If he will make a statement about local electoral pilots. [125859]

For the 2003 local elections we approved a wide range of pilots, 33 involving all-postal ballots and 17 involving e-voting pilots, which covered in total some 6.4 million electors. The initial headline results are encouraging; the average turnout for all-postal pilots was close to 50 per cent., and where there was e-voting about a fifth of voters opted to use electronic methods. We are now awaiting the Electoral Commission's detailed evaluation, which we will want to consider carefully and to which we will respond in the autumn.

I welcome my right hon. Friend's reply because it shows that the pilots are finding new ways to get people involved in our democratic processes. I urge him, however, to read early-day motion 174, in my name, which refers to the potential for fraud in electronic voting methods. There is evidence from the United States, where some of those systems have been used extensively, that there are no proper controls or means of verifying whether fraud or other deficiencies have occurred. The Government need to read that early-day motion very carefully.

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about the benefits of pilots that appear to be turning around the decline in participation in elections. All Members of the House should welcome the evidence that a number of the pilots have been very successful in increasing turnout.

We all want to see an increase in turnout, but we do not want it to be achieved on the basis of "vote early, vote often". Many returning officers, and professionals from all parties, have expressed worries about vote rigging in all-postal ballots. Detective Chief Inspector David Churchill of West Midlands fraud squad said that

"the current electoral system is based on trust and that trust is being eroded … The new postal voting system provides an opportunity for malpractice."

We are absolutely committed to ensuring that the ballot remains as secure against fraud as possible. The hon. Gentleman will know that any electoral system is potentially open to fraud, and it is essential that there are safeguards. That is why, for all the pilots that we have run, we have ensured that there is proper evaluation, and particular attention has been paid to any allegations of fraud, which have all been investigated. The Electoral Commission is considering that in its report, which we expect to receive on 31 July, and we will obviously give a full response when we have received its recommendations.

Will my right hon. Friend look not only at the issue of declining participation, but at that of declining electorates? He will be aware of a parliamentary question that I tabled recently about a massive drop in the size of the electorate in more than 100 seats in the United Kingdom. Some of those decreases are unaccounted for. Will my right hon. Friend look into the reasons for them? Seventy-five of the decreases are in Labour seats.

We are in regular discussion with the Electoral Commission about measures to ensure that the registration system for elections is as thorough and accurate as possible. We certainly share my hon. Friend's concern to ensure that there is no unjustified decline in the number of people registered to vote, as those who are not registered are consequently denied their entitlement to vote. We shall certainly continue to do all that we can to ensure that there are effective electoral registration measures.

May I endorse the notes of caution sounded by the hon. Member for Morley and Rothwell (Mr. Challen) and my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles)? Does the Minister accept that the vote is indeed a precious possession and people should regard it as such? We should think of the people of South Africa and how they responded when they first had the vote.

I do not believe that making it easier for people to exercise their democratic right devalues the process. It is important to ensure that proper safeguards are in place to uphold the integrity of the ballot. However, in an age when people are much more used to responding quickly to a variety of other transactions, using electronic or postal means rather than going in person to an office, it seems logical that the same principle should apply to voting. It is right to give people a greater opportunity to vote by post and electronic means where appropriate safeguards are in place. I hope that the hon. Gentleman shares our satisfaction with the evidence that we are beginning to turn the corner in terms of participation, because declining participation in elections should deeply concern us all.

If he will make a statement on the implications of fire service reform for fire services in Wales. [125860]

The fire and rescue service White Paper published on 30 June makes clear our commitment to devolve responsibility for the fire and rescue service in Wales to the National Assembly for Wales. We will ensure that devolution is consistent with broader emergency and civil contingency arrangements, and that the capacity for a UK-wide response to any terrorist threat, or other threat, is maintained. In the meantime, we will discuss with the National Assembly for Wales and the Local Government Association how best to deliver the robust regional management arrangements that we consider essential to deliver the modernisation of the fire and rescue service.

I thank the Minister for his reply and for his commitment to sorting out the present shambles of the fire service. Will he reinforce that commitment by confirming that we will have nothing less than a fire and rescue service that saves more lives and reduces the number of injuries?

I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks. He is concerned that we have the best organised fire and rescue service. Implementation of integrated risk management plans will mean deployment of resources based on risk to life rather than building density. The need to refocus the fire service from intervention to prevention to help save more lives is at the heart of our White Paper.

I very much welcome what the Minister says about devolving the fire service to the National Assembly. That is right and proper as part of the process of devolution, as it has been called. Will he say a little more about two matters? First, will the pay and conditions of firefighters be devolved, and how will that work in a devolved structure? Secondly, will the financing of the fire and rescue service in Wales be done through the Barnett formula or alternative arrangements?

Pay is a matter for local government employers. The Welsh fire and rescue authorities receive revenue funding for the service they provide from the principal councils within each brigade area. In turn, those councils receive revenue support from the National Assembly. However, the financial implications of devolution will be considered as part of wider discussions on the transfer of functions. My officials are in discussions with their counterparts in the Welsh Assembly to take the matter forward.

Will my hon. Friend acknowledge that in most rural areas of Wales, including Monmouthshire, the fire service is provided by the retained fire service? Many of those firefighters work full-time as well as working for the fire service. What improvement in the pay and conditions of the retained fire service will come about as a result of the recent modernisation?

My hon. Friend is right to highlight the important role that retained firefighters play in the fire service not just in Wales and rural areas, but across the country. The fire and rescue service White Paper spells out our commitment to ensure that retained firefighters and full-time firefighters get better pay and conditions. We have agreed a modernisation agenda, linked to pay, that will greatly improve the pay and conditions of those firefighters over the next two years.

Following on from that answer, there is difficulty in getting 24-hour cover in rural areas in Wales because of the problem of attracting retained firemen. Part of the solution is to encourage more women to participate in the service. Do the Government have plans to encourage more women to fulfil that vital public service?

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. We want a fire and rescue service that more closely reflects the communities that it serves. We want more women recruited, trained and deployed as firefighters in all ranks and to carry out all roles that firefighters are asked to play. The new role of firefighters—the focus on prevention—will, I think, attract more women to the fire service, where they will be involved fully in all the roles that every firefighter will be expected to perform under the modernisation procedures.

What plans he has to increase the national house-building programme; and if he will make a statement. [125862]

The national house-building programme is for 2.2 million houses, of which 930,000 houses are planned in the London, south-east and midlands areas by 2016. The step change that I announced to the House in the recent sustainable communities plan identified the fact that a further 200,000 new homes in London, the south-east and the midlands were needed to meet the high demand, and that represents a 20 per cent. increase.

I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his answer. On 9 June, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when making a statement about the euro, spoke about the need for extra housing over and above both the current supply and the Department's plans. How will the Deputy Prime Minister respond?

As the hon. Gentleman will know, the Chancellor initiated the Barker review to look at the mismatch in housing supply and demand. Indeed, there was a breakfast meeting this morning with all the stakeholders. We are clearly concerned to see what we can do, not only about house numbers within sustainable communities, but about the relevance of that matter to the debate on the entry into Europe to which the Chancellor referred.

Under the previous Administration, there was chronic under-investment in housing, but we have doubled investment. However, will my right hon. Friend consider the problem of overcrowding? I took one of his predecessors to see a family of 16 people who are living in two bedrooms. Will he review the overcrowding standard that dates from the 1930s and further increase investment in housing?

My hon. Friend is right to point out the problem, particularly in her constituency, of high demand and low levels of social housing, which was made much more difficult by the right-to-buy facility introduced at a cost of £40 billion in subsidies. We are changing those priorities, and more resources are being provided, as the step change demonstrates. However, I will not kid my hon. Friend—a considerable number of extra houses, both rented and new housing, need to be provided, and we are doing as much as we can to meet that demand.

Does the Deputy Prime Minister accept that his ambitious plans for house building will fail miserably unless there is a huge increase in the number of trained construction workers? Does he acknowledge that the Construction Industry Training Board estimates that in the next three years we need an extra 76,000 trained workers to enter the industry in each year? Why, therefore, has the Government's flagship scheme "Ambition: Construction" trained only 171 people in its first year?

The hon. Gentleman has a real point about the problem of training in the industry, which has existed for decades. It is a real problem, and we have to find a solution, but I am not sure that the solution is to abolish the Department, which is the Liberals' policy. However, the hon. Gentleman is quite right—construction is the one industry that still has a levy for training and still fails to provide enough trained people, whether builders, plumbers, electricians or other kinds of workers. The 175 people to whom he referred are taking part in training that is a return to the old kind of apprenticeship system, and we want that to continue. However, it will not meet the demand for housing or provide all the skilled labour that is required, which is why I am putting a great deal of emphasis on off-site manufacturing of houses—£250 million has been provided this year solely for houses built in that way. That relieves some of the pressure on the demand for skilled labour.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that any effective house-building programme should have at its heart the effective use of our brownfield sites? Bearing in mind his recent visit to the millennium village at Allerton Bywater, does he agree that that is a classic example of building on brownfield sites better to protect our green fields?

My hon. Friend is right. I enjoyed my visit to Allerton Bywater, which is on an old pit site and is one of the millennium villages that we planned. The site is difficult, but they are making great progress there, and I was very encouraged when I saw it. I noticed also that it has increased the green belt in that area. Using brownfield sites and increasing the green belt is in line with our policy.

Can the Deputy Prime Minister explain why, in the seventh year of this new Labour Government, house building is now at such a level that it led the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: Housing, Planning, Local Government and the Regions Committee to come up with a shocking statement in a recent report? It says:

"The number of homeless households in temporary accommodation is now the highest ever."

I take the hon. Gentleman's point about the Select Committee. I do not always agree with every analysis by every Select Committee and we have exchanges about that, but the hon. Gentleman is on to a fair point about the increase in homelessness. We inherited a difficult problem, as he recognises. Under the previous Government's housing policy, half a million homes were repossessed, 1.2 million households suffered from negative equity, there was a £19 billion backlog in local authority housing, and the Government's priority was £40 billion to subsidise the right-to-buy scheme. We had to change that. We are increasing the housing supply; we have reduced bed-and-breakfast accommodation and homelessness—

It has got worse.

Well, in a number of areas there has been an increase, but I can show that in the period since 1997 the position has improved. Under both Governments, not enough has been done. We have not provided enough houses. That is why we have embarked on a step change in the policy.

We are now in the seventh year of the new Labour Government, and the situation has got substantially worse. The same departmental Select Committee report states that we need to deliver an additional 35,000 affordable houses. How will the Government do that?

The step change seems to be a change in the Leader of the Opposition. We have had to reverse the situation. We have increased the number of houses being built and an ambitious programme is under way. We have dealt with the backlog of unfit housing—800,000 houses have been improved. We have a target to improve 1 million houses in a 10-year period, and we are on course to achieve that. We are improving rented accommodation, refurbishing council house estates and building new houses, but, as I have told the House time and again, it would be better if we could get a consensus on improvement, rather than the party-politicking that the hon. Gentleman obviously wants to pursue.

If he will make a statement on the role of his Department in promoting social inclusion. [125863]

The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister works with other Departments and local agencies to address the problems faced by deprived areas, in particular to tackle problems highlighted by the social exclusion unit. There has been important progress, including, for example, a 10 per cent. drop in teenage pregnancies over the past three years.

What message can my hon. Friend give to local authorities such as the London borough of Redbridge, run by the self-styled party for the vulnerable, which has abolished cabinet responsibility for social inclusion and torpedoed the project for promoting social inclusion?

I am sorry to hear that the council has not taken social exclusion seriously. There are unjust inequalities in this country. It is not fair that people's chances in life should depend on where they live and what jobs their parents do. There are a series of investment programmes to tackle social exclusion, including sure start. Wise local government works with those programmes, not just because they are good for those on low incomes, but because they are good for the whole community.

Does the Minister agree that one of the best ways to promote social inclusion is to incorporate affordable housing in high-income housing developments? Is she aware that significant numbers of developers are evading their planning obligations by building small, exclusive developments under the 14-house threshold? Will she address that anomaly urgently?

The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue, of which the Government are aware. There are discretionary powers for local government in that regard. It is an important matter that needs to be addressed. That is why the Government have a wide programme to promote affordable housing and housing for key workers in particular areas.

What progress his Department is making in meeting its decent homes target. [125864]

I am pleased to inform the House that the 2001 English house conditions survey report, published yesterday, shows that we have reduced the number of non-decent homes in the social sector by more than 700,000. When we came to power in 1997, we inherited a situation where there were about 2,300,000 non-decent social sector homes. Forward plans from local authorities show that we expect to meet our target of a one-third reduction by next year, and we are on track for all dwellings owned by local authorities and registered social landlords to meet the decent homes standard by 2010.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that the decent housing standard depends very much on the large-scale voluntary transfer programme, which has now slipped well below the target of 200,000 houses a year? What action are the Government taking to ensure that the programme continues, so that we can be assured in this Parliament that we will complete the improvement within the 10-year time scale?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is absolutely right that, in order to meet the decent homes target, a good measure of property transfer will be required. It is worth bearing it in mind that we have a spending programme for housing of £22 billion over the next few years. A number of local authorities believe that they will be able to deliver the decent homes target by using existing funding streams. Elsewhere, the programme of private finance initiative stock transfers and arm's length management organisations will be required. We are working very closely with local authorities and registered social landlords to, secure that objective, which we believe we will attain.

Is the Minister aware that a number of developments in my constituency that originally received a lot of local support have now become highly controversial on account of the relevant planning policy guidelines? In one case, density has been increased from roughly 60 to 150 houses. Surely, he should be trusting local planners and local people and not relying on blunt PPGs as an instrument.

We expect to co-operate with local planners, but the fact is that, under the previous Government, substantial bites were made into the green belt. This Government are committed to preserving the green belt. Indeed, no fewer than 30,000 hectares of green belt have been restored over the past six years. We believe that the future is to build as extensively as possible on brownfield sites, which will require high-density building. However, what we say above all is that we have to get away from the very poor quality of design that was so often implemented in the past under the previous Administration. We place the central requirement on decent design in high-density building.

What steps he is taking to implement the Liveability agenda in the development of sustainable communities. [125865]

Liveability, which is about the quality of our local environment—the streets, parks and open spaces—is at the heart of the sustainable communities plan that announced to the House a short while ago. We have increased the budget from which local authorities fund improvements to the local environment by more than £1 billion for the next three years. In addition, we have set aside an extra £201 million specifically to help transform our parks and green spaces and to improve urban design and skills—[Interruption.]

Order. There is a great deal of noise in the Chamber.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. Will he ensure that local authorities have the right powers to tackle the problems of graffiti, which blight the lives of people in my constituency and constituencies throughout the country?

The House is well aware of the campaign that my hon. Friend conducted for removing cars abandoned on the streets. We introduced powers to assist with the purposes of that campaign, which has helped every constituency. I am well aware of the survey that she recently conducted on tackling antisocial behaviour, which showed that crime had fallen by 27 per cent. in her constituency. We are looking closely at the other matters on which she is campaigning. If she is as successful as she was in getting the Government to introduce powers in respect of abandoned cars, her efforts will help to make improvements and to tackle graffiti and other problems of antisocial behaviour in her constituency.

In Altrincham and Sale, we do not have sufficient secondary school places for the number of families seeking places—yet flat building and infill development are progressing apace. The local authority says that planning guidance does not let it stop that building, as it cannot take into account the absence of school places. When will the Government take that into account and revise planning guidance accordingly?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, there is a great deal of discussion about the planning changes that are necessary to deal with some of the current deficiencies. Indeed, some of those changes feature in legislation that is currently before the House. As for investment in education, we are putting a considerable amount into education—[Interruption.] Well, I think that we have 25,000 more teachers, plus 80,000 helpers. Criticism from an Opposition who, when they were in government, slashed teacher numbers and the quality of education, is a bit too much to accept.

What estimate he has made of the cost to local authorities of administration of (a) council tax and (b) council tax benefit in 2002–03. [125866]

In 2002–03, council tax benefit administration costs in England totalled £205 million. Council tax collection costs totalled £318 million and have been decreasing in both absolute and real terms since council tax was introduced.

I thank the Minister for that answer. Given the huge increase in council tax in the current year and the costs of collection and administration that he describes, will the Department's balance of funding review consider not only the balance of funding, but the abolition of the council tax and its replacement with a fairer form of taxation such as local income tax?

As I said, council tax collection costs have gone down. We have all seen in the press the latest uncosted, ill-thought-through, back-of-a-fag-packet proposals of the Liberal Democrats, with a local income tax of 3p in the pound and a huge bureaucracy dumped on local government. We have devolved powers to Scotland, Wales, London and the English regions, and we have given a fairer deal to the council tax payer.

If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 16 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.

Does the Prime Minister share my concern that two thirds of the British people do not trust the Prime Minister?

I hope that what people do recognise is that a Government who have delivered the lowest inflation, lowest mortgage rates and lowest unemployment for decades, the best ever school results, and now record investment in the national health service, are a Government whom this country will be pleased to return at the next general election.

My constituents support the tougher sentences for murderers and sex offenders in the Criminal Justice Bill. Given what has been going on in the other place, can the Prime Minister assure me that, unlike Conservative Members, he is committed to seeing that Bill through?

We are committed to seeing it through. The behaviour of the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Opposition in opposing measures that will protect people in circumstances where there is an attempt to intimidate juries and where, as senior police officers are telling us, it is absolutely essential to deal with organised crime, is absolutely shameful.

The Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee has said that it is "most unlikely" that Dr. Kelly was the prime source for the story about the Government's manipulation of intelligence, and that he has been "poorly treated by the Government". Will the Prime Minister now apologise?

The Foreign Affairs Committee has given its opinion as to the source. We have said to the Ministry of Defence that we do not know who the source is. The BBC, however, is a position to know who the source is, and can surely say whether this man is that source.

The Prime Minister is rapidly becoming a stranger to the truth. On 10 July, The Times carried a quote from No. 10 saying that it was "99 per cent. convinced" that the Gilligan source was David Kelly. So No. 10 did believe that it was David Kelly. A Labour member of the Committee says that the civil servant has been used as a fall guy by the Government. This has all the fingerprints of Alastair Campbell, who is using the machinery of Government to pursue a personal vendetta. How long is the Prime Minister going to let this continue; or was Alastair Campbell correct when he said, "Tony couldn't cope without me"?

The Ministry of Defence has made it clear that of course it does not know who the source is—only one body does, and that is the BBC. If there is some doubt about it, it is very simple for the BBC to clear it up. I should have thought that it is perfectly obvious that all the BBC needs to do is simply to say yes or no. It can do that, so why does it not?

We have had Formula 1, Mittal, Hinduja, Robinson, Mandelson and now the dodgy dossiers. Alastair Campbell and the Prime Minister have created a culture of deceit and spin at the heart of Government. When will the Prime Minister realise that until he sacks Campbell, no one will believe a word that he says any more?

The right hon. Gentleman says that no one can believe us about Iraq, yet last year, he told us that he believed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction capability and that he fully supported action against Iraq—[Interruption.] The Conservatives are now apparently calling for a full-scale judicial inquiry into intelligence. Are they saying that they were duped and misled? The right hon. Gentleman supported action against Iraq. The Conservatives' current position is to claim that they were somehow misled over Iraq. The worst insult that I can level at them is that they are displaying opportunism worthy of the Liberal Democrats.

Since 2,000 skilled manufacturing jobs in east Yorkshire depend on a Government decision to award a contract to British Aerospace for Hawk jets, will my right hon. Friend make an early announcement to secure those jobs and provide a first-class British product for our military?

We are in the course of making a decision on the matter. Of course, we want to do our best for the British defence industry, but that must be done on a cost-competitive basis. We are balancing those two factors and when we reach a decision, we shall announce it in the normal way.

Given that the Prime Minister previously told me that he stands by the accuracy of the assertions in the original September dossier on Iraq and weapons of mass destruction, how does he square the warning about the 45-minute imminence of an attack with Dr. Kelly's evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee yesterday? Dr. Kelly has worked for the United Nations Special Commission as well as the Ministry of Defence. He said that such a scenario was very unlikely. Which is the correct version?

It is also worth pointing out that Dr. Kelly made it clear that he believed that Iraq had a weapons of mass destruction capability. In the September dossier, we said that we had received such intelligence. That was cleared by the Joint Intelligence Committee. The allegation that the claim had been inserted into the dossier against the wishes of the security services by No. 10 Downing street was completely untrue. Since the right hon. Gentleman and Liberal Democrat Members have made that allegation, perhaps he will now say that he agrees that it is false.

Given the evidence that was offered to the Committee yesterday, was the 45-minute warning based in substance and fact or not? The Prime Minister makes one claim, the expert before the Committee makes another. Does not the continuing contradiction underline the need for the Prime Minister to announce before the summer recess the establishment of a time-limited independent inquiry, under a judge, to get to the bottom of the matter in order to restore public confidence once and for all?

As I understand it, the basis of the call for a public inquiry is that an issue arose in relation to 45 minutes because we had inserted false information into the dossier. [Interruption.] Now Liberal Democrat Members claim that they had no intention of making such a claim. I emphasise to the right hon. Gentleman that the intelligence in the September dossier was cleared by the Joint Intelligence Committee. The basis of the claim—that the information was inserted into the dossier against the advice of the security services—is untrue. The right hon. Gentleman now says that he is not making that claim; he could have fooled me.

Following Monday's publication of the second and third reports into the Harold Shipman inquiry, does my right hon. Friend agree with Dame Janet that the death certification process and the coroner system require urgent and radical change? When will the Government publish their response to her inquiry?

We shall of course look very carefully at the recommendations that have been made. It is also extremely important that we recognise that the Shipman case, although absolutely horrific, does not in any shape or form reflect on the work that GPs do in this country, because the vast majority of them do a wonderful job for our national health service. I agree entirely, however, that we must scrutinise the recommendations very carefully, particularly those relating to coroners' courts.

As the Prime Minister's country home is in Buckinghamshire, he will no doubt be familiar with the pride that we take in our selective school system, and with the great results that all our children get in all our schools. With the Education Secretary renewing his threats against our grammar schools, will the Prime Minister confirm that he will stand by his word and will neither change the existing ballot system nor introduce legislation to abolish our grammar schools?

I certainly stand by what has been said, and I would also like to point out to the hon. Lady that no grammar school has been closed under this Government. I hope she realises that the most important thing is surely to look at the school results not just of the small number of schools that are selective but of the vast majority that are not. I hope that she will also acknowledge that, under this Government, results in the non-selective schools in her constituency have gone up hugely for primary school students, at GCSE and at A-level.

Is the Prime Minister aware of the document entitled "A Hard Day's Work Never Killed Anyone: Negligent Bosses Did", which was launched recently by the Transport and General Workers Union and which deals with the issue of corporate killing? What does the Prime Minister think about this document, and will he consider introducing a Bill in the next Parliament to deal with the issue of corporate killing?

As my hon. Friend knows, we have pledged to introduce legislation on this issue, although it is important to recognise that this is to do with corporate responsibility and that we do not believe that charges should be levelled against individual directors. This is an important issue, however, and we have made our position clear on it. I am not aware of the precise details of the TGWU document, but I shall read it now that my hon. Friend has drawn it to my attention.

What should patients do if their local hospital has no stars under the Government's rating system?

I hope that they will carry on supporting the work being done in those hospitals to improve them and to make their care better, and that they will realise that it is only as a result of what this Government have done that they even know what the proper estimate of their hospital is.

Would it not be better for patients simply to ignore the ratings gimmick? As the new chairman of the British Medical Association says of the ratings,

"they measure little more than hospitals' ability to meet political targets."

The range of indicators that the Commission for Health Improvement takes into account covers all sorts of things, including hospital infections. I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman has now pledged that the Conservative party will abolish targets. There are targets relating to cleanliness, to waiting, to the treatment of breast cancer, and to in-patient and out-patient treatment, and I think that they are fully justified. On the right hon. Gentleman's particular point, the whole range of indicators is taken into account in these circumstances. That is why it is sensible that we provide the CHI with that information. The right hon. Gentleman is now saying that he would deny it to the commission.

The statistic that I have just mentioned shows categorically that this whole set-up is a gimmick. It tells us all that we need to know about this Government and the way in which they run the health service. As the audit commissioner said, we now have "quick fixes" to meet Government targets, rather than long-term reforms to serve patients better. With an NHS that puts bureaucrats and targets ahead of patients and doctors, is it any wonder than no one believes a word that this Prime Minister says any more?

If the right hon. Gentleman says that these things do not matter, let us just have a look at his own constituency to see what the national health service has been doing as a result of the extra investment there. There has been a 38 per cent. reduction in waiting lists for in-patients and a 73 per cent. reduction in outpatient waiters over 13 weeks. [Interruption.] He says that he does not believe that. Perhaps he will tell us whether he thinks it is true that, on 21 June this year, a £2.5 million emergency medicine centre was opened at Whipps Cross hospital with 24 new medical assessment beds.

Nonsense.

Well, it is either there or it is not. I think that Conservative Members should go and have a look.

"The first [phase] is to persuade the public the NHS is not working"—

Order. I cannot hear what the Prime Minister is saying.

I am about to explain why we are not going to follow this policy. Okay? This is the policy that the Government are not going to follow. We are not going to follow a policy that states

"We've got a problem in this country where the NHS and health care have been synonymous. We're here to break that"

"That means we get money. raise money from people through tax, certainly by health insurance, and even more so it means from self-pay."

Community support officers are welcomed up and down the country because they make a large and visible contribution to local policing. In Wrexham, following the disturbances that we experienced last month, there is now a need for such policing. The local police and local people want community support officers immediately. Will the Prime Minister please have a quiet word with the Home Office, and ask it to implement this Labour policy as soon as possible?

We will certainly take account of what my hon. Friend has said. As he probably knows, there are many community support officers working throughout the country. I consider their link to antisocial behaviour orders very important. With the Anti-social Behaviour Bill coming into effect, and given our ability to take more effective action against antisocial behaviour, I think that the cause of community support officers, and increasing them—

How about more police?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that. I almost forgot to mention this, but he has reminded me. Yes, as well as more community support officers there are now record numbers of police officers.

Does the Prime Minister recall Harold Macmillan's famous dictum that no Prime Minister should be in conflict with the Brigade of Guards, the Church or the National Union of Mineworkers? This Prime Minister is now in conflict with the United Nations arms inspectors, the BBC and the Central Intelligence Agency. Is it any wonder that people are now beginning to ask whether the real problem is a dodgy dossier or a dodgy Prime Minister?

The hon. Gentleman prepared that one pretty carefully.

On 3 July, the Government finally admitted that they had not passed to the International Atomic Energy Agency the evidence on which the Prime Minister based his statement to the House that we know that Saddam has been trying to buy significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Is the Prime Minister not concerned that the failure of the source of that intelligence to pass it on to the IAEA for scrutiny constitutes a breach of article 10 of Security Council resolution 1441, and would he still use such words of absolute certainty today?

I stand by entirely the claim that was made last September. Let me make two points to my hon. Friend. First, as she knows, the intelligence on which we based that was not the so-called forged documents that have been put to the IAEA. The IAEA has accepted that it received no such forged documents from British intelligence: we had independent intelligence to that effect. Secondly, it may be worth pointing out to the House and to the public that it is not as if the link between Niger and Iraq was some invention of the CIA or Britain. We know that in the 1980s Iraq purchased more than 270 tonnes of uranium from Niger. Therefore, it is not beyond the bounds of possibility—let us at least put it like that—that Iraq went back to Niger again. That is why I stand by entirely the statement that was made in the September dossier.

Is it beyond the bounds of possibility that the Prime Minister will renege on his commitment to reduce the number of Scottish Members of Parliament at Westminster?

No, we made that commitment clear and we will of course carry it through.

Some 3,000 pensioners—among the least well-off in the constituency—are £30 a week better off as a result of the minimum income guarantee, over and above what they would have received under the old income support from the Tories. Some 5,000 more will know that thrift pays when the pension credit comes in later this year. What will my right hon. Friend do to ensure that people do claim those benefits?

There are already more than 1 million pensioner households on the new system, and of course we must ensure that the information gets to pensioners. In addition to all the other help that we are giving to the poorest pensioners—additional help with television licences for the over-75s, for example, the winter fuel allowance and so on—hundreds of thousands of people up and down the country will benefit from the new pension credit. That is why we remain committed to introducing it and will not do what the Conservatives would do—withdraw it and abolish it.

The Prime Minister now rests his case for war on Iraq on the successful removal of Saddam Hussein's evil regime. I supported the war and I applaud that success. Before the war, the Prime Minister explicitly ruled out regime change as a reason for war. Indeed, it was Iraq's weapons of mass destruction that were the casus belli. Can he now reassure the House that we and the people of this country were not duped, and that British soldiers were not sent to their deaths on a false premise?

I really am surprised that the hon. Gentleman and other Conservative Members now say that, because at the time—let us recall—they and their Front Benchers were urging me to take action on the issue of weapons of mass destruction, wholly outside the dossier and the evidence. I do not accept that people were misled at all. I stand entirely by what was in the dossier and, in case anyone should doubt that weapons of mass destruction were an issue that did not just preoccupy the British or American Governments, in resolution 1441 the whole of the UN Security Council—not just Britain and America—agreed that they were an issue. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman, like others, should wait for the Iraq survey group to complete its work and then we can judge this on the basis of evidence, not speculation.

My right hon. Friend is right to point out the significant progress that has been made in addressing poverty in the United Kingdom, including the winter fuel payment, the pension credit and the child tax credit, among others. Colleagues in this House and in the other place have asked for a meeting with my right hon. Friend to consider the matter of research into the income level necessary for healthy living. Will he agree to meet with us in the very near future to discuss that matter?

Of course I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend and his colleagues. It is worth pointing out that it is not only the working families tax credit and other benefits and tax credits that are assisting people. We have had a record increase in child benefit—up 25 per cent.—and for those on the disability income guarantee, we are helping some 133,000 of the poorest severely disabled people through the enhanced disability premium. This is all part of our attempt to make sure that we lift more people out of poverty. Already, since 1997, about half a million fewer children are in low-income households.

In 1998— [Interruption.]

Order. The House must allow the hon. Gentleman to be heard.

The Prime Minister and I have had a few differences over the years, but he was right to say, in 1998, that the level of homelessness was a source of shame. However, since 1997, the number of homeless families in priority need has risen from 102,000 to 125,000. Has he not failed some of the most vulnerable people in our society?

It is correct to say that homelessness remains a serious problem, but I would point out that the other side of the story is that we also gave commitments to cut the numbers of rough sleepers. We have achieved those commitments successfully.

Will my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister join me and, I hope, all Staffordshire Members on both sides of the House, in congratulating our local police on securing the biggest reduction in crime of any force in England and Wales over the past year? However, does he accept that people in our constituencies and communities want to see more police on the beat so that they can feel safe? Therefore, will he say what steps are the Government taking to cut crime and antisocial behaviour even more than they have cut them already?

First, I congratulate the Staffordshire police on their achievement in reducing crime in my hon. Friend's constituency. Whereas crime doubled when the Conservatives were in office, the British crime survey estimates show that crime has fallen by about 25 per cent. under this Government. However, the most important thing that we can do is not just to increase the number of police officers—which we are doing—but to introduce measures on criminal justice and antisocial behaviour. The Liberal Democrats oppose the antisocial behaviour measures. The Conservative party, as I said earlier, is resisting measures that will help to convict some of the worst organised criminals in this country. We cannot deal with crime unless we deal with organised crime as well.

Does the Prime Minister agree with his chief inspector of schools that the exam system should undergo major reform? Or does he agree with the head teachers in my constituency, who want stability for their students and not more disruption and uncertainty?

I certainly understand why the hon. Lady's head teachers, and others, say that they want stability. The Tomlinson report is a long-term look at what is happening in our exam system. Most people would like us to investigate that, to make sure that our exam system for 14 to 19-year-olds is up to the standard of other countries. Therefore, I do not think that it is wrong to have the report, and we will study its impact very carefully. However, I hope that the hon. Lady will agree that one of the things that her head teachers will welcome, despite the recent difficulties, is the record investment in our school system.

Last year, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry informed the House that the review of the transport arrangements for Royal Mail would increase the volume of mail delivered by rail. However, this month Royal Mail announced that it is to withdraw its rail operation in its entirety. That flies in the face of the Government's integrated transport policy and environmental policy. The basis of the decision has become increasingly open to scrutiny. The Government are the only shareholder in Royal Mail, so will my right hon. Friend undertake a swift review of the decision? Will he meet a cross-party delegation of MPs interested in the matter? The delegation will include representatives of the work force that is affected, which is facing a potential loss of 500 jobs.

I understand my hon. Friend's concerns, and I should be very happy to meet him and a delegation who will express those concerns in detail to me. The only thing that I hope that my hon. Friend realises is that the Government have to be very careful about interfering, and compelling a company—even one in which we are the shareholder—to do things that the company believes are not in its commercial interest. A careful balance has to be maintained in that respect.

Why is the Prime Minister so poorly briefed? When he told the House this morning about the effect of his colleagues in the Lords—many of them Labour—taking out clauses in the Criminal Justice Bill he said that that would lead to a problem with jury nobbling, and that defendants would not be able to have a trial by judge alone where jury nobbling had taken place. In fact, it was made clear in yesterday's Lords debate that that was one area about which there was complete unanimity that there should be legislation. In those circumstances, who writes the Prime Minister's dossier? Is it Mr. Campbell? Is that why the right hon. Gentleman spouts this rubbish?

I am astonished that the hon. Gentleman says that. As I understand it, the House of Lords is opposed to two elements. One relates to complex fraud trials, and is something that has been recommended over many, many years; otherwise, some of the worst criminals in the country get out of criminal charges. The second relates to intimidation. It is precisely in circumstances where the prosecution applies to the judge, saying that it believes that there is a risk of intimidation, that the judge has the power. That is the measure being opposed by the Conservative party and others, and they should cease their opposition to it.

I recently met a constituent, Mrs. Yvonne Weir, whose son Mark was tragically killed by a drunken driver who fled the scene. The driver was well over the limit and had previous convictions for drink-driving. He was jailed, but he could be out and free within two years. Mrs. Weir feels that the justice system has very much let her down. What will the Government do to mak sure that people who drink and drive and kill are properly punished?

First, I offer my condolences and, I am sure, those of the whole House to the family of my hon. Friend's constituent. This is a huge issue for many, many people and we are looking at whether stronger penalties, involving further use of re-testing, should be applied. Although it is true that deaths attributed to drink-driving have fallen by nearly 50 per cent. in the last decade, alcohol is still a factor in about one in eight of all fatal crashes in this country, so I think that there is a case for looking at the issue again. Along with the other measures to strengthen penalties in the criminal justice system, this is one of the issues that we will look at.