If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 10 September.

Before listing my engagements, I know the whole House will join with me in sending our deepest sympathy and condolences to the families of the British people-serving soldiers and others-who have lost their lives in Iraq since the House rose on 17 July. They were doing an extraordinary and heroic job in trying to bring normal and decent life to people in Iraq, and the whole country and their families can be immensely proud of them, even as they mourn them.

In particular, we should mention Fiona Watson, who was a servant of this House for many years with very distinguished service, and someone who is not British, the United Nations Special Representative Sergio de Mello, who tragically lost his life in the terrorist outrage on the United Nations building.

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

Conservative Members echo the Prime Minister's initial words. Given the disastrous summer that he and his Government have had, what is his definition of "deceit"?

We all know what that is. As to the summer, it is important to recognise that the British economy is in better shape than virtually any other. There have been 1.5 million extra jobs since we came to power, we have had the best ever school results, a further fall in waiting lists, a halving of the number of asylum seekers, and we now have the pensioner tax credit, which gives help to pensioners for them to look forward to.

Will my right hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to my constituent Fusilier Russell Beeston, following his funeral yesterday?

Certainly, we join my hon. Friend in offering our deep sympathy and condolences to the family of his constituent, as I am sure will everyone in the House.

May I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to our servicemen out in Iraq who are risking their lives, and particularly to the families of those servicemen who have lost their lives? It is also worth reflecting on the fact that one of our hon. Friends is still serving in those dangerous zones.

If it becomes clear that the Secretary of State for Defence misled the Intelligence and Security Committee, will the Prime Minister dismiss him?

I think it quite wrong that we make any assumptions until we see the Intelligence and Security Committee report, which is to be presented to me tomorrow. It would be wrong to comment on it before that is done.

Senior Downing street officials are already spinning their version of the leak. It is in the newspaper report. The point is that with new troop deployments in Iraq, surely it is absolutely essential that there be complete confidence in the Defence Secretary? How can the Prime Minister justify leaving him twisting in the wind, when it is in his power to end all the uncertainty and speculation and publish the report right now?

On the right hon. Gentleman's first point, if he has evidence that somebody from Downing street has put the report into the newspapers, perhaps he would produce it now, because I believe that to be completely untrue.

In respect of the Defence Secretary, we should recognise that over these past few months, under his leadership in the Ministry of Defence, we have won a magnificent victory in Iraq; our troops are now engaged heroically in rebuilding that country; and, if I may repeat what I said to the right hon. Gentleman, we should see what the Intelligence and Security Committee, and, indeed, the Hutton inquiry, say when the reports are published.

The Prime Minister knows very well that his own officials are briefing on it even as we stand here. Is not the leaked report another nail in the coffin of this Government?

You can get rid of Campbell; you can even get rid of the Defence Secretary. But the lying and the spinning will not stop until we get rid of this Prime Minister.

It is a measure of the right hon. Gentleman's objectivity that he has decided what the report says before it has actually been published. [Interruption] It is no use holding up a piece of paper. Why does the right hon. Gentleman not wait until the report is actually published tomorrow? It is to be presented to me by the Committee. Perhaps in the light of that report tomorrow the right hon. Gentleman can make his comments clear. I simply say to him that, rather than deciding what that report or the report of the Hutton inquiry says before it is published, we should actually wait and see and not make up our minds beforehand.

Today, booklets published by Tory-controlled Hertfordshire county council have been landing on the doormats of parents all over Watford who are due to send their children to school next September, telling them that consultations have taken place on the closure of Leavesden Green school and that the last intake of pupils will be in January next year. In fact no formal consultation has taken place, and councils have not even voted on the issue. The community is overwhelmingly against the proposal.

This is an outrageous deceit of the community, and an insult to democracy. Will my right hon. Friend ensure—[Interruption.]

Order. I think the Prime Minister can answer.

Obviously I am not aware of the details of the consultation in my hon. Friend's constituency, but I think she has made a powerful case.

When President Bush delivered his televised address to the United States a couple of days ago, he specifically chose not to refer once to weapons of mass destruction. Does that mean that we can now expect the Prime Minister to follow suit?

No. The reason we went to conflict is absolutely clear—the evidence of weapons of mass destruction. We should allow the Iraq survey group to do its work; but as I have said to the right hon. Gentleman on many occasions, the notion that the issue of Iraq and weapons of mass destruction was invented by British or American intelligence is absurd.

I remind the right hon. Gentleman that last November the whole United Nations came together and agreed that as a result of Saddam and his attempts to develop weapons of mass destruction, he was a security threat to the entire world. This is not an issue to do with British or American intelligence. It has to do with the stated facts, mainly contained in UN weapons inspectors' reports.

Given that the position in Iraq remains dangerously unstable, given that Iraqi citizens are still being denied basic necessities and resources, and recognising—as the British public do-the need to bolster the safety of our forces in the country, does the Prime Minister not realise that what the public also seek from the Government is a clear lead in the attempt to internationalise the situation there under the auspices and authority of the UN itself?

Today there are already more non-US and non-UK troops in Iraq than there are UK troops—some 15,000. The new UN resolution will help to bring in further troops. It is true that the situation in Iraq is extremely difficult, but it is worth pointing out that much progress has been made. For example, all the hospitals are now open and functioning, and some 5.5 million children managed to take their end-of-year exams in June and July for the first time in ages. It is also the case that we are doing our level best to get the country back on its feet. We now have an Iraqi governing council that actually represents the people of Iraq.

The right hon. Gentleman says, "Should we not be worried about the situation?" Yes, of course we should, but the answer is not to run away from Iraq. The answer is not to turn our back on the task. The answer is to see the task through, because it was the right thing to do at the time, it is the right thing to do now, and we will get the job done.

If he will discuss the military position in Iraq with President Bush.

I have regular discussions with President Bush on a wide range of issues, and of course that includes the continuing military operations in Iraq.

In the light of the letter from Captain Peter Kimm, Royal Navy retired, to which I drew the Prime Minister's attention on Monday-it was published in The Times on 29 August—did certain of the chiefs of staff, led by the then chief of defence staff, without the knowledge of the chief of air staff, express their unease to the Prime Minister on Sunday 9 March about going to war in Iraq, not least in relation to the legality of what he and President Bush were asking the forces to do?

No, that is not correct-none of the chiefs of staff expressed such unease to me. If I may I shall quote to my hon. Friend from the then chief of air staff, Air Chief Marshal Sir Peter Squire, who said on 31 August:

"As far as I am concerned there's absolutely no truth in it whatsoever."

May I thank the Prime Minister for paying tribute to those who have died in Iraq, and draw his attention to the case of Ian Rimell of Kidderminster, a bomb disposal expert who was working for the Mines Advisory Group? He was murdered while driving home from his work defusing shells, while in a clearly marked MAG vehicle. May I also ask the Prime Minister to express his sympathy to Mr. Rimell's wife and three grown-up children, who are devastated by this pointless loss, which was not due to his work? Does the Prime Minister agree with me that the only fitting memorial for Ian Rimell is the establishment of a humanitarian, protected zone for workers who are doing this crucial business of defusing mines and shells? Will he consider instituting that?

I am deeply saddened to learn of the death of Ian Rimell and of the serious wounding of his colleague Salim Ahmed Mohammed, which took place near Mosul on 4 September. I pay tribute to Ian Rimell and to the other people doing similar work in Iraq.

UK and Danish teams have to date cleared some 350,000 unexploded munitions in Iraq, and it is worth while mentioning that as well as our serving soldiers, there are many people in Iraq from non-governmental organisations they are doing tremendous humanitarian work—whose lives are also at risk. I have to say, however,that their lives are at risk from people who do not recognise any humanitarian zone, and who do not recognise any concept of humanitarian protection. These are people who have committed outrages on the United Nations and on people worshipping at the mosque in Iraq. These people are terrorists who want to stand in the way of precisely the type of Iraq that Ian Rimell and others wanted to see. The best memorial to him, in my view, would be to make sure that we see the job done and create an Iraq that is stable, democratic and prosperous.

Antisocial behaviour, often fuelled by under-age drinking, continues to blight many of our areas. Will my right hon. Friend join me in urging the police to take tougher action to combat drinking on our streets, particularly by juveniles?

The provisions of the Licensing Act 2003, which I think come into effect today, will give the police additional powers in respect of the abuse of alcohol, and in particular in respect of cracking down on antisocial behaviour caused by alcohol. These measures, along with the other measures in the legislation that we are introducing on antisocial behaviour, give the police hugely important additional powers in dealing with what is, in many constituencies up and down the country, the single biggest issue of concern to people.

Given that the Prime Minister has a copy of the Intelligence and Security Committee report, what reason does he give for not publishing it today?

The proper procedure is that the Intelligence and Security Committee present the report to me tomorrow. That is the right way of doing it, and it should be done in accordance with the procedure that we laid out. It would be quite wrong of us to do it in any other way.

Prime Minister you are an outstanding example of a Scot who has benefited from coming south to study at one of the UK's most prestigious universities. Will you accept that concern exists that the top-up fees proposal will deter Scots from following suit, and create a golden triangle of research-based universities in the south-east, to the great disadvantage of universities throughout the UK? Recent polls have shown that 80 per cent. of people are opposed to the proposal. Will my right hon. Friend now think again?

What surely is important is that universities get additional access to funds, either from the taxpayer or through a contribution from students once they graduate. It is also important that we widen access so that more and more people go to university. We have said that we want half of all school leavers in this country to go to university, but we cannot do that unless we extend the funds available to universities. That is precisely why it is important that we proceed with the reforms that we have set out. It would be disastrous to adopt, for example, the policies of the Conservative party, which would mean 100,000 fewer students going to university every year.

In public, the Government say that the European constitution is just a tidying-up exercise. In private, we know that the Prime Minister has said that it is absolutely fundamental and will define the relationship between Britain and the rest of Europe for generations. Which of these two faces of the Government should we believe?

Of course the outcome of the convention is absolutely fundamental, which is why it is right that we secured the positions on foreign policy, defence and tax that preserve Britain's identity as a nation state, at the same time as making the changes necessary so that Europe at 25 can govern itself and operate effectively. That is why the draft constitution for Europe is good for Europe and for Britain, and essential if we are to make enlargement work and secure British interests.

Earlier this year, the Prime Minister said that if the European constitution were about fundamental change, he would hold a referendum. He has told his Cabinet in secret that it is absolutely fundamental. So where is the referendum?

The outcome of the constitution, of course, is fundamental, which is why it is important that we have secured the positions that we set out. What I said to the right hon. Gentleman was that if we ended up in a situation where we were giving up, for example, our right to set our own tax rates, it would be appalling; but we are not. The right hon. Gentleman is opposed to any constitution in Europe at all and would veto it. We see that that is what the Conservatives nod their heads to. Let us try the old game with him: there are 25 Governments in Europe, some Labour, some Conservative. Name me one that is in favour of his position.

What is absolutely clear is that the Prime Minister says one thing to his Cabinet and another thing to everyone else. Whether it is the Kelly tragedy or the TUC speech that he never actually delivered—[Interruption.]

Order. The House must allow the Leader of the Opposition to speak. [Interruption.] Mr. King, you must be quiet.

They do not want to hear it because it is true. Whether it is the Kelly tragedy, las night's TUC speech that he did not actually deliver or the deliberate deceit about the European constitution, is it not true, now as ever, that no one will ever believe a word that the Prime Minister says any more?

In relation to the European constitution, I note that the right hon. Gentleman could not tell us a single other Government who support his position. So that the country understands, his position would mean that he would go to the conference in Italy in a few weeks and veto the whole thing. No one else would support him and the Conservatives would then get to where they want to be: saying that Britain should get out of the EU. That is their game; it is what they want.

On trust, the additional jobs in our economy are important, as are the lowest inflation and mortgage rates. The fact that we have the lowest long-term unemployment in this country for more than 30 years is important, as is the fact that we have 25,000 extra teachers and 50,000 extra nurses. Also, the fact that every single aspect of NHS waiting is better than in 1997 is important. That is what we were elected to do and what we will continue to do.

I welcome the publication of the Green Paper "Every Child Matters", which seeks to address the problems, issues and failures highlighted in the Laming report. I welcome also the proposal for a children's commissioner. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that sufficient parliamentary time is available to get this measure through as quickly as possible? Will he ensure also that there are clear lines of accountability for the welfare of our children in the future?

I think that the proposals that we set out in the Green Paper on children will help enormously. I know that my hon. Friend would want to put the proposals for the children's commissioner alongside the other measures that the Government are taking to help some of the most disadvantaged children in our country. The sure start programme has, I believe, been enormously successful along with additional child benefit, the working families tax credit, free nursery education and more child care places for many families in the most disadvantaged parts of our country. Step by step we are trying to create a situation in which no child is denied the opportunity to make the most of their abilities, but that can be done only if we keep the investment going through to our local communities.

Given that the Prime Minister is one of the few people left in Britain who does not think that the September 2002 dossier was sexed up—

He had an e-mail from Gilligan!

Can the Prime Minister explain how inserting chemical and biological material into battlefield mortar shells or small calibre weaponry poses a threat to the region or the stability of the world?

First, in respect of allegations about the dossier, perhaps it would be right to wait for the publication of the Intelligence and Security Committee report tomorrow and, indeed, the Hutton inquiry report at a later time. In respect of the Conservatives' position, however, their opportunism on the issue of Iraq is absolutely unbelievable. Here they are, yet as I recall it, they as a political party were urging me to take action against Saddam. The right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) was urging that long before the dossier even came along. Now they go around the country saying that we were duped and misled by this terrible Prime Minister who got us into the situation of conflict. What they should learn over time is that, if they want to be an effective Opposition-never mind an effective Government—a little less opportunism would be a good idea.

The Prime Minister will he aware of my one-and-a-half hour Adjournment debate this afternoon on seaside town regeneration, and I hope that he finds time in his busy schedule to attend it. Failing that, will he support the calls for a dedicated Minister to be responsible for seaside town regeneration? Will he also support the call for ring-fenced funding for seaside regeneration similar to the amounts given to coal, steel, rural and inner city communities?

Actually, I am aware of my hon. Friend's Adjournment debate—it is on the Order Paper. It is worth pointing out to my hon. Friend that, for the first time, we are making sure that seaside towns, some of which may be relatively prosperous, but many of which have real pockets of deprivation and poverty, are eligible for assistance. My hon. Friend will know that there are two communities in the area that he represents which have had hundreds of thousands of pounds of funding, and we obviously want to do anything more that we can to assist them. The fact that these seaside towns are now recognised as suitable for the new deal for the regeneration of local communities shows that we recognise that although, as I said, there is prosperity among parts of our seaside communities, there is also a great deal of poverty and deprivation.

Why are the Government currently borrowing at the rate of £35 billion a year, when only four months ago the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the figure was £24 billion?

The hon. Gentleman should wait for the pre-Budget report for the figures, but if he looks at the debt:GDP ratio, it is a darn sight better than it was when his Government were in power. I seem to recall that he was a Minister in the previous Conservative Government when interest rates were between 10 per cent. and 15 per cent., 3 million people were unemployed, and borrowing reached £80 billion. Whoever else can give us lessons on prudent finance, it is certainly not the hon. Gentleman.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the reasons for the relative lack of interest on the part of the British people in the European Union is the widespread belief that it is effectively the fiefdom of the political elite? In addition to other good reasons for holding a referendum on the new constitution, would not such a move instil greater interest among the British people in EU matters and effectively show them that their views really do matter on these vital issues?

I think that my hon. Friend should have a little more faith in our parliamentary debates to deal with the issues. In joining with the Conservatives and calling for a referendum, he should bear in mind the fact that Ted Heath did not have a referendum when he took us into the European Community, nor did Margaret Thatcher on the Single European Act, nor did John Major on Maastricht. I repeat that if there were a change in the fundamental nature of our constitution, a referendum would be right, but there is not. My hon. Friend should realise that Opposition Members who call for a referendum want it as the first step in a two-step process to get us out of Europe—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, they do—[Interruption]

Order. It seems that every time the Prime Minister stands, some hon. Members want to shout. That will not be allowed and I will not tolerate it.

I was merely pointing out gently that the Conservative party proposal—which we will not follow as a Government, which is why I comment on it—is a two-stage process, first to paralyse Europe and then to withdraw. That would be a disaster for our country.

For each of the past six years under Labour, the tax burden has been higher than the one that it inherited. In the interests of the British taxpayer, will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to rule out further increases in national insurance contributions in this Parliament?

First, if the hon. Gentleman looks at the Conservative Government as a whole, he will see that the tax burden was higher than at present in most of the years for which Mrs. Thatcher was in office, at least. Secondly, I make no apologies for raising national insurance. It was a difficult decision, but it was the right decision because it allows us to put extra investment into our national health service. If the Conservatives oppose that tax increase, perhaps they would say how they would fund the extra investment in the health service that is delivering better cancer care, better cardiac care and reduced waiting lists.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Denby Poultry Products factory in my constituency has been at the centre of a massive meat fraud conspiracy that released tonnes of condemned poultry waste to shops, hospitals and schools? Will he take urgent action on failings in the meat inspection system and the legislative framework identified by Amber Valley council officers and Derbyshire police, and will he congratulate them on their persistence in pursuing the case over several years and securing the convictions of six men involved in that appalling conspiracy?

I agree. My hon. Friend makes an extremely import ant point about the importing and exporting of illegal meat products. That is the reason why the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Customs and Excise have been working hard on the issue. I assure her that we will continue to take every possible action to stamp the practice out.

As the Prime Minister has ruled out a referendum on the European constitution, despite the fact that it is absolutely fundamental—as he said today—will he give a complete undertaking that if the other place rejects the proposals, he will not apply the Parliament Act?

We will maintain the position that we have set out because we believe it to be right. I repeat that the outcome of the constitution process is, of course, absolutely fundamental, but it is the right outcome for us. If we were to give any of our main positions away—on foreign policy, defence or tax—it would be a different matter. But we are not going to do that. We are going to secure every single one of those red lines. We have already principally done so in the outcome of the Convention and we will do it again at the intergovernmental conference. The hon. Gentleman and others should be honest about their position. They want to veto the European constitution, which would end up paralysing progress in Europe, as the first step to getting Britain out. That is a position that we as a Government will not adopt.

I have several successful manufacturing companies in my constituency, including New Balance, which produces world-class athletics shoes, and M-Sport, which produces the very successful Ford rallying car that recently won world championship rallies in Finland and Greece. However, some manufacturing companies are struggling. What more can the Government do to help and support our manufacturing industry?

It is true that the manufacturing sector in our country has been through difficult times, as has the manufacturing sector in the major countries round the world. Indeed, manufacturing output has fallen by 1.5 per cent. in the US, 2 per cent. in Germany and 3.5 per cent. in Italy, so obviously the situation is not confined to us. I have to say, however, that the most recent figures on manufacturing output show an upturn. The most important thing is to carry on with the investment in the measures that will improve skills and productivity, and science and technology, and with the research and development tax credits introduced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. Above all else, we must maintain our economy's stability because, in the end, manufacturing—like any other part of our economy—depends on that stability in order to make progress.

Three years ago, the Government stated unequivocally that they would veto any attempt to incorporate the European charter of fundamental rights in EU law. Yesterday, the Government said that they would horse-trade on incorporation at the intergovernmental conference. Given that history, what confidence can the British people have that the remaining so-called "red-lined" areas—defence, foreign policy and taxation—will not be sold out in the same way, either at the IGC or later?

We made it clear that we will not sell out the issue of the European charter on fundamental rights. There is no way that that should extend the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. In my view, that position will be secured at the IGC that is coming up. I have to say to the hon. Gentleman and other Opposition Members that, overall, this constitution is right. If we expand Europe from 15 members to 25, we must have a more effective and efficient way of working. If we simply sit there and say no to everything coming out of Europe—to extensions of qualified majority voting even when that is in our interests, to the first involvement of national Parliaments, or to a full-time President of the Council which will hugely strengthen the nation state—we will not advance this country's interests, but betray them.