If he will make a statement on the current state of progress on the Belfast agreement. [141214]

We believe that the agreement remains the only political framework that is capable of securing the support of both communities in Northern Ireland, and we are committed to its implementation. We are inviting the Northern Ireland parties to participate in the forthcoming review, which will consider how it might operate more effectively.

It is now five and a half years since the Belfast agreement, in which all parties confirmed that they would

"achieve the decommissioning of all paramilitary arms within two years"

The hon. Gentleman is right in the sense that decommissioning is an important part of the Good Friday agreement. Of course it is. Attempts were made before the elections, back in October, for further decommissioning. The issue has not gone away and of course we have to address it, but I still believe that the majority of people in Northern Ireland are in favour of the Good Friday agreement. I said that the review will consider how the agreement has operated in the past four years. However, any accommodation for governing Northern Ireland has to take into account the fundamental principles of that agreement: the sharing of power between nationalists and Unionists, based on the principles of consent and of a non-violent democratic Northern Ireland.

The Secretary of State knows that the Democratic Unionist party has been in political discussions with the Irish Government for some time. What information have the Irish Government given to the Secretary of State that indicates clearly that, in effect, the DUP wants to work the agreement rather than smash it? Will the Secretary of State say, on the basis of that information and his meetings with the DUP, when we might expect these poachers to become gamekeepers?

My hon. Friend knows that we face challenging and interesting times. That does not mean, however, that all the parties that were elected to the Assembly in last week's elections will not be talking. My meetings over the past couple of days indicate that all parties will be in a position to talk to me about the issues that affect the Good Friday agreement. So far as the Irish Government are concerned, the Taoiseach made it absolutely clear that he is prepared to engage in discussions and negotiations on various issues in the review. I understand, too, from the Democratic Unionist party that, where appropriate, it would not be averse to talking to the Irish Government.

Does the Secretary of State agree that recent events have not changed the underlying problem? Indeed, if anything, they have brought that problem into sharper focus. As other hon. Members suggested, the problem is the failure of republicans to deliver the end of paramilitarism and the full decommissioning that the agreement presented. Should not the Secretary of State focus on that rather than re-arrange the details through a review that looks only at the mechanics of the institutions and their operation? Should he not keep the focus on the failure of republicans to deliver peace, wholly and completely? What we need is not just a further act of decommissioning, but the completion of that process and to address properly the winding up of paramilitary organisations.

The right hon. Gentleman is right. We cannot avoid the issues that he describes. Of course it is important to deal with issues such as decommissioning, the end of paramilitary activity and the need to move towards a wholly peaceful and democratic society in Northern Ireland. Those discussions and negotiations, in which he was involved in October, must resume. At the same time, he knows that under paragraph 8 of the Good Friday agreement we are obliged to hold a conference on reviewing it, but in no way does that diminish the fact that his points are valid.

However the DUP feels about the Belfast agreement, are not its Members obliged to go along with it, if only because of acts undertaken by the Provisional IRA to end its role in beatings, exiling people, holding arms and racketeering? If that is out of the road, the DUP and Sinn Fein can unite democratically in the Executive.

More than 70 per cent. of those elected to the Northern Ireland Assembly last week support parties that are in favour of the Good Friday agreement. I believe that the fundamentals of that agreement in terms of the accommodation that we need to arrive at are common to many in Northern Ireland, perhaps even those who never voted for the agreement in the first place. My hon. Friend is right to say that we cannot avoid the issues that he describes—of course we cannot. However, the immediate matter facing us is that we must try to restore the institutions of the Assembly and the Executive, but the issues that prevented the restoration of the Executive are still with us and need to be resolved.

Will the Secretary of State accept that the process requires the support of Unionists as well as nationalists, and that in last week's elections a clear majority of Unionists voted for change and for an end to the current process, which has failed, stalled and needs to be replaced? Will he not accept the fact of the election: that the DUP won more votes than any other party and more seats than any other party? However much he, his colleagues and other hon. Members may not like that or may choose to ignore it, will he now give an undertaking that the Government will stop isolating, marginalising and excluding the real representatives of Unionism and instead work with us to find a better way forward for Northern Ireland—a stable way forward, an accountable and democratic way forward, one that does not elevate—

Order. Supplementaries are supposed to be brief.

Of course we recognise that there has been a change in the electoral geography of Northern Ireland. Of course we accept that parties, including the hon. Gentleman's, have now been elected with mandates. However, he will know that with those mandates comes responsibility. The responsibility lies on us all—on his party, on all the parties in Northern Ireland and on the two Governments—to try to ensure that we can restore our institutions in Northern Ireland. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees with me that, although times are challenging and difficult, Northern Ireland is a much better place than it was 10 years ago because of what has happened under the Good Friday agreement and others.

As the longest-serving Front-Bench spokesman on Northern Ireland, on behalf of the whole House, I welcome the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) to his new role.

Yesterday, together with the Irish Foreign Minister, I wrote to all the parties in Northern Ireland asking them to tell me and my colleague in Dublin what issues they felt needed to be addressed in the review and what the process and procedure of that review should be. I expect replies by the end of December, and the hon. Gentleman can rest assured that the review will start when we come back after the Christmas break.

I wonder if there is a system over there in Northern Ireland in which after an election, there is a swearing-in process, and when people have sworn in, they get paid. May I take it that the new Assembly Members will get paid, even though they are going to sit on their hands?

I am not sure what they are going to sit on—[Laughter.] What is certain is that Members of the Legislative Assembly will be paid 70 per cent. of their salaries, as they were when the Assembly was suspended a year ago. There are two reasons for that. First, when Members are elected to a Parliament, such as our own or the Northern Ireland Assembly, they expect the Parliament to meet; however, for various reasons, the Assembly cannot do so and, for all the reasons that I have just described, we cannot restore it. Secondly, my hon. Friend can rest assured that that is not a permanent solution and that we shall carefully review it regularly.

I start by wishing the Secretary of State well in his forthcoming talks with the leaders of the Northern Ireland political parties. Although the Opposition have never treated bipartisanship as though it were a blank cheque, we shall, as far as we can, continue to support the Government in the search for a political settlement that is acceptable to both communities in Northern Ireland.

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on becoming the shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I know that he has a great interest in these matters and I wish him well in his new job.

The Secretary of State referred to this year's joint declaration. Does he recall that in the joint declaration the Government's proposed two-year programme of security normalisation was declared to be conditional upon

"acts of completion and with positive community support for the police at all levels."

We have not reached the point at which we can give any dates or timetables on those condition elements. The hon. Gentleman is right in pointing to the parts of the joint declaration that identify them. Our concentration at the moment must be on the restoration of the institutions, and that is why we will be talking with all the political parties in the days and weeks ahead.

What plans he has to bring forward legislation in the period following elections to the Assembly to deal with antisocial behaviour in Northern Ireland. [141215]

I am considering measures to deal with antisocial behaviour, and in particular whether something similar to an antisocial behaviour order could be developed that could operate within the different local government structures that exist in Northern Ireland.

I welcome the Minister's positive response. Will he give us a guarantee that the package will not be unduly delayed? We must bear in mind that housing associations continue to allocate housing to people who have been moving from one place to another. They are jumping the queue because of their antisocial behaviour, to the consternation and destruction of good communities.

I take the points made by the hon. Gentleman. He and the impressive delegation from his constituency made those points in detail when they came to see me. I stress, first, that I intend to consult fairly soon. Secondly, the issue is about not only legislative changes, but the administration of the system and making sure that the Housing Executive, housing associations and other Government agencies take these matters seriously at all levels and implement actions in real time to the benefit of well-behaved orderly citizens and their families, who should not have their lives, their family life and their neighbourhoods disrupted by antisocial elements.

Does the Minister agree that if the acts of normalisation in the joint declaration—to which my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) referred—are to take place, not only antisocial behaviour, but punishment beating, racketeering and other criminal acts must cease? Will he urge all the democratic parties that took part in last week's elections to support the police to ensure that that happens?

May I first congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his new Front-Bench appointment? We have made our opposition to all forms of paramilitary behaviour very clear. The hon. Gentleman is indeed right that that is an additional factor in the problems on some housing estates. However, none of that detracts from the responsibility of state agencies to ensure that people who are committing acts of antisocial behaviour and have persistent patterns of offending are dealt with rapidly and effectively for the benefit of orderly families and estates.

What measures he is taking to halt the decline in numbers of the Irish hare. [141216]

The Department of the Environment in Northern Ireland is currently considering a number of steps. We have a species action plan to double the number of Irish hares by 2010 and we are reviewing whether the Irish hare should be given protection at all times under the Wildlife (Northern Ireland) Order 1985. Meanwhile, I am looking at a proposed temporary ban on the killing or taking of Irish hares, and we are encouraging the provision of Irish hare sanctuaries by landowners.

I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend on advancing and strengthening the decision made by Assembly Members in 2001 to restrict the hunting of hares. I welcome the temporary ban, which will mean no hunting or coursing of Irish hares in Northern Ireland, but if and when the scientific evidence again shows that hare numbers are under severe pressure, will she find the means to ensure that the ban is made permanent and the hare is removed from the list of quarry species?

My hon. Friend's interest in the issue and his concern about protecting the hare are well-founded. I can assure him that when we look at the Wildlife (Northern Ireland) Order all scientific evidence will be taken into account. After consultation it will be the appropriate measure to use to end the killing of all hares.

The Minister will be aware that I used to be retained as a consultant to the Countryside Alliance, as she was retained by the League Against Cruel Sports. From our different points of view, we both admire that noble animal, the Irish hare. Why is she using her personal prejudice, as hare coursing is muzzled in Northern Ireland? No animals are killed and a professor and a doctor of biochemistry from Queen's university, Belfast say that

"hare coursing clubs benefit the Irish hare population".

Order. The House is getting far too noisy again, and it is important that I hear the Minister's answer.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman declared his personal interest. My interest concerns the welfare and numbers of the Irish hare. Unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman misquoted Professor Montgomery, who did not say what was cited. In fact, it was Professor Montgomery who first asked the Department to consider removing the Irish hare from the list of quarry species. However, all those matters will be considered in the light of scientific evidence. There is no way in which I could allow the netting of hares for hunting and coursing following the Assembly's decision to protect the Irish hare.

What plans he has to encourage the take-up of broadband services in Northern Ireland. [141217]

Invest Northern Ireland is currently undertaking a major programme to encourage the take-up of broadband services by small and medium-sized businesses, including the provision of both practical advice and financial support to businesses.

Getting businesses to take up broadband is extremely important, but at the moment, while 22 per cent. of businesses in the UK have taken it up, the figure is only 12 per cent. in Northern Ireland. Will my hon. Friend explain exactly how he intends to raise that figure to the welcome target of 20 per cent. by 2005?

My hon. Friend takes a keen interest in telecommunications issues, and is right that at the moment we lag behind the rest of the UK in broadband take-up. We have a clear strategy on take-up, and there is a financial package that provides up to £5,000 of installation and first-year running costs to businesses. We have a major programme of awareness events to promote broadband, and we currently have a tender to ensure that we improve access to broadband. At the moment, only 65 per cent. of companies have access to broadband, which is a significant problem, but we are sorting it out.

Is the Minister in a position as yet to indicate who will be the successful tenderer to provide broadband internet services across Northern Ireland? Does he agree that the talent and ability of locally based companies in Northern Ireland should be harnessed by the successful bidder so that broadband is rolled out, and so that all our councillors, for example, can be contacted by e-mail and so on at their local councils?

I obviously cannot disclose the results of the tender exercise, which is still in its final stages. We hope to be able to make an announcement shortly, when the evaluations have taken place. Obviously, we are bound by EU procurement rules, but I am keen to encourage and support Northern Ireland indigenous businesses. A number of them already provide broadband services across the region, and as a Government, we are certainly committed to providing support to them as they go forward.

What assessment he has made of the prospects for reinstatement of devolved government in Northern Ireland following the elections to the Assembly. [141218]

As the Assembly election showed, the main parties and the great majority of the people who voted for them want to see devolved government. The future of devolution now depends on engagement among the parties. We shall provide all the help we can to secure a basis on which the Assembly can be restored and a functioning Executive quickly established on a stable and inclusive basis.

I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. I congratulate all those who have been newly elected to the Northern Ireland Assembly. Can he assure me that, as he works with the parties and the Taoiseach in Dublin on how to restore the devolved institutions, he will draw into those negotiations and discussions all those who have been newly elected and are indeed drawing 70 per cent. of their salary, so that they have a job to do?

I can give my hon. Friend precisely that assurance. She will know that the way in which the Good Friday agreement was created, and the reason for its success, was that everybody was involved in the discussions and negotiations. All parties in Northern Ireland will have that opportunity to discuss among themselves, with me and with the Irish Government how we restore devolved institutions in Northern Ireland. [Interruption.]

Order. I again appeal to the House: it is far too noisy, which is unfair to Northern Ireland Members and others who are present.

As the restoration of devolved government is now less likely because of last week's elections, is it not clear that there is a need to draw lessons from those elections? Is not the most important lesson that a lot of decent, moderate people in Northern Ireland rightly voted for the agreement after receiving handwritten pledges from the Prime Minister, but those pledges have now been broken? Can we have an undertaking that the Prime Minister will not break further pledges and harm the peace process in Northern Ireland?

I certainly do not think that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is harming the peace process in Northern Ireland—far from it. I think that the commitment that he has made to peace in Northern Ireland is exceptional. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it is, of course, more difficult and challenging to restore the institutions, but I also remind him that, compared with the problems, challenges and difficulties of the past, it is still a possibility.

Is it not the case that the Belfast agreement had the support of the majority of people in Ireland, both north and south, and represents an international treaty, which means that it cannot be renegotiated? Therefore, is it not the responsibility of every constitutional party, including the Democratic Unionist party, as the largest Unionist party in Northern Ireland, to now sit down and form a Government?

My hon. Friend is right that the Good Friday agreement is based on an international treaty and, of course, on the results of referendums north and south. At the same time, he is also right that all the parties elected to the Assembly last week need to play their part in restoring devolution. He will know that I met the Democratic Unionist party this week, and I believe that further discussions will take place between us.

What steps he is taking to increase the availability of anti-TNF drug treatment for rheumatoid arthritis in Northern Ireland. [141219]

Extra recurrent funding has been provided, which has started the first phase of a three-phase project with a view to extending those therapies to 60 more arthritis sufferers by the end of the year. However, the decision on the appropriate therapy for an individual patient is a matter for the clinician concerned, in consultation with the patient.

I am grateful to the Minister for that reply, and I welcome it, but will she kindly clarify whether the Government have any plans to compensate rheumatoid arthritis sufferers in Northern Ireland for the Government's failure to extend the appropriate National Institute for Clinical Excellence guidelines to Northern Ireland at the same time as they are extended to England and Wales?

It is important to ensure that the NICE guidelines apply to Northern Ireland. We are actively considering that and will make moves to do it as soon as is practical.

If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 3 December.

Before I list my engagements, I am sure that the whole House will join me in expressing our deep condolences to the Spanish and Japanese Governments and to the families of those who were killed in the attacks in Iraq at the weekend. Despite those attacks, both Governments are determined to continue helping the coalition to form a democratic and prosperous country for the Iraqi people, by the Iraqi people.

I thank the Prime Minister for that, and I certainly join him in the condolences that he expressed.

I will certainly look into the specific point that the hon. Gentleman raises. Of course, it is important that our troops have all the protection that they need. I think that he would accept that, although the security situation in Iraq is extremely difficult, one thing is very clear: the coalition forces, particularly the British troops down in the south, are doing everything that they can to make life better for the Iraqi people. The irony of the situation is that despite the terrorist attacks, much that is valuable is being done in Iraq for the Iraqi people. That is why it is so important that we continue to fight the terrorists and to make progress for the Iraqi people, then to prepare for the handover of power to the Iraqi people, which will give Iraq democratic government for the first time.

Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming today's lobby with the National Union of Students? Speaking as an ex-president of that august body, will he take some gently given advice? The biggest barrier to access for people from my community is not debt but the absence of the aspiration to go into higher education, because even when we had the full grant, only 20 per cent. of people from the poorest communities went to university.

I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. The Government proposals are far more fair than the existing system or what went before, because they abolish the up-front fee altogether and make it a graduate repayment scheme The point that my hon. Friend makes is absolutely right: we need to widen access to our universities and to fund the system fairly. It is important that we manage to do that without putting all the burden on to the general taxpayer, the vast majority of whom have not been to university.

Yet again, I join the Prime Minister in sending my condolences to the Governments and families of those who lost their lives in the most recent tragic incidents in Iraq.

Many people, including those in universities, believe that this is essential in order to widen access. This morning, we heard an interesting contribution to the big conversation from the right hon. and learned Gentleman's own spokesman on higher education, who said in respect of universities:

"I do accept that there has been under funding, not just under the Conservative government but in the last 7 years as well".

Answer.

Order. I do not want the Secretary of State for Education and Skills shouting at the Leader of the Opposition. It is difficult enough when Back Benchers, who are far away, do that but worse when the shouting is within earshot.

Let me remind the Prime Minister that it is my duty to ask questions on behalf of the country and his to answer questions on behalf of the Government. If he wants to swap places with me, I am happy to do that today, tomorrow, next week, next month—any time he likes. However, for the moment, it is his duty to answer the questions. He did not answer the first question, so let us try again.

Of course we will always listen to what people say. However, they are saying that we need to fund lifelong education, which includes pre-school, adult skills and higher education. I want to enter into a conversation with the right hon. and learned Gentleman because people have a choice: our proposals, which mean that graduates pay back something that is linked to ability to pay, or his proposals. A day or two ago, the head of Universities UK said about the Conservative proposals:

"The result would be that, by 2010, more than 460,000 eligible young students would be denied places at university".

Let me make it clear: this grammar school boy will take no lessons from that public school boy on the importance of children from less privileged backgrounds gaining access to university. If the case for top-up fees is so overwhelming, why, only two years ago, did the Prime Minister promise in his manifesto not to impose them? He appears to have forgotten that, at the last election, we both stood on manifestos that promised not to impose top-up fees on students. The difference between us is that I am honouring our manifesto pledge and he is breaking his.

I have said that of course we will listen to people, but we must deal with the facts. The right hon. and learned Gentleman remarked that he was a grammar school boy and I am a public school boy. Many people went neither to grammar schools nor to public schools. Let us consider their interests. Surely it is in their interests to be able to go to university and for university places to be available. He wants to debate policy. Here is the policy choice: if we want to increase the number of people going to university and—[Interruption.] Conservative Members say, "What's the point?" I shall tell them: the point is to offer educational opportunity to all not a few. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman admits that, as his spokesman says, universities are currently underfunded, where does the extra money come from: general taxation or graduate repayment? Let us have a straight answer from him in this big conversation.

The question was about hospitals. Three questions have been asked and none answered. Let us try again. People are interested in the conversation; they want to know where the Prime Minister stands. If, in the big conversation, people make it clear that they want a say on the European constitution, will the Prime Minister give them a referendum?

We have not got the European constitution yet. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman may have noticed, it happens at the end of this month. If he wants me to deal with hospitals, let us deal with hospitals. [Interruption.] Oh yes, we will deal with hospitals. [Interruption] He wanted me to deal with it, now suddenly he does not. That is because he does not want to deal with the choices on the NHS either, so let us go to the NHS and the choices. We have a report this morning on the national health service saying that, as a result of the extra investment, we have more nurses, more doctors and more people being treated and treated more quickly. Now, we are in favour of that extra investment going in. Here is another point in the big conversation: is he in favour of it or not?

It really does not bode well for the big conversation if in this quite small conversation the Prime Minister is not prepared to answer the questions. If he is not prepared to listen to the answers that he gets on top-up fees or on foundation hospitals or on the European constitution, what on earth is the point of this ludicrous exercise? Does not he realise quite how ridiculous he is beginning to look? If he will not listen to the people, why on earth should anyone listen to him?

But we do listen to people. We listen to them—[Interruption.] Oh yes. Let me tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman how we have listened to people. We listened to people after 18 years of Conservative government and let me tell him what they told us. They said they wanted an end to boom and bust economics, and we provided it. They said they wanted an end to mass unemployment, and we provided it. We are talking about the future—things for which we have answers and he has none. We have talked to people about the national health service. They say they want that extra investment going into the health service. We have a report this morning showing that people are getting better treatment as a result. Now, in this conversation—small, I admit, between me and him, and rather closed on his part—is he prepared to commit the Conservative party to matching our NHS spending?

My right hon. Friend may be aware of yesterday's major lobby by construction workers from the oil industry, expressing concern about the importation and exploitation of cheap foreign labour in this country. Will he take seriously the concerns expressed? In my view, regardless of what gear he may be in, if we do not take seriously the concerns expressed by the workers, some of us on this side of the House may be looking out our old working gear.

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the issues in manufacturing industry. Of course, one of the main issues there is to ensure that we have modern apprenticeships where we can get the skilled work force of the future. That is why it is important that the Government are increasing those to about 200,000 modern apprenticeships a year. The other thing for industry is to ensure that we have stability in our economic conditions. The reason we have that stability is low interest rates, low inflation and low unemployment.

Given that the Prime Minister and Downing street have made it clear on top-up fees that he is prepared to go to the wire, that he is putting his job on the line and that there is no turning back, can he clarify for Parliament whether that means that whenever this vote comes he will regard it as a vote of confidence in his Government?

I answered that question yesterday. Of course it is important for the Government; all these votes are important for the Government. The important thing between now and the vote is an argument about the alternatives. We have had the alternatives from the Conservative party. It would be terribly unfair and regressive to cut the number of people able to go to university. What is the right hon. Gentleman's alternative? His alternative is to raise the top rate of tax to 50 per cent. That is completely unfair, because there is no way—[Interruption.] Yes it is unfair, because there is no way that he can fund all the commitments that he has out of that top rate of 50 per cent.

The Prime Minister has confirmed the fundamental importance of that vote, when it comes. Therefore he is saying that he is prepared to force his MPs through the Lobby on a confidence vote to introduce a policy in direct contravention of what his party said in its manifesto. Is that the action of a Prime Minister who is a strong leader or, in fact, an increasingly desperate one?

What is interesting about both sets of exchanges is that neither Opposition leader has wanted to argue about the merits of the policy for the simple reason that the longer this argument goes on, the clearer it will be what the alternatives are. We have exposed the Conservative alternative, so let me expose the Liberal Democrat alternative.

My right hon. Friend will know that yesterday Philips LG announced that it was to close the glass factory at Simonstone, at which I used to work before I became a Member of Parliament. The factory is in the Ribble Valley constituency, but most of the workers reside in mine. Does my right hon. Friend accept that, while we must fight to save that factory, because of the new deal and what the Labour Government have done, those workers now have a better chance of getting a job when the factory closes next year than they would have had under the Tories 20 years ago?

My hon. Friend makes an important point. In any economy, from time to time people will lose their jobs. What is important is that the Employment Service and the new deal provide additional hope for those people, so that if they lose their job, they can at least have some hope of moving on to fresh employment. The solution offered by the Conservative party, which is to scrap the new deal that has helped 800,000 people, would return us to precisely the days when the right hon. and learned Gentleman was Employment Secretary and unemployment was more than 3 million.

Will there be legislation to ban hunting in this parliamentary Session?

As I said when I was asked this question during the Queen's Speech debate, we have said that we will resolve the issue in this Parliament, and we will resolve it in this Parliament.

If no weapons of mass destruction are found in Iraq, would this Parliament be right to expect resignations to follow at the highest level of Government?

The reason that we took the action in Iraq was that, as the United Nations itself stipulated last November, it was clear that Saddam Hussein was a threat. It is also absolutely clear to me that weapons of mass destruction are a real issue, not just in Iraq but in the wider world. I believe entirely in the information that was given to us at the time. We will carry on the search for those weapons through the Iraq survey group, which should be allowed to complete its work before anyone makes up their mind.

Given the need to protect investors and encourage personal saving, does the Prime Minister agree that when banks like Abbey National expose customers, such as my constituents Roger and Mary Mayhew, to inexperienced and poorly trained staff who give bad advice and then leave the company, there is a special responsibility on financial institutions to protect their customers and uphold the clear verbal commitments that have been given?

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman's constituents have had that experience. In general terms, he is right that there is such a duty. We have tried to put in place a robust regulatory regime for investment advice through the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, which gives the Financial Services Authority a clear remit to regulate the financial industry. If individuals are dissatisfied with the advice that they receive, or feel that they have had advice from people who are not properly qualified to give it, they can refer their complaint to the independent financial ombudsman service to help to resolve the dispute. I am sure that if that is done they will at least have a process through which to gain redress.

May I thank my right hon. Friend for listening to the all-party group on domestic violence and for bringing forward a Bill on domestic violence, which many of us waited decades for? Will he ensure that the systems are robust and will spearhead other legislation so that when victims bring complaints, they feel secure that they will be taken seriously, and that systems are in place to support them through going to court and afterwards, so that they are safe in their own homes?

It is an important measure and I hope that it will gain support from all parts of the House. It amounts to the biggest overhaul of domestic violence legislation for somewhere in the region of 30 years. We are putting nearly £20 million this year into building new refuge places and over £50 million into refuge provision through the supporting people programme. It is worth pointing out that this is one of the key areas of violent crime in the country and that about two women every week lose their lives through domestic violence, so tougher measures together with support is the right way to go. As I say, I hope that recommends itself to the whole House.

Given what the Prime Minister said in response to the leader of the Liberal Democrats, does he believe that his own party now believes that the vote on top-up fees is a vote of confidence in him?

I am afraid that I have nothing to add to what I said earlier. Of course, it is an important vote. I hope that people make up their minds on the merits, but let us have a debate then about the merits of the respective proposals. What is very interesting in this debate is that it seems to me that I am the only one who actually wants to talk about the disciplines imposed by facing up to the future challenges that this country faces. If we are going to finance higher education in a fair way, it cannot be right that the ordinary taxpayer has to do it all. A system that abolishes up-front fees and allows people to make a modest contribution, a fair amount, once they are graduates, seems to me a fair way to go. If there are alternatives, let us hear them.

What more does the Prime Minister intend to do about the scourge of AIDS in the world, given that the statistics in Africa are now reaching epidemic proportions? We need to put more effort into that campaign.

It is important that we first recognise the scale of the problem. Some 20 million people have already died. A further 3 million people will die this year of HIV/AIDS. It is a true crisis of international proportions. Not merely are we doubling our funding to UNAIDS but we are the second biggest bilateral donor after the United States on HIV/AIDS and our funding has increased sevenfold over the past three years. It is almost £300 million in this financial year. We have to do everything we possibly can to ensure that we put the support in but also reduce the price of the drugs to treat people in some of the poorest countries in the world. We are working with the drug companies to do that, because with the right combination of measures on prevention and treatment, there is no doubt that we can make a significant difference to the problem.

Does the Prime Minister recall that, in the previous Parliament, I introduced a Bill on nuisance high hedges, which his Government have now adopted? Can we look forward to his accepting further initiatives from Conservative Members?

It has to be said that the hon. Gentleman is a remarkably prescient and sensible Conservative Back Bencher and I am delighted that we have done what he suggested a few years ago. That only goes to show that, on the rare occasions when Conservative party people say sensible things, we listen.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in cases of domestic violence, which, as he said, claims the lives of two women a week, it should be the man who is placed in the refuge pending a decision by the court on who should occupy the family home? It should not be the battered woman and screaming children who have to flee the family home away from social networks. When will the criminal justice system put the interests of the victims—the children and the mother—ahead of the interests of violent men and ensure that abusive and criminal men pay the full cost of their action?

The Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill will allow the man to be evicted from the home in circumstances of domestic violence but also to be put under greater restraint in terms of his ability to get near either his female partner or the children. It is important to recognise also that the Bill will impose far stricter penalties for breaches of non-molestation orders. It is the combination of the additional money and the stronger penalties that will do the trick.

The armed forces are doing a difficult and dangerous job, acquitting themselves with great skill, professionalism and courage. Is the Prime Minister satisfied that the equipment that they need to do their job properly is being brought into service without the unnecessary slippages and shortcomings highlighted regularly by the Public Accounts Committee?

I am as satisfied as I can be of this: we have made it clear to the military that there should be no cost constraint on making sure that our forces are properly equipped for the dangerous work that they are doing in Iraq. Obviously, issues of logistics—what equipment is purchased and how it gets out there—are left to the military, but prompter action is taken on some of these issues than is sometimes suggested. When issues are raised, we look at them carefully.

I know that the Prime Minister will be well aware of the musical works of Paul Simon. I am not asking for a rendering of "Fifty Ways to Leave Your Lover", but will he publish the 40 ways that the Department of Education and Skills has identified as possible means of funding the expansion of higher education? If the big conversation is to have meaning, it has to be an informed conversation with the public. By publishing those 40 ways and giving the public a chance to scrutinise and decide for themselves, we might find that they were able to offer us their version of a "Bridge over Troubled Water."

First, I congratulate my hon. Friend on his extensive knowledge of Paul Simon's repertoire. Secondly, it is of course important that we have the debate on the basis of the fullest possible information. We are happy to make available the information that we have, but the choice is simple. If we want to expand the numbers going to university and if we believe that universities are underfunded—apparently, that is now the consensus among Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members—there are only two ways of paying for that. It either comes out of some form of contribution from students, as well as the additional investment from the state, or it comes from general taxation. [Interruption.] It is perfectly fair to say that it can come from general taxation. But is it fair to ask the majority of the population, who have not been to university—some of whom are on low incomes—to pay even more taxes so that others can go to university? I do not think so, but let us have the debate based on the real policy options and not on some imaginary hypothesis where everyone can get everything for free and there is no difficulty for everyone else.

What is more important to the Prime Minister: developing relations with Commonwealth leaders in Nigeria or coming home early to have his picture taken with Jonny Wilkinson?

As a matter of fact, I am coming home early not for the rugby reception, but for a private appointment of a different nature altogether.

A few years ago, I suggested that if we were not careful with sport in this country, we would end up like the United States, which has a small number of highly professional sportsmen and women while everyone else simply watches sport. With the success of the Rugby Union world cup, the European championships in Portugal and the Olympic bid, we have a huge opportunity to promote participation in sport. Will the Government seize that opportunity?

I pay tribute to the work of my hon. Friend on the Tackle Learning initiative, which aims to engage a series of partnerships involving rugby union, rugby league and effective working and learning for young people. Some 80 centres are involved, 90,000 pupils have gained and there is a target of opening at least 100 centres. As he knows, we are spending about £1 billion on school sport. I can assure him that we will do everything we can to encourage youngsters in sport, but also to make sure that sport is not the preserve of a few well-paid athletes and is for ordinary people in our communities. Some will be excellent, some will not, but all enjoy sport.

Is the Prime Minister aware that, according to the National Audit Office, between 5,000 and 20,000 people die from infections caught in NHS hospitals, and that according to the European Commission, the problem is worse in this country, and getting worse at a faster rate, than anywhere else in Europe? Will he therefore turn his attention back from the search for elusive biological threats in the middle east to the real biological warfare that is being fought and lost in dirty wards, and through unclean hands, in our under-managed and demoralised health service?

First, it is not sensible to set the serious issue that the right hon. Gentleman raises against fighting terrorism in the middle east; both issues are important, and they obviously have to be tackled in different ways. Secondly, the question of infections in hospitals is not new, and we are taking action to try to limit this. Thirdly, yes, there are hospitals in which we obviously need to make further changes and to raise standards, but I hope that he and the vast majority of people will accept—I am not sure that many Conservative Members do accept this—that on the whole, those in the health service do a fantastic job in looking after patients. The vast majority of people get excellent treatment within the national health service, and I do wish that occasionally, particularly on a day when the progress of the health service is being laid before people and is so obvious, he would congratulate it on making progress, rather than continually drawing attention to the defects.