If he will make a statement on recent reforms to the Police Service of Northern Ireland. [81599]

I refer my hon. Friend to the statement that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland made on 25 November. The Government remain committed to the new beginning to policing, building on the implementation of the recommendations of the independent commission on policing for Northern Ireland. Working with the police and the Policing Board, we continue to make steady progress across a range of areas.

Does the Minister agree that we now have a unique opportunity—while the Assembly is in recession, so to speak—to ensure that, through policing, we put in place the final, difficult ingredients? Is it not the case that any party that wants to play a constitutional role in the government of Northern Ireland must play a role in its civil police service, and must recognise that that is part of politics—

Order. I think that the Minister gets the drift.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. The Government's aim is to develop a modern police service that is both effective and widely accepted throughout the society that it serves. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said on 17 October, the concept of republicans being on the Policing Board while maintaining an active paramilitary organisation outside of the law is an absurdity.

Given the evident need for good, well-qualified police officers in Northern Ireland, of whatever religion, will the Minister please explain the consequences if a police recruit from one religious denomination or another pulls out during the qualification process? Is there any pressure for a reciprocal withdrawal to maintain the 50:50 ratio?

The hon. Gentleman knows the detail of the arrangements that bring into effect the 50:50 recruitment of Catholics and Protestants to the Northern Ireland police service. He also understands that our efforts are directed towards achieving a more accountable, representative and effective police force. It is worth noting that 35 per cent. of those applying to join PSNI over the last year have come from the Catholic community. I look forward to that trend continuing over the coming years.

I know that the Minister is convinced that policing is a crucial part of the creation of peace and political stability in Northern Ireland. I note with more than a little pleasure that 14 of the amendments that have been made will be instantly recognised by those who sat on the last police Bill Committee. Will she give an assurance that, this time, nobody will be allowed to play political games with the very important issue of policing, and that no party or Government will be allowed to use it as a bargaining chip for political reasons?

The forthcoming Bill will cover the commitments, to which the hon. Gentleman refers, to legislative change that we made in the updated Patten implementation plan that we published in August last year, and other issues that have arisen during the review.

Given that the Patten report specifically warned against the balkanisation of policing in Northern Ireland, can the Minister assure me that the new policing proposals announced this week will not lead to any such balkanisation?

The hon. Lady knows that we are in the early stages of discussing the detail of the Bill. Her specific point would not be any part of our intention in developing the new proposals surrounding the accountability of policing in Northern Ireland. We will debate the detail as we proceed through the parliamentary stages of the Bill, and I hope that we can thrash out all those details in debate in time-honoured fashion.

Does the Minister accept that further concessions on policing, such as permitting terrorists to sit on district policing partnerships, will be viewed across the community in Northern Ireland, in Unionist and nationalist areas, as totally unacceptable?

The clauses that we have published, which we hope will form part of the Bill, give effect to the commitments that we made at the Weston Park talks last year. Those commitments, once enacted, will fully reflect the Patten recommendations. Had the Government contemplated further concessions, however, they would have been included in those clauses.

As a precondition of convicted terrorists sitting as independent members of district policing partnerships, the Secretary of State has said that there must be "acts of completion" by the IRA. Will the Minister confirm that these "acts of completion" must include decommissioning and, crucially, disbandment?

We gave a commitment to consider in the context of the policing review the disqualification rules for membership of DPPs and, indeed, the powers of the Belfast DPP sub-groups to which the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) referred. However, we are not yet persuaded that the time is right to introduce changes in these areas, so they will not be included in the Bill. It is our view that the removal of the disqualification of ex-prisoners could happen only in the context of acts of completion as envisaged by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in his speech in Belfast last month. I could not improve on his words.

What the preconditions are for the ending of the suspension of the Northern Ireland Assembly; and if he will make a statement. [81600]

The devolved institutions can operate only if there is trust that all parties to the Belfast agreement are committed to fulfilling their obligations, including the commitment to exclusively democratic and peaceful means. Rebuilding trust was a key focus of the talks at Parliament buildings last Thursday. We are urgently seeking with the Irish Government and the parties in Northern Ireland the basis on which that trust can be restored.

The House will accept entirely the premise that the Secretary of State set out. Does he agree that it would therefore be timely for the Government to initiate in this context a complete review of the Good Friday agreement as provided for under paragraph 8 of the agreement? Does he accept that, to see a good way forward, one has to predict all the foreseeable difficulties, and they must include how Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly are designated? That was a major stumbling block a year ago.

As the hon. Gentleman knows, we will conduct the review under paragraph 7 of the agreement. That review gives all parties in the Assembly—those that choose to turn up to the meetings in Parliament buildings, such as the one that we held last week and that we will hold tomorrow—the opportunity to put their cards on the table and to make the points that they want to make.

Given that for the first time in history the people of Ireland, north and south, have overwhelmingly, by voting for the agreement, stated how they wish to live together, it is therefore the duty of all true democrats to implement the will of the people. That sends a message to certain people on both sides. It sends a message to the paramilitaries such as the IRA, which since its foundation has always said that it is acting in the name of the Irish people. If it is now truly acting in the name of the Irish people, it should not only cease the violence but cease its existence as an organisation. It also sends a message to certain people—

Order. It is a supplementary question. I cannot allow the hon. Gentleman to continue. [Interruption.] Order. The hon. Gentleman must sit down. Will the Secretary of State reply?

My hon. Friend is right in terms of the fact that the people of Ireland, north and south, agreed to the Belfast agreement in a referendum after the Good Friday agreement was signed. Some 90 per cent. of the people of the island of Ireland and 70 per cent. of the people of Northern Ireland agreed with it. That means—I am sure that he agrees with this—that there is an onus on everyone in Northern Ireland to understand that the only way that we can achieve progress is to do what the people of Ireland have voted upon.

In recalling the circumstances that led to the suspension, I am sure that the Secretary of State has seen the statement by the police in Northern Ireland that the criminal conspiracy that they uncovered went to the very heart of the republican movement. Their inquiries are continuing. In the light of that, would it not be wise to wait until we have seen the full extent of that conspiracy and who was involved in it? Should we therefore not wait until the inquiries have been completed? While doing that, would it not also be wise to have a thorough public inquiry into how the Northern Ireland Office conducted itself while the spy ring was operating in its own offices?

The right hon. Gentleman is aware that a thorough investigation is being undertaken by the security services as to why these events took place. He is also right to remind the House that this series of events finally led to the loss of confidence and trust between the parties in Stormont and to the suspension of the Assembly. It is important to discuss these issues in the political context. I am sure that that will happen tomorrow; it certainly happened last week.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that if it is not possible for the Assembly to be reinstated immediately or in the near future, the proposed elections to it will go ahead next year as planned?

We have no plans to change the dates of the elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly, set for 1 May next year. I sincerely hope, as I am sure every hon.. Member does, that we resolve the difficulties before then.

Does the right hon. Gentleman's less than precise first answer to the question—I am putting it kindly—mean that the completion of decommissioning and disbandment will be a precondition for Sinn Fein resuming its place in a revived power-sharing Executive?

The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that that is a precondition in the sense that, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, republicans

"must make the commitment to exclusively peaceful means, real, total and permanent".

"We cannot carry on with the IRA half in and half out of this process."

I am grateful for the clear assurance at the beginning of that answer. It is enormously important. To put minds at rest in Northern Ireland and elsewhere, will the right hon. Gentleman give another assurance? He has made it clear in his handling of the police Bill that he has gone some way to understanding the error of unilateral concessions and the importance of linkage and of enforcing compliance. Will he therefore deny the rumour in the Northern Ireland press yesterday that the Government are again contemplating an amnesty for on-the-run terrorists?

The hon. Gentleman knows that those issues were discussed at Weston Park. We all know that those issues are particularly painful to victims in Northern Ireland on both sides of the community. I repeat what I said: as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear, the Government will only contemplate steps on all issues, including the ones to which the hon. Gentleman referred, in the context of acts of completion.

Despite the tortuous nature of current negotiations on police reform and the peace process, will my right hon. Friend commend the words and actions of all those politicians who are working towards peace? Will he also commend the words of Martin Luther King:

"Peace is not merely a distant goal…but a means by which we arrive at that goal"?

Of course I echo my hon. Friend's eloquent comments. When I recently took on this job after an absence of three years, I was struck by the fact that the streets of Belfast and Northern Ireland are still very peaceful by comparison with the situation a decade ago. We cannot take for granted the progress that has been made, but we understand that much still needs to be done.

If he will make a statement on the employment impact of the closure of Irish Fertilizer Industries' factory in north Belfast. [81601]

The loss of 207 jobs and some £11 million to the local economy has obviously had a devastating effect on employees and their families. I have asked Invest Northern Ireland to work with the liquidator to try to identify an investor for the Belfast factory, and the Department for Employment and Learning is advising the work force on employment and training opportunities and on social security matters.

Is the Minister aware of the problem arising from the fact that the workers have lost not just their jobs, but 60 per cent. of their pensions because the owners—the Irish Government and ICI—chronically underfunded the pension scheme? Will he and his colleagues approach the Irish Government on behalf of the workers who have lobbied us in London and appeal to them to honour their moral obligations to the work force?

I met trade union representatives from the company and the local management last month. I have been in contact with both shareholders, the Irish Government and ICI, and I am seeing the chief executive of ICI tomorrow. I take a close interest in the issue. It strikes me that four pension funds are involved and the position remains unclear. I am committed to doing all that I can to ensure that the work force get their full entitlement.

I welcome what the Minister is doing to deal with the problem. The workers have been treated in a shabby and despicable way by a blue-chip British company and the Irish Government, with whom there is supposed to be a special relationship. May I urge him to do everything in his power to ensure that pension rights and other rights of workers, and the rights of creditors, are protected?

The Irish Government and ICI have put together a funding package of some €24.5 million for severance payments, and they have agreed to subordinate loans to ensure that creditors are paid. The important thing is that if jobs can be saved and a new investor can be found, we should be doing that. We must also make sure that the work force receive their full entitlement through pension arrangements and that the money owing to them in redundancy is paid out.

If he will make a statement on the future of grammar schools in Northern Ireland. [81602]

The consultation on the Burns proposals indicated an emerging consensus for the ending of the transfer tests, which the hon. Gentleman and I would recognise as the 11-plus, and I will be taking forward the review and working to abolish the transfer tests as soon as practical.

Does not the Minister seek to abandon—[Interruption.]

Order. The House is far too noisy and it is unfair to those who are interested in these questions.

Does not the Minister seek to abandon the shameful and destructive policy, initiated by Martin McGuinness, of abolishing the selection test? Does she agree that the absence of a clear judgment in these matters will undermine a facility that provides opportunities for able children from working-class homes to break through class barriers and ensures that Northern Ireland has better A-level results than England, Scotland or Wales?

The hon. Gentleman is right in that the education system does well for certain very able pupils in Northern Ireland. I assure him that no decisions have been taken about academic selection or new post-primary arrangements. In the consultation, various suggestions were made for future arrangements, including options involving academic selection. My officials have been discussing those proposals with the education partners and parents' representatives, and they will continue to do so over the coming weeks.

Will the Minister give us a commitment that she will continue to support our grammar schools in Northern Ireland, just as her Government support the remaining grammar schools here in Great Britain? Will she acknowledge that it is now being acknowledged here that the comprehensive system has been failing pupils for far too long?

The hon. Gentleman makes a forceful point, but he will know that the consultation on the Burns report indicated an emerging consensus, which, I hope he will accept, included political parties, on an end to the transfer test. I am confident that by working with our education partners and by keeping our focus on the interests of the child, we can develop a modern, fair education system that enables all children to fulfil their potential.

If he will make a statement on the Northern Ireland economy. [81603]

The Northern Ireland economy has witnessed significant improvements in recent years. Employment growth has been sustained with some 656,000 employees now in employment, the highest figure on record. Unemployment has also fallen considerably, now standing at 6.3 per cent., well below the European Union average. Forecasts for the local economy remain optimistic for the coming year.

Does my hon. Friend agree that in manufacturing, traditionally a weak area of the Northern Ireland economy, dramatic improvements in productivity have taken place, making Northern Ireland an ever more attractive market for inward investment? Does he agree also that that could not have been achieved without the stability and confidence provided by the Good Friday agreement, and that further progress in that direction may be hindered without its full implementation?

I totally agree. Manufacturing throughout the UK and Europe has been having a tough time in recent years, but in Northern Ireland it has been holding up very well. Over the last four years, manufacturing output went up by over 10 per cent., compared with a 5 per cent. decline in the UK. Business research and development increased by 40 per cent. last year, and productivity, which was 10 per cent. lower than in the UK, is now reaching UK levels. Those are all promising signs, and we must ensure that we continue to move forward and sustain, and improve on, that impressive track record.

The Minister must agree that economic progress depends on stability in the institutions of government, whether across the United Kingdom or in the regions. What are he and his colleagues doing to ensure that we have stable devolved government that is not under the constant veto of a paramilitary terrorist organisation, Sinn Fein, and that we are rewarded with accountable government at Stormont to help in the economic promotion of the Province?

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and others are doing all they can to make sure that we get the Assembly and the Executive back up and running as soon as possible. In the meantime, while we are asked to perform the job of Ministers, we will do so to the best of our ability to ensure that we have a stable economic climate in Northern Ireland, which is crucial to future business prosperity and success.

Will the Minister discuss with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry the possibility of introducing legislation to prevent the market distortion affecting the Northern Ireland economy whereby offers of retail products, life insurance and car insurance are restricted to the United Kingdom, excluding Northern Ireland? It is neither fair nor appropriate to a market economy that such discrimination is allowed to endure.

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. On a number of issues, the interests of Northern Ireland's economy are different and diverge from those of the United Kingdom. He mentions one of those issues; others include cross-border smuggling. They are all matters on which one would expect representations to be made to the UK Government, and they are.

We now learn that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has had to borrow £10 billion in the past six months and that corporation tax has fallen by 14 per cent. Does the Minister agree that the worst thing that could happen to the fragile Northern Ireland economy would be a rise in taxes on corporations?

I dispute that. The simple fact is that the Northern Ireland economy is not in a fragile state. Manufacturing businesses are doing well, and we have a young, well-educated and highly committed work force. Northern Ireland is a great place for inward investment and we are holding our market share in that respect. There is every reason to believe that the prospects for Northern Ireland's economy are good and will remain good in future.

If he will make a statement on the prospects for establishing the Northern Ireland Assembly. [81604]

As I said in my reply to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes), we are working urgently with others to find a basis to restore the devolved institutions. I believe that doing so is of the utmost importance to the future of Northern Ireland.

Given the progress that has been made since the signing of the Good Friday agreement—progress to which my right hon. Friend has already referred—does he agree that it is essential that the Assembly is re-established as quickly as possible?

Indeed I do. One of the great changes for the better in Northern Ireland in the past few years is that Northern Ireland people are taking decisions on behalf of other Northern Ireland people. The quicker we restore devolution in Northern Ireland, the better for everyone.

Does the Secretary of State—and the Prime Minister—accept that the trust and confidence, the re-establishment of which he says is so necessary, would be re-established more quickly if he gave the House a categorical assurance that there was no question of giving fugitive terrorists an amnesty?

I think that the best thing that can happen is that, when we talk—as we will tomorrow in Belfast and in the weeks ahead—the parties in Northern Ireland can reassure each other of the importance of settling those issues that are in front of us. That is a matter not only for the Governments, but for the political parties as well.

Does the Secretary of State agree that the permanent re-establishment of devolved government in Northern Ireland can be achieved only by the complete fulfilment of the Good Friday agreement, endorsed by all participating parties. Does he agree that the current round of negotiations should refer only to matters as yet to be implemented under the Good Friday agreement, including those to be implemented by Government?

My hon. Friend is right that the chief reason why those talks have been held is that the institutions have been suspended because of lack of trust. At the end of the day, however, that trust can be restored by referring all the time to the Good Friday agreement itself and its implementation. That is a duty upon our Government, the Irish Government and all the parties working together.

If he will list his official engagements for 27 November.

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.

Has my right hon. Friend seen this week's report from UNICEF, which shows that in reading, maths and science this country is now one of the best-performing countries in the world? Does he recognise, however, that in many disadvantaged areas pupils and teachers still face substantial difficulties? What further action will he take to back his Government's commitment to raise standards for all pupils?

It is correct that the UNICEF report found that Britain was seventh in the world for academic skills, above the United States of America. I shall quote briefly from the report:

"The United Kingdom, where hand-wringing over educational failures is a national pastime, fares better than all other countries in the European Union except Finland and Austria".

Tomorrow, tube drivers will hold a strike ballot arising from the fire strike. Does the Prime Minister agree that such a strike would be secondary action?

I agree that there is absolutely no cause for a strike because the Health and Safety Executive has made it clear that the tube is safe operating under London Transport's terms and conditions. It therefore follows that any strike, in my judgment, would be totally unjustified.

The Prime Minister never said whether he felt that it was secondary action or not, which is critical. The whole of London's underground is likely to grind a halt, but he has not given a straight opinion. He knows that the Government own London Underground and that every member of its board is appointed by the Secretary of State. Will he now tell us whether the Transport Secretary, under his instructions, has told London Underground that it should use every available trade union law to stop the strike going ahead? In short, has it been told to get an injunction?

First, it is for the court to decide whether it is illegal or not; it is not a matter for me or my right hon. Friend. However, as a result of the action already taken by London Underground, the total number not working normally is, I think, three. It is important that London Underground makes every effort to ensure that that is right. Of course, ultimately it is a decision for London Underground, but I am sure that it will enforce the law in whatever way it needs to.

There are 8,000 people about to have a ballot, but the Prime Minister has given them no clear signal that if they take strike action it will be considered secondary action. Thousands of teachers and council workers have been on strike this week. Tube drivers and power station workers are now threatening secondary action that would paralyse the country, but the Prime Minister cannot say whether it is secondary action or not. After his answers today, does he not think that that will give a green light to all those who believe that they should have a right to strike? He made a promise in his manifesto that there would be no return to secondary action, but does he not think that people will believe that that was not true?

There must indeed be no return to secondary action, secondary picketing or anything that is unlawful. All that I was pointing out to the right hon. Gentleman is that it is ultimately for the court to decide whether something is unlawful. I have just told him that the ballot on action tomorrow would be totally unjustified and that London Transport should do everything it can to enforce the law, so I hardly think that he can say that I have thereby given a green light to secondary action. That is a slightly extraordinary thing to say.

I am not a killjoy—[Interruption.]I am sure that my right hon. Friend is not one either, but is it not time that we stopped treating fireworks like a toy that children can play with when the nights are getting dark in September and October, thereby terrifying people in the community, and saw them as the fairly dangerous explosives that they are? Will he ensure that action on this issue is included in the antisocial behaviour order, on which we are legislating this Session?

It is obviously important that we use the antisocial behaviour legislation to try to bear down on that problem. In the areas where we are piloting antisocial behaviour fixed penalty notices, such provision is already being made available to deal with the unlawful use of fireworks. If we were to use the fixed penalty notice route and some exemplary fines were meted out to those engaging in the practice, it would be stamped out fairly quickly. We keep all legislation closely under review; I am sure that the Home Secretary will have heard my hon. Friend's point. I know that it will be echoed by many hon. Members on both sides of the House.

For a Government who promised economic stability, how embarrassed does the Prime Minister feel that we have had the longest period of manufacturing recession since the second world war and that business investment levels are now lower than during the Tory recessions of the 1980s and 1990s?

It is correct that manufacturing has had an extremely difficult time, but if we look at the economy as a whole, we can see that there has been immensely strong growth. We have the lowest unemployment, inflation and mortgage rates for decades. Were we to follow the spending programmes of the Liberal Democrats, that would all be put at risk.

The fact is that the percentage of investment in the European Union that comes to Britain was 28 per cent. four years ago, 20 per cent. last year and currently stands at 16 per cent. How low must it go before the Prime Minister takes action, particularly by setting a timetable for a referendum on entry into the single currency?

I thought that we might get to that issue eventually. The position on the euro remains as it is: it has to be right for the economy as a whole. The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that there has been some falling off of investment in this country. Of course, it is mainly going to many of the accession countries such as Poland and Czech Republic, which obviously offer very low labour costs indeed. Overall, however, I hope that he recognises that the performance of this economy in the past five to six years has been an extraordinary one of high growth and employment, and low unemployment, inflation and mortgage rates. That is what we must and will preserve.

Does my right hon. Friend share my grave concern that, at a time when we have seen real progress in children's services, we have also seen the tragic deaths of 13 children in young offenders institutions? Will he assure me that the work currently being done to develop policy for children will reflect the fact that prison is no place for children to be?

Obviously, what my hon. Friend says about the need to improve conditions in some young offenders institutions is right. We must do two things. First, over the past couple of years various changes have been piloted in the institutions, including in Feltham in particular, where I think there has been most concern. Secondly, we are setting aside several tens of millions of pounds for a strategy of improving the services for young people in young offenders institutions. At the same time, my hon. Friend will agree that, unfortunately, there are young offenders—often very young people—who need to be in young offenders institutions or secure accommodation to protect the public from their behaviour.

The Prime Minister is aware that in the past two days my party has met the Minister with responsibility for security in Northern Ireland and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. We put one question to both: what is an act of completion? Does it consist of IRA-Sinn Fein repudiating and ceasing violence and being disbanded, or does it simply mean that they make a statement that they will give up violence? Can the Prime Minister tell us what he believes it means?

I can. It is not merely a statement, a declaration or words. It means giving up violence completely in a way that satisfies everyone and gives them confidence that the IRA has ceased its campaign, and enables us to move the democratic process forward, with every party that wants to be in government abiding by the same democratic rules.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the mere suggestion of university top-up fees is already causing anxiety in areas such as mine, which has a historically low take-up of university and higher education places? If collective provision is the right model for the national health service, should not it also apply to our education service?

I am aware of the anxiety, which has been expressed in many quarters. My hon. Friend is right to express his concern. He knows that we will publish a review in January next year, but we do not intend to do anything that will put people off going to university. The Government have a proud record. In the past few years, we have increased the number of people who go to university by almost 100,000.

Why is the Prime Minister using the armed forces to break the firefighters' strike when he could have used the courts?

That sums up the Conservative party in its current state. Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that we should not have made preparations for the armed forces to take over? What a ridiculous question to ask me! When the firefighters cannot provide fire service cover because they are on strike, it is right that our armed forces, who do a fantastic job, should stand in. If we refused to have the armed forces standing by, Conservative Members would be on their feet, accusing us of incompetence and chaos.

I am sure that my right hon. Friend knows that I have organised a meeting on Friday evening for the residents of Tingley to consider policing and antisocial behaviour. They will be pleased that we have almost achieved our target of 130,000 police officers—a record number—four months in advance, but they will not be so happy that the distribution of officers does not appear to be equal throughout the country. Will my right hon. Friend take steps to ensure that everywhere, including West Yorkshire, gets its fair share?

I am sure that the meeting in Tingley is one of many throughout the country to consider such serious issues. We are increasing police numbers throughout the country, but my hon. Friend's point is important. We need to ensure that they increase in areas such as West Yorkshire. I understand that, as well as the additional 250 police who were recently recruited to West Yorkshire police authority, more than 400 extra are on their way.

The Prime Minister said that stakeholder pensions

"would transform the landscape of private provision".

I assume that the right hon. Gentleman has the figures before him, but I can tell him that there are 50,000 additional stakeholder pensioners a month.

The answer to the question is that of 330,000 company stakeholder schemes, 300,000 have no members and no money. It is no good the Prime Minister weaselling his way out. Will he tell us what proportion of occupational pension schemes are open to new pensioners?

Again, I assume that the right hon. Gentleman is about to tell me. More than 1 million people have taken out stakeholder pensions. There are, as I said, around 50,000 a month. If that stretches over the next few years, it will amount to several million. I should have thought that that is a good record for stakeholder pensions.

I do not think that the Prime Minister knows what a company pension scheme is, as he has given the wrong answer. More than half of those pension schemes are now closed to new members, and the latest evidence shows that the rate of closures has doubled in the past year. So occupational schemes are closing, stakeholder schemes are failing, and every year under Labour the number of people retiring without an occupational pension has risen. Given that his Chancellor's £25 billion tax hike has damaged pensioners, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer rises to speak today will the Prime Minister tell him to apologise for destroying pensions?

No. It is correct that many pension schemes have had difficulties, for all the reasons that we know, not just in this country but in other parts of the world. However, when stakeholder pension schemes are attracting some 50,000 people a month, it is absurd to say that they have failed. It is correct that changes are necessary. They will be set out in the pensions Green Paper later this year, but in the end the single best guarantee for today's pensioners and tomorrow's pensioners is a strong economy. That is the economy that we have produced, but it is not the economy that the right hon. Gentleman's party produced when it was in power.

May I draw the Prime Minister's attention to continuing concerns in my constituency, particularly in the lovely market town of Ruthin in Denbighshire, about the adequacy of flood prevention measures and flood defence? I seek my right hon. Friend's assurance that the Government are committed to long-term investment in flood defence and protection.

We are committed to long-term investment in flood protection. Several hundred million pounds are going into it over the next few years. In addition, as my hon. Friend knows—I know that this is of concern in Ruthin and other places that have suffered from heavy flooding—we are working with the insurance industry to make sure that it provides proper cover for people. There are many difficulties that we need to sort out, and we are working closely with the industry in doing so. I can assure my hon. Friend that part of the investment in the comprehensive spending review was investment against the problems caused by flooding. There is one other thing with which I am sure that he and his constituents would agree: we also need to take action on climate change, for the benefit of Britain and the world more generally.

In a recent poll conducted by the Somerset County Gazette,88 per cent. of respondents said that they wanted to keep Somerset county council. Will the Prime Minister confirm that if every voter in Somerset wanted to keep the county council, every urban voter in a unitary authority such as Bristol or Swindon could outvote them?

As we have said, it is for people in the region to decide how their future is governed. The campaign that the Conservatives have been mounting about county councils is simply wrong.

As my right hon. Friend knows, 50 per cent. of calls to 999 centres are hoax calls. Will he make sure that the courts treat hoax callers in the manner that they deserve, and ensure that human life is preserved? Will he ensure that the punishment fits the crime?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's strong condemnation of hoax callers. The figure for the country as a whole is about 7 per cent., which is still far too high. Hoax callers should know that they are liable not only to be disconnected but to be imprisoned. Several people have been arrested over the past couple of weeks in connection with hoax calls, and I hope that anyone who engages in this appalling practice will be treated with the utmost severity by the courts.

In his first four years as Prime Minister, did the right hon. Gentleman notice the state of the universities and the pay of university lecturers?

Yes, of course I did. That is one of the reasons that we introduced the first tranche of university reforms, following the Dearing report. If the hon. Gentleman is trying to say that we need to do even more, because of the rising number of people going to university, he is absolutely right. That is why I hope that, when we publish our review in January, the Conservative party will have the courage to make its own proposals if it does not agree with ours.

Given the Catholic Church's use of the Nolan guidelines to keep an abusive priest in office, does my right hon. Friend agree that the time has come for the Catholic Church, as an employer, to be required by law to remove such priests? Does he further agree that it is simply not good enough to hide behind risk assessment and forgiveness, as that does not protect children?

Obviously, the law has to take its course. In my view, this is a matter for the Church, and the decisions that the Church takes should be taken only after the closest investigation of the facts.

In view of the fact that lives are being lost in the fire dispute, and of the spreading of secondary action, is it not high time that the Government became personally involved in the negotiations, and asked the firemen to postpone their industrial action and evidence to the Bain inquiry on the modernisation of working practices in the run-up to Christmas? Will the Prime Minister now become personally involved to ensure that they postpone their industrial action until they have given their evidence to the Bain inquiry?

The attempts by some sections of the Conservative party to try to squeeze every little bit of political capital that they can from this dispute are absolutely extraordinary. If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that the firefighters are somehow under some misapprehension about our wanting them to call off the strike—well, I would have thought that they would have got that message by now. As for their giving evidence to the Bain inquiry, we have been saying throughout that that is what they should do. The only way in which this dispute is going to be settled is by the employers and unions agreeing to debate in detail the prospects for modernisation, giving a better deal over and above the 4 per cent. That has been the position throughout, and it is absolutely right that it should remain the position. It is for the employers and the unions to negotiate around it.

It has been 28 years since the Turkish army invaded Cyprus. Over that period, 1,500 people, including children, have gone missing. Will my right hon. Friend take up this issue as a matter of urgency with the new Turkish Government? Mothers and fathers need to know what has happened to their loved ones. Have they been murdered or tortured? Have they been imprisoned? Will my right hon. Friend please do something about this?

My hon. Friend raises a serious issue. There is every possibility of trying to resolve it in the context of an agreement on Cyprus. I genuinely believe that the United Nations plan that has been put forward offers the greatest prospect for a final settlement of the Cyprus issue than we have had for many decades, and if that can been agreed by the parties involved some of the traumatic and difficult issues that my hon. Friend has raised could be resolved. Obviously, we raise individual cases all the time, but the best way of dealing with the matter comprehensively will be in the context of an agreement to that settlement.

As my constituency is close to Stansted airport, will the Prime Minister explain to my constituents whether the Government's consultation on future airport expansion is essential and balanced, as Ministers claim, or irrational and unfair, as the High Court concluded yesterday?

The High Court decision, I think, was on the exclusion of Gatwick and the reason for that is quite simple: we had an agreement that we would not put Gatwick in the consultation. However, the court's decision rules otherwise.

My right hon. Friend has referred to the UN settlement plan for Cyprus, which has been welcomed by the Greek Cypriots as the basis for further negotiation and in relation to which the Turkish Cypriots have yet to make a judgment. Will he assure the Greek Cypriots, who are very concerned, that that delay will not in any way prevent their entry to the European Union at the Copenhagen summit?

It was partly as a result of the representations of this Government that we made it absolutely clear that Cyprus should be able to join the EU, even if there is not a final settlement. However, it is important, obviously, that we want there to be such a settlement. I have had good conversations with the new leadership in Turkey about that issue. I hope that the UN proposals can at least be a basis for concluding these negotiations reasonably quickly. If that happens, the Cyprus issue would be resolved—Cyprus, in any event, will join the EU—and relations between Greece and Turkey could improve. That would be of enormous benefit to the whole region.

Will the Prime Minister confirm that modernisation means 10,000 firefighters losing their jobs?

No, I will not confirm that. The truth is that 20 per cent. of the firefighters are due for retirement for demographic reasons in any event. That allows us to sit down and talk about those who are necessary to give the proper manpower for the fire service. Of course, there will be people retiring from all public services. For example, some 12,000 people have retired from the police and 30,000 have retired from the teaching profession, but there are more police officers and more teachers in employment today. So, the Deputy Prime Minister was saying—we know this; indeed, it was published by the Government Actuary's Department last year—that 20 per cent. will retire for demographic reasons, but that is simply one more opportunity to sit down and get the essential modernisation that the fire service needs.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that Monday was international day for the elimination of violence against women? In that context, may I thank him for his personal commitment and that of this Government to introduce the first comprehensive legislation on domestic violence in this country? However, is he aware that, although legal protection is vital, so too are support and advocacy services for women and children? Is he aware that most Government initiatives do not fund outreach, helplines or children's services and that 40 per cent. of local authorities—

Order. That was the fourth question.

I am grateful for what my hon. Friend says about the measures that we are taking on domestic violence. It is a real problem, and she rightly draws attention to it. We are not simply taking measures; we are also investing, I think, almost £11 million specifically in programmes to try to diminish domestic violence. I entirely agree that it is important that we carefully measure any forthcoming legislation to see how it bears on that appalling problem.

What representations he has received concerning the Government's proposals for Stansted airport.

The Government continue to receive a large number of responses to the consultation document, "The Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom". Ministers and officials in the Department for Transport have also met a wide range of organisations as part of the consultation.

Given the High Court's decision that the Government's consultation is indeed irrational and unjust, will the Prime Minister clarify for my constituents and for the House why his Transport Ministers specifically overrode the advice that they were given, which was that they should include Gatwick in the first place? That was the advice; why did they ignore it?

We excluded Gatwick because we had given an undertaking to exclude Gatwick. Yesterday's court hearing found that, in any event and despite that, we should include Gatwick. The Secretary of State for Transport has said that that will be done, and that is of course right. The hon. Gentleman says that it was decided that it was unfair, arbitrary and irrational; the reason is the one that I gave. Many people around Gatwick will feel aggrieved that it has gone back in when we had given a specific undertaking that it would not. However, the court has decreed that it should go back in, and that is what will happen.

Will my right hon. Friend look at the number of youth workers in our communities? Many of us feel that an enhanced and improved youth service would do much to tackle antisocial behaviour in our communities.

It would. One reason the Government are putting a huge investment into the Connexions partnerships, which give proper guidance and career advice to young people, is precisely because we know that, along with increased investment in education and sure start, such investment is not just in young people but in a more secure, safer and fairer Britain. That is the Britain that we shall continue to fight for.