When the new measures to combat electoral fraud in Northern Ireland will come into force. [142003]

It is intended that all the measures proposed in the Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Bill will be in force in time for the scheduled Assembly elections on 1 May 2003. This represents a major step forward in tackling electoral abuse.

Does my hon. Friend share my view that the elimination of electoral fraud should be a key priority for the Government? Will he also condemn the abuses perpetrated through the multi-registration and proxy vote procedures? Is he confident that the planned changes, which include the national insurance check for absent voters, will not deter legitimate electors?

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. The Bill sends a clear signal to people intent on committing electoral fraud, which is a crime that the Government are determined to combat. I thank him too for his question about national insurance numbers, as it gives me an opportunity to announce for the first time in this House that, from this year's annual canvass, applicants to the Northern Ireland electoral register and for an absent vote will be required to provide a signature, a date of birth and a national insurance number. However, to assist applicants, registration will be facilitated by a canvasser on an individual basis, and it will be preceded by a significant publicity campaign.

Given that the electoral office will clearly have enhanced powers to combat electoral fraud, will the Minister give an undertaking that it and other offices, such as the office of the police ombudsman, will come within the remit of the new chief inspector of criminal justice?

I thank the hon. Lady for that question. I cannot give her the assurance that she seeks today, but I can tell her that I am consulting 18 agencies—among them the chief electoral officer and the police ombudsman—with regard to their inclusion in the remit of the criminal justice inspectorate.

Will the Minister confirm that the registration of a person's death will lead to that person's name being crossed off the electoral register at once?

I am sorry that I cannot give the hon. Gentleman that assurance immediately, but I shall write to him on the matter.

If he will make a statement about terrorist weapon decommissioning. [42004]

We welcomed the announcement on 23 October 2001 that the Provisional IRA had put a quantity of arms completely beyond use. We now want to see further decommissioning by the IRA, and decommissioning by all other terrorist groups.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. She is aware, as am I, of the long-held belief that people who retain illegal arms do so to protect their place in the illegal drugs trade in Northern Ireland. That belief is strengthened by the activities of IRA members in Colombia in support of FARC, the terrorist and drug trafficking organisation. She will know that the issue has been raised in Congress very recently by US State Department officials. As part of the process of urging the decommissioning of illegal arms, will my hon. Friend ensure that pressure is also brought to bear on republican and loyalist terrorist to end their ownership of arms and their part in the illegal trade in drugs?

I hope that my hon. Friend will be reassured to learn that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State discussed that very matter with the American Government when he visited the US last week. There has been a credible start to decommissioning, but last October's event needs to become a process without further delay. We also want decommissioning to be undertaken by loyalists and by dissident groups that remain outside the peace process. Loyalist and republican paramilitaries both must realise that the Belfast agreement is the only way forward.

Have there been any further acts of decommissioning since that first event?

We have received no information from the decommissioning commission that any further event has taken place, but the old arguments for holding on to illegal arms are obsolete. We have lived up to our commitments, as set out in the Belfast agreement and at Weston Park. It is time for all paramilitary organisations to honour their commitments to decommission.

Does the Minister agree that the total decommissioning of paramilitary and terrorist weaponry and the disestablishment of paramilitary and terrorist structures are prerequisites to creating an environment in which our new institutions can thrive and prosper? Does she share my concern at the murder in my constituency a few days ago of Matthew Burns, for which local media reports claim that the Provisional IRA was responsible? Given that organisation's alleged truce, what action does she propose to take, and what inquiries will she make?

I endorse everything that the hon. Gentleman says. There is a need for society to move away from violence and the culture of violence. The ceasefires that we have in Northern Ireland are not perfect, but neither is democracy in Northern Ireland. I condemn unreservedly the cold-blooded murder of Matthew Burns in Castlewellan on 21 February, but the investigation of the incident is continuing and it would not be appropriate for me to comment until it is complete. Obviously, my colleagues and I wish to join those who have expressed sympathy, because we have yet another bereaved family in Northern Ireland.

Can the Minister recall the promises made at the time of the referendum in Northern Ireland, linking the ending of all terrorist violence and the decommissioning of all terrorist weaponry with concessions, such as IRA-Sinn Fein in government and the early release of terrorist prisoners? Does the Minister accept that, in Northern Ireland, people regard with horror the notion that the Government are considering an amnesty for terrorists on the run in the absence of any further decommissioning? Will she give an assurance to the House that no such amnesty will be forthcoming?

I note the hon. Gentleman's position and he has expressed his concerns before. He may wish to listen to the answer that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will give to the next question. The decommissioning that took place in October last year was a significant event and a real shift in the republican mindset. But that event needs to become a process, which needs to be extended to other paramilitary organisations that continue to cling to their illegal weapons.

Does my hon. Friend agree that where there are groups in Northern Ireland-both loyalist and republican—that have failed to decommission their weapons, that helps to breed fear and mistrust at the grass roots of the organisations, particularly in urban areas, which find it more difficult to allow the democratic process that we have set in motion through the Good Friday agreement to take root and flourish?

I absolutely agree with everything that my hon. Friend has said. It is not within the Government's power to promise a successful end to decommissioning, or to any other aspect of the Belfast agreement. However, we have come a long way. Much has been achieved, and our work will continue.

The Minister will be aware of the growing disappointment in Northern Ireland, as we approach the fourth anniversary of the agreement, that we have not had further progress on decommissioning. What steps are the Government going to take to apply pressure on loyalist and republican paramilitary' organisations to complete the decommissioning process? Is she aware that if the Government do not act, we will?

I hear what the hon. Gentleman has said. He will know that we continue to work tirelessly towards achieving all the objectives set out in the agreement. That is our intention and our work is focused on that.

I wholeheartedly agree with the Minister that the Belfast agreement is the best basis for moving forward, and we all want complete decommissioning by both sides. However, after four years of unilateral and unlinked concessions in one direction, will the Government finally learn, after releasing all the prisoners without demanding any decommissioning at all and after crafting a special status for Sinn Fein-IRA MPs in this House and giving them the red carpet treatment in Downing Street, that making such concessions is not the right way forward, that appeasement does not lead to peace, and that there is a difference between the two?

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. All aspects of the Belfast agreement must be implemented in full. None is conditional upon another. Everybody who has signed and is committed to that agreement needs to carry out their responsibilities under the agreement. Those paramilitary organisations that continue to cling to their illegal weapons need to learn that the only way forward is the true implementation of the agreement and the abandonment of weapons for good.

Does the hon. Lady realise that the fundamental lack of linkage is at the root of the problem of the Government's tactics and the reason why we have not made more progress? Does she accept that if her Government go forward with an unconditional amnesty for terrorists on the run, not only will there be revulsion, as the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds) said, throughout both law-abiding communities in Northern Ireland, but the Government will reinforce the sense in Sinn Fein-IRA that they can get all the concessions they want while sitting on their hands and on their arms?

We have seen massive advances in Northern Ireland, albeit often painful and even acrimonious at the time. In any context, that progress has been extraordinary. Enormous programmes of reform have been achieved—the Assembly, policing, criminal justice reforms and human rights—but the situation is not perfect. Hard decisions have still to come. We recognise the pain that victims and relatives feel, but as in many areas, we need to draw a line under the past and turn towards construction. Let no one belittle the significance of last autumn's decommissioning act. It was historic. It was a clear symbol of a major shift in attitudes towards constitutionalism, and the process must continue on all sides. Loyalists, too, need to play their part in bringing about a better future.

If he will make a statement on his policy towards terrorists who have (a) escaped and (b) not been apprehended. [42005]

What plans has he to introduce legislation regarding suspected terrorists who are on the run. [42006]

We recognised at Weston Park that the issue of those on the run needed to be dealt with. We will deal with it. However, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made clear, how we deal with it is open to discussion.

That was a very equivocal response to a very important question. At a time when the Government are spending £100 million on the Saville inquiry into Bloody Sunday, will not the relatives of the 11 innocent victims of that other bloody Sunday, Enniskillen, remembrance day 1987, be appalled to hear that the Government are even contemplating an amnesty for terrorists such as Charlie Canfield? Cannot the Government get their act together and send a straight message to the terrorists that there will be no amnesty for those on the run or those who have escaped?

Of course, the thoughts of all hon. Members are with the victims of all the troubles. We have made more progress in the past four years resolving the difficulties than we ever did in the previous 40 years. That is partly because we have recognised the amount of pain and the fact that pain is indivisible. The hon. Gentleman raises the issue of those on the run. It is a difficult question, and for many a distasteful one. I have no illusions about that.

It is not difficult.

The right hon. Gentleman says it is not, but 1 understand just how difficult it is. I also understand that it is distasteful for many people. Many of the things that we have had to countenance in the peace process, such as the release of prisoners, have been both difficult and distasteful. I would not want in any way to diminish that consideration. However, we have managed to achieve such success in the peace process because we have been courageous enough to face up to issues that are difficult and distasteful. I urge the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) to look at the wider context and consider the benefits that the peace process has brought, and to look elsewhere, not least the middle east, to see what happens when political processes fall.

One may have sympathy with the Secretary of State's position, but will he acknowledge that last year some 700 people in Northern Ireland did not enjoy their human rights, as they were expelled from their homes, and 39 of them were expelled from Northern Ireland as well? While the political spokesmen keep talking about community justice, is it not near time we said clearly that there will be no further advance until we see advances in realism from those who are leaders of terror?

It is not often that I can say that I unambiguously and unequivocally agree with everything that the hon. Gentleman says, but I can on this occasion. There is absolutely no justification for kangaroo courts, punishment beatings, exiles and people taking the law into their own hands, particularly when there is now a police service in Northern Ireland that I think is due the support and participation of all members in all communities. I say, again without equivocation, that it is time for reconciliation in Northern Ireland. It is time for people to put a bitter, bitter past behind them, and resolving the issue of exiles is another important part of that process. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government will keep up pressure on those responsible to end the despicable expulsion of people in Northern Ireland from their homes and their homeland.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is more concern in Protestant and Catholic working-class communities about the possibility of on-the-runs being given an amnesty than on any other issue in Northern Ireland politics, including decommissioning? How would he answer those who say that it is one thing to bring about the early release of prisoners but quite another to excuse people, so that there is no black mark against them and no action is taken. That is what bothers many working-class people in Northern Ireland.

Yes, I recognise fully the deep concerns that are felt on both sides of the community. I read with interest the recent report from BASE 2 on those who have been exiled. It does not afflict only one community. I think that about 60 per cent. of the huge number who were threatened or had to move from their homes last year were from the loyalist community and about 40 per cent. were from the republican community. There is no justification for that. I say this to those who want to see progress in Northern Ireland: we have been told for decades by people in Northern Ireland and the spokesmen of the various communities that they wish to get away from what they were accused of having—arbitrary justice, kangaroo courts, punishment meted out without due justification. All those issues are exemplified in the case of the exiles. We will do everything possible to make sure that those expulsions cease and that we find a way of reconciliation so that those who are expelled from their homes can return to them.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that any resolution of the on-the-run issue must include some process of detainment and release under licence to ensure parity with the early release scheme?

As I have told the House previously, we have committed ourselves to resolving this issue but have not decided how it will be resolved. Recent discussions have included issues raised by my hon. Friend and Members on both sides of the House regarding the security forces, exiles, matters of truth and victims. Those factors bear heavily upon us in our consideration of this matter, and that is how it should be. However, I repeat that there have been numerous occasions during this process when we have had to confront the most difficult and sometimes distasteful issues that we would prefer never to have to address. We recognise, however, that those issues are part of the bigger picture of achieving a settlement in Northern Ireland and a future for the generations of Northern Ireland that is better than—and more advanced than—anything that previous generations have managed to live under, and we will confront them.

The Secretary of State has said that to some degree he accepts the resentment and anger in Northern Ireland about the action that Her Majesty's Government are contemplating. Can he outline to the House what pressure Sinn Fein-IRA brought to bear on the Government to make them contemplate on-the-run terrorists being given an amnesty in the face of such opposition, not only in this House, but right across the communities in Northern Ireland?

The issue has been raised, not as a result of any particular pressure, but following on from and flowing from the logic of the Belfast agreement. It was an anomaly that we accepted had to be addressed; we are in the process of addressing it. I have told the hon. Gentleman that how we will do so has not been decided. I can say that with complete honesty and sincerity and I hope that he accepts that. The fact that we are spending so much time considering the issue is a sign of its importance and of our understanding of the concerns about it on both sides of the House. When we have reached a conclusion, we will of course come back to the House.

First, why was there no cross-party negotiation in Northern Ireland before that initiative was announced? Secondly, while we generally support the Government's Northern Ireland policy, will the right hon. Gentleman accept that if he tries to force the policy through without due consideration for the feelings of victims, friends and families and the application of justice, as they see it, the Liberal Democrats, and I am sure other parties too—perhaps even members of the Labour party—will oppose it in this Chamber and the other?

I should explain that this question arose out of discussions that took place at the inception of the Belfast agreement. It is an anomaly that has to be addressed as a logical outflow of some of the agreements reached then, including the difficult and for many people painful agreement on the release of paramilitary prisoners. I am the first to accept the depth of feeling on the issue. I hope that the fact that we have allowed people to know that it is under consideration has been useful. It certainly has been useful from the point of view that people have been less than reticent about making their views known on the subject. Obviously, that cannot but affect how we consider these matters.

In solving the difficulty that the Secretary of State and the Government have created for themselves, will the right hon. Gentleman guarantee—with a yes or a no—that he will not use the royal prerogative to bypass Parliament?

I have told the hon. Gentleman that all these matters are under discussion—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] If the tragic and painful history of Northern Ireland could be summed up in yes and no answers, we would have solved it decades ago. It cannot be; nor can we reconcile the parties to a conflict that has lasted decades without being prepared to consider issues that are difficult and cause a great deal of pain. I have no problem listening to hon. Gentlemen and Ladies explain to us the difficulties, distaste and pain with which the issue of on-the-runs is addressed within the community in Northern Ireland, but I would tell them this, particularly in regard to the manner in which the issue is often raised by those on the Opposition Front Benches: we have made more progress in four years in Northern Ireland than we ever did in the many decades before that. We have done so because we have had the courage to confront issues that are controversial and painful. We are doing this in a solemn and detailed fashion on the question of on-the-runs—

Order. I want to call Question 5.

What assistance is being provided by the United States to assist in combating organised crime and gangsterism in Northern Ireland. [42007]

The US has consistently supported us in our policing efforts, most recently by FBI training. Separately, in a step to assist our fight against organised crime, last Tuesday I appointed a US expert, Professor Ronald Goldstock, to provide an international perspective on the problem. He was the director of the New York organised crime taskforce for 13 years.

It is a sad reality that organised crime has fed the troubles, violence and intimidation in Northern Ireland for many years, blighting families and especially children. I welcome the appointment of Professor Goldstock, who is a respected man of high calibre. However, will my right hon Friend explain in a little more detail how the professor will help the Government to make progress in the fight against organised crime?

Ron Goldstock brings a wealth of experience to assist us in our efforts in the fight against organised crime. We are already trying to resource the police in very difficult circumstances, and the organised crime taskforce has made a considerable start under my hon. Friend the Minister of State with responsibilities for security. Ron Goldstock will be charged with analysing the impact of organised crime on society and, particularly, with recommending ways of building cross-community support for the fight against organised crime, especially, although not exclusively, among those who would masquerade as the defenders of either community. I am sure that he will make a major contribution to our efforts.

If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 20 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, including a meeting with Prime Minister John Howard of Australia to discuss the very welcome suspension of Zimbabwe from the Commonwealth.

Why are there more strikes when we have a Labour Government?

That is an ill-judged question. The number of days lost through strikes are fewer under this Government than they were under the previous Conservative Government. I am afraid that that was a foolish question to ask.

Will my right hon. Friend join me and the thousands of constituents who have written to their Members of Parliament to back the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children campaign to stop parents or carers killing their children? It is a shock to the House to learn that every week one or two children are killed by their parent or carer—the person who is meant to love and care for them, and keep them safe. Will he undertake to carry out all the necessary measures and legislative changes that are backed by all the children's charities?

We certainly support those moves. We support entirely the NSPCC's worthwhile Full Stop campaign, which will have the support of the vast majority of hon. Members and parents throughout the country.

Since the Prime Minister came to power, more than 50,000 care home beds have closed. Does the Prime Minister think that that has anything to do with his policies?

No. Incidentally, in relation to that 50,000, the net figure is 19,000 places and the reason for that number is clear—many of those care homes are in private hands and have been sold off. However, as a result of the measures that the Government have introduced and the money that we have put in, some £1.4 billion will be spent on initiatives to help the elderly in care homes and in their own homes in the next few years. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the Conservative party opposed that additional £1.4 billion when we announced it in the last Parliament.

As usual, the Prime Minister seems to shuffle off blame. Care homes are closing simply because the Government have weighed them down with expensive rules and regulations. For example, why should nursing managers with 20 years' experience have to abandon their patients to take qualifications just to keep their jobs? Why should married couples who have been living together for decades have to split up because the rules say that their home needs more single rooms? On 18 May 2000, my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) warned the Government that their policies would result in

"a huge loss of overall capacity in the system."—[Official Report, 18 May 2000; Vol. 350, c. 494.]

First, the regulations to which the right hon. Gentleman refers are the care standards regulations. I hope that the Conservative party supports high standards for our care homes, and I would have thought that it would do so. Actually, the principal reason why many of these homes have closed is that the owners believe, for understandable reasons, that the level of fees given by the Government are not high enough. We understand that, particularly when they are often sitting on extremely valuable property which they could sell for a great deal of money. However, the only way that we will get the necessary fees paid to those care homes is to put more money into the system. I repeat that the Government have committed £1.4 billion over the next few years both to help care services in local authorities and to give people better chances of being looked after in their own homes. We are putting that money into the system to rectify the problem, and the right hon. Gentleman opposed it. Perhaps when he gets to his feet he will explain how he will manage to improve the situation of people in care homes when he is opposed to the investment in them.

What the Prime Minister absolutely fails to point out is that, far from putting money in, the expensive cost of regulations takes money out of the system. The director of the Independent Healthcare Association said:

"The entire NHS plan will go into the sand unless care homes are stabilised."

First, on the point about operations in the national health service, let us not forget that the vast majority of people—more than 70 per cent.—get their operations within three months. This year, the Government have increased the number of beds in the national health service for the first tune in years. The right hon. Gentleman talks about waiting lists, but let no one forget that, in the years before we came to office, waiting lists in the health service went up by 400,000. They have fallen by 100,000 under this Government.

Answer.

Order.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that today's British workers are among the most productive in Europe? Does he not further agree that it is not over-ambitious for those same workers to expect and enjoy the same rights as those enjoyed by their counterparts throughout Europe?

That is exactly right. That is why, when the Government came to office, we signed the social chapter and we introduced the minimum wage. We have introduced the first proper rights of trade union representation and we have introduced the right to paid holidays for the first time for literally hundreds of thousands of people who never used to get the chance of a holiday. In those circumstances, I say to my hon. Friend that it is important that we manage to combine both enterprise and fairness in our economy. Each of the measures that we introduced, including the social chapter, were bitterly opposed by the Conservative party.

In expressing continuing support for the further British troop deployment to Afghanistan announced this week, may I ask the Prime Minister to clarify one aspect of that? The British are already involved in peacekeeping and there will be British forces in the mountains in a combat role. Why are we combining both roles when the Americans do not wish to do either?

There have been British forces engaged in fighting in Afghanistan for a very long time. Those troops, together with those in the international security assistance force, amount to about 6,000 British troops in total who are involved in the Afghan operation. To put that into context, that is about one tenth of the number deployed in the Gulf war.

I am sure, however, that the Prime Minister and the House will acknowledge that the Chief of the Defence Staff publicly cautioned against dual roles and against peacekeeping and combat forces being in the same place at the same time. Why has the Prime Minister come to the opposite conclusion?

I have not. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the Chief of the Defence Staff fully supports the deployment of our forces. They are not being deployed in the same areas—the security force is in Kabul and is performing a fundamental role in restoring security to Afghanistan.

My right hon. Friend will be aware of the comments of one of his recent predecessors, who declared the European Union "unreformable". Does he agree that, although it might seem that way if one stands on the sidelines and carps at it, it appears quite different if one is involved in the process?

Our membership of the European Union has been wholly to the benefit of this country. It is to the benefit of British jobs and the British economy, and it is right for British influence in the world that we remain part of the European Union. I am only sorry that so many people in the Conservative party today want to take this country back to the margins of influence in Europe, because that is not a patriotic thing to do. It is not in our national self-interest; it is actually a betrayal of that self-interest.

In Skegness, in my constituency, hundreds of jobs and thousands of tourists will be adversely affected by the ill-judged recommendations in the Government-sponsored Budd report on gaming. After four months of delay and dithering, will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to disown, and dissociate himself from those proposals?

We commissioned the independent report for very good reasons. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport is studying it and she will make an announcement in due course. Before making up his mind and alarming his constituents unduly, perhaps the hon. Gentleman should await the outcome of the consultation.

My right hon. Friend will know that many people are concerned about levels of crime, particularly street crime. People tell me that they cannot understand why the courts do not deal adequately with persistent offenders. Can he reassure them and the House that the Government are determined to take action to ensure that persistent offenders are dealt with effectively and swiftly by the courts?

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. Of course, overall, crime—which doubled under the previous Conservative Government—has fallen under this Government. However, a serious problem exists with street crime, and one of the things that we are looking at is how to increase the number of secure accommodation places, precisely to ensure that those who are likely to commit further offences are not allowed back on the streets on bail.

I wonder whether the Prime Minister might take the time to study the recent report of the Northamptonshire-South community health council, which reveals that the total number of nursing home beds in the south of that county declined by almost 25 per cent. in the 30 months from January 1999. Will he note that the report of which that forms part is on delayed discharges from hospital, and is he the only person in the country who can see no connection between those two facts?

No, of course there is a connection. We allocated some £300 million of additional money before Christmas precisely in order to reduce delayed discharges. As a result, they have come down significantly. Indeed, according to my meeting yesterday with people in the health service, I think that more than 1,000 beds have been freed up through that additional money.

Will my right hon. Friend join me in expressing sympathy to my constituent, Daniella Perry, an eight-year-old girl who was savagely attacked by a dog in a community centre in Fleetwood? In that particular case, the dog has been protected, but the young girl has not, because the attack took place on private property—even though that private property is a community centre run by the local council and open to the public.

First, I express my sympathy to my hon. Friend's constituent and her family. Secondly, I know that the Minister of the relevant Department is in touch with my hon. Friend about that case and will be happy to meet her to discuss it. Obviously, beyond that particular case, it is a serious matter that may have implications for the general state of the law.

In 1997, the Prime Minister said:

"we will never consent to any arrangement that goes against the freely expressed wishes of the people of Gibraltar."—[Official Report, 16 July 1997; Vol. 298, c. 388.]

I do stand by it and of course we have not put proposals to people in Gibraltar yet. When we do put those proposals—[Interruption.] Well, that is the process that we have agreed. We have agreed that there should be a process under which we discuss with the Spanish Government certain proposals. When those proposals are agreed, they will be put to people in Gibraltar. Of course, people in Gibraltar will have the final say, as I have always indicated.

The Prime Minister says "yet", but his Government briefing yesterday was that a deal with Spain on joint sovereignty had already been agreed, that it will be presented within months and that whatever—I repeat, whatever—the result of a referendum, the deal will remain on the table and the Government will withdraw political and economic support from Gibraltar unless it agrees to that deal. To be absolutely clear about the issue, will the Prime Minister now answer two questions? First, if the people of Gibraltar refuse to accept the deal in a referendum, will those plans be torn up and taken away? Secondly, will Gibraltar suffer any economic or political reprisals and will it continue to be supported by the British Government regardless, through the EU?

Of course there will be no reprisals or penalties applied to the people of Gibraltar if they reject the plans. If they reject the plans, the plans are rejected by them. There is no question of the plans being able to proceed without their consent. That has been made clear throughout. I must say to the right hon. Gentleman and other Opposition Members that this is a process that began under the last Conservative Government—[HoN. MEMBERS: "No."] Oh yes. This total opportunism by the Conservative party has to be exposed. The process began under the previous Conservative Government and it began for a very good reason: the present arrangements between Spain and Gibraltar suit nobody. They do not suit the people of Spain or Gibraltar or Britain. Therefore, under the Brussels process, which began under the previous Government, proposals will be put to the people of Gibraltar, but-as I have said throughout-there can and will be no change to the constitutional position of Gibraltar without the consent of the people of Gibraltar.

The Prime Minister did not answer the question. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes, he did."] No, he did not. I asked specifically whether those plans would be withdrawn, torn up, taken away or whatever he wants. In other words, those plans would not lie around to bully the people of Gibraltar. Is it not the same for everybody? We have a pattern with this Government, whether it is a 90-year-old worried about their health care or Gibraltarians who want to stay British. First, the Government try to smear them. If that fails, the Government try to threaten them. If that fails, finally the Government abandon them. When will the Prime Minister accept that the people of Gibraltar do not want this deal? Is it not a reality that whatever he says, and all the spin, we can no longer trust his word?

As I have said to the right hon. Gentleman in the last two answers I have given, if the people of Gibraltar do not accept the plans then they cannot be proceeded with.

Moving from a rock to sport, last Friday I had the honour of officially opening the sports facilities at the Wetherby sports association in my constituency. Those magnificent facilities are being delivered, first, thanks to a £500,000 lottery grant via Sport England, and secondly, thanks to the dedication of voluntary workers such as the chairman, Seamus Picker, and his team of volunteers. Bearing in mind the role that sport plays in this country in developing a healthy and socially cohesive nation, will my right hon. Friend outline to the House what plans the Government have for supporting sport at the grass-roots level in the many years ahead that we shall be in power?

First, I pay tribute to those in my hon. Friend's constituency who have been working so hard on sport, which is dear to the hearts of many people throughout the country. There are more than 100,000 local amateur sports clubs up and down the country. We are working with them at the moment to see how they can apply for charitable status, because that is a big issue for them, but in addition there is an announcement that some £200 million of lottery money will be spread throughout the country, which will encourage these sports clubs.

Can the Prime Minister tell me why, after nearly six years of a Labour Government—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Five."]—[Interruption.]

Order.

Five, then, Why, after five years of a Labour Government, in my constituency, are women with breast cancer—[Interruption.] They may find it a laughing matter, but to me it is deadly serious. Why are women with breast cancer waiting an unprecedented 20 weeks to begin life-saving radiotherapy treatment?

I will certainly look into the facts in the hon. Gentleman's constituency as, I have to say from experience, often when these points are put to me by Conservative Members on their constituency facts, they do not turn out to be exactly as they were represented to me. However, I say to the hon. Gentleman about breast cancer, as a result of the measures that have been introduced by the Government, we are referring people to a consultant within two weeks, and now 95 per cent. of people get referred within two weeks. That compares with just over 60 per cent. when we came to office. There is a particular problem with radiography at the moment, not just in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, but throughout the country—partly because, of course, there are many more referrals as a result of the two-week limit. But as a result of additional investment and the amount of equipment that we are putting in, cancer waits on the whole are down, not up.

I am sure that my right hon. Friend would agree that the very welcome decision of the Commonwealth to suspend Zimbabwe fully justified an approach that sought to bring on board the rest of the Commonwealth rather than a unilateral approach by this country. Given the reports today of the charge for treason being pursued against Morgan Tsvangirai, can my right hon. Friend tell the House what further steps he would like the Commonwealth to take to try to give the people of Zimbabwe the Government of their choice?

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. The Commonwealth will of course consider what further steps to take. The decision to prosecute Mr. Tsvangirai is an indication of why the decision to suspend Zimbabwe is so justified.

As I am sure that the Prime Minister is not aware of a dispute that is going on between two Departments, will he look into the fact that, despite the strongest recommendations from the Ministry of Defence, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport is refusing to give the Queen's jubilee medal to holders of the Victoria Cross and the George Cross? Will he look into that to ensure that the bravest of the brave are not deprived of that honour, which they so richly deserve?

I will look into it, although I give the hon. Gentleman no promises.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that to increase capacity in the NHS we need to increase the number of consultants who work for it full time? My constituents are impressed with the skill and professionalism of consultants, but concerned about the lucrative private practices that many of them have. Will he speed up the reform of the consultants contract so that doctors who are trained by the NHS work exclusively for the NHS and get the rewards that they deserve?

As my hon. Friend will know, an intensive programme of negotiations on the new consultants contract is under way, and both the British Medical Association and the Government are negotiating in good faith on its terms. I can say to him at this stage that many consultants work immensely hard for the NHS all over the country, and they are highly dedicated and committed people. I am sure that we will find a resolution to those negotiations that allows consultants to work for the NHS while ensuring that they have the freedoms that they need.

Given the Prime Minister's commitment to tackling youth crime and speeding up youth justice, can he tell my constituents why the Government propose to close Kingston magistrates court, which has the busiest youth court in south-west London? As he may not have heard about that proposal before today, can he give me his personal assurance that he will look into it and intervene to prevent the closure of an efficient and well regarded courthouse?

In the light of the hon. Gentleman's question, I shall certainly look into it, but I have to say to him that closures take place for all sorts of different administrative, as well as cost, reasons. In respect of youth offending overall, as a result of the measures that the Government have introduced and the extra money that we have put into the system, we have halved the time that it takes to get persistent youth offenders to court.

I welcome the philosophically substantial speech that my right hon. Friend gave last week at the London school of economics, especially its contrast between the social individualism that he advocates and the selfish individualism that has so often characterised proceedings in this House. However, does he agree that some of his current policies are somewhat inconsistent with those principles, notably his policy on the House of Lords, and will he send them back to the drawing board?

I hesitate to revisit the scene of an earlier triumph.

On the crisis in the care homes sector, does the Prime Minister think that it is a bit rich to describe as investment the throwing of taxpayers' money at a problem that his Government have themselves created? Last Friday, I visited a care home in my constituency that is having to spend £30,000 to improve a perfectly adequate heating system just to meet the arbitrary standards that the Prime Minister praised a few minutes ago. Will he please revisit that policy before the care homes sector descends into complete crisis?

I simply do not agree with the hon. Gentleman about the care home standards regulations and rules, which were the product of detailed consultation. Indeed, I remember that hon. Members from all parties supported many aspects of them at the time. It is important that those homes have proper care standards. I cannot comment on the specific heating system in the home to which he referred. However, he says that the extra money that we are investing in social services is simply wasted. With the greatest respect, that is nonsense.