If he will make a statement on the budget for staff in the Wales Office. [27057]

If he will make a statement on the number of civil servants in his Department. [27061]

For the period since April 2001 the average staff of my Department has been 44 full-time equivalents. The running costs budget of the Wales Office is £2.279 million for each of the financial years from 2001–02 to 2003–04. Staff pay normally accounts for about two thirds of running costs.

I thank the Secretary of State for that response. Is he aware that as the Wales Office staff complement continues to multiply, manufacturing industry in Wales is in crisis and jobs are haemorrhaging everywhere, it seems, other than inside the Wales Office? Does he not accept that increased staff numbers are no substitute for delivery on the long-broken pledges to the people of Wales?

On the increase in numbers, I can tell the hon. Gentleman, who has huge responsibilities as the only Conservative Member representing 112 Scottish and Welsh Members of Parliament in the House of Commons, that in 1999–2000 I had 38 people working in the Department, last year the number was 45 and this year it is 44. Those are hardly huge numbers.

May I say to my right hon. Friend that the people of Swansea certainly have no complaint about that? Indeed, we have every praise for the Government's willingness to move part of the Pensions Service for Wales to Swansea, creating 500 good quality, permanent jobs in an area of high unemployment.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for those comments. He is absolutely right to say that the Department for Work and Pensions move to Swansea has led to a considerable increase in employment. May I tell him that in his constituency, the claimant count is down by 1.1 per cent., and in Swansea, West it is down by 0.5 per cent? The House should know that the latest figures on employment in Wales indicate that unemployment is down by 7,000, the claimant count is down by 500 and employment is up by 6,000 since the last count.

I thank the Secretary of State and his Department for their courtesy in giving me a week's notice that my question was grouped with Question 1, because that is very unusual with other Departments. May I pick him up on his figures? I have figures from civil service statistics which say that staff numbers in the National Assembly for Wales went up by over 20 per cent., whereas the number of his civil servants increased by over a third. Can he tell me exactly what improved service the people of Wales are getting from the increased numbers of civil servants in the National Assembly and in his own office?

Obviously, it is for the National Assembly to answer the hon. Gentleman on the matter that he has just raised. However, on public services, I believe that the money obtained from the Government by the Assembly means that billions of pounds have gone into the health service, education and local government.

The report in the business section of today's edition of the Western Mail, to which my right hon. Friend referred, shows that optimism in manufacturing in Wales is now at a two-year high. Does not my right hon. Friend agree that it gives the lie to those—including, sadly, some Ministers—who constantly denigrate the currency of the country in which they live?

I shall not be drawn into that argument by my right hon. Friend. I simply say that the claimant count in his constituency, Llanelli, has dropped by 1.1 per cent. The news that we have received for manufacturing industry in west Wales will benefit his constituents and many others as well.

How many of the Secretary of State's staff are working on objective I projects and financing? Does he agree that his Department will be measured on its success or otherwise in attracting objective 1 funding to Wales? Does he share my concern about the fact that Labour local authority areas such as Ogmore receive less money from objective 1 than those under Plaid Cymru control, and will he direct his staffs attentions to that?

The claimant count in the Ogmore constituency is down 1.7 per cent. and it has experienced one of the biggest unemployment reductions of any Welsh constituency. The hon. Gentleman's party never believed that we would get the objective 1 money, but we did, and there is about half a billion pounds extra in the block grant as a result of the decisions taken by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. He said that he would not let Wales down. We will not let Wales down either.

Does the right hon. Gentleman not accept that in every other arena in the private and public sectors, offices are becoming leaner, more efficient and cost-effective by using new technology? Are not Wales and the Wales Office lagging behind the rest of the UK? Is he aware, for example, that only 27 per cent. of homes in Wales are connected to the internet compared with 45 per cent. in London and 35 per cent. in the rest of England? Therefore, should he not urgently consider ways to reduce the number of pen-pushers in his office and in the Welsh Assembly and use the savings to increase the number of people and services online in Wales?

The right hon. Gentleman is a little confused as to who does what in terms of the Wales Office and the National Assembly. We are talking about staff figures of 30 or 40—a tiny number that includes typists and people who answer the phone. My office is a slim operation and I have made it clear to the Welsh Affairs Committee that I am anxious to ensure that outside advisers have a look at the office to see whether people are being over-worked or under-worked, whichever might be the case.

What recent discussions he has had with the First Minister regarding central Government support for reducing waiting lists in Welsh hospitals. [27058]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I regularly meet the First Minister to discuss matters relating to the NHS in Wales. While the policy on waiting lists in Welsh hospitals is a matter for my colleagues in the National Assembly, the Joint Ministerial Committee and regular informal contacts ensure that there are opportunities to share best practice between the operation of the health service in England and in Wales.

I thank the Minister for that reply, but given that the number of people in Wales waiting more than six months for their first out-patient appointment has increased eightfold since 1997, and given that the Secretary of State for Health yesterday appeared to want to disown Wales entirely, what responsibility will the Secretary of State for Wales take for resolving the looming crisis in the health service in Wales?

I can tell the hon. Gentleman that, as at 30 November, the number of people waiting for in-patient care in Wales has dropped. Indeed, the number waiting more than 18 months to be seen has fallen by over 4 per cent. What is important about reforming, changing and improving the health service in Wales is that the Labour party is committed to putting in the resources and the reform, but his party is not. Instead, it is committed to cutting public expenditure, which would mean a deterioration in the health service in Wales.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the latest health statistics on my constituency released by the Conwy and Denbighshire trust? There are no in-patients waiting over 12 months, no orthopaedic in-patients waiting over 12 months and no cataract patients waiting over four months. Will he join me in congratulating Conwy and Denbighshire trust's management and staff on that magnificent achievement?

Yes. I endorse what my hon. Friend says and I can tell him and the House that my colleague in the Assembly, the Minister for Health and Social Services, has introduced a number of innovations to tackle the problems of waiting lists in Wales. Under her innovation and care programme, every trust now has an out-patient improvement manager and new booking systems are being developed using patient-focused bookings whereby the patient agrees to the hospital appointment time. A pilot system is being developed to prioritise patients waiting for orthopaedic treatment. It could be a forerunner of systems for other waiting lists in Wales and it is a progressive and welcome attempt to tackle the problems that we face in the health service.

Is the Minister aware that the Welsh Assembly has, only today, announced the waiving of £41 million of loan repayments by Welsh NHS trusts and health authorities? Does he agree that that money can be used to address issues such as waiting times and other problems in the health service? Finally, does he agree that, whatever the people of Ogmore may decide, they would be advised to choose between the deliverers rather than the whingers?

I am aware that my Assembly colleague, the Minister for Health and Social Services, has announced today that NHS trusts and health authorities can start the new year on an even keel because she has written off the debt to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I endorse what she has done. It is important to ensure that the resources be provided for front-line care services. Currently, £3.5 billion is being spent on the health service in Wales—£49 million extra as a result of the Chancellor's pre-Budget report.

Although I welcome the increased health expenditure in Wales by the Government, does the Minister accept that hospital waiting lists could decrease dramatically if the Assembly stopped wasting money on projects such as the millennium arts centre in Cardiff bay and instead invested that money in the health service? Would that initiative have support in my hon. Friend's constituency, or are people queuing up in his surgery demanding yet another arts centre in Cardiff bay?

Answer.

I take note of the point that my hon. Friend and neighbouring Member of Parliament makes. The millennium centre will have a major economic impact across Wales, as it will attract tourists and employment and create industries in a fast-growing sector of the Welsh economic scene. We must bear in mind the fact that the Assembly's contribution to that project, which I think is about £37 million, is dwarfed by the £3.5 billion that is being spent on the NHS in Wales—a further £49 million as a result of the pre-Budget report. It is important that we continue to invest large sums in the health service and accompany that with the reforms that will be enacted as a result of the National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Bill, which has just finished its passage through the House.

I do not know whether the Minister has had time to read the curt and offensive remark his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health made yesterday about "not doing Wales". He said that one of the pleasures of his life was that he had nothing to do with Wales at all. What are the Minister and his right hon. Friend doing about the health crisis in Ogmore, for example? The Princess of Wales hospital is short of 140 members of staff. Perhaps he, too, is happy to wash his hands of Welsh health problems.

The hon. Gentleman's reaction sometimes paints a poor picture of the Welsh people; we do have a sense of humour and we can afford a little laugh at ourselves sometimes.

But it is a Labour Secretary of State for Health who said yesterday:

"It is one of the joys of my life that I am not responsible for all things Welsh"—[0fficial Report, 22 January 2002; Vol. 378, c. 739.]

I am always in favour of the Welsh people being confident and taking pride in themselves.

I do not rejoice in the fact that in Wales under the Labour Government we cannot say the words "national health service" unless they are followed by the word "crisis." Even senior Labour Back Benchers do not believe that the ill thought out health reforms will help. One health trust last week cancelled 25 operations at short notice, and waiting lists continue to soar.

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman comes here month after month and does not learn anything. The cancelled operations occurred in Merthyr, when 25 patients had their hospital appointments cancelled owing to winter pressures. In an organisation that last year treated 667,000 people, there are bound to be problems and cancellations. We regret that, and we are sorry for the patients involved, but we are investing the right amount of money in the health service to improve it.

If he will make a statement on the measures taken by the Government to tackle crime in Wales. [27059]

What recent discussions he has had with other Ministers on measures taken by the Government to tackle crime in Wales. [27060]

Tackling crime is a priority about which I have regular discussions with ministerial colleagues, and with members of the Cabinet in the National Assembly. Yesterday, I had a useful discussion with David A'Herne, the crime reduction director for Wales, who is charged with implementing our key policies and initiatives on crime fighting and disorder. I hope before too long to arrange a meeting with Mr. A'Herne and all the Welsh Members of Parliament, at which he will give a briefing and take part in a question and answer session so that we can better understand the work that he is doing.

The provision of closed circuit television cameras has been extremely beneficial in Cynon Valley, and has been welcomed by the public, who get greater security as a result, and by the police. In view of the increased demand for more CCTV cameras in our communities, will my hon. Friend consider giving extra money to local authorities, so that they can attempt to meet the growing demand?

I take note of my hon. Friend's point. So far, £285,000 has been made available for CCTV programmes and initiatives in her constituency. All Members will agree that CCTV is an important contribution to tackling and reducing crime and antisocial behaviour. I discussed this matter yesterday with Mr. A'Herne, and I hope that some time in the future another tranche of money will become available so that we can expand CCTV coverage.

I know that my hon. Friend is in touch with Gwent police, and he will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I also recently met them. Will my hon. Friend pay tribute to the remarkable work that they are doing on serious crime? Has he or my right hon. Friend discussed with Ministers in the Assembly the damaging consequences for policing in Gwent and elsewhere in Wales if the guidelines that the Assembly has issued to local authorities are not relaxed at least to take realistic account of the costs of maintaining existing levels of police activity? Has he or my right hon. Friend also inquired why Welsh local authorities should be so constrained when English authorities are not?

As a Gwent Member, I pay tribute to the efforts of the Gwent police to reduce crime throughout our county.

Will the Secretary of State press the Home Secretary to introduce a standard and honest way of measuring crime, so that standard and honest comparisons can be made between crime in north Wales and in other parts of Wales?

I can tell the hon. Gentleman that crime has fallen throughout Wales. I think that that is due to initiatives taken by police services across Wales, and also to the funds that we have put in. There has been a considerable increase in the number of police officers—there have been an extra 206 in the past year—and funds have been provided for a further 259 until next year. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, like me, will welcome that, and will recognise that fighting crime is something in which all of us—the whole wider community—must participate. We want to ensure that our police service has the tools and resources to achieve what is needed. [Interruption]

Order. Before I call the Secretary of State to answer the next question, let me say that the House is far too noisy.

What discussions he has had with the First Minister of the National Assembly for Wales and Cabinet colleagues about the performance of the Welsh economy. [27062]

I meet the First Minister and Cabinet colleagues regularly to discuss a range of issues, including the Welsh economy. I welcome last week's labour market statistics, which show that unemployment in Wales fell by 7,000 over the last quarter.

The steel industry remains a vital part of the Welsh economy. I am sure that everyone will welcome—as I did in my constituency—last week's announcement of a £75 million investment in the rebuilding of the No. 5 blast furnace at Port Talbot, where, sadly, three men were killed in the recent explosion. No doubt the Secretary of State will welcome that excellent news for my constituency and for the neighbouring constituency of Ogmore, as well as the news that all but two of the injured steelworkers have been released from hospital. Does he share my hope that the new investment means a new beginning for the steel industry in Wales, and in particular a reaffirmation—

Order. That is enough for the Secretary of State to deal with today.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the work that he did on behalf of the families of the deceased and injured in Port Talbot. I went to Morriston hospital and saw some of the injured, and I also pay tribute to the medical team there.

Does not the fall in the three-month unemployment figures for Wales—whether it is measured on the basis of claimant or International Labour Organisation figures—compare favourably with increases in the United Kingdom generally? Surely it is a tribute to the Liberal Democrat-led partnership in Cardiff.

I think that it is a tribute to the work of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and what he has done to make our economy one of the strongest in the world, with interest rates and inflation at a record low. In the hon. Gentleman's constituency the claimant count is down by some 0.03 per cent., and in all but one or two Welsh constituencies unemployment has fallen dramatically in the past few months.

What recent discussions he has had about the use of European structural funds to create employment in Cardiff, West. [27063]

I meet Assembly Ministers regularly to discuss a range of issues, including progress with structural fund programmes in Wales. However, day-to-day administration and individual project approvals are matters for the National Assembly for Wales and its executive agency, the Welsh European Funding Office.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Is he aware of the potential of the Arjo Wiggins paper mill site in Ely in my constituency to create up to 2,000 jobs, and that it is next door to an area of high unemployment? There are long-term unemployment problems in Ely that we need to try to solve, so will he pledge the full weight of his Department, including himself, his junior Minister and all 44 of his staff, to work in partnership with the Assembly and the local authority to get the maximum job potential out of that site?

Yes, I will. That project, which is the result of a good working partnership between a Labour Government and a Labour-led Administration in Cardiff, will mean 1,000 jobs, 1,000 new homes, retail expansion, a new school and a district centre.

If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 23 January.

This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I will have further meetings later today.

The Government are investing heavily in public services, but does my right hon. Friend agree that we still need more nurses and teachers, and that we need them to be better rewarded? People working in schools and hospitals in Gravesham tell me that they welcome that new investment, but that our drive to improve standards in public services is placing them under extra stress. Will he do his very best to ensure that staff are properly rewarded, properly valued and fully respected?

I pay tribute to our public servants and the work that they do in our schools, our hospitals and in public services up and down the country. As a result of the additional investment that is going in, we are increasing spending on health and education as a proportion of national income, we are employing more people in our public services, and public sector pay this year will outstrip private sector pay for the first time in many years. That investment also means that we are training and recruiting more nurses, more teachers, more doctors, more policemen and women. That of course is why it is so important to keep that investment going through the system and not to cut it back.

Yesterday, the Secretary of State for Health dismissed as fiction the fact that Rose Addis, the 94-year-old mother of my constituent, was left lying in casualty for days because the local hospital did not have a bed for her. Will the Prime Minister now apologise to Mrs. Addis for her treatment, and more particularly for the Secretary of State's comments?

I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman realises this, but the case that has been raised by the Evening Standard is strongly disputed by the hospital concerned. It disputes in particular the idea that Mrs. Addis was left untended for days. Let me read the letter that has been sent to the Evening Standard by the leading professor of medicine and consultants in that hospital:

"Your newspaper has this week published misleading and inaccurate articles denigrating our standards of care.

To deride health staff publicly for a callousness of which they are innocent does real, lasting damage.

Along with those we serve, we recognise the problems caused by years of underinvestment in the NHS. We welcome the fact that this is changing, but it will take time, commitment, optimism and imagination."

I am rather pleased that the Prime Minister now chooses to use a letter written by those who apparently run the service. His Health Secretary did not bother to speak to my constituent, but if the Prime Minister had bothered to, he would have heard a quite different story. I am tempted to believe that story more than the stuff that he has pulled out.

I will not. The Leader of the Opposition says that he prefers the statement of his constituent to the statement that I have made, but it was the staff at the hospital who made the statement, not I. In addition, the two other cases raised by the same newspaper are in dispute.

The Government have been in power for nearly five years, and it is so illuminating that the Prime Minister can never apologise for anything that has been done. If he would like to talk again to the staff involved, and to my constituent, he would find that what the letter from the hospital manager called a separate A and E ward—the space where Mrs. Addis's mother was put—turns out to be nothing more or less than a corner of the casualty room. The manager reclassified the space, instead of moving the patient.

First, according to the hospital, the patient to whom the right hon. Gentleman refers was kept in a medical assessment unit. The hospital states that that is a perfectly proper way of looking after her.

We get promises, promises, promises, but never any delivery. The Prime Minister talks about people running down the health service, but the Government have been in charge for more than four years. More illuminating is what my constituent said to me at the end of the conversation. She said that there were three generations of Labour voters in her household. They wrote to the Prime Minister to congratulate him on his election. They expected much more. Mrs. Addis's daughter also said to me:

"If my poor mother had been a dog she would have been treated better".

"We have never been so disgusted with any Government as this one."

Let me repeat what I said to the right hon. Gentleman in reply to his earlier questions. Those facts are totally disputed by the hospital in question. Before coming to a judgment, it might just be as well if the right hon. Gentleman actually listened to what the hospital said, too.

Answer!

Order.

What steps has my right hon. Friend taken to support the process of reconstruction in Afghanistan?

The most important element of this process is reconstruction in Afghanistan. The aid conference has pledged a very substantial sum of money to reconstruction in Afghanistan; I welcome that. The British armed forces are of course playing a vital role in helping to stabilise the security situation. I believe that we now have the same international coalition in favour of reconstruction in Afghanistan as we had in favour of removing the hated Taliban regime. That is excellent news, not least for the people in Afghanistan.

Would the Prime Minister acknowledge that there are people in all political parties who think that his current proposals for the next step in reforming the House of Lords are at best halfhearted and at worst half baked? Would he therefore, on that basis, agree to all-party talks to see whether we can find some consensus for a properly democratic House of Lords, fit for Modern Britain?

I entirely accept that there are people in different parties with different views; that of course is the nature of the debate. If a consensus could be found, that would be excellent. Having read the debates in this place and in the other place, having heard of the savaging that the Leader of the Opposition got from his own peers yesterday, and remembering that the legislation must pass through both Houses of Parliament, I am afraid to say that, at the moment at any rate, we are quite a long way from that consensus.

Surely the Prime Minister is aware of the irony of the situation, given that if he went for an overwhelmingly elected second Chamber he would have the majority support of his own party, he would have the majority support of Liberal Democrats and—heaven forbid—he would even have the support of the leader of the Conservative party these days. That being the case, why does he not see the merit of proceeding on that basis, instead of just trying to introduce a hashed-up job of patronage, based on place people?

I have no intention of not listening to the consultation; indeed, we are going to listen to the consultation. If people think that we are simply going to try to railroad through proposals, they are wrong. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh".] They are. It will be for every Member in the House to reflect carefully.

Will the Prime Minister join me in welcoming the publication last week of the chief medical officer's report on ME, which has recognised for the first time that

"ME is a genuine illness",

"existing controversy cannot and should not be used as an excuse for inaction or unsuitable practice"?

I certainly congratulate my hon. Friend's constituents on the campaign that they have waged over a significant period, and I am pleased that the significance of ME is now properly recognised.

Has the right hon. Gentleman noted the recent report of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, which predicts that the euro is likely to continue to be a weak currency, and the statement by Mr. Alan Greenspan that the prime reason for the weakness of the euro is what he describes as the unrelenting flow of capital from continental Europe to the United States? Does the Prime Minister disagree with those two assessments?

I am afraid that I certainly disagree with the assessment, if the hon. Gentleman is implying—I know that he is strongly opposed to the single currency—that the single currency could in no circumstances be of benefit to this country. But where he is right, in a sense, and certainly Mr. Greenspan is, is that it highlights the importance of economic reform in Europe. Now the question is: are we better placed to deliver that economic reform in Europe by constructive engagement or by the position of total isolationism favoured by the Conservative party?

May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the appalling decision that was made in the Appeal Court on 13 December in the Fairchild case? The judgment effectively means that a person suffering from mesothelioma cancer, who has been exposed to asbestos and has worked for more than one employer where he has been so exposed, cannot claim compensation on the grounds that it cannot be determined where the fibre that caused the malignancy came from. In effect, the judgment has overturned the apportionment principle in the courts, and it is causing great trauma to the sufferers of mesothelioma cancer and their families. Will my right hon. Friend consider whether there is now a need, bearing in mind that the Court of Appeal declined leave to appeal to the House of Lords, for legislation to reverse that decision and to establish the principle of apportionment in all cases of multiple exposure?

I understand the concern that my hon. Friend raises. I also understand that the relevant Department is studying the implications of the judgment to which he refers.

The waiting time for a hearing test at the Lymington hospital in my constituency remains pretty constant, at 33 months. It is the only specialty in which the over-85-year-olds are given priority, in the hope that some of them will get one before they die. What action will the Prime Minister take to ensure that the New Forest primary care trust is empowered to take over that problem from the Southampton trust, because it wishes to explore innovative solutions involving a partnership with the private sector?

I do not know the details of the particular circumstances that the hon. Gentleman talks about, but of course the very purpose of setting up the primary care trusts is to enable innovative solutions to be found. That is why it is so unfortunate that the Conservative party did not support their creation; but on whether such things are done by that primary care trust or elsewhere—as I say, I do not know the particular case that he alludes to—again, I say to him that if we want better treatment inside the national health service, then we have to put in the investment, because there are capacity constraints within the NHS: an insufficiency of consultants and nurses, beds—occasionally—and doctors. Of course, we want to put in that investment, and I am afraid that, a few days ago, the Leader of the Opposition tied the Conservative party to exactly the position that it was in before the last election—opposition to that investment.

Does the Prime Minister recall a famous warning many years ago about private affluence and public squalor? Should not the fourth largest economy in the world be able to boast some of the best public services in the world? Will he explain to people that they will get only the services that they are prepared to pay for and that, just as it took a decade of sustained reductions in public investment by the Conservative party to get the country into its current condition, it will take a decade of sustained investment by the Labour party to get the country out of it?

My hon. Friend is right to say that we need sustained investment. It is important that we have that sustained investment on the basis of what is now the fourth largest economy in the world. We have produced economic stability, lower interest rates, low inflation and low unemployment precisely as the result of our economic measures. Then we were able to get the investment into education, then into the national health service and it is now coming into the transport services and law and order. It is important that we recognise that we need to sustain that investment. However, I know that my hon. Friend would also want to point out that, as the recent international survey showed, this country is now in the top eight for its education system in virtually every main subject.

How many different transport plans are the Government currently working on?

We have the one plan that was announced by the Strategic Rail Authority.

The Prime Minister wants to go back and check with his staff. There is the 10-year plan that the Transport Secretary pointed out never starts but is now under review again a week later; there is Lord Birt's plan; there is No. 10's plan; and today we discover that the Chancellor has got his own plan. Rail passengers know that they suffered a 75 per cent. increase in delays in December and they know that the Prime Minister's Transport Secretary has not even got a plan. One thing is sure: if no one trusts the Transport Secretary and if even the Prime Minister does not trust him, as he spent two hours telling him, why does he have him?

The plan is outlined by the Strategic Rail Authority and it is a plan for investment over a number of years. What the right hon. Gentleman referred to in relation to the Treasury are merely the normal discussions for the comprehensive spending review. Those discussions would take place whatever Government were in office.

Does the Prime Minister recall that, eight weeks ago, the Transport Secretary announced the construction of terminal 5 at Heathrow in my constituency and also offered a cap on flight movements? Yet today it is reported that the Government are considering a third runway. Can the Prime Minister assure my constituents that, in any decision, their environment will be protected?

Of course I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. However, the reports in the newspapers today were complete speculation.

Can the right hon. Gentleman tell my constituents in Beckenham whether Ken Livingstone's proposed increase of 35 per cent. in the precept for the Greater London Authority is a fair and reasonable settlement, or is it a stealth tax?

It is for the Mayor of London to propose the charges. I am afraid that the Labour candidate was not successful in the mayoral elections, as I know only too well. If the hon. Lady wishes to have a lower charge, she should take the same position as Labour Members of the Assembly. They are trying to make sure that the Mayor's plans are more responsible.

Does the Prime Minister share my horror at the death of Laura Touche, following the delivery of her twins in the private Portland hospital, because of a basic failure of nursing care? Can he assure the House and the country that in addition to the improvements that we are making to the national health service, about which he has spoken, he will also look at improving the quality of care in the private sector?

Of course it is important that we make sure that proper minimum standards of care are adhered to, whether in the public sector or the private sector. I do not know the position of the case to which my hon. Friend refers, and our sympathies obviously go to her constituent and her family. However, with a health care system that has 5.5 million operations and 270 million GP appointments, it is important that we do not get to a position—either in the public or the private sector—in which we use every instance of where the treatment has fallen down to say that that is typical of the whole health care system. It is important to have balance. There are, of course, cases of poor treatment, but they tend, in the public or private sector, to be the exception, not the rule.

The Prime Minister will know that at 16 young people are considered old enough to marry, to have children, to pay taxes and to join the armed forces, yet they are not allowed to vote until they are 18. Does he consider that those things are a lesser responsibility than voting? Will he meet me and a group of young people from a range of youth organisations to discuss reducing the voting age to 16?

I am not sure that we would always want 16-year-olds to do all the things they can do. I am afraid that I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman on the voting age. I think that it should remain as it is.

My right hon. Friend will understand the anger felt in Cornwall at Railtrack's decision to close the one rail link into the county over the Easter holiday. Will he intervene and urge it to think again?

I do know of the concern that has been raised. I am sure that it will be studied by the relevant Department, although ultimately, of course, the decision is for the private rail company.

Is the Prime Minister satisfied with his industrial relations policy, which has led to workers who were on strike at Friction Dynamics in my constituency being sacked after eight weeks? Now, 40 weeks on, they are still waiting for a resolution of the dispute. Is it his policy to deny justice and then to delay it?

I do not know about the particular dispute in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, but I believe that the industrial relations settlement that we brought about in the past few years strikes the right balance. People have the minimum wage in place. They have the right to join a trade union and, in circumstances in which there is a majority who wish it, the right to trade union recognition. New provisions for consultation and information are also coming in. I do not believe that we should go back to the industrial relations days of the 70s, which is the implication of his question.

Will the Prime Minister pay tribute to Niall Quinn, not just because he plays for the greatest team in the world, but because of his unselfish decision to donate the proceeds from his own tribute game to charity? Is not that magnificent gesture on the part of Niall a perfect example to his fellow pros and, indeed, the many thousands of youngsters who see footballers as heroes? Will the Prime Minister visit the Stadium of Light before the end of the season to thank Niall personally on behalf of all those charities that will receive the money?

I do not always praise Sunderland footballers, as my hon. Friend knows. However, Niall Quinn is a constituent of mine and I am absolutely thrilled that he has decided to donate so generously to charity. It is typical of the individual. In circumstances in which people in sport often get a lot of bad publicity, I agree that this is an example that we can hold up to everyone.

In Zimbabwe, with Mugabe imprisoning his political opponents and expelling all overseas journalists, what more needs to happen before the Prime Minister will lead the campaign to expel Mugabe's Zimbabwe from the Commonwealth?

As we made absolutely clear, we totally deplore what is happening in Zimbabwe. The actions of Mugabe are a disgrace to his own country and also badly affect the reputation of the whole of southern Africa. However, in order for a motion to succeed at the Commonwealth to expel Zimbabwe, it is necessary to get all the countries supporting it. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are working urgently and energetically with all other countries to make sure that the policies of Mr. Mugabe are reversed and that proper and democratic elections are held in Zimbabwe.

My right hon. Friend is on record demanding increases in the survival of the environment and wishing to ensure that recycling is paramount in that programme. Is he aware of the problems that local authorities, which are responsible for waste collection and disposal, are experiencing with the disposal of fridges? We want to ensure that they get support from the Government. Will my right hon. Friend take it upon himself to ensure that we get that support for local government so that we can clear the backlog of fridges deposited with local authorities?

I entirely accept the problem to which my hon. Friend is drawing attention. As I understand it, it arose in part because it was not until June 2001 that the regulations were finalised. It is important that my hon. Friend recognise that we are providing a dedicated sum of money, about £6 million, to try to ease that situation. Of course, we will do whatever we can; I entirely accept that there is a problem. We have got the resources and I am sure that the relevant Department is working on the right strategy to deal with it.

Is the Prime Minister aware that many thousands of elderly people in residential care are living on pocket money of £16 a week or less, forcing them to choose between buying a present for a grandchild one week and being able to buy daily newspapers? Does he accept that that is an undignified way for anyone to spend their declining years, and will he stop it?

I do accept that it is important that we get more resources into care and to elderly people, which is why the Government have made substantial additional provision for pensioners, both in care homes and the national health service. However, there is always a limit on the amount of money that we can spend. I was talking about Conservative proposals a short time ago; I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has come across a recent interview with the leader of his party, in which he said that he would like to go into the next election favouring lower taxes.

indicated dissent.

If The Guardian has misquoted the right hon. Gentleman, I understand. In the end, there is a finite amount of money, but it cannot be disputed that, if we take the additional money for care in the national health service for pensioners, we are making substantial additional provision available. But yes, it is true that we could always do more.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Like the hon. Gentleman, I want to do whatever is possible to promote human rights. It would be difficult to think of a Government with a poorer human rights record than the Taliban when they governed Afghanistan, yet the United Nations argued for massive aid to that country for humanitarian purposes. Much of it required Government support. On 6 September, the UN argued for $560 million of aid. Would not the new clause put such aid at risk?

It would put pressure on the new Government in Afghanistan to improve and strengthen civil society and human rights. It would apply positive pressure to try to achieve a freer, more democratic and sounder world.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way again. Like him, I hope—and have confidence—that the new Administration in Afghanistan will improve human rights. It is an important, positive sign that the Government includes two women. However, my question related to the Taliban. Would he have opposed giving aid to Afghanistan before 11 September, when the Taliban were in power?

The hon. Gentleman asks a hypothetical question. We are no longer in that position. If the new clause had formed part of Government policy many years ago, I presume that it would have been used as positive pressure to extract a better record from Governments who abuse human rights. We can apply pressure by many means, for example, diplomacy or simply talking and asking for change. We can also apply economic pressure to improve human rights. The new clause would create a link between human rights and economic pressure.

I acknowledge the importance of putting pressure on countries to improve human rights. However, the new clause goes further. Once a country is listed as a state where gross violations of human rights occur, it can receive no development assistance. The Taliban would have been on the list because they were probably the worst Government in the world for violating human rights. The new clause would have prevented any aid to Afghanistan. Would the hon. Gentleman have wanted to achieve that?

If the hon. Gentleman reads Hansard, he will realise that I excluded purely humanitarian aid from the remit of the new clause. Medicine, food and disaster aid is therefore exempt. The new clause covers budget support and development aid. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees with my constituents who do not want British money to support despotic regimes. We do not collect taxes to do that, and our constituents do not pay taxes for that.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Let me make a little progress. The hon. Gentleman may catch my eye later.

"violations of the right to freedom of religion"

"persecution of individuals or groups on the basis of their ethnic origin or membership of a particular ethnic group."

"Development assistance is defined as assistance provided for the purpose of:

Furthering sustainable development in one or more countries outside the UK or;

Improving the welfare of the population of one or more such countries."

"any development that is, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, prudent having regard to the likelihood of its generating lasting benefits for the population of the country or countries in relation to which it is provided."

In Belarus, the Government under Lukashenko is one that most of us would want to put on a list, if one were to be manufactured according to the provisions of the hon. Gentleman's new clause. However, I have been part of an initiative involving a partnership between two communities—one in this country and one in Belarus—seeking to resolve a particular problem in relation to AIDS and HIV, which has also extended into other areas of civil society. In the city of Svetlogorsk, this has achieved an extension of the participation in government by a much larger number of people. If such activity is repeated across a country, it can turn that country around and start to move the political climate towards one that might overthrow a President such as Lukashenko and replace the system with a more democratic one. I would not want that sort of effort to be put at risk by blacklisting any development assistance being given to projects such as these.

The hon. Gentleman is obviously a great expert on Belarus and on that kind of aid. I do not think that my new clause would put such aid at risk, because it would exclude humanitarian and medical aid. My proposal would bring forward the spreading of democracy and good human rights practices in countries such as Belarus.

Does the hon. Gentleman's entirely laudable commitment to human rights represent a policy shift within his party? I well remember, when the Conservatives were last in government, that it was their policy to encourage trade with Burma, which has one of the worst human rights records in the world. I can also remember the time when Baroness Thatcher, as she is now, dubbed sanctions against the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa minimal in their effect. I certainly do not recall any pronouncements by the then Conservative Government against the gross infringement of human rights in Chile, either while there was a fascist regime in power or even afterwards. Surely, the issue here is that—

Order. The hon. Lady should make her point briefly.

All the new clause would do is punish those who have already suffered the denial of their human rights.

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her kind words in introducing her question. I know how seriously she takes these matters, and the House always listens when she speaks on these subjects, but I think that on this occasion she is wrong. The new clause would allow humanitarian aid to be made available and it would put pressure on regimes that are doing things wrong to plan and make improvements and to move towards democracy. In the longer run, it would achieve what she most wants—a safer world in which there is more care for people's freedoms.

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson), I think that the hon. Gentleman's aims appear to be laudable and I understand why he wants to link human rights, good governance and aid. However, I share the concerns that my hon. Friend expressed. It is the poorest people in the poorest countries of the world who are suffering under despotic regimes, and they are the people whom we should be helping.

Order. I remind all hon. Members that interventions are meant to be brief.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments. He made some sound points. It seems from all the interventions so far that there is agreement between hon. Members on both sides of the House that my intentions in tabling new clause 1 are laudable and right in principle, but the detail may require more discussion and development. That is the point of the proceedings, and I am delighted that we are having the debate. We can discuss the definition of humanitarian aid, how much medical assistance and food it should include, whether education comes into it and whether the new clause should simply exclude budget support. Those are points worth debating.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, but I am not sure that the US is a good example to use in an overseas aid debate. Of the 22 most developed countries, it is bottom of the league as it gives only 0.1 per cent. of gross domestic product to development and it has not signed all sorts of UN treaties, including the land mines treaty, which most developed and many underdeveloped countries have signed.