1. What proposals for the revised curriculum which will operate from September will broaden the types of religious and non-religious value system education in schools in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement. [48304]

The revised curriculum aims to develop young people as contributors to society by fostering citizenship. Pupils are given the opportunity to learn about a range of religions, values and ethics, and about the importance of respecting diversity.

Thinking back to the beginning of the troubles, almost 30 years ago, where does my hon. Friend think we might be today, had we started then to introduce more secular education in Northern Ireland and not allowed further faith schools of any denomination to be built? I know that she is conducting an education review. Will she put herself in the position of being at the Dispatch Box in 30 years' time and begin that process in earnest now, so that young children are not indoctrinated with one religion or another at school, but only if their parents choose to do so at home? Will she take steps, through the review, to introduce such a proposal and to have more secular education in Northern Ireland?

I thank my hon. Friend for his confidence that I will be at the Dispatch Box in 30 years' time. He makes a plea for integrated education, and there is clearly a great unmet demand on the part of parents for such education. The Government have obligations in that regard and dealing with this issue is a challenge, but we must also meet the challenge of falling school rolls. There are 50,000 spare places and one in eight school desks are empty. The review that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has initiated will consider how we can be smarter in managing the school estate and how we can ensure that we meet parental demand for integrated education, along with every other form of education.

I am sure that the Minister views with horror the prospect of standing at the Dispatch Box in 30 years' time as the Minister with responsibility for education in Northern Ireland. Does she accept that having six different education providers in Northern Ireland has wasted resources and contributed to the overcapacity in school provision to which she referred? Will she explain to the House why she did not take the chance that she had under the review of public administration to cut the number of funded providers and why she continues to open Irish-medium schools and integrated schools, for example, in areas where there is a surplus—

Order. One supplementary is fine.

I suspect that there is little difference between the hon. Gentleman and me in respect of the review that we are taking forward. He is right to say that having so many different education providers has proved very expensive, but the review of public administration cuts the number of education administrators. In examining the existing types of education during the forthcoming review, the key issue has to be parental choice. He suggests that parents do not want Irish-medium education and integrated education, but such demand does exist. We have to be a bit smarter in how we provide such education and see whether we can share services to cut bureaucracy and administration while still meeting parental choice.

2. If he will make a statement on the level of co-operation between loyalist paramilitaries and the Independent Monitoring Commission. [48305]

The Government will continue to work with loyalist representatives to ensure decommissioning. The IMC will make itself available to talk to a wide range of organisations, but it does not disclose the nature of such contact or the level of co-operation.

I am most grateful to the Minister for that perfect parliamentary response, which is entirely accurate but tells me nothing. Does he agree with the IMC's latest assessment of the progress—or lack of it—made by loyalist paramilitaries toward decommissioning their weaponry?

I am disappointed to note that the IMC has concluded that the Ulster Defence Association in particular is deeply involved in violence, especially in the events in Whiterock last September. The Government and I encourage organisations on the loyalist side that are involved in violence to move away from it. I am confident that we will have the opportunity to discuss proposals to ensure that those organisations do move away from violence, and I hope that progress will be made this year in that regard. As with all violence associated with paramilitary activity, it is not acceptable to the Government. We need to take violence and intimidation out of the politics of Northern Ireland. The IMC has identified that it still exists and I repeat that the Government find that unacceptable. We need to find mechanisms to ensure that we move on from that situation.

I am sure that the Minister is aware that the IMC has been advised that

"the UDA is prepared to address the issue of arms in the context of a satisfactory consideration by the British Government of its community's socio-economic concerns."

Does the Minister agree that there are three lessons to be learned here? First, much of the social deprivation in areas controlled by paramilitaries is in fact caused by paramilitaries. Secondly, socio-economic problems should be addressed irrespective of paramilitaries. Thirdly, the addressing of such problems should not be regarded as a reward for ceasing to commit crimes of violence and terror, as has happened in the past. These issues should be disconnected and socio-economic matters should be addressed irrespective of what the paramilitaries are doing.

I am happy to say that I agree with my hon. Friend's analysis of the situation. The report being compiled by my chief official in the loyalist areas task force, Alan Shannon, has identified the influence of paramilitary activities as one of the specific blocks to making progress on social and economic matters in those areas. We need to address those deep-seated problems, but the Government will not be held to ransom by a trade-off between taking action on them and decommissioning. Decommissioning is central to making political progress in Northern Ireland: we want it to happen, but we also want there to be social justice, and to tackle economic deprivation.

The Minister is aware of our proposals about the districts that need help and I heartily endorse what the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) said. Such aid cannot amount to a reward system for paramilitaries who say, "If you do this, we'll do that." Will the Minister give me an assurance that the elected representatives in those areas will be the first to negotiate with him about these matters? They have been elected by the people to do so.

The right hon. Gentleman will know that I have undertaken a number of engagements—I think 46 so far—in various areas across Northern Ireland, and that I have looked at these problems. It is right that paramilitary influence is one of the major stumbling blocks to making progress in many of the areas of economic deprivation, and I have met 12 or 13 Members of the Assembly from the right hon. Gentleman's own party to discuss the matter. As my hon. Friend said, we need to tackle social and economic deprivation, and at the same time take the gun out of Northern Ireland politics. That applies both to the IRA and to the loyalist paramilitary organisations and is an essential prerequisite to progress. The continuation of threats, intimidation and armed activity is one of the blocks to tackling social and economic deprivation in many parts of Northern Ireland.

Is not the biggest stumbling block the continued involvement of paramilitaries from both sides in organised crime?

Absolutely. The hon. Gentleman chairs the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, which is examining that very issue. He will know that organised crime is a key problem and that, sadly, many paramilitaries—especially on the loyalist side now—are still involved. We must decide how to tackle that, and all the ministerial team agree that there will be no room in Government for lack of action against criminality and paramilitary involvement in crime. We must look at how, in the long term, we can take the gun out of loyalist politics—a point that takes us back to the question asked by the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon). That is central to Northern Ireland's economic success, and especially to those deprived areas that in part are held back by the influence of the loyalist paramilitaries.

There is evidence that paramilitary organisations, both loyalist and republican, are moving assets from criminal enterprises into legitimate businesses. In view of that, can the Minister give an assurance that the police and the Assets Recovery Agency will continue to pursue the profits of crime, even if they have been laundered in that way, so that no paramilitary group can benefit from preying on the communities of Northern Ireland?

I am pleased to give the hon. Gentleman an unequivocal yes to that question. It is clear to the Government that profits are being made from criminality throughout Northern Ireland. That problem is being dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and by the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Woodward). They have made it clear that the Assets Recovery Agency has a mandate to pursue the profits of crime, and the hon. Gentleman will know that it has made major efforts in that respect over the past couple of weeks. People in Northern Ireland who are involved in criminality or paramilitary activity need to know that the Government will close them down and remove the assets when we find out who is responsible for their generation.

3. What measures Invest Northern Ireland is taking to assist economic regeneration in areas where substantial job losses are likely to occur within the next three months. [48306]

Invest NI has helped client companies throughout Northern Ireland become more entrepreneurial, innovative and internationally oriented, offering £400 million of assistance towards £1.5 billion of total planned investment. Where clients encounter difficulties, Invest NI proactively tries to avert redundancies. Where they prove unavoidable, Invest NI and the Department for Employment and Learning work closely with the company to minimise their effects.

The Minister will be aware that 380 of my constituents and their families face a bleak future after Farm Fed Chickens announced its possible closure within three months. Will she ensure that Invest NI increases the lamentable number of potential inward investors in my constituency over the past few years so as to replace those jobs with durable, high-quality employment opportunities?

I assure the hon. Gentleman that Invest Northern Ireland is already working with Farm Fed Chickens to look at ways in which we can help to research alternative markets. The Department for Employment and Learning is also providing advice and support for workers who have been made redundant. Invest Northern Ireland is demand-led and supports investors who want to invest in Northern Ireland. The key to ensuring that Invest Northern Ireland can attract investors is the skills of workers in Northern Ireland. That is why the skills and science fund, launched by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, is so important. It will ensure that we have the skills that attract investors to invest and create jobs in Northern Ireland.

In taking measures to tackle recent unemployment, could we begin to develop a strategy to tackle long-term unemployment? Does the Minister agree that the best opportunities for economic growth lie in high-wage, high-value added technology? We need a greater focus on the newer technologies, especially biotechnology, where we might not be as focused as we could be.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that that is where the focus is needed, and that is where the focus is. There is considerable investment in biotechnology to show that Northern Ireland can be a world leader in that area. The skills and science fund is the key to ensuring that we get those high-value technological jobs that will attract investors and create more sustainable long-term jobs in Northern Ireland.

Does the Minister accept that, as we go into yet another round of talks, they are once again about the constitutional issues and does she agree that we need to start focusing on the practical economic realities in Northern Ireland? In that context, will she agree to consider setting up an all-party forum to look in detail at the problems facing the Northern Ireland economy, accepting that such a format may be useful in the future for education and health issues?

I guide the hon. Gentleman to the speech by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to the Fabian Society, in which he made those very points about engaging everybody in looking at the future of Northern Ireland. We have several forums for debate and discussion on such issues and I am not sure that a further forum would add value. I can however give him a guarantee that the forums that we have will be used to ensure that we obtain investment and provide jobs, and we will ensure that the work force have the skills to take advantage of that investment. That is the key to attracting investment to provide long-term sustainable jobs.

As we discussed in the Northern Ireland Grand Committee yesterday, there are several bright spots in the economy of Northern Ireland, but there are one or two problems. The Minister will be aware that many people in Northern Ireland are concerned that the Province is over-dependent on the public sector, which appears to be growing. What does she intend to do to redress that growing imbalance?

Invest NI has raised several concerns, such as the low spending on research and development by businesses, the low rate of business start-ups and the fact that Northern Ireland has the highest economic inactivity rates in the UK. Those are real problems and I wish the Minister well in tackling them. Can she tell us exactly what she will do to improve matters?

The hon. Gentleman is quoting from my right hon. Friend's speech last week, in which he identified those very problems. The hon. Gentleman can be a little negative, as I pointed out to him yesterday, but employment levels are the highest ever, unemployment is the lowest average in the UK, manufacturing output is growing and is significantly higher than in the rest of the UK, and manufacturing exports are up. I take the point about the over-reliance on the public sector, which is why the review of public administration would reduce the number of councils from 26 to seven and reduce the number of public bodies. That is also why the work being done by Invest NI to grow the private sector is so important. I accept the hon. Gentleman's point, but he should not underestimate the gains that are being made.

4. What steps he is taking to reduce waiting times for hospital treatment in Northern Ireland. [48307]

We are undertaking a dramatic reform programme in Northern Ireland. As regards in-patients, one year ago more than 4,000 patients were waiting more than 12 months on in-patient and day case waiting lists and nearly 1,000 waited more than 18 months. Within a few weeks, we will be on track to ensure that nobody in Northern Ireland will wait more than 12 months, and I will shortly announce further reductions in in-patient waiting lists.

It is not altogether clear from my hon. Friend's reply whether that period includes the time from GP referral. Can he tell me what steps he is taking to ensure that the overall time delay is reduced?

I am glad that my hon. Friend raised that question. Out-patient lists in Northern Ireland have been an especially huge problem and the number of people waiting for referrals has been considerable. Until recently, nearly one in nine people in Northern Ireland were on out-patient lists, and 10 per cent. of them were waiting for more than two years. For that reason, I have announced a dramatic reform programme for out-patient lists to ensure that by 2008 no patient will wait more than 13 weeks from time of consultation with a GP to seeing a consultant. We will bring an end to those lengthy lists by a programme of reform and investment.

On behalf of all multiple sclerosis sufferers in Northern Ireland, I thank the Minister for his announcement yesterday of the release of an additional £2 million for MS sufferers who need access to beta interferon. In two years, I shall come back to check that no one is on the waiting list.

What targets has the Minister set to tackle child and adolescent psychiatry out-patient waiting times, which can extend to four years? What efforts will be made to enhance work force capacity in that speciality?

I pay tribute to the hon. Lady's work with the Multiple Sclerosis Society on the campaign to help to bring about the announcement that I made yesterday. There are 163 people waiting for treatment and they will indeed come off the list within the next two years, so nobody will wait.

On waiting times for mental health patients, I shall shortly make an announcement about mental health in Northern Ireland that will cover a broad spectrum, including those in mental health dealing with younger people. I hope that I shall be able to please the hon. Lady with an announcement similar to yesterday's.

5. When he expects to lift the suspension of the Northern Ireland Assembly. [48308]

The Prime Minister and I have made it clear that 2006 is decisive for the process. I want the institutions restored as soon as possible, and we held constructive discussions with all the parties at Hillsborough on Monday to discuss the way forward.

The right hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) confirmed to me yesterday that his party will not take part in Stormont unless it is confident that the IRA has given up its weapons. Will the Secretary of State give the House an assurance that the Government will not try to bludgeon that party into submission? Only when it is confident that the IRA has given up its weapons will it agree to participate in the new chamber.

Knowing the right hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) as well as I have been able to do over past months, I can tell the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) that nobody tries to bludgeon him—or at least they do so at their peril, so I am certainly not going down that road.

Things cannot continue as they are: 2006 is a make-or-break year. The clock is ticking. The Assembly is costing £9 million a year, with Assembly Members not doing their jobs but receiving salaries and expenses averaging £85,000 a year. That situation cannot continue for ever and everybody realises that there must be some energy and momentum in the political process, which we intend to achieve.

Does the Secretary of State accept that many people in Northern Ireland feel that he has been dipping into his optimism pills too much—[Interruption.]

Order. The hon. Gentleman must be heard. This is an important issue.

In his timetable, the Secretary of State hopes that legislation on constitutional issues will be put before the House by April. Does he accept that, if he cannot make that journey in one step, a phased approach must be more sensible, so will he consider starting the process with a lower level of devolution?

That is one of the very proposals that the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends have put to me in their "Facing Reality" document, and it is one that we intend to discuss in some detail at the next meeting on 20 February. In the meantime, however, there is a legislative opportunity in the business programme to introduce legislation to take forward some of the detailed, comprehensive proposals of December 2004, to which his party made a major contribution, and I want to consult the other parties on the detail to get agreement to make that legislative change in April, if I can.

Has the Secretary of State noticed, when he walks down any high street in Northern Ireland, that there are more offices of Members of the Stormont Assembly than chemist's shops? Is it not time that we capped such public expenditure? I can accept all that he said earlier, but to put additional moneys on top of that this afternoon is unacceptable to his taxpayers and to mine.

I am not going to anticipate the debate this afternoon, but I will say that there is an additional point behind the one that my hon. Friend makes: the people of Northern Ireland are fed up with the fact that their politicians are not doing their jobs. People elected to an assembly ought to be in an assembly, up and running, doing their jobs, which is what these discussions are all about achieving. [Interruption.]

Order. I ask for quietness in the Chamber—otherwise, it is unfair.

Does the Secretary of State agree that anyone wishing to participate in the national Assembly should relinquish any link with criminal activity and that, if they re-establish those links, they should be removed from the new national Assembly?

We want to see criminality stamped out of Northern Ireland and not infecting its politics, whether on the republican or loyalist side. Last week's report from the Independent Monitoring Commission showed very extensive progress by the IRA, but there is still too much localised criminality, and we will continue to bear down on that and it must stop.

We very much hope that the talks in the political initiative that the Government have now set in train will succeed and result in the restoration of inclusive devolution to Northern Ireland, but the right hon. Gentleman mentioned last week's IMC report. Does he accept that it confirmed, contrary to the views earlier voiced by the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Woodward), that leading members of the republican movement are still involved in serious organised crime and that it would be unreasonable to expect—

Order.

I very much welcome the hon. Gentleman's support for the political process. I know that he and his party wish that it succeeds and I think that it can succeed. The IMC report, of course, pointed to localised criminality, which must be stopped, but it also made it absolutely clear—I am happy to quote all the passages—that criminal operations, including robberies, have been closed down and that the leadership of the Provisional IRA has set its objectives clearly on the strategic focus of political and democratic methods. He ought to welcome that, and I know that he does.

6. What assessment he has made of the most recent report from the Independent Monitoring Commission. [48309]

This is a positive report, which states that the IRA leadership is delivering its promise to end terrorism, but there is still too much local criminality.

Although I accept that the IMC report referred to localised IRA criminality, does my right hon. Friend believe that the report confirms that there is a world of difference in the situation in Northern Ireland, even compared with just 12 months ago?

Yes, indeed. My hon. Friend is right that the IMC did confirm that there has been a huge change, a sea change, compared with what occurred even a year ago—let alone five, 10, 20 or 30 years ago, when people were being killed or bombed pretty well every day in Northern Ireland. That is why, as the report confirms, the leadership of the republican movement has set a strategic course on democratic and peaceful politics. We ought to support that, while insisting that local criminality is stopped and closed down for ever.

Does the Secretary of State realise that, no matter how much guff and bluff there is from Ministers, Sinn Fein-IRA and their colleagues are still involved in criminal activity in Northern Ireland? Those who are connected to that are not worthy of being called true democrats and we should move on without them.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that any republicans, including from the Provisional IRA, who are still involved in especially petrol smuggling and cigarette smuggling—the IMC report says that some are even though operations have been closed down—must stop their activities. The IMC will continue to report on such activity and we will continue to demand that it is stopped. We will continue to support the police and the Assets Recovery Agency in their work.

The hon. Gentleman will also agree that the report confirms a massive change that is light years away from the old dark days of violence in Northern Ireland. Sinn Fein leaders have played an important part in achieving that objective.

Does the Secretary of State recognise that parties would do better to reflect on the full reality of the IMC report rather than reacting to reactions? Does he agree that both Sinn Fein and the Democratic Unionist party, for their own purposes, have exaggerated the negative aspects of the IMC report rather than the positive aspects? Does he also agree that the Governments would have helped the reception of the IMC report if they had published the decommissioning body's report earlier rather than leaving it to the same day and causing confusion?

I do not agree with the latter point, but I very much accept the hon. Gentleman's first point. Some Sinn Fein leaders have said that the organisation is squeaky clean and some Unionists have said that there has been no change. Both statements are untrue. There has been huge change, but there is still too much local criminality, which we intend to stamp out.

1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 8 February. [49474]

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

Two weeks ago, the Prime Minister told the House that he would have to listen carefully to what the people were saying on the question of police restructuring. This week, the Government announced that they were pressing ahead with plans to amalgamate the Welsh police forces despite the intense opposition of Welsh police authorities. Just how loudly do the people of Wales have to shout before the Prime Minister starts to listen?

Surely, as the hon. Gentleman knows, there is, in fact, a disagreement within Wales as to the right way to go. There are senior police officers who are saying precisely the opposite of what he is saying. Therefore, we must listen to the representations being made, but there are circumstances in which there are different representations being made and we obviously have to come to a decision. I know that he and some other Members of Parliament had a meeting with the Home Secretary earlier in the week, but we have put forward this option because there is strong support for it from within Wales.

Does the Prime Minister agree that while we recognise and respect freedom of speech and expression, that does not extend to a right to insult, humiliate and hurt people, which is clearly what the irresponsible publication of the cartoons of the Prophet, peace be upon him, has done, causing deep offence to millions of Muslims around the world? Does my right hon. Friend further agree that people have the right to protest peacefully, but that those who advocate violence and condone barbaric acts such as 7/7 must be dealt with by the full severity of the law?

I think that what my hon. Friend says about the protests against the cartoons being conducted peacefully is absolutely right. I also think that it is particularly important that he, as a leader from the Muslim community, is making it very clear that the vast majority of Muslims in this country completely abhor the type of protests that took place that resulted in violence and in people glorifying acts of murder and terrorism. That has no place in any part of our community—certainly not in any respectable part of our community.

As the Prime Minister has just said, the demonstrations in London over the weekend caused widespread concern. Muslims, as he has also just said, contribute an enormous amount to this country and, for the overwhelming majority, Islam is a religion of peace. Does he agree that, in all of this, there is a danger that their voice will be drowned out?

I hope very much that the voice of the moderate majority is not drowned out because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Sarwar) made clear, the fact is that the vast majority of people in the Muslim community and across the Muslim world totally abhor acts of terrorism and those who incite or glorify terrorism. It is important that we make it clear that we use the full force of the law against people who break the law, but remain united as a country—across communities of all faiths—in resisting terrorism wherever it rears its head.

On the specific point of policing that the Prime Minister just mentioned, we all agree that the existing laws on incitement must be enforced. Does he agree that while smart policing may mean holding back from arresting people on the spot, it must never mean turning a blind eye to those who incite violence, or perhaps even worse?

No; I agree, of course, entirely. It is extremely important that the police use the powers available to them. One of the reasons for the legislation currently before the Houses of Parliament is precisely that it willl strengthen the law. It is important that we can agree on the measures that are necessary to do that because the law will be strengthened in very important ways. First, indirect encouragement to acts of terrorism will be made unlawful and glorification will be mentioned specifically as an example of indirect incitement to terrorism. Secondly, it was extremely important—I should be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman would look again at the Conservative party's position on this—that the original provisions in the Bill allowed us to proscribe groups that glorified terrorism. Those provisions were removed from the legislation in the House of Lords. It is important that we send out a very strong signal that any group, or people, who glorify terrorism in any way at all will be committing a criminal offence and that those groups that rely on glorifying terrorism to attract recruits should not be able to operate in our society.

The Secretary of State for Defence recently told the House that the deployment of our troops in Afghanistan would be in Helmand province. In the light of recent events, will the Prime Minister tell us whether our troops will now have a roving commission, firefighting around the whole of Afghanistan?

No, of course they will not. However, in any situation, especially when other troops are under threat, as happened recently, I am sure that our troops would want to go to the help of their allies. The important thing is surely that we, together with the troops of many other countries, are in Afghanistan to help that country towards the democracy that its people want and to ensure that the Taliban or al-Qaeda cannot again use the country as a failed state for their own purposes. We can be not only immensely proud of the work that our troops do there, but immensely determined to ensure that they can carry on doing that work. I assure my hon. Friend that there is no intention that they should have a roving commission throughout Afghanistan, but if, as happened the other day, troops of another country working alongside us are under threat, of course our troops will want to go and help them.

The Prime Minister will be aware that police mergers are controversial not just in Wales, but throughout the whole country. Will he tell us why the biggest change to policing in 40 years is being pushed through in a matter of a few months?

The reason for the proposals, as I explained during Prime Minister's questions some time ago, is that after we commissioned a report from Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary into the whole issue, it came forward with proposals showing why the present configuration of forces was wrong. There is sometimes a notion when talking about this that the number of forces that we have at the moment—just over 40—has somehow been the case for ever. Actually, 30 to 40 years ago, a similar exercise was undertaken involving substantial mergers. The question is what is the most effective form of policing. Since we got the report saying that the present configuration is not effective, surely it is sensible for us to look at how we can make it better.

Apart from the issue of the loss of connection with local people, the Prime Minister will know that the Association of Police Authorities estimates the cost of the proposed mergers as something in excess of £500 million. What will that mean: higher council tax bills, or fewer police on the streets?

It will mean neither, actually, because we do not accept that figure. As I have said, there are different views, including within the police service, but what is important is to get the most effective way of configuring local police forces, and community policing is best done at a community level. It is entirely consistent with proper community policing to have a proper strategic force at the right strategic level, and then to have greater devolution of power to community policing. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman looks at the history of police services in this country, he will see that there have been many changes over the years. Once those changes take effect, it is interesting how quickly the opposition dissipates.

In my constituency, we recently had a tragic murder when Tom ap Rhys Price was killed close to Kensal Green station, which was unstaffed. Will my right hon. Friend condemn the rail companies for not investing more of their profit into ensuring that stations are properly staffed? Will he also congratulate the Mayor of London on committing an extra 89 British Transport police officers to staff stations?

It is important, as the Mayor indicated, not merely that we have more British Transport police, but that we increase the number of neighbourhood policing teams. My hon. Friend knows that those have been strengthened from four to six officers and rolled out across the whole of London. I shall certainly look carefully into the issue that she raises about that particular station.

The Prime Minister has said that every time he introduced a reform, he wished he had gone further. Why is it that on the biggest reform of this Parliament—education—he is going backwards?

I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman says that. A couple of weeks ago he asked me whether I would undertake categorically to ensure that schools had the freedom to own their buildings, employ their own staff and develop their own culture. They will have those powers, and they will be in the education Bill. I thought that he now agreed with me that we do not want to return to selection.

I love it. One minute we have big concessions to win over Back Benchers; the next minute we have no changes at all. Instead of flip-flopping, why cannot the right hon. Gentleman get out and sell the reforms? [Interruption.]

Order. The Leader of the Opposition.

Whatever happened to the right hon. Gentleman leading his party, not following it? Whatever happened to no reverse gear? Whatever happened to the historic turning point? If he keeps turning, it is not going to be very historic.

Given that the right hon. Gentleman has Opposition support, will he make it clear: no more concessions?

I see that the right hon. Gentleman has raised the issue of flip-flopping. I have with me a leaflet that has just been put out in the Dunfermline and West Fife by-election with a letter from one David Cameron. It says:

"I'm a liberal Conservative."

It also says:

"Issues that once divided Conservatives from Liberal Democrats are now issues where we both agree"—

like Iraq. Is that the same man who two weeks ago told The Daily Telegraph:

"I am, and always have been, a Conservative to the core of my being"?

One week ago, he was the heir to new Labour; today he is a Liberal Conservative. No wonder he is against identity cards.

More!

I love it—[Interruption.]

Order.

I love getting a lecture in consistency from a Prime Minister who spent all week in reverse gear. Perhaps he could have a word with the Chancellor, who has just endorsed a book that says Iraq was an unjust war. Is it not time that the Prime Minister faced down the rebels and did the right thing for teachers, parents and pupils? Why is he trying to appease those who do not want reform when he could be working with those who want it?

I do not know about me facing anything down, but it is about time that the right hon. Gentleman faced the same way for more than a day at a time. The fact of the matter is that we will have those freedoms in schools but, yes, we will ensure that they cannot go back to academic selection. I thought that we both agreed on that. I hope that he will do that now, as well as reversing the following Conservative policies: the patient's passport; the foundation hospitals; the asylum quotas; section 28; the licensing laws—does he remember those?—and opposition to antisocial behaviour. I hope that in respect of all those, and more, he will reverse the Conservative position, but in particular tell us now how much he regrets voting against the extra investment for schools and hospitals. Once he has completed those U-turns, we will know where he stands—but he will not stand with any credibility anywhere. [Interruption].

Order.

I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister shares the satisfaction that is felt by many on the Labour Benches about the shift to the left that has taken place in Latin America. To use a phrase, this is bringing Governments into power who will be in the interests of the many and not the few. Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that it would be bad news for all concerned if we allowed our policy towards those countries, especially Venezuela, to be shaped by a really right-wing US Republican agenda?

Up to a point. It is rather important that the Government of Venezuela realise that if they want to be respected members of the international community, they should abide by the rules of the international community. I say with the greatest respect to the President of Venezuela that when he forms an alliance with Cuba, I would prefer to see Cuba a proper functioning democracy. I entirely understand the point that my hon. Friend is making, and I will obviously reflect on it carefully, but I have to say to him that the most important thing is that countries in south America and north America realise that they have much in common, much to gain from each other and much to gain from each other particularly through the principles of democracy.

2. Has the Prime Minister seen the Government's own figures, which show that 90 per cent. of prisoners have some form of mental health illness, and that more than 5,000 prisoners have a severe mental illness? Does he believe that prison is the right place to keep, treat and rehabilitate people with a mental health illness? [49475]

I think that they have to be treated in the right way for them. They also have to be treated in a way that is conducive to public safety. The hon. Gentleman is entirely right in saying that many prisoners have severe mental health problems. Many prisoners have a series of problems to do with upbringing, drug abuse and so on. I hope he understands that there would be an immediate reaction the other way if we were releasing people from prison with severe mental health problems who could cause damage in the community.

The point that the hon. Gentleman is making is absolutely right and we are acting upon it, to increase the help and support that we give to prisoners with mental health problems.

Would my right hon. Friend be interested to learn that councillors on Conservative-controlled Swindon borough council backed on-the-spot fines and antisocial behaviour orders recently? Does he agree that the measures in the respect action plan will improve the lives of hard-working Swindon families, and that it would be far better for the country if the Tories stopped saying one thing when in power and another in opposition?

That is absolutely right, of course. I have to say in all fairness to the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) that although he was opposing the measures as a gimmick in the morning, by the evening he was supporting them.

3. We do need to build new affordable housing to keep communities together, but does the Prime Minister accept that we have to have the infrastructure to support that housing first? Is he aware that in Fleet, where the Deputy Prime Minister has just imposed an extra 300 new houses, the schools are full, the primary care trust is in deficit and water levels are dangerously low? [49476]

I agree entirely that it is important that we have the infrastructure spending that goes along with any increase in housing. That is precisely the reason for the large investment in our public services, both in health and education and elsewhere. Obviously I do not know the particular situation in Fleet but I am happy to write to the right hon. Gentleman about it.

4. Why is it that so many influential people outside the House think that knighthoods and peerages can be bought by sponsoring city academies? Is it because six sponsors have been honoured so far? What about independent trust schools that are seeking partners in the private sector? What is in it for Tesco, B & Q, Burger King and Virgin Mobile? [49477]

If my hon. Friend went and looked at the city academies, he would see that many schools that used to be hugely under-subscribed are now over-subscribed. He would see the children receiving a first-class education and the possibility and potential that they have as a result, so I hope that perhaps he would take a different view of city academies and their sponsors.

The London borough of Havering has just received a comprehensive performance assessment of one star, despite receiving four, three and two stars for a range of services. Does the Prime Minister agree that giving a comprehensive performance assessment in accordance with the lowest score is not only unfair but does nothing to encourage local authorities to aspire to providing better services?

I plainly do not know the reasons for that, so I will get in touch with the hon. Lady to give them to her. Obviously, the rating is made across the whole range of services, but I cannot comment on the individual case.

5. My right hon. Friend will be aware that this month is the 100th anniversary of the foundation of the parliamentary Labour party. [Hon. Members: "Hurray."] The Labour pioneers who sat on these Benches dreamed of ending poverty and unemployment, clearing slum housing and providing decent health care and education for everyone, regardless of their income. One hundred years from now, what does my right hon. Friend believe our lasting achievements will be? [49478]

I hope, at the moment, the increase in the number of people in work and, obviously, the huge investment in public services and the reduction in pensioner and child poverty. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the 100-year centenary, and I hope those original 29 founders would be very happy to have a third-term Labour Government in place today. There were three great things on which they campaigned 100 years ago—first, the minimum wage, which we have delivered; secondly, home rule, which we have delivered; and, thirdly, prohibition, which we have not.

6. Given the confirmation of continuing illegality, criminality, spying, racketeering and so on practised and sanctioned at the highest level by senior members of Sinn Fein-IRA, does the Prime Minister—I note that he is shaking his head, but it is in the report by the Independent Monitoring Commission, if he would read it instead of spinning it—not agree with his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, who said that if [49479] "organisations are not committed to a peaceful process and to democratic work, they should not be entitled to" parliamentary "allowances"?—[Official Report, 26 January 2006; Vol. 441, c. 1528.] That is especially the case when they do not come to the House and they do not do any work.

I do not agree that I am unbalanced about the report. It is absolutely correct to draw attention to criminal activity, and we have made it clear that that is a significant problem. However, the IMC report also says:

"We are of the firm view that the present PIRA leadership has taken the strategic decision to end the armed campaign and pursue the political course which it has publicly articulated."

If one is being fair and balanced, both things have to be put into the equation. The report goes on specifically to recommend the lifting of the financial sanctions that were imposed on Sinn Fein in March 2005, after a previous IMC report. The present report says that it is right to lift them, which is why we are acting as we are.

7. May I ask my right hon. Friend to join me in celebrating the election to the House of Mr. John T. Macpherson, the first Labour MP for Preston, who, along with 28 others, set out a radical agenda for change in the 20th century? If those 29 MPs could be here today to see this radical agenda, they would be proud. [49480]

I am sure that they would. My hon. Friend's predecessor had to wait rather a long time to see, from another place, a third-term Labour Government, but now that we have one, let us make him really proud and have a fourth-term one.

8. Is the Prime Minister aware that the primary care trust proposes to close the mental health wards at Westmorland general hospital in Kendal in my constituency? Given that his Government have indeed put additional funding into the national health service, will he explain to my constituents why they are facing cuts in mental services in our area, and will he act swiftly to prevent those cuts from taking place? [49481]

Again, I would have to know the reasons for the proposals. It is a matter for those in charge of the local health care system. The hon. Gentleman rightly drew attention to the fact that there has been a massive increase in spending. How that money is spent, however, must be a local decision. Again, in respect of the particular situation regarding mental health services in his constituency, I will have to write to him, but I am sure there are reasons why the proposals are being put forward.

What does my right hon. Friend say to hon. Members who are happy to accept the protection of an ID card here in the Palace of Westminster, but are prepared to deny that protection to people outside?

I hope that the Opposition and others will think again about the identity card. It is extremely important. As I have constantly said, we have the biometric technology. In any event, because of changes happening not just in this country but around the world, we have moved to biometric visas and biometric passports. With the new technology, therefore, and with the huge level of identity abuse in both the private and the public sector, it makes perfect sense to move towards identity cards. I have no doubt that in the end that is where the United Kingdom will go.

9. The Prime Minister opened his responses today, as he does each week, with the words, [49482] "In addition to my duties in the House, I will have further such meetings later today." Will he list his duties in the House and say whether, by any chance, they include voting?

Periodically is the answer to that. Since I know that accountability to Parliament is a hot Conservative topic now, I am sure the right hon. and learned Gentleman will have caught up with the fact that I am the first Prime Minister to appear in front of the Liaison Committee, and that if anyone looks at the number of statements I have made and the number of hours I have spent answering Prime Minister's questions, that compares extremely well with all my predecessors.

10. Is it time for the more hysterical critics of the Licensing Act 2003 to eat humble pie? [49483]

Perhaps I should touch wood at this point. It is important to emphasise that the Act was not just about greater flexibility in licensing. Additional powers were given to the police and local communities to make sure that those who abuse the licensing system are more severely dealt with—fixed penalty notices, for example, for people who are drunk and disorderly, and the power that the police now have to close pubs or clubs where there are regular disturbances or fighting. Flexible licensing, balanced by those additional powers, was and has been shown to be the right thing to do.

Both the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly have said that they will not make ID cards a condition of delivering public services. If the Prime Minister pushes forward with his ID card scheme, is he not in danger of creating a two-tier Britain, where some citizens of these isles will not be required to carry an ID card and some citizens of England will?

Precisely because we think it sensible for access to public services, we want the provisions to remain. The ability to check people's identity properly is of benefit to the user, never mind to the Government or state. I say to the hon. Gentleman and other Conservative Members that most people carry forms of identity in our society today. It is not a great deal to ask people to do, when the benefits of it are so very clear.

11. In his speech in Oxford last week, the Prime Minister pledged to continue the economic reform agenda in Europe. Given that Italy, France and Spain have achieved only three of the quantifiable benchmarks set at Lisbon, which is half of what we have achieved in the United Kingdom, what further steps does he propose to take to encourage our European Union colleagues to ensure that the vision set out at Lisbon to create the most dynamic economy in the world will be realised? [49484]

The most important thing will arise in connection with the summit in March, which will be devoted particularly to the Lisbon agenda and to economic liberalisation, but there are two important issues before the European Parliament. One is to do with the services directive, and I hope we can get early progress on that—within the next few weeks, indeed. The second is in respect of the working time directive, as there is an increasing desire to make sure that we have sufficient flexibility in European labour markets. There will be changes as a result of Lisbon, but my hon. Friend is right—there is a great deal more that we have to do.

12. Whether he plans to meet the Association of School and College Leaders to discuss the education White Paper. [49485]

I will be meeting Dr. John Dunford shortly.

Last month, the Association of School and College Leaders issued this press statement:

"we have had 20 Education Acts in 20 years. We do not need another one in 2006. Heads are fed up with being the guinea pigs in the government's education laboratory".

Is there not a fairly obvious downside to permanent revolution and reform?

Much the same thing was said about specialist schools when they were first introduced, but now more than half of comprehensives are specialist schools and their results are significantly better than those obtained by traditional comprehensives. The Liberal Democrats always oppose any reform, but a combination of investment and reform has delivered the best school results at 11, 16 and 18, which is why, 100 years on, people should keep voting Labour.

Derbyshire county council was the only county council to be classed as excellent in the recent assessment. People throughout Derbyshire welcome the greater assurance given this week on the continuing positive role for local authorities in delivering the excellence agenda in our schools. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that the Bill will be used to make sure that all local authorities are partners in providing excellence for all of our children?

The fact is that many local authorities fulfil that role. What is important is that schools have the freedom to involve external partners and that local authorities concentrate on raising standards in schools. We have come an immense way in the past eight years, and there is no doubt about the improvement in schools—in particular, the number of failing schools has been more than halved in the past few years. However, Labour Members will not rest while children still do not get the education that they need, which is why the programme of improvement through investment and reform will continue.