What the Government's policy is on compensating special advisers who are required to resign. [40116]

The circumstances in which compensation may be paid to special advisers who resign from the civil service are set out in the "Model Contract for Special Advisers".

The Prime Minister has the final say in appointing special advisers. Will the Minister tell us exactly what role the Prime Minister plays in dismissing advisers, and will she say what amount of compensation Jo Moore was paid?

The hon. Gentleman's question was about special advisers who resign from the civil service. Their conditions are laid down in section 13 of the "Model Contract for Special Advisers". It will be for Jo Moore and the Department to work out the exact terms.

Will my hon. Friend agree to have a look at the evidence given to the Select Committee on Public Administration last week by Sir Richard Mottram about the whole matter of special advisers and how they could be required to resign? Does my hon. Friend agree that it is sometimes not clear whether the Secretary of State or the permanent secretary is responsible for requiring a special adviser to resign? For future reference by Governments of all complexions, would it not be better to clear that up now?

We have an obligation to consult on a civil service Act, and of course we shall listen to what people have to say during that consultation. The House should bear in mind, however, the fact that the "Model Contract for Special Advisers" was published for the first time by this Government, and that they also published the code of 'conduct. That will interest Conservative Members, one in eight of whom I understand to be former special advisers.

Whose job is it to ensure that special advisers cannot break their code of conduct, and therefore their contracts, with impunity? What action was taken when Ministers confirmed to the House that Jo Moore had instructed a civil servant to brief the press against Bob Kiley, contrary to paragraph 6 of the code? Was that a breach of contract? If not, why not? Would severance pay be payable if it was?

The terms and conditions in the model contract go into an individual's terms and conditions of employment. That is the rule in employment law.

Will the Minister confirm for the record that it was the Prime Minister who personally decided to retain Jo Moore in office last autumn? If he did, will the Minister confirm that he, not the taxpayer, will be paying any lump sum that is paid to Jo Moore?

I refer the hon. Gentleman to what the Prime Minister said on 17 October during Prime Minister's Question Time:

"First, I do not defend in any shape or form what Jo Moore said, which was horrible, wrong and stupid. I do, however, defend the decision that to sack someone and end their career was too heavy a penalty. That was the decision taken. I supported it and regard the matter as closed."—[Official Report, 17 October 2001; Vol. 372, c. 1165.]

If he will publish a civil service Bill in draft. [40117]

The Government are committed to the introduction of civil service legislation, and I anticipate working closely with the Select Committee on Public Administration in developing a consensus through all stages of reform. As I said when I appeared before the Committee on 18 October last year, this does not rule out any form of pre-legislative scrutiny.

That is a good answer, but it does not tell me anything that I did not already know. Is there any problem with introducing a civil service Bill, given that all the parties are signed up to it? I am mystified over why there should he so much navel-gazing in regard to an issue on which there is consensus in the House.

As the hon. Gentleman will recall, he asked the same question on an earlier occasion. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hon. Friend !"] Well, I will leave that to the judgment of the House.

Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that a civil service Bill should include statutory provision for the ministerial code? Yesterday a judge in the Doncaster case said in passing sentence on two Labour councillors found guilty of corruption—I hope that the Deputy Prime Minister agrees with this—

"Corruption by those elected by the public strikes at the root of democracy".

We could expect a rant from the hon. Gentleman, but a Conservative councillor was before the court at the same time. Let me make it clear that the House condemns corruption wherever it takes place; I assume that that view is held on both sides of the Chamber. All parties have had problems, but the hon. Gentleman seeks only to exploit the situation, and throws doubt on the credibility of many councillors, Tory, Labour and Liberal Democrat, who do an excellent job. We do not intend to put the ministerial code into a legislative framework.

Question 3. [Interruption.]

I was just thinking about Lady Porter.

If he will list the performance and innovation unit reports for which his Department is the lead department. [40118]

The Cabinet Office is the lead Department for four completed PIU reports, which focused on a cross-cutting approach to government, regional and local government, electronic delivery of Government services, and leadership in the public sector.

The content of all PIU reports is a matter for the sponsoring Minister, so in respect of the process governing the report on the energy review, will my right hon. Friend speak to the Minister for Industry and Energy and ensure that there is the fullest possible debate about that review over the next few months, given the deteriorating international situation, particularly in the middle east?

The report was commissioned by the Prime Minister, as my hon. Friend is aware. It was conducted by the PIU under the sponsorship of the Energy Minister. In those circumstances, it has produced the report, and statements have been made. The report is now publicly available for consultation and discussion. After the consultation, and despite the controversial issues associated with our commitments on climate change and nuclear energy, we will produce our White Paper at the end of this year. We will include our conclusions in it, as Governments normally do.

When he expects to introduce legislation to implement the conclusions of the ombudsman review. [40120]

The Government have made clear their commitment to replace the existing arrangements with a more unified ombudsman body. We intend to publish more details shortly. Any legislation required to implement new arrangements will be made when parliamentary time allows.

My hon. Friend will know that it was a Labour Government in the 1960s who introduced the ombudsman system to protect the citizen against acts of maladministration by state officials, a move that was opposed by the Conservative party. We have had a review that has been around for a long time saying that the ombudsman system needs to be updated to meet the needs of citizens now. As we were the party that introduced that system, can he guarantee that we will be the party that urgently brings in the product of the review?

I can certainly guarantee that the Government remain firmly committed to a unified ombudsman system. There is much that we can do in advance of any legislation. For example, the new parliamentary ombudsman, when appointed, will continue to undertake the health service ombudsman role as well. We can use this opportunity to resolve any jurisdictional issues, and we can look at co-locating the local government ombudsman with the parliamentary and health service ombudsmen, so that we have a more seamless, single-door approach for the public.

If he will make a statement on the circumstances in which junior civil servants are entitled to have their cases submitted to employment tribunals in cases of alleged misconduct. [40121]

Civil servants have the same rights of access to employment tribunals as other employees.

In the light of Lord Butler's remarks in the other place, to which my hon. Friend the Minister's attention has been drawn, do we have the assurance that the junior civil servants in the Moore-Sixsmith case will he treated according to fair process?

The former Cabinet Secretary, Lord Butler of Brockwell, said that the relationship between special advisers and civil servants was generally very productive. As well as the general rights to access industrial tribunals, civil servants also have extensive internal appeal opportunities, to the civil service appeal board and to the civil service commissioners. My hon. Friend will accept that it would not be appropriate for me to detail the particulars of any individual case on the Floor of the House of Commons.

Is it not rather worrying that so many civil servants have had to look to appeal procedures as a result of their run-ins with one Cabinet Minister? The Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions lost a press officer when he was at the former Department for Education and Employment, and since then he has lost a head of press, a deputy head of press and junior press officer. He has even, belatedly and reluctantly, lost a special adviser. Should not the right hon. Gentleman take out some sort of block booking with the appeals service?

That was very droll. We have been around the block on this matter with the hon. Gentleman far too many times. I do not know whether he is getting bored with asking the same question, but I am certainly getting bored with answering it. The permanent secretary has issued his statement and dealt with all these matters. It is time that the hon. Gentleman put them into perspective.

If he will revise the ministerial code of conduct. [40122]

A revised ministerial code was published in July 2001. Since then, in response to a recommendation from the Public Administration Select Committee, the Government have agreed to amend paragraph 27 of the code.

I thank the Minister for that answer. Is she aware that the Deputy Prime Minister has just said that the ministerial code will not be contained in the future civil service Act? Is it right that the Prime Minister should be judge, jury and—occasionally—executioner with regard to breaches of the civil service code when he has not justified the trust that people placed in him in connection with the cases of the hon. Members for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz), for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson) and the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions? When the Prime Minister needs our trust, would it not be appropriate that he earns it?

That was the most astonishing outburst. In response to the report by the Public Administration Committee, the Government have revised the civil service code. That code was left unaltered by the previous Conservative Administration whom, if the hon. Gentleman had been in the House at the time, I am sure that he would have supported. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has published the ministerial code and altered it in the way recommended by the Select Committee. I am sure that that action has the overwhelming endorsement of the House.

Despite the attitude of the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner), does my hon. Friend the Minister think that it would be useful to have a meeting with Opposition Front-Bench Members on this issue? At such a meeting, would she consider raising with them the report from the Public Administration Committee published in February last year? It touched on this matter, and included the concern that the Opposition could not give a categoric assurance that Short money was being used exclusively for parliamentary purposes. Is there any information from the Opposition on that matter?

Of course, I should be delighted to meet the Opposition at any time. My door is always open to any hon. Member. If the Opposition want to raise the matter with me, I should be delighted to discuss it with them.

Does the Minister agree that it is essential that the ministerial code be amended to ensure that Ministers at all times comply with the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and the Committee on Standards and Privileges and not avoid their recommendations, as the Deputy Prime Minister did?

That is not the case. Let me deal with this once again, as Conservative Members peddle this line at every opportunity. The Committee on Standards and Privileges has investigated the matter and dismissed all charges of impropriety. It reflects no credit on Conservative Members to peddle this line time and time again. I strongly believe that it brings the House into disrepute.

What is wrong with giving a statutory base to the ministerial code?

The reason is very clear: Ministers, quite rightly, are responsible to Parliament.

Most people will recognise that Ministers are accountable to the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister decides whether they are in violation of the ministerial code. As the hon. Lady says that she is so happy for us to have a conversation about this, I am delighted to do so. First, will she confirm whether the amendment to the ministerial code recommended by the Public Administration Committee and accepted by the Government has been made with immediate effect or will it take effect only when the ministerial code is next revised after the next election? Secondly, will she consider revising the ministerial code to include a specific provision that Ministers should tell the truth in all circumstances, not just to this House, and then send a copy to the Transport Secretary?

The Government inherited the original wording of paragraph 27 of the code from the previous Conservative Government. We accepted that announcements on Government policy should be made straight to Parliament.

Is the Minister aware that for the past quarter of an hour the House has been discussing the fate of three people in one Department? One—the journalist, the friend of the media, the Tory BBC and all the rest—is being treated like an Olympic gold medallist. I remind the House, the Minister and the Tories that way back, when the Tories were in power, they dismissed 20,000 miners at a stroke and never shed a single tear. Then they got stuck into the shipbuilders, the textile workers and all the rest. Let us get on to the real people for a change.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Conservative party knows all there is to know about unemployment policy in that respect.

Notwithstanding the Minister's reply to the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay), does she understand that members of the Standards and Privileges Committee believe that there would be great benefit in incorporating in the ministerial code of conduct an explicit requirement to co-operate fully with both the commissioner for standards and the Committee? Will she reflect on that and consider it further?

I appreciate that point and understand that it has also been made by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) in business questions. When the consultation process is under way, the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends may well want to make representations of that kind.

If he will make a statement on progress towards his target for making electronic communications from the public to all Government Departments feasible. [40123]

All Departments can be contacted via e-mail. The Government are committed to providing those services that can be delivered electronically by 2005. The latest figures show that more than 50 per cent. of Government services are now available online, with 74 per cent. predicted by the end of this year.

Has the Minister had a chance to study last night's Adjournment debate in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen)? Can she confirm that the so-called digital divide will not be used as an argument by the civil service or the Government to prevent targets being met or improved upon so that the public can have access to e-government?

I am aware of the debate that took place last night and can give my hon. Friend the reassurance that he needs. It is right for us to ensure that we can deliver more services online, and it is also right to try to ensure that people who are currently without internet access receive those services. That is why—to give one example—the Department of Trade and Industry and the Post Office have just completed a six-month pilot of public information kiosks in post offices.

Seventy-four per cent. is an encouraging figure, but will the hon. Lady look at how many online Government services are accessible to people who do not have Windows? An increasing number of services are accessible only if one has Windows, so that rules out people who use Apple, Unix or other software. Will she ensure that the Government's choice of software is dictated by the need for maximum access rather than by relationships with software companies?

As a former DTI Minister, I understand the hon. Gentleman's point and will ensure that it is brought to the attention of the relevant officials in the Department.

Does the Minister agree that there should be two-way communication? There should be ways for the Government daily to describe their policy to the electorate. For example, they could explain why, today, there will be no statements on Zimbabwe, on the police dispute or on the fact that the channel tunnel is closed. All we shall have is a worthy—although no doubt important—statement on audits and accountability.

That was a valiant try—the hon. Gentleman is ingenious in his methods. When the Government have something to communicate to the House on all those matters, I am sure that he will be the first to know.

When he expects the civil service Bill to be published; and if he will ensure that it includes measures to reinforce civil service impartiality. [40124]

The Government are committed to introducing civil service legislation and to maintaining an impartial civil service. Any legislative programme will be announced in the normal way.

Did the Minister read the comments in The Times today of Jonathan Baume, the leader of our senior civil service union? He warned that the civil service is being undermined by Ministers through the drip-feed of unattributable leaks and that it is being politicised by stealth. Does the Minister agree that we need to take action to ensure that the impartiality of the civil service is not further undermined? Will he begin by rescinding the powers that have been given to special advisers Alastair Campbell and Jonathan Powell to issue instructions to impartial civil servants?

The hon. Gentleman should not believe everything he reads in the newspapers. We have always emphasised our commitment to a permanent, impartial civil service of the highest standard as a cornerstone of the British constitution. It is about time that we heard more tributes and less criticism of the civil service, which is helping the Government to deliver our public service reforms, as well as economic prosperity and policies such as the national minimum wage. Our goal is to have an Administration who deliver results and we want to bring in the best people to help to implement our policies.

Will the Bill contain a clause restricting the number of special advisers in any one Department, and will it also define precisely what their role should be?

As we said before the Select Committee on Public Administration, we are minded to consider questions such as a cap on the number of special advisers. All those matters will be dealt with in future consultation. I understand that the Cabinet Secretary will make a speech on the issue shortly.

If he will make a statement on the Cabinet Office consultation document "Women and Public Service". [40126]

The report "Better Services—Better Working Lives" was published on 10 December. It reported on women's experience of education and health services and the reforms being introduced by the Government.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer.

I should like to see the number of women in such positions to be 50:50—as we are in the population. Some progress is being made but we need to do much more. That is why we are holding a seminar on women taking up public appointments. It is also important that, through the election of women Members of Parliament, the House should reflect women in the country far more than it does already.

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

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

The Prime Minister will be aware of Consignia's current proposals, which threaten the financial position of the Post Office, jeopardise the provision of post office services and threaten thousands of postal workers' jobs. In view of that and of the fact that the Post Office is, after all, a publicly owned company, will the Prime Minister tell me what representations he has made to Postcomm—the postal regulator—about those appalling proposals? Will he also tell me whether he has asked for an extension of the consultation period, because it has been appallingly short?

I entirely understand people's concerns about Postcomm's proposals. As my hon. Friend will know, Consignia—the Post Office—faces major structural challenges to do with changes in technology, changes in the market and changes in the liberalisation of postal markets right across Europe, but I know that it will be mindful of the primary duty of Postcomm, which is to protect the universal service. I know also that people will listen very carefully to the representations being made by my hon. Friend and many others, and I am sure that we shall find a way through that allows us to make the necessary changes to the Post Office, while ensuring that basic services are protected.

Now that the Prime Minister has finished his latest Government relaunch, may I take him back to phase 1 of new Labour? In his 1997 election manifesto, the Prime Minister promised "zero tolerance" of street crime. Five years on, will he tell us exactly what he meant by that?

Yes, I meant that it is important that the Government get crime down, and I am happy to tell the right hon. Gentleman that crime has actually fallen under this Government since 1997. It is true, however, that street crime has gone up very sharply in London and elsewhere in the last year. It is precisely for that reason—

What are you doing?

The right hon. Gentleman asks what we are doing. First, there are more police officers—more than 1,000 in the last year. Secondly, there are major changes to the criminal justice system. Thirdly, we are making sure that we have sufficient secure accommodation places for young offenders. In each of those areas, therefore, we are taking action. Yes, I accept entirely that street crime has been a problem, particularly in the last year, but we are acting on it.

The Prime Minister, as ever, talks about the things that he was doing, but he fails to recognise that none of them has had any effect on bringing down street crime. In London alone, there are 218 street crimes every day; 150 knife crimes every week; and 275 gun crimes every month—so much for phase 1 and failure, but no apology. In phase 2, the Prime Minister made another manifesto pledge. [Interruption.] Labour Members do not like being reminded of what they promised, so let us remind them. He said that he would bring 100,000 more criminals to justice under the next phase of Government. Was that not another worthless pledge?

No. First, I shall deal with street crime. Contrary to what the right hon. Gentleman has just said, I did not say that there was no problem with street crime; I admitted that there was a problem. He said that we were refusing to say what we would do about it. Let me repeat to him that we need extra police officers; we have got 1,000 extra in London. We need measures to change the criminal justice system; we are taking those measures. We need more places in secure accommodation; that is precisely what we are doing.

As ever, when the Prime Minister is asked a direct question, we get more promises and pledges, but never any delivery. I asked him a specific question about his promise to bring 100,000 more criminals to justice. He did not answer it. The reality is that his figures show that he has gone backwards. Some 80,000 fewer criminals are being brought to justice. Nine out of 10 crimes go unpunished and, when criminals are caught and convicted, under his Government they are released early to commit more crimes. Surely he must now agree with the chairman of the Victims of Crime Trust, who said:

"I have never seen the criminal justice system in such disarray."

The right hon. Gentleman accuses us of making promises but not delivering on them. This country has the highest numbers of police that it has ever had. The reason for that is additional investment. The vast majority of police in this country do a superb job, but two things are needed: first, we need to make sure that we carry on getting additional police numbers, which we will do; and, secondly, we need to introduce the major changes to the criminal justice system that we want.

I remind the Prime Minister—I know that he does not like being reminded of this—that he has been in power for nearly five years. He cannot go on blaming somebody else. Not one of the measures that he has mentioned has had a positive effect. Street crime is rising, violent crime is rising, and muggings are up. All of those are failures by the Government. Worse than that, fewer people are being brought to justice and more dangerous criminals are on the street—no wonder police morale is at an all-time low.

Let us go back to police numbers. As I said, the vast majority of police officers in this country do a superb job, with immense dedication and commitment. Let us remember that when we came to office the numbers of police in London and elsewhere were falling; today, we have the highest number of police officers that we have ever had. Since we came to office, car crime and burglary have gone down. It is true that street crime has gone up, which is precisely why we are introducing these measures: more secure accommodation, changes to the criminal justice system and more police on the beat. All of that requires support for our proposed changes to the criminal justice system and extra investment. Let me repeat what I said a moment or two ago: that is what we say is the solution—will the right hon. Gentleman now back it?

Those of us with an interest in homelessness have warmly welcomed this morning's announcement that in two years' time the Government intend to end the use of bed-and-breakfast accommodation for families. Does my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister agree that bed and breakfast is only the sharp end of a housing crisis that is affecting public sector recruitment in London as well as homelessness? Will he ensure that the comprehensive spending review makes resources available to boost housing supply, particularly in London and the south-east, to help with public sector recruitment and to fulfil the target on bed and breakfast?

I am sure that what my hon. Friend says about the problems of housing in London and elsewhere is true. It is for that reason that we have been seeking to increase investment. In particular, the starter homes initiatives for staff such as teachers, police officers and nurses in London will ensure that at least hundreds of people in those professions get the chance of a decent home in London, which they need to go to work.

When thousands of police officers make their way to Westminster to lobby us all, and when one listens to the genuine sense of anger and betrayal that they feel, will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to explain to them why they are so mistaken?

I believe, as I said a moment or two ago, that the vast majority of police officers do a superb job. They do a great job with immense dedication and commitment. I think, however, that the right hon. Gentleman will find that the vast majority of police officers agree with the changes that we are making to the criminal justice system and agree with much of the police reform that we want to introduce. It is true, however, that there are points of disagreement. They are now subject to conciliation, which I hope very much will allow us to reach an agreement. As the chairman of the Police Federation said earlier, the right hon. Gentleman will find that there is a very large measure of agreement on the Government's programme between the police and the Government.

I do not know about the points of disagreement, but the points of agreement are pretty well camouflaged, judging by what has been said by police officers today. Does the Prime Minister acknowledge that he is now beginning to preside over the biggest period of public sector discontent since the winter of discontent? Whether it is teachers in London, police officers at the door here at Westminster today or rail workers, is not the hard fact of the matter that many public service employees do not value the Government because they do not think that the Government value them?

There are about 140,000 more public sector staff compared with when we came to office. There are more nurses, more doctors, more police and more teachers. The truth, however, is that, no matter how much money is put in and no matter how many people we recruit, the Liberal Democrats never think that it is enough because they think that there is a bottomless pit and that we can simply get as much money out of it as they can possibly imagine. The truth of the matter is that, of course, we value public service staff enormously, but I think that the Liberal Democrats will make a very big mistake if they set their face, as they have, against any changes in the health service, any changes in education or any changes in the police or criminal justice. It is important that we work with staff to get these reforms but, in circumstances in which we are putting in the largest investment any Government have ever put into health, education and policing, it is also important that we make sure that we get the reforms necessary to make that money work.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that unilateral action by major states in this modern, interdependent world is usually inappropriate? Was he as angry as the steelworkers in my constituency at the action taken by the Government of the United States to impose tariffs on our steel exports—the best exports in the world—and will he support his Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in making direct representations to the United States Government to get them to reverse that decision?

Of course we totally disagree with the decision taken by the United States and we have been making our views clearly known to the American Administration for the past few months. The decision will be subject to a procedure under the World Trade Organisation, invoked by the European Union. I very much hope that the United States changes its position. I very much hope that if the WTO rules in our favour, it will change its position. I think that most people realise that not merely is the decision wrong in terms of international trade, but it is not an answer to the problems of the US steel industry.

Perhaps the Prime Minister can explain why this lunchtime not one of the 55 London Labour MPs could be bothered to meet rank-and-file members of the Metropolitan police across the road. Will he arrange to meet them and listen to what they really think, apologise and show more bottle than his MPs?

I am sure that Members on both sides of the House will meet police officers. Indeed, the Home Secretary met them this morning and we are well aware of their concerns.

Does the Prime Minister agree that if the serious concerns about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction are borne out by further information, the United Nations should be the first port of call for raising the problem so that we get the broadest possible coalition to counter the threat?

Of course it is to the United Nations that we have constantly gone because of the problems of Iraq acquiring weapons of mass destruction. It is for that reason that many, many UN Security Council resolutions call on Iraq to destroy those weapons and to let the inspectors back into the country to ensure that they are destroyed. For that reason, we will continue to put maximum pressure on Iraq to come back into line with international law and UN Security Council resolutions.

Will the Prime Minister tell the House whether he favours an amnesty for IRA terrorists on the run—yes or no?

As I said in Prime Minister's questions last week, we have no doubt that the issue has to be dealt with. How that is done, however, is a matter of discussion. I simply say to the hon. Gentleman and to those of his hon. Friends who oppose dealing with the problem at all, that over the past few years we have made very significant progress in Northern Ireland. People sometimes forget just how enormous that progress is. I hope that whatever measures we take, people will look at them in that light. I also hope that when people gaze across to the situation in the middle east, they see what happens when a peace process fails.

May I welcome the Government's commitment to eradicate poverty and social exclusion? Is my right hon. Friend aware of any steps that are being taken to ensure that families on the minimum wage and working families tax credit are not inadvertently penalised for working?

The very reason why we introduced the combination of the minimum wage and the working families tax credit was to ensure that families are better off when they work. Those who work full time, with a minimum income of about £225 a week as a result, are some £90 a week better off than they would have been on income support. That makes a huge difference.

Does the Prime Minister agree with what the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions said last December? He told the House that

"there is no reason why … there should be large increases in council tax."—[Official Report, 4 December 2001; Vol. 376, c. 169.]

I do, because the amount that we have given in the local government settlement—more than 7.5 per cent.—makes the settlement one of the best that local government has had for a long time. In the five years of this Government, there has been a 20 per cent. real terms increase in the amount of money that we have given to local government. If the right hon. Gentleman compares that with the five years of the previous Government, when there was an increase of less than 1 per cent., he will see that my right hon. Friend was entirely justified in making that comment.

It is another fine mess that the Secretary of State has gotten him into. The Prime Minister needs reminding about something. He seems to think that everything is all right, but bills are set to rise by three times the rate of inflation for the fifth year in a row under this Government. The reality is that a typical household now pays £300 a year more in council tax than when he came to power. He perhaps does not visit his constituency that much, but he may want to recognise that those who have the worst of it will be very angry. It is a stealth tax by any means. I remind the Prime Minister that a few years ago he said:

"We've no plans to increase taxation at all."

As I pointed out to the right hon. Gentleman a moment or two ago, it is councils that set council tax bills, but they do so on the basis of the settlement from central Government. The fact is that that settlement has been far more generous than during the previous Conservative years. Nor is the settlement merely more generous; when we announced in the comprehensive spending review that we were increasing it by 7.5 per cent., his party said that that was too generous. If he were on this side of the House, council taxes would be even higher.

In fair trade fortnight, will my right hon. Friend welcome initiatives such as that in Garstang, in Lancashire, which is linking with New Koforida, a village in the cocoa-producing area of Ghana? Are not such local initiatives precisely in line with new economic policy for African development, and with efforts to make globalisation work for the poor across the world? [Interruption.]

I am sorry that Opposition Members jeer, because the point that my hon. Friend makes is right. As the Chancellor has said, we have recently taken some £200 million off Ghana's debt. That has been achieved because Ghana qualified under the heavily indebted poor countries rules, and it has therefore reduced its debt repayment substantially. That money can now go into its health and education services. As a result of changes led by this Government, not only has aid to Africa been doubled; because of debt relief—led by my right hon. Friends the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for International Development—countries across the world can put their money into basic services that improve the lives of their people, rather than into debt repayments. That is not just morally good and right for Africa; it also means that we can do business with those countries in the future, and that they will be more wealthy and prosperous, and more stable as a result.

Is the Prime Minister happy—[HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] Is the Prime Minister happy to allow the teaching of creationism alongside Darwin's theory of evolution in state schools?

First, I am very happy. Secondly, I know that the hon. Lady is referring to a school in the north-east, and I think that certain reports about what it has been teaching are somewhat exaggerated. It would be very unfortunate if concerns about that issue were seen to remove the very strong incentive to ensure that we get as diverse a school system as we properly can. In the end, a more diverse school system will deliver better results for our children. If she looks at the school's results, I think she will find that they are very good.

I should tell my right hon. Friend that, like many of my colleagues, I shall meet police officers this afternoon.

I agree very much with the United Nations Security Council resolution that demanded the immediate cessation of all acts of violence. This is a situation in which tragedy is rapidly turning into catastrophe for that part of the world. What is necessary—and I hope that it will arise from the visit of Anthony Zinni, the US special envoy—is, first, that minimum steps of security be agreed on both sides to restore confidence; and, secondly, that we get back into a proper process that leads to a settlement of the issues between the Israelis and the Palestinians.

The Prime Minister will be aware of the mass lobby of Parliament by the Police Federation today. Given that we all expect the absolute loyalty of the police—and receive it—is not it high time for the Home Secretary to enter into respectful negotiations with the Police Federation and to desist from rubbishing it from afar?

My right hon. Friend has been entirely respectful in the conduct of the negotiation. Most people accept that three things must be done: first, we need to increase the number of police officers; secondly, we need reform in policing to ensure that we use police officers more effectively and that they spend as much time as possible out on the street and not in the station; and, thirdly, we need to make the changes to the criminal justice system that we all—well, certainly Labour Members—want to see. For that reason, it is important to continue in conciliation, which is where we are, with the police officers so that we ensure that in the end we get an agreement, because the vast majority of police officers actually support the programme of change. They have real concerns about some of the changes to their terms and conditions of employment, and that is precisely what is the subject of conciliation at the moment.

The Prime Minister will be aware that on Monday the Queen began the final countdown to the Commonwealth games when she launched the jubilee baton relay. With the City of Manchester stadium almost ready, with 500,000 tickets already sold and with 10,000 volunteers ready to welcome the athletes and visitors, will my right hon. Friend ensure that all Government Departments continue to liaise with the games organisers so that in July in Manchester we can all look forward to a wonderful celebration of international sport and friendship?

The stage is indeed set for the Manchester Commonwealth games to be enormously successful. As my hon. Friend pointed out, more than 500,000 tickets have been sold already. Manchester, which is an exciting, go-ahead city at the moment, is well geared up for it. I assure him that all Government Departments will carry on working with Manchester to ensure that it is the success and showcase for the city that we want to see.

Will the Prime Minister give an assurance that I can take to the Police Federation this afternoon that community support officers, as proposed in the Police Reform Bill, will not be imposed on police authorities by ring-fencing or any other means, and that the authorities will retain the freedom to spend their money on real police officers?

Of course community support officers will not be imposed; there has never been any question of that. The hon. Lady should realise that, with the number of additional police officers and the increasing numbers of civilian staff that we have, we must have the flexibility to use different methods to police our communities properly. Indeed, the Leader of the Opposition paid tribute to the community warden scheme in Kent a short time ago. Such schemes are operating all over the country, and they will not be imposed on people, but there has to be flexibility to use civilian and police staff better for the future.