If he will make a statement on police reform in Northern Ireland. [33133]

Our aim is to develop a modern police service that is effective and widely accepted throughout the community that it serves. Good progress has already been made in restructuring the police and in establishing a Policing Board with representatives from across the community.

I welcome that answer, as I do the long overdue police reform in Northern Ireland, but does my hon. Friend agree that the families affected by the Omagh atrocity are not helped by the fact that people of considerable influence, including some politicians, refuse to assist the police in their inquiries into the Omagh events? Does she also agree that, despite the important work carried out by the Policing Board, the undignified public squabble between the police ombudsman and other authorities only adds a sense of frustration to that of loss and anger, which is already felt by the bereaved families?

Everyone wants the perpetrators to be brought to justice. To convict those responsible for that appalling crime, the police need evidence. Speculation and intelligence are not enough. This remains a live investigation, and I hope that the recent publicity about the tragic events in Omagh on 15 August 1998 will encourage those with information to come forward.

If the Minister is keen to have a good police service in Northern Ireland, does she agree that it needs to be properly funded? There is a deficit of more than £40 million for this year, and it will probably be £80 million next year. Without resources, how can we have good policing in Northern Ireland?

The Government are fully committed to ensuring that the Police Service of Northern Ireland has the resources that it needs to continue to deliver a high-quality policing service to all in the community. The police grant for this year amounts to £656 million, which represents a high level of commitment by the Government. In August, the Secretary of State allocated an additional £10 million to the police grant to relieve pressures arising from the costs of policing disturbances earlier in the year. I am pleased to announce today that a further £16 million has been made available to the PSNI to meet all the remaining pressures identified by the Chief Constable in this financial year.

Does the Minister agree that the most fundamental and necessary principle of law and order in any society is agreement on the system of government—in other words, agreement on the system of order? When that is absent, no matter where it is, the police service will always be seen to be on one side or the other. Unfortunately, that was the situation in Northern Ireland.

I entirely agree with everything my hon. Friend says.

Will the Minister please address a serious issue? The Patten report recommends that, over 10 years, the strength of the police service should be 7,500. That represents a significant fall in a short time. What is being done to redress the balance as regards that dangerously low level of policing?

The Police Service of Northern Ireland is recruiting well, and levels of recruitment from both sides of the community are at a higher level than even Patten envisaged in his report. I am encouraged by the response that the communities have given to the reforms in the police service in Northern Ireland, and I have every confidence that we will have all the officers that we need to police Northern Ireland in the future.

I have here a letter from the hon. Member for Lincoln (Gillian Merron), who is Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. It states:

"Dear Colleague,

Northern Ireland Questions: Wednesday 13th February 2002.

Thank you for your interest in Northern Ireland, and your help in tabling questions. I attach a suggested question…If you would like an alternative, or would like the question tabled on your behalf, please contact either myself, or Shona McIsaac, PPS to Jane Kennedy MP, Minister of State for Security and Policing…If your question is listed and is likely to be called, there will be assistance available with supplementaries".

In one short question I have been asked about police staffing, police resources and the very difficult matter of Omagh. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to suggest which of those issues we should not be questioned on?

What aspects of the Good Friday agreement remain to be implemented. [33134]

All aspects of the Belfast agreement have now been started. Our task is to ensure that the implementation process continues on all fronts.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Now that the new institutions are operational, will he continue to do everything that he can to encourage all parties, including the Unionists, to work together in those institutions? Will he also continue to support the economic development of Northern Ireland, which is one of the ways of bringing people—especially young people—together and ensuring that all the people of Northern Ireland have a better future?

I can assure my hon. Friend that the Government are faithfully implementing the agreement. As he rightly points out, implementation is not a matter only for the Government; it is a joint enterprise. I would like to take this opportunity to praise the First Minister and Deputy First Minister for the significant work that they are doing in this regard. The Government have consistently encouraged and persuaded others to fulfil their obligations, and we are still doing so. We continue to face challenges, but we also continue to make steady progress on all aspects of the agreement.

Is the Minister aware of the existence of the recently formed Ulster Political Research Group, whose aim is to address the political alienation from the Good Friday agreement process felt by loyalist communities in Northern Ireland, particularly in north Belfast? Would he be willing to accept representations from that group, and from one of its leading contributors, Mr. Frankie Gallagher?

The Government recognise the potential contribution that the Ulster Political Research Group could make to progress in this regard. That is why officials from the Northern Ireland Office met a delegation from the group on 28 January. There was a constructive exchange of views, and it was agreed that further meetings could take place when appropriate.

While welcoming what the Minister has just said about engaging with loyalism, may I ask the Government to consider their own position? When are they going to demonstrate that they fully respect the letter and the spirit of the agreement's constitutional provisions, particularly those that recognise the legitimacy of Northern Ireland's place as part of the United Kingdom? When are the Government going to respect that? They completely failed to do so in certain aspects of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000. Are they going to repeat that mistake with regard to the Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill, or will they allow the proper expression of British national symbols in the courts of Northern Ireland on the same basis as the rest of the United Kingdom? That is the logic and the spirit of the agreement, but the Government have not yet recognised that.

I have already assured the House that the Government are implementing the agreement faithfully, including aspects mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman. As for his specific point, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made the Government's position clear on Second Reading of the Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill, and in Committee yesterday I had an opportunity to repeat what he had said. We are prepared to consider all aspects of that Bill, and the Secretary of State is considering the points made to him by the right hon. Gentleman.

Does the Minister not think that far too much attention is already being paid to symbolism, not just in Northern Ireland but in Britain more generally? Would it not be appropriate to think about reducing the importance that we attach to symbols, and attaching more importance to reality?

That is of course an important aspect of the agreement, in that the agreement requires the symbols and traditions of both sides of the community to be acknowledged and respected. The Government will continue to implement that provision.

The whole House will have noticed that the Minister of State spectacularly failed to answer an important question about the Government's commitment to running down the full-time police reserve in Northern Ireland. I am afraid that the whole population of Northern Ireland will draw very pessimistic conclusions from that evasion.

The hon. Gentleman knows the position relating to the full-time reserve: the Chief Constable will review the situation in April, and the Government will act on his recommendations.

Is it not time the Government learned that giving rewards and concessions to people who do not fulfil their obligations is not a very clever way of inducing them to do so? Will the Minister assure us that, short of the completion of decommissioning and the abandonment of the armed struggle by terrorists and former terrorists, there can be no question of an amnesty for terrorists on the run? If the Government proceeded with such an amnesty in the present circumstances, they would have no defence whatever against the charge of a complete sell-out—a sell-out of all the law-abiding people in Northern Ireland, in both communities, and indeed of all principles of judicial propriety and good sense.

The Weston Park proposals set the issue in its proper context. It arises from the Belfast agreement, and is a logical extension of it. As we have said repeatedly, the Government are still considering how this might be achieved, and when our considerations have been concluded we will publish our proposals for debate here.

What progress is being made towards reducing the military presence in Northern Ireland. [33135]

As a result of the general lowering of the threat from terrorists, the Chief Constable was able to announce on 22 January a number of further normalisation measures.

Will my right hon. Friend join me in condemning the attack on the Magilligan training camp, and extend his sympathy to the civilian victim's family? Will he assure the House and everyone else that that terrible act will not impede the process of normalisation in Northern Ireland?

I have no hesitation in condemning the recent attack on the Magilligan training centre. I am sure that I speak for all Members in extending sympathy to the victim and the victim's family.

Does the Secretary of State agree that the best way in which to reduce the regular Army to garrison levels, which all reasonable people want in Northern Ireland, is to maintain a civil police force of such numbers, size and operational ability that it can be the prime force in defending law and order? In two areas of Northern Ireland, north Belfast and Coleraine, the regular Army has been brought in recently to back up the RUC, the Police Service of Northern Ireland. Will the Secretary of State or the Minister come to a meeting that I have called for next Wednesday night at Ballyclare town hall to hear the complaints and concerns of the full-time RUC Reserve? Forty per cent. of the operational police on the ground have an "R" on their shoulder. If they are taken out in March or April, we will have no law and order in Northern Ireland.

Of course, the Minister responsible for security and I meet constantly with members of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, including members of the full-time reserve. I would not for a moment underestimate the difficulties in facing up to the challenges that the police service faces.

Does the Secretary of State agree that the primacy of policing and policing decisions is a hallmark and a core element of any normal and stable society? Does he further agree that until there is a reduction in the military presence the primacy of policing decisions will be incomplete? What plans does the Northern Ireland Office have of now to ensure the removal of installations in south Armagh that are manned exclusively by military personnel?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is our aspiration to achieve a normal level of troops in Northern Ireland. Indeed, partly because of the success of the police service, in co-operation with the Garda from the Republic of Ireland, the threat level has been assessed as lower and, in the past four months alone, from memory, we have reduced two establishments, and announced that another barracks is to close and a battalion and three towers are to be removed.

Given that the Ministry of Defence's liability so far for its part in the Saville inquiry is £14.5 million, will the Secretary of State give an assurance that that will in no way compromise any part of the MOD's operational budget in Northern Ireland?

Yes, I can. Our military expenditure in Northern Ireland in the past 30 years has been astronomical. As a result of the progress that we have made in the peace process, part of which addresses very difficult issues of truth about the past, the troop level in Northern Ireland is lower than it has been for 31 years. We have reduced the number of soldiers there from 27,000 to 13,000, with commensurate back-up. The savings from that alone far exceed any costs of the Bloody Sunday inquiry to which the hon. Gentleman refers.

What discussions he has had with authorities in (a) the United States and (b) other countries to identify means of improving police effectiveness in Northern Ireland. [33136]

I have ongoing contact with a range of authorities on policing matters. I returned this morning from a two-day visit to the United States, which gave me an opportunity to discuss policing and other matters with Secretary Powell, Robert Mueller, who is director of the FBI, and assistant Attorney-General Larry Thompson, among others.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is an indivisibility about terrorism, and that the assistance provided by the United States will therefore be particularly welcome to the people of Northern Ireland? In so far as there are resource implications of that assistance, will the needs of the Police Service of Northern Ireland be met adequately and in full?

I agree with my hon. Friend on both counts. I have no hesitation in saying publicly that we are enormously grateful for the assistance that we have been given by the United States authorities and, most recently, President Bush's agreement to joint training between the FBI and the Police Service of Northern Ireland. As my hon. Friend points out, the Government are committed to providing the resources necessary to supplement assistance from outside. That is why we recently awarded an additional £10 million. As my hon. Friend the Minister responsible for security said today, we are happy to announce that an additional £16 million will go to the Police Service of Northern Ireland.

I welcome the announcement today in response to my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) of additional money for the Police Service of Northern Ireland. Can I press the Secretary of State further to reassure my constituents in north Belfast and other people in Northern Ireland that the axe that currently hangs over several police stations, including two in my constituency that cover areas where there has been trouble in recent days—in the Whitewell area and between Tiger's Bay and Newington—will be removed? Will the Secretary of State ensure that those police stations will remain open and that security will not be reduced at a very difficult time?

First, I welcome the hon. Gentleman's acknowledgement of the Government's commitment to resource the police service. I do not often have the opportunity to welcome such acknowledgements but I am grateful for it. On decisions about the future of police stations in general, the key role will be played by the Policing Board. Despite the cynicism and attempts by people to undermine the role of the Policing Board, it has risen magnificently to continual challenges, not least most recently on the subject of the Omagh inquiry. I am sure that it will act with just as much wisdom, circumspection and concern for effective policing on the matters that the hon. Gentleman has raised.

What recent discussions he has had with the devolved Administration regarding the support given to victims of the troubles. [33137]

I met Ministers of the devolved Administration on 25 January. We discussed a range of issues that impact on our respective strategies for responding to the needs of victims of the troubles. Such regular consultation is vital to ensure that the needs of victims are properly addressed.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. I draw his attention to the very good work of the Northern Ireland centre for trauma and transformation. What assurances can he give about its future funding?

I can assure my hon. Friend that the centre's work has been fully recognised by the Northern Ireland Office. Significant funding has been committed so that it can go ahead as the Northern Ireland centre for trauma. The centre is doing good work in Northern Ireland, and internationally.

I welcome what has been done for victims, but does the Minister accept that we have fresh victims daily, who sometimes seem to be forgotten about? Will it be possible for the Minister to use his influence more to prevent the constant changes in our policing that keep people writing reports instead of working on the streets?

I recognise the need for less bureaucracy in this matter. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are about to take a fresh look at our strategy with regard to victims to ensure that it is capable of responding to the changing context that the hon. Gentleman has identified.

If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 13 February.

Before listing my engagements, Mr. Speaker, may I say on behalf of hon. Members on all sides of the House how deeply we express our sadness at the death of her royal highness Princess Margaret? She will be remembered by the whole nation with huge affection for her love of culture and art and her sense of fun, but most of all for the service that she gave our nation. Our thoughts and deep condolences are with the Queen, the Queen Mother, and all the royal family.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that matters such as MMR and BSE illustrate how important it is to understand the risk factor in science? Does he also agree that science and discovery centres such as At-Bristol play an important role in achieving that? Will he therefore accept that such centres deserve to have central Government funding, as many museums and art galleries do?

I congratulate the centre in Bristol on the work that it does, and I agree with my hon. Friend that it is important that we invest in science for the future. That is why the Government, in partnership with the Wellcome Trust, are committed to making available some £1 billion over the next few years for investment in science. That will be an investment not only in the learning of our young people, but in the economic future of the country.

I join the Prime Minister in offering our condolences to Her Majesty the Queen, the Queen Mother and the royal family on their sad loss. The Prime Minister is right to say that Princess Margaret was a strong servant of her country, through war and peace. She will be mourned and much missed throughout the country.

It is of course a matter of public record that Mr. Mittal is a donor to the Labour party and a supporter of the Labour party. Why is that a matter of public record? It is because this Government introduced the open rules for political funding. For years and years, no one had any idea of how the Conservative party or any political party was funded. We introduced rules of transparency.

It is very interesting that the Prime Minister now says that it is garbage to raise a concern that he, as the Prime Minister and on behalf of the whole country, should have written a letter in support of a company—by the way, it is a competitor to our main steel manufacturer—which turns out to have fewer than one tenth of 1 per cent. of its employees working in the United Kingdom. The company is registered in the Dutch Antilles. Will the Prime Minister tell us whether at any stage he or his chief of staff were aware, as he signed the letter, that it was in support of someone who had donated money to the Labour party?

I have already said that it was a matter of public record that Mr. Mittal was a donor to the Labour party. However, what the right hon. Gentleman says about the letter is total nonsense. It was written at the instigation of the British embassy in Romania. It was written for the very simple reason that this was a reform, namely the selling off of an old state industry, which we supported strongly. I am delighted that a British-based company has succeeded. What is more, I am pleased that the embassy asked us to do this—it was the right thing to do. If the right hon. Gentleman is seriously saying that because the company is owned by someone who is a supporter of the Labour party, we should not write such a letter, even though the British embassy requests it, that is totally contrary to the practice of previous Governments throughout the ages.

The Prime Minister already knows that, apparently, in the draft letter the word "friend" was struck out before he even signed it. The real point is not whether the Prime Minister was right to sign on behalf of the company but how many of the companies that employ fewer than 100 employees in this country and are registered abroad he backs by letters to foreign countries in support of contracts? The Prime Minister seems to have missed the point. Until he is able to say that he knew specifically about the matter and discussed it with his chief of staff and then decided, despite that, to go ahead, we will never be the clearer and will always be left doubting whether the Prime Minister acted in the best interests of Britain. To clear this up, will the Prime Minister now tell us whether he will agree to a full public and independent inquiry into this affair?

I can certainly tell the right hon. Gentleman the answer to that—it is no. As I pointed out a moment ago, I signed the letter unchanged, and it made no mention of Mr. Mittal. However, had it done so, it would still have been entirely the right thing to do. The right hon. Gentleman says that it was wrong to sign the letter. I will explain again to Conservative Members why I did so.

More, more.

Order.

My constituency has some of the highest mortality rates in the country for certain cancers. What concerns my constituents are the inequalities in health service provision. Historically, we have had a shortage of health professionals for a number of years. What are the Government doing to ensure that we have more professionals, such as doctors and nurses, in the health service so that health inequalities in areas such as mine are dealt with?

The most important thing that we can do to recruit more professionals into the health service is obviously to put in the extra investment. That is why we are recruiting more doctors, more nurses and more consultants. We are recruiting at every level of the health service for a very simple reason: we believe that one of the principal problems of the health service is undercapacity in it. We need those doctors and nurses. In the past year alone, we have recruited more than 15,000 more nurses. As a result of that, we will meet the NHS planned target on recruitment of nurses some two years ahead of schedule. That will only succeed if we keep that investment going through the health service and do not take it out—which is of course the policy of the Conservative party.

I fully associate my right hon. and hon. Friends with the tributes paid to the late Princess Margaret. Our condolences go to the other members of the royal family.

I am very happy to congratulate the Welsh Assembly on its decision. Obviously, we are looking at how we can improve access for students in our country. It is worth pointing out that, under the proposals introduced by the Government, 50 per cent. of students do not—I think—pay tuition fees.

The Prime Minister's welcome is itself welcome. Given that his party and our own party have legislated both in Scotland and in Wales for a fairer deal for our students and potential students, is not the logic of that position that we should legislate at Westminster as well? The right hon. Gentleman would have the support of two thirds or four fifths of his Back Benchers. Why does not he do it?

When the right hon. Gentleman talks about the Scottish system, that is different altogether from grants for poorer students. In fact, in this country, we already have bursaries for some of the poorer students and, yes, we are looking at how we can give poorer students greater opportunities to apply for those bursaries. That is important.

Does the Prime Minister support the sentiments expressed in the Green Paper published by the Foreign Office yesterday, which suggest that we should employ mercenaries—who often work for the most odious regimes and whose only loyalty is to money—to support the United Nations in a crisis, because among other things, they are cheaper than our own national armed forces?

Of course, our own armed forces do fantastic work peacekeeping throughout the world. I think that the Foreign Secretary was saying that the use of mercenaries has to come within some proper system of regulation. Until now, that has not been the case and that is why it is important that we ensure that there are proper rules on the use of mercenaries.

I have given the Prime Minister prior notice of this question. Last week at Prime Minister's Question Time, I challenged the accuracy of the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman to the House about Railtrack on 19 December, when he said:

"However, the longer the administrator's work has gone on, the more financial difficulties he has uncovered."—[Official Report, 19 December 2001; Vol. 377, c. 288-9.]

No, I am afraid I will not—on the basis of what the hon. Gentleman sent me. Obviously, we shall have to wait for the administrator to give a full account of the exact assets and liabilities of Railtrack, at a later date. However, one thing is clear: the reason that the company had to be put into administration was that it was effectively not a going concern—it was totally dependent on Government subsidy. When the administrator makes his final tally and accounts, I think that the hon. Gentleman will see that I am right and that he is wrong.

The Prime Minister may be aware that the new accident and emergency unit to be built at Warrington hospital is a pilot project in which staff expertise will be used to design better emergency care for patients. Will he join me in congratulating the staff at Warrington on the work that they have put into the project and in recognising their skill? Will he assure me and the House that any NHS reforms will draw on the expertise of those who understand it best—the staff?

That is part of a programme of renovation of all the accident and emergency departments that are needed in the country. They are under tremendous pressure—of course they are—and the staff do a fantastic job in difficult circumstances. My hon. Friend's example is one among many of how changes in working practices, extra staff and extra investment in capital and equipment are making a real difference.

The Prime Minister will be aware that, 10 days ago, the city of Hereford was effectively cut in two when the River Wye flooded for the third time in four years. Businesses were affected, homes were flooded and the city was gridlocked. Although a flood alleviation scheme is in place, there are real concerns that it might be delayed because of statutory consultation and the discovery of archaeological remains. Will he assure the people of the city of Hereford that if there is a delay, any increased costs will be met by Government funds and not by the flood defence committee?

May I express my sympathy for those affected by the floods in the hon. Gentleman's constituency? I think that the Environment Agency is considering a scheme to deal with that problem. It has to be subject to a certain amount of consultation, but we are doing everything that we can to ensure that the process is as swift as possible and I am happy to correspond with him on how it will be taken forward.

For more than 20 years, employees who contracted lung cancer through exposure to asbestos have been compensated. However, a recent Court of Appeal judgment threatens thousands of current and future claimants who cannot identify the fibre or fibres that first caused the cancer. Will my right hon. Friend look into the matter urgently and ensure that the Government do whatever they can to overturn that cruel injustice?

The judgment has been widely perceived as an injustice and the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions will announce today that we shall pay compensation to the relevant people who meet the qualifying criteria, which could mean payments of more than £30,000. We are aware of the problem and we are doing our very best to deal with it, but, obviously, we must study the judgment's consequences carefully.

Will the Prime Minister tell us whether street crime in this country has gone up or down since he was re-elected?

According to the British crime survey, overall levels of crime are down, as is violent crime. However, it is correct to say that street crime has risen significantly in the past year, which is why we are taking a series of measures to deal with it.

I suggest that the Prime Minister heed his own advice. When he was shadow Home Secretary, he said that

"the country is not looking for complacent statements about the situation getting better when it is getting worse".—[Official Report, 22 October 1992; Vol. 212, c. 550.]

I have just pointed out to the right hon. Gentleman that I accept that street crime has risen, particularly in the past year. I said that we are taking a series of actions necessary to deal with that. Let me explain them. First, we are recruiting more police officers. Indeed, in London, in just the past few months, there are more than 600 extra officers and, since this time last year, more than 1,000 extra officers. Last year, there were more than 2,500 extra recruits, and I am pleased to tell the House that, this January, recruitment was up 20 per cent. on last year.

That was a very long answer, but not the answer to the question that I asked the right hon. Gentleman. I asked him whether, in London, muggings and street crime—two separate categories of crime—had gone up or down. The answer is that street crime in London has gone up by nearly 40 per cent. and muggings have gone up by one third since he was re-elected. That means that people in London have suffered something like 183 street crimes a day, every day since he was re-elected. The Prime Minister has just said, "It's all right; we are getting more police," but his own Home Office Minister, the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), has now confirmed that Metropolitan police figures show that they were short by 1,200 officers last year. No wonder the chairman of the Police Federation has said:

"Morale has reached an all-time low."

First, it is correct that street crime and mugging have gone up in London in the past year, which is precisely why we are taking the action that we are taking. The right hon. Gentleman mentions the number of police in place in the past year, but, as I say, in London alone, more than 1,000 extra police have been recruited. Indeed, as a result of the additional investment, I think that, by the end of the year, we will have record numbers of police—more than in all the years of Conservative Government. It is correct, of course, that one of the answers is to get more police on the beat, more investment in secure accommodation and swifter court action. That is exactly what we are doing, but the key to doing all of it is to put in the extra investment. [Interruption.] The Conservatives go on about five years, but, overall, the crime rate doubled under the 18 years of Conservative Government, while in the five years of this Government it has fallen, not risen. Vehicle crime is down by 30 per cent; burglary is down by more than 20 per cent. Overall, crime is down by 12 per cent. So if we compare the records of Conservative and Labour Governments, we see that, under the Tories, crime doubled; under us, it has fallen.

More, more.

Order.

The Prime Minister will have heard the announcement this morning by British Airways, based in my constituency, of 6,000 job losses on top of the 7,000 job losses announced before Christmas. The aviation industry is recovering slowly from the events of 11 September and is grateful to the Government for the assistance that they have provided, but would he be willing to meet a delegation of Members of Parliament from the west London airport constituencies to consider not only the short-term measures that can help those people who are losing their jobs, but the long-term measures that will help us to tackle the structural problems in our local economy?

I am, of course, aware of the concern that there must be about the job losses announced by British Airways, and our sympathies are with the constituents in my hon. Friend's constituency and the other constituencies that will be primarily affected by those losses. I know that this announcement has been the product of detailed consultation, however. The company has to engage in restructuring, and it has been closely involved with the unions on how that is to be carried out. I would, however, certainly be very pleased to meet a delegation of Members of Parliament from the area affected.

Does the Prime Minister agree that the anticipated massive increases in council tax in authorities throughout the country will particularly hurt pensioners and those on low incomes? Will he consider that the Government should give urgent consideration to looking at the underfunding of basic services such as social services? Will he further look at the basis of local taxation, so that it relates better to ability to pay?

I understand why the Liberal Democrats are always keen to widen the tax base, but it may not be the case that everyone wishes to do so. I put it to the hon. Lady, however, that the amount of money that we are giving to local government has significantly increased. Let us wait and see what the actual council tax rises are.

When he will next visit Northern Ireland? I should say that it is a closed question.

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for telling me.

Tomorrow there is to be an important debate in Westminster Hall about those forced into exile from Northern Ireland by paramilitary intimidation. As representatives of Sinn Fein are now allowed into Westminster, they could at least listen to that debate; and would it not be a good idea if, afterwards, they were to have discussions with those of us who attend that debate to consider the ways and means by which paramilitary organisations will end intimidation? After all, I believe that that was the reason why many of us wanted those representatives here.

I agree with my hon. Friend. I think that he is right. I hope that representatives of Sinn Fein listen to the debate and I hope that they are prepared to take part in discussions. Indeed, I hope that all those political parties that have been connected with paramilitary organisations are prepared to take part, because this is not simply something that is about republicans; it also applies to loyalists.

It is very good to hear the Prime Minister going that far, but will he go a little further? Is it not rather shameful that the Government should be considering introducing legislation to give amnesty to criminals who are outside this country, and to prisoners who escaped, allowing them to return? Distasteful as that may be, it may be necessary in the overall context of the peace process, but will the Prime Minister give us an assurance that he will use his considerable personal influence to ensure that no such legislation is brought to the House before he has an absolute guarantee from those who control the paramilitaries and the political parties that are associated with them that the punishment beatings and expulsions will end? In that way it would be a two-sided agreement and not, like so many in the past, a one-sided one?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he has said about recognising the necessity of making difficult—indeed, distasteful—choices in moving the peace process forward. I will certainly listen very carefully to what he said. I repeat that there can be no place for punishment beatings, attempts to exile people or any so-called paramilitary activity which is outside the rule of law and destined to undermine democracy rather than support it. I have listened very carefully to what the hon. Gentleman has said and I agree that we should make it quite clear that those people who have been excluded from Northern Ireland should be allowed to return.

Will the Prime Minister reconsider the equal value claim made by female canteen workers against the former British Coal? Although progress has been made and £40 million has been paid out to 1,300 workers, more than double that number are in the same situation and are set to receive nothing. The problem springs directly from bad practice by one of the trade unions. In the spirit of fairness, will the Prime Minister join us in looking for a solution?

The relevant Secretary of State and I will note my hon. Friend's comments. He is right to state that we have paid out £40 million and that more than 1,000 people who were affected have received compensation. The difficulty is that strict rules govern whether equal pay claims are allowed and there would be considerable implications were we to digress from those. I am happy to consider my hon. Friend's concern, but I am afraid that I can make no promises or give any undertakings in that respect.

Will the Prime Minister break one of his new year resolutions and take time to speak to Mr. Ken Livingstone today? Will he tell him that the mayor of New York is a welcome visitor to London today and that if Mr. Livingstone wants to know how to run a great city properly, he should have discussions with him?

I will certainly be in a better position to consider that after my discussions with Mr. Giuliani today.