What recent discussions he has had with Her Majesty's Treasury on matching the funds of objective 1 payments.[181912]

I have had regular discussions with the Chancellor and the Chief Secretary on the spending review, including objective 1. In both the 2000 and 2002 spending reviews, extra money was made available to Wales, outside the Barnett formula, to provide public spending cover for the structural funds programmes in Wales.

As always, I am warmly grateful to the Secretary of State and Leader of the House for his reply. But can he say whether west Wales and the valleys will receive less European Union structural funding after 2006? Will the United Kingdom Government make up the full difference, or is an EU transitional arrangement expected, with the Government making up the differences?

I am always warmly grateful for the hon. Gentleman's questions, whatever they may be about and whether or not they are about Wales.

I am given to understand that the European programmes in Wales have been allocated over £65 million of additional funds as a result of the European Commission's performance reserve. How much of that will be allocated to objective 1 programmes, and does my right hon. Friend have details readily available as to how much will be allocated to north Wales?

I know that objective 1 funding has been very important in my hon. Friend's part of north-west Wales, and that she has been an energetic advocate of the case. I applaud that. I cannot provide the figures for which she asks, but I shall be happy to write to her.

What recent discussions he has had with the First Minister of the National Assembly for Wales on the devolution of further powers to the Assembly. [181913]

If he will make a statement on the Richard commission inquiry into the powers and working of the National Assembly for Wales. [181917]

The First Minister and I have had regular bilaterals on these matters.

Is the Secretary of State clear about whether the First Minister thinks there should be a transfer of primary law-making powers or an adjustment to the existing devolution settlement, allowing the Assembly to amend laws passed here? Which is it? The First Minister does not seem to be clear about it in his own mind.

The First Minister has floated a different option, which is being explored. I am discussing it with him, and once it is clear exactly how it will translate into legislative terms—if that is required—there will be an answer to the hon. Lady's question.

May I invite the Secretary of State to be rather more definitive than he has been in the past about which of the Richard commission's recommendations would require a referendum before implementation?

If tax-varying powers were to be adopted on the Scottish model, a referendum would certainly be required. There is no argument about that, and I think Richard conceded it, because the Scots had a referendum. As for whether primary legislative powers relating to functions already devolved would require a referendum, I know that my hon. Friend has advocated that, and that it has been advocated by a majority of Welsh Labour Members and a number of Welsh Labour constituencies. We are currently consulting on it.

May I ask the Secretary of State to explain Rhodri Morgan's compromise option?

The First Minister is arguing that one could adopt the 13.2 option that the Richard commission advocated—essentially, it involves enhanced secondary legislative powers for the Assembly—in a different configuration. Under the proposal, it is not just prospective or current legislation that would be dealt with; the Assembly would also have powers over retrospective legislation. We are looking at that idea and discussing it in detail.

Will my right hon. Friend explore further ways of improving scrutiny of clauses in primary legislation that confer additional powers on the Assembly, thereby building on the new procedure for scrutiny by combined Committees of the Assembly and of this House, as is currently happening with the draft transport Bill for Wales? Will he consider whether Ministers in the Welsh Assembly Government should be invited to have their proposals for primary legislation examined by Standing Committees of this House, and perhaps through other proceedings in this Chamber?

I shall certainly consider that interesting idea. Of course, pre-legislative scrutiny is an important achievement of this Government that the whole House has welcomed. All recent Welsh Bills, including the current Public Audit (Wales) Bill, were subject to pre-legislative scrutiny and were improved as a result. Perhaps I might take this opportunity to remind everybody—especially the nationalists and the Liberal Democrats, who want to rush ahead with this agenda—how much legislation has gone through in the past year under the existing settlement: nine Bills, containing 163 Welsh clauses. That is a very important achievement that this Labour Government have delivered for the people of Wales under the current devolution settlement.

The Government's proposed regional assemblies will be granted borrowing powers. The Northern Ireland Executive already have such powers and have raised more than £200 million in the past two years. Does the Secretary of State agree that granting such powers to the National Assembly would be of great benefit to Wales, and that it would be one of the few positive changes that would not split the Welsh Labour party?

The Assembly has a huge budget, which is devolved from Westminster. I should remind the hon. Gentleman, whose party advocates independence for Wales, that if that policy were adopted, Wales would be permanently borrowing from just about every bank in the world, because it would be bankrupt as a result of the Mickey Mouse economics that underpin that policy. In fact, since the nationalists have come out totally, transparently and honestly in favour of independence, their vote has actually fallen by 12 per cent.

What discussions he has had with the First Secretary regarding the necessity of dredging the Dee estuary. [181914]

My right hon. Friend and I have regular discussions with Assembly Ministers about issues relating to the application to carry out dredging in the Dee estuary.

While nobody appreciates more than I do the importance of jobs at Airbus—many of my constituents work there—the Dee estuary is one of the most important and highly protected nature conservation sites in the United Kingdom. Can my hon. Friend assure me that when decisions are taken about dredging, the Government will balance the views of the English and Welsh sides of the estuary, take account of the balance of interests of ecology and of commerce, examine alternatives and check the extent to which dredging is actually necessary for the purpose claimed?

All alternatives must be fully and properly assessed before any decision can be taken, and the process must robustly meet the current relevant legislative requirements. I have no doubt that that will happen.

Is my hon. Friend aware that most of this precious habitat appeared only in the last 50 years and that it would be utterly insane to jeopardise 6,000 top-quality jobs within Wales for the sake of some marsh land that has appeared only recently?

All those factors will be taken into account as the assessment is made, but I appreciate my hon. Friend's point. British Aerospace employs 6,000 people and it is a crucial player in the economy of northeast Wales—and, indeed, of Wales as a whole. The A380 superjumbo Airbus project will further raise the area's profile and will protect, secure and increase job opportunities in that part of Wales. All those matters must be taken into account before a decision is taken.

When he last discussed with his Cabinet and Welsh Assembly colleagues the per capita level of health spending in Wales. [181915]

I regularly meet the Assembly First Minister and the health service in Wales is one of the topics that we frequently discuss.

As the Secretary of State will know, expenditure per head in Wales is 9 per cent. above that in England, yet there are worse health outcomes in Newport, Monmouthshire than in Newport, Isle of Wight. Is that because the number of administrators has increased by 15 per cent. since 1996?

I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's comparison. In fact, under the Welsh Assembly Government, many more nurses have been recruited. Indeed, there are 4,061 more qualified nurses and 305 more qualified equivalent consultants under Labour, after years of cuts that involved hospital closures, the sacking of nurses and doctors and a decrease in hospital beds under the Conservatives. Wales is moving forward under Labour with increased health investment and more treatment for the patients of Wales.

Is not health spending per head one of the silliest ways of measuring health spending? Should not health spending match health need? In the words of Matthew, one of the children in the House today from Llwyncelyn primary school, "Can we have more money for the hospital in Llwynypia?"

I am sure that the Minister with responsibility for health in Wales will look seriously at Matthew's bid, transmitted through my hon. Friend, but the truth is that, whether in his constituency or across Wales, there has been a massive increase—a near doubling—of the Welsh health budget under Labour after years of Conservative cuts. If the Conservatives won the next general election, the result of their patients passport policy would be an immediate cut of £60 million in the Welsh health budget. That would mean either 2,400 nurses or 660 consultants losing their jobs. What a dreadful policy to inflict on the people of Wales.

Despite the extra health spending, does the Secretary of State agree with the First Minister that choice in the NHS is not relevant in Wales?

The real choice for the people of Wales is between Tory cuts, privatisation and charges and Labour investment, resulting in more nurses and doctors, more facilities and more patients being seen. About 250,000 more patients are being seen in Wales under the Labour Government. That is a fantastic record compared with a miserable Tory record.

Perhaps the Secretary of State can explain why the number of finished consultancy episodes has decreased by 1 per cent. since 1999.

It is time that the hon. Gentleman asked some sensible questions at Welsh questions—questions with some relevance to the people of Wales. The fact is that, under the Labour Government, we have seen nursing and midwifery places increase by 25 per cent. compared with the Tory policy of cutting them by 25 per cent. We have seen a doubling of investment in the NHS in Wales and, as I have said, waiting times for key procedures coming down. Ten new hospitals have been pledged and some are already open. That is a really good record. Of course there is room for improvement and the policy will be driven forward.

If the record is so good, why have waiting lists increased by 82 per cent. since 1999?

The truth is that 250,000 more patients have been seen in Wales under Labour than was the case under the Tories. If we set that against the background of a population of 3 million, that is an extraordinary achievement. It has been built on the back of record investment, and the recruitment of more nurses and doctors compared with the Tory programme of cuts, privatisation and charges. That is what the people of Wales would get if the Tories won the next election.

As my right hon. Friend will know, in Blaenau Gwent we have some of the worst health problems in Wales, including heart and respiratory diseases, lung cancer and mental health problems. At the same time, we have difficulty in attracting the appropriate number of doctors to the community. Will he say what is being done to rectify that wrong?

Under this Labour Government, health services in Blaenau Gwent and elsewhere in Wales have improved. My hon. Friend has been a consistent champion for his constituency, which is one of the poorest parts of Wales, and we obviously need even more improvement. That will be achieved in future years, and I hope that he will continue to support it.

What recent discussions he has had with National Assembly for Wales Ministers on funding for dentistry in Wales. [181916]

What discussions he has had with the First Minister of the National Assembly for Wales on ways of increasing the number of students studying dentistry; and if he will make a statement. [181919]

I discussed dentistry in Wales with the Assembly Health Minister on 16 June, at one of our regular bilateral meetings.

Does the Minister remember that the Prime Minister said, in September 1999, that in two years everyone in the UK would be able to have access to an NHS dentist? However, only just over 50 per cent. of the Welsh population are registered with an NHS dentist. How does the Minister square those two facts? When will the people of Wales be able to get an NHS dentist?

The Welsh dental initiative, a funding scheme to increase access to NHS dentistry, has provided more than 23,000 extra places in the NHS in Wales in the past 12 months. We need no lessons from the Conservatives about the NHS in Wales. When they were in power, they closed 70 hospitals, slashed nursing and midwifery training and cut a third of general acute beds. Eighteen years of under-investment—that is what we are putting right.

To be fair, the reality is that the crisis in NHS dentistry in Wales has been going on for about 10 or 12 years. However, this Government have been in power for nearly seven years. Will the Minister consider two very important initiatives? First, it is very important to incentivise students to study dentistry. Secondly. rural practices in particular should be assisted to take on trainees so that they can stay on in due course. Those two important measures could easily be put in place. I urge the Minister to discuss them with the First Minister.

I am aware of those initiatives, which the hon. Gentleman has raised a number of times in the past. Indeed, the all-Wales work force development steering group has given support in principle to expanding the numbers of undergraduate dental students in Wales. A business case for that expansion has been passed to the Assembly and is under consideration. I am also aware that the hon. Gentleman met my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who has taken up the matter with the First Minister. I hope that we will be able to take the agenda forward.

Will my hon Friend the Minister acknowledge that the Assembly's Health Minister has put £5.3 million into dentistry in Wales? Indeed, a new practice was opened in Brecon road in Abergavenny last November by Dr. Mohamed Gazi. Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating him, and wishing him every success in providing, under the NHS, the sort of service that local people deserve?

Indeed, eight new dental practice offering NHS treatment have been opened in Wales. In north Wales, they are at Barmouth, Wrexham and Llanrwst; in mid-Wales, they are at Machynlleth and Crickhowell; and in west Wales, they are at Carmarther and Abergavenny—the area to which my hon. Friend referred—and Merthyr Tydfil.

Is my hon. Friend aware that AXA Insurance and Denplan are the main private providers of dentistry in Britain, with about 30 per cent. of the dentistry market? In Llanelli, the marker share is close to 100 per cent. If the trend continues and is not arrested, does he agree that there will be very little left of NHS dentistry, in Wales or Britain as a whole?

I take my right hon. Friend's point very seriously, and I am aware that we have discussed it in the past. However, the Welsh dental initiative provides grants of up to £50,000 to practices in designated areas and is aimed at increasing NHS dentistry provision in Wales. Grants of up to £20,000 are available to establis1 new vocational training practices. Working in partnership with colleagues in the Assembly, we an seeking to push the agenda forward but, as I said in reply to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr Llwyd), we have a long road to travel to make up for the under-investment of 18 years of Tory Government.

What discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues on the future of BBC Wales in relation to renewal of the BBC charter. [181920]

The charter review is still at an early stage. While I cannot prejudge its outcome, I think that the importance of the national and regional dimensions of the BBC's work is well recognised.

I know that my right hon. Friend recognises the important contribution of the BBC to the civic and economic welfare of Wales. Was he as concerned as I was when the BBC recently cut the post of nations and regions from its executive committee? Will he ensure in his discussions with colleagues that the role of the nations—[Interruption.]

Order. The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) should not walk in front of an hon. Member who is speaking.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the role of the nations and regions is robustly included in charter renewal discussions by him and his colleagues?

Like my hon. Friend, I am a little troubled by the fact that although each of the nations is represented by a national governor on the BBC's board of directors, the nations are no longer directly represented on the executive board. I understand that management restructuring may be part of the explanation, but I have raised the matter with the director-general. I agree that BBC Wales has a fantastic record of achievement and excellence and that is one of the reasons why Wales is driving forward the digital television agenda, with my support, and why it is fast establishing a reputation as a centre for creative industries in the multi-media field. I know that that will continue under the present director-general, and I hope that he will be as generous to Wales as the previous one was.

BBC Wales is highly regarded for its public service broadcasting, but S4C is also highly regarded in Wales. What actions has the Secretary of State taken to ensure that it receives adequate funding to continue its excellent programme making?

S4C has had a very good record and is currently in the middle of a review—at its request—of its future in the digital age. I am working closely with the company to ensure that it gets a good deal. I also want to ensure that S4C's Welsh language broadcasting continues to move forward, alongside BBC Wales, which provides much of the programming that S4C puts out. All of it is of a very high standard.

What discussions he has had with National Assembly for Wales Ministers about the implications for local authorities in Wales of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, concerning the publication of performance data. [181921]

My right hon. Friend and I have regular discussions with Assembly Ministers on a range of matters. Local authorities in Wales are subject to the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. However, they are already required to publish information annually on their performance in accordance with an order made by the National Assembly for Wales under the Local Government Act 1999.

But the data that are published are far less full than the performance data that are published in Scotland and in England. Does my hon. Friend agree that a healthy democracy is a well-informed one? Is it not regrettable that the Freedom of Information Act 2000 is needed to extract information so that the public can judge how their local authorities perform?

My hon. Friend raised that matter directly with the First Minister recently at a meeting that I also attended. It is of course for the Assembly to determine the indicators to be measured by Welsh local authorities, and those indicators take account of the Assembly's priorities for improving the performance of local government in Wales. It is for the Audit Commission to decide how their reports should reflect local authority performance in Wales. I understand that it has done that in consultation with the Assembly and local government.

What steps he is taking to help entrepreneurs in Wales. [181923]

Besides creating a stable macro-economic environment to enable entrepreneurs to start up and prosper, the Government and the Assembly, working in partnership, have introduced a wide range of measures to support businesses in Wales, from grants to a free business advisory service.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the success of V and A Marketing, based in Llandaff North in my constituency, in producing an award-winning line of feeding equipment for children in conjunction with Dr. Miriam Stoppard? Is he aware that that company is likely to double its work force and will he join me in congratulating the managing director, Mr. Vic Davies, on his achievements?

I have been aware of that for the last 10 seconds, but I congratulate the company and wish it well. The entrepreneurship action plan, which is the Assembly's strategy, has contributed to 6,700 business starts in 2003–04, which is an almost 60 per cent. increase over 2001–02. In the 2004 Budget, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced incentives to benefit small and medium-sized enterprises, including improvements to research and development tax credits. All that will benefit entrepreneurs and business in Wales and shows that this Government are on the right track to make Wales into a world-class economy.

If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 7 July.

Before I list my engagements, I would like to express our condolences on behalf of the Government and the House following the death of the Austrian President, Thomas Klestil. He will be sadly missed, and our thoughts are with his family at this time.

Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the proposal for a city academy in my local area? Will he support that application in the Department for Education and Skills? When he publishes his education plans shortly, as well as expanding the academy programme, will he guarantee that there will be no tax concessions for those who wish to take their children out of the state system?

First, I am delighted about the proposal for a city academy in my hon. Friend's constituency. I know that he is working, as we are, with the local authority to ensure that that happens and that it will be a great advance for education in his area. I can assure him that we will carry on with the record investment in education in this country. I want to make it clear on behalf of the Government that there will be no return to the 11-plus and selection. There will be no subsidy to private schools. Instead, there will be an education system providing excellence not for a privileged few, but for all.

There are 21,000 state schools in Britain. Two years ago the Government launched a flagship policy, which they called the power to innovate, to give schools freedoms over the way that they manage themselves. How many schools have been granted freedom under that initiative?

I do not know the precise number that have been granted freedom, but what I do know is that, under this Government, all schools have got greater freedom and independence than they had before; that is absolutely right. But let me make it clear to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that, alongside the extra investment that we are putting in, what we will not grant is the freedom that he wants, which is the freedom to give a subsidy to those who send their children to private schools.

I thought that the Prime Minister was in favour of a choice of providers. That is what he said just a short time ago, and that is what we would give parents, but he did not answer the question that I put to him, which was about a specific policy—the power to innovate. The answer is that, out of 21,000 schools, just four have been granted those freedoms.

Actually, many schools in the country are expanding their numbers, because we have given them a power to expand. However, it is absolutely right that, at the same time, we will not allow a situation to develop where schools are cut adrift and where failing schools are not given the help that they need to succeed.

And one in three children who leave primary school in our country still cannot read, write and count properly.

All 2,000 of the specialist schools in the country are indeed getting more autonomy, as are foundation and voluntary-aided schools. Since we are debating statistics and who is in need of remedial treatment, the right hon. and learned Gentleman said that a third of children left school at 11 without the requisite standards in literacy and numeracy, but I think that he could go on a literacy and numeracy course, because actually 75 per cent. of children are now up to the standard in English with 73 per cent. in maths. What were the figures when he left office? The cheek of the Conservatives is that they are going round the country saying, "Isn't it a scandal that we still have 11-year-olds leaving school without the best results they could get?" Yes, it is, but it is a scandal that we are putting right—measures he opposed. Of all the extra investment going into our education system, he opposed every single penny piece.

The Prime Minister has just admitted that the state of our education is a scandal, but he has been in office for seven years. He has not answered a single one of the questions that I have put to him today. The answer to the last question that I asked about his earned autonomy initiative was that not a single school has been granted earned autonomy—not one! Not a single school has been allowed the freedom that the Prime Minister promised the country at the last election. When parents hear him talking today about school freedom, expanding popular schools and giving parents more choice, all of which we have long called for and supported, will they not recognise that we must judge the Prime Minister not by what he says, but by what he does, and that what he does is never what he says?

First, let me repeat that all the specialist schools have greater autonomy and freedom, which I pointed out to the right hon. and learned Gentleman a short time ago. Since we are talking about scandals in the education system, yes, I think that every single child who is deprived of a decent education in this country represents a loss and social injustice to that child and the country. Let us look at what we have achieved. In seven years, the number of failing schools has halved and the number of state schools getting over 70 per cent. good GCSEs has doubled. The city academies are a great innovation in our system, as are the specialist schools. We have put up the results in primary schools, at GCSE and for A-levels.

My right hon. Friend might be aware of reports in today's press showing that the constituency with the fastest growing rise in affluence in the country is the High Peak of Derbyshire. That clearly has a lot to do with Labour's management of the economy and also high-quality local representation. Does he agree that the people who have gained most from an increased quality and standard of living are the pensioners who are receiving pension credit and the 9,000 families in High Peak who are now benefiting from child tax credit?

It is important that we are giving special help to those who need it most through the working families tax credit, through the pensioner credits and through the other things that we have done for pensioners over the past few years, which amount to many billions of pounds a year.

What guarantees can the Prime Minister give us that his education plans will not result in a two-tier state system, with chosen schools getting the lion's share of the money and the rest being left behind?

I can give the right hon. Gentleman the guarantee that we will ensure that there is not a return to selection, which will end with schools choosing parents rather than parents choosing schools. That is why we reject the policy of the Conservative party. We will also ensure that we carry on giving investment to all our schools. The vast bulk of the investment that we have put into our education system has gone on a fair basis to all the schools in the country, and most of it has gone, to, for example, excellence in cities programmes, to some of the most disadvantaged schools in our community.

Following on from that, is the Prime Minister guaranteeing that he will run a common admissions system for all state-funded schools? If he does not, he will get into exactly the difficulty to which he has just been referring. Surely he will acknowledge that people want high-quality local state schools. They do not want a Labour Government trying to outbid the Tories when it comes to selection.

We already have specialist schools. In the secondary education system, more than half of the schools are specialist schools. I do not know whether Liberal Democrats are still opposed to specialist schools. Are they?

We have never been opposed.

Never been opposed. I think that we will check that one out.

This Government are leading the world—[Interruption.] It happens to be true. They are leading the world in their response to the desperate humanitarian situation in Darfur in the west of Sudan. Having, along with other members of the all-party group on Sudan, witnessed the shocking plight of hundreds of thousands of people who are facing disease and death over the next few months as the rains come, I ask my right hon. Friend whether the Government will do even more, whether they will encourage other European Governments to do much more, and whether they will join in a united appeal throughout the nation to top up the support that individual people from across the United Kingdom can contribute to relieve the suffering of those who are in the most desperate and appalling plight imaginable.

We will do everything that we possibly can in respect of Sudan and the situation there. The United States and the UK are leading the aid effort in Sudan. I spoke to Kofi Annan yesterday to develop the right strategy. Colin Powell, as my hon. Friend will know, has been in Sudan. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development has visited the country. The food is there now but we need to be able to get it through to people. We also need to be able to control the activities of the militias there. We have a set of plans and proposals for both, but I want to make it quite clear that we expect the Government of Sudan to co-operate and, if they do not do so, we will have to consider what further measures to take. It is not acceptable, however, if the aid is there that it does not get through to the displaced people.

Despite global instability and military overstretch, Treasury bean counters are undermining Scottish regiments. Defence Ministers are acting like fearties, and the Labour First Minister Jack McConnell will not even stand up for Scottish service personnel, their families or veterans. Will the Prime Minister give the House an assurance that not one Scottish regiment will be amalgamated or disbanded?

First, the hon. Gentleman will have to await the outcome of the spending review, and any proposals for our military based on it will be set out in future. However, we have increased defence spending in real terms, and we take immense pride in our armed forces, in Scotland as elsewhere in the UK. I regard it as a bit of cheek for the Scottish National party to complain about the state of the British military.

Does my right hon. Friend still believe that there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?

I told the Liaison Committee yesterday that, although I was confident that those weapons existed last year, I have to accept that they have not been found. However, let me tell my hon. Friend that there is clearly no doubt at all that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, and I suppose that he would accept that. It is the case that he used them against his own people, but it is also true that we have not found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, although we have found plenty of evidence of intention, capability and intent. I simply say to my hon. Friend that it is sensible to wait for the outcome of the work of the Iraq survey group, but I certainly do not accept in any shape or form that Iraq was not a threat to the region and the wider world. I repeat again what I have said on many occasions: I believe that the world and this country are safer without Saddam Hussein in power.

Does the Prime Minister agree that someone who backs child suicide bombings and is banned from the United States because of his alleged terrorist links should not be allowed into this country?

I assume that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is referring to the situation reported in the newspapers overnight and today concerning a particular cleric. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has already indicated that we will keep this under strict review. There are rules that must be applied, and they will be applied to this particular individual. I do not want to comment at the moment on his case—that is a decision that my right hon. Friend must make, and he will make it according to the criteria that have been set out. Let me make it clear, however, that we want nothing to do with people who support suicide bombers, whether in Palestine or elsewhere, or terrorists. My right hon. Friend must make his decisions according to the relevant criteria, and he will do so. I will not comment further on the case.

But why has the decision not already been taken? When I was Home Secretary—[Interruption.] Oh yes, crime went down—[Interruption.]

Order.

When I was Home Secretary, I used my powers to ban people whose presence here was not conducive to the public good. I banned them. Why does not the present Home Secretary do the same?

It is not a party political issue, for goodness' sake. We are totally opposed, as is everyone, to people coming to this country and using their visit as a platform to express views in support of terrorism or extremism of any sort. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary—the right hon. and learned Gentleman should know this from his time as Home Secretary—must consider the issue and apply certain criteria. He will do so and make the decision accordingly. We have to be sure, however, that if someone is excluded from this country, that is done in a lawful way. That is my right hon. Friend's job, and he will carry it out.

President Bush vowed to capture Osama bin Laden, dead or alive. In view of the latest tape recordings apparently made by bin Laden, what progress have the armed forces made in their search of the border regions of Pakistan and Afghanistan?

Along with the Pakistani authorities, we continue to search for bin Laden, and there has been nothing to report since the last time I spoke about the matter. My hon. Friend knows that that border region is extensive, and it will take some time until we are sure that we are on bin Laden's track.

Lord Steel, who introduced the Abortion Act 1967, now says that the limit on abortions performed for social reasons should be halved to 12 weeks. What does the Prime Minister think?

That is a matter of free vote and conscience on both sides of the House. I have not had an opportunity to study the evidence in detail, but if the situation has changed, it would be advisable to reexamine the question. Certain criteria set out when abortions are lawful, and if the scientific evidence has shifted, it would be sensible to take that into account. I have not had an opportunity to study the evidence in detail, but I am sure that the Government will study it, and if we have proposals to put before the House, we will put them.

The Prime Minister will recognise that pockets of antisocial behaviour still exist, even in the great city of Leicester—I am not referring to the visits over the past few days by so many hon. Members, who behaved quite well. Does the Prime Minister propose to introduce new legislation to toughen up the law on antisocial behaviour, which will help many of our constituents who face that menace, and does he expect to receive cross-party support?

I hope that there is cross-party support on the issue, and it would be good to receive cross-party support. It would be good to think that all parties in this House had combined in order to defeat the menace of antisocial behaviour, but I must say that the Liberal Democrats have disappointed us up to now. I hope that the Liberal Democrats are honest enough to own up to their policies: they opposed closing down crack houses in 48 hours, they opposed fixed penalty notices for antisocial behaviour, they opposed the speeding up of the process to evict noisy neighbours and they opposed fines for the parents of truants. We are working on the better education of the Liberal Democrats, but as my hon. Friend knows, it is a hard task.

If the Government get their way, at the end of this Parliament it will be illegal to swat a pet insect, but it will still be legal to swat a child. How can the Prime Minister justify that approach to the most vulnerable in our society?

I am still working out the point about the insect. Above all else, people should apply a modicum of common sense—I know that that is an alien concept to the hon. Gentleman and his party. To be frank, I think that most people know the difference between abusing a child and administering parental discipline in a sensible way, and I do not believe that we cannot find a common-sense way through the issue. Most people in the country think that there are serious issues to discuss in relation to the abuse of children, and yes, we must make sure that the law is in a proper state, but in this instance, more than any other, the law would benefit from the application of a lot of common sense.

Does my right hon. Friend welcome this week's Supreme Court ruling that US courts have jurisdiction over the detainees in Guantanamo bay, which at least makes the situation clear? That means that the US courts, and not the President, would set the rules by which the detainees could be tried in the States, and those rules would be fair. Is it my right hon. Friend's preference that the British detainees should be tried over there, or does he still intend that they will return to British courts?

Our position remains the same: if the Attorney-General is not satisfied that the rules applying to the trials of the detainees at Guantanamo are consistent with the standards that we expect, we need the detainees to return here. That is not the issue at the moment; the issue is making sure that if the remaining detainees—five are back already, but four are still there—are returned to this country, we have proper mechanisms in place, so that we are sure of our own security and can protect our own security, which is also an obligation of Government.

What have the Government got against the 4.4 million people in this country who are aged over 75? Why are they specifically excluded from the NHS improvement plan target relating to reducing deaths from cancer, heart disease and stroke?

I think that the position of the hon. Gentleman's party is to get rid of all targets in the national health service, so I assume he is saying that there should be no targets for anyone, not that we should extend them to people over 75. I am delighted that he raises the issue, however, because as a result of this Government's measures cancer deaths among people over 75 are down by 10 per cent. and heart deaths are down by 20 per cent. We have nothing against people over 75—in the contrary, we have introduced special help for those over 75 who are in poverty, and free TV licences for all. That is more than the Tories ever did for them.

In the light of the recent research on the census by the university of Sheffield, which shows that there is continuing inequality in health between the north and the south, will the Prime Minister have a word with the Secretary of State for Health with a view to returning to Manchester the millions of pounds that were stolen from its health services as a result of the appalling failure of the Office for National Statistics during the census to count the thousands of extra people who live in the city of Manchester?

Apparently—because it says so here—my hon. Friend will be pleased to hear that the report of the findings on reviewing the population estimate for Manchester will be published tomorrow. I hope that that means he will be pleased with the findings as well as with their publication. I know that he and other hon. Members from Manchester have raised this issue before; obviously, the Office for National Statistics must undertake to consider it.

Does the Prime Minister believe that Senator Kerry would make a good President of the United States?

I believe that just as the choice for the British people is a choice that they make, the choice for the American people is a choice that they make.

This week, Dame Shirley Porter handed over £12 million of the £40 million that she owes for her part in the illegal Conservative homes for votes policy. Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Labour councillors, including Labour leader Councillor Paul Dimoldenberg, and others on their part in exposing and pursuing the scandal over the past 15 years? Does my right hon. Friend understand that most people believe that Shirley Porter is indeed nothing like a dame, and that steps should be taken to remove from her the title of which she has proved so unworthy?

It says here:

"The Government has no powers to intervene in or judge the settlement that Westminster City Council has reached with Dame Shirley."

Is the Prime Minister aware that the Government's policy of inclusion is being prayed in aid by educationists and health authorities in order to close special schools? Does he understand that many parents with severely disabled children—I speak as one of them—feel that the only place outside home where their children will get the care, therapy and chance to blossom that they need is in a special school? Will the Prime Minister ask the Education Secretary to consider that; and will he ensure that common sense prevails and these schools are kept open?

I agree that some children's needs are obviously best met in special schools. Certainly, the purpose of any policy of inclusion is neither to abolish special schools nor to take children out of an appropriate environment: it is to ensure that if those children are able to be in mainstream schooling, they can be. Of course, I agree that that should not lead to a situation whereby children for whom it is not appropriate to be in mainstream schooling lose the possibility of a special school. I am perfectly happy to ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills to respond to the hon. Gentleman directly on the points that he raises.

How important is our membership of the European Union to British jobs and overseas investment in the United Kingdom? What would the Tory policy of getting out mean—[Interruption.]

Order. Just the first part of the question.

First, my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, West (Gareth Thomas) knows that it is good news that foreign investment is still coming into the country. Much of that is specifically geared to our membership of the European Union and to the activities of companies in Europe. Any proposal that Britain marginalise itself in decision making in Europe or withdraw from the European Union would be disastrous for jobs, industry and investment in this country.

I beg to move amendment No. 16, in page 4, line 24, at beginning insert

'Subject to the provisions of subsection (7).'.

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 17, in page 4, line 24, at end insert—

'(7) On any occasion when the average closing spot price of Brent crude oil has been at or above 37.84 US dollars per barrel for a period of fourteen days, the Chancellor of the Exchequer shall make regulations suspending the operation of subsections (1)(a) and (1)(c) of this section.

"Brent crude oil" means oil from the Brent oilfield in the North Sea; and

"average closing spot price" means the mean of the closing spot prices for Brent crude oil quoted on the International Petroleum Exchange on each day on which that exchange is open for trading within the period of fourteen days.'.

The purpose of the amendment is to make sure that the Government implement their stated policy. The Prime Minister, the Chancellor and the Economic Secretary, who is with us today, have all promised that if oil prices remain high, they will remove in August their planned increase of tuppence—the increase they intend to put through, and have announced in the Budget they will put through, in September.

"An ICM poll for The Telegraph reveals a high level of support for demonstrations similar to those that brought chaos to Britain four years ago. It also shows widespread public anger at plans by Gordon Brown, the Chancellor"

As I recall, there was some confusion a few weeks ago about whether the Leader of the Opposition supported such protests. Can the hon. Gentleman clarify the position of the Leader of the Opposition, as he was not able to do so?

It is for the Government to decide what they intend to do about fuel duty, rather than for the Opposition to decide what they intend to do about fuel protests. I take the hon. Gentleman's point. By implication, he is just as concerned and upset as I am about the scale of the fuel price hikes.

"a problem of world fuel prices, not UK fuel duty."

"What Gordon Brown does is more important than what the world price does."

"It is important…that we have the strength to get the balance right between a fair deal for the motorist and the haulier"

"the stability of public finances."—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 8 June 2004; Vol. 422, c. 29-30WH.]

I am rather sympathetic to the idea of trying to establish a link between the world oil price and uncertainty within it, and the tax position in relation to fuel; but I am not convinced that the amendment is the best way of doing that. In what purports to be a substantive amendment, the proposal that, on the basis of the date of a supposed spin or leak from the Chancellor or the Prime Minister, a device should kick in in response to a set international price of oil strikes me as rather on the light side. Front Benchers nod. Indeed, like crude oil, the amendment is extremely light.

I am perplexed by the figure of $27.5. I should be grateful for sight of the SNP's heavier amendment; I should also like to know which marker crude the hon. Gentleman is referring to.

I am speaking from memory, but I thought that $27.5 for Brent crude was the assumed price underlying the Treasury projection of oil revenues amounting to £3.6 billion in this financial year. Conservative Front Benchers shake their heads. I hope that Ministers can clarify the matter, but my recollection is that $27.5 was the underlying price assumption at the time of the Budget. Now Conservative Front Benchers are agreeing with me. That is terrific: I have managed to swing them round.

The amendment is useful if it helps to persuade the Minister to clarify his intentions. I rather agree with the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) that this is not the most helpful way of framing legislative change, but the exercise itself has been useful.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) on his ingenuity in tabling this amendment and thereby putting the Government on the spot. Their policy on this issue is very confused. For years, they have been telling us that, in order to restrict demand for fuel in this country, they have to raise the price, and that such increases are being implemented for environmental reasons. We then had the spectacle of the Chancellor pleading with the countries of the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries to increase the volume of fuel that they produce. To a simple soul such as me, that seemed incompatible with the Government's earlier approach.

Order. As the hon. Gentleman might know, the amendment is somewhat tighter than that. He is going wide of it.

I certainly accept, Mr. Speaker, that I am getting carried away in my enthusiasm for articulating the concerns of the motorist. Motorists have to pay these extra taxes, but they are getting nothing in return. My hon. Friend the Member for Chichester has suggested that the Government are being coy about this issue because they want to use the extra revenue to fund the black hole in their figures and their extra borrowing. But it is clear from what has been said that they will in any event make a windfall profit from the increase in the price of Brent crude, which is likely to stay high.

It will come as no great surprise to discover that I agree with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond). I have some reservations about amendment No. 17, which states that, if the price of Brent crude stays

"above 37.84 US dollars…for a period of fourteen days, the Chancellor of the Exchequer shall make regulations".

Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 would remove the duty increase for ultra-low sulphur diesel and petrol planned for September this year at a time when the international price of Brent crude oil is at or above $37.84 per barrel. For the benefit of the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie), today's Brent crude price is almost $2 lower, not $1 lower, than his level. At noon today, it was $35.97 a barrel.

I do not know what prices the Economic Secretary is using. It shows why we really need Bloomberg in the Library—I requested it, but it was turned down—to ensure that we have accurate and up-to-date market prices for debates. It would cost £5,000 a year, which I believe would be a good investment. I am glad to have been able to get that point on the record. I checked the prices at 11.45 am and unless something dramatic has happened, the Brent spot price is $36.7 a barrel and the forward price for August—when the Economic Secretary says he is going to conduct his review—is $37.1. That is less than a dollar away from the price stipulated in the amendment.

No doubt the House authorities will study closely the hon. Gentleman's remarks. On the apparent discrepancy, it may be something for Bloomberg to take up with Reuters. Those two market sources may have different figures.

The Economic Secretary knows that that will not wash. He knows perfectly well that the amendment will not take effect until the next Budget six months away. He also knows that, as the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) said, though I did not agree with all his points and I am not sure that he fully understood some of mine, that the net effect of the increase—

Order. The hon. Gentleman will have a chance to reply and he is supposed to be making an intervention, which should be very brief and also about petrol duty.

The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan correctly said that the overall revenue effects of changes in oil prices over the last few months are highly favourable to the Government, who will benefit by a ratio of at least 2:1 and possibly 3:1 on my calculations. That is the ratio of increased revenue for every pound lost under the amendment.

Clearly this is a six-month measure, not a serious one. It is simply a short-term reaction to complex current events and not a sensible way to make policy. The Tory plans mean that when the daily oil price goes up, the inflation increase is withdrawn. Presumably, when the oil price goes down, the duty increase will be reintroduced—though we are not told—that. It is a hopeless hokey-cokey provision. I must tell the hon. Member for Chichester that it is not possible to manage economic policy and the public finances on such a simplistic and unstable basis.

It may well be a hokey-cokey amendment, but its weakness is not that it is too bold, but that it is far too modest. Will the Treasury Front Benchers address themselves to the question of how much additional revenue they now expect, given that international oil prices are way beyond the Budget assumptions? What do they intend to do about the windfall revenue in the light of the September rise?

If the hon. Gentleman can be patient, I intend to come on to the points that he and the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir) have raised.

I think that the Economic Secretary meant to say that the oil price was $27.40 a barrel. However, it was suggested that the matter was under review. If so, that review must include the Treasury's new expectations of what would be a reasonable assumption for corporation tax and other oil receipts for this year. With respect to the Economic Secretary, I maintain that any responsible Treasury must do those calculations if an assessment has to be made soon about whether to go ahead with the duty increase. So where are they?

The review by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, and the decision that he takes, will take into account all the economic, social and environmental factors in such a complex decision. North sea revenues may rise with the oil price, but the broader effect on the public finances is much more complex. The overall effect in respect of the economy, business profitability and Government expenditure is broadly neutral.

On 3 June, a few days before the European and local government elections, the Chancellor of the Exchequer led us to believe that he was thinking seriously about not increasing fuel duty this autumn. Was he speaking through his hat?

My right hon. Friend was not speaking through his hat. In fact, I do not think that I have ever seen him wearing one.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) said, my amendment is modest. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) was less charitable, and called it light. The amendment is short, but its clarity seems to have elicited some information from the Government. I shall come to that in a moment. The hon. Gentleman did not offer a clear alternative, only general suggestions for a more rigorous approach.

The clear alternative is for the Government to say how much of a windfall they expect. I am concerned by what the Economic Secretary said about the effect being neutral and I presume that that is based on an assumption of lower economic growth. If so, he should tell us how much of a direct windfall the Government expect and the size of the fall in economic growth that they now forecast. The Economic Secretary's message was very negative.

The hon. Gentleman and I seem to be working together more closely than a moment ago.

indicated dissent.

I do not want to wreck his party's prospects, but I agree with what the hon. Gentleman just said. It would be extremely helpful if the Government made a clear statement, perhaps in a letter, of the overall effect of oil price rises on the public finances. I should be grateful if the Economic Secretary would publish the detailed calculations on which his remarks were based.

I made it clear in my remarks that our main assumptions are audited by the NAO. We publish them in the pre-Budget report and the Budget. That is the time scale to which we work and when the information is made available. A broadly neutral effect is more likely than the large windfall that Opposition Members seem to think will benefit the British economy.

The Economic Secretary has alluded to some publications with which I am familiar, but I would not feel able easily to draw the same conclusions. I do not want to linger on this point, but I hope that he will help us by sending a letter pointing out where we can find numbers that are clear and unambiguous. The point at issue is valuable, and the House and the country should have deeper knowledge of it.

indicated assent.

The hon. Gentleman is nodding in agreement. Motorists should therefore know that the Liberal Democrat party's policy is to increase taxation and to impose higher levels of duty on diesel and motor spirit. That message will not be lost on people in the months ahead.