If he will make a statement on the recent breach of security at Castlereagh police station. [51664]

What steps have been taken to increase security since the recent burglary at Castlereagh. [51671]

The breach of security at Castlereagh is a matter of grave concern. The police investigation into the incident is ongoing and the House will understand why I cannot go into details while it continues. In parallel to the criminal investigation, I have established a separate review conducted by Sir John Chilcot and reporting to me to investigate all the national security implications. The acting Chief Constable has advised that appropriate immediate measures have been undertaken to increase security and that a detailed security review is ongoing.

I welcome the Secretary of State's statement as far as it goes, but does he accept the definition of the Member for Mid-Ulster (Mr. McGuinness), who said that the ceasefire is holding because the IRA is not shooting at the police or the Army? In the light of the intelligence and other activities that have been going on, is it not nearly time that the reviews were concluded and action taken to ensure proper democracy in Northern Ireland?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that I keep all the ceasefires under constant review. The acting Chief Constable has made it clear that he does not believe that the IRA ceasefire is under threat. I will, of course, continue to discuss these matters with him.

Does the Secretary of State fully understand the extent of the horror arising from the breach of security at Castlereagh and the theft of the sensitive materials from that building, which have caused a serious loss of confidence among all law-abiding people in Northern Ireland? How does he intend to restore confidence that those responsible for security in Northern Ireland are competent to protect themselves as well as to provide security for the rest of us?

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. It is precisely one of the reasons why, alongside the police investigation, I have asked Sir John Chilcot to consider some of the wider implications of this breach of national security. Of course, there are wider implications, again because of the allegations that are circulating. I will not comment on any subject on which a judicial process is under way. I merely say this: I want this process to succeed, as do the Government and, I believe, all the parties to it, because we have made so much progress in the past four years on new institutions, democratic structures, human and civil rights and de-escalating the military presence in Northern Ireland. In that context and at this time, after four years, that is precisely why it is not acceptable that either the apparatus of violence or terrorism or the preparations for it can be allowed to continue.

Given that the Castlereagh security office would be regarded as one of the highest-security offices in Northern Ireland, does the Secretary of State agree that it is highly unlikely that members of paramilitary organisations could enter that building without being recognised?

I have to say to my hon. Friend that the nature of Castlereagh changed significantly when it ceased to be a holding centre, not least as a result of representations from his colleagues. If it is possible for paramilitaries to break out of the most secure premises in Northern Ireland—the Maze prison—it is possible for anyone, including paramilitaries, to break in to Castlereagh.

Does the Secretary of State agree that the only major line of inquiry that the police are following is an investigation into the role of the Provisional IRA in the break-in? If, after a full investigation, it is discovered that the Provisional IRA was responsible, will the Secretary of State judge that to be such a significant breach of its ceasefire that the IRA-Sinn Fein representatives on the Government of Northern Ireland should be removed? The right hon. Gentleman knows that current legislation allows for a voting system that would not exclude them. Is he prepared to change the law to exclude Sinn Fein-IRA if they have breached their ceasefire? Or is he unprepared to change it even if the Law Lords rule against him in a case that will come before them soon? Is he prepared to change it, as his spokesman recently suggested, only to keep Sinn Fein in government?

I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is wrong on his first point. The investigation to which he referred is not the only major line of inquiry. It is the major line of inquiry, but there are no closed minds when considering evidence. I see the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends laughing. I am afraid that I examine the facts before I make decisions.

Is not the lesson of Castlereagh that the trust between the communities in Northern Ireland is fragile? In that context, is it not important to hold a full and detailed investigation into exactly who was responsible for the break-in and why it happened? Is it not also important for all paramilitary groups to move away from violence for the foreseeable future and make that clear not only in words but in deeds?

I agree with my hon. Friend. On trust, there is so much at stake and so much to lose that I cannot believe that those on any side who have contributed so much in the past would put the process at risk. I am talking not only about republicans, because everyone has a responsibility to build confidence. Northern Ireland has recently been scarred by a considerable spate of loyalist violence. Apart from being wrong in itself, it gives a spurious justification to those on the other side of the community who wish to retain arms and the apparatus of violence.

Details of the hit list appeared in the press before individuals on it had been informed of their inclusion. What can we do to ensure that such a breach does not happen again?

On the first point, the hon. Gentleman suggests that malicious leaking of information may have occurred. In the face of the evidence, I am not in a position to deny that. There may be people in all organisations and parties who wish to see the process fail. After all, all organisations are made up of human beings. Some people may be throwing snowballs at the process. However, the real problem is that someone else may be making the snowballs. As long as people make the snowballs, the underlying reality is that others will be able to use them. I therefore appeal to everyone, notwithstanding the nature of some of the leaks and the way in which reports are exaggerated and misinformed, to ensure that we get rid of that underlying reality, which allows those who want to damage the process to do that.

But what happens when the snowballs melt? Will the pebbles inside them be revealed? Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that, when the Chilcot inquiry is finished—while we would not want the names of persons to be revealed, for obvious reasons—its principal conclusions will be brought immediately to the House so that we can form an opinion on what has happened in this case? We need to know why someone was able to walk into Castlereagh, go into the most secure office there, obtain these documents and walk away, leaving behind a variety of different smokescreens. Is it not of particular significance that the person who was arrested as a result of the investigations was arrested on the strength of evidence relating to other issues, rather than to anything that was taken from Castlereagh?

My hon. Friend will forgive me if I resist the temptation to pursue the snowball metaphor further. On his first point, it is important to distinguish between the police investigation, which is attempting to apprehend those who carried out the crime—a proper and appropriate matter for the police—and the wider review of national security implications that I have asked Sir John Chilcot to undertake. When Sir John reports to me, I will consider how much of that information we can put into the public domain. His report will not necessarily name names in terms of the guilty people who have committed the crime—that was a false assumption by my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara)—

I asked you not to.

Order.

That is properly the role of the police in this case. I will look at the report to see how much of it I can put into the public domain without further damaging national security.

I hope that the Secretary of State will not disagree with me when I say that the whole peace process is now on trial in a new and very worrisome way as a result of the facts that have emerged over the past two weeks. First, we have heard the suggestions that the IRA is behind the Castlereagh break-in. The murder of a taxi driver in Dungannon has been attributed to the IRA, and there have been authoritative reports that Sinn Fein-IRA continue to target activity against individuals and physical objectives. We know that the IRA has been buying arms in Florida since the ceasefire and since the Belfast agreement, and there are now suggestions that it has been buying arms even more recently in Russia. Perhaps most dramatically of all, the US House of Representatives produced a detailed report last week which made it absolutely clear that Sinn Fein-IRA—and it is Sinn Fein-IRA—are at the heart of an international network of drug-running and terrorist organisations.

rose—

Order. Before the Minister replies, I must remind the House that we are still on Question 1. I am keen to move on to the next question.

In almost every case that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, judicial processes are under way. He knows that. I am not, therefore, prepared to comment on what he calls reports, on suggestions, on innuendo or on speculation. In all those cases, the facts will come into the public domain, and that will be the time to take them into account.

I shall put another question in the hope that I get a straight answer to this one. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that in the present circumstances it would be completely wrong to make new concessions to Sinn Fein-IRA beyond those in the Belfast agreement, such as allowing former terrorists to join district police partnerships, and giving an amnesty to on-the-run terrorists? Does he agree that those ideas, on which he has hummed and hawed for several months, should be definitely excluded?

The hon. Gentleman omitted to mention that former terrorists can become Ministers in Northern Ireland. I thought that he supported that. I am surprised at the gusto with which he is prepared to oppose their being on a local policing board while accepting them in the Government of Northern Ireland.

If he will make a statement on decommissioning. [51668]]

The second act of IRA decommissioning, reported on by the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning on 8 April 2002, needs to be part of a process that involves all paramilitary groups. Paramilitary groups must end all forms of terrorist activity and dismantle the apparatus of terrorism.

I thank the Secretary of State for that reply. I welcome the recent decommissioning, but what reassurance can he give to the House and to the wider community in the United Kingdom that decommissioning remains a positive process? In particular, can he reassure us that, in his opinion, more arms are being decommissioned than are currently being purchased?

I think that even the most sceptical Member of the House would accept that the first and second acts of decommissioning were historic in their own terms, given the problems we face. If the hon. Gentleman is asking me whether we have a huge way to go on this issue, as on all others connected with the Belfast agreement, the answer is yes.

As long as there is a large quantity of arms in Northern Ireland that are available to paramilitaries to use, people will live in fear. That includes people who have been placed in exile, such as Joseph McCloskey, whom I recently took to see the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. As America has had some impact on the two acts of decommissioning that have so far taken place, might it not be a good idea for Joseph McCloskey also to visit the Administration in Washington? He might receive as good a reception as he did from my hon. Friend.

Yes. My hon. Friend will be aware that the Under-Secretary recently met Mr. McCloskey and his family. He gave them an assurance that, when reviewing the position of victims, the Maranatha community, with which he was also associated, will be fully involved.

Does the Secretary of State agree with me that the confidence generated by the welcome second act of decommissioning has now been totally dissipated by the flurry of paramilitary activity, of which Castlereagh is merely a part? Although I appreciate what the Secretary of State has in mind, does he not think that it is a little mealy mouthed to say that we all need to have a sense that the war is over? Would it not be much better to say to the IRA and to all the other paramilitary organisations that it is long past time they said clearly that the war is over, and moreover that eight years after the first ceasefire it is about time they started to disband?

I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman's suggestions and what I said are mutually exclusive. In a tactical sense, my reading of history suggests that the one way to ensure that something does not happen is for a British Secretary of State to demand that it does. Having said that, the thrust of the right hon. Gentleman's comments is true. If there is to be sustained confidence in this whole process, people need to be assured and have the perception that there has been not only cessation of firing—which has been the case for years, and is a major step forward—but cessation of the preparation for firing at some future stage. That, I think, is the kernel of the present lack of confidence. We must all take account of it, including the leaders of the republican community. I believe they are committed to the process, but they must understand that the question of cessation is beginning to have a serious effect on people's confidence in that process.

What progress is being made in persuading loyalist paramilitaries that they too must decommission?

We are making every effort to ensure that loyalist groups are encouraged to proceed to a ceasefire and engage with the international commission, as some have been doing. Some are not currently on ceasefire, although we keep that under review as well. At the beginning of the year there was a significant reduction in indiscriminate terrorist violence in the cause of loyalism.

The Secretary of State has helpfully distinguished between the Chief Constable's judgments about the IRA ceasefire and the question of other paramilitary activities, including targeting. Tomorrow, the Prime Minister will go to Northern Ireland. Is the Secretary of State saying that, in terms of the criteria laid down by the Prime Minister at the Balmoral showground on 14 May 1998, the IRA ceasefire no longer holds?

I have already made it plain that although I keep all these ceasefires under constant review, I rely on the counsel of, among others, my security advisers. The acting Chief Constable has made his view public over the last week, but the important point, which I have already made, is completely in line with what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said at Balmoral some years ago. He said then that, if the process was to continue and if people's confidence was to be retained, a ceasefire was not sufficient; the preparations and apparatus for terrorism must be run down. If that was true some years ago, it is even more true today. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who is to go to Northern Ireland in partnership with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, will reinforce that message.

What progress is being made in recruitment and training for the new Northern Ireland police service. [51669]

The first intake of new recruits graduated on 5 April, and the second graduation ceremony will take place on 10 May, involving a further 60 graduates. By next week, some 300 recruits appointed on a 50:50 basis will have started training. Although figures are not yet available for the latest campaign, the response is understood to be, again, encouraging.

I thank my hon. Friend for her reply. At least I was listening; not many other people were.

I entirely agree. The response from the Catholic community has been unprecedented; if anything is holding back the process of change, it is Sinn Fein's refusal to endorse the new arrangements, and its campaign to dissuade Catholics from joining the police.

Given this morning's partisan statement on police recruitment by the policing oversight commissioner, when will the Government begin a recruitment procedure in Northern Ireland that does not discriminate against the Protestant community?

We are entirely confident that the 50:50 recruitment procedure that is in place is meeting the needs of the new Police Service of Northern Ireland. In fact, this morning's publication of the oversight commissioner's report is very welcome. He rightly pays tribute to the work of the Policing Board and the progress of the recruitment programme. It is a report on work in progress, and we will look very closely at the conclusions that he has drawn.

If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 1 May.

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

My right hon. Friend will be aware that the economy of Scotland, particularly that of the central belt, is buoyant, and I thank him for that. Can he assure me that the UK-wide aviation review will be based on fair and open competition, and that any public funding decisions will take into account the effect on local economies? Will he also ensure that airport costs are the same throughout the country, and can he assure me that the links to Glasgow and Edinburgh airports, which are vital to Scotland's growth, will be started and completed quickly?

The aviation White Paper that will be published shortly will set out the options and deal with many of the issues raised by my hon. Friend. As for the rail links to Glasgow and Edinburgh airports, I think that a clear understanding exists that there is a lot to recommend both projects. We are urgently looking at the matter with not just the British Airports Authority, but the Scottish Executive and the Strategic Rail Authority, and I hope that we will have some news to announce shortly. I know of my hon. Friend's interest in the matter, and I am sure that, given the buoyancy of the economy in Scotland, those projects could add to it.

In the past week, the Government have announced a new target for violent crime by September, the docking of child benefit from truants, putting police into schools, and giving London 700 more police. Given that the local elections are—strangely—tomorrow, does the Prime Minister feel that it is any wonder that the public are cynical about such gimmicks?

It is not merely that we have announced more police officers for London; we have actually provided more. It is not merely that we have announced the measures on youth crime to which the right hon. Gentleman refers; they are part of a continuing series of measures to deal with every single aspect of youth crime. We know that overall crime has fallen in the past five years, but we have a serious problem with street crime and antisocial behaviour. Of course, the difference is that we are trying to deal with this issue, but the Conservatives have opposed every single one of the measures that we are proposing.

All four were gimmicks announced in the past week. The reality is that the Prime Minister has announced extra police officers seven times in five years. Even today, he announces that police numbers are at their highest level, but they have only just reached the level that he inherited when he took office in 1997. As many people are leaving the Met as are joining it. Because of the Government's red tape, the force now needs 12 police officers just to spare one to go on street patrol. Will the Prime Minister confirm that today's gimmicky announcement amounts at best to no more than—in fact, just under—two extra beat officers per London borough?

First, we have actually got the highest ever level of police officers. That is the result of investment that the Conservatives opposed. Since we are talking about comparative records, the Conservatives promised in 1992 that there would be 5,000 more police officers. In fact, they cut the number of police officers in that time. We have increased the numbers to a record level.

It is typical of the Prime Minister, when faced with a requirement for more police officers on the streets, to want to put part-time officers on the streets, not real ones. Just now he said that the Government were succeeding in bringing down violent crime. I remind him that violent crime has risen by 20 per cent. in the last three years. Nobody believes a word he is saying.

First, on the crime figures that the right hon. Gentleman has just given—over the last five years crime has fallen, not risen: it doubled under the Conservatives. However, we have accepted that street crime is a real issue. What I said to him was that recently, as a result of the operation by the Metropolitan police, the figures have been going in the right direction. We need to continue that and make sure that it happens in each of the 10 main crime hotspots.

No one believes a word that the Prime Minister says. Out there, the public know that violent street crime is rising, but he will not even admit that. He pretends that it is falling. It has gone up by more than 20 per cent. The reality is that all the detection and clear-up rates in London have halved since he took power. When will he understand that the public do not want gimmicks: they want crime to be stopped?

I have accepted that street crime is a problem. I continually say that when the right hon. Gentleman asks me, because it is true. The question is: what can we do? We are taking action on truancy, action to ensure that people who are paid benefit take some responsibility in return, action to ensure that persistent offenders are not bailed and back out on the street again and action to provide more police officers because we know that street crime is a problem. The difference is that the Government are taking action to do something about it but he is opposed to that action.

Will the Prime Minister confirm that he has received the largest amount of correspondence from individuals on one subject that any Prime Minister has ever received, given that more than 1 million cards have been received from citizens across Ireland expressing their deep concern about the safety of the Sellafield nuclear plant? Is he prepared to take the necessary steps to remove those concerns?

I am aware of the concern that has been expressed. However, the Sellafield plant and any other plants in this country are subject to the strictest national and international standards. Those standards are regularly reviewed. The plants are regularly inspected and none of those inspections has ever found a problem, such as the problem alleged in the press and by other political parties. Of course we take the concerns seriously, but there is a proper procedure and it would be wrong to close down nuclear facilities or start putting large numbers of people out of work without sufficient evidence from the relevant bodies to back it up.

Will the Prime Minister say which members of the Cabinet support his plan to withdraw child benefit from the parents of persistent offenders?

As I just said to the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), when we have a firm proposal, we will put it forward for consideration. However, as I said, we are examining the matter. What is more—[Interruption.] If the right hon. Gentleman wants to oppose the measure, let him oppose it. We are not examining the proposal only in relation to child benefit. We are also looking at housing benefit, and the persistent antisocial behaviour and offending by families in receipt of that benefit. The vast majority of people in this country will support the idea that people who get benefits from the state owe some responsibility in return. If the Liberal Democrats are opposed to that, let them say so.

The Prime Minister seems keen to encourage opposition, but I was merely inquiring about his level of support. Will not this idea go the same way as the half-baked notion that youngsters on a Saturday night should be taken along the street to the nearest cash machine to pay their dues to society? Would not it be better to bury this idea here and now, once and for all?

No, I do not agree at all. The right hon. Gentleman may not realise it but fixed-penalty notices are now law. They will start to be issued in July, as will drug treatment testing orders, and the right hon. Gentleman must also bear in mind the introduction of antisocial behaviour orders, parenting orders and reparation orders. We will take whatever measures are necessary to crack down on the problem.

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will have seen press coverage over the weekend of British citizens held in jail in Saudi Arabia. They include one of my constituents, Mr. Alexander Mitchell. The prosecutor in that case has asked for lengthy jail sentences for some, and the death penalty for Mr. Mitchell. I know that some contact has been made with the Saudi authorities and the Saudi royal family. Will my right hon. Friend not only sustain that contact and the pressure, but step up the pressure immediately and treat the case as a matter of urgency?

I entirely understand my hon. Friend's concerns about the case of Sandy Mitchell. I realise that this is a very difficult time for Mr. Mitchell and, of course, for his family. I appreciate also the measured way in which my hon. Friend has put his question. We are indeed in constant contact with the Saudi authorities. I believe that it is understood by the family—and I know that it is by my hon. Friend—that the best way to approach the matter is not in a public manner but to act behind the scenes so that we can ensure that we do the very best for Mr. Mitchell in these circumstances. I assure my hon. Friend that we will continue to do so. As I said a moment or two ago, we have contact with the Saudi authorities at every level. We will maintain it, and ensure that we do everything that we possibly can to assist Mr. Mitchell and his family.

Two weeks ago, the Prime Minister was asked:

"Will there be a debate on a motion in the House before there is any conflict in Iraq?"

"we will ensure that the House is properly consulted."—[Official Report, 17 April 2002; Vol. 382, c. 574.]

I have nothing to add to the reply that I gave before. I simply say that since 11 September, for example, there has been the fullest debate and consultation with the House, and I am sure that that will continue to be the case. However, let me point out that we have not yet taken action in Iraq.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that upholding the principles of justice and the rule of law is as important internationally as it is at home? As the United Nations has decided that it should investigate the serious allegations that war crimes may have been committed in Jenin, is it tolerable that Israel, as the accused party, should seek a veto over what is investigated, who investigates it and the result of that investigation in advance? If it is not acceptable, is it not time for the international community to say what it is prepared to do about it?

I very much hope that the UN mission to find out the facts in respect of what happened in Jenin can go ahead. We are in discussion with the Israeli Government, as are the United Nations, the United States Government and others. I know that those negotiations are at a difficult and delicate stage, and I do not want to say more than that I hope very much that the mission goes ahead. As my hon. Friend may know, we too are working very hard to alter the position that currently obtains at Ramallah, where Chairman Arafat is. I do not want to say more about that at this stage, but I think that the proposed fact-finding mission, headed by the UN, with a responsible delegation, would be right not only for the international community but for Israel. I hope that the obstacles in the way of that mission can be removed.

Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating West Oxfordshire district council, whose council tax rate of £40 is one of the lowest in the country? Is he aware that this Conservative-controlled council is investing in recreation centres, social housing and doorstep recycling? Does it not show that we can have quality local services without fleecing taxpayers?

Of course, but if we look at the 10 top council taxes that are levied in the country, five of them are levied by Conservative councils and none by Labour.

One of the areas in which the Government have made a real difference in their first five years has been on debt relief and international development. With a few weeks to go to the G8 summit, will the Prime Minister tell the House what progress he is making in building political and financial support within the international community for the New Partnership for Africa's Development?

It is one of the Government's proudest achievements to have increased significantly overseas aid and development and also, in moves that have been pioneered by my right hon. Friends the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for International Development, to remove the very high burdens of debt from the most highly indebted countries. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to focus attention on the partnership for Africa that we hope will be agreed at the G8 summit in Canada in June. That will mean that in return for Africa taking the measures necessary on governance, corruption and conflict resolution, there should be better terms of trade, aid and help given to those African countries. Given that a child dies every three seconds in Africa as a result of conflict, famine or disease, it is high time that the international community faced up to its responsibilities for Africa and, in partnership with African countries, offered some hope for the future.

Does the Prime Minister recall his Deputy saying just days after the 1997 election—[HON. MEMBERS: "We won!"] This is what he said:

"I will have failed if in five years time there are not … far fewer journeys by car. It's a tall order but I urge you to hold me to it".

It is correct that traffic on the roads has increased. It has also increased, incidentally, on rail and the underground. In part, of course, that is because of the 1.25 million extra jobs in the economy. We have had very high levels of economic growth, as opposed to the recessions that we had under the Conservatives.

Now we know that a promise is only a promise if it is not made by the Deputy Prime Minister—no one ever holds him to it. As the Prime Minister knows, punctuality and reliability on the railways have got worse—that is why people are going back on the roads. Delays on the underground have doubled—that is why people are going back on the roads. The Deputy Prime Minister was the Minister responsible for the whole five years. Now we have a new Transport Secretary and he has completely failed to put any of that right. After five years, is not it always the same with the Government? No one takes responsibility, no one apologises and no one resigns.

As I pointed out to the right hon. Gentleman a moment or two ago, the numbers of people on rail and underground have risen, not fallen, under this Government. In respect of the rail industry, yes, there are tremendous problems—in part because of a botched privatisation supported by the right hon. Gentleman and his friends.

Does my right hon. Friend share people's concern about the future of the justice system, where those who engage in serious street crime, burglaries and drugs do not get custodial sentences, yet people who find lost property can end up with a custodial sentence? Will my right hon. Friend look into that to see what we can do to ensure that the justice system in this land is fair and efficient?

I shall certainly look into the point that my hon. Friend made at the end of his question. He is right to draw attention to the very serious problem of people being bailed and back on the street again when they have a serious record of criminal offences and are then charged with another criminal offence—especially when it involves people with a known drug addiction who have previously committed criminal offences. That is precisely why we are tightening up the law in those areas. As I have already said, I will look into the point made by my hon. Friend.

Contrary to what the Prime Minister said a few minutes ago, the issue is not one of civilians supporting the police, but of giving civilians police powers. If he wants community support officers to be able to detain people for up to 30 minutes, but not to arrest them, what does he imagine will happen when a gang of young thugs does not want to be detained? Would not it be far better to ensure that proper police powers are given only to people who are fully trained, properly paid and fully qualified, rather than introducing a system that smacks of policing on the cheap?

The hon. Gentleman's point would have some validity were we decreasing the number of police officers: we are not—we are increasing them. Conservative Members are completely wrong in their opposition to community safety officers. For example, in constituencies where such support officers currently work informally with the police they have been immensely successful at reassuring the public and also in having a deterrent effect on local crime. Of course, it is the case that we need more police officers. We are providing more police officers and they have the appropriate powers, but I think it wholly wrong of the Conservative party to oppose the idea that, as well as police officers with the full range of powers, we have community safety officers who can act in support and give a real sense of security to local communities. Like many other measures that we have introduced, I am sure that, once they are actually introduced, the Conservatives will say that they supported them all along.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, given the current international situation—especially the priorities of Afghanistan, the middle east and Africa—it is vital that the World Service receives adequate funding to continue broadcasting in languages such as Pushtu, Persian and Urdu? Will my right hon. Friend, with the Chancellor and the Foreign Secretary, look favourably during the comprehensive spending review at the World Service's bid for further moneys from the Foreign Office grant to continue broadcasting in those languages?

First, I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the World Service, which does a magnificent job. I saw for myself, in the interviews that I did with Pushtun radio for Afghanistan, how hugely important it was in getting a message through to ordinary people in that country. Obviously, the spending review is being conducted during the next few months. I shall take that as a very bold and good early bid, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has been listening.

Bearing in mind today's Select Committee findings on the individual learning accounts that the Government failed to take early advice and failed to heed the warnings of the potential for abuse, does the Prime Minister agree with the Select Committee's findings that there is at least a moral case to pay compensation to training providers who acted in good faith, but whose schemes were terminated by the abrupt ending of the scheme?

It had to be terminated for reasons that I am sure the hon. Gentleman understands, but we have just received the report. We will consider it carefully before making detailed determinations on it; but, of course, we will study very carefully the conclusions of the Committee.

I believe that I am now living in possibly the most dangerous time that I can ever recall in my lifetime, and I was at school during the Cuban crisis. I believe that the problems in the middle east are of such a nature that we are living in a tinderbox. I refer to the question asked earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden). At what point does the Prime Minister feel that it would be appropriate to take action against Israel, which is committing atrocities against the Palestinians?

As I have said before—not today, but when answering questions on this in previous Question Times—the most important thing for us to do is to try to resolve the situation. I know that there are very strong feelings, understandably, about what has happened in Jenin and elsewhere. Of course it is always important that we say also that there are tremendously strong feelings in Israel about the terrorist acts that have meant the loss of so many innocent civilians in Israel, too.

Will the Prime Minister comment on his Chancellor's biggest change in personal taxation, which was to put a duty on pension funds through the changes in advance corporation tax, which means that pension funds are £5 billion a year worse off than before? Does he realise that that is a major contributor to the closure of final salary schemes, which means that millions of people in their 30s and 40s will no longer be able to look forward to a retirement with independence and security? Will he apologise to those people, or is it part of the Government's policy to put people on means-tested benefits?

I do not accept that, and I do not accept that that measure has the consequences that the hon. Gentleman suggests. I would also point out that, of course, we have massively cut corporation tax for businesses. In addition, it is extremely important that we have now altered the situation that we inherited five years ago, when we were paying out so much in interest payments on the national debt that it exceeded all the money that we spent on the school system. It was therefore important to ensure that we brought that debt under control. That has made for a more stable economy, more and better financing and a situation where the stock market has risen. All those things help pension funds, rather than not. So I simply say to the hon. Gentleman that I do not accept the premise of his question. In particular, I do not accept that we were wrong to take that measure; it was necessary both in its own terms and to sort out the problems of the economy that we inherited from the previous Government.

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is aware that I have nagged him and his Ministers relentlessly about the need for a new Scottish air traffic control centre. Will he therefore accept my welcome for today's announcement that, in future, Prestwick will control almost 70 per cent. of all UK air traffic? Does he agree that this should confound the critics who said that the centre would never come about, and does he accept that it illustrates the advantage for Scotland in its partnership within the UK?

We promised the modernised Prestwick centre, and we promised that to my hon. Friend's constituents. Like so many other things, it has been delivered.