What measures his Department has proposed for tackling fraud in EU aid programmes. [144406]

We take very seriously any accusations of fraud in EU aid programmes. My Department has therefore supported the reform of the EC's aid programmes and policies, in particular the establishment of the EuropeAid office, progress with de-concentration, reduction in the backlog of unspent Commission funds and the reform of the financial management of the Commission's external assistance. Those measures should continue to improve the transparency and accountability standards of the EC aid programme financial management through better scrutiny.

Why give the money to the EU at all? Why not give it to the countries direct

Many countries already have extensive bilateral development programmes. The advantage that the European Commission offers is that it is able to lever in development money that might otherwise not be spent by member states. The hon. Gentleman might want to consider that especially pertinent point while bearing in mind the huge cuts in development spending as a proportion of gross national income over which his party presided.

Among the countries and groups given aid by the EU is the Palestinian Authority. Only two weeks ago strong evidence showed that some of that aid is being fraudulently channelled to militant groups that are behind some of the suicide bombings in Palestine. Will the Minister comment on that and tell us what help his Department has given to root out such corruption and fraud?

I hope that I can reassure the House that the European Commission's investigations have found no evidence to corroborate allegations that EC funds have been misused to finance terrorist activities or used for anything other than their original purpose. We are satisfied that the Commission, with the assistance of the International Monetary Fund, has ensured that all the terms of the conditionality on which it insists when giving aid to the Palestinian Authority have been met. Israeli concerns, which prompted some of the allegations, have receded in the light of further recent reforms in the Palestinian Ministry of Finance, and Israel has resumed the transfer of tax revenues due to the Palestinian Authority. I hope that that reassures my hon. Friend.

Given that roughly one quarter of British aid spending supports European Union programmes and that fraud in the EU aid budget is currently running at approximately £14 million a year—for the ninth successive year, the European Court of Auditors has refused to give a clean bill of health to the European Union accounts—can the hon. Gentleman explain to the House why in the Department's 2003 annual report, neither the section on the European Community, nor the list of 2003 to 2006 public service agreement targets, makes any mention of the fight against fraud in EU aid?

The 2002 European Court of Auditors report actually suggests that while there are some continuing concerns, about which we continue to press for serious improvements, over supervisory systems and controls and standards, a sample audit of the transactions undertaken by the Commission in development spending threw up only a number of relatively marginal errors. Clearly we need to continue to investigate those errors, but the programme of reform that the Commission has implemented in our development spending has produced fewer examples of irregularity and fewer accusations of fraud—far fewer than before 1999 when the current reform programme began. There is thus considerable evidence that the reform programme continues to work. Clearly more reforms may be necessary and we shall continue to support them.

What assessment he has made of the benefit to developing countries of their nationals working in the United Kingdom and sending remittances home. [1144407]

In October. DFID, together with the World Bank, hosted the first international conference on migrant remittances, which are estimated by the World Bank to be worth $88 billion a year. Research, including that funded by DFID, shows that both migration and remittances help to reduce poverty in developing countries, with remittance transfers making up as much as 40 per cent. of the household budget for receiving families.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Remittances are clearly a very effective way of getting cash help through to developing countries. However, in view of the fact that much of that money goes through banks and significant costs are therefore involved, can my right hon. Friend tell the House how he hopes to bring down the cost of remittance transactions?

My hon. Friend raises an important point about high costs, but the market is changing —and changing fast —so increased competition and new technology are helping to lower those costs. For example, the cost of sending remittances from the United States to Mexico has halved over the past four years; in Ecuador a bank has issued ATM cards to people who have no bank account, to enable them to access remittance funds from Spain; and similar developments are being considered in other countries. Lloyds bank has a pilot scheme that allows customers to send remittances to India cost-free. There is also the traditional hawala system, of which my hon. Friend will be aware. I hope that all those developments will help to address the question and will reduce the cost of that important support to developing countries.

Is not that response a little complacent? Is the Secretary of State aware that only the other day his Department gave evidence to the Select Committee that the individual transaction costs—the amount abstracted by banks and intermediaries—were between 13 and 20 per cent. of the money earned by hard-working, often poor people who are generously trying to support their families in poor countries? That 13 to 20 per cent. on total remittances of $80 billion amounts to more than twice the right hon. Gentleman's total aid programme. Would it not be a good idea to focus a bit more attention on the matter, and will he give the House a considered report about the overall position on the cost of remittances—the extent to which the costs are falling or rising and what can be done about them?

I do not accept that my answer was complacent. Indeed, I recognised that the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Conwy (Mrs. Williams) and the hon. Gentleman is a real problem and that it needs to be addressed. I gave some examples of practical steps that are being taken, because the market is changing, to bring the costs down. If the hon. Gentleman is looking for a practical contribution, however, I can tell him that one of the things that the Department is doing is establishing a remittance taskforce with 15 donors in international agencies to look at what more we can do in the international community to bring those costs down because, as the hon. Gentleman is only too well aware, the benefit of that money to the recipients is enormous, not least, as he pointed out, because the amount is larger than all the aid that the rich world currently gives the poor world.

What steps his Department is taking towards spending a greater proportion of its budget on goods and services supplied by companies based in developing countries. [144408]

DFID contracts are open to international competition from all sources. Suppliers must compete on price and quality and we do not give preferential access. The number of high-value contracts won by developing country firms against international competition rose from two in 2001–02—the first year in which we untied our aid—to 24 last year.

According to the Department's answer to my question in May, last year DFID headquarters awarded only eight contracts to African-based businesses, worth a total of £10.6 million, and DFID missions in Africa awarded additional contracts of about £9.5 million. Given that the Government have almost doubled aid to Africa— to £1 billion a year— does my hon. Friend agree that there is scope for awarding many more contracts to African countries? What will the Department do, consistent with the good management of public money, to enable more African businesses to bid for contracts from DFID?

My hon. Friend alludes to the fact that African-based companies are showing increasing interest in bidding for DFID business. There have been a number of notable recent successes, including the awarding of contracts to companies from Uganda, Tanzania and South Africa. My hon. Friend will be aware that since 1998 about £160 million has been allocated to developing trade-related capacity in developing countries, including countries in Africa. Included in that help is support to assist countries to develop their business sectors by supporting small business development and access to credit, and by increasing understanding of the standards that are necessary to win contracts from DFID and from other European countries. That process is under way. I would expect to see more African companies bidding—and I hope being successful, and winning contracts from DFID.

Does the Minister agree, however, that sometimes purchasing officers are not imaginative enough in considering new bidders, and continue on old pathways rather than giving people an opportunity to sell their goods and develop properly?

We need to do two things: first, to develop the capacity of countries themselves to support their own businesses to enable them to grow and develop and to exploit the opportunities that are available; secondly, to ensure that the staff that we have in-country are fully trained in recognising the opportunities and the potential for particular companies. With that in mind. we have given our staff appointed in-country training courses in procurement work so that they can exploit opportunities in terms of the local companies that could possibly do work for us.

What recent representations he has received about aid to Iraq; and if he will make a statement. [144409]

I continue to receive many representations about aid to Iraq. DFID has now committed £216 million towards humanitarian and reconstruction assistance in Iraq, and at the Madrid donors conference in October, I announced that the Government would commit a total of £544 million for the three years from April 2003.

I thank the Secretary of State for that reply. The Iraqi Red Crescent is doing a fantastic job—especially because it took on some of the work of the International Committee of the Red Cross when it withdrew—particularly in delivering food, although it is stretched so badly that it is suffering from lack of resources. The worst problem that it faces is the lack of medical supplies and the lack of treatment for children. It has been sending children for treatment outside Iraq to Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Greece, and it is now appealing to European and Arab countries for help. We have had some highly publicised cases of children being treated in the UK. Could we do something to help and support this organisation and to help those children who are desperately in need?

I join the hon. Lady in paying tribute to the work that the Iraqi Red Crescent is doing. As for the treatment of children and the health care system in Iraq, the most important contribution that we can make, which we are seeking to do alongside others, is to work with the Ministry of Health to build and develop capacity within Iraq. There are many able and highly trained doctors in a health service that suffered considerably during the course of Saddam's regime. We have been trying to improve the distribution system for drugs and medicines to ensure that there is support and help available to treat children where they should be treated, which is close to their homes in their own country.

Saddam Hussein had his people dragooned and controlled within three massive state organisations: one for youth, one for women, and one for workers. Are there means by which the Government could seek to facilitate the newly emergent free bodies that represent these people, such as the Iraqi Federation of Trade Unions, so that they can get off the ground and be active in various areas? They might be reluctant to be seen to be clients of coalition forces, but there might be means through connections with the TUC and other bodies to facilitate a suitable arrangement.

I know that my hon. Friend takes a great interest in this issue and he is right that the establishment of free institutions is an essential part of building a democratic state. The oppression that the people of Iraq suffered under Saddam's regime meant that that was difficult, if not impossible, to achieve. I have discussed the issue with representatives of the TUC and I am happy to look further at such support as we are able to give to back those within Iraq who are trying to establish a free trade union movement, which is an essential part of a democratic society.

Both the Prime Minister and President Bush have confirmed that the coalition provisional authority is a coalition body and not an agency of the US Government. Given that fact, and the fact that £30 million worth of DIFD aid to Iraq is either given to the CPA or is channelled through it, what efforts is the right hon. Gentleman making to ensure that the CPA is accountable to the House? When will quarterly statements of the CPA's income and expenditure be given in the House? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that we share a responsibility with the US Congress to ensure that the CPA is accountable?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. International development questions provide one opportunity for the House to call the CPA to account. The CPA publishes a great deal of information, as the hon. Gentleman will be aware, on its website. The development fund for Iraq, which is honouring our pledge that all the oil resources would be used only for the benefit of the people of Iraq, is paying in very large measure for the salaries of the teachers, doctors, nurses and police officers who are now helping to reconstruct the country. The International Advisory and Monitoring Board, which was set up under the UN resolution to demonstrate to the world that the money was being used for the purposes for which it was intended, has just had its first meeting, and will, I hope, provide the assurance that the hon. Gentleman and the House are seeking that the money is being used for its intended purpose

First, I pay tribute to the work of my right hon. Friend's Department in the reconstruction of Iraq. As he will know, the Environment Ministry in Iraq is brand new and is a rather novel concept. What aid and support can his Department give that Ministry to ensure that it is not on the margins in the new Iraqi Administration?

I acknowledge the important role that the new department to which my hon. Friend referred will play alongside other Ministries in the establishment of the new country. One of the big tasks between now and next June or July, when the coalition provisional authority will cease to exist and power will be provisionally transferred to the new transitional administration, will involve the international community considering how best it can support those new Ministers and Ministries in advancing that work. I undertake to reflect on the point made by my hon. Friend. We cannot do everything in respect of all the departments, and need to focus our energy on those areas where we can make the biggest difference. However, I undertake to respond to the specific point made by my hon. Friend.

Would the Secretary of State confirm that an increasing amount of his Department's budget in Iraq is being used to improve the security situation for humanitarian relief workers? While that is obviously a necessary task—the recent £3 million towards security co-ordination for the UN is much needed—does it not raise the question that there may be an impact on the aid delivered on the ground to the people of Iraq? Can the Secretary of State therefore give the House an assurance that the security situation in Iraq, whether it improves or gets worse, will not impact directly on the aid that the Iraqi people themselves receive?

My first responsibility as Secretary of State is to secure as far as possible the safety of the people whom Cabinet colleagues and I have asked to work in Iraq. Without security they cannot do the job of aiding the reconstruction of that country. The two are not in competition with each other—they need to complement one another. The British Government, as the hon. Gentleman will be aware, have made a considerable financial commitment to support reconstruction. In the end, improving the lives of ordinary Iraqis, which is now beginning to happen, and establishing a clear political process that demonstrates that the Iraqi people have the right to make their own decisions about their own future, are the best contribution that we can make to security. After that, we should support reconstruction, which all hon. Members want.

As my right hon. Friend knows, a week ago I was in Iraq, where I met members of his Department, who are doing a very good job in very difficult circumstances. However, to pick up the question asked by the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan), the International Committee of the Red Cross was doing valuable work, particularly helping detainees—there are nearly 11,000 detainees in custody, and the ICRC provided a bridge between them and their families—and it is a tragedy that it had to withdraw many of its staff. Will my right hon. Friend give every support to the Iraqi Red Crescent, so that it can carry out a similar function for detainees and their families?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has just returned from a visit to Iraq, for her kind words about the contribution that DFID staff and those with whom we have contracted are making to reconstruction of the country. She is right that the ICRC has been doing an important job, which makes the targeting of it in the bombing a cynical move by those who do not want the reconstruction of Iraq to succeed.

In the light of the recent UN news agency report that the teaching hospital in Basra and the nuclear medicine hospital still suffer acute shortages of equipment for radiotherapy, chemotherapy, endoscopy and anaesthetics, and that in some cases the equipment that exists has not been replaced in three decades, does the right hon. Gentleman accept that if the British Government take urgent steps to tackle those shortages, that help will be invaluable to long-suffering patients and will receive support from people of all political persuasions throughout the international community?

I undertake to look into the two specific examples that the hon. Gentleman gave. As he may be aware, there has been a team of four staff seconded from the Department of Health working in the CPA headquarters in Basra, whom I met when I was there at the end of September. They have been working hard on a number of projects to support the re-establishment of the health service in the south of the country, not least the distribution of medicines, which is fundamental to enabling the Iraqi health service to care for its people.

What assessment he has made of the effect of the provisions of the draft treaty on the EU constitution on EU policy on international development. [144410]

The current draft treaty for EU policy on international development provides for separate chapters for development co-operation and humanitarian aid, establishes poverty reduction as the main objective for development co-operation, makes it clear that member states and the EU will both continue to provide development and humanitarian aid, and gives distinct and equal prominence to development policy within the external policies of the EU.

Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that there is nothing in the draft treaty that would in any way constrain or diminish the excellent work carried out by the Government in international development through their own programmes? Does he think that the provisions in the treaty will bring about an improvement in the hitherto less impressive performance of the EU in that domain?

I am happy to give my hon. Friend the assurance that he is looking for. The outcome in respect of development has been extremely successful. We are engaged, as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary indicated in answer to an earlier question, in a programme of encouraging reform of the European Union, as it spends a considerable part of our money on development. We are concerned that it be spent in the most effective way possible, and I am glad to be able to report to the House that the proportion of EU spending that goes on the poorest countries is gradually increasing. It was 38 per cent. two years ago and 52 per cent. last year. but we want to see that figure go much higher.

The earlier, rather complacent answer to my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Sir Michael Spicer) on waste and corruption in the EU budget was in sharp contrast to the words of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short) last year. She said:

"It's an outrage and a disgrace and we need enormous pressure on the Commission to focus its money on poor countries."

The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the steps that we have taken, including making the points that my predecessor but one made in saying that it was an urgent task for the EU to make sure that it used its money more effectively. That is what the reform programme is about, and that is the aim of the devolution of power and responsibility to EU country offices. Decisions taken closer to developing countries will lead to much more effective aid programmes than decisions taken in Brussels. The figures that I have just reported to the House demonstrate that that is having an effect. The proportion of aid going to the poorest countries of the world is gradually increasing, but I want to see much better progress to match the proportion of our aid budget that goes to the poorest countries of the world.

If he will make a statement on the effect on his Department's work of the current conflicts in Africa. [144411]

Violent conflict has greatly affected Africa. More than 20 million people have been displaced owing to war and more than 3 million have died in the Great Lakes region since 1997. It also damages development. However, there has been a substantial reduction in the number of conflicts in Africa, with significant progress in tackling the conflicts in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Sudan, Sierra Leone, Liberia and Angola.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his work and that of his staff and the voluntary organisations that are working in Africa in extremely difficult and dangerous circumstances. Can he assure the House that, taking safety factors into consideration, the work that he and his Department are carrying out will not be undermined or disrupted and will continue, particularly in the area of the Great Lakes and in Sudan?

I had the opportunity to visit both the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Sudan last week, and in both those countries we are looking to increase the Department's support to back success in establishing peace, because those two countries now have a real opportunity to improve the lives of their own people, and we intend to help them in that task.

If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 17 December.

This morning I met the President and members of the Iraqi governing council and congratulated them on the measures that they are taking to improve the lives and prosperity of the people in Iraq. I also had meetings with ministerial colleagues and, in addition to my duties in the House, I will have further such meetings later today.

Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Warwickshire secondary schools on their excellent results in the key stage 3 tests and their year-on-year improvements—particularly Ashlawn school, up 13 per cent. in English, Bishop Wulstan and Harris schools, up 9 per cent. and 13 per cent. respectively in science, and Kenilworth school, up 10 per cent. in maths?

I am very happy to congratulate Warwickshire schools. The point that my hon. Friend makes is absolutely right—the tables today show an enormous improvement in results at 14 across the country: 12 per cent. up in English since 1997; 11 per cent. up in maths; 8 per cent. up in science. A £500 million programme of investment, every penny piece of which, of course, was opposed by the Conservatives, has improved results dramatically.

Can the Prime Minister tell us how much the cost of running central Government has increased since 1997?

The percentage of administration costs in central Government is actually lower than it was in 1997.

So the Prime Minister does not know how much it costs to run his Government. It is £20 billion. That is nearly £7 billion more than in 1997. I am surprised that he does not know, because I gave him the figures five weeks ago. Can he tell us now how many more civil servants are employed by central Government compared with 1997?

There are fewer civil servants than there were, for example, 10 years ago, but it is correct that recently numbers have increased—in the Prison Service and to deal with pensions and immigration issues. But overall, as I said a moment ago, the actual percentage costs of administration are lower now than they were in 1997.

The answer is that there are 47,000 more civil servants in central Government compared not with 10 years ago, but with 1997. It is as many people as HSBC employs in the whole of the United Kingdom. So the Prime Minister does not know how much his Government cost or how many people they employ. Could he now give us the figure in the pre-Budget report—perhaps the Chancellor will help him—for Government spending on inspectors, regulators, paymasters and policy makers?

First, I repeat that the cost of administration as a percentage of central Government spending has actually gone down, not up, under this Government. Secondly, perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman will tell us how many of the additional prison officers, for example, he would cut, given the need to increase prison numbers —remembering, of course, that when he was Home Secretary he cut the numbers of police officers on Britain's streets. With regard to the Gershon report, yes there is £9 billion for central Government, but that includes the primary care trusts, the Food Standards Agency, Ofsted and the Prison Service. If he disagrees with that, how many jobs in such bodies would he would cut?

Let me remind the Prime Minister that this is Prime Minister's questions. I will make the Prime Minister an offer. If he wants me to answer the questions, let him give me a slot every week for Leader of the Opposition's questions. I would be very pleased to do that. He can choose the day—any day of the week—and I will be very pleased to answer his questions. But, just for the moment, he is still Prime Minister: it is my job to ask him questions and it is his duty to answer them.

Let me again correct the right hon. and learned Gentleman on his figures. He is giving figures for the entirety of what central Government and local government do. The reason why there is a figure in the pre-Budget report is that for the first time this Government have actually put together the figures that are available. Again, let us be clear. Those are not the only numbers of people employed that have gone up—we have also got 55,000 extra nurses, 25,000 extra teachers, 14,000 extra doctors, 9,000 extra police, and 80,000 extra classroom assistants. Those people are the reason why the results in the health service, education and law and order are going up under this Government.

I am afraid that the Prime Minister has not read the pre-Budget report. The Cabinet Secretary said that bureaucracy and paperwork are out of control because of the Government's target culture. That is where the money has gone. Can the Prime Minister confirm that according to the pre-Budget report—again, I will give him the reference: it is table B24 on page 237—public sector investment has almost halved under this Government?

Actually, public service investment is rising under this Government, literally day in, day out. When we came to office, we were spending £30 per family in the health service; it is now £80 per family in the health service. That is the result of the extra investment. There is a reason why the school results are better today at key stage 3—when we came to office, only half the children were passing their tests at 11; now, three quarters do so. There is a reason why every single indicator on heart disease, cancer and national inpatient and out-patient waiting lists is better than in 1997—it is the extra investment, and the truth of the matter is that every single penny piece of it was opposed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the Conservative party.

It is a very great pity that the Prime Minister has not read the pre-Budget report. because the truth is that he has been rumbled. The Government's own figures show that public sector investment—that is, hospitals, schools and roads—has almost halved since he became Prime Minister, while spending on bureaucracy, regulators and red tape has rocketed. Does not that prove that this is a Government who are taxing and spending and failing; that people are faced with ever-higher taxes and ever-failing services; and that after six and half years, this is a Prime Minister who has lost his grip and a Government who have lost their way?

Let us just look at the national health service. As a result of extra investment, it is in a better position than it ever was when the right hon. and learned Gentleman was in power. We know why the Conservatives want to run down the NHS: they want to get rid of it.

Order. The Leader of the Opposition is out of order.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman wants to compare the past with the present. He has apologised for the poll tax, but is he sorry about his opposition to the minimum wage? Is he sorry that he increased unemployment by 1 million? Is he sorry that he cut police numbers when in power? He is not sorry— [Interruption.]

Order. Mr. Mackay, do not tell me how to do my job. You would not know where to start.

Does the Prime Minister share my concern that in all the focus on and debate about tuition fees, there is a danger of losing sight of the genuine benefits that the Government promise part-time and continuing students in their higher education proposals? Will he ensure that, in discussions with the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, the needs of those students and others in the further education sector are not neglected in the funding, whatever the outcome of the top-up fees debate?

My hon. Friend is right; we must remember that many students are part-time. Many have to find much of the money for their courses themselves. It is therefore important to have a proper, balanced system of funding for pre-school, at-school and after-school education, not only for those who go to university but for the literally hundreds of thousands of people who want to get better adult skills and the 200,000 people who are on the modern apprenticeship scheme. I assure him that the interests of part-time students will be taken fully into account.

I return to the issue that I raised with the Prime Minister this time last week, when I asked him whether he believed it fair for graduates who earn around £35,000 a year to contribute 50 per cent. of their income to the state, yet unfair—his word, not mine—for those who earn more than £100,000 to pay 50 per cent. of their income to the state under our proposals. How can he justify one and not the other?

First, on graduates making a fair repayment for the investment in their education, it is not unfair to tell people that they should make some contribution. I should have thought that most people would accept that. As was just pointed out, the interests of other people must be taken into account—education for under-fives and provision for those who need adult skills and those on apprenticeships. We propose a fair system of repayment whereby, for example, graduates who earn £18,000 a year pay £5 a week—that is much better than the current system, even with maintenance loans.

Oh, Mr. Speaker, there he goes again. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, last week his party produced a document that cited 70 Liberal Democrat spending commitments. We had a look at that document—I have written to the Prime Minister about it—and some of them are spending cut pledges. So much for the economic literacy of the Labour party.

I have already said why I think it is fair to have a graduate repayment system. In relation to the 70 spending commitments that the right hon. Gentleman has made, I shall be happy to return to the House on the next occasion with the details of those commitments. I shall give the House a few examples now, however. There is a commitment to spend £2 billion on the railways— [Interruption.] Well, there is. It will either come out of the 50 per cent. or from somewhere else. There is a £400 million commitment for village halls. There is also a pledge to increase, either significantly or dramatically —I cannot remember the exact word—the amount spent on doctors and nurses in the health service. Will that all come out of the 50 per cent? The best thing would be if we both had a look at the right hon. Gentleman's spending proposals when we are not doing other things over the Christmas break, so that we can discuss them again when we come back.

Will my right hon. Friend welcome the launch of the national 24-hour helpline on domestic violence on Monday, the day of the Second Reading of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill in another place? Will he also ensure that adequate resources are put in to back up that hotline by providing refuges all round the country for victims of domestic violence?

The helpline is going to be extremely important. It will provide 24-hour access to emergency refuge accommodation and an information service that will benefit thousands of women and children. I agree with my hon. Friend that we must ensure that the coverage is as extensive as we want it to be. According to the latest figures, domestic violence now accounts for almost a quarter of all violent crime. We are introducing new measures and putting more money into tackling this issue, but the most important thing—besides the money and the measures —is for Parliament to make it clear by voting unanimously, I hope, on the Bill that domestic violence has absolutely no place in our society and that we are prepared to do whatever it takes to root it out.

The Prime Minister wants 50 per cent. of young people to go to university. He also claims that graduates will attract premium salaries. Will he admit that his aim and his claim are incompatible?

No, I will not. It is surely important that we increase the number of young people going to university. When I went to university, about 7 per cent. of school leavers went; the figure is now well over 35 per cent. It is important that we carry on increasing young people's access to university, but that has to be funded in a fair way. There will be an end to all up-front fees, so that families and parents will not have to pay anything up front. It is not unfair to ask graduates to make a fair repayment once they have graduated, rather than take all the funding out of general taxation. The more people look at this, the more they will see that that is a fair way to do it.

The Prime Minister will be aware that CITES—the convention on international trade in endangered species—is to meet in Thailand in October next year. He might not be aware, however, that it appears that more endangered species are smuggled through Thailand than anywhere else in the world. Only this month, more than 100 tigers and 116 orang-utans have been discovered in police raids on two establishments in Bangkok. This followed an investigation by Jim and Alison Cronin of Monkeyworld in my constituency, who are campaigning to rescue Naree, a chimp performing in a Bangkok zoo, who will die from infections if she does not receive urgent specialist treatment in my constituency. Does the Prime Minister—

Order. I think the Prime Minister understands the hon. Gentleman's concern.

Right! The United Kingdom is a leading player in the convention on international trade in endangered species, and was one of the first countries to sign up to the convention. I understand that the Thai Government are making a major effort to improve enforcement of the convention in Thailand. We have provided in the region of £1.4 million in financial support for convention initiatives on species protection. There is a wildlife crime intelligence unit with the aim of targeting and disrupting wildlife crime and the major criminals involved. People may laugh at this, but it is a serious issue and involves a lot of organised criminality. It is important that we ensure that the convention is adhered to in all countries.

Over the Christmas recess, will the Prime Minister contrast the performance of his Government with the achievements of the Attlee Government—real achievements by a real Labour Government? The Attlee Government built 1,000 council houses a week, whereas new Labour has achieved only 3,000 in six years. As a result of a quarter of a century of Tory policies, we are now suffering the worst housing crisis for three or four generations. Hundreds of thousands of children will be living in inadequate accommodation this Christmas. What do a real Labour Government intend to do about that?

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his early career move to join the Liberal Democrats rather than the Labour party. Frankly, we need no lessons about our pride in the Attlee Government. I believe that the Attlee Government would be immensely proud of 1.5 million extra jobs, of the 500,000 children lifted out of poverty, and of the record investment in health and education, which is a lot more than the Liberals ever did.

For more than 3,000 families, Christmas celebrations this year will be turned into tragedy because one of their family members will be killed or seriously injured on Britain's roads. Does my right hon. Friend welcome the work being done by safety camera partnerships, which, with the sensible use of speed cameras, have capped accidents by more than 35 per cent? Will he consider implementing the proposals for tougher speeding and drink-driving penalties that have been under consideration since December 2000?

My hon. Friend makes an important point about safety camera partnerships. The eight pilots have shown a 35 per cent. reduction, which represents a reduction of about 280 people in the number of people killed or seriously injured. As a result of those partnerships, many families whose lives would otherwise have been blighted have not suffered such tragedy. There are 42 police force areas involved in the partnership programme. We will publish a report of the programme's operation of the scheme in the new year, and then we will take the decisions on how to roll it out across the rest of the country.

We read this week that all potential candidates for honours will be vetted for anti-Government and anti-Blairite sympathies. Does not that rather narrow the pool unrealistically?

Like many reports, that one was complete nonsense. I gather that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales has written to all the Welsh MPs offering them the chance to make nominations, so there is an opportunity for the hon. Gentleman.

Would my right hon. Friend be prepared to host a meeting at No. 10 for the executives of the Rugby League and the Rugby Football Union, the Super League clubs and Premiere Rugby to establish a rugby foundation that would do for rugby$both union and league—what the Football Foundation has done for football?

I would certainly be happy for the Government or myself to be involved in such a programme. My hon. Friend has done an immense amount to forward the cause of rugby. In the past few years, rugby union has received about £45 million in lottery awards, which is part of a El billion investment in school sport, including almost £700 million to enhance school sports facilities. I agree that there is a case for having a rugby foundation to do the same for rugby as the Football Foundation does for football. I would be very happy to he involved in that in any way.

The Prime Minister mentioned his time at university. He was at the same college as me at the same time, as he may remember. The Prime Minister is not very good at answering this question—but how is it fair that neither he nor I will pay back a single penny of the cost of our expensively acquired Oxford education, while he wants graduates to pay a higher rate of marginal tax than millionaires?

I think we should both draw a veil over our time at university together. I think that would be wise in both our cases, if I remember rightly—but we will leave that for another time.

Like every other Member, I am delighted that Saddam Hussein has been captured, and I am pleased that we are making a commitment to a fair trial. Will my right hon. Friend help to secure fair treatment for a 22-year-old from my constituency, Urslaan Khan, who has been in prison in Iraq for the past six weeks? No evidence of misdeed has been tabled, and no legal representation has been obtained. The young man's parents are positively distraught, as any parent would be. I ask my right hon. Friend to help secure fair treatment for him.

I gather from my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary that he wrote to my hon. Friend last night, and I know that the British office in Baghdad has taken a close interest in the case. I cannot comment on the facts other than to say that we will of course lodge our interest—indeed, we have already done so—and that I know my right hon. Friend will be in touch with my hon. Friend again about the case.

Does the Prime Minister still rule out a referendum on the European constitution in all circumstances?

I have been over that ground many times. As I have said before, if the constitution altered the fundamental nature of the relationship between the member state and the European Union there would be a case for it, but it does not and it will not. We have set down lines so that we preserve the nation state in all its attributes—in relation to tax, social security, foreign policy, defence and treaty change. In respect of all those, and in respect of financial resources, the attributes of the nation state remain. Indeed, an all-party House of Lords Select Committee has said that, if anything, the constitution transfers powers from the Commission to member states. That is why I say that it is not necessary to hold a referendum.

At this time of year, pensioners in my still deprived inner-city constituency know very well why they voted Labour when they receive the winter fuel allowance. Nevertheless, for many of those same pensioners transport in inner-urban areas is not good, and access to the private car does not exist. The Department of Transport has introduced the urban bus challenge in parts of Manchester, giving those deprived groups access to public transport where the Tories' deregulation has failed them so badly. Will my right hon. Friend try to roll out that programme, so that pensioners can have access not just to the money that the Government have given them but to hospitals and shops, and enjoy a normal way of life?

My hon. Friend is right to mention the additional help given to pensioners, particularly some of the poorest, who are many pounds a week better off as a result of the Government's policies; but I entirely understand his point about the urban bus challenge. We are supporting some four projects in Greater Manchester, and I gather that a further £20 million will be allocated as a result of this year's competition, which is nationwide. That is in addition to fare concessions. However, it is important for us to go on looking at ways to enhance the mobility of pensioners who, as my hon. Friend said, have enjoyed a better standard of living under this Government, but need to be helped still further.

Given that the Government have told every further education college in England that it will receive an increase of not less than 2.5 per cent. in its funding next year, rising to 5 per cent., how can it be that Sutton Coldfield college was told last week that it faces a cut of £1.3 million and up to 75 redundancies? In view of this apparent act of bad faith, will the Prime Minister look into the matter personally and agree to receive a delegation from the college? If he can help us on this one point at this time of year, we in Sutton Cold field will regard him as Father Christmas rather than as Scrooge.

I obviously do not know about the situation in respect of that particular further education college; I am very happy to look into it, and to write to the hon. Gentleman. However, I hope that he will be so good as to accept that overall—I know that this is no consolation if there are indeed problems at the Sutton Coldfield further education college—this Government are putting a massive amount of money into further education and education generally. If he will forgive me, I have to point out that this Government brought all that additional money before this House, but he and his colleagues voted against it.