What steps he is taking to enable the socially excluded to gain access to the internet; and if he will make a statement. [106159]

The Government are committed to ensuring that all who want access to the internet can have it by 2005, including those in areas of greater disadvantage. As services improve, it is important for everyone to have a chance to access those services in as convenient a way as possible, which includes electronic means.

As the Minister knows, access to the internet is one thing but access to broadband is something else. He will be aware that, compared with the United Kingdom, in the socialist countries of Scandinavia, 10 times as many people per head of population have access to broadband. Given that the Minister's boss, the Deputy Prime Minister, has decided to forget that he is a socialist, how can we ensure that more people, especially in socially deprived areas, have access to broadband? Without such access they will not have full access to the internet as the Minister and I understand it.

The hon. Gentleman's new commitment to tackling social exclusion is most welcome, if somewhat unexpected. There are now nearly 6,000 UK Online centres around the country, enabling all people from all corners of society to access the internet. Broadband is extremely important, and we are working not just with the Cabinet Office but with the Department of Trade and Industry to ensure that broadband can roll out across the United Kingdom, more than is possible in most other developed countries.

Will my hon. Friend join me in welcoming the arrival this week of ADSL broadband in Wemyss Bay in Inverkip in my constituency?

My hon. Friend is right: broadband offers new opportunities for swift and always-on internet access. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is primarily concerned with local government service provision, and one of the national projects that we seek to support is digital television access, which enables local people to apply for benefits or council services online.

Is the Minister aware that yesterday I spoke at the Country Land and Business Association conference on rural tourism? One of the most important points emerging from the CLA's excellent paper on the subject concerned the role of broadband in the marketing of rural tourism, and in helping people in the countryside whose lives are not all that easy and who may find it difficult to reach the larger markets that they deserve. Will the Minister assure us that, in line with Members on both sides of the House who are keen for more broadband access to be available in rural areas, he will urge British Telecom to pull its finger out?

I will give British Telecom a call—and I will look up the hon. Gentleman's speech when I next have a chance to view the CLA's website.

If he will visit Nottingham, North to discuss regeneration in the constituency. [106160]

I had the opportunity last September to visit Nottingham as part of a wider visit to the east midlands, and was encouraged to see the excellent regeneration work carried out by local partners. I understand that my noble Friend Lord Rooker has agreed to visit Nottingham later this year, and hopes to visit a number of regeneration projects in the city area.

I thank my hon. Friend for both his answer and his personal commitment on the question of travellers, which has been very well received in my constituency and, I know, in many others.

My hon. Friend should know that when I was in Nottingham, I discussed those matters with, among others, representatives of the chamber of commerce, the Greater Nottingham partnership and the One City partnership, which is the local strategic partnership. I conscientiously keep in touch with my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell) about developments in the Radford and Hyson Green new deal for communities.

If he will make a statement on the level of council taxes in England for the 2003–04 financial year.[106161]

The average council tax in England will increase by 12.9 per cent. in 2003–04. This average conceals very marked differences between councils and we are looking further at those councils whose council tax increase is exceptionally high. Increases on that scale are very difficult to justify in a year when every council received an above-inflation grant increase from Government. Councils must understand that continued year-on-year increases on that scale will not be acceptable.

I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. He will know that the council tax for an average band D property in the Deputy Prime Minister's own area of Kingston upon Hull has risen by 10.4 per cent. this year, but that compares with a 17.95 per cent. rise for an equivalent property in Devon. It is clear that there has been a transfer of funding from the shire counties to the Labour heartlands. Devon's population has a high proportion of pensioners, and many of them are on low incomes. They have seen their pension rise by the equivalent of 4.1 per cent. this year. Will the Minister explain clearly, succinctly and shorn of spin why they are being penalised by having to pay to shore up the Labour heartlands in the north?

There is no truth whatever in the hon. Gentleman's allegation. Devon county council will have to justify the large council tax increase that it is proposing to the pensioners whom he described because they will have great difficulty coping with a large increase. Those people will look at the contrast with councils such as East Devon district council and Labour-controlled Exeter city council, in which there are modest council tax increases despite their receiving relatively modest grant increases, and ask why Devon county council, which received a 4.2 per cent. increase in its Government grant, has increased their council tax by so much.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the highest council tax increase is being levied by a Conservative-controlled council? Wandsworth borough council is not only increasing its council tax by 57.3 per cent.—33 per cent. of that is on its own account—but it is underspending on education by £3 million and making petty-minded cuts to funding for a children's zoo and a nature studies centre.

My hon. Friend is right to point out that his local authority, Wandsworth borough council, has imposed the largest council tax increase of any authority in the country this year. He did not point out, although he might well have done, that the council chose last year—an election year—to cut its council tax by 25 per cent. There was a 25 per cent. cut in an election year and a 57.3 per cent. increase the following year. The people of Wandsworth will see through such a crude attempt to bribe the electorate.

Will the Minister confirm that the poorest 20 per cent. of households in England pay more than three times as much council tax, as a proportion of their income, as the richest 20 per cent.? Given that this year's record council tax rises will make that unfair situation even worse, when will this Labour Government act against the most unfair tax in Britain today? Why is the Labour party supporting an unfair Tory tax?

People who face large council tax rises will have to ask very searching questions of their councils, whether they are Conservative-controlled councils, which have imposed the largest council tax increases of any councils this year, or councils controlled by others. Although the hon. Gentleman might be critical of some aspects of the council tax, alternative proposals, which often come from his party, would have nightmarish consequences. If he favours a local income tax, he will have to explain how poorer areas will survive on substantially less revenue than rich areas in which wealthy people would pay more income tax.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on introducing a system of local government funding that is much fairer than that of the previous Tory Government. Will he assure me that he will end the system of floors and ceilings as soon as possible so that local authorities such as mine can get the resources to which they are entitled and councils such as Westminster and Wandsworth will not receive millions more than their entitlement under the new system?

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's thanks for our changes. We are committed to creating a fairer distribution system. His authority, which has received an increase of more than 8 per cent., appreciates that. However, local government welcomes floors and ceilings because they provide an element of certainty. That is especially important when many variables, including changes in population, can unexpectedly result in a significant fall in entitlement to grant. Floors provide protection against that, and we do not intend to withdraw that component in the grant distribution scheme.

In the past few weeks, the right hon. Gentleman has threatened local authorities with capping. In his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) today, he suggested that he was still considering authorities. Last week, the Department made it clear that it had decided not to cap. Does the Minister's reply to my hon. Friend therefore relate to this year or next year? Will he confirm that councils that are being forced to increase their council tax are doing nothing more than passing on the Labour Government's stealth tax? Is he reluctant to cap because he knows that if he does so, the spotlight will shine on his fiddled and discredited financial settlement?

I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is wrong on almost every count. That is not uncommon. Like any prudent Government, we are continuing to examine those authorities that have introduced very large council tax increases. I have made it clear that we shall do that next year, too. It is simply not sustainable for local authorities to impose increases of that order on their electorate. However, our policy is to give local government greater freedom and flexibility and not to intervene in the same way as the Conservative party when it was in power by crudely capping authorities and forcing them to make highly disruptive in-year changes.

What action he is taking to encourage partnership work between local authorities and business.[106162]

We are legislating to introduce business improvement districts in the Local Government Bill. Those schemes will allow local authorities and businesses to work together to put in place projects to improve their areas. Projects should include landscaping, more frequent street cleaning or faster removal of graffiti.

My right hon. Friend will know of the success of Cheshire Oaks in my constituency. Last year, it attracted nearly 7 million day visitors. The project is a partnership between the private sector in the form of McArthur Glen and the public sector in the form of the local authority and central Government. All have played important roles. Several Departments have been involved, most recently through West Cheshire college, which provides training for retail staff. Will my right hon. Friend bring that success to the attention of all his ministerial colleagues because all Departments have a role in such schemes?

My hon. Friend is right to describe such schemes as successful partnerships between the private and the public sectors. The Bill to which I referred takes that further to allow improved contracts between local authorities and local businesses by funding a levy system, which would permit an addition to the business rate.

In his mission to bring together local authorities and businesses, is the Deputy Prime Minister pursuing a strategy of unity in adversity? Does he know that, throughout the west country, councils and local firms are coming together, united in their opposition to a financial settlement that is leading to such massive council tax increases, closely followed by national insurance contribution increases? They constitute a tax on jobs.

It is a pity that the hon. Gentleman did not refer to the partnerships that have been established in the west country in the public and private sectors and developed by the west country development companies. They have provided many jobs and the hon. Gentleman should pay attention to that.

What the role of sport is in his campaign against social exclusion.[106163]

Sport is an important part of neighbourhood renewal. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport has now met its commitment under the national strategy for neighbourhood renewal of a £750 million lottery-funded programme to enhance school sports facilities, especially in deprived areas.

May I draw the Minister's attention to the report on sport and social inclusion recently published by the Central Council of Physical Recreation? To place it in context, I should like to quote a young teenager who said:

"It's good coming to … football because usually we play chicken—where the winner is the last person to jump out of the car we've set on fire."

I agree with my hon. Friend, who is absolutely right that sport can play an important role in areas of social deprivation. It can provide good diversion schemes, particularly for young people. I know that in my hon. Friend's constituency, Keswick town council has consulted local young people on the redevelopment of Fitz park, which my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister visited in February this year.

Will the Minister have a word with her colleagues in the Department for Education and Skills and explain that sport is important in education as well as in the community? With 75 per cent. of our young people not participating in the minimum two hours of physical education currently recommended on the school curriculum, that shows where the problem lies. Social exclusion and sport should go together.

I shall certainly draw my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of my colleagues in the Department for Education and Skills. I am also aware that many of the new deal for communities partnerships encourage sport, particularly among young people, and much good work is being carried out in that direction.

When the audit of sport facilities gets under way, will the Minister ensure that it starts in poorer communities first, so we can assess what facilities are available for the socially excluded?

My hon. Friend makes a good point, which I shall ensure is drawn to the attention of the appropriate Ministers.

If he will make a statement on his recent meeting with the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters. [106164]

On 10 March 2003 I chaired a meeting with the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters on behalf of the Prime Minister, who was unable to attend due to urgent parliamentary business. I was accompanied by my hon. Friend the Minister for E-Commerce and Competitiveness at the Department of Trade and Industry. We discussed a range of issues affecting the post office network, including the universal banking system.

I congratulate the Deputy Prime Minister on his successful intervention in the Department for Work and Pensions, which has reduced from eight to seven the number of bureaucratic obstacles facing pensioners opening a Post Office card account. Is he aware that that Department subsequently got its own back by requiring the Post Office to issue a banning order on leaflets from Age Concern, which offers advice to pensioners? Will the Deputy Prime Minister kindly intervene again?

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's remarks. He makes a fair point that the postmasters felt that there was too much bureaucracy in the development of the new card system, so we were pleased to be able to make changes to meet those criticisms. I note what the hon. Gentleman says and I will pass on his comments to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

Will my right hon. Friend make a statement on Crown post offices, which are closing all over the country, including in Northumberland. In Blyth, in my constituency, the last one will close at the end of this month. Will my right hon. Friend clear this up matter and tell us why Crown post offices are closing all over the country?

My hon. Friend will be aware that many thousands of post offices have closed. The Government have made available nearly £2 billion in subsidy to help make the sort of changes that he has described, both nationally and in rural areas. In the urban areas to which my hon. Friend referred, a fund of £210 million was announced, I think in December, to help areas deprived of post offices. We have laid out our criteria, and that should assist in preventing further closures.

The National Consumer Council, the Association of Subpostmasters, the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters, and Help the Aged have all criticised the new Post Office system. They say that the scheme has not been thought through, that obstacles have been put in the way of benefit recipients who want a Post Office card account, and that the new scheme will not meet the needs of the poor, the elderly or the disabled, who depend on it. Does the Deputy Prime Minister believe that all those organisations are wrong?

No, I think that the sub-postmasters made genuine criticisms of the Government. As the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) noted, we addressed one of the criticisms. It was a step in the right direction. Other criticisms were made, and we are in active discussion with the sub-postmasters. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the universal banking system was launched only yesterday. We hope that services will continue to improve, and that will benefit the post offices.

I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for that constructive response. However, as he knows, only one person in 20 wanted the changes, and fewer than one in 10 have taken up the Post Office card. Post offices face massive cuts in their income and are now being told that they will be paid less per transaction than in the past. That will cause even more serious income problems. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm or refute that members of Post Office management are being given incentives based on the number of post offices being closed?

I am not aware of the point that the right hon. Gentleman makes. I shall bring the matter to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who deals with these matters. However, I was powerfully impressed by the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters. Its members want change and are grateful for the £2 billion that we have given to assist in that change. That compares with what happened under the previous Administration: they gave nothing, and just sat there and watched the decline of post offices.

When my right hon. Friend was discussing the closure of urban post offices—four have closed in my constituency—did he discuss opportunities for councils to provide information points at post offices and sub-post offices? Should not the Government encourage a broader range of products, not just the lottery but connections for internet services and so on, so as to encourage more commercial opportunities for post offices and thereby ensure that they are viable in the future?

It was very clear to me from the meeting with the sub-postmasers that they very much welcome the general practitioners for Government role, and that offices could be accessed for a lot more information than at present. There is an awful lot of discussion going on about that. We tried two experiments under the "Your Guide" principle in Leicestershire and Rutland, for which we provided £25 million. So far, we have not been convinced that that is the proper way to go, but we are in continuing discussions with the Post Office.

Does the Deputy Prime Minister take any responsibility at all for the universal bank account? If so, will he take action to try to make the account more user friendly, so that users can at least set up standing orders and direct debits in order to take advantage of discounts on the utilities?

The hon. Gentleman makes a very fair point. The sub-postmasters made the point strongly that they wanted that. They feel that there are too many obstructions when it comes to transferring direct payments from the Department for Work and Pensions into people's accounts. We are doing all that we can to improve that.

What plans he has to increase the proportion of local government funding raised locally. [106165]

A major review of local government funding, including the balance of funding raised locally as against that provided by central Government, will begin, under my chairmanship, later this month.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that the fact that just 20 per cent. of local government finance is raised locally can isolate and disconnect local councillors from the consequences of their decisions? When will he change the balance between local financing and national financing?

Actually, the proportion raised locally is slightly higher than my hon. Friend suggests, but his key point is correct—it is important that there should be a strong link between local democratic accountability and raising finance for local services. That is precisely why we are initiating the review of the balance of funding that will look into those very issues.

But the Government already have a programme to increase the amount of tax raised locally—it is called the council tax. In a year in which they have increased national insurance contributions; settled the public sector pay and pensions increases; insisted on passporting education expenditure through even when there has been no grant to cover it; failed to recognise the crisis in social services; about which every Member in the House has been telling the Minister; and granted tax-raising powers to the Mayor of London, it is not surprising that council taxes have increased by a long way ahead of inflation. It is entirely the Government's responsibility.

The right hon. Gentleman was a Minister with responsibility for local government, so he will know that the grant increases that this Government have given—a 25 per cent. real-terms increase—compare favourably with the 7 per cent. cut in grant when he was a Minister. This Government support local government. It is Conservative-controlled councils that are raising the council tax.

If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 2 April.

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.

When, God willing, this war is successfully concluded, the Prime Minister will have to deal with the proposed European Union constitution put forward by the Convention on the Future of Europe. In what way has he modified his enthusiasm for a single European common foreign and defence policy in the light of recent events?

I have always believed that the common foreign and security policy should not be communitised, should not be within the Commission, but has to remain intergovernmental. That is the position that the Government have set out and it is the position that we will maintain.

My constituency is suffering today from a devastating blow—the news that Shell is to close its base in Lowestoft completely. The loss of the hundreds of jobs that are directly involved and the effect on local supply-chain businesses will punch a gaping whole in a town that is not unused to economic misfortune. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that all Government agencies do everything they can to mitigate that disaster and to help those who lose their jobs? Will he also look at what can be done to help towns such as Lowestoft where there are many good, hard-working people but, because of the town's peripheral location, it is hard to attract new businesses when we lose industries that have been there for so long?

First, I offer my sympathy to my hon. Friend's constituents who are likely to be made redundant as a result of that announcement. I am sure that Jobcentre Plus and the other agencies will work to ensure that the rapid response service that we now put in place where large-scale redundancies are announced will work with his constituents and their families to ensure that they are redeployed within the company or found jobs elsewhere. As I know from my constituency, the rapid response service has been immensely successful where it has been put in place. I can assure my hon. Friend that it will be in place in his constituency and I have certainly taken on board his final comments.

May I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to the courage of our armed forces and sending condolences to the families of those who have fallen, and in making it absolutely clear that we have the resolution to finish this job? The United States has now decided to send significant additional troops. Will the Prime Minister assure the House that contingency plans are in place for both replacement and additional British troops to be sent out to the Gulf?

I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that contingency plans are indeed in place to meet any eventuality, in particular the replacement of troops. At present, we do not believe that we need additional troops—we believe that we have the troops to do the job—but of course, we keep that under constant review. I am pleased to say that the way in which the British forces have performed in the southern part of Iraq, but also throughout Iraq, has been magnificent. We can take immense pride in them.

The Prime Minister is absolutely right to say that we can have immense pride in our own forces, who are performing brilliantly. However, the right hon. Gentleman knows that the Government must plan for every outcome. To ensure that extra troops are available if needed, two things surely need to happen. First, the Prime Minister must bring an end to the threat of strikes by firefighters. Will the legislation that he has published guarantee that there will be no further strikes, so that troops can be released without endangering the public? Secondly, the Prime Minister may need to reduce our other overseas military commitments. What discussions has he had with NATO allies to get them to share some of those burdens?

Some of those burdens are indeed shared by our allies. It is important that we continue to discuss that with them. We receive regular advice from our own military as to the troop deployments that we have and that we can afford to have without stretching our troops too far.

It is essential that the wider Arab world knows that this is a war to liberate and not to occupy Iraq, and a war to remove a dictator who has killed Muslims in their millions. Everyone will want to ensure that the war does not escalate. The United States has warned Syria and Iran about becoming involved. Why does the Prime Minister believe that that was necessary?

What the Americans said—and we back them up in saying it—was that we would not find it acceptable if equipment was transferred from Syria to Iraqi forces in the field, or if there was any suggestion of any support being given by any elements in Iran to troops who are attacking coalition forces. However, we maintain relations with both those countries to ensure that those things do not happen. It is important—particularly in relation to Iran—to recognise that we are in constant contact with them to ensure that the situation is not exacerbated in any way.

I agree fully with the Prime Minister. His answer leads to questions about post-Saddam Iraq. There appears to be some confusion about what the Prime Minister believes will be the role of the United Nations in post-conflict Iraq. Last week, the right hon. Gentleman told me that

"any post-conflict Iraqi Administration will have the UN's full endorsement."—[Official Report, 26 March 2003; Vol. 402, c. 283.]

That is a good question because it enables me to make this point clear. As soon as possible, Iraq should not be run either by the coalition or by the UN but should be run by Iraqis. It should be run by Iraqi people on the basis of a broadly representative Government who will protect human rights and be committed to peace and stability in the region. I am quite sure that that is what the vast majority of Iraqi people want.

I hear the Prime Minister's answer, but he knows that there is a debate in the UN in which two different views are being expressed. It appears that the United States Government are indicating that they want the UN to endorse a US administration of post-Saddam Iraq, while some European Governments are letting it be known that they want the UN itself to run a post-Saddam Iraq. What view does the Prime Minister hold with regard to either of those two views?

I do not doubt that there are differences within the UN; my experience of the past few months has taught me that it would be unusual if there were not. However, I think that those differences are reconcilable. Once the conflict ends, the coalition forces will be there and it will be important that we, the coalition countries, work in close consultation and partnership with the UN to try to develop the right type of Iraqi interim authority, which will be Iraqi in nature. As I said, I think that if we understand that it is in everyone's interests to get as quickly as possible to the point where the Iraqi Government is indeed Iraqi, not either UN-based or coalition force-based, we will approach this along the right lines. I do not doubt that there will be some differences of opinion as to exactly how we handle the transition, but, if I may say so, it is probably best that those differences are resolved as amicably as they possibly can be, because that is in the long-term interests of the people of Iraq.

The Prime Minister's answer shows, however, that there will be some interim period even if we do resolve this matter. During that period, British troops will still be involved in the post-conflict security and reconstruction of Iraq, although it is possible that we may not at that point have secured a UN mandate for reconstruction before the conflict is over. Will the Prime Minister clarify what would be the legal position of our troops in such circumstances?

Of course we must act within the law the entire time, but until the conflict is over the fact and the law are the same: the coalition forces are there and they have certain legal obligations that they have to administer. The moment the conflict ends, it is important to have in place a UN resolution that governs the situation, so that we provide both for humanitarian aid and, as we said in our Azores statement, for the endorsement of any post-conflict Iraq. There will be difficulties when we make the transition to the Iraqi interim authority as to precisely what the negotiations in the UN bring us, but the one point in common, whatever the differences, is that everybody understands that the situation has to be UN-endorsed. I believe that with the right will, we will get that UN resolution. This situation differs from all the discussions that we had over the so-called second resolution that we did not get, because in this case everybody in Europe—even those who oppose our position—and ourselves and the United States know that for all sorts of reasons we must have that UN endorsement.

My right hon. Friend will be aware that one of the small comforts that our troops have in Iraq is receiving a parcel from home. Is he aware, however, that the Scottish Daily Record has highlighted the prohibitive cost to hard-pressed families of sending such packages to the troops? Will he use his good offices to encourage the Secretary of State for Defence to consider reducing the price of sending packages from service families to their loved ones in Iraq?

I think that I said to the House last week that I would look into that issue, and I am pleased to say that my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary advises me that as soon as the operational situation llows—at the moment, there are problems getting packages to servicemen and women at all because of the operational situation—families will be able to send packets to their loved ones entirely free of charge. There is one qualification, which is that given the constraints on transport capacity the packets will have to be sensibly sized, but subject to that they will be free of charge.

Going back to the earlier exchanges, given the Foreign Secretary's proposal that there should be a post-military conflict United Nations-led conference on Iraq, can the Prime Minister clarify whether that idea has the active endorsement of the President of the United States?

Of course it is the case that we will need the UN to be involved, because it is a matter of agreement on both sides of the Atlantic that any Iraqi interim authority has to be UN-endorsed. The exact way in which we do that is what we are debating at the moment. We managed to do it highly successfully in Afghanistan, and I believe that there is no difficulty at all in getting the proper partnership between the coalition forces and countries and the United Nations.

Given that within just the past few days the Prime Minister has been to see President Bush on precisely this matter, can he be more specific about what the thinking is? Do he and the President of the United States envisage that the post-conflict Administration will be UN led or American led? Which will it be?

As I was trying to say before, we want to ensure that it is led by Iraqis—by the Iraqi people themselves. The process of transition from the conflict to that should be done by both the UN and the coalition forces. That is the necessary thing to do. The coalition forces will be there in the country; there is no way that they will suddenly disappear from the ground. In the immediate aftermath of the conflict, of course the coalition forces will be there. The UN has made it clear that it does not want to lead an Iraqi Government; what it wants is the ability to work with us, in partnership, to make sure that we assemble the broadest possible representation from within Iraq itself. I understand why people want to put those differences between ourselves and the United States, but the most intelligent way of proceeding is to recognise the basic principle that any transitional arrangements and the Iraqi interim authority must be UN endorsed. The rest is a matter of working in partnership with the UN, which, if we behave sensibly, we should be able to do easily.

Does my right hon. Friend believe, however, that we can win hearts and minds when there is an announcement from the United States that immediate post-war Iraq will be run by a former general who is president of an arms company and a declared supporter of Israel, and that a group of American Ministers will administer the Departments?

First of all, I again ask that my hon. Friend discount some of the stories about Americans running every part of this. As I said, there is bound to be a situation of transition where the coalition forces are de facto in control. That is necessarily the case, but our aim is to move, as soon as possible, to an Iraqi interim authority that will be run by Iraqis. As for the hearts and minds battle within Iraq, I ask my hon. Friend, as I ask others in the House and outside, to recognise that there are scenes that we do not see and that there are also events whose significance we cannot always determine until afterwards. If I may give one graphic example: in the first Baghdad street market bombing, it is increasingly probable that that was not a coalition bomb. It is taking us time to investigate this, but there was no target near it. We do not believe that that was one of our bombs, yet it obviously caused huge distress and also huge concern about the coalition forces' action. Increasingly, in the south of Iraq, where Iraqis really believe that we are here to stay, they are coming out and saying clearly that their total commitment is to liberate their country from Saddam. Of course, they do not want us to run their country any more than they want Saddam to run their country, but they recognise that if we hand the country over to the Iraqis—as we will—the Iraqi people will have their first chance for decent government in more than 25 years.

Can the Prime Minister give the House an assurance that, once the people of Iraq have ultimately been liberated, no member of the Ba'ath party will be given political asylum in the United Kingdom?

I do not think that I can dictate the rules of asylum as they apply, but I can certainly tell the hon. Gentleman that that certainly does not seem to be a very suitable case for asylum—let me put it like that.

May I return to the question about religious holy sites in Iraq? The Prime Minister is probably aware that after Mecca, where the Prophet was born, and Medina, where the Prophet lived, one of the next earliest holy sites founded was at the city of Basra, where British troops currently are. Will the Prime Minister assure me that those British troops are made aware of the significance of the area that they are in, and will he assure me that every effort will be made by the Government to protect those holy sites that are of such significance to Muslims around the world?

I can give my hon. Friend that assurance completely, and tell her that that is a matter of constant discussion, not just between the Government and the military in the field, but also between ourselves and the United States. We shall make every attempt that we can not just to refrain from attacking those sites but to ensure that we protect them as well. That is what we are trying to do.

:What role did the future of Gibraltar play in the Prime Minister's negotiations with Jose Maria Aznar in securing the support of Spain for the war against Saddam Hussein?

None whatever.

Many who just heard the Prime Minister's remarks concerning Iran and Syria will be very disturbed by them. Can he give an assurance to the House and the public that there is no question of either the coalition forces invading Iran or Syria, or of any further Turkish incursions into the north of Iraq, which would extend and prolong this dreadful war?

First, as the Foreign Secretary and I have made clear on many occasions, we have absolutely no plans to do the things of which my hon. Friend is, I suppose, accusing us. Secondly, in relation to Turkey, we have made it very clear that it is important that Turkey abides by the agreements that we have made with it, and I have to say that, so far, it has.

The Prime Minister will be aware of the deep concern about the outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome, originating in Asia, but now with sufferers in Australia, North America, Germany and the United Kingdom. With relevant Departments in the US and Canada, international businesses and now, from this morning, the World Health Organisation issuing directives advising against non-essential travel to countries in Asia badly affected by this pneumonia-like virus, but without any advice from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office—so far, none appears on its website—what advice does the Prime Minister give to the residents of the United Kingdom to protect their safety against that virus?

The Foreign Secretary has just informed me that, later today, we will issue travel advice to people in respect of that issue.

While the focus of the press has understandably been elsewhere, I wonder whether my right hon. Friend has noticed speculation about the prospect of some NHS services being charged for—new forms of co-payments, as they are called. Does he accept that, although my constituents understand that if we are to improve NHS services across the board, massive investment is needed and that has to be paid for—they are pleased to see that going in—they would be less happy if any NHS service were to be provided solely on the basis of ability to pay? Can my right hon. Friend give me a categorical assurance that that is not part of the Government's plans and will not be part of them?

I can give my hon. Friend that assurance, yes. The NHS will remain as it is—free at the point of use—and the massive investment that we are putting into the NHS will, as it is doing already, deliver the changes that we need to see in the health service, but we hold to the important principle that the NHS should be there on the basis of need, not on the basis of ability to pay.

Given the friendship between this country and Egypt, will the comments of President Mubarak yesterday that this war could create 100 bin Ladens affect its prosecution by coalition forces?

:I take anything that President Mubarak says extremely seriously because he is a wise man and good friend to this country. I believe that the question of how this turns out in the Arab and Muslim world will be dependent on what happens once this conflict is won. If people can see that the Iraqi people are given freedom, the ability to have a proper representative Government and protection on human rights and are able to enjoy their prosperity, I believe that across the Arab and Muslim world the message will be positive. I understand entirely that it is not now. That is hardly surprising given some of the claims that are made about coalition forces, but I believe that there will be a point when we can turn round and prove to people—this is the obligation on us—that this was indeed a war of liberation and that the people of Iraq are indeed the principal beneficiaries of it.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, when this conflict is over, there may be a need to review the constitution of the United Nations, especially on the enlargement of the Security Council, so that it can become a more effective and stronger body for the resolution of conflict in the 21st century?

I agree that there are issues to do with that. The difficulty always has been that, whenever people attempt to enlarge the Security Council, the issue is to get unanimity on exactly who should come on to it as permanent members. For that reason, it has always been difficult to reach agreement. I agree that there are issues concerning the UN as an institution that we need to take account of, but the main thing is to try to make sure that we reach some deeper consensus at a global level about what the proper agenda for the world in terms of both security and justice is for this century.

What would the Prime Minister say to my constituents in Eastbourne who are facing a 38 per cent. increase in their council tax this year, especially in the light of Government figures slipped out last week that show that up to 30 per cent. of elderly and vulnerable people who are entitled to help with their council tax never claim benefit?

First, as was pointed out by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister before Prime Minister's Question Time began, we have made a massive increase in the funding to local councils, an increase far greater than the Conservatives. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman is right to say that there are still people who do not claim the benefit rebates and other help to which they are entitled. However, those entitlements have risen enormously as a result of the measures that the Government have taken, which in almost every instance the Opposition opposed.

I have today received a letter from Archbishop Patrick Kelly expressing his grave concern about the Israeli wall. As my right hon. Friend will know, as we speak, the Israelis are constructing a wall 200 miles long and 8 m high that will divide communities, decimate fertile Palestinian land and completely surround the city of Qalqilia with its 30,000 inhabitants. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this latest manifestation is odious in the extreme? Will he do all that he can to ensure that it is removed as part and parcel of the road map to peace that is currently being negotiated?

It is important in the context of greater security and progress that we ensure that everything possible is done to allow the two-state solution to develop.

Does the Prime Minister agree that the passing last Thursday by the United Nations Security Council of the so-called third resolution—the oil-for-food resolution—demonstrates that the gap between the coalition on the one side and France and Russia on the other is perhaps not as large as some might think? Would he care to comment on the future chances of sensible resolutions in relation to Iraq given that the United Nations has recently elected Libya to chair the UN Commission on Human Rights?

My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary helpfully tells me that the UN Commission on Human Rights is separate from the UN Security Council.

I know that.

And I was about to say to the hon. and learned Gentleman that I knew that too. [Interruption.]

:It is right and proper that the Government's attention should be focused on the middle east, but I am sure that my right hon. Friend agrees that it would be wrong to lose sight of domestic issues, particularly the question of antisocial behaviour and youth crime throughout the UK. Could he therefore assure the House that there will be sufficient funds for those agencies and devolved Governments who are committed to deal effectively with that very important issue, which affects many people in our communities?

What my hon. Friend says is absolutely right—we should not forget the importance of the issue of antisocial behaviour. I know that the Scottish Executive are putting something in the region of £l0 million into initiatives across Scotland to tackle it, and here there will be the new Anti-Social Behaviour Bill, which will put a whole range of new powers and penalties into the hands of our police service, allowing them to deal quickly and effectively with the issue, which is a real problem for many communities in our country.

Has the Prime Minister read the eye-witness account by William Branigin of the Washington Post of the shootings near Karbala, which resulted in the deaths of seven women and children, many of whom were under five? Such deaths may be the inevitable and tragic consequence of war, but given the emotions that they stir up throughout the Islamic world, do they not make a powerful case about why it is a very bad idea for a combatant country to run a post-war Administration in Iraq?

First, in relation to the particular incident, of course it was a tragedy—a terrible tragedy. A full inquiry is being conducted, and we offer our condolences, I am sure, to the families of those who died. I hope that the hon. Gentleman understands that it is a very difficult situation for those soldiers at the checkpoints as well. I think that people will understand that, while accepting what a terrible tragedy it is. I hope that the hon. Gentleman also realises—this is the point that I was trying to make earliery—that tragedies that we do not see and that we do not hear of are also happening, carried out by Saddam's people in Iraq at present. To give an example that has come in the last 24 hours, reports from Basra and elsewhere say that young people who are refusing to fight have literally been shot in front of their parents—shot deliberately. The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but—

Answer the question.

I am sorry, but these things are relevant because they give a balanced picture of what is happening. No one is in any doubt about the appalling nature of war, but it is also right to point out those things that are not receiving the same publicity. As for post-conflict Iraq, surely it is important that we all agree that the best guarantee that it will have the support of the Iraqi people is that Iraqis are in charge of it. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, whatever the process of transition, as soon as possible that will be the case. Iraq in the end should not be run by the Americans, the British or any outside force or power. It should be run, for the first time in decades, by the Iraqi people.