What progress has been made in increasing the number of women in public appointments. [23441]

The Government are committed to increasing diversity in public appointments. We are determined that women should hold half of all public appointments. I shall host a series of seminars across the country to encourage more women to apply for such appointments. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will attend the seminar in Tyneside.

I thank the Minister for that reply, but does she share my disappointment that Dame Rennie Fritchie's last report showed that we had moved backwards in the participation of women in public appointments? Will the Minister ask Departments to undertake equality audits of the criteria that they use for making public appointments so that we can ensure that women's experience of using public services and of voluntary participation are properly counted when public appointments are being made?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Some Departments—for example, the Department of Health—have recently done well with regard to appointments. When we consider public appointments, of course we need to look at experience across the whole range. That is why voluntary work is so important—as is the presence of so many women as school governors.

Given the need to encourage women to apply for public appointments, might not women be influenced by the fate of women who hold such appointments, such as Elizabeth France, the information commissioner, who has indicated that she is not seeking reappointment, as her four-year term of office would not have enabled her at any stage to use the freedom of information powers due to the Government's delay? Do not the Government need to be seen to support those women who take on public appointments?

It is a great pity that the right hon. Gentleman has gone down that track. As he knows, Elizabeth France leaves her position with a great deal of good will for her tremendous work, and the Government—and everybody—have the highest regard for her. It is well recognised that after two terms the usual practice is to hold an open competition. That is what is taking place in this case.

May I say how much I welcome all the work that the Government are doing to encourage more women into public life? I welcome the series of seminars. When my hon. Friend organises where they are to be held, will she look closely at holding one in north Staffordshire, in order that we can encourage more women—especially young women—to take up public office?

It is not possible to cover everywhere, but of course we shall consider where we are holding the seminars, and we shall also try to ensure that the participants invited to them come from the widest possible area.

Is the hon. Lady aware that women applying for public appointments in health authorities have to declare their political affiliation? Does she agree that Conservative women are thus at a double disadvantage?

I reject that completely. The hon. Lady should look at the record of the previous Conservative Government, whom she supported.

What is the overall position of ethnic minority women as regards public appointments?

We want to look at that aspect. We shall try to publish some targets in the near future.

If he will make a statement on his role in relation to the British-Irish Council. [23443]

I carry ministerial responsibility for the British-Irish Council and deputise for the Prime Minister at summit meetings when he is not able to attend.

Why, before the Belfast agreement had been implemented, did the Government start making concessions to Sinn Fein-IRA—concessions that were not required and have not been reciprocated—in terms of special arrangements for their Members of Parliament to have offices in the House and an amnesty for on-the-run terrorists?

Those matters have been addressed by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the House has been informed of the Government's position. It did not affect the decisions at the summit meetings.

The British-Irish Council is an executive body, but there is a de facto shadow parliamentary body: the British-Irish Inter-Parliamentary Body. Unfortunately, Ulster Unionists will not attend its meetings because they see it as having come out of the Anglo-Irish agreement. Would not it be a good idea to move towards establishing it as a parliamentary wing of the British-Irish Council under the provisions of the Belfast agreement? Ulster Unionists could then join without a problem.

My hon. Friend has expressed that view on a number of occasions. I personally take the view that the British-Irish Council is the best way to deal with those difficulties in Northern Ireland. That is the Government's position, and it is what we intend to do.

I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for what he has said on this important topic. May I remind him that, as the Prime Minister and many other Ministers on all sides have rightly said, the Belfast agreement must be seen to be operating in all its particulars simultaneously? He will know that it was envisaged that the Council of the Isles would meet twice a year at summit level, but it has not yet been possible for it to do so. Is his aim and hope that it will meet twice at summit level this year?

The hon. Gentleman makes a very fair point. It was the intention, as originally set out in the agreement, to meet twice a year. There have been certain difficulties: one of the meetings was cancelled because it would have taken place on the day of the sad death of the First Minister in Scotland. Of course, the difficulties of the discussions in Northern Ireland also meant that we could not hold the council meeting. It is our intention to hold meetings twice a year; the next meeting will be held in Jersey.

What steps he is taking to promote better co-ordination between Government Departments in relation to combating social exclusion. [23444]

The social exclusion unit works with all other relevant Departments in developing policy to combat social exclusion. Part of the unit's implementation strategy includes establishing units in other Departments that can co-ordinate activity across Whitehall.

I thank the Minister for that reply. Does she agree with Churches Together in Wimbledon and many other voluntary and charitable organisations in my constituency that we should continue to strengthen the role of the Government in tackling the plight of homelessness and rough sleepers in major cities, such as London, and that a joined-up approach to government, involving many Departments working together, may be essential to achieve lasting success in relation to those issues?

Yes. I congratulate the rough sleepers unit, led by Louise Casey, on its remarkable achievement—a 62 per cent. reduction in numbers. By March 2002, the unit will have provided more than 1,000 additional places in hostels. The joined-up approach has been achieved because different Departments—for example, the Ministry of Defence, which has done some very good work in this area—are working with the Department for Work and Pensions and the Department of Health to ensure that people engage in prevention work as well.

Does the Minister agree that one of the factors that leads to social exclusion is inadequate mental health services for children and young people? Will she personally examine the system of funding young people's mental health services? Does she believe that there should be education, social services and health care, or it is that, at the lower end, the burden is placed on the Home Office because the young people become subject to prison sentences? In particular, will she reply to me about the funding of Young Minds—an excellent organisation that is unable to get funding from any of those different joined-up Departments?

The right hon. Lady makes a very serious point about the fact that this issue involves not just one Department; it goes across several Departments, which is why she may well be interested in several of the social exclusion unit's current projects, which range from the educational achievement of young people in care to ex-offenders. I undertake to write to her about the details of the funding issue that she raises, but a number of Departments have worked together to address the subject of young people, especially children at risk.

What methodology is used to target social need and overcome social exclusion? Do the Government plan to revise the means by which social need is targeted?

The hon. Gentleman raises an important subject. There are many reasons why people go in and out of poverty. Of course, income levels are part of that, so the most frequently used measure is that of households below 60 per cent. of median income, but there are other causes. For example, lack of skills or qualifications and poor health can have an effect, which is why a co-ordinated approach is needed.

I applaud the Government on their wish to tackle social exclusion. It is a noble objective but, as the Minister will recognise, it is important to judge it by results rather than by rhetoric. Will she reconfirm the commitment made by the Prime Minister in 1996

"to end the waste of families sleeping in bed and breakfast accommodation"?

I am amazed that the hon. Gentleman raises this issue given the position that his Government took on dealing with housing and homelessness. Of course, there is an obligation not only to tackle rough sleeping but to examine the number of families in bed-and-breakfast accommodation and to see what can be done about them. That is why the Government are engaging in a programme with social landlords to make sure that much more social housing is available.

What progress has been made in centralised procurement of broadband networks for Government use. [23445]

Broadband is a faster "always on" internet system that offers significant new benefits for individuals, businesses and users of public services. The public sector is the largest single consumer of broadband technology, so the Government are actively examining how that purchasing power might lever growth in the market more widely.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. He will have no doubt read in the Financial Times today that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who was speaking in South Korea, has commended the South Korean Government for their programme. They have invested £600 million in constructing a broadband network that is used by 8 million people. In Britain, only 600,000 people use broadband at present. Surely, the Government, who spend £2 billion through their various Departments to procure broadband services, should be getting together to make one procurement order that would, because of their purchasing power, drive up quality and spread the use of broadband. Can the Government not see themselves as a driving force for broadband initiatives if the private sector will not come to our rescue?

My hon. Friend makes entirely the right point. The Government are important not only as a regulator of this industry but as a consumer. A number of different infrastructure sharing opportunities exist, not least the academic networks and the investment that is being made in schools. Broadband is extremely important not because of the technology itself but because of what it can deliver in terms of new opportunities for learning and technology in the internet age.

The Minister is absolutely right to point out the importance of broadband. However, with the devolution of government to regions outside London, is he aware that broadband is not available widely throughout the United Kingdom? What are the Government going to do about that? Does he recall that the Prime Minister boasted in 1997 that broadband would be available to all throughout the United Kingdom by 1999? That has not happened. Is that yet another gimmicky promise not met?

Much as the hon. Gentleman might want the telecommunications industry to be wholly owned by the Government, the broadband capital investment network is led by industry itself. Although a significant proportion of rural areas in particular are not covered at present, 60 per cent. of the population have potential access to broadband even though only 1 per cent. sign up to it at present.

What the role of his Department is in responding to civil emergencies. [23446]

The role of the Civil Contingencies Secretariat in the Cabinet Office is to co-ordinate efforts across government to improve the effectiveness of civil contingency and emergency planning.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Will he comment on the role of local authorities in dealing with civil emergencies and tell us whether he has had any contact with them on this issue since the tragic events of 11 September? Furthermore, will he comment on the resource issue that would face a local authority dealing with a civil emergency?

This is a useful opportunity to pay tribute to the many emergency planning officers who work extremely hard in local authorities throughout the country to make sure that our emergency plans are up to date and are regularly exercised. They do a fantastic job. In the light of the events of 11 September, we have updated our guidance and are making sure that we are in regular discussions with local authorities and, in particular, with the Local Government Association.

For those of us living in Devon, the foot and mouth crisis in the past year came pretty close to a civil emergency. Will the Minister today agree to the Government holding a full public inquiry into the disease so that lessons can be learned for the future, and if not, why not?

As the hon. Gentleman well knows, a number of inquiries are under way into foot and mouth. The Civil Contingencies Secretariat seeks to ensure that all the different Departments that take a lead in tackling such emergencies have improved co-ordination so that we can be more effective in future.

Will my hon. Friend look carefully at the advice that the Civil Aviation Authority has given on overfly zones, in particular on the incidence of aircraft that have been held in holding patterns over high-risk sites? I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that there are more appropriate places to hold aircraft, even though our airspace is very crowded.

I shall certainly discuss with officials the point that my hon. Friend makes. I know that the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions has been considering the issue of aviation and the possible vulnerability of key sites, especially major chemical sites, for example. We have to be vigilant and ensure that we reduce vulnerability wherever possible.

The Minister may not be aware of a recent incident in Sandy in my constituency when a package that was suspected of containing anthrax caused a full-scale public emergency—[Interruption.]

Order. There is far too much noise.

In the course of dealing with the necessary decontamination and the obvious personal aspects of that, no woman officer was available in the emergency team, which caused understandable distress. Will the Minister liaise with his colleagues in the Home Office to ensure that there is a solution to that problem, so that women officers are present whenever possible to deal with women who have been evacuated and need decontamination?

This is an extremely important point. The guidance issued to reflect the chemical and biological risk that was perceived to be a problem in respect of postal services needs to include the way in which emergency services respond. There is no specific credible threat at present to the postal service in general, but the Cabinet Office is always reviewing the adequacy of our advice to the authorities on such matters.

What recent visits he has made to promote an international approach to tackling global poverty. [23448]

Tackling global poverty will be a key focus of the world summit on sustainable development in Johannesburg later this year, better known as the Rio 10 conference. I discussed preparations for the summit on my recent visit to the United States, New Zealand, Australia, Malaysia and Vietnam.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that environmental issues are closely related to tackling poverty, especially with regard to the implementation of the Kyoto protocol? Will he assure the House that he will continue to work on those issues, which are as important to tackling poverty as they are to sustainability issues at home?

My hon. Friend rightly highlights the global problems that require global solutions and global travel—[interruption]—whether Opposition Members like that or not. I think that the global travels of the Prime Minister, especially in respect of Afghanistan, have been to the benefit of world peace and prosperity.

Is it not a sad fact that according to the latest Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development statistics, the wealthier nations of the world collectively are now spending less in real terms on international development than they were 10 years ago? If we are determined to tackle global poverty, could not the Government at least give a lead by setting a clear date by which they will meet the 0.7 per cent. target of Government wealth to be allocated to international development?

The hon. Gentleman's point about average spending on aid by all countries is right, but this country's spending has increased. We are showing leadership in that respect. The proportion of spending on aid decreased under the previous Administration. The resources necessary to deal with poverty amount to about £50 billion. At the Monterrey conference in March, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will be closely involved in efforts to marshal such support in a new trust fund, which he suggested, so that we can make dealing with poverty a priority, as we have done in respect of terrorism.

Does the Minister agree that although it is essential and correct to give humanitarian aid to countries suffering from severe poverty, if we want to give them long-term and permanent assistance so that they can rely on themselves, the best way to assist them is to help them set up permanent education systems for the whole community? Does he agree that the point is strongly exemplified by Afghanistan, where 85 per cent. of women cannot read or write because they have not been allowed to go to school, and 65 per cent. of men cannot read or write because going to school is not permanent? Education will create societies where people can provide for themselves.

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Indeed, the objectives that have been set by the United Nations identify education as well as poverty relief as important millennium objectives. We have set targets; we are discussing finance on a global scale to enable us to achieve them.

When the code of conduct for Ministers was last revised. [23449]

A revised ministerial code was issued in July 2001, which took into account the recommendations of the Select Committee on Public Administration and the Committee on Standards in Public Life. Since then, in response to a recommendation from the Public Administration Committee, the Government have agreed to amend paragraph 27 of the code, which now requires that all announcements of Government policy should be made in the first instance in Parliament. I am sure that the House will welcome that.

When, then, will the rest of the code be enforced? We had Ministers with houses paid for by colleagues, Ministers with houses belonging to their wives, and Ministers with flats belonging to railwaymen's unions. If hon. Members have an independent Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, is it not even more important that Ministers, who have executive responsibility, should have an independent commissioner for the standards that they are supposed to uphold?

We heard lots of allegations, without a great deal of substance.

There was in The Guardian.

It being in The Guardian is hardly the highest of recommendations. That is me finished again tomorrow. We have Select Committees that make recommendations, and they made recommendations about how the code should apply. I am glad that in a recent statement the Select Committee welcomed a number of changes that we have made to the code of conduct. For example, the code should be a framework for decisions. The seven principles of public life that are applied to public servants should now apply to Ministers. Further recommendations were welcomed. There was a gap, as the Select Committee pointed out—for example, we rejected the recommendation that the Prime Minister should appear before the Select Committee, and that there should be a separate ombudsman. We have made clear in our reports the matters on which we disagree with the Committee.

On the enforcement of the code of conduct for Ministers, the Deputy Prime Minister will recall that the code contains a reference to the requirement for Ministers to comply in full with the Register of Members' Interests. Is it not regrettable that the Deputy Prime Minister himself has still failed to comply with the finding of the Standards and Privileges Committee that he should register his RMT property connection? Will not many commuters believe that the Government's spineless refusal to take action against this week's shameful rail strikes is connected with that link at the highest level to the RMT?

The hon. Gentleman has been geed up to be a little more aggressive in his questioning, but he is not consistent with the facts. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I am going to answer. The allegations made by Opposition Members were investigated by the Committee and rejected. All three accusations investigated by Mrs. Filkin and put before the Committee were rejected. In those circumstances, I was not required to register the interest.

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

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

Will the Prime Minister give a commitment today to pay the Scottish Executive the estimated £20 million that will be saved by the Department for Work and Pensions in payments of attendance allowance as a result of the Scottish Executive's decision to introduce free personal care for the elderly in Scotland? Is it not deeply ironic that the political courage shown by the Labour party in Scotland, along with Liberal Democrat colleagues in the Executive, should be met with such cynical swindling by none other than the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling)?

First, let me point out to the hon. Gentleman that we are increasing enormously the amount of health service and social care spending in Scotland, as elsewhere. That is of course a vast increase over anything that the Liberal Democrats have ever asked for. Secondly, let me assure him that as part of devolution it is of course possible for Scotland to take a different view of the best way in which to spend the resources that we have.

The Prime Minister will be familiar with the tragic killing in Macedonia of paratrooper Ian Collins in August last year while on a NATO peacekeeping mission. My right hon. Friend will have seen in the national press today that Ian Collins' mother, father and girlfriend are out in Macedonia at the moment seeking justice from the Macedonian judicial system. According to the Ministry of Defence, they are being escorted by Mr. John Mitchell, the vice-consul out there. I ask my right hon. Friend to do all in his power to ensure that my constituents receive justice for the tragic death that occurred on such a gallant mission.

I totally share the concern of my hon. Friend and of his constituents at the way in which the issue has been handled and at the present outcome. We are in close contact with the family and also in close touch with the Macedonian authorities, and we will do everything we possibly can to bring the matter to a satisfactory conclusion.

Who is in charge of transport policy?

The Secretary of State for Transport.

I know that the Prime Minister has been away for a long time, but while he has been away, his transport policy has descended into farce. He has Lord Birt, with all his great expertise on railways, in charge of long-term transport policy; he has a management consultant in charge of short-term transport policy; and today we read that his Deputy Chief Whip is in charge of negotiating with striking rail unions. Just what is the purpose of the Transport Secretary?

First, in relation to John Birt, it was announced back in September that he would undertake a lot of work for the policy unit in Downing street about long-term trends in the transport industry. Since Governments have had policy units, as far as I am aware, for decades, quite why that is inconsistent with having a Transport Secretary I do not know. Secondly, what the Transport Secretary does is provide the long-term investment for the railways—and also sort out the appalling mess that was left by railway privatisation.

The one thing that is absolutely clear about this Transport Secretary is that he is not there to make the trains run on time. The figures that are now available, which he stopped publishing, show before the strike, Connex South Eastern delays up 50 per cent., South West Trains delays up 70 per cent. and First Great Eastern Railways delays up 95 per cent. Yesterday, the Secretary of State said that he was going to be in post for years and years. Surely, the Prime Minister knows that the only certainty is that, under him, the chaos on the railways will be in place for years and years.

rose—

Oh no. I do not want the Prime Minister to miss this point. Is not it time that he sacked his Transport Secretary?

First, it is absolutely correct that after the Hatfield rail disaster—yes, it is true—reliability went down very considerably. That happened for a very simple reason. After Hatfield, it became clear that the state of the railway infrastructure was far worse than anyone had ever imagined. That is the result of cumulated under-investment going back many years. Let me give Opposition Members the figures on investment. In the first 10 years of the last Conservative Government—this is at constant prices—there was investment of about £940 million a year. In the next eight years, there was £1.4 billion investment. In the first term of this Government, that rose to £2.2 billion. However, under the comprehensive spending review, for the next three years, it will be £4.4 billion, or three times the amount that the last Conservative Government put in.

"I believe our aim should…be to reduce the proportion of national output taken towards the state by 35 per cent."

"We would like to head downwards to 35 per cent. of GDP."

"our target must…be the mid-30s as an overall percentage of public expenditure".—[Official Report, 28 November 1995; Vol. 267, c. 1096.]

More!

Order.

Will the Prime Minister acknowledge the success of the British Institute for Brain Injured Children, the Disabilities Trust and my constituents, Ivan and Charika Corea, in getting 2002 declared as autism awareness year? Will he ensure that the national and local bodies that are responsible for health, social services and education co-operate in the joined-up provision of services that autistic people and their families desperately need?

Yes, I certainly congratulate my hon. Friend's constituents and the organisations concerned. Autism awareness year should give us the opportunity to raise the awareness of this condition, which is very debilitating and is distressing for families; in addition, it should ensure that we can learn more about what causes autism. She will be pleased to know that, in addition to the measures being taken by the voluntary sector, the Government are putting more resources and research into exactly how autism occurs and how we should deal with it.

I acknowledge the Government's shambolic inheritance in terms of transport policy, but does the Prime Minister not feel the need to explain to people across the country why today, in year five of a Labour Government, with a generally benign economic scenario over that period and a three-figure Commons majority throughout, our transport policy is still a shambles?

There are two reasons why the problems on the railways have arisen. The first is related to privatisation, which is generally accepted to have been a disaster. That is now being sorted out, with the new company being restructured, the new Strategic Rail Authority director and the new management in the company all in place now. It will be sorted out in the next few months. Secondly, under-investment in the railways went on for a considerable period, but that is now being made good. On Monday, the new Strategic Rail Authority director, Richard Bowker, will publish the forward investment plans for the railways.

The whole country will share the Prime Minister's sense of entertainment about where the Conservatives come from on this issue; there is no doubt about that. In response to my question, however, he said two things. First, he said that in the next few months the problems would be sorted out once and for all. Last February, in reply to me during Prime Minister's questions, he said that rail services would be back to normal by Easter—one wonders which Easter he was referring to. Secondly, the Prime Minister talks about persistent under-investment, and he is correct—but what about the under-investment during the first four years of this Labour Government?

I am afraid that I cannot agree with the right hon. Gentleman about the first four years of this Government. As I have just pointed out, the figures show that even in our first term we were spending—in investment, which of course means long lead times for new equipment and so on to kick in—about double what the Conservative Government were spending. Over the next three years that sum will rise to about three times what they were spending. I simply point out to the right hon. Gentleman that not merely are we spending far more than the Conservatives ever spent, and are due to spend more, but we are spending far more than the Liberal Democrats ever asked us to.

In anticipation of tomorrow's important debate, will the Prime Minister consider what is the point of replacing a second Chamber that was rotten because of inherited patronage with a second Chamber that is rotten because of contemporary patronage?

First, the independent Members of the House of Lords will be appointed by the independent commission. Secondly, the political appointments can be made in one of two ways. Those Members could be wholly elected—some people here in the House agree with that—or they could be appointed through the political parties. In either event, those would obviously be political appointments. That is a matter for the House to debate, and of course we will listen carefully to the House's views about the right way to proceed with House of Lords reform. However, I have to say to my hon. and learned Friend and other hon. Members that, listening to those views, it is clear that there are almost as many different views about what should happen with the House of Lords as there are Members of Parliament.

Is the Prime Minister aware that all his talk of billions of pounds, of percentages and of investment on the railways will be of little comfort to commuters in my constituency, whose service has deteriorated and is continuing to deteriorate? He has been in charge for five years. Why does he think that Labour is so bad at improving public transport?

As I pointed out a moment ago, the real fall-down in reliability came after the Hatfield rail disaster, when it was discovered that the state of the track was far worse than anyone had ever thought. At present, we also have the issue of strikes on the railways. I have to say that this is a totally unacceptable way to resolve disputes in this day and age. There exists in the agreement between the management and the unions the power for this matter to be referred to arbitration. I would have thought that that, rather than strike action, was a far better way to resolve this issue. In any event, the long-term future of the railways depends on extra investment and the sorting out of Railtrack, which we found, after Hatfield, was a company that simply could not go on in the same way as before. Both those things have to be done if the railways are to be put in order.

Does the Prime Minister agree that there is a growing problem in Leigh, and many towns like it, with gangs of youths who feel that they are above the law, damaging property and generally making people's lives a misery? Is he aware of the new policy being tested in my constituency by Greater Manchester police, in which calls from the public are prioritised and patrols are no longer sent in response to problems with teenage gangs of this kind? Does he share my concern that this sends out the wrong message to the public, and does he agree that our constituents want to see firm action against this type of behaviour remaining a high priority for the police?

I am sure that my hon. Friend is right in saying that people want a high priority to be given to tackling street violence and antisocial crime. I know that the Home Secretary has asked for a report from the Greater Manchester police about the change in policy that my hon. Friend has just outlined. However, extra measures are now proposed for youth justice and there will be an increase in police numbers coming about as a result of extra investment. I think that the Greater Manchester police will, in the end, have more police than ever before under this investment proposal, and I am sure that there will be measures on the way to tackle this problem. But in the end, my hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that the whole community must be engaged in rooting out this behaviour.

The Minister with responsibility for crime reduction has been quoted as saying:

"I feel anxious about my family's safety and my own with growing street crime."

That will be overtaken by a letter from the Minister to the newspaper concerned, saying that he said no such thing.

If, apparently, the Minister said no such thing, was he not, in reality, in saying no such thing, correct in what he apparently did not say?

No. The British crime survey figures show that crime is down overall. Indeed, crime is down very substantially since this Government came to office. Some of us remember that, under the last Conservative Government, crime doubled. Violent crime is down, and so is burglary and vehicle theft. There is a particular problem at the moment with street violence, especially in relation to mobile phones, and it is precisely for that reason that the Government are going to work with the industry and the police to make sure that we tackle the problem.

Only someone who has become so isolated from the general public could say that violent crime is down, when his own figures show that it is up. People feel the kind of fear about walking in their streets at night, which the Prime Minister no doubt does not understand. The figures also show that Londoners are five times more likely to suffer attacks of violent crime than those who live in New York, and three times more likely than those who live in Los Angeles. Now that the Prime Minister is back home, should he not stay home and get a grip?

First, in relation to New York and so on, I think that those figures are wrong. In New York, the murder rate is about five times as high as in London. Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman is wrong in relation to the overall statistics for crime. The British crime survey—which the Conservatives have always said is the most accurate survey—shows that crime is down. [Interruption.] Those are the Home Office figures.

I know that the Prime Minister is aware of the current difficulties facing the aerospace industry, which are due, at least in part, to the events of 11 September. Can he assure me that the Government are doing everything possible to assist that crucial industry with what we all hope will be short-term difficulties? In particular, will he have discussions with Ministers at the Department of Trade and Industry and Ministry of Defence about the possibility of bringing forward projects that are already agreed, and awarding training grants, which would be very welcome?

It is important that we do two things. First, we must make provision to help the industry through the particular impact of 11 September. In so far as we are able, we are doing that. Some £40 million has gone to help the industry. I know that my hon. Friend has a particular interest in the aerospace and aviation industry in his constituency. We should try to bring forward some of the large contracts that are being placed abroad. I am pleased to say that we are doing well in that regard, but we will try to do more. The aerospace and aviation industry is an important part of this country's manufacturing base. It is highly skilled and highly sensitive to new technology, and we shall do everything we can to build on it.

During the Prime Minister's current visit to the United Kingdom, would he turn his attention to the case of my constituent, Mr. Gavin Burns, of which I have given him notice? The eye hospital in Manchester could save Mr. Burns's sight only by using photodynamic therapy at a cost to him of £7,500. Conventional laser treatment available on the NHS would have destroyed the centre of his one remaining good eye, leaving him unable to see the faces of his grandchildren. Does the Prime Minister agree with me that it is unacceptable that Mr. Burns and others like him should be forced to pay for treatment that is clearly and obviously necessary?

I believe that it is unacceptable that people are forced to pay for their treatment in that way, which is precisely why it is so important that we get the extra investment into the national health service and build up its capacity. I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that, as the position of the Conservative party is to force people into private insurance, criticism from Conservative Members simply will not wash.

What is the Prime Minister doing about the case of Mr. Bums?

The hon. Gentleman asks what we are doing about it. We are putting extra investment into the national health service. I am afraid that, whatever he feels for his constituent, the position of the Conservative party is to take that investment back out again.

Just four weeks ago, on 12 December, 13-year-old Martin Lamparter, who lived and went to school in my constituency, died in a tragic accident involving fireworks. His family are absolutely devastated. In the light of that terrible loss of a young life and the almost 1,000 firework-related injuries that occur each year, would the Prime Minister look again at whether the legislation that allows the retail sale of fireworks is adequate, and whether further measures could be taken to protect the public, especially young people, from the dangers that fireworks present?

The risks associated with fireworks are very clear, as my hon. Friend says. Once the Government have the full statistics and the results of the survey of firework accidents that have occurred this year, we will certainly consider whether any changes are necessary. As a result of action that has been taken over many years, we have succeeded in reducing the number of accidents significantly, but if something remains to be done, once we have completed the survey and done the analysis of what changes need to be put in place, we will change the system even further.

If he will make a statement on the Government's action to consult on the introduction of congestion charges.

The Government require local authorities to undertake full and effective consultation before seeking approval for any local congestion-charging scheme in England outside London. Consultations about London schemes are a matter for the Mayor.

Does the Prime Minister recall, during the London mayoral and Assembly elections, campaigning on a manifesto featuring his photograph and signature on the first page and, on the front, the words "New Labour, new London, no congestion charges"? What exactly does he mean by that?

What I mean is that the decision is obviously for the Mayor to make. It will be for him to decide whether to introduce congestion charging. The Government's role is to ensure that any money used for congestion charging is put back into public transport. That, we believe, is the sensible way in which to proceed.

Now that the whole country is free of foot and mouth disease, what plans has my right hon. Friend to restore and support the tourism industry—particularly in my constituency and in north-west Wales, where tourism is vital to the lives of many citizens?

We are trying to ensure, by means of funds for the tourist boards not just in Wales but throughout the country, that we give a significant boost to British tourism. Spending on the advertising campaign will run into millions of pounds. It is having an impact, and I understand that the Welsh Assembly is making a further £2 million available to the Welsh tourist board to boost the industry specifically in Wales.

Having recently seen deprivation abroad, the Prime Minister knows that the European Union's overseas aid package is motivated by politics. Poland receives twice as much aid as the whole of Latin America and Asia combined. When will the Prime Minister stop the EU from playing petty politics with the poor of the world?

The negotiations that are taking place with Poland about accession to the European Union will deal with many of those issues. We are in favour of European enlargement, and in favour of Poland's coming into the European Union. As for European policy as a whole, if we can make changes in the European Union's aid and development policy, it will be only because we have some influence within the European Union itself. The worst course that we could follow, in having that influence, would be to pursue the policies of isolationism that are exhibited constantly by the Conservative party, not least at this Question Time.

My right hon. Friend will be well aware of the economic test currently faced by flood prevention schemes, and will know that many argue that it fails residents and businesses affected by flooding. Will he consider modernising the formula to take account of the huge social costs incurred by those affected, and to make it easier to establish flood defence schemes for residents and businesses in such places as Worcester?

I understand my hon. Friend's concern. We are looking at ways in which we can improve the effectiveness of the resources that we put in for protection against flooding, but we are increasing those resources significantly, by some £100 million or more. I will certainly look into my hon. Friend's point, but I must tell him that in the end the important thing is for the Government to make the investment, and for local people to make the final decision on how that investment can best be used.

Will the Prime Minister assure the House that no Minister in his Government played any part, through pressure or influence of any kind, in the effective dismissal of Elizabeth Filkin, and that her findings against the Deputy Prime Minister and other Ministers in his Government played no part in it either? When will he force the Deputy Prime Minister to abide by his ministerial code, and register his pecuniary interest in the RMT?

As I heard just before the beginning of Prime Minister's Question Time, the Deputy Prime Minister dealt very comprehensively with the usual rubbish from the Conservative party on this issue. In respect of Mrs. Filkin, if the hon. Gentleman has any such evidence he should present it to the proper authorities rather than engaging in the usual Conservative party smear.

It was great to see my right hon. Friend in Afghanistan earlier this week—[Laughter.]—encouraging our very brave troops, but is it possible to employ our peacekeeping troops in an aid programme? I understand that many of our aid programmes are being hampered by bandits. It would be extremely helpful if particular use could be made of our troops' expertise.

It is important that the troops reduce the possibilities of instability. However, I was fascinated by Conservative Members shouting at my hon. Friend for saying that we should support the British troops in Afghanistan and what they are doing. Of course, that is part of the Conservative party's new policy. It is against us being part of the security force in Afghanistan. It is against us being in Sierra Leone. It is against us being in Macedonia. It is against us being anywhere near India and Pakistan, so it appears. It is against us being in Europe. It is the Howard Hughes school of diplomacy, but it is not very effective.