leader of the Opposition, when he is on his countrywide campaign, will need a slightly better map.

May I welcome you, Mr. Speaker, to your post?

The right hon. Gentleman is right to describe the chaos of privatisation that we inherited, but the very reason why it is important to have the Strategic Rail Authority is that we will get a far better, co-ordinated approach in the future. The other necessity is large-scale public and private investment. That is why investment in transport over the next 10 years is absolutely vital to renew the transport infrastructure, and why the Opposition's proposals to cut that investment would be so damaging.

Given that safety is an important element of public transportation policy, will the Prime Minister rethink his proposed part-privatisation of National Air Traffic Services Ltd., which comes before the House of Lords again tomorrow? The Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs described the part-privatisation proposal as

the worst of all possible options,

We certainly will not do that, as the air safety aspects of the proposal will be kept in the public sector. That is why I do not agree that the proposal is the wrong thing to do. We are engaged in the process that is under way with regard to air traffic control services in order to get the significant sum of money—probably £1 billion over the next few years—that those services need to be invested in them.

May I welcome you to your post, Mr. Speaker?

We will put that investment in as quickly as possible, but it will take time. For many years, the railways were subject to underinvestment. We need to renew our transport infrastructure. The transport plan was well received, but it is important to emphasise that this is a long-term project. We have to ensure that investment is sustainable: it is no use putting money in one year and taking it out the next.

I know that the Prime Minister is a keen supporter of devolution. No doubt he will welcome the fact that, in next year's census, the people of Scotland will be able to tick a box to say that they are Scottish. Can he explain why the people of Wales will not be able to tick a similar box to say that they are Welsh? How does he suggest that we can remedy that disgrace? How does he justify this appalling treatment of the needs of the Welsh nation?

I am sure that no insult at all is intended to people in Wales. However, I understand that the National Statistician has announced today that there will be a new study into Welsh identity, using information gathered from the census—[Interruption.] If people wish to say that they are Welsh, we will count them as Welsh. That option exists, but obviously we are looking carefully at the points that the hon. Gentleman has made.

Will my right hon. Friend tell me why so far, apparently, there has been no favourable decision on compensation for former prisoners of war of the Japanese, although I accept entirely that no previous Government have acted in this respect? Should we not follow the example of the Canadians regarding our obligations to a what is now a very small number of people, who suffered so terribly as Japanese prisoners of war, were treated as work slaves and tortured? Surely it is not too much to ask that at long last we honour our obligations and do what is right.

As I have said before, I have always had a good deal of sympathy with the campaign mounted by the Royal British Legion for additional compensation to be paid to far east prisoners of war. The suffering that they endured was appalling; the nation owes them a particular debt of honour for the sacrifice that they made and the memories that they have had to live with, literally for the rest of their lives. My hon. Friend has made his points in a very good and convincing way. I simply ask him and, more importantly, those affected, to exercise patience for a little longer. These decisions need to be taken in the run-up to the pre-Budget report. I ask my hon. Friend to accept that I have a great deal of sympathy with the points that he has made. It will not be very much longer until the decision is announced.

May I ask the Prime Minister to suggest to the Secretary of State for Health that he reconsider the plans to cut the number of acute hospital beds in East Kent by up to 15 per cent.? At the height of summer, individual hospitals—and, at one point, all three hospitals—had patients on trolleys in corridors and offices.

I understand from my right hon. Friend that the hon. Gentleman raised this point with him yesterday, and he said that he would look into this specific case. On the general picture, however, we are increasing the number of critical care beds as part of our preparations for winter. Although I know that there are still nursing shortages in certain parts of the country, all in all, according to the latest figures, there are 10,000 more nurses in the health service today than there were three years ago. Of course there will still be difficulties in particular parts of the country, but slowly, step by step, improvements are being made.

Will my right hon. Friend please ensure that, during the next few weeks, when millions of pensioners throughout the country will receive notice of a winter fuel payment of £150 and a free television licence, all letters carry words to the effect that, in the unlikely event of a Tory Government, this will be the first and the last payment that they will receive?

My hon. Friend is of course right. The £150 winter allowance is important for pensioners because it does not reduce their benefit and is not taken into account for tax purposes. The free television licence for the over-75s is also very important. I think that the Conservative party is wholly wrong in thinking that people want those benefits taken away. They do not—they will welcome the winter allowance, they will welcome the free television licences for the over-75s and I very much hope that they will also welcome what we do for pensioners as a whole.

The Prime Minister frequently refers to the economic criteria for entry into the euro. Will he explain to the House whether he has any criteria relating to the political and constitutional implications of entry into a single currency?

There is a serious constitutional and political question here: whether membership of the euro should be barred on constitutional grounds. Our answer to that is no. In the end, the proper test is that of the national economic interest. That is not to say that there are not important questions, but we, as a political party in Government, have resolved them in the way that I have described.

I make no apology for returning to the question of rail safety, because commuters are travelling out of Bolton Trinity Street station on extremely overcrowded trains in what many people regard as unsafe conditions. For example, on 30 June a door flew open and a man who had multiple sclerosis almost fell out on to the track. Since the original franchises were let by the previous Administration with cost cutting in mind, is not refranchising an urgent necessity to improve the comfort and, especially, the safety of passengers?

Those are decisions that have to be taken in respect of each franchise. My hon. Friend is right in what he says about the mess of privatisation that we inherited, but every bit as difficult as that—in fact, possibly more so—was the chronic under-investment over a period of years. We have a simple choice in this country: if we want better public services, we have to invest in them and modernise them. That is the choice. We cannot carry on thinking that we can get decent public services—whether it be transport, schools, hospitals or police back on the beat—unless we are prepared to make that financial commitment. That is why, on our side, we are prepared to make the commitment and the Conservative side wants to cut it.

Yesterday, the hon. Member for Central Fife (Mr. McLeish), who is about to become First Minister in Scotland, announced his proposals for the politicisation of the Scottish civil service, through preferential links with Labour MSPs and the Scottish Labour party. Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity unequivocally to condemn those remarks, especially as, under the Scotland Act 1998, responsibility for the good running of that civil service rests with him?

I do not accept the premise of the hon. Gentleman's question at all.

Earlier, the Prime Minister paid a tribute to the late Donald Dewar, who was well respected in this House. Does my right hon. Friend agree that Donald Dewar had a lifelong commitment to social justice? Will not the greatest memorial to Donald Dewar be to continue with that crusade, taking a million more children out of poverty?

Of course, that is right. The campaign for social justice means that we have to take decisions, such as the new deal for the unemployed, the working families tax credit—to help make work pay for people—and the increases in child benefit. We know from the Conservative party that, in respect of each one of those things—the new deal, the working families tax credit and the increases in child benefit—they are committed to taking them off people in this country. I think it is right that people have them. One of the reasons why we have a million extra jobs in the economy is because we are helping people back into work and making work pay. As a result of that, we are saving money that we can then invest in our public services.

What should I say to my constituents about—[Interruption.] What would the Prime Minister advise that I say to my constituents about the spending priorities of his Government in London—to my constituents and the patients of Harefield hospital, the premier cardiothoracic hospital in this country? Harefield faces imminent closure. The hospital has carried out more heart transplants than any other in the world. Yet in east London, with total equanimity, the Prime Minister sees more than £600 million of public money go down the drain with no shame or remorse from his friend Lord Falconer.

Leaving aside for a moment the particular case that the hon. Gentleman is making, the Government are putting investment into the health service while his party is committed to taking that investment back out. We really cannot have a situation where Conservative Members come to the House, stand up and demand extra money for public services when they are committed to cutting that money for public services.