What steps he is taking to create a more normal security environment. [121142]

The Government are committed to the normalisation of security arrangements in Northern Ireland, consistent with the threat level. Major progress has already been made. On the basis of his assessment of the overall threat level, and following the recent IRA statement, the Chief Constable last week announced a series of normalisation measures. A further review of possible normalisation steps will be conducted in three months' time.

Will my right hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to the many casualties of the troubles, particularly those among our armed services? Does he take heart from a recent BBC poll which showed, for the first time, that a majority of people in Northern Ireland believe that the war is over? Can he assure the House that the improved climate of peace can take us a long way to ensuring that the tragic losses of the past need not be repeated?

I thank my hon. Friend for his questions. He was right to say that there have been far too many deaths and casualties over the past 30 years. We take encouragement from opinion polls showing that the people are heartened and determined to see the peace process through. They are clearly calling on their politicians to find a resolution to the difficulties. People want the improved climate of peace, and they want that peace to last for themselves, their children and the children of future generations.

Does the Minister agree that the recent sad increase in paramilitary beatings underlines the importance of progressing with and implementing the main thrust of the Patten proposals, to ensure that the rule of law replaces the lawless, brutal rule of paramilitary groups in some parts of the Province?

Paramilitary assaults are a gross abuse of human rights and a denial of civil liberties. They have no place in a democratic society and everyone committed to a peaceful future must roundly condemn them. I echo the sentiments expressed by the hon. Gentleman.

Is the Minister aware of grave concern in my constituency following the announcement that the Progressive Unionist party office was harbouring terrorist weapons, including batons that could be used to beat up people? Will he announce that he is reconsidering the Government's talks with the PUP as a Belfast agreement party? Will he take steps to censure the PUP for its terrible breach of security?

First, it is correct to congratulate the Royal Ulster Constabulary on its find. As ever, the RUC has been vigilant, and we should pay tribute to its achievements. Secondly, this is a matter for police investigation, and it would be wrong of me to comment while the police are considering what they have found and all that flows from the find. We should not jump to conclusions before we have all the facts. I note the hon. Gentleman's remarks on the implications, but no one should doubt that we will not tolerate paramilitary activity from any side of the community in Northern Ireland.

My right hon. Friend will be aware of recent speculation about the meanings of "deactivation" and "decommissioning". Can he confirm my understanding that those two processes are not the same thing, but part of a two-stage process to put arms totally beyond use?

The short answer is "absolutely". They are separate approaches. We hope that we have embarked on the first stage and that we shall move inexorably towards the later stages and the removal of illegally held weapons from Northern Ireland, now and in the future.

Does the Minister agree that people would have more confidence in the return of normal security if those who had committed crimes were brought to justice? Does he realise that many of my constituents are deeply concerned that those who committed the Omagh bombing have not been brought to book? Even though the police and the Gardai know who those people were, they appear unable to bring them to justice. Is not some change in the law required so that those who commit such crimes are certain to be brought to justice?

The hon. Gentleman has touched on an important issue. It behoves everyone who wants a peaceful future for Northern Ireland to co-operate with the forces of justice and law and order. Anyone who has information or evidence should give it to those who have the authority and responsibility for bringing people to justice. It is a great tragedy that no one has yet been made amenable in Northern Ireland for the terrible crime that was committed at Omagh. My earlier comments of course apply to that tragedy, as they do to every other terrorist and paramilitary crime that has been committed in Northern Ireland. It is better that people co-operate with the law than talk about changes to the law.

Will the Minister confirm or deny newspaper reports that the proposals set out in the recent IRA statement had been made previously, were referred to in the unpublished de Chastelain report, and were then rejected?

I do not think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman expects me to comment on newspaper reports. I am sure that he would not have done so when he was a Minister. We are moving forward much more rapidly than we have hitherto, and progress is being made. I would have hoped that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would have the grace to recognise and welcome that, as his Front Bench has, and to give support to everyone who is trying to make the process work.

Does the Minister agree that the best way to create a more normal security environment is to obtain the decommissioning of the illegally held arms of private armies? Will he again assure the House that no changes in the security arrangements will be made without the full concurrence of the Chief Constable and the General Officer Commanding?

I think that I made it clear in my first reply that the answer is yes. The Chief Constable makes his assessment, and he advises the Secretary of State and myself. The General Officer Commanding is also consulted, and the best security advice available is taken. The announcements on the recent normalisation steps were made by the Chief Constable. He indicated that if the threat level improved, further announcements could be made in three months or perhaps even earlier.

What proposals he has for continued cross-border co-operation on health. [121144]

There has been a long and productive history of cross-border co-operation on health and social services matters, which has brought positive benefits to the people living in both jurisdictions. This will continue across a range of services including health promotion, food safety and cancer research.

The all-party group on the Irish in Britain recently considered the matter of health and is keen to encourage the sharing of best practice between clinicians. Will my hon. Friend assure us that cross-border co-operation will enable the sharing of best practice between clinicians north and south, and that there may be some prospect of financial support for organisations, particularly voluntary organisations, that encourage the sharing of best practice?

There are already significant clinical links between health services, both north and south. I accept that there is scope to develop those links further, particularly when it comes to sharing clinical practices and exchanging information. We believe that such co-operation has the potential to contribute to the quality and effectiveness of services on both sides of the border. Together with Ministers from the south, I have been anxious to promote such co-operation.

The Minister has underlined that which is well known. Over the years, long before modern times, there has been good co-operation. It is equally true that when the board in Cork decided to purchase facilities in the Royal Victoria hospital, the local people objected.

If the hon. Gentleman has any evidence to support that contention, I would be happy to look at it. He will agree that when someone is ill and needs attention, they do not object to receiving the most appropriate treatment in either the north or the Republic if there are appropriate exchange arrangements. Where one gets the best possible treatment is not an ideological issue, and co-operation is logical and sensible in delivering those objectives.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the cancer care services agreement signed last autumn with the Republic of Ireland and the Washington-based Institute of Cancer heralds a great future for health services in Northern Ireland and shows that cross-border initiatives are extremely important? Does not that give fresh impetus to the need for the political talks that are taking place in a few days to ensure the restoration of the Executive, so that the people of Northern Ireland can look forward not just to more peace, but to more security and prosperity?

I agree with my hon. Friend, whom I congratulate on being the Minister responsible for taking that initiative forward. I had the good fortune last autumn to sign the memorandum of understanding between ourselves, the Americans and the Republic of Ireland, which, because of the severe cancer problems in Northern Ireland and much of the south, is a positive development. That is a good example of how co-operation can bring force to dealing with the serious health problems that exist in the north and the south. It is important that we continue along those lines.

What progress he has made towards the re-establishment of devolved government in Northern Ireland. [121145]

As I explained in my statement to the House on 8 May, devolved government will be restored on 22 May, subject to a positive response to the proposals set out in the joint statement issued by the British and Irish Governments on 5 May, and the statement then made by the Provisional IRA.

Does the Secretary of State understand that the cornerstone and sure foundation of any democratic government, be it devolved or national, is the impartial and universal application of the rule of law? In that connection, rather than condoning the maintenance of terrorist weapons, will he insist on their elimination from society at the earliest possible date—because that elimination is infinitely more important than the institution of a Government who are subject to the threats and intimidation that the maintenance of stockpiles of weapons provides? Foreign visitors and inspectors are all very well, but the maintenance of that threat to democracy is deeply perturbing.

I need no encouragement from the hon. Gentleman to restate my firm commitment to the rule of law throughout the United Kingdom. I agree that the aim must be for democracy to flourish in all parts of the UK. We need all paramilitary organisations to stand down and all arms—wherever they are held—to be completely and verifiably put beyond use. What is unprecedented about the situation now is that we have the real prospect of returning power to Northern Ireland and of making real and substantive progress on arms. Both objectives are ones for which Unionists have rightly held out. They should seize the credit for the progress that has been made.

Can the Secretary of State clarify his intention about a name for the police force in Northern Ireland, as that is a matter of considerable dispute? The longer there is without clarity, the greater the problems are likely to be. It would help if we knew what it is to be.

Two of Patten's stated objectives were that the RUC should not be disbanded and that the police service in future must be capable of attracting recruits from all parts of the community. We need to judge the future name against both those objectives. The Police (Northern Ireland) Bill requires me to consult the policing board before reaching a final decision on the name. I believe that the sensible way forward is to provide a legal description in the Bill which incorporates the Royal Ulster Constabulary, in effect the title deeds of the new service, while introducing a new name that will be used for all working and operational purposes. The Police Service of Northern Ireland is the best suggestion so far. In that way we should be able to meet both of Patten's correct objectives.

In view of the further unhelpful intervention this morning from the south of Ireland Foreign Minister, Mr. Cowen, when he condemned the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill which is before the House, does the Secretary of State think that he would enjoy less harassment if, instead of struggling to restore devolution, we continued with direct rule?

No, I do not think that it would be in the interest of Northern Ireland or all those in every part the community there for direct rule to continue. For politics to flourish, locally elected and accountable politicians, taking responsibility for local decisions, is by far the best course for Northern Ireland's government in the future. I believe that we now have the prospect of reinstituting the devolved Administration and making real, lasting and permanent progress in the removal for ever of arms from Northern Ireland politics. We should seize that opportunity for fear that, if it slips from our grasp now, we may not be able to recreate it in the future.

Does the Secretary of State agree that the only true and lasting basis for the re-establishment of devolution in Northern Ireland would be on the basis of the accord reached between the two Governments and the parties participating? Does he agree that the only accord in existence is that obtained at Hillsborough on 5 May, and that that is the basis upon which re-establishment should take place? Does he also agree that a Government entering into further unilateral negotiations with a single party is creating an element of distrust which is diametrically opposed to the possibility of that accord being sustained in the immediate future?

No. I think that it is as well for all politicians, political leaders and parties in Northern Ireland to clarify to the maximum extent exactly what the two Government statements meant and what actions and progress would ensue from the agreement. The Government intend to implement the Good Friday agreement in full. That is what is at the heart of the accord and the joint statements made by the two Governments. It is the essential political context in which we can restore the devolved institutions and make the necessary progress on arms. Implementation of the Good Friday agreement is essential and it is what the Government will press on with come what may.

As the Secretary of State is aware, we hope that there will be circumstances that allow for the setting up of the devolved Executive next week. On the assumption that that happens, the House needs to be clear about the right hon. Gentleman's position on suspension. He will be aware that there have been numerous reports in the Dublin press that some deal has been done with the Irish Government so that if there is default, he cannot suspend the Executive, as he rightly did a couple of months ago.

I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his good news, which we have learned today. It would be churlish of me to say that I am looking forward to his paternity leave. We wait to see what decision he makes.

May I press the Secretary of State further? We want an assurance that he has given no private undertaking that, in the unhappy circumstance of there having been breaches of the arrangements, he will not suspend? May we have a categorical assurance that Dublin has no veto on this or any other matter, and that if it is necessary he will be prepared to suspend the Executive as he rightly did some two months ago?

There has been absolutely no agreement or understanding with the Irish Government of the sort that the right hon. Gentleman has described. Obviously, if the worst comes to the worst, I will want to consult all the parties and the Irish Government—I do not intend to act unilaterally, without consulting people, or in a precipitate way—but at the end of the day, if the institutions are collapsing, I must ensure the good governance of Northern Ireland, and I will do so.

What assessment he has made of the impact of the Budget on small and medium-sized enterprises in Northern Ireland.

There can be no question but that the Budget announcement will help the growth of small and medium-sized enterprises in Northern Ireland, through encouraging competitiveness and innovation and through the use of e-commerce. That, of course, will be on top of the announcement made this morning by LEDU—the Local Economic Development Unit, which is Northern Ireland's small business agency—that more than 3,000 jobs were created and more than 1,200 new businesses were set up last year alone. That is all good news for Northern Ireland.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that while those Budget measures are beneficial and welcome in Northern Ireland, as elsewhere in the United Kingdom, the Northern Ireland economy needs stability, peace and confidence, and that to that extent the measures that he is putting in place are just as important as those put in place by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor? Does he further agree that in Northern Ireland there is a particular issue about research and development expenditure in the small firms sector, which is lower than in any other region of the UK? What steps does he propose to take to remedy that?

I agree with my hon. Friend's earlier comments. He is right to talk about confidence and stability being essential to help businesses to grow. Peace is undoubtedly another important ingredient, which we are striving to achieve.

What information he has supplied and what representations he has made to the Irish Government with regard to suspected collusion between members of the Irish police and terrorist organisations. [121149]

The Government keep in regular contact with the Irish Government on security-related matters. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recently wrote to the Irish Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform following his announcement in the Dail on 13 April of an internal Garda investigation into allegations of Garda-PIRA collusion. That followed previous representations to the Irish Government in November and December last year—[Interruption.] The Government welcome the investigation and hope that it will be concluded thoroughly and speedily. [Interruption.]

Order. I cannot hear the Minister, nor can Mr. Trimble hear the answer. I do not know what is going on. Had the Minister completed his answer?

indicated assent.

Could you hear the answer, Mr. Trimble?

Yes, Madam Speaker.

Good—because I could not. Let us hear your supplementary question.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

Those who have the information would of course have supplied it, if it is in the hands of the authorities, through either the Government or the RUC. Clearly, we want a very thorough investigation into that murder and the others of which the right hon. Gentleman is all too well aware. We will monitor those investigations closely because the important aspect is that the killings took place in our jurisdiction in Northern Ireland.

If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 17 May.

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

Is it not good news that the murderous leader of the rebels in Sierra Leone has been captured and taken to a safe location? Will he be tried for crimes against humanity, as I hope he will? Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be unfortunate if we were ever to apologise when British service personnel are acting in defence of international law and the authority of the United Nations? Perhaps a few isolationists on the Tory Benches will learn that lesson.

We can be very, very proud of our armed forces and what they have done in Sierra Leone. I believe that they should have been able to perform their task without some of the carping and quibbling from Conservative Members because the whole world is witnessing and applauding their central role in trying to deal with the so-called rebel army, which, in truth, is a criminal gang that has visited the most appalling atrocities on innocent civilians in Sierra Leone. I hope that the whole House is behind our armed forces in their efforts.

The chairman of the Police Federation has said that the reductions in police numbers in the past 18 months have left some

communities with no policing at all

a sense of disorder and anarchy

I do not believe that policing is in crisis; I do not agree with that. I accept that the numbers, which went down by 2,000 in the last years of the Government of which the right hon. Gentleman was a member, continued to go down in the first three years of this Government. By the end of this year, however, those numbers will be rising again as a result of the additional funds that we have put in—money that he is committed to take away from the police.

So the Prime Minister does not understand why the Police Federation says that. He is meant to be able to cope with these questions now. His office sent a memo around the civil service, a report on which says:

Rattled Tony Blair has caused fury in Whitehall by issuing new orders to civil servants to stop William Hague making a fool of him in the Commons.

are often unusable and the facts are wrong.

fraud is so serious no Minister

the public its true scale

Perhaps I can quote what the right hon. Gentleman's own chief constable has said on crime. The chief constable of North Yorkshire said:

Our crime figures put into context some of the wild claims that have been made about the supposed wave of lawlessness sweeping rural England. Across North Yorkshire's largely rural two million acres we are driving crime down year after year.

The reason that the right hon. Member for Birkenhead said what he did is that welfare fraud is now up to £7 billion. The Prime Minister ought to know that because, after all his broken promises, fraud should be his special subject; he should know about these things. The number of successful prosecutions for housing benefit has been halved, and the Green Paper on benefit fraud has been shelved, but if he does not understand that problem, does he have an answer to the accountants Ernst and Young? They said last week that the burden of direct personal taxation in the current financial year is at the highest level for 20 years. Why does he think that they said that?

The actual report of Ernst and Young made it clear that the tax burden next year and the year after is falling. [Interruption.] Yes, but it is more than that. The right hon. Gentleman's shadow Chancellor was interviewed a few days ago on how he could pay for both his tax policy and his commitments on spending. He said that the Conservatives can do it because now

fortunately the national finances are good enough.

What the Prime Minister needs to learn about is the family finances of the families of this country. The reason, which he does not know, why Ernst and Young said what it did is that the typical working family is paying £670 more in tax under his Government per year and the overall tax burden has gone up by 8p on the basic rate, or the equivalent of—and he said no tax increases at all.

all add up to the biggest and most damaging overhaul of…regulation for 20 years.

I can tell the right hon. Gentleman why the CBI said that because I have figures here for the CBI and the burden of regulation. The main part of it is the minimum wage. I thought that the right hon. Gentleman was in favour of the minimum wage now. The second part of it is paid holidays under the working time directive. Is he against that? The third part of itߞI have an interest in this—is parental leave. Is he against that?

Once again, wherever they are looking for the facts, they are not coming up with many because £10 billion of extra regulation is the cost without the minimum wage, according to the British Chambers of Commerce. The Prime Minister clearly does not know what is happening in the real world, so does he know what is happening in the Government? Why did the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland yesterday blow open the Prime Minister's real intentions on the euro? Was he speaking for himself, or for the Government?

I do not accept even the premise of the right hon. Gentleman's question. What the Secretary of State said, perfectly rightly, was that, of course, if one is outside a fixed currency area, then one's exchange rate will vary against the currencies inside it. I would have thought that even the right hon. Gentleman could have got that one.

The truth is that the Prime Minister is in office now and responsible for these matters—that is the killer fact. So now we know from him that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland speaks for the Government on the euro. That will be big news to a lot of people, including the Chancellor. They talk about the euro, but they are out of touch on crime, they are out of touch on tax, and they are out of touch on welfare fraud. We now have a Prime Minister who hears but does not listen, who speaks but says nothing, and who pretends to lead but is going nowhere.

I am afraid I must tell the right hon. Gentleman this. He talked about our record in government, but the killer facts do not stop with his record. Killer fact—inflation is now at its lowest level for 25 years; killer fact—there are 920,000 more jobs under this Government; killer fact—1.2 million children have been lifted out of poverty.

Well, governments are in a strong position when the economy is doing well, there's absolutely no denying that and I'm not going to go around saying that the economy is not doing well.

Like many other Members, from time to time I have to explain to my constituents why their close relatives have not been allowed into this country to attend weddings and funerals. Does my right hon. Friend agree that my task will be made more difficult if Mike Tyson, who has been convicted of a serious criminal offence, is allowed into the country for purely commercial gain?

I am tempted to say that that is a decision for the Home Secretary—and I should be glad about that. Let me simply say, however, that I am afraid I agree with the Home Secretary's previous decision. He will obviously have to make his decision over the next few weeks, and I am sure that he will do so.

When the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said last night that as long as we remained outside the euro we could not protect our industry against an overvalued pound, was he on-message or off-message?

Of course, as I just pointed out to the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), if we are outside a fixed currency area our exchange rate will vary, but whether we should join a single currency depends on the meeting of economic conditions that we have set out time and again. That is the sensible position.

The potential benefits for Britain of a successful single currency are obvious in terms of trade, transparency of costs and currency stability.—[Official Report, 27 October 1997; Vol. 299, c. 583.]

The economic conditions, which are really about sustainable convergence, have to be met.

As the Prime Minister has had some time to think about the position since the Chancellor's statement, can he give the benefit of his analysis, as of today? When does he expect us to meet the Chancellor's economic criteria, and does he hope that we will meet the Government's criteria? Is it not about time that he began to give a real national lead?

The timetable is as I have set it out many times, and that was repeated by the Chancellor in his statement.

indicated dissent.

In that case, the right hon. Gentleman believes the same as me—that it depends on the meeting of those economic conditions. The sensible position on the single currency is to say that the test is jobs, industry and British investment. The final say is with the people in a referendum, and what would be most damaging would be to rule it out for five years, 10 years or whatever arbitrary period the Conservatives have in mind. The best thing is to keep the option open and to exercise it according to the economic conditions. If that is not the right hon. Gentleman's position, he should say so.

On the question of Europe, could my right hon. Friend tell the House whether he can envisage any realistic circumstances in the foreseeable future in which, having applied all the necessary tests, he might conclude that it was not in the British national interest to join the single European currency?

As I said a moment or two ago, we have already set out the timetable for an assessment of that, as we have said, early in the next Parliament. However, it is the economic conditions that count. [Interruption.] I know that Conservative Members disagree with that, but I believe that in the end the test for the British people—they will have the final say in a referendum—will be what is good for British jobs, British prosperity and British industry. The sensible thing is not to set ourselves an arbitrary time limit, but to say that we should judge it according to the economic conditions. That is precisely what we have done.

Could the Prime Minister explain why, last week, within hours of giving his personal pledge to this Chamber that Labour Members of the Greater London Assembly would abide by their manifesto commitment not to introduce congestion charges, the Labour Deputy Mayor said that they were possible—that it was just a matter of technicalities? Did someone forget to tell the Prime Minister, or is his word just worthless?

No, the Labour Members of the GLA, as far as I am aware, have made it clear that they do not support congestion charging.

If Stella Rimington is to publish her memoirs, can we be sure that they are not selective? Will there be a chapter about 1986, when she acted as an agent provocateur for David Hart and Margaret Thatcher against the National Union of Mineworkers?

First, if the memoirs are not selective, they will be the first ones that I have ever come across that are not. Secondly, anyone who has occupied the type of position that Dame Stella Rimington occupied has to go through a procedure to publish memoirs, and that is the procedure that she is going through now. That is something that will take its course in the normal way. I really cannot comment on what happened in 1986—when, as my hon. Friend probably recalls, we were not in office.

Whether or not a commercial broadcaster will cover the Queen Mother's 100th birthday celebrations, does the Prime Minister share my disgust at the BBC's arrogant refusal to provide live coverage of them on either of its two terrestrial channels? If he does agree, what will he do to persuade the BBC to take an alternative course of action, and how will he spell out to it the meaning of public service broadcasting?

I hope that, later, a way through on the matter will be found. I think that everyone would like to see a televised broadcast of the Queen Mother's celebration, because everyone wishes her well. It will be a fantastic event for the whole nation. I therefore very much hope that the matter can be resolved.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, as we have had traffic congestion for decades in the Aire valley, in my constituency, it is extremely welcome news that the Government have accelerated construction of the £60 million Bingley relief road? However, would he take it from me that my constituents are very worried indeed about what would happen to that scheme—about whether it would be scrapped—if the Conservatives' spending cuts guarantee were ever implemented?

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions tells me that my hon. Friend was extremely active in ensuring that that decision was taken. I therefore congratulate him on the decision, which I am sure is good news for his constituents. Of course, the point that he makes about Tory spending is right. At some point before the next general election, Conservative Members will have to explain how they can go around the country saying that they will chop everyone's taxes at the same time as increasing spending in virtually every single policy area. Their sums do not add up. At some point, they will have to explain them.

Does the Prime Minister understand that the people of north-east Scotland were devastated by yesterday's announcement that RAF Buchan is to be downgraded, with the loss of 350 jobs and almost £10 million a year to the local economy? Does he also appreciate the resentment caused by the fact that, when the number of control reporting centres in the air surveillance system is being reduced from three to two, the two that are being retained are in England, whereas the centre that has been closed is the advanced one, in Scotland? What assurances can he give to hard-pressed Aberdeenshire council on how it will be able to cope with this latest blow to the local economy, which is already coping with cuts and redundancies?

Of course we will do what we can to help Aberdeenshire council, but the changes that are taking place are part of an overall review of how we make best use of the resources that we have. In those changes, there will be things that people find unpopular or unpalatable, but they are necessary to put the service on a sound footing for the future. We will work with those who are displaced to make sure that they are provided for elsewhere.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that one month before the last election, the then Tory Government effectively closed my local hospital—Queen Mary's, Roehampton? Is he further aware that in the past month, the new Queen Mary's hospital has been given the go-ahead for building to start next year? Does he agree that that shows the difference between a Tory Government who closed hospitals and a Labour Government who open hospitals?

That is an important announcement for my hon. Friend's constituency. Although many people want to point to the bad things and the difficulties that the health service has, it is worth pointing out the good news, too. There are many cases throughout the country of change happening on the ground, allowing us to build new hospitals and recruit more nurses. We have seen from the figures today that, although there is a long way to go, in-patient and out-patient lists are coming down. Yes, we have a great deal more to do, but real change is happening and I wish that among some of the coverage of the bad cases and the problems we got some coverage of some of the good news that is happening as well.

May I refer the Prime Minister to the recent statement by the IRA? In particular, I refer to the passage that says that it will initiate

a process that will completely and verifiably put arms beyond use.

Yes, I can give the right hon. Gentleman that assurance. The dumps are an important confidence-building measure, but they are not a substitute for the full action that needs to be taken under the legislation. The legislation refers to arms being permanently unusable. It is very important that people understand that the confidence-building measure is a first step, but no more than that. A re-engagement with the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning also has to be undertaken. We then need to make progress until the weapons are completely, verifiably beyond use.

Will my right hon. Friend accept through me the sincere thanks and appreciation of the miners and the mining communities for the initiative and help that he and his Government have given to the mining industry, thereby demonstrating confidence in and loyalty to those communities? Will he consider including clean coal technology along with energy renewables, thereby encouraging investment in the construction of clean coal power stations, which in turn would ensure a long-term future for the miners?

It is important to support clean coal technology. Particularly when there is still tremendous change in the mining industry, it is important that we do what we can to help. That is why the Government provided additional help for the coal industry a few weeks ago. I am pleased to see that unemployment in my hon. Friend's constituency has fallen by more than 20 per cent. in the past year. That is important. Employment is also up in his constituency. That shows that even in parts of the country undergoing economic change, there are other jobs there. We are trying to help people through the process of change and we are on their side. We will do what we can to give the coal industry a secure and environmentally beneficial future.

Does the Prime Minister accept that the Conservatives take tremendous pride in the success of British arms in Sierra Leone? It is quite wrong for him to suggest that it should be otherwise. Will he also explain to the House why, in view of his much-vaunted and much-hyped plan for European defence co-operation, not one of our European allies and friends has come to help us in what is a very difficult task?

I absolve the hon. Gentleman entirely from the carping and quibbling that I talked about earlier, although I do not absolve those on the Conservative Front Bench and other Conservative Members. The hon. Gentleman asked about European forces. A UN force is primarily expected to deal with the situation in Sierra Leone and it is natural that forces should have been drawn from India, Nigeria and Jordan. We have played a supporting role. Obviously, we have an interest in Sierra Leone, as the former colonial power, and our troops have made a magnificent contribution. However, we should not necessarily expect that to be right for the European force.

Parish councils in my constituency have raised with me the issue of rural policing. Police numbers in Warwickshire fell under the previous Government, but they will now rise by 52 over the next two years. Does my right hon. Friend agree that increased police numbers are central to addressing rural concerns, as opposed to the knee-jerk suggestions that we have heard from the crime doublers opposite?

Bye bye!

The Conservatives are all shouting, "Bye bye" to my hon. Friend, but I think they have forgotten Romsey. Their memories are very short. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Not merely has burglary declined by 10 per cent. in his area, but there are 52 new recruits to the police service. It is worth pointing out that in 24 of the 43 forces crime is falling. We shall ensure that because of the extra recruits that will be coming on throughout this year, by the end of the year police numbers will rise again. If we carry on running a sound and strong economy, as the shadow Chancellor would have it, we shall be able to get the money in for the future that will allow those numbers to rise even further over time.

We have not forgotten Romsey.

The hon. Lady is right to say that I did get some briefing on her question. [HON. MEMBERS: "Are we going to hear the answer?"] I will tell the hon. Lady what it says here anyway. The numbers registered with dentists in Somerset are increasing—they are 5,000 up on last year. However, I accept that NHS dentistry went into steep decline under the previous Government. We are now acting at every single point on the health service, but it will take time. We have set the date for the end of next year to make sure that everyone who wants access to NHS dentistry can have it. The numbers are already up. Up to 800,000 more people have had the opportunity to register with a dentist. Dentist figures in England are up to 18,000, but there is still a long way to go. I recognise that in the hon. Lady's constituency and elsewhere there may be people who still have to be dealt with under the programme, but given time we will do it.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that anyone who invites a convicted rapist and attacker of old people in a road rage incident to star in a boxing match is hardly acting consistently with the Government's message against crime and violence and, in particular, violence against women?

I am afraid that I cannot offer my hon. Friend anything other than what I said in response to the same question a few minutes ago.

I make no apology for returning to the issue of a gratuity for former far east prisoners of war. The Ministry of Defence is said to be against it on the grounds that it would set a precedent. Does the Prime Minister share my view that it is a matter not of precedent but of principle, that we owe these men a debt of honour and that it is a debt that we should pay?

As I think I said to the hon. Gentleman when he raised the matter a couple of weeks ago, it is under consideration. A decision will be announced as soon as possible. It would not be wise for me to say anything more until it is announced.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that at the 1995 United Nations social summit the previous Conservative Government made a promise to put in place an anti-poverty strategy for the United Kingdom? Is he further aware that shortly afterwards the then Secretary of State for Social Security said that such a plan was unnecessary? Given the appalling scale of poverty that the previous Government left behind, will my right hon. Friend ensure that his Government are not so complacent, and that a full report is given to the social summit when it reconvenes in Geneva next month?

We can be very proud of our record on child poverty. As I said earlier, during this Parliament 1.2 million children will be lifted out of poverty. There has been a 26 per cent. increase in child benefit in real terms, and the working families tax credit is benefiting—by more than £20 a week in many cases—some one and a quarter million families.