www.dfid.gov. uk.

www.dh.gov.uk/mpi.

We also set up an expert advisory group, the advisory group on the reform of the NHS (Pharmaceutical Services) Regulations 1992, under the chairmanship of Mrs. Anne Galbraith, chair of the Prescription Pricing Authority. Its role was to advise how best to implement the proposals, taking account of the OFT report and

responses subsequently received, and to offer further advice. We received the group's report in January this year. We published the executive summary of their report in March. This is available on the Department's website at http://www.advisorybodies. doh.gov.uk/pharmacyregulationconsultation/execsum.htm.

We will publish the group's full report later this year when we bring forward the necessary regulatory changes.

We took careful account of the advisory group's report and recommendations and the responses to the consultation in drawing up our plans for implementation. Stakeholders from a wide range of key interests were represented on the group. These included patients and consumers, the NHS, pharmacists and health professions as well as those with experience of competition and regulatory reform. The group provided constructive and valuable advice. In order to end any uncertainty for patients, for the NHS and for community pharmacies, I announced on 18 August that the Government had accepted the great majority of their recommendations in relation to the proposals set out in the consultation document and would now proceed to implement them, but with some amendments.

We will work to introduce the new criteria of competition and choice to the current regulatory test through secondary rather than primary legislation. We also intend to develop criteria for primary care trusts (PCTs) to reject administratively any application which does not undertake to provide the required essential pharmaceutical services under the proposed new contractual framework for community pharmacy. Similar arrangements will be made for appliance contractors. We intend these criteria to be rolled out to all PCTs later this year subject to our ongoing discussions with the Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee (PSNC) and NHS Confederation to finalise the details of that framework.

We will proceed with our plans to exempt four types of pharmacy application from the control of entry test.

However, we will not exempt pharmacy applications for town centre shopping developments over 15,000 square metres. The exemption would still apply to out-of-centre and out-of-town developments as we originally proposed. Such exempted developments will be included in a published list and a provisional list is now available on the Department's website at www.dh.gov.uk/mpi. We are considering further how the list is to be updated and will provide more information when we bring forward the draft changes to the regulations. Pharmacies, which have hitherto found difficulty in gaining a NHS pharmacy contract in shopping developments in town centres, will nonetheless be able to apply to their local PCT for admission to the pharmaceutical list under the reformed regulatory test, when it is introduced, or to make use of the exemption to open more than 100 hours per week.

For pharmacies which intend to open for more than 100 hours per week, we will include a requirement for PCTs to remove from their pharmaceutical list any pharmacy that consistently fails to meet the terms of the exemption unless there is good cause—for example, a fire causing temporary closure.

Applications from members of a consortium establishing a new one-stop primary care centre will also be exempted, provided the centre provides a regular, comprehensive range of services and serves a substantial population of 18,000 to 20,000 patients. The exemption will only apply to centres which are part of the local PCT's strategic service development plan or equivalent written service development strategy. Such centres will, in addition to usual general practitioner services, offer a wide range of primary and community based services, such as dentistry, optometry, podiatry, or other social or community services. The Regulations will define a consortium and specify governance arrangements. Guidance for PCTs will cover situations where a service provider withdraws from a centre so that this does not require the closure of the exempted pharmacy.

Applications for wholly mail order or internet-based pharmacy services will similarly be exempted and we will apply a number of measures to ensure such pharmacies provide a fully professional service within the provisions of the new contractual framework. Internet pharmacies, as with all retail pharmacies in England, Wales and Scotland, must be registered with the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain (RPSGB). All pharmacies, whether or not they provide online services, are subject to the same statutory requirements; and to the RPSGB's requirements including standards; inspection arrangements; and code of professional ethics.

We will also introduce regulatory safeguards to protect against manipulation or abuse of the new freedoms. For example, the four exemptions will require applicants to provide a full and prescribed range of services. These would be for local determination by the PCT in relation to the first three exemptions, or nationally determined by the Department in discussion with the NHS in relation to the exemption for wholly internet or mail order based pharmacies. Apart from dispensing prescriptions, such services might include managing a patient's repeat medication, helping patients get the best from the medicines they are taking and promoting healthier lifestyles. For example, pharmacies are well placed to provide support for people at risk of coronary heart disease, giving advice on stopping smoking, or how to improve nutrition or physical activity.

Key elements of our proposals, including the four exemptions, are either implicitly or explicitly linked to the delivery of pharmaceutical services under the new contractual framework. Our plan is to implement these reforms in tandem with that framework. The Department has held tripartite negotiations on the framework with the PSNC and the NHS Confederation for the last 18 months. On 24 August, the PSNC accepted our offer of funding subject to final agreement on a number of detailed issues which we are discussing with them and the NHS Confederation. We aim to conclude these as soon as possible. We will prepare and consult on the necessary regulatory changes and aim to implement the reformed regime as soon as is practicable thereafter.

Guidance for the NHS on how to implement the regulations was last drawn up in 1992. An overhaul is long overdue. So we will amend this information to bring it fully up to date to assist PCTs in implementation. This would include developing supplementary questions to inform PCT assessments of pharmacy applications. We will also propose enhanced data collection from PCTs, subject to approval by the body overseeing NHS data requirements, to inform assessment of progress on our package of reforms and evaluate the impact of these exemptions in 2006.

We will also take additional steps as proposed to further modernise and reform the current system through a combination of regulatory and administrative changes.

PCTs will be able to invite applications from contractors. We will revise the application forms to reflect the criteria that PCTs use in assessing applications. We will require PCTs to reach a decision on an application within four months of the due date for receipt, unless there is good cause. We will also require them to consult widely with patient, consumer and local community groups that have a direct interest in local pharmaceutical provision, and set an administrative minimum consultation period of 45 days.

We will introduce an automatic exemption for all minor relocations under 500 metres, but retain the discretion for PCTs to override this where there is good cause. An example of this would be where geographical obstacles or transport difficulties would affect continued access to pharmaceutical services. Similarly there will be a minimum 12-month trading period requirement before a further application for a minor relocation can be accepted, unless, again, the applicant shows there is good cause.

We will remove the current restriction, which prevents cross-PCT boundary minor relocations, but ensure there are means to remove the contractor from the list of the PCT he is leaving and the receiving PCT agrees to the relocation.

We will retain the concept of preliminary consent for a pharmacy application, but will limit the maximum period for grant of such consent to six months.

Similarly, we will provide for a maximum period of grant of full consent of nine months. We will also enable PCTs to have the discretion to require an applicant to commence pharmaceutical services within a given period not exceeding three months unless there is good cause.

In addition, we will introduce two measures proposed to us by the advisory group. We will allow PCTs to set a fixed date every month for the receipt of applications and we will require PCTs to deal with applications that do not require local consultation within a maximum of 30 days.

However, we will retain in guidance the long-stop discretion which enables PCTs to decide competing applications of equal merit on the basis of the first past the post.

We will also reform the appeals system. We will allow appeals for change of ownership to be combined with appeals concerning minor relocations.

Certain of our proposals would require primary legislation. When parliamentary time permits, we will consider introducing new legislation to enable reasonable charges, but not full cost recovery, for pharmacy applications to be introduced. We will also consider enabling PCTs to take into account, when assessing applications, the improvements they would bring to the provision of, or access to, over-the-counter medicines and other healthcare products. We do not intend, however, to introduce legislation to enable charges to be levied for appeals. We would consult further on such legislation.

We also plan to introduce, subject to further discussions, measures developed by the Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee and the General Practitioner's Committee of the British Medical Association and the Dispensing Doctors' Association to reform the rules governing NHS rural dispensing. These bodies reviewed their proposals in the light of the Government response to the OFT report, presented their findings to the advisory group which in turn recommended they should proceed. Officials from the Department have met these organisations recently to hold further discussions on how best the reforms should be introduced to the current legislation. We aim to implement these in tandem with the other reforms I am announcing today.

The measures I have announced represent an important step forward for community pharmacy services and our ambition to deliver a balanced package of reform measures. They will raise standards for patients, encourage innovation and excellence in service provision whilst at the same time supporting community pharmacies, many of which are small businesses. Community pharmacies provide a highly valued service and we are committed to their ongoing development and integration in the NHS. We also want to ensure that our reforms do not mean that services to more vulnerable groups of patients or those in deprived or rural areas suffer.

We are determined to improve access to, and the choice of, pharmacy services so that community pharmacy is recognised as a key player in the provision of NHS services. These reforms will provide an environment in which community pharmacy services can thrive.

1 November 2004

• Barnsley District General Hospital NHS Trust
• Burton Hospitals NHS Trust
• Chesterfield and North Derbyshire Royal Hospitals NHS Trust
• Gateshead Health NHS Trust
• Harrogate Healthcare NHS Trust
• Nottingham City Hospital NHS Trust
• Southend Hospital NHS Trust
• South Tyneside Healthcare NHS Trust
• West Suffolk Hospitals NHS Trust

1 February 2005

• Aintree Hospitals NHS Trust
• Birmingham Heartlands and Solihull NHS Trust
• Birmingham Women's Healthcare NHS Trust
• East Somerset NHS Trust
• Frimley Park Hospitals NHS Trust
• Lancaster Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust
• Liverpool Women's Hospital NHS Trust
• Newcastle Upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Trust
• Royal Bournemouth and Christchurch NHS Trust
• Royal National Hospital for Rheumatic Diseases NHS Trust
• Wrightington, Wigan and Leigh NHS Trust

On 26 July, I indicated that in addition to three-star rated acute and specialist trusts, mental health trusts would for the first time be invited to apply for NHS foundation trust status. We will formally invite applications for wave 2 later this autumn and outline the timetable for authorisation, which will be subject to the outcome of the review into NHS foundation trusts being undertaken by the Healthcare Commission (whose statutory name is the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection).

At age 7—Key Stage 1

Some 1.85 per cent. of pupils achieved the expected level in reading (an increase of 1 percentage point over 2003) and 90 per cent. of pupils did so in maths (unchanged from 2003).¹

At age 11—Key Stage 2

A record 77 per cent. of pupils achieved the expected level in English, an increase of 2 percentage points from last year (up 12 percentage points compared to 1998), and 74 per cent. of pupils achieved the expected level in Maths, a 1 percentage point increase from last year (up 15 percentage points from 6 years ago). These are good results and show that standards achieved by pupils in our primary schools are continuing to improve. Pupils and parents can be confident that their primary schools are still getting better and better.

Standards at Key Stage 2 are improving in all areas but some of the biggest strides are in some of the poorest areas, such as Hackney where English improved by 7 percentage points and Maths by 6 percentage points compared to 2003 and Sunderland, where there was a 5 percentage point improvement in English and a 4 percentage point improvement in Maths. Among other LEAs Hartlepool and Southampton recorded the highest improvements in both English and Maths results. It shows that poverty is not a barrier to success.

It is a tribute to the hard work of teachers who have made this possible. We will continue to offer them targeted help and support.

At age 14

I am pleased to see progress made in maths. At Key Stage 3, there has been a 2 percentage point increase in the number of pupils achieving level 5 in Maths and over 50 per cent. of 14 year olds are now reaching level 6 in maths, a tremendous achievement. There has been a 2 percentage point fall in the number of pupils achieving level 5 in Science compared to last year, although there has been a 10 percentage points increase since 1998.

Publication of Key Stage 3 English results has been deferred until the outcome, in terms of scale and nature, of the extended marking process for schools is known. Under the National Statistics Code of Practice, it is the statistics Head of Profession in the Department who decides on the content and timing of the release of National Statistics, and provides advice to ministers.

At GCSE

I welcome the rise in the number of entries achieving top grades for all candidates in England and Wales—the biggest rise in A^* to C grades since 1999. The provisional results show that:

Grades at A^*—C for all candidates in England and Wales have increased by 1.1 percentage points to 59.2% (compared to a 0.2 percentage point rise last summer)

Some 97.6 per cent. of GCSE entrants achieved a grade A^*—G—the same rate as last year

Grades A^*—C at maths have increased by 1.6 percentage points to 51.7 per cent. English is up by 0.2 percentage point to 59.9 per cent.

An increase of entries in chemistry of 5 per cent., in physics of 5.1 per cent. and in biology of 4.4 per cent.

Boys' improvement at grades A^*—C has increased by 1.3 percentage points compared with 0.9 for girls

These results are excellent and reflect the hard work of pupils and teachers. I am encouraged that more pupils are taking maths and gaining good grades, mirroring the rise for 14 year olds. It is also good to see more pupils taking science.

As with the primary schools, some of the biggest improvements this year have been in schools in some of our poorer and lowest attaining areas. In North Tyneside early indications are that the GCSE results have increased from 48 per cent. of pupils gaining five or more good GCSEs to 54 per cent. this year. At school level the International School in Birmingham increased from 9 per cent. of its pupils gaining 5 A^* to C grades last year to 32 per cent. this year — still a long way to go but huge improvement and a tribute to the leadership of these schools.

A further example of this improvement can be seen in London. For the first time all London boroughs are now achieving above 40 per cent. of pupils gaining 5 A^* to C grades at GCSE. The provisional results also indicate that some of the fastest improving areas are among the most deprived boroughs: Islington is up by 7 percentage points; Tower Hamlets is up 5.3 percentage points; Haringey is up by 5.6 percentage points; Hackney is up by 5.8 percentage points; Lewisham is up by 6.3 percentage points and Newham is up by 3.9 percentage points.

These results build on very fast improvement from last year's results when Hackney was up by 8 percentage points and Islington up by 5 points. So the trend is clearly upwards.

At A level

The overall pass rate rose to 96 per cent. from 95.4 per cent. last year. A grades at A level increased by 0.8 percentage points to 22.4 per cent. and the overall AS pass rate has increased by 0.2 percentage points to 86.9 per cent. Excluding General Studies, English and Mathematics attracted the highest number of entries at A level and are two of the three most popular subjects at AS.

These results are built on the hard work of students, schools and colleges and will open up more opportunities for our young people to achieve success. I congratulate the students and thank our teachers for their commitment.

At a time when Ofsted says the standard of teaching has never been higher, we should expect to have rising levels of achievement in our schools and colleges. We are getting better as a country at getting the best out of our young people. We should applaud them and applaud their teachers, schools and colleges.

I am determined that we should move forward to improve performance further.We will continue to progress with some important developments from the start of the new school term.

Specialist schools

Some 506 specialist schools will begin operating as specialist for the first time this September. This means that 2.1 million pupils will be educated in one of the 1,954 specialist schools—62 per cent. of all English secondary schools, up from just 257 in 1997. The evidence shows that specialist schools help pupils to gain better grades.

Academies

Five new Academies open in Barnet, Hackney, Hillingdon, Lambeth and Northampton. They will build on the success of the existing 12 where I was pleased to see some excellent GCSE results this summer. For example The King's Academy in Middlesbrough where 34 per cent. of pupils achieved five or more A^* —C GCSEs, an increase of around 12 percentage points on the joint results of the predecessor schools in 2003.

Workforce Reform

Workforce reform is in the next phase and the radical enhancement of the role of teachers continues. There are not just more teachers than at any time since the early 1980s but teachers are being given professional support in class with more assistants. Teachers will increasingly have more time to prepare better lessons.

Education Maintenance Allowance

This will be available nationally to help young people stay on in education, at school or college.

ICT

Current activity focuses on supporting the personalised learning and transforming school workforce agendas. Over 99 per cent. of schools in England are now connected to the Internet of which, at June 2004, 61 per cent. of primary and 98 per cent. of secondary had a connection at broadband speeds appropriate to their needs.

Schools continue to invest in the new technologies that support enhanced teaching and learning. By March 2004 63 per cent. of primary schools had an electronic interactive whiteboard (average 1.9 a school) and 92 per cent. of secondary schools (average 7.5 a school).

In the longer term I am looking forward to receiving later in the autumn the final report from Mike Tomlinson's Working Group on 14-19 Reform. He will be coming forward with proposals looking at how we stretch the most able, boost participation, improve the vocational offer and reduce the burden of assessment.

¹Figures for 2004 and 2003 are not strictly comparable because of the trial involving 34 LEAs and a quarter of 7 year olds that reported only teacher assessment. The independent assessment of the trial is expected later this month and we shall comment further on these results then.

Procedures for toxicological purposes accounted for the remaining 16 per cent. of all procedures. About 63 per cent. of these were for testing the safety and efficacy of new drugs and medicines.

In keeping with previous years, those procedures which used mice or rats (or other rodents) were the great majority at 85 per cent. Those using fish amounted to 6 per cent. and those using birds, 4 per cent. The total of all procedures using dogs, cats, horses and non-human primates, that is those species offered special protection by the Act, was less than 1 per cent. of the total.

Genetically normal animals were used in 1,749,000 regulated procedures, representing 63 per cent. of all procedures for 2003 (compared with 65 per cent. in 2002 and 84 per cent. in 1995). Genetically modified animals (nearly all rodents) were used in 764,000 regulated procedures, representing 27 per cent. of all procedures for 2003 (compared with 26 per cent. in 2002 and 8 per cent. in 1995).

These trends have been evident over recent years, reflecting the changing balance in use between genetically normal and modified animals, and are set to continue as advances in genetic science open up new and promising avenues of research.

I should point out in relation to the statistics that the Home Office, as regulatory authority under the 1986 Act, does not control the overall amount of animal research and testing which takes place, the imperative being to minimise the numbers of animals used for justifiable purposes. We ensure, in carrying out our licensing function, that the provisions of the Act are rigorously applied in each programme of work. All animal use must be justified, and for each particular programme of work the number of animals used and the suffering caused must be minimised.

Directors

It is essential for British competitiveness that we have a diverse pool of high-quality individuals willing to become directors, and that directors are willing to take informed and rational risks. But it is also important that directors act in accordance with their duties, and that negligent directors can be held to account by their companies. The courts have in recent years imposed a much more demanding standard of care, skill and diligence on directors. This has been a very welcome development.

The consultation built on the recommendations both of the Company Law Review and of Sir Derek Higgs' study on non-executive directors. It identified two particular concerns:

exposure to liabilities arising from legal action against directors by third parties. The sharp rise in the number of class actions by groups of shareholders in the US has made this a particular concern for directors of British companies with a US listing;

the cost of lengthy court proceedings. Companies are currently permitted to indemnify a director against the cost of defending legal proceedings, but only when judgment has been given in the director's favour or he has been acquitted. For many directors, such indemnification comes too late and the prospect provides cold comfort.

The consultation indicated these issues are affecting the recruitment and behaviour of directors. I therefore intend to introduce a balanced and proportionate package of reforms, by tabling amendments to the Companies House (Audit, Investigations and Community Enterprise) Bill at its Commons Committee stage. The proposals will in particular introduce two important relaxations of the current prohibition on companies exempting their directors from, or indemnifying them against, liability:

they will permit, but not require, companies to indemnify directors in respect of proceedings brought by third parties (covering both legal costs and the financial costs of any adverse judgement, except for the legal costs of unsuccessful defence of criminal proceedings, fines imposed in criminal proceedings and penalties imposed by regulatory bodies such as the financial services authority);

they will permit, but not require, companies to pay directors' defence costs as they are incurred, even if the action is brought by the company itself. The director would still be liable to pay any damages awarded to the company and to repay his defence costs to the company if his defence were unsuccessful (except where the company chooses to indemnify the director in respect of his legal costs in civil proceedings brought by third parties).

The Government amendments will also remove an arguable loophole under which a company in the same group may currently provide an indemnity to a director that would be unlawful if it was provided directly by the company of which the individual was a director.

The amendments will also require disclosure in the directors' report by companies that indemnify directors. Shareholders will also have the right to inspect any indemnification agreement. Companies that do not indemnify directors will not have to make any disclosure.

Auditors

The consultation also covered the position of auditors.

The Government wish to see a competitive and high-quality market for audit services, shareholders using high quality and reliable information, and an adequate system of redress for when things go wrong. There must also be an appropriate degree of transparency and accountability for the audit process.

The Government are actively pursuing this agenda. The Bill already extends the powers of auditors to obtain information, and contains new provisions for each director to confirm there is no relevant audit information of which he is aware but the company's auditors are unaware.

There are also a number of initiatives to improve the quality of the audit and other information provided to shareholders. For example:

the recommendations of the Review chaired by Sir Robert Smith mean that in listed companies there will shortly be enhanced audit committee reporting to shareholders, including better information on key audit judgements;

the auditing practices board, a subsidiary of the financial reporting council, has published for comment draft new ethical standards relating to the independence of auditors which are expected to be finalised this autumn;

the financial reporting council has established an audit inspection unit which has begun independent reviews of the effectiveness of the audit procedures of the four largest audit firms;

the audit regulatory activities of the professional accountancy bodies are now subject to independent oversight by the professional oversight board for accountancy, a subsidiary of the financial reporting council;

a new accountancy investigation and discipline board has been established, as a subsidiary of the financial reporting council, in order to investigate public interest cases of alleged breaches of professional standards by auditors and it has commenced its first investigation;

the financial reporting council has recently set up a group under Douglas Flint to review the current guidance on internal risk control;

we are also considering carefully the responses to our recent consultation on the operating and financial review.

In line with the company law review's recommendations, and as supported in the consultation, I have decided not to bring forward amendments to the current Bill to extend an auditor's duty of care.

The consultation showed a wide variety of views both as to whether reform of the law on liability of auditors was needed, and if so what form it should take. Some investors also had concerns about whether the audit process was serving them sufficiently well. It was also a matter of concern that the leaders of some of our largest companies were worried their choice of auditor was limited.

I have considered carefully whether there is a case for a change in the law on auditor liability. I am grateful to the Office of Fair Trading for looking at the competition implications of enabling shareholders to agree in advance a maximum amount for which the auditor would be liable. In the light of the consultation responses, and the OFT's advice that introducing a cap would not significantly enhance competition, I have concluded against proposing changes to the law on this.

The Government remain committed to improving the operation of the audit market and will continue to consider any proposals, including the possibility of limiting liability on a proportionate basis by contract, which can be demonstrated significantly to enhance competition, and to improve quality, in the audit market. The Government intend to look closely at this option and actively call upon auditors, business and investors to work together to examine whether proposals for a system of proportionate liability via contract are practical and/or desirable.

However no change to the law on financial liability could protect one of an auditor's greatest assets—its reputation. That responsibility rests with the professionalism of auditors themselves.

Official Report, columns 861–863, about the WTO ministerial conference in Cancun, where WTO Members had been unable to reach an agreement. In that statement I said that in order to get the Doha development agenda back on track, the WTO community would need to lift its sights to the prize on offer. I believe that WTO members have done just that. The period since Cancun has been marked by a much more positive and business-like atmosphere and the framework agreement has now cemented the progress made.

For the most part the purpose of the framework agreement is to set out guiding principles for future negotiations rather than to provide specific proposals. However, it contains sufficient detail to allow technical discussions to continue during the rest of this year, when the US presidential elections and the appointment of a new College of Commissioners are likely to limit political engagement in the round.

The framework agreement gives greater detail on the direction of the negotiations on agriculture, industrial tariffs, commits WTO members to negotiate on a trade facilitation agreement and sets a revised target date for more requests in the ongoing services negotiations. Agriculture is generally acknowledged to be the key to progress in the round and the agriculture section contains a welcome level of detail. The agreement provides for extensive special and differential treatment for developing countries across all the sectors covered. Three of the four so-called Singapore issues (competition, investment and transparency in government procurement), divergent views on which did much to derail talks at Cancun, have been dropped from the Doha development agenda. The fourth—trade facilitation—will now be the subject of negotiations.

The text of the agreement reflects the increasing influence of developing countries within the WTO. This is a development that I have previously welcomed. India and Brazil in particular played an influential role in the lead up to the agreement. Both the G20 group (larger developing country agricultural exporters) and G90 (some 62 smaller developing countries) engaged in the negotiations in a flexible and constructive manner. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade, Investment and Foreign Affairs and I were in regular contact with a number of influential members of both of these groupings, as well as our EU colleagues, to underline the importance of reaching an agreement. My hon. Friend the Minister for Trade, Investment and Foreign Affairs and I between us attended the two General Affairs and External Relations Council meetings held in the last week of July to agree the EU's position for this stage of the negotiations.

The Government have been strongly supportive of the Commission's approach to negotiations in the period since Cancun. We consider that the Commission have shown leadership and flexibility to move talks forward, capitalising on the stronger negotiating position that the EU enjoys after the CAP reforms of June 2003 and March 2004, which will cut significantly the level both of trade-distorting domestic support and export subsidies. In particular, the conditional offer to eliminate of export subsidies in the letter of 9 May from Commissioners Lamy and Fischler to WTO trade Ministers helped to breathe new life into the talks and encouraged other developed countries to match the EU's level of ambition. My hon. Friend the Minister for Trade, Investment and Foreign Affairs and I attended meetings of the General Affairs and External Relations Council in the week leading up to the Framework Agreement where we strongly supported the European Commission.

There is much still to be done. The challenge now for the whole WTO membership of 148 countries is to build on this success and to ensure that the momentum that has been built up is maintained in the detailed negotiations that will now follow. Success in the round has the potential to deliver huge benefits, including for developing countries as their opportunities for trade increase, so adding to their prosperity, aiding development and contributing towards the achievement of the millennium development goals.

The Government will continue to do all we can, both inside the EU and within the broader WTO community, to help deliver an ambitious development-focussed round. In particular, we will press hard for substantial progress before the sixth WTO ministerial meeting in Hong Kong scheduled for December 2005.

PQ 180074

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what estimate his Department has made of the number of Israeli civilians killed since the beginning of the intifada in September 2000; and how many were under the age of 18.

PQ 180090

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what estimate his Department has made of the number of Palestinian civilians killed since September 2000; and how many were under 18.