If he will make a statement on the funding of political parties in Northern Ireland. [153155]

We began a review last year of the rules governing funding arrangements of parties in Northern Ireland. I shall make a statement to the House shortly on its outcome. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government are aware of the concerns being voiced about funding arrangements for political parties in Northern Ireland.

I thank the Minister for his reply. In the light of continuing revelations about the scale and extent of paramilitary and criminal activities carried out by the republican movement in support, in particular, of Sinn Fein, the Minister will be aware of the great need to reassure the public, to prevent further corruption of the political process and to ensure that all political parties in Northern Ireland operate by the same democratic methods. Can he assure us that his review will be conducted speedily and proposals brought forward as a matter of urgency?

The hon. Gentleman will remember that the concerns he has just expressed were also expressed at the last Northern Ireland questions from all parts of the House, including the Front Bench. I will make my statement shortly, and we shall then receive representations from all political parties. I look forward to receiving representations from the hon. Gentleman's party and others. We recognise that there is widespread public concern, and we will engage in dialogue on it.

Does the Minister accept that if Sinn Fein's protestations about party funding are to be accepted, the answer lies in that party subjecting itself to the same rules on donations and on the disclosure of donations that apply to the Minister's party and to mine? Will the Government acknowledge, with the benefit of hindsight, that it was a mistake to exempt political parties in Northern Ireland from the rules that apply to political parties in Great Britain? Will the Government look sympathetically at rescinding those exemptions so that political parties in Northern Ireland have to comply with the same rules as every other political party in the United Kingdom?

I do not expect to receive representations only from Northern Ireland parties when I announce the review. The hon. Gentleman should perhaps note that there were major considerations regarding whether Northern Ireland should have legislation similar to that of the rest of the United Kingdom, not least the question of potential intimidation of donors and whether that would lead to disorder or discourage people from funding the political process. I accept that things have changed since then, both in the number of concerns expressed about funding in Northern Ireland and because of changes to legislation in the Republic of Ireland, which we will have to take into account. We will consider all the factors and I shall make a statement shortly. We will then receive representations and will go on to announce the outcome of the review. I shall take account of the points that the hon. Gentleman and others in the House have raised.

If he will make a statement on the review of the Belfast agreement. [153156]

The review of the operation of the agreement formally began, as the hon. Gentleman knows, in Belfast last Tuesday, and it has continued this week. It involves all parties in the Northern Ireland Assembly as well as the British and Irish Governments. Several parties, including the hon. Gentleman's own, have put forward interesting proposals, which we welcome. We have proposed an indicative calendar for intensive discussion between now and Easter across the range of issues that parties wish to raise.

Does the Secretary of State agree that it will be absolutely essential at the conclusion of the negotiations that each section of the community in Northern Ireland has confidence that its rights, culture, identity and future employment prospects are safeguarded, bearing in mind the Unionist community's concerns about the 1998 model?

I agree that, clearly, the agreement and its review must achieve confidence in all parts of the community. That includes nationalists, republicans, loyalists and Unionists, and, indeed, those who do not describe themselves as anything. The fundamental purpose of the Good Friday agreement was to ensure parity of esteem between people in Northern Ireland, from different communities and with different ways, who felt aggrieved over the years about what had happened to them in their communities. Clearly, it is important to give the confidence for which the hon. Gentleman asks. I believe that the discussions in Belfast over the next few weeks will need to concentrate heavily on building confidence across the board.

Will the Secretary of State reaffirm the Government's attitude and policy that the review is about the workings of the agreement, and not about the fundamental principles established and agreed to not only by the parties that participated in it, but by referendums, north and south, in Ireland? Will he confirm that it will be essential for a successful conclusion that all parties participating and agreeing will eventually participate in all strands—strands 1, 2, and 3? Documentation from the party of the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Campbell) deals only with strand 1. Will the Secretary of State say what is happening at the moment to the functioning of strand 2, which deals with north-south relationships?

Yes, the Government still take the view that the Good Friday agreement is the basis on which progress can be made. We know that the agreement covers fundamental matters such as the principle of consent, power sharing between parties, parity of esteem, which I have mentioned, and proper arrangements both north and south on the island of Ireland. All those things must be discussed and agreed in, as the hon. Gentleman rightly points out, a review of the operation of the agreement. There are inevitably differing views on the fundamentals of the agreement, but I believe that I have covered them. There are certainly differing views on the details of the operation of the agreement, and the discussions, reviews and negotiations are about trying to agree a compromise between nationalists and Unionists.

The Secretary of State will recall that the Northern Ireland Assembly was suspended in October 2002. At that time, the Government said that the Assembly would not resume until republicans had clearly completed the transition from paramilitarism to exclusively peaceful means. Is that still their position, and if it is, what steps are they taking to pressure republicans to complete that transition or are they addressing that issue, as others, in a purely passive way?

No. The right hon. Gentleman is of course right that the Assembly was suspended in 2002 because of the collapse of confidence among politicians in Northern Ireland. He rightly emphasises the fact that paramilitary activity, as defined in paragraph 13 of the joint declaration, was the reason why confidence collapsed. Both Governments take the view that we must resolve the issue, which is an important function of the review. Not only Governments but parties too must play their part in ensuring that paramilitary activity and violence are both things of the past.

My right hon. Friend rightly spoke about the need for confidence, but part of that is confidence in the good will of Her Majesty's Government. It is more than four months since the Government received the Cory report, and the Republic of Ireland Government have issued their two statements. There is a general feeling that the security forces are attempting to sanitise the report by Judge Cory and that they will deal with it in the same way as they tried to protract matters before the Saville inquiry. Can he give an undertaking to the House that the Government will publish the reports before the projected judicial review takes place? The courts have said that the Government have a case to answer in the Finucane family's case for not publishing them.

I assure my hon. Friend that there is no question of trying to suppress the Cory report, which we hope to publish fairly soon. He knows that there are difficulties regarding the protection of individuals who might be named in those four reports, which is obviously a matter of safety and privacy, but there are other legal reasons that we must examine carefully. However, he may rest assured that the Government intend to publish the report.

May I press the Secretary of State on the fundamentals of the agreement, and in particular the extent to which he sees power sharing as fundamental? If the Independent Monitoring Commission reports to him later this year that one or more parties in Northern Ireland have failed to comply with their commitment to exclusively peaceful and democratic means and failed to break their links with paramilitarism, would the Government be prepared to take the necessary action to exclude such a party from participation in government in the way in which the Taoiseach has said that it would be his policy south of the border?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Act that set up the Independent Monitoring Commission is clear about the process that must be followed. If the Assembly were up and running—I hope that it will be—it would have a role to play in the process, too. If the Assembly failed to agree on a method to deal with that situation, it would come before me. I cannot comment on what has not yet been reported, but the mechanisms for doing so are clear.

What representations he has received on the separation of paramilitary prisoners from other prisoners at Maghaberry prison. [153157]

The closing date for responses to the consultation on separation was set as 22 January. By the end of the consultation exercise, 21 submissions had been received from a variety of sources. We are currently considering those representations and will publish our conclusions shortly.

My right hon. Friend will be aware that today sees the publication of the report from the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee on the separation of paramilitary prisoners from ordinary prisoners in Maghaberry prison. It says that it was a dangerous decision for the public servants that had to implement it; that it was made for political reasons, following a campaign by dissidents; and that the trail seems to go back to 10 Downing street, where the decision may have been made by officials. May we have a guarantee that the line will now be drawn and we will not end up with the situation at Maghaberry that we used to have at the Maze, with the paramilitaries running their own areas?

We will obviously study the report carefully and respond at the appropriate time. It is important to understand that the Steele review was of the safety of staff and prisoners at Maghaberry. On that basis, it was welcomed and endorsed by church leaders and political parties in Northern Ireland. Decisions were taken on that basis by Northern Ireland Ministers. I welcome the detail of the report, which shows how complex and dangerous it is to manage and run prisons in Northern Ireland. In accepting John Steele's recommendations, we have made it clear that there will be no return to Maze-style conditions. We are determined that prison staff must remain in control, and the physical security measures, together with the prisoner compact, are designed to achieve that.

When was the last time that the Secretary of State and his team took a decision contrary to all the advice received from every responsible agency in the Province, as happened over the prison issue?

I can answer only for the decision that we took on this occasion. When we commissioned the Steele review, the terms of reference were clear: they were to examine options for improving conditions at Maghaberry prison, especially as they related to safety, for all prisoners and staff. Included in the terms of reference was the need to bear in mind the lessons of the past. I hope that that will reassure members of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee.

The disturbances in summer 2003 were not instigated by paramilitaries, but by integrated prisoners—the ordinary, decent criminals, or ODCs as they are affectionately known. Since those disturbances, the best accommodation at Maghaberry has been put aside for separated paramilitary prisoners and integrated prisoners have had to double up. What assurances can my right hon. Friend give me that the facilities for the ordinary, decent criminal population will improve, thus preventing further disturbances this summer?

I accept that there has been some reduction in the regime on offer to all prisoners in Maghaberry while we have been developing the arrangements for the separated prisoners. However, it is our intention that following establishment of the regime and the moving of the prisoners into their new accommodation, which we anticipate will take place at the end of this month, we will begin to put resources into the integrated regime that will continue to be offered in the rest of the prison.

The Minister will be aware of the recent attacks on prison officers and their homes, which are linked to the whole issue of separation. Recently, the Secretary of State reached an agreement with the Prison Officers Association to appoint an independent person to assess the need for security measures at home for individual cases. Can the Minister assure me that resources will not be an issue and that if prison officers need protection in their homes it will be made available? Will she confirm that it will not be a case of a window here or there, but that she will comply with the security recommendations?

I can give the hon. Gentleman that reassurance.

If he will make a statement on the security situation in Northern Ireland. [153158]

Dissident republicans remain a threat to the peace process, as evidenced by the recent device at Shackleton barracks in Ballykelly. For the most part their activities have been thwarted, intercepted or nullified by intelligence-led policing operations. Loyalist and republican paramilitaries continue to carry out attacks and acts of intimidation against their own communities. Apart from a few isolated incidents, however, interface areas have been quiet for the past 18 months.

Does the Minister agree that illegal shipments of arms from Libya to the IRA played a vital role in prolonging the terrorist campaign? Now that we are reopening diplomatic and other relations with Libya, and Libya is giving information about its weapons of mass destruction, surely Colonel Gaddafi owes it to us to give us details about those illegal shipments. Does the right hon. Lady agree that that would help the decommissioning process?

Yes, I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I would expect that the subject of arms supplied by Libya to the IRA in the past would be part of the Government's wide-ranging discussions with Libya. The hon. Gentleman is right; such information would be of great benefit.

The Minister will be aware that in recent years Northern Ireland Office Ministers have found difficult, if not impossible, to decide when ceasefires had been broken. Can she give us some idea about how the international Independent Monitoring Commission will receive evidence that points to the breaking of ceasefires? Can she inform the House whether that evidence will come from police and security sources who could not give such assurances to previous Ministers?

I am not quite sure about the point that my hon. Friend made in his last sentence, but I can assure him that the Independent Monitoring Commission will receive reports from all the areas that he identified and that it will present its reports to the two Governments.

Will the Minister comment on the extent of the intimidation directed both at Catholic members of district policing partnerships and at Catholics who apply to join the police? What steps are the Government taking to help the police to tackle that issue—for example, by commencing an active dialogue on it with Sinn Fein?

The attacks upon members of the district policing partnerships are being undertaken by dissident republican groups. Obviously, we are interested in speaking to whoever might have influence to bring about an end to intimidation in Northern Ireland. However, the specific attacks to which the hon. Gentleman refers are being diverted and disrupted by intelligence-led policing operations, and the police are to be commended for the work that they are undertaking. Such attacks are deplorable and the people who carry them out have no place in a democratic society.

May I ask my right hon. Friend about the security situation for minority ethnic communities in Northern Ireland, with particular reference to the Chinese community, which has suffered appalling violence and intimidation at the hands of racist thugs? Will my right hon. Friend tell us what is being done to protect the Chinese community in Northern Ireland, and will she meet the all-party Chinese in Britain group to discuss what we can do to try to help?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that issue. New legislation is being developed that will enable the police to have more powers to deal with such attacks and will allow the courts to deal with them more rigorously. The police continue to do all that they can to divert such activity and my right hon. Friend the Minister of State is looking into the matter to see what more can be done on that front.

Does the right hon. Lady accept that there is a feeling of dread in Northern Ireland—given the kind of remarks that have been made in the Chamber today about the increasing likelihood of no-warning bomb attacks from the Real IRA, the race attacks that have been taking place and general issues of criminality—at the prospect of losing 1,600 members of the security forces with the removal of the police reserve? Will she ensure that no political pressure is applied to the Chief Constable that would lead to such a decision?

I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. As he knows, the Chief Constable will review the security situation later this summer, and following that review final decisions will be taken.

Given the lack of confidence in the security situation at present, and particularly in prior acts of decommissioning, has any thought been given to replacing de Chastelain at the head of the independent weapons decommissioning monitoring body?

As I hope to have the opportunity to say later today, I commend the work of General de Chastelain and the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning. No thought has been given to the matter that the hon. Lady asked about. We are grateful for the commitment that the general has shown to the peace process in Northern Ireland, and I look forward to working with him in the future—[Interruption.]

Order. I ask the House to come to order.

A recent written answer that the Minister of State gave me showed that the full-time reserve of the Police Service of Northern Ireland accounts for roughly a quarter of all officers attached to district command units, and in the case of some local command units the proportion is much larger. In view of that, can the Government state categorically that the full-time reserve will not be sacrificed or disbanded for political reasons, and that it will be maintained for as long as its presence on the ground in Northern Ireland is necessary for the maintenance of effective local policing?

As the hon. Gentleman will know, this is a decision that the Policing Board has in hand. Its decision will be very much informed by the advice of the Chief Constable once he has completed his review of security later this summer.

What discussions he has had with interested parties in Northern Ireland about the promotion of the arts. [153159]

I have had discussions about the promotion of the arts with a range of interested parties, including political representatives and those working in the statutory, community and voluntary sectors.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. I know first hand from my work as a professional arts promoter the potential of the arts to heal, to educate and to strengthen communities. What use is my hon. Friend making of the arts in those capacities in Northern Ireland?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his interest in the issue. The arts do indeed have the capacity to bring communities together. The work that I have seen of, for example, the Lyric theatre and the Community Circus school in Belfast and the Nerve centre and the Verbal Arts centre in the city of Derry shows that they can promote a far greater understanding and acceptance of different cultures and traditions.

We are all aware of the growing culture of mural art in Northern Ireland. This is to be found in both communities—[Interruption.]

Order. The hon. Gentleman is asking a question.

In fact, that mural art is a tourist attraction. Is the Minister aware of just how many properties in public ownership carry sectarian and political murals? Will she provide funding and harness the talent that exists in Northern Ireland to provide more attractive and more acceptable murals and give encouragement to that art?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. Murals can be divisive or unifying. As he knows, the Ulster-Scots Agency has looked at bringing in new murals and over-painting those that are sectarian. I will give further consideration to the hon. Gentleman's suggestion.

Whether the religious education core syllabus for grant-aided schools in Northern Ireland seeks to ensure that children understand both Catholic and Protestant versions of Christianity; and if he will make a statement. [153160]

The current core syllabus for religious education was developed jointly by the four main churches. It accounts for around half of teaching time in this subject. Schools can augment the core syllabus in accordance with their own ethos. The syllabus is currently being reviewed by a working party, whose advice I expect to receive shortly.

Will my right hon. Friend do everything possible to undermine the religious bigotry that exists in schools in Northern Ireland, and give young people the broadest possible understanding of both religious and secular value systems, so that the inter-generational problems that we see in Northern Ireland can begin to be tackled where it really counts—at home and in the early years at school?

I agree with the broad thrust of my hon. Friend's comments. It is already open to schools to provide opportunities for pupils to look at the beliefs of other Christian denominations and at other world religions, and I encourage them to do so.

The Minister could help with this problem a great deal. If I were a young man applying to become a police officer in Northern Ireland, I would be referred to as a non-Catholic, not a Protestant, so could the Minister give a commitment that all future legislation in Northern Ireland will refer to Protestants who are members of the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church and that all those who are not Protestants will be referred to correctly as Roman Catholics?

No, I am not prepared to give any such assurance.

If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 11 February.

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.

Next week, I shall visit Kenny Richey—a British citizen who has been held on death row in Ohio for the past 17 years. Amnesty International describes his case as

"one of the most compelling cases of innocence"

First, I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving some notice of that question. I can give him the following information: I understand that Mr. Richey is awaiting the decision on an appeal for his retrial, and that decision is expected soon. We are continuing to monitor the case closely and will see what the result of Mr. Richey's appeal is before deciding what further representations we need to make. The Foreign Office is in touch directly with Mr. Richey's lawyers, both in the United States and in the United Kingdom, and with Ohio state officials, so we will continue to monitor this closely, and, as a result of the hon. Gentleman's question, I shall obviously make inquiries about it myself.

Nineteen young people drowned in Morecambe bay last Thursday—the victims not only of the sea but of greed and exploitation. Does the Prime Minister agree that the slave-labour practices of some gangmasters put a stain on the character of Britain throughout the world? Does he also agree that it is an affront to every decent person in Britain? Can he therefore tell me whether the Government are willing to support and give time to the private Member's Bill that is being proposed to license the operation of gangmasters? Can he also tell me what regulations will be put in place for the operation of public fisheries such as Morecambe bay?

First, I think that the whole House would want to express its sorrow at what happened in that terrible tragedy and our deep sympathy for the victims and their families. As my hon. Friend will realise, a criminal investigation is under way, and it would be inappropriate therefore to comment at this stage, but there is no doubt that a number of issues arise out of this, and I can tell her that we certainly support the objectives set out in the private Member's Bill proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for West Renfrewshire (Jim Sheridan). The detail must be got right, and we are working with him and Departments to ensure that it is.

May I join the Prime Minister in expressing my sympathy to the families of the victims of the tragedy at Morecambe bay?

What I said—and what we are doing—is that before the regulations that will grant the concession of free movement of workers are laid before Parliament, we have to make sure that any potential basis for the exploitation of any loopholes in the rules is closed off. That is what we are looking at now, and that includes looking in particular at the benefits regime.

No, no. The Prime Minister was not referring last week only to the benefits regime. I put it to him last Wednesday that most other European Union countries had imposed transitional controls, and he replied:

"It is precisely for that reason that we are examining doing that now."

"That is why we are looking at both issues."—[Official Report, 4 February 2004; Vol. 417, c. 753.]

I am not changing my mind. The free movement of people is guaranteed throughout the European Union after accession. The free—[Interruption.] Yes, the free movement of people is guaranteed; the free movement of workers, however, is not. In respect of that, we are looking at both the benefits system and whatever other measures are necessary to make sure that if that concession is granted—and we have not yet laid the regulations that will grant it—that is done in a way that prevents it from being exploited. We are not against people coming here to work properly; we will not, however, allow our system to be exploited or abused.

We are hearing one thing from the Prime Minister at the Dispatch Box and completely different things from others in his own Government. The Prime Minister said one thing last Wednesday, and was contradicted that very afternoon by his own official spokesman. He was contradicted at the weekend by the Home Secretary, contradicted again by another official spokesman, then contradicted again by the Home Secretary on Monday. Last week, we saw a bold statement on Wednesday, good headlines on Thursday, a climbdown on Friday and total confusion by the weekend—a familiar pattern from this Prime Minister. Will he now give us a clear answer? Will the Government do what other countries are doing, and what the Prime Minister said he was looking at? Will he impose transitional controls on immigration from the accession countries or not?

I am afraid that the right hon. and learned Gentleman read out his last question without paying any attention to the answers that he had already been given. The position, as I have set it out, is quite simply this. There will be free movement of people after 1 May this year. Free movement of workers, however, is a concession that we are prepared to grant, but not in circumstances in which it can be abused. We are therefore looking at the benefits system and considering any other measures necessary to ensure that that concession is not abused. I do not see what is so complicated about that.

I understand that Ministers will shortly be deciding on the central rail project for roll-on/roll-off trains to transport lorries from north to south, which will halve the north-south traffic on the M1. That is not only supported by people in Broxtowe because of the potential for jobs; it is the only project in human history that has support from employers, unions, green groups and the Freight Transport Association—[Interruption.] Will my right hon. Friend give it a warm welcome?

I think, as was fairly obvious just then, that that proposal is not without controversy in certain quarters. All that I can say to my hon. Friend on the project is this. It clearly has the potential to offer significant environmental and congestion benefits, and we are therefore considering it carefully, but we will want to make sure that the claimed environmental and congestion benefits are real. In addition, the issue of the financing of the proposal is very important. However, we will look at it with an open mind.

Can the Prime Minister clarify the current state of negotiations between the British Government and the American Administration over the British citizens who are being held captive at Guantanamo bay?

Yes, I can. We are continuing to negotiate over whether those people should be tried by the US commission, or whether they should be returned. There is an option, in the end, over which of those courses is pursued. I am sorry—I have to say this—that the process is taking time, but it is taking time, as I hope the House understands, for very good reasons. We want to make sure that if people are brought back here—I say this without any disrespect to those people—that does not in any shape or form endanger the security of this country.

On that very important latter point, given the recent comments of the Home Secretary about lowering the burden of proof in terrorist cases, will the Prime Minister give the House an absolute assurance that we will not undermine the fundamental principles of British justice if these people are brought back to these shores and are then made to stand trial? Has he set a deadline with the American Government for this issue to be resolved once and for all?

No, there is not a deadline for that, and in a sense, it is for us ultimately to decide, if we cannot reach agreement, that we bring them back here. In relation to civil liberties and issues to do with legislation, we shall not do anything—indeed, I do not believe that we have done anything—to undermine essential civil liberties in this country. But there are real issues and dangers to do with terrorism. That is why we took exceptional measures, which were passed through the House, to allow us to detain people who were not British nationals in circumstances in which they would not be convicted in a court of law beyond reasonable doubt. We took those powers in respect of people who are not British nationals because of the danger that terrorism poses to this country. We will continue to keep the law under review, as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary was saying, but I would say to the right hon. Gentleman and to the House that the dangers of terrorism are real. There are groups of people in this country and right round the world at the moment who would have no compunction at all in killing large numbers of innocent people; we saw that happen in Moscow last week. I know that, while this type of legislation is before the House, people worry about civil liberties. I can promise the right hon. Gentleman that if some terrible terrorist event occurred, their worry would be about security.

In the Prime Minister's welcome talks with Mr. Shalgam yesterday, what was said about the prisoner in Barlinnie jail in Glasgow, Mr. Megrahi? Was that matter discussed?

That particular individual was not discussed at all, but the issue to do with Libyan and British relations arising out of Lockerbie obviously was. But, no, that particular individual was not mentioned in the conversation.

What steps are being taken to persuade Israel to give up her weapons of mass destruction?

I would like to see the whole of the middle east free from the threat of weapons of mass destruction, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise the particular worries that Israel has about security, given that it is surrounded by many countries, some of whose stated objective is still to get rid of the state of Israel altogether. I have my criticisms of Israeli policy, but I would remind the hon. Gentleman that it is a democracy, whose Governments are elected by its people. At the same time as we try to strive for a region free of weapons of mass destruction, in whatever country, we must recognise that it is important to respect the security of Israel.

My right hon. Friend will know that there was a tragic fire in Padiham in my constituency at the weekend in which three young children died, despite the heroic efforts of their mother and of the emergency services. He will also know that a review of building regulations is currently taking place. The chief fire officer of Lancashire, Peter Holland, and the News of the World are campaigning for sprinklers to be included in the new building regulations, starting with those affecting new build properties for vulnerable people. Will the Government support those moves, recognising that sprinklers can save lives?

Our thoughts are with the family and friends of the three young victims of that horrific tragedy in Padiham in Lancashire. At the moment, investigations into that fire, and into whether it could have been avoided if the home had been fitted with a sprinkler, are still continuing. We have, however, been actively investigating the effectiveness of sprinkler systems in tackling fires in residential properties. The results of that work, which is being undertaken on our behalf by the Building Research Establishment, are to be published this week. They will be fed into the review of the fire safety aspects of the building regulations that is currently under way. We are going to have a look at this issue; we can take forward any lessons, and any indications that we receive from local people in the fire service as to what they think. My hon. Friend has put his finger on the nub of this issue, which is that there may well be a case for altering the provisions in respect of properties where particularly vulnerable people are housed. Whether that means that we extend the provisions even further is a more difficult question, but I understand the point that he has raised.

Can the Prime Minister confirm that the Government plan to give £10 million of taxpayer's money to the trade unions?

Somewhere in the region of £5 million to £10 million will be given to trade unions over—

Higher, higher.

Only around £5 million to £10 million will be given to trade unions over the next few years, to encourage the process of modernisation in the trade union movement. [Interruption.] Unlike the Opposition, we think that good industrial relations between employers and trade unions are good for British business, and for Britain.

I have here the relevant Government new clause to the Employment Relations Bill, and it is very widely drawn. It states:

"The Secretary of State may provide money to a trade union…to improve the carrying out of any of its functions"

"to carry out any new functions."

I doubt very much whether Mr. Bob Crow is in favour of the money being used for the modernisation of trade unions. I totally disagree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman: it is right to spend the money because it is right to help trade unions modernise. However, I can give another example that involves the Government spending rather more than £5 million to £10 million extra—the Short money that we have given to the Conservative party. I have to say, though, that the signs of modernisation there do not yet show that we are getting value for money

The deal that the Prime Minister is offering to the unions is that the Labour party gets £6 million from the trade unions, and the unions get £10 million from taxpayers in return. That is not a bad deal. Is that what the Prime Minister meant when he said that the trade unions would get "fairness but no favours" from a Labour Government?

I am glad to see that the right hon. and learned Gentleman's attitude to trade unions has changed not one whit. After all, when in government, he opposed the minimum wage, the social chapter and the right of people to join a trade union, even when they wanted to. I am sorry that he is still stuck in the same old groove. [Interruption.]

Order, Mr. Skinner. I heard booing in the Chamber. I will not tolerate that, even if it means suspending the House during Prime Minister's Question Time.

If he will visit Nottingham, North to discuss social behaviour.

I have no current plans to do so, but I remember well my last visit to my hon. Friend's constituency.

Does the Prime Minister accept that the House and the Government have attacked antisocial behaviour very effectively? That is certainly the case in my constituency, but does he agree that there is another side to that coin—that as well as attacking antisocial behaviour we should promote social behaviour in our youngsters? Will he consider the possibility of including social behaviour as a core activity in the national curriculum, so that we can prepare youngsters to take best advantage of the schooling that is on offer? In that way, we could do for social behaviour what we have done so effectively for literacy and numeracy.

My hon. Friend raises an important point. Citizenship education became a statutory part of the national curriculum in September 2002. That framework gives us our best chance to teach young people about responsibility, but he is also right to draw attention to our measures on antisocial behaviour. One thing that we know is that the more we invest in young people at the earliest possible age, the better chance we have of making sure that they become responsible adults—hence the importance of programmes such as Sure Start. That is why it is important that, as well as acting to clamp down on antisocial behaviour, we should continue to invest in the education of our young people. That education, of which citizenship is a part, is the best way to ensure a more secure society in the future.

Will the Prime Minister thank the Foreign Office for its continuing interest in the case of Krishna Maharaj in Florida, and could he suggest—

Order. The question must be on social behaviour.

The Government have rightly attached great importance to the question of fair access to universities through their proposal for the Office for Fair Access, but given that 43 per cent. of young people go to universities yet 100 per cent. go to secondary school, and considering the importance of secondary education in the prospects of young people of continuing to university, is there not an even more powerful case for an office for fair access to secondary schools?

My hon. Friend's point is partly met by the independent schools adjudicators, who oversee complaints and disputes about admission arrangements. I think the other thing I would say to him is that the more we can encourage, especially in the poorest parts of our country, the development of really good quality secondary schools—the specialist schools—and the city academies are an attempt to do this, and excellence in cities is another—the best chance our young people will have in those schools of getting good quality education, irrespective of their wealth. It is certainly important that we keep under review how we develop that programme to ensure that access is indeed fair.

May I ask the Prime Minister what is in the best interest of the United Kingdom: the re-election of pro-war President Bush, or the election of anti-war Senator Kerry?

Can I just say to the hon. Gentleman that I have learned enough in my six or seven years as Prime Minister not to interfere in the American presidential election? That decision is, and should be, for the American people alone.

The Prime Minister will be aware that the International Monetary Fund has recently revised its growth predictions for the British economy in 2004. Instead of a growth figure of 2.4 per cent., it now estimates growth of 3.1 per cent. Does he agree that that is eloquent testimony to the success of the British economy?

Yes, it is. It comes on a day when unemployment has yet again fallen. We now have more than 1.5 million more jobs in the economy than in 1997, when some people said that we would lose 1 million jobs in the British economy. We have actually got record levels of employment, and unemployment is now at its lowest level for well over 25 years and almost 30 years. That is a result of the stable economic policies pursued by the Chancellor, the new deal and the measures that we have taken to ensure that opportunity is not the privilege of a few, but open to the many.

Is the Prime Minister comfortable with the fact that because the council tax is unrelated to ability to pay, he pays the same council tax, earning £175,000 a year, as the security guards who provide security in the House of Commons and are paid less than £17,000?

There is a debate about how local government is best financed, but I must say to the hon. Gentleman that when one actually looks at the different systems of local government finance, the first starting point on which everyone should agree is that there is no perfect system. One can point to anomalies in respect of any system, but I do not myself think—although of course we look at this with an open mind—that local people would like to have their income tax decided by local authorities. If that is the Liberal Democrats' policy, I think that they would be as well to conceal it pretty carefully.

The Government have been extremely successful, especially in introducing programmes that are targeted at young people who are at risk of offending. Does the Prime Minister therefore understand the disappointment of a number of projects in my constituency that at this late stage of the year are facing significant reductions in their funding under the children's fund? Will he agree, at least, to go back and look again at the children's fund because although investment is important, consistency is important too? The programme has not been running for long and it is important that we give such programmes the benefit of the doubt.

Spot on.

Opposition Members say, "Spot on," but as I recall, they opposed the financing. The point that my hon. Friend makes is important. There is a danger for some of the programmes that are not financed on a recurrent basis that funding comes to an end. I will look into the situation in her constituency. Obviously, there is always a limit on the amount of money that can be spent, and we are investing a considerable amount in the children's fund, neighbourhood renewal projects, and so forth. There is a particular issue of what happens when those projects are up and running and doing well and funding is suddenly cut short. That is precisely what we are looking at now, which will obviously form part not just of deliberations on the Budget but of the comprehensive spending review.

The events in Morecombe bay were both tragic and unpardonable, but further to the Prime Minister's answer to the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Geraldine Smith), does he recognise that also at the heart of the matter is the pool of illegal immigrants in this country who fall easy prey to the despicable activities of illegal gangmasters? In the light of that tragedy, what action will the Prime Minister take to remove those people from this country?

It is precisely for that reason that we do remove illegal immigrants from this country—actually, thousands and thousands a year. That problem faces this Government as it did the previous Government and Governments right around the western world. This goes far wider than the particular tragedy and is not in a sense to be connected with that, but the debate that we have been having on the subject of identity cards is a very relevant question for the future because we will not be able to control the problem with the old methods.

My right hon. Friend referred to a decrease once again in unemployment, but there is still growing concern about the number of people on disability benefits who are not getting the opportunities and choices that others receive. What more can the Government do to give people on incapacity benefit and disability living allowance the opportunity to take part in constructive society?

There are two measures in place: there is a tax credit that is available for disabled people to ensure that work pays for them; and there is also, of course, the new deal, which specifically targets some of those who are disabled or on incapacity benefit. My hon. Friend's point is absolutely right; there are still far too many people on incapacity benefit who could be brought off benefit and into work. One thing that we must do is ensure that they understand the opportunities that are now available and the support through the tax credit system, which will in many instances give them the opportunity to work and make them considerably better off.

With the inclusion of the 10 new countries in the European Union, the United Kingdom is set to lose £3 billion of European regional funding for 2007 to 2013. Do the Government intend to supplement that shortfall to present levels, and will they do so by taxing the hard-pressed British taxpayer even more?

I cannot entirely work out what angle the hon. Lady is coming from. Is she asking us to support the programmes or to ditch them? I thought that it was a matter of common cause across the House that we supported the accession countries entering the European Union. Obviously, as that happens, unless we increase dramatically the overall amount of the EU budget, there will be less for those countries that are already in the EU and are wealthier. Of course we look at specific programmes and whether we need to bridge the funding for them, but it is important to recognise that the alternative is either not having those countries in the EU—that would be a huge mistake for Europe—or pushing up the European budget, which we have made clear, as the Chancellor did again yesterday, we do not favour.

Last year, one in four deaths in England and Wales led to an autopsy, as opposed to one in eight in Scotland and to one in 12 in Northern Ireland. Does the Prime Minister agree that many of those 121,000 autopsies caused unnecessary distress and delay to already grieving families? Is it not time that the coroner service was urgently reformed to ensure consistency across the UK—not least in the reporting of drugs-related deaths?

I understand from my right hon. Friend that proposals on the reform of the coroner service will be published shortly. It may be as well to wait for the outcome of that.

After months of trying, my constituents, Mr. and Mrs. Keys, secured a meeting with the Secretary of State for Defence last week to receive a briefing about the current state of the investigation by the special investigation branch into the death of their son, Lance Corporal Tom Keys and five other military policemen last June. In that meeting, not a word was said about the military policemen having to return ammunition rounds before going on duty or, indeed, losing essential medical supplies, apparently for audit purposes. The Ministry of Defence liaison officer rang late on Friday evening to tell them about that, because it was being broken in the press on Sunday. Mr. and Mrs. Keys, through me, are asking the Prime Minister when they can ever expect to learn the truth about the death of their son.

First, I express once again my condolences and sympathy to the family of the hon. Gentleman's constituent. May I tell them, through him, that I understand their anxiety, and that it is the reason why there is an inquiry? Once it has completed its work, and we know exactly what happened to those six members of the Royal Military Police, we will obviously be in a better position to communicate with the families on the basis of precise details. However, those six people died in the course of their duty in circumstances in which they demonstrated enormous courage and bravery—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman has asked about medals, but it has already been made clear that we will look at that later when the inquiry is complete.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

I will take points of order after the statements.