If he will make a statement on the progress made by the global fund for health.[124272]

To date, the global fund has committed US $1.5 billion to more than 150 programmes in 93 countries, including the provision of anti-retrovirals in Haiti, Honduras and Rwanda, the expansion of tuberculosis treatment in China and Mongolia and the distribution of bed nets to prevent malaria in Tanzania and Sri Lanka. The UK strongly supported the creation of the fund and we have committed $280 million over the years 2002—08. We are working with the secretariat and other supporters of the fund to develop measures that we can all use to evaluate progress over the longer term.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is essential that the fund develops the potential to really turn around the HIV, TB and malaria epidemics, and that to do that we need more countries to put their money and their faith into the fund so that individual countries do not try to impose their own priorities and monitoring mechanisms on the fund? Does he further agree that, especially where they are members of the board, they should work through the board to establish internationally agreed criteria for its work?

I agree very much with the point that my hon. Friend makes. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to his work as chair of the all-party group on AIDS. He is right: in supporting the creation of the fund it is important to ensure that it works alongside the existing bilateral programmes and the other UN agencies which are trying to fight the scourge of HIV/AIDS, in particular, and TB and malaria. We want the fund to add to the effectiveness of the work that is currently being undertaken. That is one of the issues that we are pursuing in providing support and encouragement, and indeed additional funding, to the fund, as was announced at the G8 summit at Evian.

Recently, President Bush announced that $10 billion was to go into AIDS work, which is marvellous news, and I wholeheartedly endorse it. However, he announced that only $1 billion was to go into the multilateral fund and that $9 billion was to go to a handful of countries as long as they accepted conditions such as taking genetically modified food. Will my hon. Friend use his influence to persuade the Americans that multilateral effort is the way ahead? That is why the global health fund was set up and we must back it to the fullest possible extent.

I agree with my hon. Friend's point about the importance of the multilateral route. However, it is not entirely clear what precise amounts the Americans will make available for the global fund; that will depend partly on decisions of Congress and partly on the extent to which other countries increase their contributions because of the conditions that have been set. It is really important that we ensure that we support the existing work of the multilateral institutions because we do not want, in promoting the fund, to add to the difficulties that Governments in developing countries face in trying to make sure that they can access the funding and support that is available from all those sources. That is why it is so important that country Governments and the multinational institutions actually work together.

If he will make a statement on the progress with aid to Iraq. [124273]

The Department for International Development's total financial commitment to humanitarian and reconstruction aid in Iraq now stands at £154 million. Most of that money is being channelled through organisations such as the United Nations agencies, the Red Cross and Red Crescent movement and non-governmental organisations, which have the capacity and expertise to mount operations on the ground. On 3 July, I placed in the Library details of that funding and the work that has been undertaken so far.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, but does he share my concern that some of the basic forms of aid required by the Iraqi people are constant clean water and electricity supplies? The ability to have access to those will convince the Iraqi people that we are genuine in our desire to see their country improve and to see them take control of their country as quickly as possible. What can my hon. Friend do to ensure that we can get those electricity and water supplies back on, constantly, so that the people of Iraq have a decent life?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the need to provide the basics, especially water and electricity, to the people of Iraq. Currently, there is no higher priority for the Coalition Provisional Authority than to ensure that that is the case. There are difficulties, however. First, there are historical difficulties, because of the legacy of under-investment in parts of the country, especially the south. Secondly, there are problems of security, with which the House will be familiar. Thirdly, sabotage and looting have undone some of the work that has already been undertaken. However, I can tell the House that, although Baghdad suffered a reduction in electricity supply two or three weeks ago—in part owing to sabotage and in part owing to the creaking infrastructure—the electricity supply is increasing again. None the less, we still have some way to go in order to meet the aspirations to which my hon. Friend has rightly drawn our attention.

The Minister will be aware of UN resolution 1325, which seeks to improve the role of women not only in decision making but in aid distribution. What efforts have the UK Government made to ensure that women are working at grass-roots level, so that aid is delivered where it is most needed?

One of the UK Government's priorities is to support the process of involving women in all parts of civil society and political life in Iraq. Indeed, the women's conference—which is taking place this week, with help and financial support from DFID—is one of the ways in which we are trying to make that happen. An example of that working is that Baghdad city now has a council in place, and I think I am right in saying that six of its 37 members are women.

Given the problems of security, which my hon. Friend acknowledged in his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Claire Ward), what ideas does he have on the help that we can give in terms of aid for the security situation, given that Iraqi trainee policemen were brutally murdered and that any Iraqi policeman who is seen to co-operate may—repeat, "may"—be in physical danger himself?

The investment that is being made in security is the highest priority, alongside the restoration of basic services. As hon. Members on both sides of the House will know, the people of Iraq are saying that the first priority is security, because without security we cannot make progress. Some 30,000 police officers have now reported back for work, but my hon. Friend rightly draws attention to the need for retraining, because policing a society that is no longer ruled by terror and fear is a very different challenge from what existed in Iraq for 25 years previously. I am afraid that the fact that those police officers, who had just completed their training, were tragically murdered last week illustrates that some people in Iraq do not want that process to succeed and are trying to undermine the efforts that are being made to restore security—the bedrock on which all future progress will be built.

At the Liaison Committee meeting yesterday, the Prime Minister denied that planning for the aftermath of the war in Iraq was poor, yet that very claim was made on 1 June, by the former Secretary of State for International Development, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short). Who are we to believe? Does the Minister agree that the former Secretary of State should have the chance to give evidence to support her claim as part of the International Development Committee's inquiry into contingency planning for the war and its aftermath?

Who the International Development Committee chooses to call as a witness is entirely a matter for the Committee, not for me. On the substantive issue that the hon. Lady raises concerning preparation, as we discussed last week during the statement on Iraq, unquestionably the preparation that was made focused on the possible worst outcomes, which thankfully did not transpire. Of course there are lessons to be learned from what has happened, but I simply tell the hon. Lady that the priority for the moment is to get on with the job in hand; we can draw on those lessons later.

If he will make a statement on the impact of EU agricultural reform on the developing world. [124274]

The agreement reached by the Agriculture Council on 26 June will benefit developing countries, as well as European farmers and taxpayers. The most important change is the de-linking of support from output, which should begin to reduce excessive production, the dumping of which harms developing countries. The agreement also paves the way for reforms to other EU commodity regimes and, most importantly, should give new momentum to the current round of World Trade Organisation negotiations, which are vital for the future economic growth and prosperity of developing countries.

I wish to pass on thanks and congratulations to the Government on everything that they have done to achieve that first welcome start in common agricultural policy reform, but does my hon. Friend agree with those trade justice campaigners whom I met recently in Blackpool that reforming the world trade rules is essential to protect developing countries and to prevent dumping—principally, the dumping of agricultural products by American multinational companies? Will he give an assurance that, at the WTO conference in Cancun this September, the Government will put very strong emphasis on reforming the system to benefit developing countries, so that poor banana growers in St. Lucia or cotton growers in Kenya do not find their livelihoods disrupted by unfair trade rules?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. As he says, the CAP reform process in the Agriculture Council is a first significant and serious reform. It injects some new momentum in the run-up to Cancun at a time when we have missed a series of deadlines. As we in Europe have moved, it is now up to others, particularly our friends in America and in the Cairns group, to give some ground, too.

But can the Minister confirm that the fudged and inadequate reform of the CAP will allow the continued dumping of subsidised agricultural produce on the developing world? Can I refer him to a letter that he sent today to my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), who did the job that I am currently doing extremely well? It says that

"you will be aware that this"—

the peace clause—

"is due to expire on 31 December…Although the European Union is pressing for its renewal as part of a new WTO Agreement on Agriculture, proposals currently on the negotiating table contain no such provision. Failure to extend the Peace Clause would mean that domestic support measures…would be open to challenge in the WTO."

Does that mean that we can look forward to all-out trade war over agricultural produce, particularly subsidised EU produce, after 31 December?

I welcome the hon. Gentleman's return to international development in his first appearance on the Front Bench in that role. In my limited experience, I suggest that he will find the welcome short. In terms of his specific questions, he is wrong to be so negative about the process that was agreed. The Agriculture Council looked specifically at the direct support that is provided. We can now move on to look at the issue of export subsidies in the context of the WTO negotiations. In terms of the peace clause, we are continuing to negotiate on that issue, and we need to await the outcome of those negotiations.

May I ask the Minister what are the prospects of CAP reform? Only yesterday, the members of the International Development Committee visited Brussels, and I was part of that delegation. We were given the impression by the EU Development and Co-operation Committee that perhaps CAP reform is not a priority, and that the EU common foreign and security policy will take priority over everything else.

:Let me reassure my hon. Friend that CAP reform has been a fundamental part of our agenda. The result that we secured at the Agriculture Council, led by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, allows us to move forward significantly, and the series of measures has been welcomed by the least developed countries. Given the number of deadlines for progress that we have missed, as I mentioned, I hope that my hon. Friend will recognise that we now have the opportunity to move forward.

Do the CAP reform proposals fully meet Harbinson 2 and the second modalities paper on the reductions of the blue box subsidies? What is the position now with regard to the amber box? Will the EU at the WTO seek to deal with export subsidies to broaden the measure to US export credits and dealing with food aid? What will be done to enhance market access for developing countries?

:I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for his work on the International Development Committee. In terms of the Harbinson proposals, the CAP reform that we have negotiated allows us to engage seriously and to meet the Harbinson criteria for the agenda. In terms of the specific points about market access, we are committed to having negotiations in Cancun about market access, and we have made a series of proposals for tariff reduction including an overall average tariff reduction of some 36 per cent. and a minimum reduction of some 15 per cent. We have therefore given significant ground. It is now up to others to give ground on issues of market access, too.

What improvements in democracy the Department has helped with in (a) Afghanistan and (b) Iraq since 11 September 2001. [124275]

The United Kingdom supported the emergency Loya Jirga in June 2002 that elected President Karzai. The Department for International Development is providing £500,000 to support the public consultation for the new constitution for Afghanistan. In Iraq, DFID is working closely with other Departments and the leadership of the Coalition Provisional Authority to help to restore a functioning administration in the country and to lay the foundations for the development of representative and democratic Iraqi self-government.

:Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a moral case for global military intervention to spread democracy, put forward by the neo-Conservatives in the United States, but that unless we actually achieve a development of democracy in Afghanistan and Iraq, we will reinforce the view of many people that we have adopted a pre-emptive strike attitude to many countries that we do not like? That will in turn lead to an undermining of democracy and make it harder to develop democracy in those countries. Will my hon. Friend redouble his efforts to make sure that democratic structures are brought into being in Iraq and Afghanistan as soon as possible?

:My hon. Friend is absolutely right, because the ultimate test of whether the action that has been taken in those two countries succeeds in the long term will be the extent to which self-government is restored. We should bear in mind the fact that both countries have suffered grievously over the previous 25 years and that restoring democracy is not an easy task. However, what is most important—experience in Iraq over the past couple of months has reinforced this point—is that the people of those countries should see that there is a process that will enable them to move from where they find themselves today to where they want to be. We hope in the next few days to see in Iraq, with the establishment of the governing council that will begin to appoint the first Ministers, the beginning of that process, and that is to be followed by the establishment of the constitutional convention. On Afghanistan, there is a timetable aimed at achieving the first elections in June 2004. It is important that everybody works hard to try to maintain that timetable.

Does the Minister agree that a proper police service is needed in a democracy? In that context, will he pay tribute to those who are volunteering for the police service in Iraq? Furthermore, what steps are being taken to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people? How are we communicating with them in the mass?

:I share the hon. Gentleman's sentiments about the importance of policing. I join him in paying tribute to those Iraqis and others who have come in to support the reform and training of the new police force in Iraq. He is absolutely right to suggest that that is required if we are to bring about security and to enable all the other things that we want for that country to occur.

The hon. Gentleman is also right to draw attention to the need to communicate effectively. The Coalition Provisional Authority has further work to do on that front. It is important that the Iraqi people are able to hear and see what is being done so that they can support the process and, therefore, undermine those who are trying to destroy it.

To some of us who went to Iraq before the conflict, it was clear that the Kurdish people had already developed a very strong democratic model in their devolved assembly. Is my hon. Friend concerned that they have said that they are not happy with the proposal that they should go into an appointed council and are worried that the advances that they have made in democracy will be eroded in the period in which the council operates before there is a proper constitution and a democratic election?

It is, of course, the case that the north of the country has enjoyed a different history in recent times because of the protection that has been provided to that part of Iraq. That prevented Saddam from doing to that part of his country what he had done to the rest of it. It is very important, in the interests of the future of the country as a whole, that everybody pulls together as we work to try to establish a democracy. However, in the end, the precise form of that will have to take account of the different circumstances in different parts of the country and the different traditions to ensure that all the people and all their political representatives then subscribe to the democracy that is created.

What recent assessment he has made of the level of humanitarian aid reaching the people of Zimbabwe. [124276]

Most of the maize crop has been harvested in Zimbabwe and many areas of the country now have food. The maize crop is up 61 per cent. on last year but nevertheless remains at less than half the national requirement. The United Nations and non-governmental organisations are still feeding around 2 million people in areas where there has been no crop and those who remain vulnerable, including unemployed farm workers, children, the elderly and the chronically ill. These areas and groups will require food throughout the year. The UN predicts that 5.5 million people in Zimbabwe will require humanitarian assistance again by the end of the year.

Earlier this year, I raised with the then Under-Secretary during an Adjournment debate several concerns that had been put to me by aid workers in rural Zimbabwe. Since then, I have received a full response from both the Department and Save the Children, but nonetheless the concerns that were raised with me remain. Will the Minister, in his new brief, read what was said in that debate and keep a watchful eye on the situation to ensure that no further action needs to be taken in the future?

I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman that undertaking. If it would be helpful, I shall be happy to meet him so that we may discuss the issues.

Does my hon. Friend agree that some of the poorest people who live in the poorest countries should never be penalised because of some of the appalling people who lead them?

I do agree with my right hon. Friend. The UK has been playing such an important role as the second largest donor of humanitarian support to the people in Zimbabwe precisely because the collapse of the country and its Government, and the destruction that that Government have brought on the people of that country, should not stand in the way of our doing all that we can. It is a sign of the desperate state of affairs that two thirds of this year's humanitarian and food support will be provided by the international community. The Government of Zimbabwe will provide only one third because they are increasingly proving themselves to be incapable of meeting the needs of their people.

rose—

Order. There is a great deal of noise in the Chamber, which is unfair to hon. Members who are asking questions.

Some of us met the mayor of Harare last week for an appraisal of the humanitarian situation in Zimbabwe. He knew that he would be arrested on his return, and he was. The mayor and NGOs in Zimbabwe report not only that food is being distributed according to party loyalty, but that seeds and tools for next year's crops are not being distributed in areas controlled by the Movement for Democratic Change. Is it not time for us all to stop playing the white colonial card and to persuade the United Nations to send monitors to Zimbabwe to regulate the humanitarian situation and the abuse of human rights that is going on?

Oh, come on!

Order. I call the Minister.

I share the hon. Lady's concern about what has happened to the mayor of Harare. She will be aware that strict procedures are in place to ensure that the humanitarian aid that we and other members of the international community provide is not distributed for political purposes, although I understand her concerns about the way in which the one third that is distributed by the Government of Zimbabwe is used. If there are any complaints or concerns about the way in which our support or the multilateral support is distributed, I would be keen to receive them. I undertake to examine the matter for the hon. Lady.

The humanitarian relief has so far tended to be focused on rural areas. Will the Minister comment on the needs of the urban areas of Harare and Bulawayo in which the poorest people have neither the cash to buy food nor the prospect of crops in leaner times? That has an especially serious effect on many young people.

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the fact that there is a problem in cities as well as rural areas. Of the 5.5 million people who we estimate will need help with food again by the end of the year, 4.4 million will be in rural areas and 1.1 million will be in cities, which demonstrates that the crisis affects all Zimbabweans.

Frankly, it beggars belief that the Government have now deemed Zimbabwe safe for asylum seekers to return to. The Minister just told the House that almost half the population still need food aid, and there are daily reports of violent oppression. How can the hon. Gentleman seriously expect asylum seekers to follow the Home Office advice to return voluntarily?

Well, returning voluntarily is, by definition, a matter of choice for the individuals concerned. They must make that judgment based on their assessment of the situation. I do not think that there is a contradiction in that. Because of the seriousness of the situation in Zimbabwe, we and the international community have taken steps, but in the end, the process of change has to come from within that country, because that is the only way in which a solution to the catastrophe will be found.

If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 9 July.

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.

An excellent new Macmillan cancer centre is soon to open in Dumfries and Galloway Royal infirmary. At the last meeting of the all-party group on cancer, much was said about that kind of investment in cancer care. However, the group did express concern that we need additional cancer nurses or nurses who are better trained in cancer care. Keeping in mind that around 30 per cent. of the population will experience a cancer-related illness in their lifetime, does the Prime Minister feel that we need more training that includes a specific module on cancer care?

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. I pay tribute to the excellent work by Macmillan Cancer Relief. He is right to say that we need to train more cancer nurses. That is why we are making such a huge investment in our national health service at the present time. As a result of that extra investment, people are being diagnosed quicker and treated quicker. More money is being invested. Over the past few years, cancer deaths in this country have fallen by almost 9 per cent. That is why it is important that that extra investment keeps going into our national health service.

The Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee says that the Prime Minister should apologise to Parliament for misrepresenting the status of the second dossier. Will he do that now?

The Foreign Secretary has already apologised on behalf of the whole Government for the mistake that was made. I do not accept, in any shape or form, that the information in that second briefing was wrong. Actually, those parts of it that were based on intelligence were, indeed, based on intelligence.

Let me remind the Prime Minister what the report said. It said that the Prime Minister, in saying that the report was "further intelligence",

"misrepresented its status and … made a bad situation worse."

The Chairman went on to say that when a Minister misleads Parliament, even inadvertently, he should come to the House of Commons and apologise. Why is it that, for this Prime Minister, sorry seems to be the hardest word?

On 10 February, we made it quite clear that we acknowledged the mistake that one part of the briefing paper—one part of it—should have been sourced to a written record of a review that was published some time before. That part of it that was expressed to be based on intelligence was, indeed, based on intelligence. So I am afraid that I do not accept that Parliament was misled in any way at all.

Let me just say this to the right hon. Gentleman. The intelligence on which we based both the September dossier and that February briefing was intelligence that was specifically shared with him by our intelligence services. If he is now disputing any of that intelligence, perhaps he would say so.

The Prime Minister knows I was given no sight of that dossier. I was not even contacted about it. The first I knew about that dossier in February was when I found out about it in the newspapers, so he can retract that for a start. [Interruption.] Oh yes. Until the Prime Minister accepts that he misrepresented the status of the second dossier to Parliament and apologises, trust in him will plummet and no one will believe a word he says anymore.

First, my understanding is that the right hon. Gentleman was briefed on Iraq by the Chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee on 18 September and again on 12 February. I have said to him that the intelligence that we put forward was shared with him.

Retract!

Order. Mr. Bacon, it is not for you to shout at the Prime Minister. [Interruption.] Order. I always pick out the one who is loudest.

I said that the intelligence on which we based both the dossier and the February briefing was shared with the Leader of the Opposition at briefings on 18 September and 12 February. That intelligence was not, as the shadow Foreign Secretary keeps saying, given to the Leader of the Opposition orally by me; it was given by the intelligence services. Perhaps he would just confirm whether that is right or wrong.

Up!

Order. I call Mr. Khabra.

In light of the recent case of Dame Shirley Porter allegedly owing Westminster council £37 million, may I ask the Prime Minister whether the Government are able to take any action to ensure that offshore assets can be made more transparent?

I want to be careful how I answer that because there may be legal proceedings on that subject, but I can simply say that I shall certainly look into the matter and get back to my hon. Friend.

On a previous occasion the Prime Minister replied to me that the nine UK citizens being held at Camp Delta could not remain there indefinitely, but he must recognise equally that he cannot give that reply indefinitely. How long must UK citizens be left to languish in this legal no-man's-land?

I agree that obviously there has to be a point in time when the issue is brought to an end. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the United States is now talking about the right method by which to try anybody against whom charges would be brought. We will make active representations to the United States—indeed, we are already doing so—to make absolutely sure that any such trial will take place in accordance with proper international law.

Since I last raised the matter with the Prime Minister, those representations to the American authorities have fallen on deaf ears. Two of these British citizens may imminently face very serious charges but, he must surely acknowledge, they are not aware of what those charges are and they will be tried in a military tribunal. If they agree to plead guilty, they may be able to escape the death penalty, but if they do not, and are found guilty, they could face the death penalty. If they are not found guilty, the Americans could still choose to detain them as potential combatants. Just how long will the Prime Minister find that state of affairs acceptable, and what does that say for British influence, which he heralds, over the Americans?

It is of course important that the commission that tries these people is conducted according to proper rules. Those rules have not yet been drawn up, and it is precisely for that reason that we are making active representations, and our opposition to the death penalty is well known.

On that point, my constituent, Feroz Abbasi, has been held in Guantanamo bay for 18 months without charge, and he now faces the prospect of a military tribunal in which he will not be able to appoint his own defence lawyer or to cross-examine prosecution witnesses, and he may face the death penalty following a decision behind closed doors.

Have the Government applied for the repatriation of my constituent to face a fair trial in Britain, and will my right hon. Friend now press to have all the evidence against Feroz Abbasi supplied to the Government, so that we may press charges and apply for an extradition order under our terrorism legislation? Feroz Abbasi could then face a fair trial and be punished if guilty, and the rule of law and human rights would prevail.

What my hon. Friend says must be right. If charges are brought, they must be proved in accordance with proper rules of evidence. As he rightly says, the charges are serious. It is worth remembering that the allegations revolve around what happened in Afghanistan some time ago, when British and American troops were putting their lives at risk there. However, I entirely agree with my hon. Friend—there must be no question about this at all. Any commission or tribunal that tries these men must be conducted in accordance with proper canons of law so that a fair trial takes place and is seen to take place.

On another matter, when the Prime Minister talked about delivery targets last Thursday, he said:

"Maybe we have too many".

What delivery targets would the Prime Minister scrap, and what target has he set for delivering that?

Actually, we have reduced to a third the original number of targets in the first comprehensive spending review. I shall tell the hon. Gentleman about the targets that I would not scrap but which, apparently, the Conservatives would—[Interruption.] Oh yes, we will certainly not scrap targets for reducing waiting times and waiting lists for patients. We will not scrap our target for 50,000 extra nurses and we will not scrap our targets for extra investment in schools and hospitals. We will not do so because it is right that that investment is made.

Given that so much crime is fuelled by drug addiction, even in a place like York, which has 250 drug addicts in rehabilitation at any one time, what are the Government doing to expand their range of policies to tackle drug abuse and fund the many agencies involved in delivering that strategy?

First, we are increasing investment by about half a billion pounds over the next few years. We are also increasing the use of drug treatment and testing orders, and are trying to make sure by increasing the number of people who receive drug treatment for their drug abuse that we reduce the prevalence of the link between drug abuse and crime. My hon. Friend is right—the link between drugs and crime is hugely important, which is precisely why we are making additional investment in both the criminal justice system and drug treatment—[Interruption.]

They are cheering him now, but they will be voting against him tomorrow. After last night's massive Labour rebellion on foundation hospitals, can the Prime Minister say whether he intends to press ahead with the legislation on top-up fees?

We remain absolutely committed to the Government's position on that issue.

Well, can the Prime Minister now tell the House whether he intends to rely on the votes of Scottish Labour MPs, even though top-up fees, like foundation hospitals, have been rejected by his own party in Scotland?

I find it absolutely extraordinary that the right hon. Gentleman should say that Scottish and Welsh MPs are not able to vote on UK legislation passed in this House—[Interruption.] This is the UK Parliament, and if he is saying that the position of the Conservative party is that Scottish and Welsh MPs can no longer vote on English business, is it also his position that, if devolution is up and running again in Northern Ireland, Northern Ireland MPs cannot vote on it?

The Prime Minister is reduced to getting MPs who will not even be affected by this change to drive through his legislation for England. He is ploughing on, despite the fact that every single Labour MP stood on a manifesto that said that they would not introduce top-up fees. Is that not the reason why he has lost the trust of both the British people and, increasingly, his own party? Nobody believes a word he says any more.

We now have as official Conservative policy the belief that no one from Scotland, Wales or, indeed, if devolution is up and running, Northern Ireland, can vote on English issues—and they call themselves the Conservative and Unionist party. I think that the right hon. Gentleman needs to think that one through a little more carefully.

As for university finance, let me tell the right hon. Gentleman what would be a disaster—cutting £500 million off the university budget and, according to the higher education institute, having half a million fewer students by 2010. He wants fewer people going to worse-funded universities, which would be a disaster for the country.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the greatest concern for all our constituents remains antisocial behaviour, such as when youths congregate at cash dispensers and on street corners deliberately to intimidate? I ask him to reassure the House today that he and his Government will fund totally and fully all the proposals in the Anti-social Behaviour Bill. Will he, along with me and my constituents, criticise the Liberal Democrats for opposing the Bill?

It is, of course, remarkable that the Liberal Democrats are opposing measures on antisocial behaviour, including on-the-spot fines, which I believe will be supported by the vast majority of people in this country. My hon. Friend is absolutely right: these measures on antisocial behaviour are important and we will fund them properly. There are already record numbers of police officers, but they need the powers to deal with these issues. It is to the shame of the Liberal Democrats that they are voting against them.

Given the importance of the Green Paper on child protection and the difficulty that the Prime Minister is having with his diary, will he consider giving up a day of his holiday in Barbados or even 45 minutes to launch the paper?

We will continue funding nursery education and the sure start proposals and we are continuing to put money into the early years learning of our children. Let me tell the hon. Gentleman what we will not do. When millions of people are getting the benefit of these proposals throughout the country, we will not follow his policy of 20 per cent. cuts across the board.

Reverting to earlier questions, is my right hon. Friend aware that, when the exchanges took place on Monday about the two British nationals to be tried by the United States, there was strong criticism from all sides? Should not he be making far stronger representations and tell the Americans that, yes, we are allies in the fight against terrorism and that we intend to remain allies, but we shall also uphold the rule of law? Those two British citizens should be tried here if there are any charges to be made against them. Put your foot down, Prime Minister.

Certainly, my hon. Friend is right that those people should be tried in accordance with proper international law, and we will ensure that that is true. I simply say to him, however, that the precise nature of this trial has not yet been formulated. Therefore, it is important that we wait and see whether indeed our representations have been heeded.

The Criminal Records Bureau is blaming its disclosure fee and tight targets for its terrible performance. Last week, the fee doubled, the targets were scrapped and the disclosure deadline was kicked into the long grass. Who is responsible for this Horlicks, which is affecting so many of our constituents, and what is the Prime Minister doing about it?

The actual output of the Criminal Records Bureau has improved significantly over the past few months, but I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that most people accept that we have got to have some system of checks. It has been difficult to establish the Criminal Records Bureau and to get it working in the way that we want, but it is working far better now than in the past few months. I think that a lot of people would be dismayed and that we would be attacked by the Opposition if we were to get rid of the Criminal Records Bureau.

May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the international education tables that were recently published? They showed that Britain is now occupying position No. 8 with regard to the quality of education in our schools. Will he comment on the importance of the extra assistance that goes into classrooms to ensure that schools, and particularly those facing hard challenges, have higher behaviour standards to ensure that we continue to rise in the international league table and to show how much importance that we attach to not undermining schools by criticising them, which happens in some areas of this country?

My hon. Friend is right, of course, that the additional investment is lifting school standards. We now have the best school results that we have ever had in this country. In particular, the large number of classes of more than 30 pupils has been significantly reduced, indeed practically eliminated. We have also made sure that, in primary schools in particular, but also in secondary schools, that extra investment is yielding the results. I think that we can be proud of much of what is happening in our education system. I know that there have been problems in school funding this year because of additional requirements in relation to pensions and teachers' pay and also the additional investment that is being made, but the worst thing that could happen to our schools now would be to roll back that improvement and investment in future.

Three weeks ago the Prime Minister told me:

"It is worth pointing out the fact that, when we finally won the conflict in Iraq, some of the people who were still offering resistance were extremists from Chechnya."—[Official Report, 18 June 2003; Vol. 407, c. 355.]

Invited to support that fact with evidence in a written answer, the Foreign Office could not do so other than by reference to unsubstantiated reports. We do know, however, that none of the captives in Guantanamo bay is Chechen, although nine are British, and that British forces did not encounter any Chechens in Iraq or in Afghanistan. Should the British Prime Minister be prepared to blacken the name of an entire people on the basis of unsubstantiated reports; and will he withdraw that statement unless and until he has evidence to support it?

First, in relation to what I said about Iraq, I was referring to the reports to which the hon. Gentleman draws attention. I accept that it may be some time before we can be sure that those reports are correct.

Secondly, in respect of Afghanistan, there are several reports about Chechen fighters being found in Afghanistan. I would simply say to the hon. Gentleman that Chechen extremism is well documented. I agree that, as he has said to me on previous occasions, it is important that the human rights of people in Chechnya are properly respected. However, I think that he would accept, would he not, that elements of fundamentalist extremist groups in Chechnya have carried out appalling terrorist atrocities in respect of people in Russia?

As we move from the first flush of youth into early middle age, we bring experience and wisdom to our jobs and like to think that our increasing age adds to what we can contribute to our constituents. When will the Government end the iniquity of age discrimination in our work force once and for all?

We are planning to take action against age discrimination. My hon. Friend may be a beneficiary of that: who knows?

If the Iraq survey group has still not found weapons of mass destruction by the end of Parliament's summer recess, will the Prime Minister come to this House and make a statement along the same lines as the statement made by the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook)—a resignation statement?

As I said to the Liaison Committee yesterday, why do we not allow the Iraq survey group to carry out its work? As I told the Committee, I have no doubt at all that the intelligence that we received was accurate. The view of some people that the whole issue of Saddam and weapons of mass destruction is an invention of the CIA or British intelligence is absurd. The fact is that we know that when the inspectors left at the end of 1998, a huge amount of weaponry was unaccounted for. The proposition of the hon. Gentleman and others like him is simply this: that Saddam—having brought sanctions and military action on himself, and with all the problems that he had—voluntarily, having chucked the inspectors out, got rid of the weapons. I do not believe that thesis, and I am sure that the Iraq survey group will prove it to be wrong.

What plans he has to visit Cyprus to meet the President of Cyprus.

I have no current plans to do so.

I note that reply. Is my right hon. Friend aware, however, that in recent weeks in northern Cyprus there has been a dramatic change of attitude on the part of the Turkish Cypriot community, who have clearly said that they no longer accept the leadership of Rauf Denktash, no longer want the isolation that they have had for so long, and now want to be part of the European Union that the Republic of Cyprus will enter next year? Against that background, will the Prime Minister, when he next meets the Turkish Prime Minister, make it clear to him that he and his Government should start to enter into constructive dialogue in seeking a settlement in Cyprus for the benefit of Greek and Turkish Cypriots, who clearly now want to associate together?

My hon. Friend is right in the sense that there is a strong feeling among the Turkish Cypriots that they want to be part of the European Union and to have the benefits of membership. Of course, we will continue our discussions with both the Greek and the Turkish Governments to see how we can bring about a settlement. My hon. Friend may like to know that Kofi Annan recently made it clear that the UN proposals that we strongly supported remain on the table. I therefore very much hope that we are able to mount a constructive attempt to get the parties talking again to ensure that we can reach a settlement on this issue, which would be beneficial for all the people on the island of Cyprus.

Is the Prime Minister aware that 30 Members from all parties have presented petitions o n behalf of 1 million voters against the European proposals to ban 300 food and vitamin supplements? (Interruption]

Order. It is a closed question—

In Cyprus.

rose—

It is too late for the hon. Gentleman to add "In Cyprus."

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Airbus 380 programme—he saw part of it last week at the Broughton site in north Wales; the manufacturing site is at Filton in my constituency—is vital not only to the future prosperity of the thousands of workers employed at those two sites but to the local economies and the national economy? Will he ensure that every possible assistance is given to the project, which reflects the best of British engineering?

I was delighted to participate in the opening of the West factory last Friday. As a result of £500,000 in launch aid, Airbus is today in a position where it can take over the leadership of the large aircraft market from Boeing in the United States. That would be tremendous for British manufacturing and for European industry. One of the great benefits is investment in new jobs, which is also an investment in the most highly skilled part of our work force. I welcome my hon. Friend's comments and congratulate the Airbus work force on their work.

My constituents on the Isle of Wight pay their taxes like everyone else. However, they are the only ones in England who have to pay a charge every time they access the strategic road network. What will the Government announce in this afternoon's statement to redress that injustice?

I fear that I must ask the hon. Gentleman to wait for the announcement by the Secretary of State for Transport for that question to be answered.

What plans he has to visit the Lancaster and Wyre constituency.

I have no current plans to do so.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that disappointing response. I commend to him the 175 square miles of the glorious Lancaster and Wyre constituency and assure him of an extremely warm welcome there because the constituency is prospering under the Labour Government. May I recommend that he visits the city of Lancaster after what I imagine will be a successful referendum on an elected assembly for the north-west of England? He could then see for himself Lancaster's historical, cultural, geographical, scientific and technological claims to be the city at the heart of the north-west.

My hon. Friend's comments are a great encouragement to change my plans and to visit as soon as possible.

The Prime Minister will be aware of the importance of broadband technology throughout south Wales and that Maesteg and Pencoed in my constituency are the latest places to be enabled as exchanges. Will he join me in welcoming the initiative by Bridgend county borough council, the Bridgend Information Society project and BT in ensuring that we have access to broadband sooner or later? If he has time, will he join me in my internet surgery tomorrow?

I do not think that I will be able to join my hon. Friend in that, but his point about the rolling out of broadband is important. We are making huge progress in Britain in this extremely important area for the future, and in particular, as a result of the special measures and types of partnership that he has just been talking about, we are also extending the broadband roll-out in rural areas too. That is extremely important for the future health and prosperity of this country.

Following the Prime Minister's earlier answer on the essential work of the Criminal Records Bureau, is he really satisfied that, when the service is so poor, its cost is to be raised by 150 per cent. this afternoon? Will he also tell the House what he has to say to care home owners who were asked to defer their checks so that schools could take priority and are now faced with a huge increase as a result? Are they expected to trust the Government?

I do not know about the latter point that the hon. Gentleman makes and I am perfectly happy to look into it, but in respect of the first point I would just say that the CRB is now issuing an average of 40,000 disclosures a week, and from having had a backlog of 50,000 cases, fewer than 5,000 are now outstanding. Yes, there is a great deal still to do, but I hope again, as I said to the hon. Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison) earlier, that he recognises that the CRB is an important innovation that we do need, otherwise people would attack us for not making proper checks on those working in sensitive areas.