What discussions he has had with the First Minister of the National Assembly for Wales on transport in Wales.[12466]

I meet the First Minister of the National Assembly regularly to discuss wide-ranging current issues affecting Wales, including transport. Transport generally is a matter for the National Assembly, although railways, air transport and ports remain, generally, the responsibility of central Government, working closely with the Assembly on matters affecting Wales. I am keen to continue dialogue with the Assembly and Cabinet colleagues to determine how best to meet the transport needs of Wales.

I am grateful for that reply. Does the Secretary of State agree with the director of the Confederation of British Industry of Wales, who said that we cannot continue to grow the economy at the speed that we would wish while 70 per cent. of the population is served by a two-lane motorway? What plans has the right hon. Gentleman to increase road capacity in Wales?

As I said, the matter of roads is for the Assembly to consider. However, the hon. Gentleman knows that the last spending review was an extremely good one for Wales. It meant that much more money could be spent on roads in Wales, including the £25 million that was announced only last week for all the local authorities in Wales.

When my right hon. Friend meets the First Minister, will he raise the serious overcrowding on the bus service between Llandogo and Monmouth? Sixty to 70 children a day have to travel on a scheduled bus service run by Stagecoach, which refuses to put on an extra service unless it is paid for by the county council, even though it already receives two subsidies for the service. Does he accept that the three-for-two rule allows unacceptable overcrowding for pupils under the age of 14?

I am very much aware of my hon. Friend's campaign on the matter. I know that he raised it in an Adjournment debate in the House, and that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is raising it with the Minister for Education and Lifelong Learning in Wales, Jane Davidson. I am sure that my hon. Friend knows that local education authorities are obliged to provide transport that is non-stressful, because if it were stressful, it could interfere with children's education.

Can the Secretary of State tell the House why Railtrack is not progressing with the essential improvements to the Cambrian line and Cambrian coast railways, even though, as his colleague in the National Assembly must have told him, the Assembly is allocating a substantial sum to those improvements? Why are people in Wales getting such a bad deal from the Government over railways?

I think that the hon. Gentleman would agree that the people of Wales got a bad deal from the previous Government when they privatised the railways. The Cambrian line upgrade has not been scrapped. The investment has been provided by the Assembly and the Strategic Rail Authority. It is scheduled for the period 2002 to 2006. Because Railtrack is in administration, it cannot make a decision about when the work will be carried out, but the investment will be forthcoming.

Does my right hon. Friend welcome the announcement by P & O that it will move its main Ireland ferry service from Liverpool to Mostyn docks and the part played by the National Assembly for Wales in that excellent move?

I certainly welcome the fact that the National Assembly put some £17 million into Mostyn docks. I know that my hon. Friend is particularly interested in those improvements to the economy of north-east Wales. Developments at Mostyn docks over the past few months and in the future will make an enormous difference to the economy of his constituency and to north Wales in general.

What discussions he has had with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on measures to assist people who live in flood-prone areas within Wales. [12467]

My right hon. Friend and I have regular discussions with Ministers from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and those discussions cover floods and related matters. I have had recent discussions with colleagues on flood defence matters. I also represent Wales on the rural taskforce.

I thank the Minister for that answer. Is he aware that up to 120,000 homes along the Welsh coastline are still at risk from flooding if there is a repeat this winter of last year's heavy rainfall? Furthermore, up to 50 per cent. of the families in those homes are unaware of that risk. Given that, will he admit that the paltry £14 million that has so far been made available to Welsh flood committees is totally inadequate? What plans has he to make further immediate provision?

The unprecedented flooding last October was the worst for half a century or more. My colleague Ministers in the National Assembly provided £6.5 million to local authorities to help clear-up operations and to make damaged services secure again. An additional £15 million is being made available to local authorities to carry out major repairs and improvements over the next four years. Last autumn's flooding provided a severe test of the flood warning arrangements, but they proved to be robust, having just been upgraded. The system did very well in the circumstances. Most importantly, not a single life was lost, and we are all thankful for that. Some 10,000 homes throughout England and Wales were affected by flooding, but as a result of good flood defence measures, 300,000 homes were protected.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the considerable work that is being done in my constituency to combat flooding? Flintshire county council in particular has made the issue a priority. However, does he agree that the need remains for greater co-operation between local authorities, water companies and the Environment Agency to deal with the matter effectively?

It is essential that there is very close co-operation between the statutory and local authorities. I am aware that there have been problems in my hon. Friend's constituency, but I believe that the measures that are being implemented and the funding that is being provided will help to overcome them. If he is concerned about a specific problem, I ask him to write to me about it, and 1 shall take it up on his behalf.

Is the Minister aware of the despair, upset and sheer emotional distress that many home owners feel when their homes are flooded? Does he accept that his policy has so far been woefully inadequate? Is he aware that the Institution of Civil Engineers concluded last week that spending on flooding needed to be doubled and went on to describe Government policy in this area as piecemeal and short term? Ministers are fond of bleating about how advantageous our membership of the European Union is, so why will he not claim some of the money that is available from the European Union to member states for this purpose, thereby helping to alleviate—[Interruption.]

Order.

I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his appointment to his Front-Bench position. It is not for me to comment on the length of his questions, but he has certainly shortened the winter. I do not accept the view that the Government have not done a great deal to overcome the problems that we faced last year. There is a short-term programme of repairs and renewals to ensure that we avoid the problems this year. There is also a long-term programme of initiatives, which includes the carrying out in England and Wales of a DEFRA-led flood defence review. My colleagues in the Assembly are taking part in that consultation and we expect to have the results by Christmas.

May I remind the Minister that despite his assurances about the unusual floods that we had in October, the town of Ruthin has suffered severe floods twice since then? I witnessed them. Even the Welsh Local Government Association, which is friendly to him, says that £50 million of new money is required to put things right in Wales. So far, there has been £15 million, plus the £6 million. That is not even halfway, so will he please redouble his efforts and ensure that we protect these societies and the people in them?

I note the hon. Gentleman's point. It is in all our interests to help communities such as Ruthin, which were blighted by the events of last October. 1 believe that the Assembly is working very progressively with local authorities. As I said, it has provided £15 million to fund schemes for the next four years. I think that that will make an important contribution. There is never enough money to do all the work because there is always a problem: when the crisis is staunched in one area, problems can arise in another. I believe that the discussions between my friends in the Assembly and local authorities mean that steps are being made in the right direction. We will do everything that we can to ensure that if there are difficulties this winter, we have the resources in place to overcome them.

The Minister will know that many rivers have their sources in Powys, including the Usk, the Severn and the Wye. Is he aware that, a couple of years ago, the Secretary of State for Wales and I held a meeting with the Environment Agency to reduce water levels in the Clywedog dam and thus reduce the risk of overflow at peak times? That reduced flooding. Is he willing to facilitate further such meetings to extend that successful scheme to other reservoirs in the interests of reducing flooding both in Wales and in parts of England?

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I would be most willing to use my services to facilitate such a meeting.

If he will make a statement on the effects of devolution on the administration of the Dee estuary.[12468]

As my hon. Friend and I discussed when we met recently to consider the Dee estuary, its administration raises interesting and unique cross-border management issues, which I shall raise with my ministerial colleagues.

I thank my right hon. Friend for the steps that have been taken so far. Does he agree that, following devolution, cross-border, environmentally sensitive matters merit special consideration, which might extend to core funding for the estuary strategy and better co-operation between the environment and development agencies in England and Wales?

I could not agree more. I have raised the matter with the First Minister and the Minister for the Environment in the Assembly. I agree that there should be good co-operation between the environment agencies and, as my hon. Friend said, the development agencies. I shall keep in touch with him, and I hope to visit the estuary soon.

I am grateful for my right hon. Friend's answer. Will he discuss with the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), who is responsible for fisheries, the exploitation of mollusc beds in the Dee estuary by unlicensed people? That activity is to the great detriment of the Inland Revenue and is environmentally degrading an important stock.

Yes, of course I shall do that. When I discussed the matter with my hon. Friend some weeks ago, he mentioned the cockle beds in the Dee estuary. It is important for both environment agencies to tackle the problem. I assure him that I shall discuss the matter with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

If he will make a statement on the measures taken by the Government to tackle crime in Wales. [12470]

If he will make a statement on the measures taken by the Government to tackle crime in Wales.[12472]

If he will make a statement on the measures taken by the Government to tackle crime in Wales.[12473]

The Government's partnership approach to fighting crime is making a significant difference in communities throughout Wales. With funding running into millions of pounds, local crime and disorder reduction partnerships are implementing projects targeted at crime hotspots, domestic violence and drug-related crime. Much of the funding is being channelled specifically into the most deprived communities and is going a long way towards building safer and more inclusive communities.

Does my right hon. Friend know that recorded crimes in the Vale of Glamorgan division of the South Wales police area have decreased from 15,000 a year in 1995 to 10,000 a year? That has transformed towns such as Barry, including the seaside resort of Barry Island, from being among the most crime-ridden communities to being among the safest in the country. Will he join me in paying tribute to Superintendent Colin Jones and his officers for that magnificent achievement?

Answer

Tough one that.

Does my right hon. Friend know that the change to deprivation funding by the Youth Justice Board means a significant increase in the money available for its valuable and successful work in my constituency? The community intelligence-led approach to policing in Merthyr Tydfil and the safer Merthyr homes scheme have received United Kingdom recognition. The community warden scheme is being extended to other parts of the UK. What plans does he have to work with other Departments, the National Assembly for Wales and all relevant agencies to ensure sustained funding for the successful initiatives that have done so much to decrease crime rates and improve safety in my constituency?

Since my appointment to this office in June, I have made three visits to my hon. Friend's constituency, and I have been impressed by the range of initiatives aimed at building stronger communities. I am aware of the well established neighbourhood and warden schemes in Pen-y-darren and Bedlinog, which offer good examples of what can be achieved with communities working together. I also welcome the award of £70,000 earlier this year under the crime reduction programme. I understand that the community warden scheme to which he referred has been extended into Dowlais ward, and significant progress has already been made in building a stronger and better community as a result.

I thank my hon. Friend for his response. Will he give the House more specific information about the measures that the police in Wales are likely to introduce to reduce antisocial behaviour?

Like most hon. Members, I represent communities that have been blighted by problems of antisocial behaviour. My hon. Friend and I share the same borough and police division, and I can tell him that the Government have introduced a number of measures to address antisocial behaviour, including antisocial behaviour orders. Such orders, which seek to curb the activities of individuals who make the lives of others a misery, start as civilian orders but can become criminal orders if their conditions are breached. Two hundred such orders have been approved in England and Wales.

I hope that you will excuse me, Mr. Speaker, if I inject an air of realism into these questions on law and order.

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that the Government have launched an action plan to combat violent crime. Indeed, detection rates for violent crime in the South Wales police area stand at 86 per cent. Violent crime figures in that area have risen slightly, but not by anything like the national average. Most violent offences are committed in public areas—for example, brawls outside pubs and clubs—and initiatives have been put in place to combat them. I am pleased with the initiatives taken by the South Wales police to tackle violent crime, which have significantly increased detection rates.

I am glad that the Minister is satisfied, but I suspect that the people of Wales are not. He knows that violent crime has gone up, while the number of special constables who assist the regular constabulary has gone down. In 1997, there were 1,142 specials in Wales; today, there are 811. Will he undertake to have urgent talks with the Home Secretary about increasing the number of specials in Wales? Will he also give his full support to the police in Wales? Last year, 715 police were injured in assaults in the line of duty in Wales. Will he give his full backing to the campaign to ensure that, next year, the police get the Queen's golden jubilee medal, which they so richly deserve?

I shall take the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question first. I am sure my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will have taken note of his point but, if not, I shall draw it to his attention.

indicated assent.

Indeed, my right hon. Friend has.

What recent discussions he has had with the appropriate Government Ministers and Departments relating to increased security measures at ports, RAF bases and nuclear installations in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [12471]

I am in regular contact with Cabinet colleagues through the civil contingencies committee, of which the First Minister and I are both members.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his response. He will be aware of the concerns of my constituents in Ynys Môn, an area with a major ferry port, an RAF training base and a nuclear power station. He will further be aware of the cost implications of additional security measures for the two companies in the port. Has he raised with the Cabinet the possibility of grant aid? If so, what was the response?

I understand my hon. Friend's concerns, but I assure him that the Government are doing all in their power to safeguard the people of Anglesey. I understand that Stena has raised the matter with the Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions, which is considering the request, but I cannot prejudge the decision to be taken by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions.

Given that many of the military personnel who may soon see active service in Afghanistan were trained in my constituency on the Brecon Beacons and the Epynt training range, will the Secretary of State ensure that the Secretary of State for Defence enhances security at the military bases at Brecon and Sennybridge to safeguard the security of the soldiers and communities that live and work in that area?

I understand the hon. Gentleman's point and shall pass it on to the Secretary of State for Defence. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that I cannot comment on individual security details.

While I accept the need to increase security at nuclear installations, does the Secretary of State accept that that is only a short-term measure and that the real answer is to bring an end to our nuclear role, thereby removing the risk of terrorist attack on such targets?

I note what my hon. Friend has said.

Following the recent terrorist outrages, will the Secretary of State ask the performance and innovation unit's energy review group to extend its remit to report on the security of nuclear power stations?

We take all those points into account but, as 1 have said, at these difficult times it would not be right for me to go into detail on the recommendations that have been made to the Department of Trade and Industry. The House will have heard the hon. Gentleman and taken his remarks into account.

What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry concerning the progress of settlements of claims in the miners' compensation scheme in north-east Wales. [12475]

My hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Energy recently attended the Welsh coal health claims monitoring group to discuss the operation of the scheme in Wales, following which he and I then met volunteer workers with the National Union of Mineworkers. My hon. Friend will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales established the Welsh monitoring group specifically to address coal health issues in Wales. I am convinced that the measures discussed, and the actions taken so far by the monitoring group will further speed the process of paying out claims to miners and their widows.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. While I recognise that this is the largest legal claim in British history and appreciate my hon. Friend's commitment to the issue, does he accept that practical difficulties remain? They include the case of my constituent, Mr. Thomas Evans, who has been waiting two years for a spirometry test. Will my hon. Friend assure me that he will do everything in his power to ensure that the Wrexham assessment centre operates at full capacity in future?

I am aware of the case to which my hon. Friend referred. Mr. Evans had a spirometry test in October 1999; in December 2000, the test was declared invalid and he was given the option of being re-tested. He declined the offer and, as a result, went on to apply for the full second-phase test, the MAP test. I am given to understand by IRISC, the Government's claim handlers, that it wrote to Mr. Evans's solicitors in July asking for a claims pack to be completed and is still awaiting its return. I shall do anything I can to help my hon. Friend speed up that claim. The monitoring group is fully aware of the problems that have been causing difficulties with the operation of the Wrexham testing centre, but we are satisfied that everything is being done to provide the necessary respiratory consultants to carry out all the tests required. If he wishes, I shall look into the case further. I believe that my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Energy will also reply to him directly.

We have already heard how bad the situation is in north-east Wales. However, according to the Government's own figures, only 3 per cent. of claims in Carmarthenshire have been fully and finally settled. After all the representations that the Secretary of State has had on the issue from Welsh Members, why does Wales still have the slowest processing rate for full and final claims?

May I, in the friendliest possible way, warn the hon. Gentleman to be wary of statistics? There are various reasons for the comparative figures that he gave on full and final settlements in Wales and the United Kingdom. Although it is true that 7 per cent. of claims in Wales have been settled fully and finally, there are reasons for the delays. There can, for example, be delays because of the number of claimants and the difficulty in collecting evidence and the work records of older claimants—[Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman would like to listen I shall give him an answer. There have, of course, also been difficulties in collecting hospital records.

Order. The reply is too long.

If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 14 November.

This morning, I attended a seminar on primary care trusts and the national health service. I also spoke to President Bush and Chancellor Schröder on the current international crisis. Later today, in addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further meetings with ministerial colleagues.

Given that, on 4 July, the Prime Minister promised concessionary travel for pensioners on long-distance coach services, does he sympathise with pensioners on the Isle of Wight who have to cross the most expensive stretch of water in the country to board those coach services? Will he provide similar concessions on ferries?

That is a good constituency question. I am afraid that I cannot give the hon. Gentleman that commitment, but I hope that he will join me in supporting concessionary bus fares for pensioners. Such a scheme was rejected for many years under the previous, Conservative Government, but it has been delivered under the current one.

The House will know of the terrible explosion that occurred last Thursday in the No. 5 blast furnace in Port Talbot in my constituency. I am sure that the Prime Minister will wish to join me and the whole House in sending our deepest condolences to the families of the three men who died and to the families of the 13 men who were injured and remain in Morriston hospital. May I also invite the Prime Minister to join me in thanking the emergency services for the tremendous work that they did, and particularly the burns unit in Morriston hospital for the continuing work that it is doing for the injured? Finally, may I also ask him to join me in urging the press and all parties concerned to respect the privacy of the families and the work force in their hour of need and to allow the various inquiries to continue their vital work?

First, I know that my hon. Friend has spoken for the whole House in extending the sympathies of both sides of the House to the families of the victims of this terrible tragedy. I certainly join him in congratulating the emergency services on the work that they have done. I know that the Health and Safety Executive is investigating the incident, and it is too early to speculate on the exact causes. I am sure that that investigation should be allowed to continue, and I hope very much that those parts of the media that are reporting on the issue will have heard my hon. Friend's comments.

May I associate the Opposition with the Prime Minister's condolences expressed to the constituents of the hon. Member for Aberavon (Dr. Francis) who suffered in that tragic accident?

Of course the fall in employment, the rise in unemployment, is deeply regrettable, but, as I think the right hon. Gentleman will know, these are economic circumstances that are affecting the entire world at present. There have been rises in unemployment in virtually every one of the major western European and American countries. I think most people accept that as a result of low inflation, low interest rates, strong public finances and a huge reduction in unemployment over the past few years, Britain is probably as well placed as any major economy to weather the storms that we are experiencing.

Everyone would accept the existence of difficulties arising from 11 September, but should not the Prime Minister recognise that these latest figures show a fall in manufacturing employment of more than 120,000 in the year to September—before the events of 11 September? Even his own Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said:

"before 11 th September, thousands of manufacturing workers were losing their jobs."

"There is real pain in our manufacturing industry."

Of course it is true that manufacturing industry has been through very difficult times, and indeed was going through difficult times before 11 September. That is happening in many parts of the world at present, for obvious reasons—not just those associated with 11 September, but because of events before then, when growth rates were predicted to fall in most of the European economies and, indeed, the American economy. Manufacturing also had a very tough time because of the weakness of the euro and the strength of the pound.

But this Government have imposed more than £10 billion in extra costs on British business. That is why the director general of the Confederation of British Industry said last week:

"You are a regulatory government … You are a Government that last year brought in 3,800 regulations in 365 days".

I think that the right hon. Gentleman is a little unwise to quote the CBI director general. He did not quote all that the director general said last week. The director general also said that the United Kingdom had

"low interest rates, low inflation, low unemployment—the most successful economy in Western Europe."

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in the quest for a sustainable future for Afghanistan, the role of the United Nations will become increasingly important in securing both international and internal acceptance for a future Administration? Will he give every co-operation that he can to ensure that the UN can indeed find a stable future for that country?

I can assure my right hon. Friend that we will do everything that we can to support the United Nations in its work. As he rightly says, we require a broad-based regime in Afghanistan., and the people to lead the process are undoubtedly the United Nations. We have to demonstrate to the people of Afghanistan that the whole of the world community stands behind a broad-based Government and reconstruction in Afghanistan over a period of time. We remain totally committed to both those objectives.

I share the Prime Minister's desire to fight terrorism in Britain, but does he agree that we should not do so by unduly undermining our existing human and democratic rights here? In that context, will he reconsider the proposed part of the new anti-terrorism legislation that would remove the right to judicial review for special immigration appeal cases? Would not that removal run the risk of sending quite the wrong signal?

No, I am afraid that I cannot agree with the right hon. Gentleman, for this reason: it is important that we have the power to detain suspected terrorists whom we cannot deport to another country, for reasons connected with the current state of the law, as he knows. If we do not have that power, there is a severe gap in the legislation. We take this power reluctantly and after careful consideration, but in the present circumstances I do not believe that it would be responsible, for the protection of citizens here, not to have it, although it will be exercised. of course, in a very small number of cases.

Will the Prime Minister therefore acknowledge that, with our having so recently incorporated the European convention, that reluctance must extend to the Government's feeling that, because of events, we have to opt out of one of its provisions? Can he at least give the House a guarantee that, at the first practicable moment, he will restore article 5, because it would be perverse in the extreme for us to remove civil rights in our own country at the very moment when we are, quite properly, campaigning for them on the international stage?

We are not opting out of the European convention. We have the power within the convention, in certain specific circumstances, to ensure that we can exercise particular powers. We have taken those powers to ourselves for this reason: we were in a situation in which suspected terrorists were coming into this country and we were unable to deport them to another country because, for example, that country might have executed them. So, we had a gap in the power and those people were allowed to stay and could not be detained, and they are a threat to our national security. There are not many of them, but they are a threat.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the millions of people in Afghanistan who were facing the prospect of starvation this winter will now be secure in the knowledge that aid and food will be given to them, so they can face the winter with peace and security, knowing that their children will not starve to death?

We are now able, as I will explain, to get substantially more food and aid into Afghanistan and, most important of all, ensure that it is directed at the people who really need it. We will give every support and help to that programme. That is far easier to do now that the Taliban regime is collapsing.

Last year, 547 sub-post offices closed, but anyone thinking of investing in re-opening one of them would be completely unclear about how the universal bank and the card account will affect that business. Will the Prime Minister therefore ensure that his Ministers in the Department for Work and Pensions and the Department of Trade and Industry get together to end that uncertainty, otherwise, his promise that pensions can be collected from a sub-post office will be a hollow one?

They still can be, at present, and we need to ensure that the new arrangements are in place by the time the new system comes in. We will ensure that that is done. Of course, we must ensure that the details of the universal bank—exactly how it will work—are properly worked out in practice. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would agree.

As one of the 39 old-age pensioners in the House, I declare an interest in my question. Does the Prime Minister agree with the 2,000 pensioners who visited Westminster on 6 November that it is morally indefensible to ask elderly patients, who have carefully saved for years, to pay for parts of their health care that will be free in Scotland soon?

As a result of the changes that we have introduced, pensioners will not have to pay for nursing care that they used to have to pay for. The question is whether we should go further and spend what amounts to £1 billion on personal care. [Interruption.] When we talk about spending money, the Liberal Democrats say yes before even doing the sums or before it is stated what the money is to be spent on. The fact is we do not believe that that is the best use of money.

Is the Prime Minister aware of the carpet of lilies campaign currently being run by the Haemophilia Society on behalf of those haemophiliacs who have been infected with hepatitis C or AIDS as a result of contaminated blood products? Can he give an assurance that the Government will consider the society's requests for action and, in particular, the availability of the blood treatment product, recombinant, throughout the UK, and not just in Wales and Scotland?

We are prepared to look at the blood treatment product and how we can help people in that situation. What I cannot offer my hon. Friend is support for the entire range of demands made by that campaign. We sympathise with it and we understand the problems that people face, but she will know that successive Governments have made it clear that there is a limit to the amount of compensation that we can pay.

Is the Prime Minister aware that there is strong public support for a West Mercia health authority, linking Shropshire with Herefordshire and Worcestershire? The Government, however, are consulting on four options. The first three options link Staffordshire with Shropshire and, surprisingly, option No. 4 links Staffordshire with Shropshire. Is that the Prime Minister's preferred method of consultation?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the options were put forward after consulting many people about them, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health will have heard the representations that he has just made.

On Sunday in my constituency, a moving speech was made by the Rev. Shirley Bench, a Methodist minister from California, at the Kilsyth war memorial. Will the Prime Minister accept her thanks and those of millions of Americans for his support in the successful campaign and will he give the House details of how we will assist in delivering aid to Afghanistan to restore Afghan society as quickly as possible?

Obviously, in my statement later I will provide details of the humanitarian help that we will give, but the strength and solidarity that many people in this country have shown with the United States of America has not just been of enormous comfort to people in America, but has shown the strength of the bilateral relations between our two countries. I am sure that what happened in my hon. Friend's constituency was replicated in many constituencies up and down the country.

Will the Prime Minister tell us whether the number of patients waiting more than 12 months for in-patient treatment has fallen or risen since he has been Prime Minister?

Overall, in-patient lists have gone down by around 100,000. It is true that there are certain categories where waiting times have risen, but overall they are down by over 100,000.

The Prime Minister did not answer the question, which is no great surprise, and gave us anything but the facts. My question was: has the number of patients from his lists of those waiting more than 12 months fallen or risen?

I said it is correct that the numbers of patients in certain categories of waiting have risen, but overall the numbers of people waiting have fallen. Since our first year in government, when in-patient and out-patient lists went up as we were still abiding by the same financing regime as the previous Government, in-patient and out-patient lists have fallen.

The Prime Minister did not want to answer that question because the reality is that the number waiting a year has not just risen, but risen by more than 13,000. Even that does not tell the whole story, however. If we look around the country, we see that in Leeds there has been a fivefold increase, in Birmingham a 17-fold increase and in west Devon a 68-fold increase in the numbers waiting. The British Medical Association has already said that the Government will fail on the waiting lists initiative, and today even one of his Ministers said:

"I think Labour are going to fail on health".

The right hon. Gentleman cited various constituencies and I am surprised that he did not mention his own, but I will do that. In-patient waiting lists are down by almost 4,000 in his health authority area. The right hon. Gentleman was correct in what he said about people waiting more than 12 months, but overall the numbers of people waiting for in-patient treatment have fallen by more than 100,000 and that meets our manifesto commitment. The only reason for that fall and for the fact that there are half a million more operations taking place in the health service today, the new hospital-building programme and the additional nurses and doctors is the extra spending that the Government are putting into the health service. What is the position of the Conservative party in relation to this extra spending? It opposes it. Yes, it is true that the BMA may criticise us over the health service, but the one group of people—[Interruption.]

Order. There must be no shouting.

The BMA certainly can criticise us, but the one group of people who cannot is the Conservative party. The Conservatives are opposed to the very investment that can make the health service better.

Should not there now be an end to the bombing in Afghanistan, as many of the military objectives must have been achieved? The areas that are still dominated by the Taliban include many anti-Taliban forces and it must not be easy to distinguish between the two operations. We are also approaching Ramadan and it would be of great benefit to the Islamic world to have a pause at this time.

I can honestly tell my hon. Friend that the trouble with the point he is making is that its credibility would have been improved had he not been saying the same thing a week ago. Had we not carried on with the campaign to make sure that we targeted the front-line Taliban troops, we would not be in the position that we are in today where we can improve the humanitarian situation and set about the reconstruction of Afghanistan. It is important that we carry on until our objectives are delivered, but of course as the situation changes, we change the military package. That is precisely what we should do, but had we stopped when my hon. Friend first asked me to stop, we would not be in the position that we are in today, which is an important one to be in.

Will the Prime Minister congratulate his constituent Brian Hunter, who was one of this morning's winners of the Lilly outstanding achievement awards for diabetes? Today is world diabetes day, so will the right hon. Gentleman explain why the national health service framework for diabetes is not now going ahead as planned in 2002?

I certainly join in the congratulations to my constituent, and I am delighted that he has received that award. Because of certain points put to the Government in representations from doctors and others, we are still in conversation with them about what is the best type of framework. The hon. Gentleman will know that we now have national health service frameworks operating across a range of different areas of disease. Those frameworks are very good and people welcome them, but they impose an additional work load on doctors. We are in discussion and consultation with GPs about the best way to proceed with the framework for diabetes. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would want us to do that in such a way that the framework gains the support of the medical profession, whose members, after all, are the people who have to implement it.

Now that my right hon. Friend and his colleagues are sorting out Railtrack—[Interruption]. May I ask that the Government now turn their attention to such operating companies as Virgin, which provides a deplorable service between London and north Wales? The service is getting worse week by week because of poor management and worn-out trains.

Of course, that is precisely why it is important that we make the necessary changes in the structure of Railtrack. We must also make sure that any additional money we put into the railways gets to the front-line provision of better railways, in my hon. Friend's constituency and elsewhere.

"it's difficult at the moment to actually know exactly what it is that Railtrack was asking for".

In light of the unfortunate and confused statements by the Minister for Europe, will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to reaffirm the 1969 pledge that the constitutional status of Gibraltar will not be altered without the consent of the people who live there?

The Government have reaffirmed that pledge, and so has my right hon. Friend the Minister of State. I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman is wrong to imply otherwise. Indeed, I reaffirmed it at the press conference held with Prime Minister Aznar on Friday. However, it is important that the Brussels process should go forward. There are genuine political and practical problems that we should discuss with Spain. We hope very much that the Chief Minister of Gibraltar will participate. I think that it is in the interests of the people of Gibraltar that he does. That process should go forward because it is right for the interests of this country and of the people of Gibraltar.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that Afghanistan has the second-highest rate of maternal mortality in the world? More that 50 Afghani women die every day from complications in pregnancy and childbirth, and one in four Afghani children die before they reach their fifth birthday. Now, only 5 per cent. of Afghani women can read and write. The Taliban did not allow women doctors, lawyers and teachers to work or girls to attend school. Will my right hon. Friend give the House an assurance that he will do everything that he can to ensure that Afghani women are represented at every level in discussions on the social, economic and political reconstruction of their country?

The point that my hon. Friend makes is quite right. Of course the women of Afghanistan should be involved in the discussions that will take place. I do not think that there is any group of people in Afghanistan with more to celebrate at the departure of the Taliban regime than Afghan women, who have been subject to brutal oppression over a long period of time. That is one reason among many others why it is good that the Taliban regime's days are numbered.

Following on from his very unconvincing answer a few minutes ago, can the Prime Minister explain why waiting times in accident and emergency units are longer than they were four years ago?

I do not accept that at all. Money is going in to accident and emergency departments— indeed, virtually every accident and emergency department in the country has received special dedicated funds. That extra money is making a difference. Of course, it is Conservative policy to oppose the extra investment. They have learned absolutely nothing from the last Parliament, when they called continually for tax cuts on the one hand and extra investment on the other. At some point, the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues will have to choose.

Will the Prime Minister rehearse for a few more moments what he had to say on unemployment at the beginning of these exchanges? Is he aware that there would be more jobs knocking about if some of these Tories who have 400 jobs between them, moonlighting, spread them around? Is it not significant that the very day that the Leader of the Opposition opens his trap on this issue, it is the very week that the last Leader of the Opposition has just taken two more jobs?

Not for the first time, I think what a loss my hon. Friend is to the Dispatch Box.

I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 1, line 15, at end insert—

'(2A) This section applies to arrangements made by a registered political party which, in respect of elections for a single representative for a geographical area, confer preference on a female candidate who possesses equivalent or substantially equivalent merits to a male candidate but only if such candidatures are the subject of an assessment that takes account of the specific personal situations of the candidates, including their relationship with that specific geographical area.'.

With this it will be convenient to consider amendment No. 3, in page 2, line 23, at end insert—

'(2A) This Article applies to arrangements made by a registered political party which, in respect of elections for a single representative for a geographical area, confer preference on a female candidate who possesses equivalent or substantially equivalent merits to a male candidate but only if such candidatures are the subject of an assessment that takes account of the specific personal situations of the candidates, including their relationship with that specific geographical area.'.

On Second Reading, the Bill received a welcome across the House. It was rightly said that the Bill was short and relatively simple, but important. I support it, and the amendments are not intended to reduce that support.

"I cannot give an absolute guarantee because the European Court of Justice could ultimately decide the question differently … However, even if the court decided that candidate selection fell within the equal treatment directive, the hon. Gentleman—

"will be aware that measures under the directive and the treaty … allow for positive action."

"We expect political parties to take legal advice before proceeding".—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 6 November 2001; c. 27.]

"permissible to confer preference on a female candidate who possesses equivalent merits to a male competitor, provided that the candidatures are the subject of an objective assessment that takes account of the specific personal situations of the candidates."

"providing the remedy is proportionate to the wrong that it is seeking to address, political parties should be able to introduce measures such as we have discussed."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 6 November 2001; c. 28–29.]

"measures to promote full and effective equality, provided that there is an objective and reasonable justification for these measures".

Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that many people who seek selection are also able to do so in an adjoining area? Often, they are in a borough, county or area where there is some choice of seats. It is not always, or even usually, a specific and sole seat for which a person wants to be selected. Does he agree that many Members—of whom I am not one—have never lived in their own constituency?

I am grateful to the hon. Lady, as she takes me to the points that I wanted to make, although I am not with her on her latter point. I live in my constituency and am happy to do so. However, I understand her first point: people who want to be elected to this place do not necessarily seek selection as a candidate in the place where they previously lived or currently live. Indeed, I did not live in South Cambridgeshire before I sought selection as a candidate for that constituency, but that fact does not remove the principle. For example the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Dr. Taylor)—he is no longer in his place, but he put a question at Prime Minister's questions—secured election as an Independent Member of Parliament. He secured election to the House on behalf of the place where he lives.

According to the hon. Gentleman's logic, if a seat has historically been held by one political party and all the evidence suggests that it will not change hands, a prospective Conservative candidate who lives in a traditionally Labour-held area could never become a Conservative candidate with any hope of success. Is he saying that those men should never consider becoming a Member of Parliament?

No, I am not, but it is perfectly reasonable and entirely logical for people to seek selection as parliamentary candidates in the place where they live, and if they cannot do so they may well seek selection elsewhere.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that for many years women have sought selection in their home areas but have not succeeded, as the composition of the House shows? Does he agree that, in effect, that has been a bar to women becoming Members of Parliament?

I have no doubt that that is precisely why the experience of all political parties is that such discrimination has occurred. The amendment is not intended to dispute the fact that women of equivalent, or substantially equivalent, merit to men have not been selected when they should have been. The issue is that Labour Members want to use the Bill to disbar a man from being selected even where he has far greater merit as a candidate by virtue of his specific personal circumstances, his relationship with a constituency and on the grounds of any objective assessment. That is wholly undesirable. In fact, not only is that inequitable, but it runs the risk of bringing into disrepute the positive action that needs to be taken to redress the lack of representativeness in the Chamber.

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, when the Labour party introduced all-women shortlists, it took a regional approach, introduced the lists on the basis of consensus and applied them to only half its target seats? Contrary to his suggestion, our approach was not draconian. It applied to only a very few seats.

The hon. Lady raises an interesting point. The issue is what the Bill should allow people to do. If the hon. Lady is saying that it should not be used to create all-women shortlists that apply in a specific constituency, I agree with her. Furthermore, if she is suggesting that the Labour party should be able to introduce all-women shortlists on a regional basis through some form of twinning, I point out that twinning would still be acceptable under my amendment.

The hon. Gentleman said that, under his amendment, twinning would be acceptable, but I am not sure that he understands how it worked in reality. I understand the process because I am from Wales. Two constituencies would be twinned with one another and they would agree to be represented by one man and one woman. Under the system, a man could have double or treble the votes of a woman and a woman could have double or treble the votes of a man, but that person still might not be selected. The right of individual constituencies to select who they wanted was taken away. A constituency might overwhelming vote for a man or for a woman but, because of the system of twinning, its choice could be thrown out and a person of the. other sex brought in.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because his view balances those expressed by other Labour Members. However. I do not go as far as he does. It is possible to devise a system of twinning that is proportionate and that would be acceptable under the Bill as amended by amendment No. 4. He refers to the votes cast in an individual constituency—that is the determining factor in any system adopted in the Conservative party—but that is not the same as an assessment of the merits of the candidates and their specific personal circumstances.

I am in my hon. Friend's debt, because he has tabled an important and interesting amendment. I look forward to hearing the Minister's comments.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I expect that our different traditions do explain some of the attitudes prevailing in each party. The response of the Labour party to any problem is to create a central directive that will remedy the matter. The intention in the Conservative party was always to try to work with the most relevant local organisation in order to secure the objective through consent.

rose—

I will give way when I have responded to my right hon. Friend.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Setting aside the extraordinary intervention by the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Virginia Bottomley) about the structures and mores of my party, and given that the hon. Gentleman is assiduous in attempting to preclude my party from advancing the cause of women and has been silent about whether his party has any plans at all for the advancement of women, may I return him to his point about regional links? The Bill will apply also to candidates for the European Parliament. Can the hon. Gentleman define the piece of the infinitely larger European constituency with which any potential candidate would have to prove a specific relationship before selection?

I should chide the hon. Lady. I am the last person who can be accused of being silent about what my party should do. Some months ago, before the Bill was presented to the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead and I set out from our personal perspective what we thought should be the position. I cannot say what my party will do. That will be decided by the board of the Conservative party, not by me. In due course my hon. Friend will no doubt chide the Minister who I am confident will not tell us what the Labour party will do using the powers under the Bill.

"section applies to arrangements made by a registered political party … in respect of elections for a single representative for a geographical area".

I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman understands how the twinning system worked in Wales for the election of candidates for the National Assembly. There could have been a situation in which someone had spent their entire political life in a particular constituency, held high office in the local council and achieved the overwhelming vote of that constituency, but still would not have been elected or put forward as a candidate because he or she was the wrong sex. is the hon. Gentleman saying that that is acceptable under his amendment?

I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. There was some discussion in Committee about the twinning arrangement. Clearly, I have not participated in such an arrangement, as it has not been applied in our party. None the less, if the hon. Gentleman is looking to my amendment to remove the possibility to which he refers, I must say that I am not sure whether it would serve him. In the circumstances that he describes regarding a twinning process, men in the two constituencies would have had the opportunity for an assessment to be made of their specific personal circumstances and of their relationship with the geographical area in question. The simple fact that a larger number of members vote for a man would not necessarily convince a court that that should override the positive action measures that are being taken generally to deliver an outcome. There must be a subjective judgment about what is proportionate, and there is no way out of that.

I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman supports the principle of twinning in general. Certainly, my experience of twinning was different from that of my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Llew Smith). Throughout Wales as a whole, the proportion of women representatives achieved by twinning has been a big boost to Welsh politics, so I want to put it on record that the twinning arrangement has been good for Wales. I cannot understand, however, what he has got against the principle of dividing the seats in a region between men and women, which seems a very proportionate response to ensure that we have equal numbers of candidates.

For the avoidance of doubt, let me say that the hon. Lady should interpret my remarks as meaning not that I am in favour of twinning, but that I would interpret my amendment as not precluding the possibility of twinning being one of the positive action measures that could be taken under the legislation. We know that the purpose of the legislation is permissive, but the question is what limitations the amendment would set upon that power. The hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Llew Smith) rightly probed that issue and sought to identify the limits. It is precisely the situation that the hon. Lady described in her last point that I am setting out to try to prevent—a situation in which, in an arbitrary fashion, a given number of constituencies are told that somebody cannot be considered because he is a man, before any assessment has been made of the merits of male candidates who live in those areas. Those are the specific circumstances that I am trying to preclude.

If I understand the hon. Gentleman correctly, he is contesting that the amendment is required to bring us into conformity with European legislation. If that is the case, however, it means that that European legislation exists and is binding, and that the amendment is otiose. I am also concerned about his suggestion that somebody's local connection is the key issue. The hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) has a local connection, although it cannot be said to be more local because he talks about it all the time, and he used to have exactly the same degree of connection with Basildon. I am concerned that the amendment suggests that locality, rather than any other qualification, is appropriate for an assessment. I think that he is wrong about that.

There are two points. First, on the latter point, the hon. Lady elevates the local connection as if it were the only part of the assessment. The assessment relates to specific personal circumstances, including a person's relationship with a geographical area. The point of focusing on that aspect is not that it is the connection that matters most. It is not necessarily that merit, but one of the lesser issues, that matters most. However, if it is important to individuals to be elected for a specific geographical area where they live, all-women shortlists could bar them arbitrarily. That is unacceptable.

I am not sure whether I heard the hon. Gentleman correctly, but he appeared to introduce an interesting variation on the definitions in the amendment. He said that a local government candidate, who seeks election for a single-member ward, would not necessarily have to live there, but would have to be resident in the local authority area. How does he justify that in the context of the amendment, which clearly does not allow for such an exception? It would provide that the relationship of a candidate who seeks election for a geographical area had to be

"with that specific geographical area".

I am not talking about a legal qualification for selection. Local government and representation legislation provide that. One should be able to assess a candidate's merits. In the context of a local government election, the candidate's residence in the area will form a substantial part of the assessment. An assessment of a candidate's personal merits should also be made. That cannot be done if a political party imposes all-women shortlists on specific wards in a local authority area to try to achieve gender balance.

The hon Gentleman is beginning to confuse us all. He appears to place incredible emphasis on exactly where a male candidate lives. He asks why a man should not be able to stand in a specific area. What is the hon. Gentleman's motivation? He has absorbed the culture of the favoured son who serves on the council and is being prepared for a seat. That is the implication of his defence of the amendment.

I like to think that I am being generous in giving way, but at this point, rather than my being confusing, it is the hon. Lady who is deliberately confused, unless the Labour party is going to introduce all-men shortlists and debar women under this legislation. I am talking about men because, in reality, all-women shortlists are the measure that the Labour party appears to be contemplating.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) for moving the amendment. I suspect that when he stood up to do so, he little thought that he would be on his feet for quite so long as he was because of the number of interventions that he took, especially from Labour Members. I found some of those interventions a little strange.

"on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment … as regards access to employment, vocation training and promotion, and working conditions precludes national rules such as those in the present case which, where candidates of different sexes shortlisted for promotion are equally qualified, automatically give priority to women in sectors where they are underrepresented".

"where there are fewer women than men at the level of the relevant post"—

"and both female and male candidates … are equally qualified … priority be given to promotion of female candidates"—

"provided that:

in each individual case the rule provides for male candidates who are equally as qualified as the female candidates a guarantee that the candidatures will be the subject of an objective assessment which will take account of all criteria specific to the candidates".

"provided that that rule guarantees that candidatures are the subject of an objective assessment which takes account of the specific personal situations of all candidates".

"specific personal situations of the candidates".

The hon. Member for South. Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) has done us a favour by moving amendment No. 4, if only because this debate allows us to test on the Floor of the House some of the proportionality issues that we did not fully explore in Committee. He described his amendments as a pre-emptive test of proportionality. I think that such a test is valuable and I hope that the Minister will respond to it.

"This case found that national rules which gave priority to women when men and women had equal qualifications were acceptable in areas where women were under-represented provided that the rules guaranteed an objective assessment taking account of the specific personal situations of the candidates."

I support the amendment, which, indeed, is in my name as well as that of my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley).

"collapse if it could be proved it is a vehicle through which to introduce controversial all-women shortlists. He dismissed government claims that there will be no legal problem providing 'positive action is proportionate to the issue'."

"Excluding all men or all women has no element of proportionality. The government is claiming this is positive action when it is actually positive discrimination. There is a difference—positive action, such as advertising in women's magazines, is legal—whilst positive discrimination is not."

I apologise for coming in late, but I have found the arguments fascinating and that is why I have stayed. I understand the reasons for the amendment, but are the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues saying that preference should be given to local people? It seems that one of the factors in the amendment is that those with local links would be given preference, and I would have thought that most undesirable.

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would have benefited from being here to listen to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire, who gave a clear exposition of the case. We are saying that, in any attempt to redress the gender imbalance in the House, we should not prefer female candidates in all cases, and that where candidates are ostensibly of equal merit, we should think about objective criteria that make one of them more particularly suited for the seat. That is not solely limited to the fact that someone is local, but that may be a factor. We are talking about selecting a candidate for one seat, not a group of seats, and we need to be proportionate in our response.

Selection for parliamentary constituencies often consists of national candidates and local candidates. We do not say that local candidates should be given preference: the issue is whether they are to be debarred from being considered.

Indeed. We should certainly not, by any measures that we take to change the composition of the House, debar local candidates from selection. That is the crucial point of the amendment. The Minister should take it seriously, to ensure that the Bill is not subject to legal challenge once it is enacted.

I felt I must speak against the amendment and Opposition Members' arguments, which have demonstrated a failure to remember why the Bill was introduced in the first place. It is not dedicated to absolute equality of opportunity: it is designed specifically to redress the gross inequalities that prevail against women who believe that they have a part to play in the political life of their country and find that the selection processes—even before we get to a decision by the electorate—preclude them from stating their case.

If the Bill is enacted as it stands and the Labour party adopts all-women shortlists that are successfully legally challenged, what will the hon. Lady say to Ministers in her Government?

I can only say to the hon. Lady that I was selected from an all-women shortlist, before the idea of making that part and parcel of my party's structure was voted for overwhelmingly at two successive party conferences. There was no challenge. It was a decision for the individual constituency party.

We have had a long and somewhat convoluted debate on what has been almost universally recognised as a short and simple Bill. The danger is that we will lose touch with the fundamental issue and we would perhaps have run that risk but for the appropriate speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson) that concluded the debate, in which she rightly drew attention to the main reason for the introduction of the Bill—to remedy the chronic under-representation of women in all our elected bodies, including the House, local government, the European Parliament and, to a lesser extent, the devolved Assemblies and the Scottish Parliament.

"it is extremely unlikely that the European Court of Justice would (as UK courts have done with respect to the Sex Discrimination Act) outlaw positive action for women in the party selection process by ruling that it is covered by employment provisions. The European Commission has twice stated a clear belief that selection of candidates by political parties does not fall within the scope of the Equal Treatment Directive, in answer to questions in the European Parliament. If the court were to rule that EU law extended to candidate selection by parties, this would create chaos for those many parties all around the EU which use quota systems. As described in Appendix 2, strict positive action measures are now even enshrined in domestic law in some states such as France. In practice it would be politically impossible for the European Court of Justice to overturn these systems, and it can easily be argued that selection of candidates for political office is outside the competence of the EU."