If he will make a statement on the Police Service of Northern Ireland recruiting patterns. [101440]

Since February 2001, 644 recruits have been appointed to the Police Service of Northern Ireland on the statutory 50 per cent. Catholic, 50 per cent. non-Catholic basis. The fifth recruitment campaign was launched on 7 March.

Does the Minister agree that in competition three, for example, the training has been undersubscribed by about 70, that none of the targets has yet matched up to requirements, and that we are haemorrhaging more officers than we are getting in? Does she also agree that the Chief Constable's desire to have more bobbies out serving the people would be best achieved not by abolishing the PSNI band but by changing the 50:50 recruitment requirement?

No, I do not agree with that. The figure to which the hon. Gentleman referred in the third competition is not one that I recognise, although I will investigate what he has said. It remains true, however, that more than 530 recruits entered training in the first year. That is well in excess of the figure of 370 suggested by the independent policing commission—Patten's figure.

Does the Minister agree that the constitution of the new local policing partnership boards will have an effect locally on how recruitment will go? If the boards do their duty well, it will improve the status of the police force in their area. Will she, however, take on board the fact that there is a great deal of concern in Northern Ireland about how the boards have been appointed? Is it the Government's rule that ex-members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary should not be appointed to them? A prominent former member of the RUC—an assistant chief constable—was banned, as was the former chairman of the Police Federation. [Interruptioni.]

Order. I think that the Minister can now reply.

I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman's opening comments about the importance of the establishment of the district policing partnerships. This is an important and positive step forward for policing in Northern Ireland, which will develop the accountability of the police to their local communities and improve the working relationships between them. It is impossible for me to comment on the individual cases that he raised about appointments to the DPPs, but if he cares to write to me on the subject, I will look into it.

As a member of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, I was recently in Belfast, where we had discussions with Hugh Orde, the Chief Constable. He said that one great obstacle to better recruitment from the Catholic or nationalist community would be removed if Sinn Fein lifted its objections to joining the police force in Northern Ireland. What assessment has been made of the likelihood of that happening?

Obviously, the establishment of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, with the support of the Social Democratic and Labour party, the Catholic Church and, internationally, the Irish and US Governments, has transformed the nature of policing in Northern Ireland. As a result of that new beginning, the proportion of Catholics applying to the PSNI has been unprecedented. My hon. Friend is right, however: it is now time for all political parties and all community leaders to support policing and to encourage young Catholics to join the police service and take up a career in policing.

How successful have the policing action plans been in increasing the number of female applicants and recruits to the PSNI? Also, given that an almost exclusively Catholic and Protestant police service is little more representative of the whole community, would the Minister be willing to have at least a discussion about the prospect of action plans to encourage applications from those who do not categorise themselves as either Catholics or Protestants?

As the hon. Gentleman knows from the discussion in Standing Committee yesterday with the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Angela Smith), and myself, we have made it clear that we constantly review the success of recruitment arrangements, but the success of the Police Service of Northern Ireland in attracting women to join the police service, not just to apply but to complete training successfully and start as regular police officers, has been phenomenal.

If he will make a statement on the strategic investment programme. [101441]

The strategic investment programme is a key product of the reinvestment and reform initiative. It will provide the most radical infrastructure investment in Northern Ireland in a generation, backed by a major reform agenda. The programme will involve additional investment totalling about £2 billion over the next five years for new schools, hospitals, roads and improved water and public services.

That £2 billion of extra expenditure is certainly needed in Northern Ireland, but can my hon. Friend assure me that the money will be spent effectively and will benefit all the communities in Northern Ireland in improving the infrastructure that he mentioned?

Obtaining good value for money for public funds is obviously a key priority for the Government. That is why we decided to set up the Strategic Investment Board, which was formally constituted on 17 March. It will bring in a team of experts to advise on the delivery of the strategic investment programme and will add value to the whole process to ensure effective public procurement of badly needed investment in Northern Ireland's infrastructure.

The Minister will be aware of the strategic importance of the site of the former Maze prison in my constituency. I welcome the recent establishment of the advisory panel, but will he give me an assurance that the local community will be fully consulted before any final decision is made about the development of the Maze site?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments on the advisory panel. It is very much the right way to go, and decisions will be taken some time in the future about the Maze site which, as he knows, is of regional significance, so we need to ensure that there is wide involvement. The views of the local community are clearly important in that process, and I can certainly give him an assurance that they will be heard.

I am sure that the Minister will agree that the announcement last month of £70 million in investment in the Lame to Stranraer ferry, with new terminals in Northern Ireland and Scotland and improved crossing times, will indeed be of benefit to strategic investment in Northern Ireland. Hopefully, it will encourage more trading links between Northern Ireland and Scotland and investment in the two countries, and will be the basis for further trading opportunities.

I very much welcome the recent announcement of improvements to the Lame to Stranraer line. Those links are important, as is air access to Northern Ireland. There is an agenda there that needs to be developed. In addition, we are having discussions with our colleagues in Scotland about the Ballycastle to Campbeltown ferry and what can be done to ensure that there is a ferry service over the summer.

Can the Minister confirm that while many people in Northern Ireland welcome the strategic investment programme, there is concern among ratepayers about the possibility of significant and substantial rate increases to pay for that programme?

Nobody likes to pay extra, whether in rates or income tax. I understand the concerns in Northern Ireland, and I want to confirm absolutely that the £2 billion strategic investment programme does not rely on any increase in the regional rates other than that previously agreed by the Executive. I also want to take the opportunity to say that some politicians in Northern Ireland are living on a fantasy island if they believe that they can get money from the GB taxpayer to invest in all Northern Ireland's future infrastructure requirements. The clear message is that if improvements in infrastructure are wanted by people in Northern Ireland they will have to go some little way themselves to pay for the cost of them.

What recent progress has been made towards decommissioning terrorist weapons. [101442]

The Loyalist Volunteer Force engaged in an act of decommissioning in 1998 and the Provisional IRA engaged in two acts of decommissioning in 2001 and 2002. However, no paramilitary organisations are currently in contact with the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning. It was clear to all involved in the discussions at Hillsborough last week that much more needs to be done to ensure that both republican and loyalist organisations complete the transition to exclusively peaceful means—real, total and permanent.

I wish the Secretary of State well at this crucial stage of the peace process. Does he agree that we need not just a verbal commitment—from the IRA in particular—but visible proof of decommissioning, and does he share my disappointment that the IRA has not even been in touch with the commission to prove that it has started decommissioning?

I thank the hon. Lady for her good wishes. It is indeed regrettable that no paramilitary organisation has been in contact with John de Chastelain's commission. I also agree that we must ensure that whatever acts of decommissioning take place occur in such a way that people across Northern Ireland can trust and have confidence in the process.

Does the Secretary of State agree that the continued existence of paramilitary groups, armed and organised, is an affront to basic democracy in Ireland and the legitimate Governments of Ireland, north and south? Is not the decommissioning of all paramilitary weapons by all those groups an essential factor in the current negotiations if the current political impasse is to be broken, progress made and trust re—established? Will not a drip-feed of decommissioning for purely party political gain destroy any remnant of trust between the parties in Northern Ireland, destroy our devolutionary institutions and destroy political progress?

I entirely agree. My hon. Friend will know, because both he and I were involved in the run-up to the Good Friday agreement in 1998, that decommissioning is very much part of that Belfast agreement, and that it is a vital element of the means by which trust and the institutions can be restored. Illegal weapons have no place in a modern democratic and peaceful society.

Does the Secretary of State agree that more mere statements and stunts from the IRA will do nothing to increase the confidence of the people of Northern Ireland that the IRA is committed to exclusively peaceful and democratic means? Will he now give details of the paper published for the Hillsborough parties but denied to the people of Northern Ireland and their representatives in the House—details, that is, of the concessions now on offer to IRA—Sinn Fein and approved between the Government and the pro—agreement parties, in return for IRA—Sinn Fein's doing what they should have done years ago and for which they should receive no reward?

Of course it is important for us to tackle the whole issue of paramilitary activity, in whatever form. The Prime Minister has said, the Taoiseach has said, all of us who are involved in these issues have said, that it must end. As for the other issue, I ask the hon. Gentleman to be patient. It is pretty clear that he has only a few weeks to wait before the papers are published for everyone in Northern Ireland, and indeed everyone in the House, to consider.

What assessment has the Secretary of State made of loyalist efforts towards decommissioning—and, in particular, of the recent announcement of a ceasefire by the UDA and the handing over of pipe bombs?

I agree that we must address the decommissioning issue across the board, and that includes loyalist paramilitaries. We welcome the UDA's statement as far as it goes. I am also glad that over the past few weeks there has been relative peace on the streets of Northern Ireland. Nevertheless, those groups, together with all the other paramilitary groups, must engage with the international commission.

The Secretary of State is right to say that decommissioning is not enough to restore confidence in the peace process. Will he comment on his answer to me yesterday to a question about the break-in at Castlereagh police station, which was investigated by Sir John Chilcott? The Secretary of State said that he would inform the House when he has received the Chilcott report. According to my information, he has received the report—which incriminates Adams, McGuinness and Bobby Storey, the IRA's head of information and intelligence in Belfast—and it appears to me that there is a cover—up.

There certainly is no cover—up, and I shall, of course, issue that report in due course, when it has been given to me. My office and my predecessor decided to commission it, and it will be made directly to me. I will inform the House at the appropriate time. There will be an opportunity in the coming weeks to consider all the issues, including paramilitary activity. In due course, I will inform the House when the report is ready.

What assessment has my right hon. Friend made of the threat posed to the peace process by terrorist groups such as Continuity IRA and the Real IRA, and what impact will that assessment have on the Government's plans for a reduction in the number of British troops in Northern Ireland?

We in no way underestimate the difficulties posed by the continuing activity of so—called dissident republican groups. A fortnight ago, I visited Mr. Michael McDowell, the Minister for Justice in the Republic of Ireland, to see how we can co—operate to deal with dissident republicans. There is no place in Northern Ireland for dissident republicanism, and there is no place for violence. We shall certainly engage in ensuring that we work together with the Irish Government to do our best to overcome those difficulties.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that decommissioning must indeed be visible, verified and complete before all parties can have the confidence to re—join the Executive in Northern Ireland?

I repeat what I said to the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh): the importance of decommissioning is the political process is that it is an essential part of restoring trust and confidence in the politics of Northern Ireland across the board. [Interruption.] It is a hugely important issue, and it was part of the Belfast agreement. [Interruption.]

Order. There is far too much noise in the Chamber.

If he will make a statement on the peace process. [101443]

As a result of talks with the parties last week in Hillsborough, we believe that there is now a large measure of shared understanding among pro—agreement parties on the way forward in the restoration of stable and inclusive devolved Government. However, I repeat that this can be realised only in the context of a complete cessation of paramilitary activity. We need to give these developments every chance of success. To provide time for parties to reflect and to take soundings among their organisations, we propose to defer elections to the Assembly to Thursday 29 May, and we will introduce a Bill tomorrow to that effect. I am optimistic that these developments can deliver a breakthrough in the search for a lasting and stable settlement.

The little of last week's talks that is in the public domain is generally welcomed by Liberal Democrats, but what assurances has the Secretary of State been given that any acts of completion by paramilitary groups will include a statement to the effect that those who have been exiled from their homes will be free to return, without fear of threat or intimidation from such groups?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his party's support in this matter. The question of exiles was discussed at Hillsborough last week, and the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne), is dealing with these issues with groups such as Maranatha. The fact that he is also the Minister with responsibility for victims shows that we see a correlation between these different issues. [Interruption.] This is a hugely important matter, and the hon. Gentleman can rest assured that we have been discussing it.

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that special arrangements for on-the-run terrorists can—[Interruption.]

Order. The Chamber is far too noisy, and it is unfair to those who are in for Northern Ireland questions. No private conversations should be taking place in the Chamber.

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that special arrangements for on-the-run terrorists can be considered only in the context of the completion of decommissioning and disbandment by the relevant paramilitary organisations, and a judicial process? That process would involve a guilty plea before a court or a determination of the facts by a court, and a verdict.

I agree. The act of completion on the part of the IRA is an essential precondition in relation to OTRs. I also agree that the matter should be dealt with in a judicial fashion rather than by way of amnesty.

That is very welcome confirmation that the Secretary of State now supports a judicial process. Will he have the grace to acknowledge that it is a thoroughly good thing that the Opposition were able successfully to oppose the unilateral offer of an amnesty made by the Government at Weston Park, as that would not have involved judicial process? The Opposition's action means that that important card remains in the Government's hands, and there is a chance of getting the judicial process that both he and I want.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we agree.

On 10 April 1998, the Prime Minister wrote to my right hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), the leader of the Ulster Unionist party, in the following terms:

"Dear David,

I understand your problem with paragraph 25 of Strand 1 is that it requires decisions on those who should be excluded or removed from office in the Northern Ireland Executive to be taken on a cross-community basis.

This letter is to let you know that if, during the course of the first six months of the shadow Assembly or the Assembly itself, these provisions have been shown to be ineffective we will support changes to these provisions to enable them to be made properly effective in preventing such people from holding office."

Of course, the issue of sanctions is very important. We discussed it last week at Hillsborough, and it is an important part of any agreement that might have to be forged in the weeks ahead. The hon. Gentleman knows that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister spent nearly 32 hours at Hillsborough last week and is deeply committed to the peace process in Northern Ireland.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that there will be no more tinkering with the date for the Northern Ireland Assembly elections, which are set for 29 May? Will he further confirm that he will ignore parties that will try, for selfish reasons, to get those elections postponed?

The hon. Lady will know that the elections in Northern Ireland will be held on 29 May, as long as the House agrees to that next week. However, the elections were postponed for 28 days to allow all parties to reflect on the proposals and papers that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach will give to the people of Northern Ireland sometime at the beginning of April.

What recent representations he has received about (a) punishment beatings and (b) forced exiles in Northern Ireland. [101444]

Both the Secretary of State and I hold regular meetings with our senior security advisers, and with elected representatives and those with influence within their communities, to discuss a wide range of security issues, including paramilitary attacks.

What steps is the Minister prepared to take to make the ending of all forced exiles and exclusions a condition of any future agreement with the paramilitaries?

The hon. Gentleman will have heard the replies to that question given just now by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. In many cases, these vicious attacks have left victims physically and mentally scarred for life. They are the exact opposite of what the Belfast agreement is all about. Those who sanction and carry out the attacks are the enemies of the transition to a peaceful society in Northern Ireland, which is what we are seeking to establish.

If he will make a statement on progress on a future Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland. [101445]

As set out in the Belfast agreement and the Northern Ireland Act, the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission is undertaking work with a view to making recommendations to the Government on the scope for a Bill of Rights in Northern Ireland. At this stage, the Government's position is only to encourage broad participation in the process. To that end, I welcome the engagement of the Northern Ireland political parties in response to the request of the chief commissioner and would urge those who have not yet done so to become actively involved.

I appreciate the Minister's response, but may I encourage him to go further and tell the House whether the Government intend to include the controversial issue of Drumcree and other parades in Northern Ireland in any future Bill of Rights?

It would be entirely inappropriate for the Government to anticipate the advice that we will be given by the Human Rights Commission, but the hon. Lady can rest assured that the Government's position is that all issues of relevance to the people of Northern Ireland that could be broadly covered by the description of being within the scope of a Bill of Rights, taking into account the particular circumstances of Northern Ireland, are issues that ought to be discussed in the context of the process.

If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 12 March.

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.

Which is the lesser threat to global security: allowing more time for Iraq's disarmament or, in disarming Iraq—particularly in view of the French President's commitment to exercise his veto—dividing the international community? Will the Prime Minister give an assurance to the House that so long as there is a prospect of rebuilding an international coalition under the authority of the United Nations, he will resist US pressure for precipitate action?

I will certainly do everything I can to make sure that the international community stays united at this time and that we achieve a second UN resolution. The reason why we should have such a resolution, as my hon. Friend's question implies, is that, for many months now, we have been waiting for Saddam Hussein to come fully into compliance with the resolution that was passed unanimously by the UN. It is time that he did so. If he does, even now conflict can be averted. But the worst thing that could happen is for the will of the UN to be expressed so clearly, for him to defy that will and for no action to follow at all.

Can the Prime Minister guarantee what he said to me last week: that there will be a vote in the UN on a second resolution?

Yes, it is our intention to put a vote to the UN on a second resolution. We continue to work for that, flat out, and we will do that in a way that most upholds the authority of the UN.

If such a vote takes place, it may not be carried or it may even be vetoed. The House of Commons and the British people have a right to know now where the Government stand in that event. Is it now the case that if there is no second resolution, the United States will go to war without the UK?

In respect of the latter part, where the right hon. Gentleman asks about the United States going it alone, let me say this to him and to the House. It is true that the United States could go alone and, of course, this country should not take military action unless it is in our interests to do so. It is the British national interest that must be upheld at all times. But I believe that it is important that we hold firm to the course that we have set out because what is at stake is not whether the United States goes alone or not, but whether the international community is prepared to back up the clear instruction it gave to Saddam Hussein with the necessary action. That is why I am determined to hold firm to the course that we have set out.

:The Prime Minister will therefore be aware that, particularly overnight, there has been some confusion among our allies and among various parties including his own. To clear up that confusion, will he confirm today that he could commit British forces to a war without the backing of a second resolution, although he still intends to go for that, and we agree with him?

I have set out on many occasions the circumstances in which we would take action. At the moment, however, the best thing is to go flat out for that second UN resolution. I am trying to do so, and it might help if I were to tell the House the types of things that we are discussing with other partners in the UN at the moment. What we are looking at is whether we can set out a clear set of tests for Iraq to meet to demonstrate that it is in full compliance—not partial compliance but full compliance. For example, based on what the inspectors have already found, it should produce either the thousands of litres of anthrax unaccounted for or the documentation showing that it is destroyed. For example, given that, since the last resolution in November, not one Iraqi scientist has been interviewed outside Iraq, where they and their families can be guaranteed safety, we should make sure that Iraq is allowing those interviews to take place. For example, Iraq should produce the unmanned aerial vehicles, which can spray chemical and biological poison, or, again, produce the documentation showing that they are destroyed. If we set out those conditions clearly, and back them with the will of a united UN, we have a chance, even now, of averting conflict. What we must show, however, is the determination to act if Saddam will not comply fully.

I agree with the Prime Minister, and he has confirmed in that answer that he keeps the option of committing British troops to war with or without a second resolution. Does the doctrine of Cabinet collective responsibility therefore apply to that position?

Yes, of course it does.

The Secretary of State for International Development said that she would not support military action without a second resolution. I remind the Prime Minister that, amazingly, she called him "reckless". The Prime Minister can either have Cabinet collective responsibility or his Secretary of State for International Development. Which will it be?

I agree that it is an embarrassment to find myself in agreement with the right hon. Gentleman, or him in agreement with me, on the issue of Iraq, but we are agreed. Rather than scoring points, which are perfectly acceptable and which I understand, at this point, when we are facing momentous decisions for the country, it is probably better that we discuss the substance.

The Prime Minister knows that we agree about the principles of what he has been trying to do. I must remind him, however, of exactly what the Secretary of State for International Development said. It is remarkable. She said that

"the current situation is deeply reckless; reckless for the world, reckless for the undermining of the UN … reckless with our government, reckless with his own future".

The one thing that I have found in the last few weeks is that I have not been short of advice from anyone on this issue. The most important thing for us to do as a House, never mind as a Government or a country, especially with our armed forces facing the potential of action, is to come together, to work hard in the United Nations to secure the second resolution and to try to make sure that we send the strongest possible signal to Saddam Hussein that he must disarm or face the consequences. I say again to the right hon. Gentleman that it is better to concentrate on that than on the points that he has just made.

The whole House will want to pay tribute to the Prime Minister for his tireless efforts to resolve the present crisis through the United Nations. But may I take him back for a moment to January 1998, more than five years ago, and to a letter written by several members of the Republican right in the United States, including Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz, to President Clinton? In one sentence of that letter, having said that American interests in the Gulf now require military action to get rid of Saddam Hussein and to produce regime change, they say:

"American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council".

Again, one of the things that I have found is that I cannot actually answer for the comments of every member of every Administration around the world—including, occasionally, even my own, as has just been pointed out. I would say to my hon. Friend simply this. Rather than debate the wealth of conspiracy theories and comments from the Republican right or the Democrat left, or this part or that part, why do we not just work out what is the right thing to do and do it? We should work out the right thing to do, whatever anyone else may say. We went through the United Nations because we believe in it, but I said at the beginning—when we went down the UN route in September last year—the UN must be the way of dealing with this, not the way of avoiding dealing with it. That is why it is important now, four and a bit months on when Saddam is not fully complying, that we come to the crunch and take a decision. We have tried to provide, within the UN framework, a set of conditions that allow us to test clearly, based on what the UN inspectors have said, whether he is fully in co-operation or not. What I urge, even at this stage, is for countries to get behind that and help us with it, because that is the best way to achieve disarmament peacefully.

Has the Attorney-General advised the Prime Minister that a war on Iraq in the absence of a second United Nations resolution authorising force would be legal? What advice has the Attorney-General given?

I have said on many occasions that we as a country would not do anything that did not have a proper legal basis to it.

This week UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan has said that in the absence of a second UN resolution we would be acting in a way that breached the UN charter. Is Kofi Annan wrong?

No. what Kofi Annan has been saying—and I agree with him—is that it is important that the UN comes together. That is why we are trying to provide a basis, a compromise even at this stage, that allows us to resolve the matter properly. I say to the right hon. Gentleman and to the House that it is complicated to get that agreement at the UN when one nation is saying that whatever the circumstances it will veto a resolution. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman would accept that we cannot have such a situation and that we have to ensure that we deal with the issue in the terms of resolution 1441, which we all—including the right hon. Gentleman—agreed upon.

While the attention of the world is understandably focused on Iraq, the everyday crisis in Israel and Palestine continues and worsens, particularly for millions of Palestinians but also for many Israeli citizens. Can my right hon. Friend tell the House what steps he is taking to keep alive what faint hope exists in the middle east peace process, and in particular, will he call on the new Israeli Government not to take the opportunity of the focus on Iraq to further undermine the already precarious position of Palestinians and their society?

I agree entirely with what my hon. Friend says and I emphasise to him that we remain firmly committed to taking forward the middle east peace process. I welcome the decision to appoint Abu Mazen as Prime Minister for the Palestinian Authority. That is a good, forward and progressive move, and I hope that it will get an echo from the Israeli side. I believe that there will be very few people in the middle east and the Arab world who shed tears for Saddam Hussein, but people everywhere—not just in the Arab and Muslim world—genuinely want to see the middle east peace process back on its feet and going forward.

What was the legal basis in international law for war against Yugoslavia, and if that did not require a UN resolution why does the Iraqi situation require one?

As the Foreign Secretary has pointed out, resolul ion 1441 gives the legal basis for this. The reason we have been seeking a second resolution is, as I said to the Liaison Committee when I appeared before it, that it is highly desirable to demonstrate the unified will of the international community.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us believe that he has done the right thing over many months in restraining the American President from taking precipitate action, and in working instead through the United Nations? Is it not important, as the hours and days tick by, that he use all his efforts to tell President Bush that we need another UN resolution and that there is no need for an unseemly haste to war?

My hon. Friend is right in saying that it is important that we do everything that we can to achieve that second UN resolution. To be frank, many people thought thai we might be in action even now, but we are not. We have delayed precisely in order to try to bring the international community back round the position that we set out in 1441. I go back to that the whole time. It was at the heart of the agreement that the United States take the multilateral path of the United Nations. The agreement was very simple. The United States had to agree to go through the United Nations, and to resolve this through the United Nations, but the other partners inside the United Nations agreed that, if Saddam did not fully comply and was in material breach, serious consequences and action would follow. The fact is, he has not complied. Four and a half months on—indeed, 12 years on—he has not complied. That it why it is important that we bring this issue to a head now and get it resolved. I remain, as I say, working flat out to get it resolved through the United Nations. That is easily the best thing. It will be a tragedy for the UN, when faced with this challenge, if it fails to meet it. However, we have to ensure that the unified will, as set out in 1441, is implemented.

May I bring the Prime Minister to matters domestic, and in particular education, education, education? Is he aware that Leicestershire is the worst funded education authority in the country under the new education formula spending shares? Last week, I had a meeting with some 30 governors, all of whom will have to set deficit budgets because their funding from the Government this year is 1 per cent. less in real terms than it was last year. The governors are talking about redundancies. Will the Prime Minister address this matter, and is he surprised that people in Leicestershire believe very little that he says?

We have increased education spending by a massive amount. All authorities have received an above-inflation allocation in their grant. As we are, for a moment, discussing domestic issues, the other point to make is that, while the hon. Gentleman is getting to his feet and calling for even more money for our education service, he appears not to be aware that his Front Bench is calling for 20 per cent. less money.

Given that, tomorrow, there will be a day of action across the European Union opposing the general agreement on trade in services; and given that the EU's requests for the liberalisation of services under the current GATS negotiations have recently been published, does my right hon. Friend agree that the time has come for a moratorium on the negotiations until we in the developed world can carry out detailed and thorough impact assessments—of the environmental impact, for example—that wit; result from a liberalisation of services?

I understand the concerns of my hon. Friend and some non-governmental organisations on GATS. When we talk to the developing countries, they tell us that they are keen for things to move forward. Whatever we do, it is important to put their interests first, because they are desperate to get the markets liberalised.

When will this House have a vote on whether to commit troops to war in Iraq? Does the Prime Minister agree with his defence Minister, who said yesterday that war was "pretty damn inevitable"? If so, why?

I think that what my hon. Friend said was that, if Saddam Hussein refuses to disarm voluntarily, conflict becomes inevitable. That is the position that we have set out throughout.

What plans he has to visit Indonesia to discuss with the President of Indonesia the campaign against international terrorism.

I have no plans at present to visit Indonesia but I have been in contact with President Megawati. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary discussed counter-terrorism with President Megawati when he visited Indonesia in January.

I recognise my right hon. Friend's desire for a peaceful outcome to Iraq's compliance with United Nations Security Council resolutions, so will he accept that Indonesia—the largest Muslim nation in the world and emerging from dictatorship to take on the virtues of democracy and tolerance, but the victim of extremist Islamic international terrorism in Bali last October—desperately needs a peaceful outcome to the present Iraqi crisis, and support from the United Kingdom Government for its reform programme and in combating extremist Islamic terrorists?

First, I pay tribute to the work that my hon. Friend has done in this area and to the inter—faith work that he has carried out to promote greater understanding between the Muslim and Christian religions. I agree entirely with what he says about Indonesia. We are funding, to the tune of several million pounds, the transition of Indonesia to full democracy, helping it to develop the institutions that it needs and making sure that democratic participation in Indonesia is as full as it possibly can be. I agree with him entirely. Indonesia is a very important country for all sorts of reasons, not least because it has such a large Muslim population. It is important that we in the western world work closely with Indonesia to assist its progress.

I echo the remarks of the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths). Will the Prime Minister accept that the key to stability and moderation in Indonesia and other similar Islamic states lies in the west—in particular, America and Britain—being seen to be even-handed in those situations in which Muslims are oppressed, especially those in Palestine and Kashmir?

I agree that the even-handedness of our approach is essential. That is why we have worked as far as we can—it is obviously a bilateral dispute—to assist the parties to reach agreement in Kashmir. I can only repeat what I said earlier about the middle east process. The plight of the Palestinians—and, indeed, the plight of innocent Israelis blown up in terrorist attacks—is dire and requires our attention. It would be the best signal of even-handedness that we could give right across the Muslim world if we were prepared to show the right energy and commitment to the middle east peace process. I will do everything that I can to ensure that we and others do that.

May I thank my right hon. Friend for taking two days last week out of his very busy schedule to spend in Northern Ireland? Does he agree that it is important that, when dealing with terrorism, we do not operate with double standards? Can he give me and the people of Northern Ireland an assurance that he will not allow any deal to be entered into with the Irish Republican Army that allows terrorists on the run to evade the criminal justice system?

We have said that the issue of so-called on-the-runs has to be dealt with, and we have said that it should not be dealt with by way of an amnesty. We are looking at the right way of doing that. I hope that my hon. Friend will also agree that, for all the difficulties, the Northern Ireland peace process over the past few years has yielded enormous benefits. The fact that we are actually talking about a situation in which we can have a permanent end to violence in Northern Ireland is a huge tribute to everyone who has been involved in the process since 1997.

Is the Prime Minister aware that, yesterday, the American Government issued invitations to five American corporations led by Mr. Cheney's Halliburton group to bid for the reconstruction of post-war Iraq and pointedly excluded British and foreign firms? Is the Prime Minister not embarrassed to have given such unstinting loyalty to an American President who regards international co-operation with such contempt and war as an opportunity to dish out contracts to his cronies?

I do not agree at all with the hon. Gentleman in relation to that. In respect of the American President and international co-operation, I remind the hon. Gentleman that it was as a result of many requests made to the US President that he went through the United Nations last year. I think that it is right, now, that the will of the UN is upheld. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree with that.

The contract for the aircraft carriers has been placed—the first stage—and offers great investment opportunities for our manufacturing industry. What advice would my right hon. Friend give to all involved so that we see maximum benefit from this contract in terms of new products and new markets and not just excellent employment opportunities but greater employment opportunities?

What my hon. Friend says is right. There is an additional point to consider, too. As a result of what is happening in, for example, the shipbuilding industry generally, skills and technology are being developed in this country. The order has had an enormously beneficial productive impact on our manufacturing base, and I congratulate all my hon. Friend's constituents who have been involved in it.

The Prime Minister still commands majority support in his Cabinet, but does he feel that he needs support from the parliamentary Labour party, this House or, perhaps, the country as a whole before he commits us to war?

I have said all the way through that it is important, as I said a moment or two ago, to have a vote in the House, subject to the caveat I have always entered. I hope that the hon. Gentleman also understands, however, that it is important that I set out, as Prime Minister, what I believe to be right in this country's national interest. I have tried to do that over the past few months and believe that I have set out my position. I think there is a real threat to this country from the twin sources of international terrorism and weapons of mass destruction and if we do not deal with them, our world and our country will be a less secure and more dangerous place. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and other Opposition Members will join us in that endeavour.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that divisions in the UN, NATO, the European Union and, indeed, this House only give comfort and opportunity to Saddam? Does he also agree that a deadline receding into the summer heat haze is not a serious interpretation of "serious consequences" for incomplete compliance which were unanimously resolved by the Security Council last November? Given that Saddam has both motive and capacity to equip terrorists with chemical and biological weapons, does he further agree that it is an urgent necessity to disarm him whether or not there is another UN resolution?

I think the point that my right hon. Friend makes is absolutely right and he sets out precisely why we need to take action. The idea that we could leave British and American troops down there for months on an indefinite time scale, without insisting clearly that Saddam disarms, would send not only a message of weakness out to Saddam, but a message of weakness right across the world. That is why it is important that it is dealt with. I hope that even now those countries that are saying they would use their veto no matter what the circumstances will reconsider and realise that by doing so they put at risk not just the disarmament of Saddam, but the unity of the United Nations.

Does the Prime Minister accept that I, and many of my constituents, would like to be convinced of and to believe his stance on Iraq? Does he also accept that it would greatly assist us if he published the legal advice that his Government have received?

It is not the convention to publish legal advice, but it is the convention to state clearly that we have a legal base for whatever action we take, and of course we must have such a legal base. I understand the concern and the strong arguments on the other side, but the argument for the hon. Gentleman's constituents and others is surely this: in circumstances in which we believe Saddam is a threat I think most people believe that—and in circumstances in which we demanded that he co-operate fully with the United Nations and he has not—and everyone accepts that—unless we act and enforce that co-operation, we are setting the will of the United Nations at naught and are also saying to Saddam, "You can carry on building these weapons of mass destruction and we will do nothing about it." If we send the message to Saddam that he can carry on and that we do not have the will to stop him, I ask the hon. Gentleman and his constituents what credibility the will of the United Nations will have the next time either he or another tyrant or dictator tries to arm themselves with such weapons? That is why we have to act.

In these momentous times, by his heroic efforts to seek a second resolution in the United Nations, I believe that the Prime Minister has the overwhelming support of Members on both sides of the House. Are there not two great prizes for all his activities? The first is the credibility of the United Nations in seeking to enforce its resolutions because without that it will lose all credibility. The second is the ability to continue to persuade the President of the USA to go down the multilateralist route.

The point that my right hon. Friend made at the end is very important. We all agreed to take the multilateral route last November. Let us be clear, not everyone in every part of every Administration may have wanted to take the multilateral route, but we did so, and on the basis that Saddam had a final opportunity to disarm and that if he did not comply fully, unconditionally and immediately with UN inspectors, he would be in breach and serious consequences would follow. Not a single person—not a single person in Europe; not a single person in the rest of the world—believes that he is co-operating either fully or unconditionally, and certainly not immediately. My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. What is at stake is the integrity of the multilateral process. Unless we uphold it now, we are never going to be able to uphold it in future times.

On a domestic matter, the Prime Minister's chosen rural tsar, Lord Haskins, has said that it is a good thing that small farmers are having to leave the industry. Last year, 15,000 farmers left or were forced out of the industry. Was that a cause for concern or celebration in Downing street?

I am afraid I have not caught up with Lord Haskins's comments, but of course not. The reason why we have tried to increase the amount of money going into agriculture is to support our farming industry, but it would be cruel to pretend to people in that industry that there does not also need to be change and reform. For that reason, we set up the commission headed by Don Curry, which has had immense support in the farming community. We are providing the funding to implement it, and I would hope that the hon. Gentleman would support us in doing so.

May I say, Madam Deputy Speaker, how good it is to have a Welsh Deputy Speaker in the Chair for this debate?

:The Secretary of State cannot get away with that. The 6,000 jobs created by the objective 1 programme include 800 jobs created at a call centre in Pembrokeshire that immediately disappeared. That is part of the picture as published by the National Assembly. Also, Wales is still at the bottom of the league in terms of broadband link-up. There is a lot of work to be done on broadband and job creation in Wales.

The hon. Gentleman is wrong to say that the 6,000 jobs included those at the call centre. If he checks, he will find that that those jobs are not included. I hope that he will correct his researchers on that point. Of course there is a lot to do on broadband but, as I shall say, we are driving it forward. In parts of south Wales—especially south—east Wales—there is more broadband than anywhere else in Europe. He should be welcoming that and praising it. Broadband access has been spread out across Wales. It is interesting; the nationalists always demand more but never provide the funding. That is the politics not of government, but of opposition, where they will remain.

For ever.

For ever, as my hon. Friend says so powerfully.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that unemployment in my constituency has fallen by no less than 63 per cent. since 1997, a figure surpassed by the decrease in unemployment in the seat represented by the leader of the Welsh nationalists? Is that surprising?

It has nothing to do with the MP in that constituency; it is to do with the Government's brilliant economic record. If we look at the constituencies of all Welsh MPs—those here and absent from the House this afternoon—we will find that unemployment has fallen dramatically during the last six years of Labour government.

I hope that the Secretary of State is going to say something about Corus because I am sure that the House would like to hear directly what action he will be taking to ensure that the jobs there are maintained.

I have been in touch with Corus management in Wales, the Department of Trade and Industry, the First Minister and the trade unions. We are all working together to make sure that the Welsh plants at least survive this very difficult situation. It is extraordinary that the Corus management board is having to take its Dutch-based supervisory board to court to get a decent policy and strategy for the industry. I am sure that all Welsh Members, including the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), will join me in saying that it is time for the Corus supervisory board to support the loyal work force of Corus in Wales and to give the most productive and competitive steel industry in the world a chance to flourish and grow.

"like a handful of sand seeping through one's fingers."—[Official Report, 25 February 1999; Vol. 326, c. 575.]

In 1989, the GDP of Wales was 89 per cent. of the UK average. The latest figure is 82 per cent. That is not a success.

Is the hon. Gentleman saying—[Interruption.] I am about to answer, unless he wants to have another whinge. It is true that parts of the United Kingdom, especially the south-east, have raised their GDP per head much faster, but in real terms GDP per head has been rising swiftly in Wales. That is obvious in terms of employment, which is at record levels compared with recent decades; it is also obvious in the increased wealth and income spreading throughout Wales.

"an extreme Labour-controlled Assembly".

"way out to the left there in extreme territory lies Rhodri Morgan and his friends."

"ideology has any part to play in the health service."

On that subject, has my right hon. Friend had the opportunity to cost the impact of the Conservative party's proposed 20 per cent. cuts on the public services provided in Wales?

That is an interesting suggestion, which I may deal with, as a result of my hon. Friend's wise advice, sooner rather than later.

Does my right hon. Friend think that some of the confusion among Conservative Members arises from the fact that, according to their latest leaflet, they do not seem to be able to tell the difference between Belgian francs and pounds?

Indeed.

Will the Secretary of State explain to the House, as I am confused about the matter, why, in 1997, waiting lists in Wales were dramatically lower than they are now?

I was trying to provoke the hon. Gentleman to ask a question such as that, and he has duly obliged, for which I am grateful. What is interesting about those figures and the overall picture is that 200,000 more patients are being seen, and were seen last year, than in the last year of Tory government. That is a sign of the extra throughput in Welsh hospitals and other health institutions.

While I applaud the fact that the Labour Administration in Cardiff will not go down the dangerous route to foundation hospitals, such hospitals along the border will probably have the right to set their own rates of pay for medical staff, including nurses. Is not there a danger that the already severe crisis in retention of nursing staff in Wales could be made even worse as they are poached from over the border by high rates of pay?

No. Wales has decided to use a different model because Welsh needs, interests and values are different. The hon. Gentleman seems to think that the border can just be abolished, as though Wales can be floated off—which is his policy, of course. We have cross-border treatment now and that will continue, whatever the hospital structure.

Unlike the Secretary of State, I oppose foundation hospitals in Wales and in England. That is the contradiction that I am trying to tease out. Foundation hospitals in England will have a detrimental effect on the provision of health services in Wales.

That is simply not proven. The hon. Gentleman does not even want to be a Member of this Parliament in Westminster; he wants Wales to be independent, hived off as a separate state. So his assertions on the matter are as unfounded as his objectives are indefensible.

Order.

I am grateful for your protection, Madam Deputy Speaker, although I rather enjoy the heckling. It keeps them off the street.

While the Secretary of State is examining Plaid Cymru's performance in local government, will he consider Rhondda Cynon Taff, which I used to work for when it was run by the Labour party? The council got into trouble with the district auditor, but he gave a clean bill of health to the authority after Plaid Cymru took over and put its finances into order. He should also consider Gwynedd and Caerphilly, where we might win in the May elections. One can get very good odds on that. In Gwynedd and Caerphilly, the GMB had an independent report on where the best economic development had occurred in Wales and—

Order. That is very long for an intervention.

Caerphilly cut services under nationalist control. That is why we will win back Islwyn and retain control for Labour in Caerphilly.

My right hon. Friend may have noticed that, in that long intervention, the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) did not mention the role of Plaid Cymru in propping up the Conservative council in the Vale of Glamorgan for the past five years. It has cut support for disadvantaged communities and distributed it elsewhere.

My hon. Friend is right to point out what happens if the nationalists get the chance in power. Only recently, the nationalist presiding officer in the Assembly, Lord Elis-Thomas, said that he would find it impossible to have a coalition with Labour, but could envisage one with the Conservatives. They are not just Welsh nationalists but Welsh Tories, too. The Tories and the nationalists have collaborated in the past, both in local government and at Westminster, against Labour. Given the opportunity, they could do so again, so no one should be fooled into thinking that the Assembly elections do not matter, or that their vote will not make a difference. Our hard-earned economic progress, the record investment in public services and the partnership between Westminster and Cardiff that is enabling us to work together to tackle crime and poverty—and more—will all be at stake on I May in Wales's general election.

"Don't be afraid to exaggerate."

I thank the Secretary of State for including us in his speech, which is a relief to us. The crucial question for him—in the spirit of the type of politics that he promotes—is whether he is seriously suggesting that the Labour party could have implemented a significant proportion of the programme for government that was agreed between the Liberal Democrats and Labour, had we not entered into that coalition. The evidence that the Liberal Democrats were crucial in the arrangement is the fact that there is a divergence between Welsh Labour party policy and—

Order. I think that the Secretary of State will have got the point that the hon. Gentleman is making.

The hon. Gentleman is right to this extent: the coalition has brought stability to the Welsh Assembly Government, and that has been essential in delivering our programme. However, the policies are Labour policies. They are being implemented on a basis of stability. Our decision to create a stable Government was taken in the national interest; we did not form a coalition with the Liberals because we wanted to. We are determined to get an overall majority and we are working flat out for it. We want to win back the seats that we lost to the nationalists—in the Rhondda, Islwyn, Llanelli and Conwy—and to ensure that we hold our existing seats, and perhaps take Monmouth from the Tories. Those are our objectives to establish an overall Labour majority.

Earlier, the right hon. Gentleman spoke at length about the employment situation in Wales, in which there has been great improvement. Such has been the improvement that I am sure we could afford to have one other person on the slide—the statistical slide. It is time for the Secretary of State to sack his speech writer. This is rubbish.