What steps she is taking to assist the people of Tibet. [29124]

In Tibet, we are supporting two projects run by Save the Children UK. These are providing basic services to poor Tibetan communities to improve their access to education, clean water and sanitation. We also contribute to the EU's programme in Tibet.

I welcome that news. Will the Minister ensure that any projects supported by his Department enhance the political, cultural and economic rights of the indigenous people of Tibet? That is especially important given that China, the occupying power, is very keen to use its western economic development strategy to "crush splittism", as it puts it.

I am aware that the hon. Gentleman takes a particular and keen interest in human rights in Tibet. The House must remember that the poor have human rights too. That is why it is right that we should be involved in the projects that we support. In the longer term, the economic development of China and Tibet provides opportunities to improve the dialogue between us on human rights, for the simple reason that, in the end, a more open society is one in which it is more difficult to abuse human rights.

I am sure that the Minister will agree that our thoughts are with the people of Tibet as they face the serious illness of the Dalai Lama. However, are the Government doing anything to help the displaced people from Tibet, especially those in India?

I am sure that the House will echo the sentiments expressed by the hon. Gentleman. The Government have been funding a higher education project for Tibetan refugees in Dharamsala in India.

What steps she is taking to support preparations for a rapid reaction capability in Africa for flooding and other natural disasters. [29125]

My Department is working to strengthen international disaster response across the world by strengthening the capacity of the United Nations system. However, following any disaster, most lives are saved in the first few hours by the immediate local effort. We therefore support work across the world, particularly through the Red Cross, to build up local and national capacity for immediate response.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. She may remember that I and many other MPs raised this matter after the Mozambique floods. We were concerned that support infrastructure—helicopters, emergency supplies, and so on—was not available on the continent of Africa, and had to be brought in from Britain and elsewhere. Is there a role for additional continental reaction capability, going beyond the individual countries involved, to enable us to respond to disasters anywhere in Africa?

We are trying to work through the UN to make sure that stocks are deployed across the world that can be drawn on in any disaster. My hon. Friend might recall that, despite all the arguments that took place about helicopters from the UK, the cheapest and most readily available helicopters came from South Africa. They were deployed very quickly, although we had to provide the fuel. My hon. Friend will remember the little girl who was born in a tree. She and her mother were lifted out of that tree by a South African helicopter using UK-supplied fuel.

A rapid reaction facility such as the Secretary of State has described may well have been of help to the Democrat Republic of the Congo after the recent volcano eruption. However, is it not important that such initiatives do not distract us from the need to ensure sufficient sustainable development? In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, two-thirds of people face malnourishment, and the UN consolidated appeal for the Congo is only 40 per cent. funded. There is sometimes a danger that we focus on the headlines created by initiatives such those described by the right hon. Lady, without sufficient attention being paid to the underlying need for sustainable development in countries such as the Congo, and others elsewhere in Africa.

Clearly, the Goma disaster was very bad. Everyone saw the graphic pictures. But the international response was quite effective. I talked to President Kagame yesterday. People are in need because they have lost possessions, but the situation is under control. The response was pretty good.

I have just returned from Goma in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the site of that catastrophic volcano eruption. Will the Department for International Development look at improving co-ordination of relief efforts, as a refugee camp that I visited at Gisenye was sadly lacking in that regard? Having said that, I congratulate DFID on the work that it has done.

I will indeed look into the matter that my hon. Friend raises concerning the situation in Goma and see what more we can do. I agree with her second point. The cameras arrive quickly at a natural disaster, but the long-sustained tragedy of poor governance and endless war, death and loss in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, like the long-standing civil war in Sudan, is of no interest to the media, even though both countries are massive—as big as western Europe. We have an opportunity, if we are sufficiently determined, to bring peace. That will transform the prospects of the people of those two countries and of Africa, and we should make a bigger effort.

After a spate of disasters in Africa, both man-made and natural, will the Secretary of State, like me, send her condolences to the people of Lagos after their recent tragedy? We hear a lot, and rightly, about the reconstruction of Afghanistan, but the spotlight of the world, as the right hon. Lady has said, moves quickly from one disaster to another.

I am sure that the House will want to send condolences to the families of the many people who lost their lives in Lagos after the explosion of ammunition that made people think that a war or a coup was starting; there was terrible loss of life, through panic rather than through injuries suffered as a direct result of the explosions. I will write to the hon. Lady about the reconstruction of dwellings in Goma. We will stay engaged.

As well as concentrating on immediate natural disasters, surely it is important to take a long view for Africa. Will my right hon. Friend encourage the Prime Minister to visit Africa and to co-ordinate a Marshall aid-style Africa initiative to ensure that Africa is not locked out of globalisation for the future, and that it does not suffer a reverse, with people dying of starvation on an even greater scale for lack of initiatives being taken now?

My hon. Friend is right. A third of the poor of the world live in Africa but the poverty is deeper and progress is slower than anywhere else in the world. Across the continent, on current levels of economic growth, there will be growing poverty. We need a massive effort in Africa, which, as my hon. Friend will know, the Prime Minister is to visit shortly. We must resolve some of the long-standing conflicts, and with enough international attention, I am sure that major progress is possible. Then we will need more investment, faster economic growth and more trade access. That is what the New Partnership for African Development, led by President Mbeki, is all about. The Prime Minister is determined to be a partner of that and to mobilise the G7 and the rest of the international community to make an effort to improve development in Africa, which we urgently support.

What recent discussions she has had with her European counterparts on the humanitarian situation in Afghanistan. [29126]

Last week I attended the Tokyo conference on the reconstruction of Afghanistan, where I met my counterparts from a number of European countries, the European Commission and representatives of other Governments and international institutions.

Does the Secretary of State share my sadness at the death of the lion in captivity in Kabul, which became a symbol of the struggle in Afghanistan? Will she tell the House what discussions she has held with her European counterparts about the particular problem that arises from the fact that most of the assistance to Afghanistan is announced only one year in advance? Will she push for longer-term commitments to Afghanistan?

We are all sorry to see a lion die—although I think it was an old lion. I hope that he had led a happier life than many of the people of Afghanistan. I read that in some countries the appeal for funds for the zoo in Afghanistan secured more funding than appeals for the people of Afghanistan. Something is out of proportion if that was the case, although we should care for animals and people.

The Secretary of State may be aware that there are many Afghan refugees in my constituency. A significant number of them, many of whom have extremely good skills, would like to return to Afghanistan to help in the reconstruction. However, it is not always easy, especially if they have been out of contact for a long time, to find a point of reference there—someone to whom they can notify their skills and whom they can ask that they be used appropriately. Has there been any thought about that and are any contacts emerging in the new Afghan Government to whom I could refer a growing number of people?

I, too, have 100 or so Afghan asylum seekers in my constituency, many of whom are highly skilled and educated. I am sure that that is true all over the world. Many skilled and educated Afghans left the country and we must do all that we can to try to assist them so that they can help in the rebuilding of their country. The International Organisation for Migration—a UN body—has set up a register and is asking all Afghans in the diaspora who are interested in helping to register their skills. The organisation is keeping a tally of the skills needed in Afghanistan. We will thus be able to match people up and help them to go home permanently or temporarily to help in the reconstruction.

May I ask the Secretary of State again whether she is concerned that the UK contribution to humanitarian aid and the reconstruction of Afghanistan is being met entirely by the Department for International Development? That is despite the fact that £100 million has been made available to the Ministry of Defence from Treasury reserves for operations there. The right hon. Lady will remember that during the Kosovo crisis the Treasury reserves contributed £68 million to the efforts of DFID. Will she assure the House that the cupboard will not be bare in the event of another natural disaster? [Interruption.]

Order. There is far too much noise in the Chamber.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that in Afghanistan, as elsewhere, Britain's contribution is both bilateral and multilateral; that her Department has given an excellent lead; and that if, following the events of 11 September, which themselves followed devastation in Afghanistan, we can give the Afghans the same recognition that we gave to the Kurds, that would be a noble objective?

My right hon. Friend is right. The contributions that the UK is making to the reconstruction of Afghanistan and to development across the world include not only our direct British programme but the contributions that my budget makes to the World Bank and the Asian development bank. Moreover, 20 per cent. of the EC contribution will draw down on my budget. However, it is right that we should have a strong multilateral system that can work everywhere, including countries where we have a particular partnership. We are deploying all those resources and I am really hopeful that if the international community sustains its engagement, we can guarantee the people of Afghanistan a better future and bring good out of bad. We must all work for that.

On Monday, in her statement about the rebuilding of Afghanistan, the Secretary of State said that Britain would assist the new interim administration with what she called a scoping study on security. What does that mean and how long will it take? What is the likely commitment of British resources to that study?

The scoping study is the initial study that assesses the size of the country, makes the best possible estimate of the number of forces under arms and starts to think through the process of demobilisation and work out where to train the armed forces. Obviously, the armed forces need to serve the whole country, so they should be representative ethnically, but then exclusive ethnic groups in parts of the country—there are minorities—would not be properly protected. In other words, it is the initial study, getting the numbers, beginning to think of the process that would take things forward, then sharing the information with the international community, to reach agreement with the interim administration on a process of putting it into action. We have conducted similar studies, in Sierra Leone before we started that work, and in other countries such as Indonesia, where the security sector needs reform. We hope to get that study moving fast, share the information internationally and then, hopefully, start the process of demobilisation and the building of new security forces.

What further action she is taking to improve the access to electricity of isolated communities in Africa. [29127]

In many sub-Saharan African countries less than 10 per cent. of the population have access to electricity. That means that most rely on wood for fuel, which uses up forest resources and causes much ill health through pollution caused by cooking indoors. Africa needs massive new investment in infrastructure—in electricity, water, sanitation, transport and telecommunications. To achieve that requires a reduction of conflict, and stronger partnerships between the public and private sectors.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does she agree that renewable energy options such as small-scale windpower plant and solar power offer an environmentally friendly, affordable and reliable means of generating power for the schools, health clinics, irrigation systems and other vital services on which those communities rely? What further action will her Department take to promote the roll-out and easy accessibility of such power options?

I do not particularly agree with my hon. Friend. I am in favour of the deployment of modern technology and as many renewables as possible, but Africa needs basic electricity supplies, telecommunications, water systems and sanitation. Sometimes people bring their greenest agenda to the poorest countries. Yes, let us use the best possible technology, but Africa needs the basics, and we should do all in our power to bring investment in modern infrastructure to countries across the board, not just some nice renewables in odd projects.

This is a first. For the first time, I totally agree with the right hon. Lady. She is absolutely right because the cost of photovoltaic cells and windmills would be prohibitive, particularly in the developing world. Does she agree that the work of many of the British privatised companies, now providing not only networks for electricity but self-contained electrical generating units in portakabins, is possibly the short-term answer for those countries that so desperately need electricity in their rural areas?

I should like to enjoy agreeing with the hon. Gentleman—I see that he is wearing his red tie today, so perhaps that explains it. Let us be clear that we should all favour the development of renewables, but we should drive forward that technology in countries such as our own, rather than trying to get the poorest countries to pay for the experiments and the development of the new technology. Self-contained generators are used in many poor countries because the basic national systems are so poor and tend to be more expensive, and firms have to use that kind of technology when their national systems do not work. But we really need proper privatisation under good regulation so that we can get private sector investment and better energy provision, and therefore access to telecommunications and the internet, which most Africans lack at the moment.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that the completion of the European Union reform programme will make a difference to the EU development programme for the poor countries?

I agree with my hon. Friend that an important start has been made in reforming the European Commission's very poor quality development programme, but we have a long way to go until that reform agenda is implemented. New figures are available if we do the calculations. EC funding to poor countries has gone from 70 per cent. down to 50 per cent., and it will be 38 per cent. this year. That is disgraceful, and more EC resources need to be allocated according to need and poverty. I am afraid that we still have a long way to go.

In considering access to electricity in isolated communities in Africa, I am sure that the Secretary of State will agree that among the most isolated communities at the moment are those in Zimbabwe that are at the mercy of Mugabe's thugs. What is her view of the way in which electricity is currently being supplied from South Africa? Does she feel that she and her Department have any role to play in exerting effective pressure to stop Mugabe and his thugs grabbing land from those who are the legitimate owners?

I do not agree that Zimbabwe's isolation is the problem, but it has virtually every other problem, and the situation is disastrous economically and politically. We all have to work as hard as we can for free and fair elections. That looks difficult and we cannot be optimistic, but we have to sustain our efforts. There is no magic answer; we can call for all the tools of international pressure—indeed, as the hon. Gentleman will know, they are being deployed as we speak—but the situation continues to deteriorate. I do not know whether it gives any comfort to the hon. Gentleman to know that President Mugabe finds our Government very much more objectionable than the Government whom the hon. Gentleman supported. President Mugabe objects to me in particular because I took the view that land reform should be transparent and benefit the people, rather than be used to give land to cronies.

What steps she is taking in the Council of Ministers to ensure that more EU aid is spent on helping poor people in the poorest countries. [29128]

Poor countries should be given priority in the allocation of European Community development funds. In November 2000, my right hon. Friend helped to secure the first ever commitment by the EC to poverty reduction as the central objective of its programmes. However, that commitment has yet to be put into practice. As my right hon. Friend has just told the House, the percentage of EC aid being spent in poor countries remains low. We also continue to press for a far more effective EC aid programme.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the most effective aid is that spent on helping poor people in poor countries whose Governments are committed to pro-poor development? Does he recognise that the proportion of EU aid going to low-income countries is not only low but declining, having decreased from 70 per cent. in 1989 to 51 per cent. in 1999? Will he reassure the House that our Government are voicing the strongest possible arguments in the Council of Ministers and in bilateral relationships with other EU member states to increase the proportion spent for poor people?

My hon. Friend is entirely right about the declining proportion of the EU's aid budget that goes to poor countries, which is precisely why all of us have a responsibility to ensure that that changes. As he will be aware from his visit, along with other members of the Select Committee, to Brussels last week, that has been going on for a very long time, and it is to my right hon. Friend's credit that we have told the EC that that needs to begin to change, but it will be a long haul if we are to make progress, and we need to work together.

I applaud the efforts to ensure that the poorest people in the poorest countries get all the aid that can be made available to them, but does the Minister agree that in Zimbabwe, which should be one of the wealthiest countries in Africa, there are extremely poor people? Does he also accept that a new poor is being created, consisting of those who have been forced to flee from the brutality of the Mugabe regime? Could not our Government give further consideration to assisting those British citizens who have been displaced and forced to return to the United Kingdom?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the very difficult situation in Zimbabwe and the effect that it has had on the people whom he mentioned. We are giving humanitarian support, including food aid, which is a measure of how bad the situation currently is.

If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 30 January.

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

The Prime Minister will be aware that a review of health services in and around Crawley has been taking place. Will he join me in thanking all the people who have taken part in the review, particularly Councillor Brenda Smith, our independent chair, Peter Bagnall and the health campaigner, Christine Earnell? Is that not a fine example of the new ways of working in the national health service that have been so well illustrated in the modernisation board report?

I congratulate all those who have been involved in the review of health services in my hon. Friend's constituency. I understand that they will consider a final report from the review team tomorrow.

Does the Prime Minister agree that accident and emergency services are in crisis across the country?

No, I do not. The most recent analysis of accident and emergency services appeared in the modernisation board report. It showed that, although there was still a long way to go, as a result of the extra investment, by March this year 75 per cent. of people requiring such services should have to wait four hours or less, and that, by 2004, that should be the case for everyone. That does not mean that there are not real pressures on casualty departments in many parts of the country, but the only answer is the one that I have given before, which is to put in the additional investment that gives us the consultants, the nurses and beds that we need.

In March 1997, the then Leader of the Opposition said at Prime Minister's questions that accident and emergency departments across the country

"are in acute and chronic crisis and … many simply cannot make do."—[Official Report, 4 March 1997; Vol. 291, c. 707.]

No, I will not. Let me inform the right hon. Gentleman of the change that has been made by this Government. Whereas his Government used to measure the time that people spent in accident and emergency from when they were first seen, we measure it from when they enter the accident and emergency department. I am afraid that he has got his facts wrong.

Yet again, the Prime Minister talks a lot of nonsense. In opposition, he was busy crying foul; now in government, it is, "Everything will get better—trust me."

"the state of A&E is dreadful. People sit there for three or four days in an open corridor. The standards of care are unacceptable. The nurses go round in tears".

I do not accept that. What I certainly do accept, however, is that there are accident and emergency departments across the country that are under real pressure. What is important is that just as we should not pretend that the national health service is perfect, the right hon. Gentleman should not pretend that the service is rubbish. We know exactly why he is doing that. The answer to the pressure in accident and emergency is extra consultants. There have been 60 extra since we came to power. By 2004 that will have increased by two thirds over the 1997 figures. There are also 600 additional accident and emergency nurses. In addition, as a result of the £120 million package announced last October, improvements are happening across the country, including in Kent and Canterbury. The only answer is to keep that investment going in. Can we now have an answer from the right hon. Gentleman, as we have given our answers: is he in favour of that investment or not?

The Prime Minister is very keen to ask us about that, but figures available in the past few days show that public investment in public services has fallen below that of the previous Government. Before he gets too sanctimonious, we must first of all ask him the same question: is he prepared to accept, on his own measure and own figures, that he has made a mistake and got it wrong? One minute he says that the public servants leave scars on his back; the next moment he is running to hide behind them when there is a problem. He then turns the entire weight of his Government and their machine on a 94-year-old lady-[Interruption.]

Order.

He turns the machine on people who complain because they have nowhere else to go. When will he grasp the fact that the problems in the NHS are not the fault of the doctors, the nurses or the patients, but his fault, and that the buck stops with him?

We are putting substantial sums of additional investment into the national health service. The right hon. Gentleman may recall that when we did so, the Conservative party called that extra spending reckless, irresponsible and dangerous. I gather that he is now saying that we never spent enough on the national health service—a slightly curious position for the Conservative party to be in.

Communities in Bristol that are experiencing crime and violence that is directly linked to class A drugs are working closely with the police. Their efforts and co-operation are leading to an increased number of arrests, yet the availability of those drugs remains high. What more can the Government do to ensure that those drugs are prevented from entering the country?

I know, as my hon. Friend rightly says, that there are serious problems in her constituency and elsewhere as a result of that particular drugs trade. She will know, however, that Avon and Somerset police are working closely with Customs and Excise and that they recently met the authorities from Jamaica and are constructing a programme to deal with that issue. I very much hope, as a result of the measures that we are taking with the Jamaican authorities, that we can stop a lot of those drugs coming to this country. They cause nothing but misery and mayhem for people on our streets and we have to do everything we can, nationally and internationally, to stop the trade.

Why is it that, since the right hon. Gentleman's party came to power, the number of cancelled national health service operations has gone up by 50 per cent?

It is true that the number of cancelled operations is unacceptably high, but it is also true that 19 out of 20 operations happen on time in the way that they are supposed to.

The Government's own figures, given only on 23 January this year, show that last year 77,000 people had to put up with the trauma of a cancelled operation. All of us know from our constituencies that bed blocking is a national scandal and that there are elderly people in hospital wards who should be in residential care, yet the Government have not yet adequately tackled the problem. Do patients not deserve better than that?

They do deserve better, which is why it is important that we reduce waiting lists and waiting times. Seventy per cent. of people in this country now get their operation within three months, and as a result of the extra nurses and consultants now coming into the health service, we are making progress on every single aspect of waiting lists.

Has my right hon. Friend seen reports that the European Commission has censured the Government of Germany for straying too close to the 3 per cent. ceiling on borrowing, as set out in the Maastricht treaty? Given that Germany is struggling to get out of a recession, does my right hon. Friend not agree that the Commission's action shows that there is a fundamental flaw in both the 3 per cent. limitation and the absurdly named growth and stability pact?

I know that my right hon. Friend has strong views on those issues, but I must tell him that I am not responsible for the German Government. I am thankful that as a result of the brilliant management of the economy by our Chancellor debt and public finances in this country are in an extremely healthy state.

If the Government are prepared to spend at least £100 million, or £5 for every taxpayer in the country, on the Saville inquiry into an event that happened at least 30 years ago, how can the Prime Minister justify, on either cost or delay grounds, not holding a full public inquiry into the foot and mouth disaster—an event that happened only 30 days ago?

The answer is that in the events of Bloody Sunday many people lost their lives. With foot and mouth, it is important to learn the lessons properly and direct agriculture forward for the future. That was the purpose of the Anderson inquiry report published yesterday. However, the situation regarding Bloody Sunday is quite different. I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's implication that we should not have set up that inquiry. Sometimes it is important to get to the truth of what happened, even though it was a long time ago, because what happened a long time ago affects the present day as well.

Is the Prime Minister aware that nearly £300 million has now been committed to objective 1 areas in Wales? Will he make certain that the interests of Wales are represented in the decision on the follow-up programme that will take place after 2006, in the same way that he made certain that Wales, the valleys and west Wales benefited from a programme in 1998?

We shall certainly make sure that people are properly consulted on the next phase. It is as well to emphasise one point. As my hon. Friend rightly said, some £300 million is going to west Wales and the valleys, which is boosted by match funding of £400 million or thereabouts. As a result, there will be substantial additional investment in west Wales and the valleys. As a result of the work that has been done and the state of the economy, the hon. Lady will know that, although unemployment remains a severe and real problem in those areas, the fall in unemployment there has been the largest of any constituent part of the UK.

The Prime Minister will be aware of the widespread concern that exists about deep vein thrombosis and its connection with long-distance flights. Does he share my concern that the World Health Organisation study into DVT has not only failed to begin, but will take two and a half years to complete? What measures will the Government take in the interim to ensure the safety of the one in 10 people who develop blood clots on international flights, which can develop into life-threatening conditions?

We issued guidance on the subject in November, as I understand it. The World Health Organisation report will take some time, but it is as well to wait for what will be a detailed piece of research. That should provide us with the basis for further guidance. In the meantime, people will be well advised to follow the guidance that has already been issued.

I recently visited the new cardiac ward at Kettering general hospital where I saw the new building to house our MRI scanner, which will shortly be in service, and in a few days I shall attend the official opening of the hospital's new creche facility. [Interruption.]Is my right hon. Friend aware of the stark contrast between the situation now and with the public appeals, bingo sessions and car boot sales that we used to rely on to fund health services in Kettering when the Conservative party was in power?

The Conservatives were howling at my hon. Friend because they do not like to hear any good news about the health service. He is right. The MRI scanners that are going not just to his constituency but to other constituencies, and the fact that more than 90 per cent. of people with suspected cancer are seen within two weeks, are important signs of progress, but of course there remains far more to do.

Will the Prime Minister tell us how much the RMT has given to the Labour party over the past financial year?

I do not know the precise sum, and there is no particular reason why I should. However, the right hon. Gentleman will know that we have made our position totally clear on the strikes that are happening: they are not justifiable, which is why we condemn them.

According to the Electoral Commission, the answer is in excess of £84,000. Of course, the union also gives extra perks to certain members of the Cabinet, whom we already know. Yet that is a union—[Interruption.]

Order. Let the Leader of the Opposition speak.

That union is causing misery for millions of rail passengers throughout the country. While passengers trying to get to work are losing money, the Prime Minister's party is still making money from the union. It is not enough for him to say that he condemns the strikes. Will he take a lead, take action and sever his links with that striking union?

I have made it clear that we regard the strikes as unjustified and unjustifiable. In relation to how we deal with them, the important thing is to state that clearly on behalf of the Government, and to make sure that the measures that we take enable the investment and the change in the railways to go through. The worst thing that we could do would be to adopt the suggestion that the right hon. Gentleman made yesterday and ban the right to strike. I do not think that that is the right way forward. Instead, we should state clearly that it is not right for the strikes to take place, and in the meantime to make sure that we put into the railways the investment that is needed.

With a majority both inside and outside the House in favour of a ban on hunting with hounds, will my right hon. Friend put us out of our misery by telling us that he will introduce such a measure urgently and ensure that there is enough time for it to proceed successfully through both Houses?

I am afraid that I am not going to put my hon. Friend out of his misery yet. As we have made clear before, and as I said in the House a couple of weeks ago, the House will have an opportunity to vote on the issue. We will announce the date of the vote at the appropriate time.

Does the Prime Minister agree with York district hospital, York city council, which is run by the Labour party, and the Selby and York primary care trust that their problem is lack not of money but of care home places? The Government have presided over a historic loss of 50,000 care home places in the past five years. In the city of York alone, we are looking for 50 care places. The Prime Minister has increased the costs of private care homes; what does he propose to do about it today?

I do not agree with the hon. Lady's figures, and I do not know her trust's specific position. However, I would be surprised if it claims that the problem has nothing to do with money. Many care homes face serious problems because of the level of fees and because they have been under huge and increasing pressure through, for example, bed blocking and other issues that we discussed a moment or two ago. The only method of sorting out better social care for people is through investing in it and reconfiguring our organisation of it, as primary care trusts throughout the country are doing.

Is the Prime Minister aware that participation in community sport continues to fall in this country? My appearances for Burstall rugby club's first team have nothing to do with late recognition of my skills; we simply no longer have a second or third team. Will my right hon. Friend join me and others who have signed early-day motion 702 and ensure that the Chancellor introduces tax exemptions for such clubs in his Budget, which he suggested he would like to do, rather than following the charitable route? That would make an enormous difference to 150,000 sports clubs throughout the country and to the 1.5 million volunteers who give their time for sport.

I suspect that that will be the first of many Budget representations. I understand that the Treasury has issued a consultation document on the matter; we are considering it.

Following the revelations of the past few days, will the Prime Minister accept that the Arthur Andersen private finance initiative report on which the Government relied is fundamentally tainted and that his flagship PFI policy has been holed below the waterline?

I refer the hon. Lady to the PricewaterhouseCoopers report on the PFI, which found that it was excellent value for money. She should also talk to people throughout the country who have seen new hospital buildings, GP premises and school buildings, not least in Scotland, built through a partnership between the public and private sectors. It is important to continue to use the private sector to help to lever in greater investment when that will work. Overwhelming evidence, not only from the PricewaterhouseCoopers report but from the National Audit Commission, shows that the partnership provides good value for money. People such as the hon. Lady who oppose that must explain where they would get the money.

When he next expects to visit north Ayrshire.

I have no immediate plans to do so.

I am extremely sorry to hear that. My right hon. Friend would have been taken to meet some industrialists, especially those in the electronics industry, with which there are genuine problems. Much investment is going to Ireland because of the difference between corporation tax in the United Kingdom and in Ireland, where it is 10 per cent. Although the Chancellor has given start-up much encouragement in this country, corporation tax remains at 30 per cent. for the rest of industry. Will my right hon. Friend do something about that?

Again, I am sure that the Chancellor has heard that representation. However, we have made changes in corporation tax since coming to power; we have cut the rate from 33 per cent. to 30 per cent. Although that is high when compared with Ireland, I hope that my hon. Friend realises that there has recently been substantial inward investment in his part of Scotland. We have much more to do to attract more inward investment there, but I hope that he agrees that it is not all doom and gloom. Many good contracts, including a recent contract for £4 million in his constituency, give us hope for the future.

Conservative-controlled Worcester city council appears reluctant to use antisocial behaviour orders in the fight against you culture. Does my right hon. Friend believe that that lack of political willingness is part of the reason why such tools are not used in the fight against crime and antisocial behaviour in cities such as Worcester?

There has been some reluctance to use them, but we must also consider their use critically and whether we can streamline their application. For example, I know that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is examining interim orders and methods of cutting the bureaucracy involved in obtaining such orders. Many people's problems are not the heavy crimes that hit the headlines every day, but continuing antisocial behaviour. Antisocial behaviour orders constitute one mechamism, but not the only one, for defeating it. I agree with my hon. Friend that we must do more, and that is precisely why we are reviewing the matter and will take further action.

Will the Prime Minister now accept that the Saville inquiry has served only to reopen deep wounds that should have been allowed to heal? Is he aware that, while the IRA's adjutant in Londonderry 30 years ago today struts around this place and raises a foreign flag in this House, the former soldiers of the Parachute Regiment stand accused by a stream of pro-IRA propaganda films on television that have served to pollute the atmosphere in which the Saville inquiry is being held? Surely the £66 million-not £52 million, as he told my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) last week—that the Government have spent on lining the lawyers' pockets would have been better spent helping the families of those who were bombed at Omagh.

First, I do not agree that the wounds had healed; one of the reasons for having the inquiry was that they had not done so. I believe, for the reasons that I gave at the time, that it was right to have that inquiry. As for the more general position on Northern Ireland, I am sorry that the Conservatives are now effectively taking the view that they do not support the process that we have painfully tried to construct there. Whatever the difficulties involved in that process, it is a lot better than what we had before; real progress is being made in Northern Ireland. This is a classic situation in which, if people opt for circumstances in which everything is perfect, we will simply go back to the days when nothing was working, or perfect, at all. With the greatest respect to the hon. Gentleman, I believe that the peace process is right, and that the decision that we took on the inquiry is right; I stick by both of them.

My right hon. Friend is known to care for, and provide assistance to, the mining communities, and that is welcome in those communities, is he aware of our concerns about under-achievement in education and the need for greater social care for those who are chronically sick with emphysema and bronchitis? Will he make further inquiries so that we can have the care in the mining communities that we wish to obtain from the Government?

First, I thank my hon. Friend for his acknowledgment that we have put a substantial amount of investment into the mining communities. I have seen for myself that that has given many of those communities a new lease of life and sense of hope. He is right to make the point about payments of compensation to people with emphysema, and so on. We are doing everything that we possibly can to speed those payments up. The problem that we have had throughout is that each case has to be individually assessed. We are, however, looking at further ways of speeding up the process, and hundreds of millions of pounds have now been paid out.

Is the Prime Minister aware that, later this year, the whole world will hear the evidence against Slobodan Milosevic in an open court, but that the United States proposes to try the terrorists associated with Osama bin Laden behind closed doors in a military court? Will the right hon. Gentleman seek to persuade President Bush that justice for the victims of 11 September should be seen to be done?

A decision has not yet been taken about how these people should be tried. Over the past few weeks, we have seen some very unfair reporting in relation to exactly what has happened to the detainees, and in relation to the American position more generally. I ask the hon. Gentleman to remember that this situation arose out of thousands of people being killed in cold blood on the streets of America. The exact status of the detainees has not yet been decided, but it is not the case that they are being mistreated. Representatives of the International Committee of the Red Cross are now based at the camp and are visiting the detainees; they will make a full report to the United States Government. I ask that—in respect of this issue, as of others—people wait until a decision has been taken before they attack it.

Will my right hon. Friend join me and other hon. Members in supporting No Smoking day, and set an example to the whole nation by joining the campaign to ban smoking in all rooms in the House where we meet?

Fortunately, I am not responsible for what happens in the various Rooms of the House— that is a matter for the House itself, I am pleased to say. In respect of the campaign against smoking, the one thing that we should be clear about is that the dangers and health risks of smoking are now absolutely clear. So the point that my hon. Friend makes in general is right, but I am afraid that her particular point is a matter for the House.

Is the Prime Minister aware that 16 doctors wrote to me from Herefordshire's local medical committee and Leominster primary care trust to say that they cannot get their patients admitted to hospital because there are not enough beds? Is he aware that this will get worse when the new hospital opens, as there will be even fewer beds?

I do not doubt that there are real problems with the number of doctors, nurses and beds, but we shall not take lessons from a Conservative party who savaged the number of beds in the health service when it was in power. I hope that the hon. Gentleman gives his constituents this reply: the only way to get those extra doctors, nurses and beds is to invest in the national health service—not privatise it, which is the Tory plan.