What plans she has to visit sub-Saharan countries in the next three months to discuss development criteria and objectives. [92204]

I visit Africa on a regular basis and I have returned overnight from a short visit to Ethiopia, Uganda and Kenya. The objective of our development partnerships is the sustainable reduction of poverty. While in Ethiopia, I signed a 10-year partnership agreement to that end.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Everybody will be aware of her huge commitment to trying to ensure that sub-Saharan Africa is helped to the greatest possible extent. Given the continuing human rights problems in Zimbabwe and its involvement in the war in the Democratic Republic of Congo, what more does she think can be done to try to get peace in the DRC, and to get a restoration of human rights and democracy in Zimbabwe?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Zimbabwe has withdrawn its troops from the Democratic Republic of Congo, as have Rwanda, Namibia and Angola, which is progress. Since South Africa became involved, considerable progress has been achieved on agreeing a transitional Government of all the different factions. That Government are not quite in place, and there is still a lot of destabilisation by forces that support genocide in Burundi and Rwanda. We are getting progress, however, and we are doing everything that we can to drive it forward.

The Secretary of State is absolutely right to describe the situation in Zimbabwe as catastrophic. Is there any possibility of airlifting food to opposition areas, as has been requested by some opposition leaders in Zimbabwe?

No, that is not needed. Of course, the regime's delivery of food is deliberately biased and used politically: food is not brought to those villages and places that dared to vote as they wished. But the UN delivery is not politically biased: it is made according to need, but it is faced with all sorts of political problems, and even fuel shortages, which make it a very difficult operation. In addition, HIV levels are so high that people are very weak. For the UN, the key shortage is not enough money in the international system. We have put in a lot, and I have written to Development Ministers across the world about it. There has been some improvement, but we must keep the pipeline full. I am afraid that the recovery will take a long time.

My right hon. Friend will know that the news coming out from Zimbabwe indicates that the position continues to get more critical every day. Many of the people there are suffering from famine, and the regime's treatment of its people is increasingly appalling. What discussions is she having with South Africa and other countries in the region about what they can do to help the people of Zimbabwe get free of the current appalling regime?

As my hon. Friend can imagine, I and other Ministers have had discussions with other Governments across the world and in Africa about what can be done. To date, however, our record is not successful. My energy is devoted to keeping people fed. Seven million people out of just over 11 million people in Zimbabwe are in need of food aid. As I have said, one third of the adults in Zimbabwe have HIV, which, when people are malnourished, quickly triggers into full-blown AIDS, making them sick and deepening their lack of ability to farm. The situation is terrible.

President Mwai Kibaki is a man whom I have known and admired for more than 30 years. He is undoubtedly the personality best equipped to grapple with Kenya's very serious problems. I congratulate the Secretary of State on visiting him so soon after his triumphant election. Will she use all her influence to make sure that Britain and the international community give every possible help to Kenya, where we could change the situation, whereas we are not likely to have much influence on Zimbabwe?

I agree absolutely with the hon. Gentleman that the recent elections in Kenya were a great opportunity for that country, which has been in continuing economic decline because of the fundamental corruption under the previous regime. The new President is a great hope for the country. Unfortunately, he is in hospital because of a deep vein thrombosis, but I gather that the prognosis is good. However, I met his Government, who have inherited a massive hole in public finances, and they have a determination to reform. I have had meetings with the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the EU and others, and we are going to try to mobilise an enormous international effort to help the country forward, deliver to its people and deliver the reform that Kenya needs.

Several hon. Members have highlighted the plight of Zimbabwe and the fact that its suffering is among the worst of the sub-Saharan nations. The Secretary of State has said that the Government are doing all that they can, so I am sure that she will agree that, when innocent Zimbabweans face rape, murder, torture, starvation and ethnic cleansing at the hands of their Government, it would be an insult to their suffering if Robert Mugabe were allowed to visit Paris in February as a guest of the President of France. Can she reassure the House that reports that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is planning to waive a veto on the granting of a visa to Mugabe are untrue and that her Government will raise at the European Foreign Ministers meeting on Monday the strongest objections to this breach of the sanctions?

I agree with the hon. Lady that it would be disgraceful if President Chirac invited Mugabe to Paris, but it is rumoured that he intends to do so. I do not know what view the Foreign Office will take on waiving the veto, but my view—it will not be my decision—is that it would not be right.

One of the most optimistic developments in the whole of sub-Saharan Africa and the whole of Africa last year was the ceasefire in the very long-running war in Angola. I know that my right hon. Friend has visited the country and taken her usual tremendous interest in its problems. Can she assure me that the Government are doing everything that they possibly can to assist that country in this crucial phase in which it is emerging out of war and in which a whole range of issues needs to be addressed for the development of civil society and the economy and to help those who have spent their whole lives as soldiers to build new hopes, jobs and opportunities?

I agree with my hon. Friend that peace in Angola provides great hope for its people and will enable the country's rich resources to be better used. That will help that region of Africa. There has been fighting in Angola since the 1960s, when it began its fight for independence, and there has been civil war ever since. The war is over, but there is desperate hunger and need because of its effects. We support the international mobilisation that is having some success in getting fighters settled and in delivering food to the areas that could not be accessed before. Angola is a fertile country with masses of land and rich diamond and oil resources that have been very badly managed. There is desperate corruption, so there will have to be a big reform effort. However, we are very engaged, as is the international community, and I hope that the Angolan people will be able to look forward to a much better future.

Many sub-Saharan countries are classified as heavily indebted poor countries and qualify for debt relief. However, only six countries have completed the process of debt relief under the HIPC initiative. That means that 70 per cent. of those countries are failing to meet their targets for receiving debt relief. Of that 70 per cent., three quarters are sub-Saharan countries. Given that the HIPC initiative has missed the target by such a wide margin, will the Secretary of State now agree with Jubilee Research, Oxfam, Christian Aid and many other non-governmental organisations that it is about time that the HIPC initiative was radically overhauled?

No, I am afraid that the hon. Lady does not understand the HIPC initiative. Twenty-six countries are in receipt of debt relief, but are not paying their debts. Countries reach the point at which they are allowed to stop paying when they put in place a poverty reduction strategy and start a process of reform. Only six have reached the completion rate when the debt is permanently written off, but a much bigger number are receiving debt relief than she suggested. Her 70 per cent. figure is simply wrong.

When she expects to make an announcement on the provision of an airfield on the isle of St. Helena. [92205]

In talks in St Helena with the island's Government last September, it was decided to seek proposals for private sector participation. A prospectus is currently being prepared as a basis for inviting bids from interested parties. The future timetable should become clearer once proposals have been received and assessed.

I am not sure whether that is good news and represents progress. We will have to wait and see what happens. May I remind the Minister that the island's expectations on this issue drag back for several years? Indeed, when a Commonwealth Parliament Association group of which I was a member visited the island in the summer of 1999, the airfield was top of the agenda then. I urge the Minister to get on and to make a decision one way or another because the island has been waiting years. I detect from her answer that the decision on the matter will be prolonged even further.

No, I am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman is wrong. I know from his repeated questions on the matter of his continued interest in it, but since he last asked about it, I think, two years ago, the island has decided in a referendum that it wants the airfield. The financing has been agreed and the prospectus, which we expect to be completed around about the end of next month, is being drawn up. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will keep asking questions about the airfield, but steady progress has been made and there is a firm route forward.

Given the long historical link between the island of St. Helena and the people of south Wales through the coal trade, in particular Barry dock, which was the biggest exporter of coal in the world, and given the lifeline that was provided by the SS St. Helena and the port of Cardiff, will my hon. Friend do all she can to ensure that the island gets the airfield it deserves?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the importance of the sea link. Even when the island gets the airfield, assuming that the financing fits together, it will still be important for it to remain involved in sea freight, which will probably be provided on a commercial basis. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has agreed that we will provide £26.3 million, so substantial progress has been made. We look forward to seeing the prospectus and to the project being carried forward.

What steps she is taking to tackle the humanitarian crisis in Palestine. [92206]

We have increased our humanitarian aid to help meet the most urgent needs of the Palestinian people, but the cause of the crisis is political and no amount of humanitarian relief can solve the problem. We can only help to keep people going as the levels of poverty continue to grow. The crisis requires a political solution.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer. She told the House last month that the levels of hunger in Gaza were worse than those in Congo. What discussions has she had with her Cabinet colleagues on how she will endeavour to keep those routes of humanitarian aid open in the event of a war breaking out in the region and on what impact such a war might have?

My hon. Friend is sadly right. Some 22.5 per cent. of Palestinian children under five are malnourished and the acute rate in Gaza is 13.2 per cent. That puts Palestinian children in Gaza between Zimbabwe and Congo in terms of children suffering from acute malnutrition. It is a terrible situation. On the middle east and the risks of military action, my Department is working on all the various humanitarian scenarios, the optimistic as well as the pessimistic. The pessimistic are pretty terrible.

Does the Secretary of State agree with those people who say that conditions in the occupied territories are like the aftermath of a terrible natural disaster, such is the destruction and suffering there? Apart from the immediate aid that she told us about, what discussions has she had with her European counterparts on the European Union-Israel agreement on human rights in Israel and the occupied territories? Are those rights being respected?

I do not agree that the situation is like a natural disaster; it is worse because it is caused by human agency and is continuing. The destruction of infrastructure because of military action is not the only problem. The closures mean that the economy is being squeezed to death. People cannot get out of their homes to work and are getting ever poorer as the weeks go by. It is a distressing and troubling situation. I have not had discussions with my European counterparts—I do not know whether the hon. Lady knows that the European Development Council has been abolished—but discussions are taking place across Europe on whether Israel is complying with the terms of the agreement.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the deliberate grubbing up of olive orchards in the occupied territories is not only illegal but exacerbating the starvation in those regions?

I agree that the situation is very worrying, and, of course, some of those olive trees, in a very ancient and holy land, are themselves ancient. The settlements in the occupied territories are illegal under international law, let alone the grubbing up of the olive orchards. I hope that we can get more energy into the international system to establish a Palestinian state; otherwise, I fear, things will deteriorate.

Given those appalling circumstances, how would the Secretary of State like the Government of Israel to assist?

Catherine Bertini has been on a humanitarian mission to the area and made recommendations for immediate help. The problems include even the blockage of humanitarian resources, and the action taken needs to be pulled back, just to enable people to get back to work. Money that belongs to the Palestinian Authority is not being handed over, although there has been a little progress on that. What we really need is a peace settlement and a commitment to the two-state solution, which is the way through. We need to move forward rapidly.

My right hon. Friend has always championed the cause of strengthening good governance in recipient countries. What assurance can she give those of us in the House who are keen to see that aid used for the poorest people in Palestine that the money will not be salted away by the Palestinian Authority, which many Palestinians claim is subject to corruption?

There is no doubt that there have been problems of corruption and weak capacity in the Palestinian Authority. We have been involved in reforms in the Finance Ministry, which have been considerable, and in health, education, the economy, trade and the civil service. This claim of corruption is a red herring, which is used to try to damn the Palestinian Authority when what we need to do is get on with the development of the two states. We are doing a lot to reform the authority's structures so that an effective state can be built, and people need to get behind that effort.

If she will make a statement on the situation in Malawi. [92207]

More than 2 million people in Malawi are currently in need of food aid, and that figure will rise to 3.25 million—a third of the population—between now and March, after which the 2003 harvest will begin. So far, the rains have been good, thank heavens. My Department's emergency assistance to help Malawi in its current crisis so far totals £34 million. I should say that the aid comes from my Department and British taxpayers, and I hope that they are proud of that.

I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. Does she share my concern that President Muluzi's priority seems to be constitutional change to allow him to get a third term in office rather than to address the problem of HIV/AIDS and the food crisis? What can we do to ensure that Malawi does not see the same political interference in aid distribution that we have seen next door in Zimbabwe?

I share the hon. Gentleman's concern about the campaign for the third term which took place as the crisis was developing. It is not for the UK Government to tell Malawi what to do, but we have said that if such a constitutional change is to be made, surely there should be a full and thorough discussion in which all the people of Malawi are allowed to express their view. Since then, work with the Government of Malawi, the UN institutions and ourselves has gone well, and the present organisation for keeping people fed is good. There is no prospect of behaviour like that witnessed in Zimbabwe, but Malawi is in very bad shape, and reconstruction to the point at which it does not have recurrent crises will take considerable time and requires much more reform.

I am sure that the Secretary of State will join me in welcoming the restoration of much of Malawi's grain reserves, which were sold off by the Government—the root cause of the famine conditions in the country. I am sure that she will join me also in congratulating the many charitable organisations, such as TearFund, which are doing a power of work in Malawi to counter the worst effects of the famine.

My hon. Friend is right that the grain reserve was sold off just before the crisis. It is untrue that that was done under pressure from the IMF—that is a false story. It appears that money was corruptly misplaced, and there are inquiries into that. I agree that charities are doing useful work, but so are the United Nations and the British taxpayer. I hope people understand that charities are at the end of the distribution mechanism. The biggest contribution is from taxpayers, and non-governmental organisations help to deliver at the end of the process. Without taxpayers, we would not get through crises like this. Charitable donations are welcome, but the people of Britain should be proud of what they do through their taxes as well.

It is good news that the Government have been able to give so much money for food aid to Malawi. The other aspect of the situation there is the terrible scourge of HIV/AIDS, with 1 million orphans already. Does the Secretary of State agree that the international community must make a qualitative response to the huge number of AIDS orphans in Africa? Countries such as Malawi simply do not have the sustainable capacity to respond to the needs of their own orphans—[Interruption]

Order. Before the Secretary of State replies, could the House come to order?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It was difficult to hear the question, even on the Front Bench. The hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) was right—the problem concerns not just Malawi, but the whole southern African drought and is complicated by the position in Zimbabwe and Zambia on genetically modified crops. It is deepened by high levels of HIV infection, which has affected one third of the population. People become sick quickly, so they cannot get back to farming and there are more orphans. Recovering from this crisis will be extremely difficult—there has not been one like it before and, with HIV and all the other factors, it will take a long time to recover from it.

What assessment she has made of assistance required by refugees returning to Afghanistan from Pakistan and Iran. [92208]

In 2002, 1.8 million refugees returned to Afghanistan, and more than 1 million are expected in 2003. They have come overwhelmingly from Pakistan and Iran. Each family receives help with transport costs and a little help to resettle from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. My Department is about to send a mission to review progress on the humanitarian situation.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the concerns—[Interruption.]

Order. It is unfair to the hon. Lady that there is so much noise in the Chamber.

Is the Secretary of State aware of concerns that have been expressed by Christian Aid among others that if the refugees do not receive continuing support they will be tempted to return to the camps in Iran and Pakistan? In that context, what action is she taking to persuade the international community to deal with the $43 million shortfall at the UNHCR and the underfunding of the World Food Programme?

I do not fully agree with my hon. Friend or Christian Aid, if that is what it is saying. In Afghanistan, 5 million people are dependent on food aid, as there has been a fifth year of drought in the south. The refugees need continuing support, but so too does a large part of the Afghan population. The biggest problems are achieving stability outside Kabul so that the economy can start running again and dealing with the drought. The World Food Programme needs more money than has been needed for many years. The UNHCR also needs some more resources, but it is slightly overstating its claimed shortage.

As my right hon. Friend knows, the Select Committee on International Development is publishing its report on the reconstruction of Afghanistan on Thursday. Does she agree with us that one of the main causes of instability among refugees is the continuing lack of security in Afghanistan and that there can be no proper reconstruction unless we address that?

I agree with my hon. Friend. When the Taliban were overthrown, they were providing arms and money to warlords, who are now strong, so getting stability throughout the country is difficult. There are plans for regional security teams in the big cities, but it would have been desirable if that step had been taken earlier. This is the crunch for Afghanistan—if we cannot get order and security, we will not get economic development and people who are still desperately poor will not have a better future.

What recent discussions she has held with representatives of the Government of Sri Lanka on assistance to repair the infrastructure of the country; and if she will make a statement. [92210]

I have met the Prime Minister of Sri Lanka and members of his Government on a number of occasions since the peace process began. At the Oslo conference in November, I pledged £8 million in assistance from my Department in 2003 for quick-impact projects to support the peace process. In 2002, we provided £2.6 million.

I thank the right hon. Lady for that reply. Recently, she told me that the Government were providing £2.6 million through the UN to help internally displaced people to be rehoused and resettled. Will she please impress on the Sri Lankan Government the need to remove the 40,000 soldiers who are currently occupying the Tamil homes and homelands in the north-east of the country? In the meantime, will she also have a word with the Home Secretary and ask him whether it is possible to impose a moratorium on deportations of Tamil asylum seekers until they can return home safely?

I think that there is real hope for a successful peace process in Sri Lanka. The war has continued for a long time and has become increasingly brutal. It is good to have prospects of peace in one part of the world; the situation is not secure, but there is real progress. The two sides are talking, we are very supportive of the process and I am very hopeful. I take account of the hon. Gentleman's suggestion to the Home Secretary and I shall ensure that it is conveyed to him. The movement of soldiers needs to be discussed and agreed between the two sides, but we would obviously expect progress in that direction.

If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 22 January.

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.

Reports this morning suggest that the Foreign Office has agreed to a French request to lift the veto on President Mugabe travelling to Europe. Will the Prime Minister instruct the Foreign Secretary to impose the British veto at a meeting next week, as my right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary has demanded?

We have made it clear that we support the sanctions that are in place against Zimbabwe. I understand that the meeting is to take place on Monday, and no agreement has been reached.

May I tell my right hon. Friend—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ask him."] May I tell my right hon. Friend about the hard work that is being done by schools and West Cheshire college in my constituency? Will he assure me that the announcement made yesterday under the heading "14 to 19: Next Steps" relates to a genuine partnership that will help to develop opportunities for that age group? Will he also assure me and the House that it is not intended to be a step back towards segregation and grammar schools?

It is certainly not a step back towards segregation in any sense. What it does is provide greater flexibility in the curriculum and allow children who want to make a choice to take a more vocational route in doing so. It ends the one-size-fits-all approach that we have had until now. The other important thing is that it goes alongside the largest investment in education that this country has seen. In constituencies up and down the country, people can see the benefits of an enormous amount of education funding going into primary and secondary schools—all of which is, of course, opposed by the Conservative party.

How does the Prime Minister expect anyone to support the Government's rag-bag of a higher education policy when everyone knows that it has been cobbled together after a major Cabinet row?

Because it provides a huge boost to education funding and allows us to carry on expanding the numbers in higher education. Let us be clear: the right hon. Gentleman has set his face against the expansion of that investment and has said that he is against more students being able to go to university.

It is a fine thing for the Prime Minister to say that he is for more people going to university, but how does he think he will achieve that when he is going to double student debt and put them off at the same time? Why does he not accept and admit that the Chancellor has held the Cabinet hostage on this issue? He may have read the conclusions of last week's meeting, but the minutes were splashed all over the papers. One of his Ministers said:

"Gordon threw a hand grenade and … created havoc."

That is very interesting. So the right hon. Gentleman is against greater access to our universities, is he? Of course he is. That is why he opposes universities being given the extra money they need. We are putting in a 6 per cent. real-terms rise in education funding; let him say whether he supports that. We are allowing more students from poorer backgrounds to go to universities, because no fees will be paid up front, and maintenance grants are being reintroduced. I favour allowing more students to go to university; let the right hon. Gentleman explain why he favours capping student numbers at their present level.

Access to higher education should be on merit; universities should be independent of Government; and students should not be forced to rack up huge debts, as the Prime Minister intends. Today's muddled university policy has simply failed on all three counts. It means higher student debt and it means more and more regulation, so why—this is the important point for the Prime Minister—are those who will have to pay for this messy political compromise the universities and students themselves?

I find that very strange. Let me read what the right hon. Gentleman's education spokesman, the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green), said two days ago:

"If it's true that the Government is going to abolish up-front fees, and say that everything should be paid back by the individual student afterwards, that's fine by me".

The Thames gateway project is widely supported on both banks of the Thames in east London. Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the private sector is to have the confidence to plan early investment, key public infrastructure projects such as Crossrail and the new bridge over the Thames must not be left as indefinite aspirations, but must have credible timetables for their completion backed by firm financial commitments?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that the Crossrail link is important. An east-west Crossrail link would play a big part in the development of the region. We have committed about £150 million to the development project work necessary to see whether there is a viable proposal—it must be affordable, too. We are investigating that now. I entirely understand what my hon. Friend says. If we can do it, we will do it, but it has to be a viable proposal.

Now that one quarter of the British Army is being deployed for possible action in Iraq, and given the obvious levels of anxiety among the British public about all these developments, may I put again to the Prime Minister the issue that I raised with him here a fortnight ago: are there now circumstances under which the British Government would not support United States-led unilateral action against Iraq?

I am afraid that I shall have to repeat what I said to the right hon. Gentleman, just as he has repeated the question. It is better to state the circumstances in which we would support military action. We would support it in the circumstances of a second United Nations resolution and, as I have consistently outlined, when it was clear that there was a breach by Saddam and an unreasonable blocking of the Security Council resolution.

People again will note that reply. Does the Prime Minister acknowledge that the comments made by President Bush yesterday will not help to reduce British public anxiety? If next Monday in New York the weapons inspectorate says that it requires more time, will the Prime Minister guarantee that he will publicly support it being given the time it believes it needs to carry out the inspections?

Again, I have always made it clear—I did so most recently yesterday—that it is important that the weapons inspectors can do their job and have the time to do it, but let us be clear about their job. It is not to play an elaborate game of hide and seek with Saddam, whereby they try to find the weapons and he tries to hide them. His duty comprises two parts: to allow the inspectors access to any part of Iraq and the sites and to co-operate by telling the truth about the weapons that he has and working with the inspectors to destroy them.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that he supports bringing to justice those responsible for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide? Two and a half years after the Attorney-General received evidence that would enable the Government to indict leading members of the Iraqi regime, including Saddam Hussein, Tariq Aziz and Ali Hassan al-Majeed, why is Ali Hassan al-Majeed in Syria? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that if we had issued an arrest warrant—we could have done that on the evidence that the Attorney-General was given—Ali Hassan al-Majeed, a man responsible for killing 100,000 Kurds, could now be arrested?

I am not entirely sure of the answer to my hon. Friend's last point, but I shall ascertain the correct legal position. I am sympathetic to her point about the advantages of making it clear that a judicial process is taking place at the same time as the political, diplomatic and military processes. She knows that the issue is complicated because it has to go through the Attorney-General and the police. She also knows, because we have discussed the matter on many occasions, that they are considering it. I hope that I can come back to her with their conclusions shortly.

Given that Ministry of Defence anthrax vaccine was found this week on a beach in Dorset, what assessment has the Prime Minister made of the uptake of the Government's vaccination programme among our troops who are being deployed to the Gulf, especially, under the circumstances, the Royal Navy and the Royal Marines?

I am not sure of the exact uptake, but sufficient quantities have been made available. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman and inform him of the exact take-up.

Despite strong progress in recent years, does my right hon. Friend agree that people with disabilities continue to face unacceptable discrimination, especially in the workplace? As the Government are committed to further legislation, will he assure us that we will close existing loopholes to ensure that discrimination is eliminated once and for all for those who currently suffer it?

As my hon. Friend knows, we are preparing a draft disability Bill. We intend to take forward measures in respect of, for example, work in the public sector and transport. My hon. Friend also knows that, as a result of the Chancellor's measures, disability tax credits will help disabled people get off benefit and into work. Those measures probably form the biggest package in favour of disabled rights and access to work that any Government have introduced.

The hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt) said:

"No one is running the immigration department … the Minister has not got a handle on it. It is out to lunch."

Let me make it clear that there has been inadequate and wrong use of the consultation procedures. I entirely understand the concern of my hon. Friend and his constituents. That is why the Minister responsible has tackled the issue.

So the Prime Minister agrees with his hon. Friend. On Sunday, the Home Office announced its new policy of taking over country house hotels. On Monday, it was reversed. On Tuesday, Ministers blamed officials. It seems like another week in which the lunatics took over the Government's asylum policy. In the midst of the shambles, the Home Secretary is incapable of deporting people who may pose a threat to the country. Since the Prime Minister says that an attack is inevitable, is it not essential that we are able to deport such people?

As a result of the anti-terrorism legislation that we introduced post-11 September, we are able for the first time to remand in detention without trial people whom we suspect of being terrorists. That is the purpose of the raids and arrests that have taken place over the past few weeks. However, I make it clear to the right hon. Gentleman that, when we introduced those measures in Parliament, Conservative peers and Conservative Front Benchers told us that they were illiberal and contrary to civil liberties. We had to fight to get the measures through the House.

The Prime Minister knows very well that we support the measures to do with detention. We also support asylum for genuine refugees, but every country should have the right to determine whether certain people can live within its borders. It is about defending our own human rights. It is about deportation. That is the key. How can the Prime Minister be so complacent when we discover that Taliban fighters who only a few months ago were trying to kill British soldiers are now living in Britain? Countries around the world have the right to say no to those who want to destroy their freedoms and way of life. Why cannot Britain do so?

Britain can and should. That is why we introduced the measures in the terrorism legislation post-11 September. It was also the reason for the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. However, I point out to the right hon. Gentleman again that, when we introduced measures providing that any asylum seeker convicted of a crime should be deported, they were weakened by Conservative amendments that said the penalty for such a crime should be at least 10 years.

On Iraq, is my right hon. Friend aware that some of us who do not regard the US as the great Satan remain concerned about some of the statements coming out of Washington that seem to seek justification for military intervention that is way outside the ambit of UN resolution 1441? Will he therefore assure the House that, if the inspectors report that Iraq has not failed to observe the obligations of that resolution, the Government will not go to war?

The whole basis of our position is that resolution 1441 has to be upheld. That is precisely why I have said that the inspectors must have the ability to do their job. However, I return to a point that I have made before and to which President Bush alluded yesterday. We cannot go back to the situation that existed in the 1990s, when the inspectors were in Iraq for years and Saddam was effectively concealing what he was doing. Saddam's duty is to co-operate fully with the inspections regime, which is not a detective agency: it is supposed to be given the full details of what is in Iraq's programme and then be able to inspect and close the programme down. The duty to co-operate is not only about access to sites, but about being open and honest. Obviously, we will pay full attention to what the inspectors say when they report back.

I am sure that the Prime Minister will agree that everything possible must be done to ensure the safety and security of British people, especially at this difficult time. Why, therefore, do the Government allow passenger ferries to carry high-level and intermediate-level radioactive material, as his Transport Minister confirmed in a recent parliamentary answer? Is not that a foolish risk to take with public health and the environment, especially at this time? Will he stop the practice now?

I am sure that any material will be carried under the strictest British national rules and European and international rules. The premise of the hon. Gentleman's question is therefore almost certainly wrong.

My right hon. Friend will know that much of the focus in respect of drug crime has been on the inner cities, but drug crime is a big problem in the suburbs and the rest of the country too. What is being done to deal with drug crime in outer-London constituencies such as mine?

We are doing two things: first, we are ensuring that people who need drug treatment are given it; and, secondly, we are making it clear that people who are on drugs and are committing criminal offences should not be granted bail. We must ensure that the courts know full well that persistent offenders in particular who are on drugs should be given treatment or should not be put back on the street.

Yesterday, the Malakoff and Moore boatyard in Shetland announced that it would be going into receivership, threatening almost 200 jobs in my constituency—just the first casualties of last month's disgraceful Fisheries Council. When the Prime Minister meets fishing leaders next week, will he be able to offer fishing-dependent communities such as Shetland new money from the Treasury, or will it just be tea and sympathy?

As I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, we have already offered packages of assistance, and will carry on doing so, for anyone affected by the decision. I understand entirely why he and his constituents will be angry about a decision that affects their livelihood, but he will know two other things. First, the original European Union proposals were changed very significantly from an 80 per cent. reduction down to 45 per cent. Secondly, there is no way in which we can responsibly say that this is not a serious issue to do with the level of fishing stocks. Where jobs are lost, however—this is why I say to the hon. Gentleman that we will provide the necessary assistance for people—we must ensure that people are given the proper protection and ability to find new jobs.

May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to concerns about the rising number of attacks on bus drivers in London? A bus service was withdrawn for 10 days from an estate in my constituency following the stabbing of a driver in the hand. Children are committing these crimes. I call on my right hon. Friend to join me in asking parents to exert more control over their children, particularly when they are out in the community. [Interruption.] Moreover, does my right hon. Friend accept that too many people who are involved in these crimes are getting away with them by intimidating and threatening witnesses? Does he accept that the police and local authorities need more powers to deal with such individuals, particularly the minority of parents who will not take any action to protect the community from the activities of their children?

Despite the reaction of Opposition Members, the point that my hon. Friend makes is serious and right, which is precisely why the Criminal Justice Bill, which will offer witnesses better protection, and the antisocial behaviour orders that we propose in the antisocial behaviour Bill will make a difference. As a result of the introduction of the measures that we discussed earlier, we have more police on the beat and we are looking to see how we get more police, particularly in relation to transport in London.

Will the Prime Minister undertake to look again at funding for the hospice movement in the United Kingdom? Although the Government have said that they are committed to providing greater palliative care for all who need it, the reality is that statutory funding for adult hospices in the UK has declined from 33 per cent. to 28 per cent. of their needs in the last five years, and in my local hospice in the Weald it is only 10 per cent., with the absurd result that, while the local hospital is absolutely full, there are empty beds in the hospice, where, arguably, better quality care can be provided, and definitely at a much lower cost to the taxpayer.

On the latter point, it surely must be the case that local health trusts could purchase places in the private sector since they are able to do so, but I do not know enough about the facts of the hon. Gentleman's individual case. He makes a fair point about the hospice movement. Obviously, there is a limit on the amount of public resources and public investment that we can put in, but I am aware, from representations that I have received myself, not just of the good work that hospices do but of the role that they can play in giving palliative care, and it is something that we are looking at. I simply tell the hon. Gentleman that there will be a limit to the amount of money that we can put in.

Will the Prime Minister tell the House and the country how much the build-up to the war in Iraq is costing the British taxpayer? Does he think that it is prudent that we are spending that kind of money when the Germans and French are spending billions of euros on the infrastructure of their countries?

I think we will probably spend more billions on our health and education services over the next few years than either the French or the Germans, as a result of the strong economy and the investments that we are making.

Is the Prime Minister aware that 4,300 haemophiliacs have contracted hepatitis C as a result of NHS blood products? Many hundreds have died, yet each year the Government reject calls for help. Would the Prime Minister be willing to see a delegation from the all-party group to discuss whether we can give the victims and their families further help?

I am always willing to see delegations of Members of Parliament, particularly cross-party delegations, who wish to raise specific issues; but I would have to see this delegation without making any commitment to additional resources. As I told the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman), we have to balance these things carefully.

My right hon. Friend knows of the case of my constituent Mary Powell, who, like many parents of children with special educational needs throughout the country, faces serious difficulties in arranging safe transport between home and school for her child. He will share my concern about evidence that has come to light in Merton and elsewhere that when minicabs are involved, neither the drivers nor the escorts who go with the children are being properly vetted by the police. Will he continue to do all he can to strengthen and enforce child protection regulations, so that we have mechanisms to root out poor practice wherever we find it?

My hon. Friend is right to say that there are anxieties, but that is precisely why the Criminal Records Bureau has had to do the work it has done. The turnaround for checking has been speeded up dramatically, but it is important for those transporting children with special educational needs in particulr, to be subject to the right checks.

I welcome the Prime Minister's decision to reinstate the measures that I introduced to remove the right to benefits from those who enter this country as business men, tourists or students, but subsequently claim asylum. Does he acknowledge that his mistake in endorsing the removal of the changes I made and the reinstatement of those benefits five years ago contributed to a doubling of the number of asylum seekers? Will he tell us how many extra economic migrants the country has had to admit and pay for as a result of five mistaken years?

I do not accept what the right hon. Gentleman says. I would also point out that it is not just the measures on benefit that are making a difference now; it is also the withdrawal of exceptional leave to remain, it is also the juxtaposed controls, and it is also the fact that 70 per cent. of asylum claims are now decided within two months. When we took office—particularly as the right hon. Gentleman's party was prepared to cut the number of immigration officers—claims were taking 12 months to decide. All those things are making a difference.

Is the Prime Minister aware of the financial difficulties currently faced by CISWO, the Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation? Given his direct knowledge of the organisation's work in coalfield communities and with ex-miners and their families, will he use his influence to ensure that the meeting that trustees are seeking with Ministers takes place at an early date?

I can certainly arrange for the meeting to take place at an early date, but I would not be able to do so with any conviction that funds in addition to the funds that are already there could be provided.

Can the Prime Minister say why gun crime has increased by 90 per cent. since he took office?

It has increased, for reasons that are clear, not just in this country but in other countries. In certain areas of the country, there is a culture of gun crime that must be suppressed. Let me point out two things to the hon. Gentleman. First, overall, crime is down, not up, under this Government, whereas it doubled under the Conservatives. Secondly, I hope that when we introduce measures to impose a mandatory five-year sentence for the illegal possession of a firearm, Conservatives will accept and support them, contrary to the position that they have adopted so far; otherwise, there is no use the hon. Gentleman's saying that there is a problem, but refusing to accept the solution to deal with it.

If the weapons inspectors find no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and want more time to look, and if my right hon. Friend is agreeable to giving more time but President Bush is not, who will make the final decision? If they go to bomb, where will they bomb if they do not know where the weapons of mass destruction are?

I have to say to my hon. Friend that it is not just a question of the inspectors finding the weapons; it is a question of the duty of co-operation: Saddam has to make sure that any weapons that he has are honestly exposed and shut down by the weapons inspectors. That is how the weapons inspection regime is supposed to work. If the inspectors find the facts in respect of a breach of resolution 1441, it goes back before the Security Council, which should then take the necessary measures. But it is not just about finding the weapons; it is also about making sure that there is full co-operation with the inspections regime.