When he will announce the Government's response to the consultation on the provisional grant settlement for 2003–04.[93766]

We will be publishing our final proposals on Monday 3 February.

That means that there will be just two days before the debate on those important orders, which is unacceptable and typical of the Government's arrogance. Is the Minister aware exactly how angry the people of Dorset are about the vicious attack on their standard of living in the proposed settlement? Does he realise that pensioners in Dorset will receive an increase of £1.95 a week in their state pension but, because of the Government's policies, will be expected to pay over £4 a week in council tax increases? Is that not—

Order. Questions must be more concise.

I am a little surprised that the hon. Gentleman has forgotten the timetable that has applied for many years, and used to apply when his party was in government. He will realise that local authorities need certainty to plan their budgets, so there is a timetable which involves a provisional settlement published in early December, representations in December and January, the publication at the beginning of February of the Government's proposals, a debate in the House, then implementation by local authorities. That timetable has existed for many years, so his anger is entirely synthetic.

Will my right hon. Friend accept thanks from Government Members for his effort to try to regulate local authority expenditure? Does he also accept that the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) belonged to a Government who devastated that expenditure? When looking at the consultation and the response from local government, will he take into consideration concerns about high council taxes in some areas?

I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks about our efforts to ensure a fair settlement and consult widely with local government. This year, local authorities throughout the country have got a settlement that gives them an above-inflation increase. Every authority has had such an increase which, we believe, makes it possible for them to set a reasonable level of council tax and maintain council services. We hope that they will do so.

The Minister has just said that each authority has received an above-inflation increase. At the same time as the provisional announcement, the Minister for School Standards, the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Miliband) sent out a letter promising 6.6 per cent. for schools.

First, my advice to all local authorities is that in the six years in which the Government have been in power there has been a 25 per cent. increase in real terms in grants for local authorities, compared with a 7 per cent. cut in real terms in the last four years in which the Opposition were in power. Local government is therefore getting a better settlement and has better prospects. I have met a number of authorities that have difficulty meeting their passporting obligations, as has the Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie), and we have advised all of them to talk to our colleagues in the Department for Education and Skills, who have indicated willingness to be flexible where there are genuine pressures. However, we want money to be transmitted to schools to improve education, and we want continued improvement in social services. We want to give local authorities the opportunity to develop and improve services on the basis of the real increases in grant that the Government are delivering.

I am grateful to the Department for receiving a deputation from my local authority, Barnet. However, when my right hon. Friend is putting together the final draft, could he bear in mind the special circumstances facing us? The impact of the census and the new scheme has had bizarre consequences, and our education budget will be under considerable pressure as a result.

We have given careful consideration to the representations that we have received from many local authorities, including my hon. Friend's authority. We will make clear our conclusions in the announcement on 3 February. Some areas have experienced difficulties because of census changes relating to previous mid-year estimates, but the floors ensure that every authority is protected against what might otherwise be a sharp change in grant entitlement. The floor ensures that every authority has an increase at least above the level of inflation.

What discussions he has had with the Department of Health on the impact of bed-blocking charges on local authorities. [93767]

Ministers and officials in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister regularly discuss matters of mutual interest with their colleagues in the Department of Health.

I thank the Minister for that response. I am sure that those discussions will have revealed that many local authorities work well with the local NHS trust, as mine does. However, bed blocking happens for complex reasons. Will the Minister confirm that, in Sweden, where bed-blocking charges have been introduced, they have not got rid of bed blocking?

I must tell the hon. Gentleman that we are introducing the system in our own way. He is right that this is a very important matter. In his area, the discharge rate for the Merton and Sutton primary care trust is above the national average. He will know what an issue that is for the 5,000 delayed discharges that we have every day. We are confident that the measures that we have taken, plus the extra resources that we have made available, will deal with the problem.

Does my hon. Friend agree that one cause of bed blocking is that people on discharge from hospital have too few opportunities to benefit from packages that would allow them to be supported at home? Does she agree that most people, faced with the choice after hospital of going home or going to a residential home, would prefer to go home? Will she discuss with her colleagues in local authorities ways to give people increased opportunities to be supported at home rather than go into care?

I absolutely agree with the important points that my hon. Friend makes. From my own experience as a constituency Member, I know that what she says about people's preferences is true. That is why we have made available to local authorities an extra £100 million for each full year that the new scheme is in operation. I shall certainly make sure that the Department have the discussions that my hon. Friend suggests, so that we can ensure that those important opportunities are available for our older people.

Has the Minister had time to read the Hansard report of Monday's Second Reading of the Community Care (Delayed Discharges etc.) Bill in another place? Does she realise that the Bill is virtually friendless there, as it was here? Will she use her influence with the Secretary of State for Health to withdraw this misconceived piece of legislation?

I have not had a chance to read that report, but I shall make sure that I do. Real issues have arisen to do with the different roles and responsibilities of acute hospital trusts and local authorities. We believe that the new arrangements, in addition to the new resources that we have put in, will deal with the matter. Taken together with the better working relationships between local authorities and hospitals, I am confident that they will lead to a great improvement.

What steps his Department has taken to respond to representations from Lancashire county council on the expected level of council tax in Lancashire in 2003–04. [93768]

The level of council tax in Lancashire is a matter for the local authorities concerned.

That was a complacent answer, to say the least. The Minister for Local Government and the Regions said a moment ago that the Government had been generous, but Labour-controlled Lancashire county council says that it does not have enough money and is trying to live within its means. Will the Minister provide my constituents with a cogent explanation of why they face a council tax increase that is three times the rate of inflation? [Interruption.]

Order. Before the Minister responds, I must tell the House that there is far too much conversation going on, and that that is making it very difficult for these exchanges to be heard clearly.

I suspect that the right hon. Gentleman should wait until the county council sets its council tax.

Does my hon. Friend accept that Lancashire county council is clearly saying that 4.8 per cent. is not sufficient, and that it has had a raw deal in comparison with other shire county councils? It will have either to cut services or to make an unacceptably high council tax increase.

In the context of the history of local government settlements, 4.8 per cent. for Lancashire is very generous indeed—well above the rate of inflation. I have never known a council say, "Thank you for the wonderful grant increases," but I think that that is a reasonable settlement.

What estimate he has made of changes in the number of firefighters in urban areas up to December 2006. [93769]

The independent review of the fire service, led by Sir George Bain, set a framework for the future of the fire service. Bain said that changes in the number and deployment of firefighters should be for the fire authorities and the chief fire officers to negotiate and consult on locally. The Government's actuarial report has stated that more than 20 per cent. of the existing force could retire in the next six years, and Bain has made it clear that there should therefore be no need for compulsory redundancies. Indeed, over the last 10 years the number of firefighters in England and Wales has been reduced by 5 per cent. without compulsory redundancies, under the normal negotiating procedures.

I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for that reply. He will know that many retained firefighters and retained stations are based in urban areas but are also responsible for providing critical cover in rural areas further afield. Will he join me in congratulating all the retained firefighters who have continued to provide emergency cover when the regulars have been on strike? Moreover, now that the review is under way, can he provide some assurance that retained firefighters and stations will not suffer under the review because of the actions of the regulars?

As the hon. Gentleman attended my statement yesterday, I think that he will remember that I made it clear that we were expressing our appreciation of the armed forces, the police and the retained fire workers who made the choice to continue the service. Some of the retained fire workers are members of the Fire Brigades Union as well; they belong to two different organisations. Questions have been raised about their future role in negotiations. Bain refers to that, and we will cover all these matters in the coming White Paper.

May I ask my right hon. Friend to reconsider any threat to impose a settlement on the present dispute? We all want it resolved through ACAS, but we all still feel that firefighters are undervalued and underpaid.

If my hon. Friend feels that firefighters are justified in asking for a 40 per cent. increase—[Interruption.] Their demand at the moment is for 40 per cent., and I have to say time and time again that, for the reasons that I have given, I do not think that we can afford 40 per cent. The House must make its judgments about these matters—[Interruption.] That is totally untrue; Members did not get 40 per cent. It is a lie that is put on the banner outside a number of fire stations, and I am surprised if my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) wants to repeat it.

Like the Deputy Prime Minister, we believe that fire service modernisation means better fire prevention, not simply job cuts. Given that there are likely to be job losses in some areas, why does he now make a proposal that would remove any legitimate role for a trade union in negotiating the solution, and also remove the independence of fire authorities? Would it not be better for him to call on all sides to commit themselves not just to negotiation at ACAS but to binding arbitration at ACAS, linked to Bain's financial and modernisation framework?

I assume from the hon. Gentleman's last remarks that binding negotiation means that we compel the firefighters to accept those conditions. My proposal does not do that at all. In fact, it would be necessary to take legislation through the House, which, presumably, would be seen as anti-strike legislation. If that is the policy of the Liberals, let them get on with it; it is not our policy.

Can my right hon. Friend confirm that any changes in the placement and priorities of fire service staff will be the subject of local consultation before being approved?

Yes.

The Deputy Prime Minister did not answer the question put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) about retained firefighters. The retained firefighters are the lowest-cost part of the fire service so there is the least scope for savings there. This is not just about economics; it is about natural justice. The Deputy Prime Minister has quite properly praised those people who have protected the safety of the country throughout the strikes: the armed forces, the police and the retained firefighters. Will he guarantee today that their public service will not be punished by their losing their jobs at the end of this negotiation?

Yes.

I am pleased to hear a straight answer from the right hon. Gentleman. It is a novelty. Yesterday, he announced his intention to take powers in order to carry through the changes in job conditions and pay and, of course, the reduction in numbers of personnel in the fire service. In the event that he takes those powers and exercises them and the Fire Brigades Union stays on strike, what will he then do?

I do not accept for a moment that I would come to some decision as to what will be imposed upon them. I do not have the authority of the past to be able to do that, and I would not want the right hon. Gentleman to suggest that that is the solution, as he did in the earlier part of his question. The question is where we get the parties back to negotiations. I reaffirm today what I told the House yesterday: that if negotiations fail and the deadlock continues, I would come to the House and ask for powers for compulsory arbitration. The Liberal spokesman often says, "Let us have compulsory arbitration," as if somehow one could force them to accept a deal. I think that there are real difficulties about that, but I want the negotiations to start through ACAS, and I am giving notice that if they do not I will come to the House to ask for the powers to impose a solution.

In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths), the Deputy Prime Minister said that the existing consultation arrangements for the alteration of fire cover and personnel would be retained. Can we assume from that that no legislative proposals will be brought to the House that will alter the existing statutory arrangements, which do provide for such consultation? Yes or no?

If my hon. Friend had heard the earlier replies he would not be asking yes or no, because I have made it very clear to the House that I am going to repeal section 19 of the Fire Services Act 1947, as Bain recommended, and I intend to do so. That would not take powers away from the local area; I am reinforcing the powers of the local area, taking away my right, as central Government, to have the final decision. I do have other powers in the Bill to use if I want to and it is a serious matter in those areas, but I am decentralising that power down to local areas. I thought that that was what my hon. Friend wanted, and that is what I intend to do.

If he will make a statement on the grant settlement for Havering.[93770]

I am afraid that I shall have to disappoint the hon. Lady. There will be no separate statement on the grant settlement for Havering. As the Minister for Local Government and the Regions has already said, the provisional figures were announced on 5 December. The final settlement will be produced on 3 February for debate on 5 February. The Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie), has met a delegation from Havering and taken their views into account during the consultation process.

The Minister will be aware that Havering is acknowledged to have received a perversely low settlement for many years, which gave rise to a 12.5 per cent. increase in council tax last year. Under the draft settlement, Havering has received the lowest increase, 3.5 per cent., which has sent its finances into crisis. Will he agree to re-examine Havering's financial crisis before the final settlement is announced on 3 February?

As I said, the consultation period has already closed. Over the past four years, Havering has received increases of almost 5 per cent. year on year. Council tax is a matter for the minority Tory administration. In the equivalent last two years of the Tory Government, Havering's rises were, respectively, minus 1.8 per cent. and 1.2 per cent. —at a time when, I believe, inflation was slightly higher.

If he will make a statement on the future of floors and ceilings in the proposed new local government funding system. p[93771]

The Government expect the mechanism known as floors and ceilings to be part of the local government funding system for the foreseeable future.

Although many Labour Members believe that the new system being introduced is far fairer, we are concerned that the floors and ceilings mechanism will result in Westminster council continuing to receive £30 million more than it should, while deprived local authorities such as St. Helens receive £2 million less than they should. Will the Minister re-examine that aspect of the changes?

I hear what my hon. Friend says, but floors and ceilings provide a necessary degree of stability and security for all councils. They ensure that everyone receives a real-terms grant increase and they are an integral part of the grant distribution system. Last year, we promised to protect against rapid reductions in population and the like, and it is right and fair that we honour that commitment.

Is the Minister aware that as a result of the proposed changes, Essex county council will get one of the three worst settlements, with an increase that is £40 million less than it would be if it received the average percentage increase? Will he reflect on his meeting with the leaders of Essex county council and try, before the final decision is taken, to persuade his right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister to come up with a system that is fairer to Essex and does not mean that Essex has to pay for his party's heartlands in the midlands and the north?[Interruption.]

Order. I say again to the House that there is far too much noise. We should be able to hear both the hon. Member putting the question and the Minister replying.

The hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) seems to think that there is a north-south divide in this respect. Members from the south think that the north is gaining, and Members from the north think that the south is gaining. In reality, all councils, including Essex, will get a real-terms increase in grant. I have met councillors and officers from Essex, which is to receive a 3.7 per cent. increase in grant, above inflation.

If he will make a statement on the outcome of the recent urban summit in Birmingham. [93772]

The 1,500 people who attended the summit came from all walks of life at home and abroad in both the public and the private sectors. They emphasised the need to exchange best practice, simplify and clarify policies and programmes, and engage the community more effectively to establish more sustainable communities. I hope to include some of the lessons from the conference in next week's statement on communities.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer. Many cities such as my own, Sheffield, are experiencing a building boom in the centre, as people move to live in the city. However, that throws into sharp relief estates on the outskirts of the city, such as Gleadless valley in my constituency, where although quality of life is improving, there is still some way to go. How will the results of the urban summit help such estates?

The urban summit made it clear that there are different problems in different areas. The mayor of Milwaukee in the United States talked about how the decline in urban areas had led to many people moving to live outside such areas, which gave rise to a different range of problems. I hope that next week's statement on sustainable communities will contain some ideas about how we can learn from best practice in other countries to improve our communities.

Although I welcome the Deputy Prime Minister throwing his considerable political weight behind the important issue of urban renaissance, may I ask him to call another summit—a rural summit, perhaps in Devon—to examine the also important issue of the crisis in affordable housing to buy and to rent in many parts of rural Britain?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that my previous Department produced urban and rural White Papers, and the conference covered both of those aspects. We are thinking about having a separate rural conference to meet some of the demands. In my statement on the right to buy, I announced that I would make it much easier for people in the areas to which he refers to get affordable homes.

If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 29 January.

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

With the stock market at half the level it was five years ago and a number of occupational pension funds being closed to new members, does the Prime Minister regret his Chancellor's raid of £25 billion on pension funds, and will he apologise to those who have been so cruelly punished by it?

First, stock markets have fallen across the world, as the hon. Gentleman knows. Secondly, as a result of the Chancellor's management of the economy, we have the lowest inflation and interest rates that we have had for decades. We have the highest employment that this country has ever had and the lowest unemployment of any major country. Compare and contrast that with 3 million unemployed under the Conservatives.

Will the Prime Minister join me in expressing profound sympathies to the family of my constituent, Tasawar Hussain, who was gunned down by armed robbers on Monday as he tried to intervene in a robbery? Tasawar was nothing short of a hero. Does the Prime Minister recall that, early in the new year when young girls were gunned down and killed in Birmingham, he promised to stamp down on gun crime? What progress has been made on that?

I am sure that the whole House would wish to express our deep condolences to the family of my hon. Friend's constituent following the appalling circumstances of the tragic and wicked murder of his constituent. The Criminal Justice Bill will include a measure that will impose a mandatory five-year sentence for the possession of illegal firearms. I hope that the whole House supports that.

May I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to the constituent of the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Singh), who was, as the hon. Gentleman said, nothing less than a hero?

First, I answered questions on this in detail at the Liaison Committee. I have explained that we do not know of evidence linking Iraq to al-Qaeda in circumstances concerning the 11 September attack. However, I chose my words very carefully in front of the Liaison Committee: we do know of links between al-Qaeda and Iraq; we cannot be sure of the exact extent of those links. Every member of the Government has adverted to that.

The British people know that Saddam is an evil dictator. They know that he has attacked his neighbours and gassed his own people. They know that he is responsible for countless human rights abuses. Is it not also the case that they want to know more detail about the potential threat that he poses to this country and our citizens? President Bush is, as he said last night, preparing to reveal more of what his intelligence services know about Saddam's weapons programme and his terrorist links. Will the Prime Minister also publish further information? Does he accept that the British people deserve to be given the fullest possible information about the scale and nature of the threat that we clearly now face?

Of course we have to give people the fullest possible information, which is why we published the dossier a few months ago. It is extremely important that people understand exactly what the threat is. If Saddam Hussein is allowed to carry on developing weapons of mass destruction—chemical, biological and, potentially, nuclear weapons—he will be a threat not just to his own region, but to the world. This country's security interests are intimately concerned with that matter. However, there is no point in trying to pose differences between, for example, ourselves and the United States when the purpose of what we are doing at the moment is to unite the international community around the United Nations' position as set out in resolution 1441, and to make sure that that resolution is then implemented.

Leaders of London's Moroccan community have written to me to express their deep regret at the murder of Stephen Oake and at the terrorist threat, and also their concern that all Muslims, Arabs, refugees and members of the north African community risk being tarred with the same brush of illegality and terrorist threat. Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to send the strongest message that a reasonable concern for security cannot be an excuse for the hysteria that is leading to racial abuse and attacks, and causing members of that community to say that old and young are beginning to live in fear?

First, we should make it clear that this is a tolerant country, we are proud that it is a tolerant country, and we never want it to be otherwise. Secondly, my hon. Friend is right to point out that the vast majority of people who claim asylum, for example, are not terrorists or even suspected terrorists. There is a problem with asylum. It is important that we deal with it, for the reasons that have been given, but it is also important that we make it clear that the number of people who come through that route and who are terrorists is small. It is precisely in order to deal with those that we introduced the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 after 11 September, which gives us for the first time the power to detain suspected terrorists without trial. That is the reason for the arrests that have taken place in Manchester, London and elsewhere. We must balance the tough measures necessary to deal with the threat, and at the same time maintain the tolerant society in which we all want to live.

Returning to the issue of Iraq, can the Prime Minister confirm that the British troops deployed in the Gulf will be integrated into the American command and control structure?

The precise command and control structure is still being worked out. Of course we will co-operate very closely with the American troops—it would be bizarre if we did otherwise. That is what we did to such good effect in Afghanistan and also in Kosovo.

Is it not therefore the case that if, in practical terms, British forces are to be under American command and control, the decisions in all this will ultimately be taken by President Bush?

No, that is not right. The decisions whether to commit troops on behalf of this country are taken by our Government, our House of Commons, and our country. [Interruption.] We are trying to put the maximum pressure on Saddam to comply with the UN mandate. We had a report on Monday—[Interruption.] If hon. Members will allow me—we had a report on Monday from Dr. Blix, the head of the UN inspection team, who reported to the Security Council that Saddam was not co-operating fully with the inspectors. I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman, along with other hon. Members, would study that report and say that it is right that we regard Saddam as a threat for the reasons that Dr. Blix sets out, and it is right that we deal with the threat. Let us be clear: the troops are down there in the case of Saddam refusing to comply with the UN resolution. Rather than trying to make points about what the command and control will be, when we know that our troops will have to work with other countries, it is surely better that we combine now as a House and as a country to put maximum pressure on Saddam, because the one thing that would make conflict inevitable is a signal of weakness in our determination to deal with him.

Ought not the House of Commons to have a specific vote before British troops are committed under American command?

Let me repeat, as we have said consistently: of course we want a vote of the House of Commons on the matter—[HON. MEMBERS: "When?"] —if we get to conflict. The one set of circumstances in which we have said that that would not be the case is if any circumstances arose in which the security of our troops was at risk and action had to be taken quickly. In the absence of that, however, of course the Government want the full support of the House of Commons if action is to be taken. That is precisely what happened in relation to both Kosovo and Afghanistan, so the idea that we have a record of taking such action without the House being consulted is nonsense. What we actually have to do—all of us, with the greatest of respect—is focus not simply on the procedures of the House, which are important and will be carried through, but on the question whether the UN indeed finds that Saddam is in material breach. In that case, I hope that we will have the unified support of the House and, in particular, of the hon. Members who are rightly proclaiming the importance of the UN in taking the necessary action.

Why are GCSE results 14 per cent. better in Northern Ireland than in England? Why does the Prime Minister intend to press ahead with Martin McGuinness's ill-conceived plan to scrap grammar schools there?

It is only right to point out that GCSE results are also a lot better here than they were, for example, a few years ago. On the point about selection and grammar schools, I do not believe in returning to a division of children at the age of 11. As for scrapping grammar schools, I point out to the hon. Gentleman that, since we have been in office, we have not scrapped a single one. [Interruption.] That is a fact. In addition, I do not believe that the right way forward is to focus on what happens to the remaining grammar schools; it is to focus on the secondary schools, the vast majority of which are not grammar schools. They are getting extra investment and rising standards under this Government and would be affected by the 20 per cent. across-the-board cuts of the Conservatives.

The vast majority of young people who get two A-levels go to university. The higher education announcement made last week committed the Government to increasing the number of young people from poorer backgrounds at university. Will the Prime Minister tell me how that will be achieved?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to make the point that 90 per cent. of children who get two A-levels go to university, whatever their social background. Therefore, the key to increasing the number of people from all social groups who go to university is to improve school standards. That is precisely why we are putting in the extra investment and making the changes that we need in the school system. I am pleased to say that the primary school, GCSE and A-level results are the best that this country has ever had.

Will the Prime Minister reassure my Ryedale constituents that they have nothing to fear from the planned upgrade of the radar at RAF Fylingdales? Notwithstanding the alarmist scaremongering of the opponents of missile defence, will he take time today to study the Select Committee on Defence report published only this morning, which describes the lack of proper consultation with the local community by the Ministry of Defence as "deplorable"?

Of course we will study the report and respond to any of the concerns that it raises. As for the hon. Gentleman's point about the upgrade of Fylingdales, I do not think that his constituents have anything to fear from that. After all, we have played our part in NATO and the transatlantic alliance for many years, and Fylingdales has been part of that. Should we engage with the defensive system of the Americans, I believe that it will continue to play an important role. I also believe that, in that role, there is nothing for the hon. Gentleman's constituents to fear and everything for this country to gain.

In a recent survey, 85 per cent. of Cleethorpes residents said that they feared crime and thought that it was rising. What will the Government do to reassure my residents that they are seriously addressing crime? Those fears about crime are being exploited by fascists such as the British National party—something that every hon. Member in this House should be worried about.

My hon. Friend is right that, although, according to the British crime survey, crime is down over the past few years, not up, the fear of crime is up. That is why it is so important that we take the measures that we are outlining both in the Criminal Justice Bill and the antisocial behaviour Bill that will follow it. I hope that we will get support throughout the House for both those measures. Unless we make fundamental reforms to the criminal justice system, we will not restore the confidence that is necessary for the fear of crime to be reduced.

On Sunday, the Prime Minister said that on asylum policy, he would consider

"fundamentally looking at the obligations we have under the European Convention on Human Rights."

What I said was that if measures that we have introduced do not dramatically reduce the number of asylum applications, we are prepared to go further, including fundamentally looking at our obligations under the European convention on human rights. Of course, it is the Home Office that is in charge of these issues.

Last week, the Home Secretary said that fundamentally looking at our ECHR obligations was impossible. He said:

"I want to make it clear … that no EU country has derogated or withdrawn from article 3, because none could".

"who have suggested otherwise are simply wrong." —[Official Report, 20 January 2003; Vol. 398, c. 6.]

The Home Secretary is absolutely right: no country has—[Interruption.] Perhaps when the right hon. Gentleman gets to his feet, he can tell us which country has derogated from article 3. No country has derogated from article 3—[Interruption.]

Order. The House must listen to the answers to the questions raised.

Let me just explain it to the right hon. Gentleman again: no country has derogated from article 3 of the European convention on human rights, which is why what the Home Secretary said is right. If the right hon. Gentleman has got the information as to which country has derogated, perhaps he would tell us about it.

So the Prime Minister says that he is right on Sunday, and then he says that he is wrong on Wednesday. Everybody knows that Alastair Campbell gave the Prime Minister his new policy as he walked into the television studio on Sunday. The first that the Home Secretary, or anybody else in the Cabinet, knew about it was when they switched on their television sets and heard him. A year ago, we told him that he had to deal with the ECHR, and how to do it. He said then that that "would be a mistake". Why has it taken him a year to change his mind?

What the right hon. Gentleman says is simply factually incorrect. There is no country that has derogated from article 3 of the European convention because derogation is not possible. What we were discussing last year was whether to derogate from article 5 of the European convention. That allows us, if we derogate, to detain without trial people who are suspected terrorists. It was precisely that measure that we introduced in the anti-terrorism measures that came through this House of Commons. However, when we actually introduced the measure, the Conservative party, rather than supporting it—[Interruption.] Oh yes. The shadow Home Secretary told us that it was an affront to civil liberties.

The Prime Minister is waffling and he is in a mess. Government estimates now show that at least 1,000 people in Britain have attended terrorist training camps in Afghanistan and elsewhere. We now know, as the Prime Minister admits, that many of them have used the asylum system to get into this country. In the face of that crisis, all that we have had from the Government is panic on Saturday, headlines on Sunday and climb-down on Monday. Is it not the case that we need the powers to deport those who threaten our country—and we need them now?

First, the powers to detain someone who is a suspected terrorist exist now. That is precisely why the arrests have been happening in Manchester, London and elsewhere, and those people are detained without trial. However, let me just read what those on the Tory Front Bench said when the issue arose and we were debating the legislation, so that we realise who is changing policy and who is not. When it was put to the Front-Bench Conservative spokesman just a few months ago that we should detain all asylum seekers, this is what he said:

"In today's climate"—

"is … wrong in principle and impossible, in practical terms".—[Official Report, 12 June 2002; Vol. 386, c. 874.]

In light of Ariel Sharon's well-known views and actions, does my right hon. Friend agree that there is little hope of reaching a two-state peace settlement with the Palestinians unless the Americans change their policy in respect of Israel?

There is no way that we will make progress unless there is a huge amount of activity, politically and diplomatically, on three fronts: the first is in relation to security; the second is in relation to political reform on the Palestinian side, which is why we had the conference here and will take it further in the next few weeks; and the third is in relation to final status negotiations. It is not just the responsibility of America, but I hope that all the international community, irrespective of what else is happening in the middle east, realises that the only way we will get a lasting and just peace in the middle east is to engage in detailed negotiations over a long period of time to resolve those three issues.

Following the likely local government settlement, Devon county council—which is run by all parties, including the Conservatives and Labour—has estimated that the council tax increase will be 15 to 20 per cent. Can the Prime Minister say whether that increase will be the same for pensioners?

I do not know what council tax that council will fix—that is a matter for it—but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that, as a result of the extra settlement, we are putting somewhere in the region of a 6 per cent. real-terms increase into local government. It is therefore very important that he recognises that, whatever the authority, that is infinitely more generous than the settlement in the Conservative years.

Does the Prime Minister recall telling Sir David Frost in January 2002 that a reformed House of Lords must be different from the House of Commons? Does he believe that an elected Chamber would be sufficiently different? Does he agree with those of us who believe that a properly constituted, non-elected Chamber, free from the hereditary system, is the only way to guarantee the kind of deliberative, advisory and balanced second Chamber that would add value to our system of government in the United Kingdom?

My briefing very helpfully starts by saying, "I understand that there are a range of views on this issue." However, everyone agrees that the status quo should not remain. Everyone agrees that the remaining hereditary peers should go and, what is more, that the prime ministerial patronage should also go. However, the issue then is whether we want an elected—[Interruption.] I am asked for my views; I am giving them. Do we want an elected House, or do we want an appointed House? I personally think that a hybrid between the two is wrong and will not work.

As the Prime Minister is rightly exercised in the fight against international terrorism and the crisis in Iraq, may I urge him not to take his eye off Zimbabwe, where the situation is rapidly deteriorating? May I specifically encourage him to increase the smart sanctions on the regime and resist the behaviour of the French, who have been behaving quite deplorably?

First, I agree entirely with the right hon. Gentleman about the situation in Zimbabwe. The humanitarian situation there is becoming dire. Millions of people are either starving or at risk of starvation in a country that is rich in potential natural resources. That is a tragedy and we are doing whatever we can in every international forum to try to ostracise the Mugabe regime. It cannot be emphasised too often that that regime is a threat most of all to Zimbabwean people: not simply to white Zimbaweans but to black Zimbaweans, too.

Will the Prime Minister tell the House how the proposals in the higher education White Paper could help a single parent in my constituency who aspires to take a degree? Will he take particular note, and encourage our hon. Friends to take particular note, of the successful track record that Plymouth university has in widening participation?

Yes. First, maintenance grants will be reintroduced for those from lower-income families. Secondly, nobody will have to pay any fees upfront. Anything that is paid will only be paid back on a more generous set of terms than previously and paid back interest free. We will only be able to fund universities properly and fairly for the future if we not only put in more public money but come to a point at which students make some contribution by paying it back, but only when they are earning as graduates and in a position to do so.

Very many shift workers, including emergency workers, those who work in security services and those who work in this House, will, with effect from 17 February, pay £1,000 a year in tax for the privilege of using the only viable means of transport to get to work: their cars. The Prime Minister will no doubt try to blame the Mayor of London for that, but, in fact, it is the result of his policy. Given that it is his responsibility, and that the Transport Act 2000 was passed under his Government, is he satisfied with the detail, and is he ready to take the blame for it?

It is a devolved matter, it was devolved to the Mayor, and the Mayor has taken his decision.

In the light of the report on the torture and tragic death of Victoria Climbié, will my right hon. Friend give urgent consideration to the recommendations of the Laming report, and will he appoint a children's commissioner?

In respect of the report of the Laming commission, it made more than 100 recommendations, and we will implement more than 80 of those within six months. Clearly, in relation to the issue of a children's commissioner, we will study the report carefully, and that is one finding among many on which we will deliberate and then come to a decision.

When Army numbers are stubbornly and significantly below establishment, why have 450 basic training places been suspended?

I do not know about the basic training places that the hon. Gentleman mentions. We are, however, engaged in a huge recruitment campaign for our armed forces, as he knows, and people are applying to our armed forces as a result. We have a settlement this year, and for the next few years, which, for the first time in many years, provides a substantial real-terms extra amount of spending for our armed forces.

Even if Saddam Hussein does possess weapons of mass destruction—most people accept that he probably retains some residual capability—can my right hon. Friend explain why he did not use those during the Gulf war when his arsenal was massively greater than it is now? In particular, can he explain why Saddam represents a greater threat today than he did in 1997, 1998, 1999 and all his time as Prime Minister until President's Bush's axis of evil speech, when apparently the situation changed?

First, the one thing about which we can be sure is that his reason for not using his chemical, biological and nuclear weapons back in the early 1990s was not out of the goodness of his heart.

"The nerve agent VX is one of the most toxic ever developed … Iraq has declared that it only produced VX on a pilot scale, just a few tonnes and that the quality was poor … UNMOVIC, however, has information that conflicts with this account … There are indications that the agent was weaponised."

Who is next?

My hon. Friend asks who is next. After we deal with Iraq, we have to—[Interruption.]— yes, through the United Nations. We have to confront North Korea about its weapons programme— [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] We have to confront those companies and individuals trading in weapons of mass destruction—

When do we stop?

Another question has been shouted at me. We stop when the threat to our security is properly and fully dealt with. I say this to the hon. Gentleman: if he reads Dr. Blix's report, who can doubt that Saddam is in breach of his UN obligations?

accordingly presented a Bill to require local authorities to provide a designated number of permanent sites for the traveller community; to make additional provision in relation to the powers available to local authorities in relation to unauthorised development of greenbelt and greenfield land; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 21 March, and to be printed [Bill 49].