What discussions he has had with the Home Office on crime statistics in the Vale of Glamorgan. [148349]

My right hon. Friend and I have regular discussions with colleagues about matters affecting Wales. Recorded crime in the Vale of Glamorgan between April and December 2003 was 3.4 per cent. lower than the same period in 2002.

Will my hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to Superintendent Josh Jones and the officers of the Vale of Glamorgan division for yet another record-breaking year in tackling crime? Domestic burglary is down 20 per cent.; car crime down almost 20 per cent.; and the force has the highest detection rate in south Wales.

Order. The hon. Gentleman has had his ration.

I endorse my hon. Friend's comments about the officers serving in his police division. As to the second matter that he raised, I am sure that the whole House will join me in expressing once again our condolences to the family of Stuart Cunningham-Jones. I know that Mr. and Mrs. Cunningham-Jones requested a review of the decision not to prosecute anyone in connection with the death of their son, Stuart. Given that prosecution decisions are a matter for the Crown Prosecution Service, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on the rights and wrongs of the issue. However, I take my hon. Friend's remarks very seriously and I will ensure that I am kept fully informed of all developments.

In south Wales, including Glamorgan. crime has risen by 6.3 per cent., which is very good in comparison with north Wales, where it is up by 48.5 per cent. Why does the Minister believe that crime is rising so rapidly in some parts of Wales? Could it be because the police are bringing fewer criminals to justice? Last year 190,000 crimes went unsolved—an increase of 50,000 from 1998–99.

We all recognise that fighting crime is a major issue and the Government are putting in the resources and carrying through the legislation to fight crime. The hon. Gentleman's party is committed, of course, to a 20 per cent. cut in public expenditure. What would that do for the resources that we need to fight crime? Indeed, his party continues to oppose the legislation introduced by the Government to make our communities safer, so we need no lessons from him about fighting crime.

Unfortunately, that is absolute nonsense. The Minister well knows that we are already pledged to increase the number of police officers in Wales by 2,199. He should be thinking about why the number of special constables has fallen by half and why violent crime has also increased in south Wales, including the vale, by 29 per cent. No doubt the Minister will be proud of that in comparison with north Wales, where violent crime is up by 137 per cent. Why is violent crime rising twice as fast in Wales as it is in Greater Manchester or London?

This gets better. When the hon. Gentleman's party was in government, crime doubled. When his leader, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), was Home Secretary, police officer numbers fell by 1,000. We have invested more money in putting more bobbies on the beat in Wales and under the Labour Government police numbers in Wales have risen 12 per cent. since 1997. There are now 7,354 police officers on duty in Wales. What the police service wants is support, investment and reform. The Government are delivering that; Conservative Members will not.

That is most surprising, given that we have made a pledge to increase police numbers by 31 per cent. Why does the Minister believe that the number of robberies has also rocketed? Surely he would agree that that crime is a particularly unpleasant violation of people's homes, so why is expenditure in the Welsh Office now £10,609,486,000 when nothing is happening to cut the huge rise in robberies? In south Wales, robberies are up by 53.4 per cent., which is better than north Wales, where the figure is 77.2 per cent. Is that not another example of Labour taxing, spending and failing?

We would take the hon. Gentleman's remarks more seriously if he could get his facts right. The Welsh Office no longer exists; it is the Wales Office. More than that, we do not have a £10 billion budget; that is the National Assembly's budget. If the hon. Gentleman would get his facts right, I would pay more attention to his question.

When the Wales sub-group dealing with matters relating to miners compensation schemes for chest diseases and vibration white finger last met; and what progress was reported. [148351]

If he will make a statement on payments to retired miners and their families in Wales under the respiratory disease and vibration white finger compensation scheme. [148355]

The Welsh monitoring group dealing with coal health claims last met on 12 January and discussed the good progress being made on both chest disease and vibration white finger claims in Wales. The latest compensation figures show that £284 million has been paid out under the chest disease scheme, and £103 million under the vibration white finger scheme.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, which shows that the Government are treating seriously the long-standing problems of illness among miners. However, will he give me some idea of the progress being made on claims by surface workers for that compensation?

Indeed, that matter figured in our discussions at our last meeting on 12 January. The Department of Trade and Industry has already undertaken extensive work in consulting medical experts and conducting dust surveys in respect of affected surface workers. The Department considers that no evidence has yet been found to suggest that it is liable for respiratory diseases suffered by surface workers, but the Government are co-operating very fully with the claimants' solicitors. The judge handling the matter has requested those solicitors to identify lead claims and to gather more evidence for him to consider at the next hearing on 3 February. As I said, the Government, to help the solicitors, have provided access to all the necessary archives, and have made it clear that they will react positively if evidence emerges that the DTI is liable for compensation in this case.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the nearly £5 million paid out for dust disease compensation in my constituency shows that the Government are tackling a problem that the Tories ignored for 18 years?

My hon. Friend speaks the truth, as ever. If the Conservative party had not resisted the legitimate claims of miners over the years when it was in government, many miners who are now no longer with us would have received compensation when they were alive. Our priority has been to compensate the oldest miners, the ones who are most ill, and the widows. I can tell the House that the claims of the overwhelming majority of people in that category have been settled. At the beginning of January, 87 per cent. of high priority miners' claims had been settled, and settlement offers had been made in respect of 80 per cent. of widows' claims.

What was the Minister's reaction to the news that the leaders of the Union of Democratic Mineworkers have benefited personally to the tune of hundreds of thousands of pounds from the miners compensation scheme? To prevent Welsh miners and their families from being ripped off by the company set up for the purpose of securing the compensation, does the Minister believe that the Government should suspend its special deal with the UDM, pending a full investigation of its financial affairs?

Let me make it clear that the arrangement between the UDM and the company, Vendside, was agreed between them and the DTI. The same sort of scheme has been agreed with the claimants' solicitors. As for additional costs and payments, to solicitors or anyone else, I and other Labour Members are on record as saying that we totally condemn any organisation that, in addition to receiving the legal fees being paid by the Government, seeks to take compensation away from miners. I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes: Vendside has been involved in some 120-odd claims in Wales, but it ill behoves him to preach to the Government on the matter. I am not so sure that he was quite so outspoken when a leading member of his party doubled his salary by heading an organisation that was taking between 5 and 10 per cent. of compensation from miners and their widows.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the DTI originally agreed to compensate surface workers in exactly the same way as it compensated underground workers? There are only 4,700 surface workers in the entire country. Underground miners had to go through years of hard fighting with the previous Conservative Government to get compensation. Instead of requiring surface workers to go through that, would not it be much more sensible to compensate them in exactly the same way as the underground workers?

I confirm my hon. Friend's point on the DTI's original position on surface workers, but I reiterate that the judge who has been handling the matter has required the solicitors acting on behalf of the claimants to submit evidence. The Government are collaborating closely and fully with the claimants' solicitors and have made it clear that if a case can be made and justified, and if it is demonstrated that miners have been injured as a result of dust intakes when working on the surface, they will respond positively. My hon. Friend is quite right to say that the numbers are small. We are keeping an open mind on the matter and I hope that we can reach a satisfactory conclusion very soon.

What discussions he has had with the Assembly Secretary of Education concerning the funding of student support for students from Wales attending English and Scottish universities in (a) 2006, (b) 2007 and (c) 2008. [148352]

I have been working closely to ensure that, subject to Parliamentary approval, we have the best possible deal in place to enable the Assembly to take over responsibility for student support in Wales from 2006–07.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that a university education should be about extending choices and experience? I have been informed by a senior academic in Wales that nationalist Members of the National Assembly for Wales have called for financial incentives to be given to students from Wales to attend universities in Wales rather than in the rest of the United Kingdom. Will he assure me that he will not countenance support for any such policy?

Yes, I will. At the moment, some 18,000 students from Wales study in England. It is their right to study where they wish, and we want to increase opportunities, not put up barriers. If the new policy of the Welsh nationalists is that they want Welsh students to study only in Wales, that is typical of their narrow, parochial, nationalist vision of Wales, instead of an internationalist vision. We want a modern, confident Wales in the world, not an isolated, narrow and nationalist Wales in the world. I hope that they vote on Tuesday to devolve powers over student finance to Wales and support the Higher Education Bill. Otherwise, those finances will not be devolved.

The Government want to raise student grants from £1,000 to £1,500 and to provide loans to help students to pay top-up fees. Given that both measures would increase public expenditure, how much extra money would the Welsh Assembly get for them as a Barnett consequential, so that Wales is not short-changed even if Assembly Members choose to reject top-up fees for Wales?

There is no question of the Welsh Assembly being short-changed on that. Discussions have been going on to agree the figure for the money that would flow across the border to Wales if the powers were devolved. However, I make the same point to the hon. Gentleman that I have already made. If he wants decisions about student finance in Wales to be made in Wales by the National Assembly for Wales, he should vote for the Bill on Tuesday. Otherwise, that will not happen.

If the Higher Education Bill is passed on Tuesday as it stands, will not the likely consequence be that English students in Welsh institutions will be subsidised from money intended for Welsh schools and hospitals? Will the Secretary of State make a statement on the consequences of the devolved settlement before we are asked to vote on Second Reading?

As I have explained, funding for Welsh students, currently held in London, will be transferred following the devolution of power if the Bill is passed, which means that it must receive its Second Reading on Tuesday. If it is passed, the necessary funding will go to Wales. If the National Assembly decides in the end not to permit universities in Wales to raise extra money from fees, that extra money will have to be found from somewhere. As my hon. Friend says, that is a decision for the Assembly, but I am sure that it will not want to short-change any other budgets. The Assembly will want to find a solution that puts Welsh universities in a competitive position to gain world-class status, which is just what we want to achieve for English universities.

The Secretary of State has just said that it is up to students to decide where they want to be educated and whether they want to go from Wales to England. Does he not realise, however, that thanks to tuition fees and variable top-up fees students will increasingly be in debt and thus unable to afford to go from Wales to university in England or Scotland? When I went to Swansea university, I paid no fees and I received a grant, but now students are being clobbered with huge debt—even now, the average debt for students is £8,000.

I remind the hon. Gentleman that his Government cut funding for students, while the Leader of the Opposition was in government, by a third per student. We are bringing back grants and providing a package that will benefit an enormous number of students throughout Britain by up to £3,000. What does the hon. Gentleman propose? He proposes cutting grants and cutting the number of students. His successor as shadow Secretary of State for Wales told the Welsh Grand Committee that the Opposition hoped to reduce

"the number of places or, to put it at its worst, the number of opportunities for people who leave school".—[Official Report, Welsh Grand Committee, 16 December 2003; c. 49.]

Whatever one's views on top-up fees, is not it a welcome development that the UK Government, following the lead shown by the National Assembly, have reintroduced maintenance grants for poorer students? On another matter related to cross-border student movement, will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to condemn the practice of some universities in England that reject A-level Welsh as a qualification for entry?

I am very happy to reject that practice. In fact, I wrote yesterday to the vice-chancellors of Bristol university and Nottingham university, as those universities had apparently barred from consideration a Welsh student with an A-level in Welsh. An A-level is an A-level whatever the subject. A Welsh A-level is just as valid as an English A-level or an A-level in any other language, and I hope that every university in England and, for that matter, Scotland, will recognise that. The A-level is of high quality, academic standards are strong and it is important that Welsh students are not discriminated against.

What assessment he has made of the likely change in the number of holiday homes in Wales as a result of the Chancellor's proposals regarding changes to self-invested personal pensions schemes. [148353]

The Government want to simplify the tax rules governing pensions, and we are consulting on proposals to do that. No assessment has been made of potential implications for holiday homes, but if the hon. Gentleman has a view—I am sure that he does—he may wish to submit his evidence and comments to the consultation, which is open until 5 March.

I thank the Minister for that answer. I certainly have a view. The proposal is an outrageous tax perk for the super-rich, as AJ Bell said in the Financial Times. The proposal will be very good for second homes, of which there are 4,500 in the county of Gwynedd. Will the Minister and his colleague, the Secretary of State, resist these outrageous proposals within the Government?

I have made it clear that the matter is under consultation and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will put his views. There are 15,000 holiday homes in Wales, which account for less than 1.5 per cent. of the total number of homes in Wales. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that there is no proposal for a new incentive to purchase holiday homes for private use, but I urge him to submit his evidence to the consultation.

Holiday homes and second homes cause tension in many communities throughout Wales, including in my constituency of Ynys Môn, predominantly due to the lack of affordable housing in those areas. Does my hon. Friend agree that in addition to increased economic activity, there is a need for planners and developers to set land aside for affordable homes to ensure that we build tolerant and cohesive communities in which local people can work and live—[Interruption]

Order. I appeal to hon. Members for quiet. The House must allow Members to put their questions and Ministers to reply.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Mon (Albert Owen) made some valid points, and it is important that they are part of our discussions on those issues. My colleagues in the Assembly are making available £56 million under a social housing grant to improve the provision of affordable housing. Added to the funding from registered social landlords, we anticipate that that will generate more than £90 million to provide about 1,000 extra homes for rent at low cost. I think that will have an important impact on the area that he represents.

If he will make a statement on the arrangements for retirement on the ground of ill health for miners in Wales. [148354]

Mining has been an extremely important industry in Wales for generations, and miners deserve a decent retirement. It is a dangerous occupation, and I am very concerned that proper benefits are paid to miners when they retire, especially if retirement is due to ill health.

I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. He will be aware that the serious ill health scheme, which has supported miners who have to retire through ill health, has run out of cash. The Government recently received £51 million arising from a 1993 revaluation of the investment fund. That was before the Government took the responsibility of acting as a guarantor for the scheme. Will the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry meet with coalfield MPs and National Union of Mineworkers officials to see whether we can release the £51 million so that miners can have that support during their most testing time?

I am very happy to meet with coalfield MPs—indeed, I am one myself, so I shall be meeting with myself—to see whether we can resolve this matter. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Government paid to the mineworkers compensation scheme £400 million last year in order to boost its opportunities. We should try to resolve this matter together.

I call Michael Fabricant—[Interruption.] Order. Once again, the House is far too noisy.

What recent discussions he has had with the First Secretary on police funding in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [148356]

Police funding in Wales has increased by £58.4 million, or 20 per cent., since 1997.

That may sound like a large figure, but it is just 3.25 per cent. on the previous year. The Secretary of State will be aware that police authorities said that they needed a 6 per cent. rise on the previous year just to maintain present standards. So, apart from telling a load of fibs about what Conservative spending plans might be, what does the right hon. Gentleman say to council tax payers who are now having to stump up even more money?

The hon. Gentleman is a member of a party that, when the Leader of the Opposition was Home Secretary, cut the number of police officers across England and Wales by over a thousand. Since we came to power, an extra 761 police officers have been recruited in Wales alone. Crime has been going down, more police officers are being recruited, and people are feeling safer as a result, compared with the dreadful record of the Tory Government.

We have had a pretty good deal in the Rhonda—we are getting a new police station in Porth in a few months' time—but we still want to see more police officers on the beat. We also want to make sure that when a new police officer is allocated to a beat that person does not just stay there for three or four months, but stays for three years. Is my right hon. Friend having discussions with senior police officers in Wales to make sure that there is continuity of policing?

The point about continuity of policing is very important. I remember it coming out of the big conversation event in Newport, which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister held last year. I was present—[Interruption.] The Conservatives may jeer about local opinion and the anxiety that local police officers stay in the area for as long as possible, as my hon. Friend says. This is an issue that we want to pursue, along with tackling antisocial behaviour and rises in crime wherever they occur. We deserve the support of all Opposition Members in the battle against crime, instead of their consistently voting against Government measures.

In supporting the battle against crime, I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the position in Dyfed-Powys, where a 7.3 per cent. increase is required just to stand still. That means a shortfall of 4 per cent., which in turn means a 16 per cent. increase on the police precept. How on earth can it possibly comply with the national policing plan?

There has been a big increase in funding in Dyfed-Powys, as the hon. Gentleman knows, of more than £7 million, compared with what happened under the Conservatives, and compared with what would happen under nationalist policies. If Wales were independent, it would become bankrupt, and policing in Wales, including Dyfed-Powys would be savagely attacked and undermined.

If he will make a statement on trends in vehicle crime in north Wales. [148358]

Between April and December 2003, the number of vehicle crimes per 1,000 population fell by 5.3 per cent. compared with the same period in 2002. In numerical terms, there were 323 fewer vehicle crimes.

I thank my hon. Friend for that very encouraging answer. is he aware that figures released last weekend for vehicle crime in Bangor in my constituency show that it has gone down by 51.45 per cent? Does he agree that the main reason for this success is that we have seen an increase in police officers, in community beat managers—who work closely with residents' associations, such as Maesgeirchen and Taistesion—in wardens in housing estates and local councillors?

I recognise the point that my hon. Friend makes. I also recognise the contribution that the Government have made to increasing investment in the police service and increasing police numbers. Since the Government came to power there has been a 17 per cent. increase in the number of police officers on duty in the north Wales police area. I think we are moving in the right direction; I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees with that.

If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 21 January.

This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I will have further such meetings later today.

I look forward very much to joining the Prime Minister in the Lobby later today to support the amendment in his name on the unity of the United Kingdom, which states that all Members of the House will have a right to debate, speak on and participate in all matters affecting all parts of the United Kingdom. In my part of the United Kingdom, Northern Ireland, and in the Irish Republic, very serious allegations have been made that political parties such as Sinn Fein are being funded by the Provisional IRA through criminal activity. Would the Prime Minister join me in making the United Kingdom's law uniform and in applying to Northern Ireland the same legislation on the funding of political parties as applies in the rest of the United Kingdom?

On the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I agree entirely with what he said: I hope we will always have one class of Member of Parliament in the House. Secondly, I would like to say that any criminal activity of the sort he has described is completely unacceptable—we cannot have a situation in which people are expected to sit in government with political parties that are attached to active paramilitary organisations. In relation to his point about political parties, certainly it is important that in the course of the review we look at all the issues that are raised, in order to make it absolutely clear that there cannot be a situation in which a political party is being funded by anything other than purely democratic and peaceful methods.

At a recent meeting that I held with senior police officers in the Forest of Dean we discussed the relationship between crimes such as theft and burglary and those committed by people with a serious drug habit. However, one officer expressed his concerns about the message that the declassification or reclassification of cannabis sends young people, and said that it would prove problematic to the non-tolerance policy that is excellently used in Forest of Dean schools. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the new classification of cannabis does lead to a mixed message with young people and drugs?

I do agree with my hon. Friend that it is important that we have a very clear message that possession of cannabis remains a criminal offence and that, whatever the reclassification, the police still have the power of arrest in relation to it. I think what is hoped is that the police will be able to concentrate, obviously, particularly on hard drugs, which are a huge problem. The link between heroin and crack addiction and crime is well known, and it is important that the police use all their efforts to bear down on it, but it does not alter the fact that the possession of cannabis remains a criminal offence, and I thank my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to make that clear.

Will the Prime Minister read out to the House what his manifesto at the last election said about top-up fees?

I do not have the precise words in front of me, but I will tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman what we said. [Interruption.] We said we will not introduce top-up fees. In particular, I would point out to him that we are changing the existing fee structure totally, so that people will no longer have to pay up-front fees; instead they will have to pay something when they graduate, on a fair basis—far fairer than the existing system.

I do have the manifesto here, as it happens. I am sorry that the Prime Minister cannot bring himself to read out the words on which he asked all his hon. Friends to stand at the last election. What he said in that manifesto was:

"We will not introduce 'top-up' fees and have legislated to prevent them."

But what people can know is that instead of the existing fee structure in which fees are paid up front, instead of the existing system with no maintenance grant for poorer students, instead of having a system where there is no cap on fees, we will have no up-front fees—so no family has to pay those fees when their children are going through university the reintroduction of maintenance grants for poorer students and a cap on fees. That surely is a fairer system than the present system. Over the past few days, the right hon. and learned Gentleman has been saying that

"we don't have proposals"

"Let me place on record…every young person should have the chance to go to university without paying tuition fees."

We have made our policy absolutely clear. Both my party and the right hon. Gentleman's party stood on the same pledge at the last election. We are not going to break our promise to help him break his.

That is complete nonsense. The universities will be about £1 billion a year better off as a result of higher fees, although those fees are not to be repaid until the graduate actually graduates—and on a fair basis. What we have also done, however, is reintroduce maintenance grants for poorer students, so one part of the money goes to universities and another part goes to poorer students. That surely is a fair system, and better than the existing system. The right hon. and learned Gentleman says that he is sticking to his existing policy, but let me just quote what the vice-chancellor of Buckingham university said after a meeting with the Conservative education spokesman:

"Tory education spokesman said to me, 'It does not matter whether'"

'"is the right policy or the wrong policy…Once we are in power we can then start to really think sensibly about what we should be doing.'"

"No narrow…opportunism for us."?

The Prime Minister may regard sticking to election promises as opportunism: we do not. He has conspicuously failed to endorse what the Education Secretary said last week. I put again to the Prime Minister what the Education Secretary said. He said that the extra costs associated with the Government's Bill will be met from the higher education budget and not from additions to that budget. The costs add up to well over £1 billion. The fees will raise about £900 million. If the Education Secretary is right, is it not clear that universities will be worse off?

The extra fee income goes to the universities, which is why they are going to be able to increase their funding per student by about 30 per cent. The other money goes to the students themselves—especially those from poorer backgrounds—and is also to ensure that they do not have to pay anything up front. That is why it is a better deal for universities and students—I would have thought that even the right hon. and learned Gentleman could have got that. As for saying that he is going to keep to his policy, he has not been able to keep to his policy over even the past few weeks, never mind the past few years. Let me repeat what he said the other day. He said, "We now have no proposals on tuition fees." How can that lie with the comments made by his education spokesman, who said that he is committed to scrap all fees? Which is it: scrapping all fees or no proposals?

I have told the Prime Minister exactly what our policy is. This debate is about his policy, and we will be voting next week on his proposals and his attempts to bully his hon. Friends into breaking their election promise. Is it not absolutely clear that the top-up fees policy is a complete dog's breakfast and that the Prime Minister and his Education Secretary do not even know from one day to the next what their proposals involve or who is going to pay? Will it be students, will it be taxpayers, will it be the universities—[Interruption.]

Order. Mr. Skinner, let the Leader of the Opposition speak. I am telling the hon. Gentleman not to shout across the Floor. He is not entitled to do so.

rose—

Order.

Should not the Prime Minister simply admit that he has got it all wrong and that he should scrap his Bill, instead of forcing his Members of Parliament to break their election pledge?

What we should do is continue with a policy that gives universities an extra £1 billion a year, that relieves all families of the obligation to pay up-front fees at all and that operates a fast, fairer system of repayment so that, for example, a graduate who earns £18,000 a year after graduation pays just £5 a week. We should proceed with a proposal that reintroduces maintenance grants and support for the poorest students. That is fair for universities, fair for middle-class families and fair for families with lower incomes. Surely that is the right thing to do, as the OECD said yesterday. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is absolutely right: yes, next week is a test for the Government, but it is also a test of the credibility of the Opposition, and he has just failed it.

This morning's dispatches from the French capital confirm the unfortunate impression that there are those among our Gallic cousins who are sneering at the prospects of a UK Olympic bid. I am far too communautaire to indulge in low abuse of a nation that has problems of its own, but what can the Prime Minister do to convince those of us who still harbour a smidgen of cynicism that the UK Olympic bid is realistic and attainable?

Anybody who heard the presentation made by Barbara Cassani and her team last week would have heard a bid that is technically good and that gives this country the chance of hosting the world's greatest sporting event in the world's greatest capital city and of doing that immensely well. The more that people look at the bid, the stronger they see it. As for commenting on anyone else's bid, of course that would be quite wrong.

Last night, in his State of the Union address, President Bush referred to the search for

"weapons of mass destruction-related programme activities".

The President was referring to Dr. Kay's report—the Iraq survey group report—which has already indicated evidence of the concealment of weapons of mass destruction programmes. The Iraq survey group, of course, looks not merely for the programmes, but for the weapons themselves.

We began on the issue of weapons of mass destruction. The Prime Minister then moved on to finding weapons of mass destruction programmes, and, last night, the President spoke of the search for

"weapons of mass destruction-related programme activities".

The Iraq survey group, as I said a moment or two ago, continues the search not just for programmes and the evidence of concealment of those programmes, but for the weapons themselves. It is important that it continues to do that. As for the existence of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, there can be no doubt—absolutely no doubt—that those weapons existed. That has been said not only by this Government and the United States Government, but was set out in detail over 12 years by the United Nations and its inspectors. It is the job of the Iraq survey group to find out what has happened, which it will do. When it comes up with its final report, we can debate it.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that a large amount of the antisocial behaviour faced by people in all constituencies across the country is perpetrated by the under-16s? If the fixed penalty notices that are issued to 16 and 17-year-olds as part of the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 are successful, will he consider extending them to the under-16s?

The point that my hon. Friend makes is absolutely right. The new measures will obviously give the police and others important powers to deal with antisocial behaviour. She is also right in saying, however, that there is another issue to address since much antisocial behaviour, I am sorry to say, is caused by youngsters under the age of 16. It is precisely for that reason that we have the power to extend fixed penalty notices to them. We are considering the time scale in which we can do that. I very much hope that we do it as soon as possible.

Given that the Prime Minister's rationale for war in Iraq, as he confirmed just a moment ago, was based on the presence of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, how does he reconcile that with our battle tanks and armoured vehicles being sent into the front line without the requisite chemical filters?

With regard to equipment, I know that there is a particular issue in respect of Sergeant Roberts, and again I express my condolences to his widow. In respect of some of the other issues, the National Audit Office looked carefully at the whole question of equipment in the Iraq conflict and whether that equipment was proper or not. It found that, on the whole, it was a tremendous success. The conflict involved a huge logistical operation that was difficult to carry out, but it was carried out. In respect of specific issues, we consider each and every one of them, and we will look into the issue that the hon. Gentleman mentioned as well.

When the Conservatives were in office and introduced the initial student loans Bill, their higher education spokesperson was described by Lord Beloff as the Pol Pot of academia. In order to tackle some of those problems, and they are being tackled by the Government's proposals, instead of scrapping student debt after 25 years, why not tackle them from the other end? When people have immediately graduated and are in greater need of assistance, why not provide them with a holiday from debt? That would assist many people, including mature students.

I entirely understand my hon. Friend's point. We are trying to meet his concerns in two ways. First, we are relieving families of the obligation to pay up-front fees. As I think I said to him the other day at our parliamentary meeting, about 26 per cent. of students whose parents are not eligible for help with the up-front fee at the moment have to fund part of it out of their own pocket. The abolition of the up-front fee will help them.

Last year the New Forest basic command unit was reduced by five police officers. This year it is to be reduced by a further five officers. Can the Prime Minister explain why, despite increased resources and higher taxes, public services are deteriorating?

Obviously I do not know the precise details of the basic command unit in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, but I have here the police numbers for Hampshire as a whole: there are more than 240 more police officers than there were in 1997. I will write to him and tell him exactly where those extra officers are. I also point out to him that, alongside extra police officers, there are more teachers, more nurses and more jobs in his constituency, and on every indicator—the health service, the education service and crime—it is better than it was in 1997.

Are not the overwhelming majority of students in the United Kingdom already subject to variable tuition fees? Is there the slightest evidence, anywhere in the UK, that variable fees have deterred students from doing part-time degree or further education courses, or joining the Open university?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right: there are now variable fees for postgraduates and part-timers. One of the things that we are able to do in this package is introduce some support for part-time students. By setting a sensible cap and giving universities freedom, while giving a huge boost to students from poorer backgrounds, we will increase the possibility of such students having the right and the ability to go to university.

The Prime Minister is aware that the week before Christmas I visited my constituent Majid Narwaz, who was being held in jail in Cairo with the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) and of the hon. Members for East Ham (Mr. Timms) and for West Ham (Mr. Banks). The Prime Minister will be aware also that at the end of the trial, when a verdict was expected, the court adjourned for five months. He can well imagine how the families felt when those four individuals were brought to court on Christmas day, for a two-minute hearing, and the case was adjourned, yet again, until 25 March.

I understand the issue for the families of those involved in the trial. It is important to explain the background to the case: four British nationals were detained on 1 April 2002 and accused of being involved with the Islamic Liberation party, which has been outlawed in Egypt since 1974. I say that simply to indicate that this is obviously an issue of huge sensitivity for the Egyptian authorities as well as our own.

Is the Prime Minister aware that more than 200 MPs from all parties have now signed early-day motion 200 calling for pension compensation for Allied Steel and Wire workers and others? Why should our constituents have to put up with a pensions injustice that civil servants, Ministers and Members of this House would never tolerate for themselves? Is it not a disgrace that despite the fact that the Conservatives have been pretending in public to support those workers, in private the party's pensions spokesman has written to his Back Benchers, telling them not to sign the early-day motion?

I am aware of the situation facing members of Allied Steel and Wire in relation to their pension scheme. Obviously, I have great sympathy for them and for other scheme members. As my hon. Friend will know, we have announced proposals to establish, first, a pension protection fund, which will be the first ever insurance scheme for defined benefits in the United Kingdom, so that employees do not have the injustice of seeing their pension rights disappear if their scheme winds up. Secondly, there will be a more active pensions regulator to focus on tackling fraud, bad governance and poor administration, and on encouraging best practice. I understand the problem. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and the Minister for Pensions have been meeting representatives and affected members from Allied Steel and Wire. I assure my hon. Friend that we will continue to do all that we can to resolve the situation.

If he will make an official visit to the Friends meeting house in Totnes.

I have no current plans to do so.

If the Prime Minister had come to meet the Quakers and to see those peaceful people, he would have heard that their primary concern is the increasing level of council tax and the way in which it funds an army of bureaucrats and administrators rather than front-line services. Will he acknowledge that Devon county council employs as many people as the European Commission in Brussels, and that the managing director of Torbay council is now paid £more per annum than a Minister of State in the right hon. Gentleman's Government? The Prime Minister could cut council tax at a stroke—

Order. Perhaps the Friends are better behaved than the hon. Gentleman.

When the hon. Gentleman began his question, I temporarily turned to the wrong part of my file. I do not want to comment on Devon county council; I am not as aware of the facts of who is employed there as the Quakers. My understanding is that that county council, along with others, has received a very significant increase in the amount of grant from central Government. We believe that the additional amount of grant is important for local authorities. I am sure that when he heard the Quakers' complaints he told them that his party voted against the extra investment that we allocated to local authorities.

Does the Prime Minister value the work carried out by special schools up and down the land that care for children with special educational needs? If he does value their extraordinary work, will he come out in opposition to the plans of the Labour-Lib Dem-controlled Gloucestershire county council to close the only special school in my constituency, Alderman Knight, which is greatly valued not only by the parents and teachers in the area but by the pupils, who really need the school?

I cannot comment on the particular school in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, as I do not know the facts about it. In the end, as I hope he realises and other hon. Members appreciate, it is important that these decisions are taken locally and that they are determined by the local process of democracy and consultation. I can only point out to him—this I do know—that the Gloucestershire local education authority budget has received an extra £670 per pupil in real terms compared with 1997–98. It is in the end up to the council how to spend that money. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand that it is surely right for the Government to point out that we have substantially increased education funding. Once again I point out—I say this with no rancour—that he and his colleagues voted against that extra spending.

Although unemployment in the Nottinghamshire coalfield has fallen by 60 per cent. over the past six years, does the Prime Minister agree that there are still small groups of people who find it difficult to get to work? Will he look closely at today's rural bus challenge announcement of £20 million, which will allow services such as the Boughton Boomerang and the Sherwood Sweeper to be set up to get people from coalfield villages to employment sites?

I was not aware of the boomerang service—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"]— although I have a few boomerangs out myself. The £20 million rural bus challenge will be important, because the point that my hon. Friend emphasised is correct: there is no doubt that unemployment has fallen and employment has risen substantially in the past few years, but one of the biggest difficulties, especially in rural areas, is people being unable to get to work because of difficulties with local transport. I hope that the additional investment in rural bus services will help to rectify that problem.