What steps his Department is taking to support the development of crime and disorder reduction partnerships. [179829]

Local authorities have a statutory duty to work with the police and other agencies in local crime and disorder reduction partnerships. More than a quarter of neighbourhood renewal funds are spent on local crime and community safety projects supporting the work of the partnerships.

The Safer Stockton partnership, which has received beacon status, has reduced house burglaries by 13 per cent. over three years an excellent achievement that has been delivered by street wardens. How will that body of excellent people be funded in future?

I congratulate the Safer Stockton partnership, which was highly rated by the beacon council panel. My hon. Friend is right to say that neighbourhood wardens and street wardens are making a huge difference—in fact, the in independent evaluation found that there was a 28 per cent reduction in crime in the first wave of areas in which wardens were used. Of that first wave, 80 per cent. have found continuing funding, and we are examining ways in which to expand the programme further.

It is no use the Minister saying that she is examining other funding methods. The wardens were introduced in a pilot scheme, which was extended local authorities such as Stockton were encouraged to take them on, and the Prime Minister, in extending the schemes, said that they were very popular. Then, the Government pull the rug out from under local authorities and withdraw the funding. Is not that the clearest example of the Government imposing burdens on local authorities and transferring public expenditure by way of their favourite stealth tax, the council tax?

I welcome the hon. Gentleman back to the Commons. I hope that he is recovering well. I am only sorry that he is continuing to talk nonsense. As he well knows, neighbourhood warden programmes have been extremely successful and, as I said, 80 per cent. of schemes across the country are already picking up continuing funding. He talks about burdens on local government, but what sort of burden would be imposed by a £2.5 billion cut in the local government budget? I wonder whether Conservative spokesmen actually speak to each other. The hon. Gentleman ought to talk to the shadow Chancellor and get to the bottom of the funding problem. It is true that wardens need continued funding; we are providing that from various sources, whereas his party would cut it.

I have met my local superintendent, Alasdair Hope, to discuss the crime and disorder reduction partnership in my constituency. The police have raised the planning impact assessment with me and want to know whether pressure can be brought to bear on new development. Four thousand new houses have been built in the area in the past five years, and a further 9,000 are due. If housing estates were better designed, crime would decrease. How can we improve the system?

My hon. Friend is right to say that well designed public spaces and estates can have a big impact in terms of preventing crime. Working with the Home Office, we have produced guidance on designing out crime, and I encourage his local partnership to have a look at that guidance.

What action he intends to take following the East of England regional assembly's comments on the sustainable communities plan. [1798301

The Government are grateful for the work undertaken by the East of England regional assembly in assessing the infrastructure requirements needed to deliver the sustainable communities plan as part of its regional planning work. My right hon. and noble Friend Lord Rooker met representatives of the East of England regional assembly last Thursday, 17 June, and will write to them with a detailed response to their proposals once the outcome of the spending review is known.

Instead of trying to solve the housing problems of London and the south-east by ramming a vast amount of housing into only four areas around London, will the Government consider trying to spread housing growth more widely across the region, and in particular nearer to where people work, which would cut pollution and journey times? In addition, will the Minister pay serious attention to the 300,000 empty homes in and around London? Such an approach would win praise from the East of England regional assembly and the 17,000 of my constituents who have asked the Government to think again.

The Government are not seeking to ram housing down the throats of the hon. Gentleman's constituents. We are responding to their concerns which, I remind him, he highlighted in the House on 5 March when he said:

"I am well aware, as the local Member of Parliament, that there is a great housing need in my constituency … week after week, my constituents come to me because they are unhoused or very inadequately housed."—[Official Report , 5 March 2004; Vol. 418, c. 1216.]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there appears to be a conflict between the position of the East of England regional assembly, which accepts the argument of the Barker review, and the need to implement those proposals somewhere? Does he not agree that the growth areas represent an opportunity to obtain balanced communities through positive planning?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's positive and constructive approach to the need to ensure that we meet the unquestionable pressures throughout the south-east and the growth areas for new housing. The need for those homes, however, has to be met in a sustainable way, and it is important that that is accompanied by infrastructure investment. We are seeking to ensure that that happens, and all the discussions that are under way aim to achieve that.

The vast majority of my constituents in North Essex have no idea that the East of England regional assembly exists. When they hear that it is going to start imposing housing targets for massive house building in my constituency they will be angry that it is just an extension of the right hon. Gentleman's Department. Why is the Government's regional policy so confused? One minute the Deputy Prime Minister claims that learning and skills councils will be the responsibility of regional government, but then that is slapped down by the Secretary of State for Education and Skills. The Deputy Prime Minister wants a Barnett formula for regional government, but of course the Treasury will not give him one. Why cannot a regional assemblies Bill be published as quickly as possible so that it can be debated, instead of the Government spending all the taxpayer's money on propaganda to promote regional government, which probably nobody wants?

It is difficult to know which part of the hon. Gentleman's rambling question was his priority, but our commitment is to give people in the northern regions choice about whether they have an elected regional assembly or not. His party has never given choice to people—it abolished tiers of government without giving people any say in the matter. We believe in democracy, and we believe in giving people a choice.

A wide range of organisations in Milton Keynes recognise the positive approach in the sustainable communities plan to expanding Milton Keynes, meeting the undoubted housing needs of the local population and making sure that housing is affordable. In particular, may I pass on to my right hon. Friend the congratulations of t he Milton Keynes forum, the only civic—

Order. The hon. Lady can do that in writing.

Once again, I agree about the importance of a constructive approach to meeting the need for development in a sustainable way that protects the environment and improves people's quality of life. That is our commitment, and I certainly welcome all the work in Milton Keynes to achieve our common objectives.

What figures the Government have collated on the availability of affordable housing, coastal towns in the north-west. [179831]

The availability of affordable housing is primarily a matter for local housing authorities, although the Government collates range of data on housing stock condition, new completions and vacancies at local authority level.

The Minister must recognise that there is a growing crisis in affordable housing in successful resorts such as Southport. That is a problem for first-time buyers, and it is also causes problems for the town's economic expansion. Does he acknowledge that there is now a case for looking closely at regional planning guidance and the hot sing moratorium?

There is no moratorium. The hon. Gentleman should bear in mind the fact that over the past 10 years house building in the north-west region has exceeded demand by 50 per cent., so it is reasonable to try to relate new housing development to need. However, new Government funding of nearly £500 million over the next two years will deliver 9,500 homes for rent and sale, as well as improvements to existing houses in the north-west. I am sure that Sefton metropolitan borough council, Southport's local authority, will benefit from that new money for the purposes of affordable housing.

While recognising the needs of Southport and the coastal towns, my right hon. Friend must not forget that nearby towns like Chorley, which are affected in the same way, ought to be part of the same package. Will he consider using the Government-owned land in Chorley for low-cost housing?

I am aware of my hon. Friend's serious concerns about the matter on behalf of his constituents in Chorley, which he has raised in many representations to me. I anticipate that Chorley will benefit from the extra package of funding that I mentioned earlier, and we expect new planning guidance for the north-west region to commence towards the end of this year.

What reviews are being undertaken of the experience of the all-postal ballot pilots in the June elections; and if he will make a statement. [179832]

The Electoral Commission is evaluating the pilots and will report in September. The pilots' achievement is, however, already clear. In the four regions holding all-postal ballots, more than twice as many people voted as did in the Euro elections in 1999, an increase of nearly 3 million voters. Turnout in the local elections also increased. As the House knows, the Electoral Commission is reviewing, under the statutory requirements, the results of those four pilots and will report to the House. Unlike the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan), who yesterday told the House that he did not care what the Electoral Commission thought, I am sure he rest of us in the House welcome the opportunity to study the commission's findings. Finally, I am sure the House will want to congratulate all the returning officers, their staff and the Royal Mail on rising to tin challenge.

Will the Deputy Prime Minister acknowledge that there is a tension between increasing the turnout, which we all welcome, and forcing people to vote by a method that they did I not choose? Many constituents in Cheadle have indicated to me that they are unhappy about being forced to vote by post, and that they wish to be able to engage in voting at the local polling station, which gave them a sense of civic occasion that is lacking from filling in a form at home.

The turnout in the hon. Lady's constituency increased. In 1999 the turnout for the Euro election was 26 per cent. In 2004, in the last elections, it was 43 per cent.—65 per cent. increase. Whatever the tensions to which she refers, I do not believe for a moment that people were forced to vote in that manner. They turned out in their extra hundreds of thousands to vote. That was the purpose of the exercise and we achieved it.

Will my right hon. Friend take it from me that in Sheffield the postal voting pilot was extremely well managed, and was received universally throughout the city? We had a 100 per cent. increase in turnout compared with the last local elections. For many younger people, that will have been the first time that they had ever seen a ballot paper, and they used it. The one thing that my right hon. Friend might consider is making one or two local positions available for people to put their ballot papers on polling day. Apart from that, the system worked beautifully smoothly.

My hon. Friend rightly points out that there was a successful turnout. When the Electoral Commission recommended all-postal pilots, all parties in the House agreed. Nobody disagreed; everybody voted for the principle. More people participated in the elections than before—a very considerable increase. We are actively considering my hon. Friend's recommendation, but we should wait for the report from the Electoral Commission, which is reviewing the process and will report in September. I am sure that the House will give serious consideration to its recommendations, and not do as the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton did yesterday, when he said:

"I do not care what the Electoral Commission said."—[Official Report , 22 June 2004; Vol. 422, c. 1208.]

The Deputy Prime Minister knows that the all-postal ballots were extremely expensive for council tax payers, not least because of the cost of specialised printing, the huge amounts of overtime, and postage. What estimate has he made of the extra cost of the experiment to council tax payers, and how much would have been saved if he had listened to the advice of the Electoral Commission?

The hon. Gentleman's point about expense surprises me, because pilot experiments have occurred since 2000, and he did not complain about expense in the four years in which more than 200 all-postal voting experiments occurred. It would be a lot cheaper if people did not vote, but if that is the Liberal position, I disagree with it.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that some of the problems in the Bradford district emanated from registration rather than from the all-out postal ballot? Is he prepared to chat with my hon. Friends the Members for Bradford, North (Mr. Rooney) and for Bradford, West (Mr. Singh) and me about the problems, as we perceive them, in the Bradford district?

I understand my hon. Friend's point, and she has made a number of public statements about the matter. However, I recommend that she talks to the Electoral Commission, which is reviewing the circumstances. I am always open to discussing hon. Members' fears, but the Electoral Commission, which will issue a report that the House will debate, will best address my hon. Friend's concerns.

Will the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that this autumn's regional referendums will be postponed if the Electoral Commission identifies problems with the all-postal ballot?

The orders relating to the referendums will be laid before the House very shortly, and the referendums will take place. I shall reaffirm what we said last night: if the Electoral Commission makes it clear in its report that it believes the ballots to be unsafe, we will reconsider the voting process, but until we receive that report we will proceed with the orders. We intend to hold the referendums and give people in the north the chance to decide whether they want their own assembly.

Will my right hon. Friend tell me the number of letters of apology that he has received from editors and journalists who told us that the election would be chaotic and that it would involve court cases? Is it the same old story of all the news that is fit to print, or has he received, as he ought to have done, letters of apology?

The press whipped up the atmosphere, often with little evidence, and I have asked the editors whether they have sent evidence to either the police or the Electoral Commission. My hon. Friend will wait a long time to get apologies out of the British press.

Will the Deputy Prime Minister accept that yesterday's concession by the Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie), which The Times has portrayed as something that may wreck the regional polls, is surely proof that, while he doggedly pursues the route to regionalisation, Government Front Benchers are increasingly looking for the exit signs?

That is nonsense. A report in The Times does not guarantee that a story is true. [Interruption.] There are many examples of The Times getting something wrong and not apologising. When The Times first raised its concerns about electoral offences, it committed an electoral offence itself by reporting an estimate from the exit polls. The hon. Lady should not necessarily believe what she reads in The Times—that statement is unfortunate, but it happens to be true. As in the cases of Scotland, Wales and London, the Government are united on giving people in the northern areas of this country a chance to say whether they want an elected assembly, and I hope that they vote for that. I assume that the Opposition will change their position, as they have done on every other occasion. To begin with, they oppose regional assemblies, but they accept them when people say that they want them.

When he expects to make an announcement about the future for housing development around Gatwick airport.[179833]

Decisions about the extent and location of housing developments are, in the first instance, for the local planning authority concerned. Decisions on whether to lift directions that restrict Crawley borough council from granting planning permissions for housing development on some of the land near Gatwick will be taken once final announcements have been made on the location of new airport facilities in the south-east.

The Minister knows that Gatwick airport is a difficult issue, but does he agree that West Sussex county council's continual peddling of the idea that we want to concrete over the south-east of England is a dereliction of its duty? We must ensure that all the people in West Sussex have good quality housing.

My hon. Friend is right. She is well known for her energetic efforts in pressing hard for more affordable homes for people in her constituency. There are other sites. For example, there is one in nearby Horley, where up to 2,600 new houses have been allocated for development in the emerging local plan. I urge the borough council and West Sussex county council to work closely with the Government office for the south-east to prepare an action plan that will deliver more homes for young families in my hon. Friend's constituency.

What assessment he has made of the potential of sport to help regenerate deprived communities. [179834]

Sport can play an important role in renewal programmes by building community links, improving health and engaging young people in popular activities. The Department has recently published reports that examine the links between sport and regeneration and provide guidance for local programmes.

Leigh sports village is a fine example of how to regenerate a deprived former coalfield area with first-class sports and education facilities. It carries the hopes of thousands of people in Leigh who have been let down many times previously. The plan is currently with the Department in a submission from the Government office for the north-west. Will my hon. Friend listen to the 95 per cent. of people in Leigh who support the scheme, give it the green light without a damaging delay and 1et us get on with rebuilding a better future for Leigh?

My hon. Friend knows that we cannot comment on planning applications that are going through the process. We are keen to support more sport in the neighbourhood renewal areas and in neighbourhood renewal programmes as a valuable way in which to get local people, especially young people, involved in community life.

The Under-Secretary will agree that the provision of such facilities is good for deprived communities. Does she also agree that the cost of admission for the use of those facilities can be a disincentive? What advice does she give local authorities to encourage greater use of facilities by people in deprived communities?

Local partnerships are pursuing various programmes, sometimes for reduced admissions in specific areas. The programmes are often for school children to encourage the use of sports facilities. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that that can make a big difference in deprived areas and we would encourage more of it. There are some great programmes, such as the street games programme, which we would like to be developed in other areas. [Interruption.]

Order. Hon. Members should keep the noise down.

Does the Under-Secretary realise that Bolsover fits neatly the criteria of being a deprived community, mainly because every single pit was shut in the 1980s and 1990s and some of the miners' welfare facilities went with those closures? Now we have a programme for brand new swimming baths in Bolsover, but we need some money and help. Will she have a word with my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister to ensure that we get the show on the road in the next couple of years?

I am happy to look at the proposal that my hon. Friend mentions. He is right that we have had decades of under-investment and decline in the coalfield areas. The pits were shut and nothing was put in their place. We have now had seven years of good investment in our coalfield communities. That is bringing jobs back to the coalfield areas where they belong.

What assessment his Department has made of the progress of the housing renewal pathfinder projects.[179835]

Under the sustainable communities plan, we are investing £500 million to help reinvigorate the housing markets in the nine areas that are worst affected by low demand. So far, we have allocated funding to six of the projects, including £68 million to the East Lancashire partnership, which covers my hon. Friend's constituency. We shall announce the funding for two more projects shortly. Each scheme has been independently scrutinised and endorsed by the Audit Commission and we are carefully monitoring progress to ensure that the proposals are delivered.

My right hon. Friend knows the importance of the housing pathfinder renewal projects in Burnley and east Lancashire to my constituency. He will understand that I am a little impatient, probably because of the scale of the problem in Burnley. Will he guarantee today that only the Labour party and a Labour Government are committed to working with councils to ensure the continuity of the programmes so that, ultimately, there is a solution to the problem in Burnley and other similar towns?

I agree with my hon. Friend. As he knows, I have visited Burnley to see the scale of the problem after decades of disinvestment in housing and the community. He also knows that the project that we have proposed will help. I can confirm that our programme of investing so much money in such areas will make a difference. The Opposition's proposal of an £18 billion cut will mean a cut of £400 million in the housing programme. I therefore cannot give my hon. Friend any friendly advice to vote for the Tory party unless he wants to perpetuate the housing difficulties in Burnley.

The Deputy Prime Minister will be aware that one of the areas that has made the best use of the housing renewal pathfinder projects is Liverpool, particularly in relation to its development of neighbourhood projects. Will the right hon. Gentleman take this opportunity to praise Liverpool city council for the effective use that it has made of this scheme?

I will certainly praise Liverpool, along with many councils. I do not seek to make a political point. As the hon. Gentleman will know, I produced a report on the eight regions, which showed how all the eight big towns and cities involved had developed and had more jobs, less unemployment, and better health conditions and education. That is because central Government assisted the local authorities to improve the quality of life there. So, whether we are talking about a Liberal or a Labour-controlled local council, good luck to them all if they are carrying out Labour's policies.

If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 23 June.

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.

Unemployment has fallen dramatically in Bristol since 1997. Indeed, long-term youth unemployment has dropped by 95 per cent. Given this Government's outstanding achievement in promoting jobs, will the Prime Minister debunk the myth put out by the Leader of the Opposition that the European constitution will be a matter of job loss?

I certainly will. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that we have created about 2 million jobs since 1997, alongside the introduction of the minimum wage and the signing of the social chapter, which some people rather ill-advisedly said would cost jobs, although they have not. At the same time, it is important that we maintain the programme of the new deal, which the Conservatives want to scrap, through which about 1 million people have been helped. It is also important that we retain our membership of the European Union, because 3 million British jobs depend on it.

One of my constituents has just been told that she must wait 20 months to get radiotherapy treatment for her breast cancer. Why should she not have the right to choose an NHS hospital that could treat her more quickly?

I am not aware of the specific facts relating to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's constituent, but I agree that it is very important that we make sure that that person, and many others who need help in respect of breast cancer, for example, get the care that they need. That is why this Government have introduced minimum times in order to make sure that people are referred to consultants, and why we have increased massively the amount of investment, including in breast cancer care. I would simply say to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that we need only compare the record of his Government with ours to see how much better off people are under this Government.

I do not think that that will be of much comfort to my constituent. The Prime Minister says that things have got better. Is he aware that, in 1998, 28 per cent. of patients had to wait longer than four weeks for radiotherapy, but that, in 2002, 81 per cent. had to wait longer than four weeks? Is that what he means when he says that things have got better?

It is this Government who, as capacity increases, are giving patients choice for the first time. The right hon. and learned Gentleman asks, "Where is this improvement in the health service?" Let me tell him where it is. For example, there are 950,000 more elective admissions compared with 1997—that is improvement. There is a 59 per cent. increase in heart operations and a 70 per cent. increase in cataract operations. Every single waiting time and waiting list is down from 1997.

I am afraid that my constituent will have noticed that the Prime Minister has not answered the question I put to him, and it was a very simple question. He is denying her the choice she needs to get her radiotherapy treatment and he will not explain or justify that.

I simply do not know the details of the case of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's constituent—he cannot expect me to—but the notion that the treatment of breast cancer has got worse in this country under this Government is utterly absurd: it has got better on every single measure. He says that we should get rid of all performance targets. Let me explain to the House what that means: getting rid of any targets for maximum waiting times and waiting lists, getting rid of the improvements in our accident and emergency departments, and getting rid of the obligation to treat people with breast cancer more quickly—that is what it means.

They are paying already under this Government—not 50 per cent., but 100 per cent.—and 300,000 of them a year, which is three times as many as were paying when the Prime Minister came into government. That is the truth of the health service under his Government, and he cannot even bring himself to say whether he agrees with what his Health Secretary said this morning.

May I say how delighted I am that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has decided to make the national health service the battleground for the next election? I welcome that ye y much. He has one problem, however: his record. For 10 years, he was a member of a Government who put up every single waiting list and under-invested in the national health service. It is true that they had performance targets—they had a performance target that everyone had to be treated within 18 months: the trouble is, they never met it. Let me tell him what the difference is—we have put in the money, which has got the largest hospital building programme under way, which has provided 70,000 extra nurses and thousands of extra doctors and which is making sure that waiting lists and waiting times are falling, that cancer deaths are down by 10 per cent., and that cardiac deaths are down by 20 per cent.

Two years ago, there were 80 burglaries a month in Worksop; last month, there were 18. Two years ago, there were 11 overdose deaths from drug addiction in Bassetlaw; this year, to date, there has been none. Two years ago, no one was being treated by GPs for drug addiction; today, there are 150, and that is going up. Is that not the way forward for drug treatment in Britain?

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who has campaigned long and hard on this issue. He sensibly recognises that the programme that we are now embarked on—we are at the star t of it—will allow us eventually, throughout the country to offer a clear choice, if I may put it like that, to drug abusers who are also criminal offenders: they can either get drug treatment, and we will help to cure their addiction, or they will face increasing penalties, and they will be less likely to get bail and more likely to receive a custodial sentence. That measure of toughness on sentencing;, and ensuring that we give them treatment, is the best way to proceed.

Does the Prime Minister recognise the force of the argument being made today by the chairman of the Audit Commission? He makes the central point that

"providing widespread choice across public services would require impractical levels of extra resources".

No, I am afraid that I do not. If I may say so, I am rather happily placed between the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), who wants choice to get out of the public service, and the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy), who does not want choice within the public service. If there is choice within a system in which there is not increased capacity, the bulge will simply be moved around the system. Therefore, the important thing is to increase capacity and then provide the choice. That is what we are doing, people are welcoming it, and it is one of the reasons why waiting times and waiting lists are falling so rapidly.

I am sure that the chairman of the Audit Commission will note with great interest the Prime Minister's comments on his remarks. Was not the lesson for us all from the recent local elections that for many people the debate about choice misses the point? What people want are quality public services available to them locally, not a false debate about choice.

I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman's experience of the local elections was quite the same as mine. I did not think that the issue at the local elections was choice in the health service. In fact, I seem to remember the Liberal Democrats fighting on a slightly different tack from that in most of their propaganda.

Does the Prime Minister accept that a large part of the huge increase in NHS spending rightly goes to pay substantial increases in salaries to GPs and consultants? Will he therefore remind the consultants in particular that we expect value for money and priority for NHS patients?

That is exactly what the new contract helps with, and, of course, the single tariff within the health care system will allow that to happen to an even greater extent. Interestingly, as a result of the reforms that we are introducing, the private sector cost, when that sector contracts with the national health service, is falling, so we are getting major gains in the interaction between public and private sector—but to the benefit of NHS patients.

Does the Prime Minister agree with Home Office expert Robert Owen, who told Swansea Crown court that

"it was accepted"

"that the true figure of immigration was considerably higher than the official figure"

There is obviously an issue to do with illegal immigration in particular. We have tightened the immigration rules, and the other day we announced further measures. Of course, there are issues about immigration in this country, as there are in every major developed country around the world, but, for example, in respect of asylum, which was a particular problem in our system, the asylum numbers are now well down on where they were a short time ago, and we are now processing claims in an average of about two months, which used to be 18 months under the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I do not doubt that there are still issues in relation to immigration. Of course there are, but we are tackling them systematically.

Mr. Owen also said—on oath—that the number of routes into Britain was "unbelievable" and that some criminals had abandoned drug dealing because people smuggling is more lucrative. In the light of those remarks, how can anyone have confidence in the Government's control of immigration?

Many people have different views about how serious the issue to do with immigration is. We have accepted the fact that there are abuses in the system. That is why we are tackling them systematically, but I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman accepts, as I do, that it benefits this country to have people coming here to study, for example, or on work permits. It is absolutely correct, however, that we need to expand the numbers within the immigration and nationality department, as we have been doing, in order to tackle illegal immigration, drug smuggling and people smuggling. That is why we are setting up the new serious organised crime agency and why we will make certain proposals on organised crime over the next few months, but it would be wrong to suggest that these problems are new, and that they are simply limited to this Government in this country. We are taking measures to tighten the procedures. Many of those measures to tighten the procedures and, for example, to restrict the right of appeal, which elongates proceedings unnecessarily, have been opposed by the Conservatives in the House of Lords.

Will the United Kingdom Government be supporting the United States Government in their attempt to get a renewal of the United Nations Security Council resolution that exempts US troops from the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court—and if so, why?

The Foreign Secretary has just helpfully told me that discussions are taking place at the moment—hon. Members can work that one out for themselves. Whatever the position of the United States on the International Criminal Court, we have always made it clear that we take a different position. We have been one of those who have moved very strongly in favour of having an International Criminal Court, and I happen to think that the concerns of the United States, although I understand them, are misjudged when one looks at the facts. However, we have made that position clear to the United States throughout and it is for the United States to take forward its position and for us to take forward ours. I hope that we can reach an agreement—this is what I would prefer—whereby both we and the United States were satisfied with the workings of the International Criminal Court.

Given the deteriorating situation in Sudan, with 1.2 million people now displaced and the prospect that an estimated 360,000 will die in the next two months, will the Prime Minister commit his Government to working fully with the international community to ensure that that horrendous situation is addressed? Will he personally go to the United Nations to ensure that a Security Council resolution is secured and delivered?

We have, of course, supported Security Council resolution 1547, which urges the Government of Sudan and the various groups in Darfur to observe the ceasefire allow unimpeded humanitarian access and conclude t political dialogue without delay. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are the second biggest bilateral donor in that situation. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development went out to Sudan to look at the situation there and see what more we could do to help. As a Government, we have been in touch with the Untied Nations as well as with the Government of Sudan. The situation is very serious, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are doing everything that we possibly can to deal with it. The Foreign Secretary had a meeting with the relevant officials this morning to work out how we can take the matter forward.

Would it not strengthen Britain's moral leadership, in seeking to use our presidency of the G8 and the EU next year to focus the world community on initiatives to tackle global poverty, if we were to set a clear timetable for reaching our UN target of giving 0.7 per cent. of GDP in overseas aid?

We are committed to meeting the UN target. It is correct that we have not as yet set a specific timetable to do that, and my hon. Friend will know that there are bound to be resource constraints, although I have to :ay that we are making steady progress towards the target. It is worth pointing out that in 1997, the proportion that we gave in aid was 0.26 per cent. and that by 2005–06 it will be 0.4 per cent. Obviously, we want to see that figure move higher, but that will be the highest level sine, 1981. We will be committing in bilateral aid about £1 billion a year to Africa. I have already indicated that for our G8 chairmanship next year, the two key priorities should be Africa and climate change. We will therefore focus a great deal of our effort on Africa, through the Commission for Africa in particular.

As the Prime Minister know, EU institutions are the subject of repeated scandals about waste and fraud, and the auditors have refused to sign off the European accounts for the past nine years. Under the European constitution, however, the same bodies will have more powers in 11 new areas. Why does the Prime Minister want to give more power to institutions that are inadequate even for their existing tasks? Specifically, why did the Government representative on the Convention that drew up the constitution fail to table a single amendment—or to support mine—to clean up and reform the same institutions?

I agree, and there is no doubt that these institutions need to be reformed. Indeed, one of the jobs of the new Commission President—when he or she is appointed—will be to take that programme of reform forward. That is absolutely clear. I have to tell the right hon. Gentleman that, whatever the difficulties, in my book that is no reason for leaving the European Union or for trying to renegotiate our essential terms of membership.

My right hon. Friend has stressed the democratic advantages in the proposed European Union constitution for our Parliament Will the proposals bring similar advantages to the European Parliament? Surely we should be advancing to wards all power to all the Parliaments.

In certain areas, there will be a greater right of co-decision through the European Parliament. That is important, but there will also be—[Interruption.]—a good balance between the European Parliament and the national Parliaments, which for the first time will have the ability to have some say in Commission proposals. People have missed the significance of that. The ability of one third of the national Parliaments to send proposals back to the Commission will give a greatly enhanced right—indeed, a right for the first time–for those Parliaments to have a say in European legislation. I think that that will help. Yes, there will be greater co-decision in the European Parliament and there will also be greater ability for the European Parliament to interact with national Parliaments.

Let me try to help the Prime Minister regarding his press conference on Friday this week at Lancaster house, which he will chair after yet another meeting of the political and local parties from Northern Ireland to assess whether progress has been made in the peace process. When he is talking to all the political representatives there, will he attempt to tell the republican leadership that its time has run out and that it is holding up the establishment of Stormont four years after the end of decommissioning as specified in the Belfast agreement? After he has told that leadership that its time has run out, will he turn to the leaders of the democratic parties—the Ulster Unionist party, the Democratic Unionist party, the Social Democratic and Labour party and the Alliance party—and facilitate, by legislation if necessary, the formation of a cross-community Executive? We could then have devolution up and running at Stormont and no longer vetoed by Sinn Fein-IRA.

I have been making it clear since my speech of November 2002—the so-called acts of completion speech—that there is no way in which we can get these institutions back up and running unless there is a complete and total cessation of all paramilitary activity. That has been made clear throughout. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I will be making exactly the same points again. However, it is important to try, if we possibly can, to reach agreement on a basis that includes all political parties. That has to be on a clear, shared democratic understanding. I can assure him that there is no way in which we will try to force people into an Executive to share power with others unless they are prepared to give up their paramilitary activity completely. I do say to him, however, that I hope that if the IRA definitively and clearly ceases paramilitary activity and gives it up so that the campaign of violence in all its aspects becomes a thing of the past, the Democratic Unionist party and the Ulster Unionist party will be prepared to go into government with it. In my view, the challenge is for the IRA to give up violence completely, and then the challenge is for all the parties to come together and make the Executive and institutions work.

The South West London elective orthopaedic centre, which serves my constituency, is the largest orthopaedic centre in Europe. It has been open only three months and this year has the capacity to undertake 3,150 hip and knee replacements. May I ask the Prime Minister to ensure that the centre continues to get the funds to help the many people who need it, rather than subsidise private operations for the few?

I can absolutely assure my hon. Friend that we will certainly continue funding for that centre. Indeed, we will have more such centres up and down the country so that people can have more choice. However, I point out to the Opposition that they opposed our introduction of diagnosis and treatment centres. They go on about choice, but I repeat that the choice that they offer is to leave the NHS. The Government are giving people choice inside the NHS.

Will the Prime Minister accept the clear recommendations of the Electoral Commission and the Select Committee before all-postal ballots are extended? Does he agree that there should be better safeguards against fraud, including individual voter registration?

I think that the Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie), said yesterday that we would study those recommendations carefully. Of course we want to make sure that we minimise any possibility of fraud, but I remind the hon. Gentleman that postal voting means that we get a higher turnout.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, although the Scottish National party wants to char ge its leader as often as the Tories, the people of Scotland will never take on an independent—

Order. That has nothing to do with the Prime Minister.

When the Prime Minister next discusses working-class issues with his Health Secretary, will he consider the widespread concern around the country about the siting of telecommunications masts? Will the Government consider altering the planning laws, so that applicants will have a duty to prove that there is a need for a mast, and that there are no associated health risks?

What we should do is make sure that we proceed carefully, according to the scientific evidence. Experts in the field prepare reports and reviews for the Government, and we must take account of them, but it would be foolish for us to make a decision that was not based o r the scientific evidence. Therefore, I will proceed very carefully—as the Government are doing—but the decision that we reach will be in the interests of all the community, and it will be based on proper scientific knowledge and expertise.