If he will reinstate the Northern Ireland Assembly without Sinn Fein in the light of the Independent Monitoring Commission report. [187641]

What recent representations he has received on re-establishing the Northern Ireland Assembly. [187642]

What progress he has made towards restoring devolved government in Northern Ireland. [187646]

The Independent Monitoring Commission's report emphasised the importance of participation by all sides of the community in the context of peaceful and democratic means. We are currently engaged in intensive political activity with the aim of restoring stable and inclusive partnership government in Northern Ireland. It is important to draw on the high degree of commitment among the Northern Ireland parties to bring about resumed devolution at an early stage. Recent meetings with all parties have given me confidence that the restoration to Northern Ireland of stable devolved government is within our grasp.

The Secretary of State talked about commitment, but he will know that is over six years since the Belfast agreement was made, and that Sinn Fein, as the Independent Monitoring Commission found out, remains responsible for paramilitary violence. When will the Government say that the peace process will go ahead but without those people, who are inextricably linked to terrorism, go about their murderous business making life hell for many people in Northern Ireland and have failed to give up their weapons as promised six years ago?

The hon. Gentleman will know that one of the two issues that we will discuss next week at Leeds castle in Kent is the decommissioning of weapons, which was part of the Good Friday agreement. He is right that in the past six years we have not had sufficient decommissioning from any of the paramilitary organisations in Northern Ireland. Secondly, the business of paramilitary activity, whether republican or loyalist, must be addressed. In particular, republican paramilitary activity, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said only yesterday, must be addressed before we can restore devolution in Northern Ireland. However, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that next week we will make a very serious effort to try to resolve those difficulties, and I believe that it will be a moment of decision for the peace process in Northern Ireland.

But does the Secretary of State at least accept that all forms of violence and threats of violence, including punishment beatings and the retention of weapons, are quite incompatible with power sharing? Will he therefore state quite firmly that that will therefore result in the exclusion of Sinn Fein?

There is no point the hon. Gentleman saying "at least", as I have always agreed with that premise—and indeed the Government have always accepted—that there is no place in modern democratic society in Northern Ireland for paramilitary activity of any sort. He will be aware that paramilitary activity has been an issue in Northern Ireland for more than 30 years, and the Good Friday agreement made it clear that it had to stop. For various reasons, it has not stopped in the past six years, but it has certainly diminished. The ceasefire is now 10 years old and Northern Ireland is undoubtedly a better place, but the hon. Gentleman is right to bring to the attention of the House the importance of that central issue.

Question 4, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. Lady's question has been grouped, and she need only ask a supplementary question.

I am grateful, Mr. Speaker.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. She knows, because she herself was deeply involved at the time of the creation of the Belfast agreement, that we cannot have a lasting accommodation or settlement in Northern Ireland unless it allows for proper power sharing between nationalism and unionism. That means that there must be proper North-South arrangements and a principle of consent, which was enshrined in the agreement. I am certain that every political party in Northern Ireland that will be present in Leeds castle in Kent next week is serious about trying to make that breakthrough and ensure that that deal is made.

The Secretary of State will be aware of the statement from the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland last Thursday, in which he indicated that of the 25 major drug gangs in Northern Ireland, two thirds are run or organised by paramilitaries. Does he accept that much more damage is now being done to our community by drug trafficking, intimidation and other forms of protection rackets than by security-related matters? Will he take that on board at the inter-party talks—and indeed outside the talks—and address paramilitary activities which are not security-related but which are having a much greater impact on our community than those other matters?

My hon. Friend is right to bring to the House's attention the fact that many in paramilitary organisations are engaged in criminal activities, and that those activities have no place in Northern Ireland. They are a corrupting influence on society in Northern Ireland and they must stop—of course they must. I commend the work of the PSNI in dealing with those issues. My hon. Friend, who is a member of the Policing Board, is aware of those matters. He will also agree that next week the central issue of paramilitary activity in all its forms must be addressed if we are to move forward in the peace process.

I know that the Secretary of State will not want to talk up the possibility that the talks next week may not succeed, but yesterday his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister touched on the fact that the Government must obviously consider what they would do in those circumstances. If the talks next week do not succeed because paramilitaries refuse to completely decommission their illegal weaponry and bring to a complete end their paramilitary and criminal activity, the Secretary of State would have only two options, other than collapsing the Assembly as a whole: to have an Assembly without an Executive, or to have an Executive without Sinn Fein. Is he considering those two options?

The Government will have to reflect at the end of next week if we do not achieve what we want to achieve, but, in the hon. Gentleman's words, we have the ingredients of a deal in front of us in Leeds castle next week. The Government are working not on the basis that we will fail next week, but on the basis that we will succeed. We will have to see what happens at the end of the talks. I repeat, though, that the talks next week are a crucial part of the process, a crucial phase and a point of decision, not a staging post in any further discussions.

But what is the point of going to Leeds castle to discuss decommissioning and the ending of paramilitary violence, since everybody knows that that is the precondition for any political progress? If the Secretary of State goes there without that precondition, is he not simply raising hopes, and in the end will he not disappoint more people than he serves?

The right hon. Gentleman is right to point to the importance of those issues before a deal can be achieved, but there are other issues, too, which we have been discussing in the past two weeks in Northern Ireland—for example, how the Assembly operates, the mechanisms of the Executive, its accountability to the Assembly, and issues such as human rights, equality and so on. Although the right hon. Gentleman is right to point to the principle that is so important in trying to ensure that we get a breakthrough—that is, the end of paramilitary activity, decommissioning, the stability of the institutions and the restoration of confidence—the details of those matters still have to be addressed. That is what we will be doing next week in Kent.

As the political entourage from Northern Ireland wends its way towards Leeds castle, will the Secretary of State make it clear that while we all welcome the worthy efforts of the Democratic Unionist party poachers to become the head gamekeepers, that Pauline conversion cannot be at the expense of the agreement or any of its institutions? Will the British Government and the Irish Government be the custodians of the Good Friday agreement and protect its integrity, and not on this occasion succumb to the shabby-deal syndrome that has bedevilled so many of these meetings?

I hope there will be no shabby deals. I am sure there will not be, but I can say to my hon. Friend that the fundamentals of that agreement to which we all signed up in 1998 are essential to any accommodation that we can ever achieve in Northern Ireland. I repeat them: there is the question of sharing power, the principle of consent, proper North-South arrangements and other matters. They must form the bedrock of any agreement, but every party that is going to the talks next week, including the DUP, is going on the basis that we want to try and make an arrangement and get a deal that will restore devolution in Northern Ireland.

This autumn marks one year, which has been frittered away, since the Assembly election, and two years since the Prime Minister said in a speech at Belfast Harbour Office that we have reached a fork in the road. Does the Secretary of State agree that the Government will be left with no credibility if they are still hanging around that fork in the road after the talks at Leeds castle?

The year or two since we had to suspend devolution in Northern Ireland have, of course, been frustrating. No one wanted to suspend devolution, no one wants direct rule and every party in Northern Ireland wants the restoration of devolution. I think the right hon. Gentleman agrees that we have reached a stage at which we must make proper decisions, because we cannot allow the process to drift. We must address those central issues and reach the conclusion that we all want.

May I first wish the Secretary of State well in next week's discussions? Whichever political party we come from, it is in all our interests that an enduring and just peace should be reached in Northern Ireland. The key to political progress in Northern Ireland is surely that the republican movement, which has an electoral mandate that entitles it to participate in government, should not only use words to say that it wants violence to end but demonstrate through its actions that it renounces and breaks completely with paramilitary violence in all its forms and that it is prepared to offer evidence that that commitment is permanent rather than temporary.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks, and we all wish all the Northern Ireland parties well in their deliberations next week. He is right that words are important, but that they are not enough. He knows that since we last held such talks, the Independent Monitoring Commission has been established to examine such issues. It has an important role to play as, indeed, has the Decommissioning Commission, which is headed by General John de Chastelain.

Is not the logic of the Secretary of State's answer that the British Government should say—as the Republic of Ireland's Government already do—that a party that has failed to make clear its permanent separation from paramilitary violence cannot take part as of right in the government of any part of the island of Ireland?

That was part of the Good Friday agreement, by which Ministers had to sign up to codes of conduct and arrangements that meant that they would renounce violence in all its forms. Paramilitary activity, which must stop, has continued during the past year or so. The best deal for Northern Ireland will tackle paramilitary activity and allow all parties in Northern Ireland to take their rightful seats in the Assembly and the Executive.

Will the Minister confirm that all outstanding issues relating to the review of the agreement, such as designations and the lack of shared responsibility in the Executive, will be on the agenda during the Leeds castle talks next week to ensure the long-term sustainability of the Assembly, and that we will not face either unilateral agreements with one party or another or quick-fix solutions that do not take us forward?

The hon. Gentleman is right about quick-fix solutions, which no one wants. We have been busy over the past few weeks dealing with the issues that he rightly identifies. We cannot deal with every issue during the three days in Leeds castle, but we will certainly deal with the important issues.

If he will make a statement on the peace process. [187645]

As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson) and the hon. Members for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) and for Castle Point (Bob Spink), we are engaged in intensive negotiations with a view to bringing about a complete and definitive end to paramilitary activity and the restoration of the devolved institutions on a stable and inclusive basis.

Looking forward to the talks at Leeds castle next week, can the Minister assure the House that there are certain lines below which the Government will not go: in particular, that there will be no question of amnesties for those who are on the run until circumstances have been created whereby all those who feel unable to remain in Northern Ireland because of paramilitary threats are able to return to their homes; and further, that there will be no question of people being released or pardoned for crimes before a proper appearance in court?

The hon. Gentleman is right that the issues that he identifies are dependent upon acts of completion. As the Secretary of State said here today and the Prime Minister said yesterday, it must be absolutely clear that any party that wants to sit in Government is not connected in any shape or form with paramilitary activity and that all paramilitary activity ceases completely. That is what we are aiming to achieve next week, and those are the preconditions for the restoration of devolved Government and all the other objectives that we all desire.

Given that for the first time in history the people of Ireland as a whole, North and South, have overwhelmingly voted for the Good Friday agreement, the Minister will agree that paramilitary organisations can no longer claim, as they have always done, to be acting in the name of the people. Will the Minister tell all the political parties involved in the talks that it is now the duty of all true democrats to implement the will of the people, which means implementing all aspects of the Good Friday agreement and not trying to renegotiate it?

May I pay tribute to the part that the hon. Gentleman played in bringing about that agreement and, indeed, the much-improved situation in Northern Ireland? Although we still have further steps to go, we should remember that at the peak of the troubles 497 people were killed by paramilitary activity; last year it was nine, and this year, to date, it has been only three. That is three too many, but it is a major difference. The hon. Gentleman is right that the fundamentals of the Good Friday agreement are the basis on which the talks will take place next week. They provide the way forward that we hope to bring about at Leeds castle next week.

Does the Minister agree with the conclusion of the second report of the Independent Monitoring Commission that

"Law enforcement…is far from normal"?

In a sense, the hon. Gentleman answered his own question in the way that he framed it. As he said, the Chief Constable will announce his determination tomorrow. I am afraid that we, and he, will have to wait on that announcement.

If he will make a statement on genito-urinary medicine services in the Province. [187647]

At present, genitourinary medicine services are delivered at four hospitals in Northern Ireland. The service has come under increased pressure, and work loads have doubled since 1995. I fully appreciate that waiting times for communicable diseases must be kept to a minimum and that patients should have access to a fast, effective sexual health service. To that end, a number of steps are being taken to address the current pressures.

I thank the Minister for that reply. However, she will be aware that only four consultants in Northern Ireland specialise in genito-urinary medicine, yet the Royal College of Physicians recommends that there should be one consultant to every 120,000 people. It is a matter of grave concern that we have increasing waiting lists and that we are understaffed in this specialist field of medicine. Can the Minister indicate what is being done to attract doctors, particularly junior doctors, to it? Will she consider extending the outpost clinics to rural areas of Northern Ireland rather than concentrating the services at the Royal Victoria hospital?

The hon. Lady is right: we do have vacancies for consultants. May I tell her, though, that four specialist trainees are undergoing training and that that is sufficient for projected needs in Northern Ireland. The first of those trainees should be able to take up a specialist consultant's post in about a year's time.

The Under-Secretary referred to prevention. Although we welcome the work that has been done on treatment, does she agree that more needs to be done in sex education? Will she have a discussion with her colleague who deals with education to ascertain whether more funding can be provided to educate young people on tackling some of those problems in a world where there is so much pressure on them to experiment before they have an understanding of the issues?

The hon. Gentleman is correct that prevention is an important part of controlling sexually transmitted infections. I assure him that education plays an important part in the 35 recommendations that the Department is currently considering. We are concentrating on that not only for the young but for the not-so-young.

What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Defence on the future of the home battalion of the Royal Irish Regiment. [187648]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State discusses all relevant issues with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence in relation to the profile of the Army in Northern Ireland. The situation in respect of the Royal Irish home battalions has not changed since the statement that the Defence Secretary made on 10 June 2003.

Does the Under-Secretary accept that, when attacks such as the one that happened in the past three hours in a police station in Londonderry occur, it is essential that the Royal Irish Regiment is not only retained but used and deployed to protect police stations and Army installations in Northern Ireland?

I have received a report on the attack on the Strand Road police station. Obviously, the matter is being investigated and I utterly condemn the senseless violence involved. It will not stop us engaging in the talks; we need to move forward.

Order. I ask the House to come to order—it is very noisy.

The Under-Secretary rightly paid a warm tribute to the RIR and its predecessor, the Ulster Defence Regiment. In the continuing discussions about the RIR's future, what genuine, active consideration has been given to creating a fund for UDR widows and their families, akin to the police fund for RUC widows and their families?

The hon. Lady makes an important point. However, that is a matter for the Ministry of Defence, which is aware of the issue. I shall make arrangements for the Ministry to contact the hon. Lady.

What plans he has to review the (a) membership and (b) remit of the Parades Commisson; and if he will make a statement. [187649]

The current members of the Parades Commission have been appointed to serve until the end of next year. I have been considering policy on future parades legislation and structures and I hope to be in a position to bring forward proposals later this year.

Although we had a relatively quiet summer this year, the Under-Secretary knows that some of the Parades Commission's decisions have caused widespread concern in Northern Ireland. The commission made decisions that were sometimes unnecessary and resulted in appalling situations where there had been no potential for unrest. Far from increasing the remit of the Parades Commission, is it not time for the Government to review its role? Far from resolving the parades issue, the commission is part of the problem, not the solution.

I agree that we have had an overwhelmingly peaceful marching season. Out of nearly 2,200 parades, disturbances, which were mostly minor, happened at only 16. Upholding the rights of marchers and protesters is a difficult problem with which to grapple. The Parades Commission performs its duties in the most difficult circumstances and it needs everyone's full support.

If he will make a statement on the impact of the enlargement of the European Union on smaller family farms in Northern Ireland. [187650]

There is expected to be little impact of enlargement on smaller family farms in Northern Ireland in the short to medium term. Competitive pressures from the new member states are forecast to increase only gradually, and, of course, enlargement brings the potential of new export opportunities for farms of all sizes.

I appeal to my hon. Friend for greater consideration and assistance to be given to small family farms in Northern Ireland, particularly in relation to pensions and other benefits, which many people will enjoy, but which some of those small farmers will be denied. Will he give serious consideration to the impact on small farms of the enlargement of the European Community?

:I appreciate my hon. Friend's comments. Farming is going through a major process of transformation, with the mid-term review of the common agricultural policy and issues such as enlargement. The Department is doing a lot to support farming families. We will continue to review that, and we will take on board my hon. Friend's comments.

If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 8 September.

Before listing my engagements, I know that the whole House will join me in sending our profound sympathy and condolences to the people of Beslan and Russia. I have spoken to President Putin, and expressed that on behalf of the British people. We share in Russia's grief in this dark hour for that country, and we mourn with the people of Beslan as they continue to bury their dead. The video released last night simply underlines the inhumanity of terrorists who can target and murder children. It is evil that was, until it happened, beyond the contemplation of anyone.

First, may I associate my Ryedale constituents with the sympathies that the Prime Minister expressed to the people of Beslan and to the families of British soldiers killed in Iraq during the recess?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman appreciates that the amount of money that we are putting into defence is increasing, not decreasing. It is important that we use that money effectively in the future, and the plans put forward, which have the support of the chiefs of staff, allow us to make sure that we can carry out the duties that our armed forces do superbly around the world, and allow us to do that in a modern way. That is necessary, because some of the things that we require today were not required a few years ago. [Interruption.] I cannot refrain from pointing out to Opposition Members who are shouting at me that defence spending was cut substantially under the Conservative Government.

Building on the comments of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, is it not a fact that to combat the lethal, dangerous and odious relationship between nationalism and fundamentalism, moderate opinion, both majority and minority, in our country and elsewhere, has joined together in attack and condemnation of these horrendous events?

What is important, as I said to President Putin in our telephone call, is that we recognise that this extraordinary form of virulent and extreme terrorism is an evil that we all face and that we must confront together. I express my total solidarity with him and with the Russian people in doing so.

I join the Prime Minister in expressing our anguish and heartache at the terrible events in Beslan. We shall never forget the haunting images that have filled our television screens in the last few days. I also join him in expressing our deep regret at the continuing loss of life in Iraq, and in particular the loss of the three British servicemen to whom he referred.

I join the right hon. and learned Gentleman in, and concur wholeheartedly with, his remarks about the need to fight terrorism effectively abroad and here. It is not simply because it came from him that we have not accepted the proposal for a particular Minister to be in charge of homeland security; it is because we believe that the present arrangements under the Home Secretary work well. I should also say that we have someone who co-ordinates all our security measures across Government and we believe that that works well.

I understand the points that the Prime Minister has made, but it is of course for advisers to advise and for Ministers to decide. I ask him to continue to keep this question under review.

Of course I do, because of the substantial contribution that my right hon. Friend made to reducing unemployment and providing help for the poorest pensioners. One of the best things that he did was, of course, implementing the new deal, which has helped 1 million people into work. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will now withdraw the absurd proposal to scrap it.

In that case, why would friends of the former Work and Pensions Secretary—whose departure the Prime Minister has just regretted so much—say that he was

"sick and tired after three months of poison and briefing against him"?

Why do we not actually debate the policy? Why do we not debate what we are doing? Let me just tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman what we have done on welfare reform: 700,000 children have been lifted out of poverty, 1.8 million pensioners have been lifted out of poverty and pension credit is helping pensioners by providing up to £1,000 a year. The new deal is giving us 1 million extra people in work and a 30 per cent. fall in new entry to incapacity benefit. That is a record of which my right hon. Friend and we can be proud. Name me a Conservative Government who ever achieved it.

Why will the Prime Minister not break the habit of a lifetime and just answer the question for once? He apparently thinks that the membership of his Cabinet and the way in which he runs his Government are of no consequence. He thinks that they do not matter. Well, they matter to his party chairman, who complained last night about the

"ill-discipline and briefing within the Westminster village",

"the style of government that allows ministers of the crown to be briefed against".

The fact that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is prepared to start debating briefings in the press with me only indicates the utter absence of any policy proposals on his part. He has just published today his proposals on student finance. One would think that he might ask me about them; perhaps he is about to do that. Or perhaps it is because they actually treble the interest rate on student loans that he will not.

I will certainly respond to the Prime Minister's challenge on our proposals for student finance. I will tell him the difference between his proposals and ours: Labour has broken its promise and scrapped free higher education; we will keep our promise and restore free higher education. This Government are giving more money to poorer students, but taking it straight back through student fees; we will have lower student debt and grants for poorer students. That is the difference between our policies and his.

I am glad that I lured the right hon. and learned Gentleman on to student finance, because I would like to talk a little about that. First, his policies have a gaping hole of £500 million in them, which will be withdrawn from universities. Secondly, he says that he would keep student grants for poorer students. Actually, we set that at £2,700. Perhaps he could just confirm that his grant is £1,500, which is a halving of our grant. Thirdly, he would not restore free higher education, because instead of students getting interest rates at the rate of inflation, a commercial rate of interest would be charged, so instead of interest being 3.5 per cent., it would be 8 per cent. That means that the amount that many people on average and lower incomes pay under student finance would treble—a typical Tory policy.

:Is not the shambles of the way in which the Government are run one reason why they have so completely failed to deliver on their promises? As the Prime Minister's Pension Secretaries come and go, let me quote the words of his first Minister for Welfare Reform. The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) yesterday said:

"The big issue that ought to be worrying the whole of the Government because it's worrying voters, is that when Labour came to office we had one of the strongest pension provisions in Europe and now probably we have some of the weakest".

No, I do not agree that we should change the policy, because it has delivered for pensioners, in real terms, £10 billion extra a year. It means that 2.5 million pensioner households benefit from the pension credit and the minimum income guarantee. It means free TV licences for the over-75s, a winter fuel payment of £200 a year, reduced VAT on fuel, restored free eye tests and now the pension protection fund, which will help people whose pensions are unfunded by their employers. All those things will help pensioners now and in future.

I associate myself and my constituents with my right hon. Friend's remarks about the tragic events in Beslan and the death of our servicemen in Iraq.

What is happening in Iraq and in Afghanistan is vital to the fight against international terrorism. Essentially, in Afghanistan, 10 million people have registered to vote, despite people often being assassinated on the way to registering, and in Iraq we have a UN-blessed process that should lead to elections in January 2005. The terrorists in both those countries are trying to stop the electoral process and the reconstruction, because they know that if we manage to put Afghanistan and Iraq on their feet as stable democratic countries, that is the biggest blow that there can be to international terrorism. I assure my hon. Friend that we will stick with this and see it through, because it is in the interests not only of security in those countries but of global security.

May I entirely associate my right hon. and hon. Friends with the very proper expressions of sincere condolence to the citizens of Beslan and their families for the appalling atrocities that have been visited on them, and to the families and loved ones of the three British soldiers who have lost their lives in Iraq since we last convened here?

The interaction of the state second pension, which I was talking about a moment ago, and the pension credit is designed precisely to ensure that we help people on the lowest incomes in particular. As the right hon. Gentleman has asked about pensions, I must say that I cannot agree with his proposal of yesterday, that single pensioners over 75 will get an extra £25 a week by abolishing the Department of Trade and Industry. He says that abolishing the DTI would bring in £8 billion immediately, but that is not the DTI's administration costs, it is the entire budget that it administers. Abolishing it would mean the whole of British science being cut by two thirds and all regional selective assistance would cease. When we have this debate on pensions, we should at least have it on the basis of serious costed proposals.

Over coming months we shall certainly have that debate and the ultimate test on the outcome will be decided by the electorate at the general election—but let us get back to the policy that we are living with, which is the Government's policy, which I asked about. The Prime Minister refers to pension credit, yet according to the Government's own figures published today, 2 million pensioners—two out of five of those eligible—are not receiving the means-tested benefits to which they are entitled. He should not be surprised by that, because we know that the Government, again according to their own figures, budget on the very assumption that there will not be that take-up. Surely, in a comparatively wealthy country such as ours, we could now afford, politically and economically, to offer our older citizens the genuine dignity and positive security that they deserve.

Of course, everyone in the House would agree in principle with that, but the question is how we are to pay for it. We established the Pensions Commission last year under Adair Turner, which will publish its interim findings in October, precisely so that there can be a proper public debate about not only today's pensioners but future pensioners. There are real issues there and if we want to commit ourselves to funding even greater state provision for people who will become pensioners in future years, we must say how that will be paid for, and we must do so in a realistic way, from the taxpayer base that we have.

In Warwickshire, 35 antisocial behaviour orders have been issued to date—six in my constituency—and 30 more are under consideration. Does my right hon. Friend agree with Chief Superintendent Whitehouse in Leamington who tells me that ASBOs are now much easier to obtain and highly effective in dealing with some of our worst offenders?

I think that ASBOs are far easier to obtain now, which is why somewhere in the region of 2,500 of them have been granted. As my hon. Friend would recognise, they are part of a wider range of measures on antisocial behaviour. On the basis of a visit I made to Harlow recently and other visits around the country, I think that antisocial behaviour legislation is now being used by local authorities and the police to make a real difference to antisocial behaviour. There is nothing that makes people in this country angrier than not using the new powers that have been given to the police and local authorities. I urge them to use those powers.

How much hope does the Prime Minister hold out for making progress on the agreed road map for peace in the middle east?

Progress depends critically on two things: first, on an end to terrorism, or at least the best possible methods of achieving that end; secondly, on both sides being willing to negotiate the solution set out in the road map. I hope very much that we can return to the road map. We need to do that—it is vital. I mentioned Iraq and Afghanistan earlier as part of the front line in the war against terrorism, and it is also true to say that progress in the middle east would make an enormous difference to the ability to recruit people to international terrorism.

What about the wall?

Liberal Democrat Members shout about the wall and about Israel. We have made our criticisms of that clear. However, it is also fair and right to point out that innocent Israeli citizens are being killed and maimed by terrorist acts. If we want a lasting solution, we have to stop the terrorism as well as urge Israel to negotiate.

I am sure that the whole House will welcome the Commission for Africa and congratulate the Prime Minister on setting it up. Does he agree that there is no better cause here at home than that of supporting fair trade? In my own community, sterling work is being done to support the cause and our local authority is planning to become a local authority fair trade council. Will he use his good offices to encourage other local authorities to do the same?

I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend says and we support fair trade—about £500,000 goes to various promotions. Sales of fair trade products have risen by almost 50 per cent. in the last couple of years. I entirely agree that it is one important way in which people can show their commitment to those countries that desperately need fair trade to be extended.

Does the Prime Minister believe that it is acceptable that some pensioners have to spend a third of their income in council tax?

We would all like to see council tax come down, but it can do so only if councils decide to levy less council tax and if the central Government grant to local government is maintained. I have to point out to the hon. Gentleman that his party's policy is to freeze the grant given to local authorities, which would make a £4.5 billion shortfall in the money given to local authorities. That cannot help reduce council tax for pensioners or anyone else.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, if the reports that action will be taken within this fortnight to bring into law a hunting with dogs Bill are correct, it will be warmly welcomed on this side of the House? Is it not totally unacceptable that the House of Lords should have some permanent veto on a measure that has been carried with such a large majority in the House of Commons? Hunting with dogs is a barbaric practice that should have been abolished years ago.

I have said that we will find a way of resolving that issue and we will.

If he will pay an official visit to Berry Pomeroy castle, Marldon, Devon.

I have no current plans to do so.

The Prime Minister knows that castles were built in the south of England to repel invaders, mostly from the continent. Increasing numbers of people in the west country feel that the freedoms for which they fought have been eroded by the European Union and that their homes are no longer their castles. Does he agree that we need an early referendum on the European constitution so that Britain can lead the way in that process, and not be the last country to enter it, after all the others have reached a decision?

I am afraid that I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman over Europe, but that will not surprise him. However, I point out that the creation of the EU and our membership of it mean that the wars that used to divide our continent no longer do so. It is important that we weigh that in the balance when arguing about whether to be in favour of Europe. However, I will tell the House about Berry Pomeroy castle. I gather from its website that it is haunted£primarily by a blue lady called Margaret.

Does the Prime Minister agree that mobile phone masts should be subject to normal planning control? If so, when will he amend planning guidance so that local people have a proper say about where they are sited?

As I have said on many occasions, our approach to this matter should be based on the science involved and the real safety issues. Of course people should be consulted about where masts are sited, but it is also important that we make the phone system work adequately.

Since the House rose on 22 July, we have all had reason to be proud of the achievements of Team GB in Athens. Will my right hon. Friend add his congratulations to my constituent Sarah Webb, who won a gold medal with her team mates in the women's Yngling sailing? Will he also congratulate everyone in Team GB, whether or not they were medal winners?

I am happy to send my congratulations to Sarah Webb, to all those who won medals at the Olympic games and to all those who took part. They did superbly for Team GB, and I am sure that the whole House would want to send our best wishes and thanks.

Is the Prime Minister aware that children's hospice week begins on 18 September? Will he acknowledge the wonderful work done by the people in that service? Children's hospices in England get about 5 per cent. of their income from public funds, but the Little Haven hospice in my constituency receives less than 2 per cent. Does he accept that that is wrong? Will he accept responsibility for looking into the matter and not pass it on to the primary care trust?

I pay tribute to the considerable work that the hon. Gentleman does in respect of the hospice movement. All of us would like greater funding to go to the hospices. An additional £48 million in funding has been made available over the next three years by the New Opportunities Fund and £15 million of that will go directly to children's hospices. We are always aware of the need to do more, and we will try to do more, but it is important to recognise that we have increased the funding significantly. We will increase it even more, as we can, although that has to be weighed in the balance with other health service priorities.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, since a dispersal order was put in place in part of south Lowestoft in my constituency, the number of violent offences there has already fallen by 49 per cent? Will he join me in congratulating Chief Inspector Sydney and his team? Does not that show that, when local authorities use the measures contained in the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003, which was introduced by this Government, they are effective in cracking down on crime and antisocial behaviour?

I am happy to pass on my congratulations to the police in my hon. Friend's constituency, and to the others engaged in trying to deal with antisocial behaviour. There is increasing evidence from around the country that the powers can work if they are implemented. It is important for Members of Parliament, local authorities and the police to be aware that there are substantial additional powers that can be used, for example, to close down houses used for drug dealing. More than 20,000 fixed-penalty notices have been given up and down the country and other powers allow us to target very young children whose parents do not exercise proper parental responsibility.

Does the Prime Minister agree with the proposal from the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards that any Member—any Member—who lies or misleads the House should face investigation from the commissioner?

I am sure that the commissioner for standards is right in saying that and I hope that no hon. Member lies to the House. That has always been the case; it should always be the case and, as far as I am aware, it is.

Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the American company, Huntsman, on yesterday's announcement that it will build a £200 million polyethylene plant in my Redcar constituency? The deal was made possible by a £16.5 million grant from the Labour Government. Will my right hon. Friend continue his support for the Teesside chemical industry and does he agree that 120 long-term, skilled jobs for Redcar are a prize that would never have been achieved under the regional policies of the Conservative party?

It is obviously fantastic news for the company and the employees because it safeguards almost 800 existing jobs on Teesside and adds more than 100 extra jobs. That is great news for the whole of Teesside. My hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right in saying that it was in part done with regional selective assistance of £16.5 million, and I would simply point out to the leader of the Liberal Democrats that, under his proposals, that money, too, would not have been available; throughout the country, there are massive regional selective assistance programmes that would be cut if their policy had its way.