Right hon. and hon. Members will be aware that Lord Butler is due to publish his review of intelligence on weapons of mass destruction later this morning. I am aware of the considerable interest in Lord Butler's findings. In these exceptional circumstances, I have agreed that the Prime Minister will make a statement on this matter this afternoon. The statement will take place at 1.30 pm.

Pursuant to his oral answer of 16 June 2004, Official Report, columns 758–9, on debt swaps, what progress has been made by the continuing forestry projects to which he referred.[183716]

The Indigenous Peoples' Project has approved funding for about 30 projects promoting land demarcation and sustainable development in the Brazilian rain forest. In addition, the project seeks to support a number of indigenous movements and their leaders to be better able to articulate, defend and promote the rights of their peoples. Further support has been provided for the strengthening of the umbrella organisation for the indigenous people of the whole of the Brazilian Amazon.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the Commonwealth Development Corporation, which is heavily involved in forestry, is being accused by native peoples in Papua New Guinea and Indonesia of driving deforestation? Is he also aware that the central point of expertise that was established to fulfil the Government's promise of legal and sustainable sources for all timber coming into this country is neither adequately funded nor fully up and running, four years after that promise was made? Will my hon. Friend undertake to write to me on those two detailed questions, so that we can ensure that the UK purchases timber only from legal and sustainable sources?

I am happy to write to my hon. Friend, as he requests, with detailed answers to the specific questions he raises. However, I can reassure him on the question of illegal logging. The UK has been at the forefront of a series of efforts across the continents to tackle the issue of illegal logging. For example, we have committed to a new programme of work on forest governance and trade in west and central Africa, following the ministerial conference that I attended last year, and we have led the debate in Europe on how we can ensure that traders bringing timber into Europe can verify that their supplies have not been logged illegally. We expect that the regulation to achieve that will shortly be brought before the EU College of Commissioners.

What assistance his Department is giving to the development of (a) civil society and (b) women's rights in the countries of the Maghreb. [183719]

DFID does not have any bilateral programmes in the Maghreb region. However, working with colleagues at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, we have successfully encouraged the EU through its MEDA programme to use its resources to assist civil society organisations and to promote women's rights. In addition, the FCO's global opportunities fund supports a number of projects in the Maghreb region that seek to increase the participation of women and promote good governance.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. This is a critical and opportune time for north Africa and the countries of the Maghreb. I had the privilege of chairing a conference with their Foreign Ministers here two or three weeks ago, and the emphasis was on the building up of civil society and, especially, the extension of women's rights, to which Baroness Symons referred. Will my hon. Friend work closely with his colleagues in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to promote and develop our relations with the Maghreb? Those countries should not be seen as only within the French sphere of influence: they are keen to have support and encouragement for civil society projects and women's rights from Britain.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on chairing and initiating the conference to which he referred and on his work on the issue over a long period of time. As he may be aware, a series of donors already provide substantial aid in the Maghreb region. The Commission, for example, provides some €700 million to the middle east and Africa and a further €30 million to Mauritania. I can give a specific example to offer my hon. Friend encouragement that the type of work he wants to see is happening. In Mauritania, about €10 million have been set aside to build up the capacity of civil society organisations and to promote human rights. Clearly, more is needed and the European Commission, at the most recent Council of Ministers, made a commitment to do just that.

If he will make a statement on action the Government are taking to prevent a humanitarian disaster in Darfur province in Sudan. [183720]

What recent representations he has received regarding the humanitarian situation in Sudan. [183721]

The humanitarian situation in Darfur, western Sudan, is of the gravest concern and the need for food, water and shelter is enormous. Civilian protection is also a major concern, with reports of systematic attacks. With our EU partners, we have made it clear that all alleged attacks should be thoroughly investigated and the perpetrators brought to justice.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that response and I am pleased to hear his comments about the progress that has been achieved. Does he agree, however, that there are still significant gaps in humanitarian assistance and supplies to the camps, and that despite all the good work progress remains to be made? Can he comment on that?

My hon. Friend is entirely right, although I can tell the House that the UN reports significant progress on humanitarian access and on the removal of the constraints that aid agencies have faced. There are now 31 NGOs registered in Darfur, including most recently World Vision International, which has expressed thanks to the UK for our help in getting its registration through. That enabled the organisation to send two airlifts to the region last Sunday, but the needs remain enormous. Time is very, very short and although there are now 300 international humanitarian staff in Darfur, the UN estimates that 1,000 are needed, so we must continue the effort to ensure that help gets to the people who need it.

Given the intense diplomatic activity of the Government and the UN Security Council in relation to Iraq, were we not entitled to expect more intense activity and pressure from the Government and the Security Council in relation to what is going on in western Sudan? When can we expect a robust UN Security Council resolution on the issue?

The UK has been vigorous both through the diplomatic channel and through the humanitarian work that I have just described. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the reference to Sudan in the Security Council resolution passed in June and, I hope, of the resolution passed by the African Union at its summit last week, which was extremely significant and made clear the concern of the countries of Africa about what is happening. Like the United States and others, we have told the Government of Sudan that if there is not rapid progress in delivering the commitments that they have entered into—not just on improving access for humanitarian aid, but on ensuring security, which is the cause of the crisis—we shall have to return to the Security Council to take further measures, because if that is what is needed to protect the people of Darfur, that is what we shall do.

I welcome the increased aid that my right hon. Friend announced this week, as well as the additional £150 million over the next three years that the Chancellor announced on Monday. Will my right hon. Friend continue to be resolute with the regime in Sudan to ensure that there is an infrastructure, so that aid can be delivered, and especially so that trucks are allowed access to those who desperately need what we want to provide?

I am happy to give my right hon. Friend that assurance. He rightly refers not only to the additional aid that we have been able to give for the humanitarian crisis, but also to the aid framework that we want to put into development in Sudan when there is peace—not just peace as a result of the Naivasha process but peace in Darfur. That is a product of the generous increase in the UK aid budget that the Chancellor announced on Monday. My right hon. Friend is also right to note that real obstacles remain, including shortages of aviation fuel and diesel for the airlifts and of the trucking required to get help to the people who need it. We have to address each and every one of those problems with vigour and speed if we are to get help to the people who need it.

Please will the Secretary of State tell us what progress has been made in the application of satellite technology to provide security and humanitarian aid in the area?

The hon. Gentleman raised that issue with me when I made my statement. Yesterday, I looked at a report that Amnesty International has produced that does indeed use satellite technology to identify the villages that have been attacked. I shall, as promised, write to him shortly with further information on that subject. That demonstrates how satellite technology can assist, and the other issue that I will raise with the AU ceasefire monitors is precisely the extent to which they may be able to use it to aid them in the task. There are now 30 monitors in Darfur. They have already undertaken four investigations. They have access to three helicopters, and it is important that we continue to support them in deploying as quickly as possible.

Will my right hon. Friend expand on the UN's current and prospective involvement in Darfur?

The UN agencies have been present for quite some time. As I have said in the House previously, they were in the past, frankly, slow in responding to the scale of the crisis. The situation has improved since first Kevin Kennedy arrived for three weeks, and now Eric Damor has been appointed as the acting resident coordinator. Next week, I will talk to Carol Bellamy of UNICEF and Jan Egeland, the UN emergency relief coordinator. I have also had conversations with Jim Morris of the World Food Programme. What is required now is for all the agencies—the UN, the international NGOs and financial support from the international community—to come together to exert maximum effort to ensure that the relief that is needed gets past the obstacles, including the security problems that the UN and other agencies continue to face.

Given the harrowing plight of those in the internally displaced people's camps in Darfur, which I saw for myself only two weeks ago, what representations has the Secretary of State made to the Government of Sudan about reports that local authorities are still demanding travel permits in some areas? Does he accept that Khartoum's 90-day registration plan makes many NGOs reluctant to increase their asset bases because they simply do not know whether their permits will be renewed?

I am, of course, aware of the problem to which the hon. Gentleman refers. Overall, the reports that we have had—I spoke to our ambassador in Khartoum this morning—show significant improvements in humanitarian access, but the hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the continuing difficulties with the local interpretation of travel permits, and we continue to pursue that issue regularly with the Government of Sudan. I am also aware of the problem that he identifies about 90-day registration. We take things a stage at a time, and as we have got that 90-day registration window, he can rest assured that I will continue to do all that I can to ensure that, having got in the NGOs and given that the crisis will last for a very long time, they are able to stay.

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. Obviously, humanitarian improvement and sustainable peace are inextricably linked to each other. Further to the inquiry made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon), will the Secretary of State tell the House what, if any, objection the Government have to the passage now of a tougher UN Security Council resolution that condemns unequivocally the Sudan Government for human rights abuses and demands that the abuses be internationally investigated, that the ceasefire and human rights monitors be vastly increased in number, that an assurance be given that people will not be forced to go home until it is safe to do so and that all the militias will be disbanded immediately, failing which a robust UN sanctions regime will be applied within weeks and a UN protection force deployed before we see in Darfur a replay of the human horrors experienced in Rwanda.

The words "failing which" that the hon. Gentleman used are the key to the progress. The Government of Sudan have given commitments on security, so it is right and proper that they should be given a chance—they have a short time—to deliver on those commitments in exactly the same way as we gave them a period to deliver on their commitments on humanitarian assistance, on which we are now seeing progress. That progress is unquestionably the result of international pressure. If the Government of Sudan fail to honour the commitments that they have given on security—to disarm the Janjaweed militia and to send in the police forces that they have promised—we will not hesitate to return to the Security Council to continue to apply pressure to ensure that there is further progress.

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to emphasise the fact that security is at the centre of delivering humanitarian aid and making a difference. Does he appreciate that the Opposition's request for a clear and tough line would be supported by Labour Members and the Government? It is important that Khartoum is left in no doubt that the international community demands that it not only dissociates itself from the paramilitaries, but makes it clear that it will bring those engaged to justice. There is a suspicion that Khartoum will use weasel words yet continue to support those people unless the international community is resolute in its view and takes action.

I recognise the strength of feeling on both sides of the House, not least because I share it. My hon. Friend can rest assured that the Government are doing precisely what he is asking for. We have been playing a leading role in putting pressure on the Government of Sudan, as my conversation with Sudanese Government Ministers demonstrates. I assure my hon. Friend that we will continue to do that because it is the key to progress, which is what the people of Darfur need.

Does the Secretary of State agree that humanitarian aid will have been effective only if the refugees feel safe enough to return to their homes? How many Janjaweed have been charged and how many have been disarmed? How many weapons have been collected, and what safeguards are in place to ensure that the Janjaweed—who I understand are being incorporated into the police—will not simply carry on harassing the refugees?

On the hon. Gentleman's latter point, we have made it clear to the Government of Sudan that the refugees' sense of security will not be increased if, as one person put it to me when I visited Darfur, the Janjaweed return with police officers' badges on their chests. The Government of Sudan are sending police from other parts of the country to Darfur because they realise the force of that argument.

I heard the Secretary of State say that he is having discussions with UNICEF. Will he include on the agenda an update on the appeal that it launched only last month for £25 million, which will help the displaced communities in Darfur and Sudanese refugees in Chad, especially the thousands of children who are at risk of dying from entirely preventable diseases such as malaria and measles, and conditions such as diarrheea? Will he help UNICEF to reach its targets?

I certainly will raise those issues during my discussions with Carol Bellamy next week. I can tell my hon. Friend that despite the coverage of the measles vaccination campaign, there are reports of outbreaks of measles. A further mop–up vaccination programme is planned. We are able to support UNICEF and other agencies because we have a rising aid budget—the UK is now the largest cash donor to the humanitarian situation in Darfur. That situation is in sharp contrast to Opposition calls for the budget to be cut.

When he next expects to meet representatives of aid agencies to discuss ways of ensuring that aid to Zimbabwe reaches the poorer districts. [183722]

I discussed humanitarian needs in Zimbabwe with the head of the World Food Programme earlier this month, and we are in regular contact with other UN agencies, major donors and non-governmental organisations. Recent Government claims of a bumper harvest are simply not credible. If large amounts of food aid are needed later in the year. UN agencies have warned that the international response could be delayed until there is more openness and co-operation with the UN. The Department for International Development and other agencies will continue to provide targeted help to the most vulnerable districts and sections of Zimbabwean society, including people affected by HIV/AIDS and vulnerable children.

I am grateful for that reply, but there is now overwhelming evidence that Mugabe and ZANU-PF, having destroyed their own agricultural sector, are preventing food from getting through to the poorest communities. Surely more can be done to supervise the distribution of food, or this evil dictator will have succeeded in his strategy of getting re-elected on the back of systematically starving the Opposition.

I share the hon. Gentleman's concern about the situation in Zimbabwe. He will be aware that the Government of Zimbabwe predict a 600,000 metric tonnes maize surplus We do not agree with that. The international assessment is that there will be an 800,000 metric tonnes shortfall. It is the people of Zimbabwe who will pay the price, as he just said, for their Government getting it wrong. We retain the procedures that we have in place to ensure that the food aid that the international community gives is not used for political purposes, but none of us controls the distribution mechanism run by the, Government of Zimbabwe.

Can the Minister tell the House just how robust the intelligence is about the situation in Zimbabwe? It is essential that food gets through to the poorest people and is not used as a political weapon by ZANU-PF. Are we enlisting the agencies in South Africa to assist in gaining that robust intelligence?

I agree about the importance of having access to reliable information about what is going on. That is not helped by the fact that both the crop and food assessment surveys were cancelled by the Government of Zimbabwe—one can only assume because they do not want to know the real position. However, our estimates are based on the best intelligence and information available.

Through the Government's investigation, they have accepted that the Mugabe regime stole a great deal of aid in the past. Will the Minister also accept that aid workers in Movement for Democratic Change areas have been attacked and food distribution centres forcibly closed, and that ZANU-PF is delivering food to its supporters? Given that most of Zimbabwe's close neighbours are heavy recipients of aid from this country, when will the Government put some real pressure on them to assist us in getting Zimbabwe out of the dark ages? [Interruption.]

Order. The House must come to order.

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the United Kingdom Government have been very strong in their condemnation of what is going on and very robust in their conversations with Zimbabwe's south African neighbours about the steps that they need to take to bring the current intolerable situation to an end. In that respect, I welcome what Kofi Annan said to the AU summit last week. I also welcome the summary of the fact-finding mission to Zimbabwe, carried out by the African Commission on Human and Peoples Rights, which speaks openly about the testimony it received

"from witnesses who were victims of political violence and other victims of torture while in police custody. There was evidence that the system of arbitrary arrests took place."

What his policy is on the encouragement of renewable energy technologies in developing countries. [183723]

We work alongside a variety of agencies, including the World Bank and the European Union, to promote better access in developing countries to affordable and reliable energy services, including renewable energy, especially to the very poorest and those living in remote and rural areas.

Solar voltaics are close to commercial viability in areas that are not connected to an electricity grid. Will the Government do more, both here and abroad, to support solar energy, because increased demand has been shown to be the best way of reducing costs? That would help more people in developing countries to enjoy improved energy supplies without adding to the demand for fossil fuels.

My hon. Friend is right. Solar voltaics have the potential of offering many of those who live in very rural areas—often the poorest people in developing countries—access to energy. We want to persuade the World Bank to go further than its commitment at the Bonn renewables conference, where it said that it would seek to increase funding for renewables by 20 per cent. in each of the next five years to some $400 million by 2010. It is starting from a low base. We want it to go a little further, but its statement at the Bonn conference was positive.

Does the Minister agree that it would be beneficial for developing countries to take advantage of developments at centres of excellence such as the Centre for Alternative Technology at Machynlleth in Wales? What are the Government doing to assist that?

I have visited the excellent centre to which my hon. Friend referred and, after questions, I will reflect on the opportunities for developing countries to take advantage of such expertise.

If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 14 July.

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.

Amidst all the Prime Minister's preoccupations today, could I ask him about the elections? In just four months' time, the people of the United States may well elect a new Administration. Will he stand shoulder to shoulder with a new American Administration on climate change, the middle east and renewing the coalition against terror?

I will always make sure that this country remains a strong ally of the United States of America. As I said at the last Prime Minister's questions, it is not wise for me to intrude on the American elections, but I shall simply say to my hon. Friend that the alliance with the United States of America, however criticised from time to time, is a bedrock of this country's security. We should support it and be proud of it. In particular, I am proud of the part that we have played in sustaining it over the past few years.

Last weekend, the Health Secretary described hospital cleanliness as a new challenge, but in the Government's last NHS plan four years ago, they promised to tackle exactly the same problem. How have they done on the MRSA—methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus—super–bug since then?

As the Health Secretary accepted, it is indeed a serious problem, which we have been tackling and must continue to tackle, as the National Audit Office report makes clear. I shall. however, read out one or two figures, as there has been discussion of our rate of infection and how much worse is it is than that in other European countries. In fact, the rate of hospital-acquired infection is 9 per cent. in England, compared with 7 per cent. in the Netherlands, 8 per cent. in Spain and Denmark, and between 6 and 10 per cent. in France. It is a serious problem, but we are not the only country to have it, and we are working very hard to eradicate it.

I do not think that those figures will give much comfort to people suffering from those infections or the families of the 5,000 people a year who die from them. Since the Government took office, the number of deaths from the MRSA super-bug has doubled, and today the NAO states that four years after its original report on the subject, the NHS still does not even have

"a proper grasp of the extent and cost of hospital-acquired infection".

The right hon. and learned Gentleman should acknowledge that in fact the NAO says that there has been significant progress in dealing with the issue, but he is right that we still have a great deal to do to get proper information. I would point out, however, that until we came to office, there was no mandatory reporting at all. Indeed, it was introduced by the Government three years ago, precisely because we recognised that that was a problem. With respect, that is why we should treat with a great deal of caution the comparisons that the right hon. and learned Gentleman made with 1997.

Perhaps the Prime Minister will treat with less caution something that the NHS chief executive admitted this morning—Government targets have made dealing with the super-bug "more difficult". Does he accept that Government policy has actually made matters worse?

No, I do not, but I accept that we need to make sure that we have the proper capacity in our NHS, because the higher the level of capacity, the easier it is to have isolation wards and so on. The Government are increasing that capacity in the NHS, and the Opposition voted against every penny of that extra investment.

I hope the Prime Minister would agree that a community safety partnership—a crime and disorder reduction partnership—that has delivered a reduction of more than 50 per cent. in vehicle crime and a reduction of more than 70 per cent. in domestic burglary since it was set up deserves to be congratulated. Does he also welcome, as I do, the fact that there have been days in Plymouth recently when there have been no domestic burglaries—in a city of 250,000 people? Will he go on with our right hon. Friends the Chancellor and the Home Secretary to ensure that the resources and the appropriate targets to deliver that can continue?

I am delighted with that good news from Plymouth, though we must be careful to state that we do not encourage criminals. It is important to recognise that there have been substantial falls in burglary. The crime rate is, however, still too high and although it has come down, we need to see it come down further. I am sure my hon. Friend is right to say that the combination of record numbers of police, now to be joined by community support officers, plus the changes in the criminal justice system, and in particular the measures in relation to the mandatory drug testing of people when they are arrested for certain categories of offence and the action on antisocial behaviour, are a very important part of cracking down on crime. That is why I am so sorry that the Liberal Democrats opposed all those measures in Parliament.

I thank the Prime Minister for that characteristic welcome. Returning to the National Audit Office report, what does he say to its finding that 50 per cent. of health service trusts said that they find the Government's drive to meet performance targets inconsistent with infection control? Does he accept that finding from the NAO on behalf of the trusts?

I accept that as we try to get more people treated and get people treated faster in the national health service that puts pressure on the system. But as I said to the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), in my view it is important that we have performance targets for hospitals. It is important that we make sure that we are bringing down waiting lists and waiting times, as we are. We have said that MRSA is a serious problem and we are committed to tackling it, but let that not obliterate the huge progress that is now being made by NHS staff in the national health service.

It is significant that the Prime Minister has said that he accepts what the trusts are saying—that his targets are skewing their ability to deal with infection control. Why does it take seven years of a Labour Government and the problem getting worse and worse for the governmental response at the weekend to be simply to set yet another target? Surely cleanliness in our hospitals should not be a target: it should be taken as read by the patients when they enter the front door.

We are not saying that the answer is simply to set another target. We are taking action to try and make sure that the rate of infection is reduced. We must be careful that we do not misunderstand the position in that regard. We are taking action. The problem is serious, but it will not be made any better by extending the length of waiting times and waiting lists. We are expanding capacity in the national health service and making reforms. When we speak of MRSA, let me remind the right hon. Gentleman that the NHS treats about 1 million people every 36 hours. The vast majority of those people are treated excellently within the NHS.

I have recently seen two patients whom I suspected of having cancer, both of whom have been seen, investigated and had planned treatment within one week of my decision to refer them. That is a target that my patients are extremely grateful to have. The huge improvement in the health service will be sustained only if the Government continue to put in the resources that we need for meaningful reform. Can my right hon. Friend say how we can sustain the improvement to make sure that performance gets even better?

We will pursue the reforms inside the national health service. The other important aspect is that we make sure that every single penny piece of the money going into the NHS stays with the NHS. We do not want to see a large subvention to those using private health care, which takes that money out of the national health service.

Can the Prime Minister tell us what assumptions his Chancellor has made about increases in council tax over the next three years?

There are no predictions on council tax, because the figure is an average of the past five years' figures. Last year, the actual amount catered for in the spending review did not result in the expected council tax rise. This year's council tax rise is less than 5 per cent. in Labour areas, more than 5 per cent. in Conservative areas and more than 6 per cent. in Liberal Democrat areas.

I am sorry that the Chancellor is not here to make sure that the Prime Minister is a bit better informed—he is probably still trying to decide whether to come and support the Prime Minister during the statement in an hour's time. Let me tell the Prime Minister the answer: the Chancellor is counting on council tax going up by 18 per cent.—almost one fifth—over the next three years, which, to take two councils entirely at random, would add £135 to the typical band A bill in Birmingham and £140 to the typical bill in Leicester. Last year, the Minister for Local and Regional Government said that council tax was very near "the limit of acceptability ", so why is the Chancellor planning those further huge increases?

He is not, for the very reason that I have just given.

It is interesting that the Prime Minister wants to trade council tax increases in Labour-controlled councils and Conservative-controlled councils, because the highest rate of council tax in the whole country is in Sedgefield, which has a Labour district council, a Labour county council and him as its Member of Parliament. Since he came to office, that council tax has increased by 70 per cent.—three times the rate of inflation. That is a rise of almost £500 for a band D household. The Prime Minister told people that there would be no excessive council tax rises under Labour. Is that not yet another example of his saying one thing and doing another?

The right hon. and learned Gentleman is wrong—the average council tax in Sedgefield is way below the highest in the country. Furthermore, the Conservatives keep using the band that includes only 10 per cent. of the properties in Sedgefield—90 per cent. of the properties are not in the band to which he is referring. It is typical of the Tories always to focus on 10 per cent., not 90 per cent.

Will the Prime Minister turn his attention to the plight of the Chagos islanders, who were prevented from returning to their islands by an Order in Council on 10 June, which cannot be debated in this House, having won their right legally to return in 2000? Will he accept that there has been huge American pressure to depopulate those islands and prevent the islanders from returning? Will he meet the islanders and the Government of Mauritius, and allow the gross injustice of the 1970s to be reversed and the islanders to go home?

I know that this was discussed yesterday in Foreign Office questions, and my hon. Friend will be aware of the statement on the issue made by the Foreign Secretary. The position of Diego Garcia as a base—that is what this is about—is extremely important for this country, as it represents an important part of our security. I understand the concerns that my hon. Friend raises, but the Foreign Secretary dealt with them comprehensively in his statement.

Before the local and European elections, Conservative Members, the independent Electoral Reform Society, and the Electoral Commission, which his own Government set up, all warned that there would be fraud and chaos in the all-postal pilot areas. There have been yet more allegations of serious fraud in the current by-elections. Will the Prime Minister now abandon the Deputy Prime Minister's obsession with all-postal voting before the daft regional referendums?

I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. The Electoral Commission is looking into the issue, and we will study its report carefully. It has the right people to produce an objective and independent report on the matter. There is a lot of evidence that postal ballots increase turnout; I should have thought that that would be welcomed in this House.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that a just and lasting peace in the Israel-Palestine conflict is essential not only in its own right, but in terms of undermining any international support for terrorism? In the light of last week's condemnation of the Israeli wall by the International Court of Justice, and the damage that the construction of that wall will inevitably do to the chances of a proper peace, can my right hon. Friend tell the House what further steps the Government will take to ensure that the Israeli Government engage constructively in a solution to this crisis?

We have pressed the Israeli Government on several occasions to re-route the fence away from occupied territory, and we have expressed our grave concerns about the humanitarian suffering of the Palestinian people. I agree, however, that the key to many of the problems in the middle east is to get a negotiated settlement between the Israelis and the Palestinians, leading to the two-state solution—an Israel confident of its security and a viable Palestinian state. I assure my right hon. Friend that we will do everything that we can to make progress on the issue. I hope that as a result of the work that is being done over the next few weeks by the Quartet—the US, Russia, the EU and the UN—we will have something positive to say in this respect when we reconvene in September. I entirely agree that there is no more important issue in reducing some of the tensions in the world.

Has the Prime Minister seen the research report in the British Medical Journal that shows a causal connection between British troops' service in the Gulf and infertility problems? Will he now insist that appropriate Ministers give evidence to the independent inquiry under Lord Lloyd, so that the appearance of secrecy surrounding this issue is dispelled once and for all?

I am afraid that I have nothing to add to what Ministers have already said on the subject. Of course, it is a serious issue, and we investigate it continually. I will discuss with my colleagues the issue of giving evidence. It is important that we make progress on the basis of the actual evidence.

My right hon. Friend will be aware of the recently published annual report of the Healthcare Commission, which expressed concern at the continued underfunding of those NHS trusts that have the greatest need. My right hon. Friend knows that this Government have funded the NHS to record levels, but will he take the opportunity of the comprehensive spending review to end once and for all the inequality in health funding that has blighted constituencies such as mine?

I entirely understand my hon. Friend's point. As he was gracious enough to say, we have massively increased the amount of investment that is going into the health service. Indeed, by the end of this spending review, somewhere in the region of three times the amount of money, in cash terms at least, will be going into the national health service compared with a few years ago. We are trying to ensure that we deal specifically with health inequalities, and that will be part of what the Health Secretary announces later in the year. Such inequalities do not always arise because some trusts are being unfairly treated—they sometimes arise because people in a particular trust area have severe problems. The Health Secretary is looking into that, and I hope that we can give my hon. Friend some solace later in the year.

Is the Prime Minister aware of a breakdown in part of the planning process on the siting of base stations and transmission masts? Is he aware that, in practice, there is no effective local planning control and that the operating companies' code of practice is simply not being adhered to? Will he instruct the Deputy Prime Minister to talk urgently to the Local Government Association and other interested parties to resolve the matter, which is of increasing concern throughout the House and to so many of our constituents?

I do not dispute that the hon. Gentleman raises a teal issue for all parties and I am happy to engage in discussions with the Deputy Prime Minister and other colleagues. As I said in answer to a question on a different issue, it is important that we, as representatives of our constituents, are prepared ultimately to abide by what the science tells us about the risks, difficulties and dangers.

Although I welcome the Government's commitment to providing more nursery places for children, can the Prime Minister confirm that the Government will take seriously the findings of a recent study by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, which warns of the dangers of starting nursery education too early and its impact on the child's character?

Common sense tells us that we must have a balance. However, I hope that my hon. Friend accepts that the expansion of child care and nursery education as well as Sure Start have played a huge part, especially in some of the most deprived areas of our country, in giving life chances to children who would otherwise be without them. My hon. Friend and other hon. Members also know that all the evidence shows that investment in a child's early years pays real dividends in later behaviour and developing a sense of responsibility. That helps to create a better society.

Last week, the Secretary of State for Defence stated that investigations into the deaths last year of the six military policemen at Al Majar al-Kabir are to be transferred to the Iraqi central criminal court. My constituents, the parents of the late Lance-Corporal Tom Keys, are concerned that the court will not proceed with the investigations. Worse still, the Iraqi Prime Minister has said that he is minded to grant amnesties to insurgents. Will the Prime Minister intervene personally to ensure that the investigation proceeds to a fair conclusion, especially since suspects' names are known? Will he make the strongest possible representations to the Iraqi Prime Minister about the unsuitability of granting amnesty to those murderers?

It is our understanding that the Royal Military Police special investigation branch has gathered sufficient evidence on the case for the central criminal court of Iraq to take on and direct the final stages of the investigation. In other words, we have evidence in respect of specific individuals. I shall certainly ensure that we stay closely in touch with what is happening. There has been an exaggeration of the extent of any amnesty to insurgents in Iraq, but I would personally find it unacceptable if those people were pardoned for their appalling crime. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall stay closely in touch with him and with the families about the issue.

In the light of concerns about wind power generation—it is relatively expensive and inefficient; it blights land and seascape, and it damages wildlife and marine life—does my right hon. Friend intend to re-examine the nuclear option, as other countries are doing, if we are to achieve our targets on carbon dioxide and global warming?

My hon. Friend will know that I spoke about this in front of the Liaison Committee the other week. Nuclear power is an important source of carbon-free electricity, but the analysis of the energy White Paper showed that, at present, the economics make new nuclear build unattractive. However, I told the Liaison Committee that we are keeping the nuclear option open and continuing to invest in skills and research, but we would have to overcome both public concern and the cost issue. I entirely understand what my hon. Friend says, and as we move further to develop diversity of energy supply, we will have to keep all these options open.

If the Government have increased funding to local authorities as the Prime Minister has just claimed, why are the schools in Bournemouth and throughout the county of Dorset facing a funding crisis for the second year running that is causing head teachers to make their staff redundant and to appeal to parents to come forward with extra money? Why did the Prime Minister not warn our schools at the last election that they would be facing starvation, starvation, starvation?

I do not know the precise situation in the hon. Gentleman's schools, but I will certainly find out about it in the light of what he says. All schools this year are receiving increases that have been passported through by the Government. They will then be given ring-fenced money directly. Over the last few years under this Government we have increased education funding dramatically. Let me remind the hon. Gentleman that when the Government he supported were in power, in the last few years when his present leader was sitting in the Cabinet, they cut the funding per pupil. We have raised it substantially, and I would be astonished if we had not raised it in his area as well.

Given that, in London, our good friend Ken can regulate the buses to determine routes and frequencies, why cannot we do the same in the great northern centres of population such as Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, York and, in particular, Selby, where Arriva is planning significant cuts in bus services?

I understand my hon. Friend's concern. We introduced limited regulatory powers over bus services for local authorities four years ago, and we are currently consulting on ways of making it easier for the local authorities to use them. I know that my hon. Friend would not want us to forget, however, that it was this Government who guaranteed all over-60s and disabled people in England half-price or better bus fares on their local buses, and who in 2003 extended that provision to cover long-distance coaches. I entirely agree that there is an issue in relation to regulation, but bus use has recently gone up in this country for the first time in many years.

Does the Prime Minister now regret his condemnation of the democratically taken decision by the people of the republic of Cyprus to reject Annan V? Will he give the House a clear undertaking that his Government will not support any measures in the European Union that would lead to a tacit recognition of the illegal regime in the northern part of the island?

I am afraid that I do not regret what I said then. I still believe that it would have been better if Kofi Annan's plan had proceeded; it was a fair settlement. I also think that, although we made it clear that Cyprus's accession to the European Union could not be dependent on unification of the island, it would obviously be better if some process leading to a settlement between the two parts of the island took place. We will continue to work for that—of course we will—but I thought that Kofi Annan's plan was well judged, and I hope that we can return to this issue and get it properly negotiated. There may be some changes to it, I do not know, but the basis of the plan was a sound one.

My right hon. Friend will be aware that the private finance initiative contractor, Jarvis, has been teetering on the brink of bankruptcy for weeks now. This is putting at risk a large number of school repair schemes and other public sector works. Would he not think it sensible, given that Jarvis's share price has now collapsed to junk levels, to buy out all those public sector schemes, get them done in the public sector, and save billions of pounds of public money?

No, I am not sure that I would say that to my hon. Friend. [HON. MEMBERS: "Think about it!"] I am not even going to say that I am going to think about it. Obviously, there are issues that need to be sorted out in relation to the Jarvis contracts. However, let us never forget that PFI has delivered enormous benefits in terms of infrastructure building in our constituencies and communities. I know from my own constituency that there are schools and hospitals that would not have been built without it.

On Monday, I met two of my constituents in Alma place in Clitheroe. The wife is disabled. Normally, she travelled to her local post office in Henthorn road in her wheelchair, and she enjoyed doing that. On Monday, we travelled in a vehicle past the post office, which is now closed, to another post office in the centre of Clitheroe, which is on a hill. We had to park some way away from it, then get out of the vehicle and travel up to the post office. Does the Prime Minister realise that his policy of closing post offices is causing such a deterioration in the quality of life of so many disabled people?

As the hon. Gentleman must know, post office closures also proceeded under the previous Government, to the tune of several thousand. There is not a policy of post office closures, but as post offices undergo a tremendous amount of change, as fewer people collect their benefits from the post office, the Government must give an additional subsidy to post offices. Over the next few years, they will receive a subsidy of £1 billion. We are doing what we can, but we cannot simply put endless sums of money into post offices that are not commercially viable. That is why it is not fair to say that it is the Government's policy to close post offices. We are doing our best to keep as many of them open as possible. The only way of keeping more open is to spend even more money, to which he is opposed.

I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 8, leave out lines 3 to 5 and insert—

(6)In relation to a decision of the comptroller whether to issue an opinion under this section—

for the purposes of section 101 below, only the person making the request under subsection (1) above shall be regarded as a party to a proceeding before the comptroller; and

no appeal shall lie at the instance of any other person.'

The Minister has just proposed an important amendment. I claim no credit for it but give that credit entirely to him, because of the way that he has responded so generously and appropriately to the representations that were made. I congratulate him on a superb amendment and hope that it will be accepted.

I beg to move, That the Bill be read the Third time.

My hon. Friend will remember the outrageous suggestion that I tried to pull the wool over the eyes of the Committee by saying that the 1,000 people in Newport who have to say "patent" hundreds of times a day decided that as it took three nanoseconds more to pronounce it with a long "a", they would pronounce it with a short "a" so that they could go home earlier for their tea. The outrageous and flimsy counter to that truth from the right hon. Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot) was to suggest that the Romans pronounced the word differently. How does he know that? Can he explain?

I await the reply with interest. I congratulate my hon. Friend for his involvement in the Committee and I also thank the Patent Office in Newport for its excellent work and its support to industry.

The Bill deals with something extremely important to our national economy: innovation and scientific advances. At the Lisbon summit in 2000, the Council of Ministers told us that Europe would become the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world by 2010. That is what the Bill is about. Well, jolly good. So why are we going so fast in the opposite direction? Why did a survey in May by the Swiss business school IMD show that the most competitive economy in the world was that of the USA, and that the UK had fallen another three places to 22nd? Why do we have the lowest growth in the English-speaking world? Why has our productivity collapsed in recent years? Why do we have the largest trade deficit for 300 years? One reason is that we have a Labour Government. Another reason is that this country's patents system is not in tune with that of the modern world.

"Bottom of the pile for patent enthusiasm was the UK, where only 23 per cent"—

"had used the system"

I am conscious of the fact that another hon. Member wishes to speak, and I will allow him the time to do so.

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but there must be quiet in the House. There may have been a late surge of interest in the debate, but it must be completed without disturbance.

Rarely has the House filled up so enthusiastically for a speech of mine as it has in the past couple of minutes. I simply want to conclude because I am anxious to ensure that the hon. Member with the Patent Office in his constituency has an opportunity to put on record his remarks on the Bill.

My hon. Friend the Minister can take consolation in the fact that his eloquence and the growing realisation of the Bill's importance has drawn hon. Members into the Chamber in such numbers. Only every 25 years does the House debate a Bill on patents, and it is right that hon. Members should have that experience at least once in their parliamentary careers.

With the leave of the House, I should like to respond to this excellent debate. The right hon. Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot) said that the Bill was not important, but just look at the House filling up, as hon. Members clamour to come in to hear the detail of the Bill, which is vital to industry. The hon. Gentleman will know that the science and innovation budget has been increased under the comprehensive spending review and that we have a commitment to ensure that British businesses improve.

It being half-past One o'clock, MR. SPEAKER put the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [12 July].

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.