1. What representations he has received on encouraging rail freight in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [22525]

As part of the public consultation on the draft Transport (Wales) Bill, I received several comments about rail freight. I support the Welsh Assembly Government in encouraging the carriage of more freight by rail.

I thank the Secretary of State for that response. Given his comments, will he please use his good offices to ensure that the Conwy Valley line is strengthened for freight? A freight support grant is available, but I understand that there may be a complication on the Cheshire side. That needs to be addressed before the slate waste disposal scheme can work. It is very much a win-win scheme, which uses slate waste for building materials. It will be good for the environment and in every way. I urge him to do what he can to assist the project.

I am happy to do that and to agree with the hon. Gentleman. The scheme is dear to his heart and that of his constituency and I support it, as do the Welsh Assembly Government, who are looking into the costings that Network Rail has provided. So far, the five grant-supported projects for freight on rail in Wales have taken about 24,500 lorry journeys off Welsh roads each year. That bears out his admirable point about the environment.

I welcome the reduction in the use of road haulage, but does the Secretary of State accept that we are still under-utilising the rail network in Wales? For example, far too much road haulage goes into mid-Wales when there is a perfectly acceptable rail line. Would he be willing to hear representations about how local people and experts in mid-Wales, who understand those matters, envisage the enhancement of rail freight in and out of mid-Wales?

Either the Under-Secretary or I will be happy to see the hon. Gentleman about that and to hear any representations. However, I am sure that he acknowledges that the Government are spending a huge amount of additional money on investment in the railways. Indeed, we are spending £87 million every week to improve the railways. There has been a 37 per cent. increase in the amount of freight moved by rail since we came to power. That figure will continue to rise—I hope that it does in Wales, too.

2. What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Transport on the importance to the Welsh economy of the A14 road. [22526]

None specifically about the A14, but I recognise that it is a route of strategic importance used by hauliers travelling between Wales and the ports of Harwich and Felixstowe.

Kettering may not be in Wales, but it has an annual eisteddfod. The Under-Secretary is right to identify the A14 as a major strategic road. Will the Secretary of State take the opportunity of the next discussion in Cabinet about the UK roads network to press for urgent measures to relieve the congestion on the A14 around Kettering?

The hon. Gentleman knows that in his Adjournment debate the Minister for Local Government responded to his concerns about the road. The A14 is part of the trans-European road network. It has a strategic role in connecting the ports of Felixstowe and Harwich not only with Wales, but various parts of the UK. I understand that the Highways Agency is considering the possibility of widening the A14 Kettering bypass. That should tackle the problems that he highlighted.

Understanding, as the Under-Secretary does, the importance of the road network to the Welsh economy, does he agree that dualling the A40 through Pembrokeshire is vital for the long-term economic success of our county? Does he further agree that the Welsh Assembly's decision not to support that important project is economically illiterate?

No, I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's assessment, given that the bulk of the upgrading of the A40 is in my constituency, as he well knows. Although I have some sympathy for the arguments that have been presented, the cost benefits of dualling the section all the way from St. Clears to Haverfordwest do not stand up. It is far better to get the improvements in place as quickly as possible at a reasonable cost so that we experience the benefits of the road improvement.

3. Pursuant to his oral answer of 20 July 2005, Official Report, columns 1240–41, what discussions he has had with the National Assembly for Wales Government on the use made of office allowances. [22527]

Periodic ones. I believe that regional list Assembly Members are abusing taxpayers' money by setting up rival offices to constituency Members by whom they were defeated to help them to reverse the results next time.

Members' allowances in this House have been in the news during the past week. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we should be vigilant in ensuring that expenditure incurred by Members of Parliament is used to serve our constituents rather than to promote the particular interests of individual political parties?

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. It is significant that, of the 20 list Assembly Members representing regions of Wales rather than constituencies, 15 have established constituency offices, funded by taxpayers, in the seats where they were last defeated, in order to run campaigns to try to reverse those results. That is a misuse of taxpayers' money. It is interesting that in Scotland and New Zealand, there are different—

Order. Can the Secretary of State explain why this is his responsibility?

Because the Government of Wales Bill will deal with this matter when I introduce it in a few months' time.

Then we will deal with it when the Government of Wales Bill comes before us.

4. If he will make a statement on the application of the Welsh Language Act 1993 to the work of (a) central Government Departments and (b) other public bodies. [22528]

Government Departments are not required to have a Welsh language scheme. However, it is our practice to observe the principle that, in the conduct of public business in Wales, the Welsh and English languages should be treated on a basis of equality. Public bodies that provide services in Wales can be required by the Welsh Language Board to prepare a Welsh language scheme.

I thank the Minister for his answer and I am grateful for the fact that he supports the Welsh Language Act, notwithstanding the fact that Rhodri Morgan and others voted against it at the time. Does the Minister acknowledge that there are many people such as myself, who had a Welsh-speaking mother, who would dearly love to learn the language that was originally the British language? Will he join me in praising organisations such as the many Wlpans, and Nant Gwrtheyrn on the Llyn peninsula, which provide training of that kind?

I congratulate all those who have been part of the remarkably successful turnaround in the fortunes of the Welsh language. It now plays a more prominent role in our national life than at any time in living memory. According to the 2001 census, 21 per cent. of the population of Wales can now speak Welsh, compared with 19 per cent. in 1991. Twenty-six per cent. of people under 35 can now speak Welsh, an increase of nine percentage points on 1991. In 2006, Welsh will also appear on all UK passports.

Does my hon. Friend agree that we have demonstrated a commitment to the Welsh language, with even more people speaking it and being encouraged to speak it, without feeling that their Government and the people who look after them are not interested in it? Since 2003, the Assembly has invested £28 million in achieving the goal of a truly bilingual Wales and I think that we should applaud that.

I totally agree with my hon. Friend. Some of those who argue for a new Welsh language Act should be very careful. The reason that the language has had this renaissance is that the existing legislation is not prescriptive and places no statutory requirements on the private sector. Those who argue for new provisions should be careful, because trying to impose such statutory requirements on private businesses would be detrimental to the progress that we have made.

Following the chaos surrounding the Department for Culture, Media and Sport's failure to produce a Welsh version of the licensing application form, will the Minister consider including in his bluffer's guide to devolution—which I understand he is circulating among his Cabinet colleagues—an idiot's guide to the Welsh Language Act, so that no further abuse by central Government of the Welsh language can take place?

There was certainly no abuse by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport in relation to the Licensing Act 2003. It worked very productively with the Welsh Language Board, over a very short period, to address that particular problem. Currently, nine Government Departments have approved schemes, and the Department for Constitutional Affairs and Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs are actively preparing schemes in consultation with the Welsh Language Board. The board has issued notifications to a further three Departments—the Department of Health, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Central Office of Information—to bring forward Welsh language schemes.

Why did the chairman of the Welsh Language Board write that it

"would be better to keep a number of decisions relating to language policy at arm's length from the Government"?

Is it because Rhodri Morgan's plans to absorb the Wales Tourist Board, the Welsh Language Board and the Welsh Development Agency are in tatters? Despite the rude response thrown back at the Secretary of State, will the Minister again give Rhodri Morgan the helpful advice to think long and hard before proceeding?

The hon. Gentleman might not agree with the proposal to bring the Welsh Language Board within the direct remit of the Welsh Assembly Government, but colleagues on the Labour Benches and on the other side of the House want to end the quango state in Wales. That is part of that programme. Bringing the work of developing and promoting the language into the Welsh Assembly Government will ensure that that is mainstreamed across all aspects of government and activity in Wales.

Why does the Minister not agree that Rhodri Morgan's plans are in tatters? The Minister talks about the quango state, but the Assembly voted to send back the plans for the Welsh Language Board until the functions were properly explained. Jane Hutt refused to confirm whether the Wales Tourist Board will be replaced by a Welsh Assembly Department for tourism and leisure, and recently the Secretary of State told the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams) that the Welsh language is in better health than it has been for a long time. I hope that it is in better health than the people of Wales, as the number of fluent Welsh speakers is only just larger than the number of people on health waiting lists.

Those are obviously matters for the Welsh Assembly Government, but they have made it absolutely clear that the merger is there to strengthen the support for the language across government in Wales and to improve democratic accountability. The motion that the Tories, Plaid Cymru and the Liberal Democrats supported, in some unholy alliance, only asked the Assembly Government to do what they intended to do in any case—that is, deal appropriately with the regulatory functions of the Welsh Language Board.

5. What discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues in Wales about the operation of the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service in Wales. [22529]

I have regular discussions with the Assembly Minister for Social Justice and Regeneration to discuss a range of issues. That includes the operation of the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service in Wales.

Is my hon. Friend aware that CAFCASS Cymru, which works with some of the most children and families in Wales, has no waiting list in terms of allocating workers in both private and public law? Does he agree that that is a huge step forward and that the agency needs to be congratulated on its achievements, especially in view of the recent chequered history of CAFCASS?

I certainly join my hon. Friend in congratulating CAFCASS Cymru. Since its transfer to the National Assembly for Wales, it has far exceeded performance targets on referral time of cases to guardians. That results in children—many of whom are extremely vulnerable and may be victims of abuse and family break-up—being helped far more quickly. Six thousand children a year will benefit from this improved service. The transfer has been a really great success and all staff should be congratulated.

6. What plans the Government have to reorganise police forces in Wales. [22530]

In the light of recommendations made recently by Her Majesty's inspector of constabulary, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has asked the police service to come forward with firm proposals for the future of policing in England and Wales to meet the new challenge of terrorism, serious crime and drug trafficking.

One of the chief constables has already estimated that the cost of that reorganisation will be £10 million to £12 million, plus the entire reserves of all four police authorities in Wales. Can the Secretary of State demonstrate his undoubted command of mental arithmetic and tell us how many police officers could be trained and put on to the crime-ridden streets of Wales for the same sum that will be needed to create this unaccountable bureaucratic monolith?

First, as a Gwent MP, I am sure the hon. Gentleman will want to join me in congratulating Mike Tonge, chief constable of Gwent, who is today receiving the Queen's Police medal in recognition of his distinguished service.

As regards the hon. Gentleman's rant on this matter, may I invite him, instead of ranting, to display a bit of objectivity? On the figures he quoted from the chief constable of South Wales, which were given at a private meeting to which the hon. Gentleman was invited, she said that her best estimate was that the start-up costs would be about £10 million. She could not be certain, so the hon. Gentleman has upped that figure by a couple of million. She also said that she thought the savings would be three times as much. Why did the hon. Gentleman not raise that point and why did he not make it in the very biased account he gave to the South Wales Argus the other day?

Is it not true that the forces of Wales have the best record of any in the United Kingdom, especially Gwent and Dyfed-Powys? This reorganisation is being forced on Wales for the benefit of English cities. If there is a need for a special emphasis on the problems of serious crime, drugs and terrorism, why not form a special unit and leave those splendid forces intact?

My hon. Friend will surely join other hon. Members, especially Welsh Members, in wanting a Welsh police service that is not only doing a very good job, as in Gwent, on neighbourhood policing and other matters, but that can also confront the new challenges of terrorism, drug trafficking and international serious crime. The fact is that apart from the South Wales force, which is near the optimum number suggested by Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary to fight those challenges, none of the other forces is anything like the size necessary to do so. We should consider the all-Wales option, but keep the principle of local neighbourhood policing sacrosanct and make sure that, as in Gwent, there is an element of regional accountability still built into the system, so that the identities of the regions currently organised into police forces are maintained, especially in north Wales.

The police grant has been insufficient to meet some of the demands of the police authorities, such as pensions. As a result, the council tax precept has gone up by much more than inflation, on top of the recent rebanding of properties. What assessments has the Secretary of State made of the effect of the possible amalgamation of police forces on a potential rise in council tax across Wales?

I have made no such assessments. As I pointed out earlier, however, considerable savings will be possible, which will enable resources to be released not only to fight the new threats, but to make sure that we have as many police officers as possible on the ground in our neighbourhoods. Since our Government came to power, Wales has had 950 extra police officers and 270 extra community support officers on patrol. We are driving that forward with even more recruits and even more effective neighbourhood policing in future.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in line with the strategic reorganisation of the police, it is also vital that we continue the strategy of neighbourhood policing? Will he join me in applauding the work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), who as Home Secretary did so much in driving forward the agenda of community safety and community policing?

Indeed, I am happy to do so. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) did a great job in making sure that neighbourhood policing was a priority of every police force, which is increasingly the case. We much regret the fact that he is no longer able to discharge his responsibilities. In any future reorganisation of policing, neighbourhood policing must remain the bedrock, and the basic police command units will continue to take that agenda forward.

Where will the final decision on this contentious and potentially damaging force merger be made—Wales or Whitehall?

Obviously, I will have an input from Wales, as will the Welsh Assembly Government. Indeed, the Home Secretary has written specifically to the Welsh Assembly Government inviting their views and an Assembly Committee is currently considering the matter. We need a police system in Wales that meets the big new challenges. A terrorist suspect has been arrested recently in Cardiff, and others are known to be active in south Wales. We need to deal with the problems of drug trafficking and serious organised crime, and the Labour Government are doing that. If Plaid Cymru wants to opt out of confronting those challenges, that is a matter for it. We are rising to meet those challenges and we want a good police service in the whole of Wales that confronts those big challenges and preserves community policing.

7. What representations he has made to the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the effect on the affordability of housing in Wales of the changes in the rules for self-invested personal pension scheme investment in residential property. [22531]

I have made no direct representations. There has been widespread speculation about the impact of the new rules that will allow self-invested personal pensions to be invested in residential properties. Government guidance sets out the implications of putting a residential property into a SIPP. It is unlikely to be an appropriate investment for most people, but the Government will keep the matter under review and will not hesitate to act if there is evidence of abuse.

Average house prices in Wales are already seven times average incomes. Is it not inevitable that new money flooding into—[Interruption.]

Order. I ask the House to come to order. The noise is unfair to the hon. Gentleman.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Is it not inevitable that new money flooding into the holiday homes market will push up prices further? How can the Secretary of State support an arrangement that will make it even more difficult for hard-working Welsh families to enter the housing market?

I note the hon. Gentleman's point, but he and his colleagues are in danger of sounding like salesmen for SIPP providers. They should not overstate the impact of SIPPs on the rural housing market. There are significant drawbacks for investors wishing to place a second home in a SIPP. For instance, a property placed in a SIPP will be owned by the trustees of the SIPP, not the individual.

An investor would not be able to stay in a second home free of charge. He would either pay the full commercial rent or face a 40 per cent. charge for a benefit in kind. In most cases, the property would have to be sold before the pension could be drawn, so the investor would not be able to use it as a retirement home unless he could raise enough money to buy it from the SIPP. Those rules and others ensure that assets put into a pension fund give people a secure retirement income, and are not a means of subsidising second homes.

8. What recent discussions he has had with the Ministry of Defence on the merger of Welsh regiments; and if he will make a statement. [22532]

The intention to merge the Royal Welch Fusiliers and the Royal Regiment of Wales was announced in July 2004, with a view to implementation by 2008.

I understand that discussions on the important detail of badge insignia are ongoing and very positive. A wide range of people have been involved in the decisions. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that any future reorganisation or reconfiguration of Welsh regiments involves an input from Welsh Members of Parliament before the Army Board makes its recommendations, so that the expression of a wide range of opinions can prevent a repetition of the debacle over names?

I shall be happy to take up the matter. I understand that individual regiments have been involved in determining dress regulations for the new regiments. As my hon. Friend says, the discussions are ongoing and I cannot comment further, but his point is valid. I am sure that he will join me in congratulating all the Welsh soldiers who are serving abroad and doing a first-class job.

Why did the Secretary of State not help? The Welsh Assembly refused to support Ty Gwyn, a unique post-traumatic stress disorder unit for veterans, which needed £75,000 to continue its important work. There is a waiting list of ex-servicemen who need to use Ty Gwyn. Why is it that the Welsh Assembly can buy a 32-acre rainforest site in Ecuador, but cannot support a nursing home for ex-servicemen in Wales?

In view of your earlier suggestion, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the hon. Gentleman take the matter up with the Welsh Assembly Government.

9. What discussions he has had with the National Assembly for Wales Minister for Health on the rate paid by the Assembly to English hospitals for the treatment of patients in Wales. [22533]

I have regular discussions with the Assembly's Minister for Health on a range of matters, including the provision of services in cross-border areas.

The Royal Shrewsbury hospital loses £2 million a year by treating Welsh patients who come across the border. The Welsh health authority in Powys pays a different rate per person from that paid by Welsh authorities. How can the Secretary of State reassure me that the Royal Shrewsbury will not continue to lose £2 million a year because of that anomaly?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, there are serious problems affecting the Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital NHS Trust. I have seen the report on its financial performance and I do not recognise the figure of a £2 million loss per year. I understand, however, that this issue has been discussed and an agreement reached on the new contractual arrangements for this year and next. There appears to be no further problem in this regard.

10. What discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues on progress towards cleaner neighbourhoods in Wales. [22534]

I have regular discussions with ministerial colleagues about matters affecting Wales. The Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005, which received Royal Assent in April, contains a range of measures to improve the quality of the local environment.

Fly-tipping is a major problem in my constituency—so much so that Afon-y-felin primary school had to join forces with the local Assembly Member, councillors and even the First Minister to help clear up an estate. What powers can be given to local authorities under this new proposal to help them to tackle fly-tipping, rather than requiring children in local communities to tackle it?

I congratulate my hon. Friend's school, which is actively involved in addressing an issue that is clearly of great importance to everyone. Figures show that a fly-tipping incident occurs in the UK every 35 seconds. Last year in Wales, there were more than 30,000 such incidents, which cost in excess of £1.6 million to clear up. Since June, fly-tipping has become an arrestable offence. The most serious cases can now attract a fine of £50,000 or five years imprisonment. The 2005 Act clearly has the teeth to tackle this problem.

1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 2 November. [23739]

Before listing my engagements, the House will know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has resigned. Whatever mistakes he has made, I have always believed, and believe now, that he is a decent and honourable man who has contributed a great deal to his country, and who has overcome immense challenges that, frankly, would have daunted the rest of us. He can be proud of his record in British public life. [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."]

I also know that the whole House will join me in sending our condolences to the family of the British soldier killed in Afghanistan at the weekend. He was doing a vital and important job, and his country can be very proud of him.

This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, and in addition to my duties in the House I will have further such meetings later today.

I echo and sympathise with the views expressed by my right hon. Friend. Will he accept that he speaks for all when he condemns the appalling, dreadful and truly disgraceful statement of the Iranian President, who expressed his wish that Israel be wiped off the map? Will my right hon. Friend also accept that his further remarks at Hampton court over the weekend carried an implicit threat of military action against Iran? Does he share my view that the people of this country are in no mood for a military adventure in Iran, and if he does, will he explain his remarks at Hampton court?

I am very happy to say that, first, I did not talk either explicitly or implicitly about a military threat to Iran, but what I did say was this. Iran has to realise that the international community cannot tolerate continuing conduct that, frankly, is supporting terrorism around the world; that is supporting terrorism not just in the middle east, but elsewhere; and that is in breach of its nuclear weapons responsibilities and obligations under the International Atomic Energy Agency. I did want to make it clear, and I do so again now, that the statements by the Iranian President in respect of Israel are completely and totally unacceptable. Obviously, as I made clear at the press conference, we want to discuss this with other allies and with other members of the Security Council. Nobody is talking about military threats, invasion of Iran or any of the rest of it. What we are saying, however, is that the Iranian Government have got to understand that the international community simply will not put up with their continued breach of the proper and normal standards of behaviour that we expect from a member of the United Nations. The most important thing at the moment is that that is a unified message, and that it goes out not just from this House and this country, but right across the world.

I join the Prime Minister in expressing our sympathy and condolences to the family of the British serviceman who lost his life in Afghanistan over the weekend.

This has been an extraordinary week for the Government, and for the Prime Minister. We have seen the slow seepage of his authority turn into a haemorrhage. We all acknowledge the honourable way in which the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has decided to resign, and I pay tribute to him for that—but the key question now is for the Prime Minister. Does he think that in his handling of this affair, his judgment has been at fault in any way?

Let me tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman exactly why I did not believe that the allegations against my right hon. Friend warranted his dismissal. Perhaps, with the frenzy that is going on around this, it is just as well for the House and for members of the public that I should explain why not.

Basically, there were three sets of allegations—[Interruption.] Perhaps I could be allowed to detail the reasons why I decided not to dismiss my right hon. Friend. There were three sets of allegations. One was that he had not sought the advice of the independent advisory committee, which he should have done. That is a breach of the ministerial code, it is true, but I did not believe that it warranted dismissal, for these reasons. First, I could discover no impropriety or wrongdoing in his doing that. [Hon. Members: "Oh!"] Secondly, he had registered those jobs with the Register of Members' Interests. It arose out of a misunderstanding in the correspondence, which I have looked at myself and believed was an honest misunderstanding on his part. It was clear to me that even had he been in touch with the advisory committee, as he accepts he should have been, the most that would have happened is that his taking up one of those jobs would have been delayed by a few weeks. In those circumstances, I did not believe that that warranted his dismissal.

The second set of allegations was in respect of the register of shareholdings in DNA Bioscience. My right hon. Friend was supposed to follow a particular procedure for Ministers when they come into Government. He followed that procedure completely. Therefore I could find no breach of the ministerial code in respect of that.

The third and most serious set of allegations, which were made by the shadow Leader of the House, was that my right hon. Friend, while a member of the Government, had had discussions and made representations on behalf of a firm that either had or was trying to get a contract from the Department for Work and Pensions. Had that allegation been true, it certainly would have been a dismissible offence. I looked into that allegation and found it to be completely untrue. Therefore it would not have been right, in these circumstances, for him to resign. That is why I did not dismiss my right hon. Friend under the ministerial code.

The Secretary of State has resigned, and I do not intend to pursue those matters this afternoon. I quite understand why the Prime Minister's judgment in these last few days has been awry. I can entirely sympathise with his desire to cling on to the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett). Is it not a fact that he was one of the Prime Minister's last remaining allies in Cabinet?

My right hon. Friend resigned for the reasons that he gave: with the frenzy surrounding him and his job, it became impossible for him to carry on doing that job properly. The reason why I outlined the specific allegations about him is that I think that in fairness to him, people should understand that a lot of what has been written about him in the past few days has, on my investigation of the facts, turned out to be completely untrue. However, for the reasons that he has given, he has resigned.

I would simply put this to the House: sometimes on these occasions, the degree of pressure to which people are subject is absolutely extraordinary. We should just occasionally reflect on that, and when it involves somebody who has done an immense amount for this country we should say, as he goes from Government, that he goes, in my view, with no stain of impropriety against him whatever.

If the Prime Minister had recalled some of the words that he used in opposition, he might have found it difficult to repeat the words that he has just uttered today. He did not answer the question that I put to him, and I shall resist the temptation to ask him to name his remaining allies in the Cabinet. The truth is that the Prime Minister has lost both his allies and his authority. Let us look at some examples of that.

Last week, the Education Secretary was squabbling with the Deputy Prime Minister about school reforms, and the Health Secretary and the Culture Secretary were at loggerheads with the Defence Secretary over the ban on smoking. This week, the Prime Minister is at odds with everyone else over his proposal to ban drinking on public transport—at the very moment when he is introducing 24-hour drinking in our pubs. What has happened to his authority?

I shall deal with each of those claims in turn. On schools, we are in favour not just of investing in them but of reforming them too. We have a programme that we will carry through, because this party believes in improving the quality of schooling in our country. We will do that, and we will carry it through.

On the so-called proposal to ban drinking on public transport, I had indicated already that we should not accept it. However, as often happens when such a proposal is put in the newspapers and we point out that it has not been accepted, we are accused of making a U-turn.

Leaving that to one side, I can tell the House that over the next few months we will carry through our programme on schools and health service reform, and that new proposals will be brought forward on antisocial behaviour and crime. Today, of course, we have a very important debate on terrorism. All those proposals will be carried through, because we believe in them and because we believe that they are right for the country—and at least we have a programme that we are carrying through.

Does the Prime Minister really not see that this week marks the beginning of the final chapter of his Administration? Will he be the last person to recognise that the departure of his key ally means that there is no longer any doubt that the sole source of authority in his Cabinet is the Chancellor of the Exchequer? For how long will this country have to put up with this lame duck Prime Minister, in office but not in power?

We shall see, over the next few months, exactly what happens—in respect of the programme that has delivered the strongest economy that this country has had for years, of the programme that has delivered the best primary school, GCSE and A-level results, of the programme that is delivering the biggest falls in NHS waiting times that this country has had for 20 years, and of the programme that is allowing us to increase the numbers of police and ensure that crime falls.

That is the record on which this Government will be judged. It is a record that we can be proud of, and it stands in stark contrast to the Leader of the Opposition's record when he was in government.

By the end of the year, the Government look set to reduce NHS waiting times to no more than six months. However, is my right hon. Friend aware of the work of John Petri, an orthopaedic surgeon in the James Paget hospital in my constituency? He has no waiting lists at all since he introduced a dual system of operating, using two theatres and two teams, which means that he does not have to wait for the next patient. Is not that an example to be followed and commended? Will my right hon. Friend meet John Petri to discuss how that innovation can benefit the whole of the NHS?

I shall be very happy to do so. In terms of policy, the picture that my hon. Friend presents is replicated around the country. When the Labour party came to power, many people were waiting more than 18 months for operations, and tens of thousands were waiting for more than a year. From December, the maximum wait will be of six months, and that has brought the waiting list down very sharply. As my hon. Friend said, there are now parts of the country in which we are getting rid of waiting almost completely. In the next three years—by 2008—patients will have a maximum wait of 18 weeks between the door of the GP and the door of the operating theatre. That will effectively get rid of the NHS waiting lists that we inherited after the years when the Conservative party was in government. Frankly, when all the rest is said and done, that is what matters to the people of this country.

On behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I wish to share the sentiments so properly expressed by the Prime Minister about the loss of life of the British serviceman in Afghanistan in the past few days.

On the issue of the day and what the Prime Minister has said about the ministerial code of conduct, does he agree that it seems absurd that an ex-Minister is obliged to seek advice, but is not obliged to take that advice? As a result of this experience, will the Prime and the Cabinet Secretary urgently address that issue?

It is clear now, if it was not before, that when Ministers leave office, they are expected to take the advice of the independent advisory committee. Obviously that has to be made clear, although I would say that it is fairly clear now.

The Prime Minister is ignoring the fact that ex-Ministers can seek advice but not take it. That is a ridiculous state of affairs for a ministerial code of conduct.

It was well reported recently that the former Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and the Prime Minister disagreed about incapacity benefit reform. May we have an assurance that the No. 10 machine will not seek to impose its will as to the reform of incapacity benefit on whoever occupies that office later today? That is what people out there actually care about.

Again, when we get back to policy, I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that the Liberal Democrats now oppose every single reform in the public services or on welfare. It is absurd to say that incapacity benefit, which now costs £13 billion a year and leaves 3 million people economically inactive, does not need reform. It does need reform and this side has the courage to do it. As ever, when it comes to a policy decision, the Liberal Democrats lack that courage.

2. Will my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister join me in congratulating schools in my constituency on the genuine increase in standards that they have achieved since 1997? [Hon. Members: "Urgh!"] They are too eager. However, does my right hon. Friend recognise that before 1997 we spent years fighting the Tories' policy of offering unfair financial inducements to schools to opt out of local authority control? Will he give the House an assurance, therefore, that in any future education reforms the Government will not offer, directly or indirectly, any unfair financial incentives to schools to opt out of local authority provision, nor to any outside organisations such as private companies or trusts— [23740]

Order. The hon. Gentleman must be quicker.

I assure my hon. Friend that there will be fair funding for schools and no return to unfair funding. In particular—and this is the major point of difference with us—the Conservatives have said that they want a free-for-all on admissions. I emphatically disagree with that. We should not have a return to selection at age 11. That would do damage to the children of this country and their future prospects. However, we will empower schools to become self-governing trusts if they wish to do so and enable them to have outside partners. We have already done that in respect of specialist schools and city academies, which has been highly successful, but we need now to take it to a new level. Alongside the investment will come reform, but it will be reform designed for equity and fairness and not a return to the unfair policies of the Conservatives.

Since new Labour came to power in 1997, the Government have created 700 new criminal offences. Will the Prime Minister help the House by putting a monthly aide-memoire in the Library, so that we know how many offences have been created each month? That is urgent, bearing in mind the exotic jurisprudence in the current Terrorism Bill.

I will tell the hon. Gentleman exactly why we are legislating on antisocial behaviour. It is because we believe—at least, on this side of the House—that it is a crucial issue for people and that they want protection in their local communities. The fact that he and his party oppose the measures says a lot more about them than it does about us, when we are trying to help people who are fed up with hooligans making their lives hell in their local communities, drug dealers living in their streets and people being drunk and disorderly, with the police able to do little about it. We will continue legislating on those issues because it is the right thing to do to protect people in this country.

As for terrorism, each Member of this House will have to take a decision on the Terrorism Bill later today—[Interruption.] Let me say this to Conservative Members, because we need to be very clear about why we are legislating to strengthen anti-terrorist laws in this country: we are doing it because the police and the head of anti-terrorist operations say that they need the powers to protect British citizens. Of all the things that we should debate today, that is what is important to people's lives. We will do our best to protect the people of this country. Hon. Members should think carefully before they vote against the express desire of the chief of the Metropolitan police, the head of anti-terrorist operations and the people who are charged with protecting our country.

3. Will people who kill while driving carelessly now go to prison rather than face a paltry fine? Following some tragic accident fatalities in my area, can the Prime Minister assure me that the Road Safety Bill will force the courts, at long last, to take those devastating and avoidable deaths on our roads seriously? [23741]

I know that my hon. Friend has been leading the campaign on this issue with great distinction. It is worth pointing out that last year more than 13,000 fewer people were killed or seriously injured on our roads than the average number in the period 1994 to 1998, so it is obvious that strengthening the law has led to gains being made. Following public consultation earlier this year, new measures are being introduced to strengthen the framework of offences to deal with bad driving and to help to create safer roads for everyone. We shall try to introduce those measures through amendments to the Road Safety Bill. I entirely understand my hon. Friend's question: if such a massive effect were being felt in any other area of public life, people would take account of it when making decisions. That is why it is important that we get the amendments right. I am sure that we will.

4. Why does the Prime Minister think that it is so widely felt that his presidency of the European Union has been a failure? [23742]

I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would rejoice if I had managed to fail—it would be a feather in my cap. We have not yet completed the European presidency: it lasts for six months and we are at month four. After the December summit, we might be able to judge the success of our presidency. One thing of which I am very proud is that we managed to open accession negotiations with Turkey and Croatia. Contrary to his views—that the EU is a waste of time and we should not have such a thing—the fact that so many countries want to join the EU shows what a strong institution it is, despite all its difficulties.

5. Despite the tough new regulations in the Fireworks Act 2003, I am continuing to receive numerous complaints about the misuse of fireworks. At the weekend there was an horrific incident in which a Yorkshire terrier was killed when a firework was tied to its leg and ignited. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is time to consider an outright ban on the sale of fireworks to the general public? [23743]

The most important thing is that we have introduced new legislation and created three new offences. We have to wait and see what happens before we can make a judgment on the legislation. However, I think that to ban the sale of fireworks altogether would be a step too far.

There continues to be widespread concern about the plight of the less well-off and most vulnerable in our society.—[Interruption.] When there are millions—[Interruption.] When there are thousands of people worried about the clawback of money because of the failure of the tax and benefits system, does the Prime Minister believe in accountability, and if so, whom does he hold responsible and when will he hold them responsible?

The hon. Gentleman is correct that there are of course difficulties, as there are with the payment of any benefit, but let us be clear about this. As a result of the tax credits, literally millions of families in this country have an improvement in their standard of living. Pensioners have been lifted out of poverty as a result of pension credit—[Interruption.]

Order. Mr. Luff, there is a lot of shouting, and your voice rises above all the shouting. You ought to be quiet.

We have over the past eight years lifted 700,000 children out of poverty, and 2 million pensioners out of acute hardship. That has partly been done as a result of the payment of tax credits. So the hon. Gentleman is right to say that we must of course do more to help the poor and disadvantaged in our country, but I point out to him that when his Government were in power they froze—[Interruption.] They do not like to be reminded of what they did in government.

Labour has been in power for eight years.

That is right, eight years—and in eight years we have lifted 2 million pensioners out of acute hardship, and who put them there? In those eight years, while we have been lifting those people out of poverty, every single measure has been opposed by his party. So I agree that we need to do more for the poor and disadvantaged, but the only way they will get more is to keep this Government in office.

6. Salford is the 12th most deprived local authority area in the country. In the past, deprivation in our area has been reflected in the level of GCSE and other test results. This year, Salford achieved an 8 per cent. increase in our GCSE results and a 5 per cent. increase in key stage 3 English. Is my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister satisfied with those results, and can he tell me how they can be continued? [23744]

My hon. Friend is of course right: not merely has the Cambridge assessment confirmed the improvement in teaching, but it comes on top of the Ofsted report that confirmed exactly the same. The truth is that teaching is getting better, the results are getting better, and the reason is that this Government have invested in education and changed the education system. So whereas when we came to office just over half of 11-year-olds were getting the right literacy and numeracy results, now the figure is three quarters. That, again, is the difference between a Labour Government who care about education and a Conservative Government who in the years before we came to power cut funding per pupil.

7. According to the Children's Society, every year 100,000 children run away from home. Many turn to rough sleeping, crime, drug taking, alcohol abuse and prostitution. Many are hurt and harmed as a consequence. At the moment, there are just seven refuge beds across the country to meet that massive need. Those beds will not be funded after March next year; Government funding is to stop before that is evaluated. Will the Prime Minister look to stop the cut in funding in March so that the beds can be properly evaluated and we can have a proper network of safe accommodation for children who run away? [23745]

We have of course invested a large sum of money in that. The rough sleepers initiative has cut the numbers sleeping rough very considerably. We will continue to invest; we have obviously got to make sure that it is in the right way that yields the result. The hon. Gentleman is right in drawing attention to the problem, but we will solve it only by continuing the policies that we have set out. I am not aware of the particular issue that he has raised—I will get back to him on the detail—but more money has been invested in social housing and in providing for people, particularly young people who might run away from home, than by any Government for years, and we will continue doing that.

8. My right hon. Friend will be aware that more than six months have passed since the collapse of MG Rover in my constituency. May I ask him to do two things? First, will he recognise the contribution that the taskforce set up by the Government has made towards helping the region and beyond to tackle the effects of that closure; and, secondly, will he recognise that there is still a large number of people who are without jobs, mainly concentrated in the area around the plant, and that they still face real problems? Does he agree that the south-west Birmingham area needs a major regeneration programme not only to help MG Rover workers still without jobs to get back to work, but to regenerate the entire community? [23746]

First, I pay tribute to the work that my hon. Friend has done for his constituents through the MG Rover TaskForce. I congratulate the members of that taskforce, because Advantage West Midlands, Birmingham city council, the Learning and Skills Council and Jobcentre Plus have pulled together in a remarkable way to achieve the result that he described. I am pleased that 3,000 or more ex-MG Rover and supply chain workers are now in new jobs, but we need to do much more. We will invest in the new science and technology park, but we will also make sure that the programme of support that we introduced for those workers when they were made redundant continues. We will also make sure that we put the investment into Advantage West Midlands to allow it to attract new jobs for the future.

9. Prime Minister, you visited Rochdale on 21 April, and you gave your personal commitment to the Manchester Metrolink, including the three lines to Rochdale and Oldham. Was that electioneering? If not, can you tell us when we will be given a statement and— [23747]

Order. The hon. Gentleman should find a proper way of phrasing his question.

10. Is my right hon. Friend aware that the family courts routinely expose children to the risk of abuse and even death at the hands of violent parents, according to a new report by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Court Administration, which says that the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service is putting children at risk by not assessing the risk of exposing them to parental contact orders with violent parents? Does my right hon. Friend agree that we urgently need safety measures in the forthcoming Children and Adoption Bill to safeguard our children against such violence? [23748]

We of course are concerned by the finding of the Inspectorate of Court Administration report that there is such a strong presumption by the courts that there must be contact with both parents that concerns about violence and children's safety are overridden. We remain utterly committed to the principle that the welfare of the child should be paramount in the consideration of the courts. We recognise that more needs to be done to address domestic violence concerns, so we will look carefully at any amendments to the Children and Adoption Bill that are tabled on the subject.

BILLS PRESENTED

Osborne Estate

Mr. Robert Flello presented a Bill to make provision in relation to the Osborne Estate: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 20 October, and to be printed [Bill 75].

Estate Agents (Redress Schemes)

Mark Tami, supported by Chris Ruane and Mr. Iain Wright, presented a Bill to confer power to require estate agents to belong to an approved redress scheme; to make provision about redress schemes and their approval; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on 20 October, and to be printed [Bill 74].

Road Traffic Regulation (Location Filming)

Mr. Iain Wright presented a Bill to enable orders under section 16A of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 to be made in connection with location filming; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on 14 July, and to be printed [Bill 76].

Family Law (Property and Maintenance)

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to abolish the common law duty of a husband to maintain his wife; to abolish the presumption of advancement in relation to married or engaged couples; to amend the Married Women's Property Act 1964; and to make provision as regards property derived from an allowance made by a civil partner for the expenses of a civil partnership home or for similar purposes.

The Family Law (Property and Maintenance) Bill is a technical but plucky little measure that is intended to abolish or equalise three relatively minor rules of law that treat husbands and wives unequally. The changes are needed to enable the United Kingdom to ratify article 5 of protocol 7 of the European convention on human rights. The UK Government have given a commitment to ratify that protocol, and they must do so on a United Kingdom-wide basis. Delay in amending the law in England and Wales also delays ratification in Scotland and Northern Ireland.

The text of article 5 to protocol 7 is entitled "Equality between Spouses". It states:

"Spouses shall enjoy equality of rights and responsibilities of a private character between them, and in their relations with their children, as to marriage, during marriage and in the event of its dissolution. This Article shall not prevent States from taking such measures as are necessary in the interests of the children."

The three relatively minor rules of law to which I referred are, first, the common law duty of a husband to maintain his wife. I should make it clear that this has nothing to do with so-called common law marriages. It has to do with legal marriages. Both husbands and wives have access to statutory remedies in the courts for obtaining maintenance or ancillary relief, as it is called, in the unfortunate event of the breakdown of their marriage. For example, statutory remedy may be obtained through the Domestic Proceedings and Magistrates Courts Act 1978, and via the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973.

In addition, there is a common law duty, as we lawyers call it, for a husband to maintain his wife, yet—unequally—there is no corresponding common law duty for a wife to maintain her husband. In order to equalise the position between spouses, clause 1 would abolish that superfluous common law duty. Thus both husbands and wives would, equally, obtain maintenance through the statutory remedies.

The second change introduced by the Bill would be the abolition of the common law rule on the "presumption of advancement" between husbands and wives. Again, that has nothing to do with so-called common law marriages. It has to do with legally married husbands and wives. At present, there is a common law rule that states that where there is no evidence to the contrary, if a husband transfers property to his wife, he is presumed to be making her a gift. However, if a wife transfers property to her husband, the presumption is that no gift is intended, and instead the wife is basically presumed to be making a loan. Clause 2 would abolish this archaic rule, so that there would be no presumption in favour of one spouse on the basis of gender.

The third rule change would be to money or property that is saved up or brought from what is termed a "housekeeping allowance". Under section 1 of the Married Women's Property Act 1964, as all right hon. and hon. Members will recall, if a husband pays a housekeeping allowance to his wife, any savings or property derived from that housekeeping allowance belong to the husband and wife in equal shares, unless they have a specific agreement to the contrary. So if, for example, the wife saves her housekeeping allowance from the husband and buys a sofa, that sofa will belong to the couple equally.

However, if the wife pays a housekeeping allowance to the husband, the money or property derived from it belongs to the wife only. So if the husband saves his housekeeping allowance, the sofa would belong to the wife alone. Such inequality cannot be right in this day and age. Hence, clause 3 would amend the provision, making it apply to both spouses equally, so that property derived from a housekeeping allowance is jointly owned by the husband and wife in equal shares, regardless which of them paid and which of them received the allowance.

The intention of the Civil Partnership Act 2004 was that civil partners should have parallel rights to those of married couples. Therefore it is necessary for an amendment to be made to the Civil Partnership Act 2004. That would be achieved by clause 4, which would extend the equal provision—the jointly owned sofa, so to speak—to civil partners in England and Wales and in Northern Ireland. As I understand it, the law in Scotland already applies equally to husbands and wives, and has been applied to civil partners, so no amendment is required in respect of Scottish law.

The Bill should not be controversial. It removes discrimination against men and would be a relatively straightforward means of advancing the Government's laudable equality and human rights agenda.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Rob Marris.

Family Law (Property and Maintenance)

Rob Marris accordingly presented a Bill to abolish the common law duty of a husband to maintain his wife; to abolish the presumption of advancement in relation to married or engaged couples; to amend the Married Women's Property Act 1964; and to make provision as regards property derived from an allowance made by a civil partner for the expenses of a civil partnership home or for similar purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 2 December, and to be printed [Bill 73].