The Secretary of State was asked—
We are committed to maintaining the highest possible standards of cleanliness in Northern Ireland’s hospitals. A regional strategy, underpinned by rigorous independent monitoring, was launched in October 2005.
I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. May I draw his attention to the result of the inquest yesterday into the death of Mr. Brendan McDowell, who died after acquiring an infection in hospital? What is my hon. Friend doing to ensure that such a tragic event does not happen again?
As my hon. Friend has raised that issue, I am sure that the whole House will wish to join me in sending our sympathies to the family of Mr. McDowell, particularly his widow. We should pay particular heed to what she said yesterday after the inquest:
“They need to listen to the patient. They need to listen to their family. They need to put more hygiene practices into the wards.”
Of course, she is right. She and, indeed, all the people of Northern Ireland can be sure that we will not rest on the matter. We will pursue the Northern Ireland action plan for cleaner hospitals as well as the action plan on tackling health-care-acquired infections. We will take rigorous action to pursue the need for ever cleaner hospitals in Northern Ireland.
Mr. McDowell’s widow has been in contact with the office of my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Mrs. Robinson). Will the Minister advise us what checks have been conducted to ensure that hospital staff comply with barrier nursing and other protocols to reduce the spread of infection? In particular, are any such checks carried out without informing staff in advance?
Each trust has a responsibility to put in place an action plan to reduce infections, and it is for it to make sure that it monitors performance. In addition, there is mandatory surveillance for MRSA and other infections. People admitted to hospital are vulnerable, and of course there are infections, but we must make sure that one does not impact on the other. Every health trust has a responsibility, and the Department will continue to monitor that impact closely.
Given the sharp increase in cases of Clostridium difficile in Northern Ireland, and given that deaths from MRSA have risen fourfold in the past four years alone, is it not time that the Government gave infection-control staff the power to override managers and insist on closing wards and isolating patients when clinically necessary, even if that means breaching Government targets?
The hon. Gentleman has a long history of raising those issues. Although he presents a long-term picture he, like me, will be encouraged by the fact that MRSA infections in our hospitals show signs of decreasing as a result of the rigorous enforcement of strategies that have been put in place. If it is clinically necessary to close a ward, we will do so. It is important, however, to prevent infections in the first place, particularly through the ward sisters charter that I launched a few weeks ago, in which we make it quite clear that the ward sister is in charge. Whether someone is a consultant or a cleaner, a patient or a visitor, they have a responsibility to make sure that the hospital is kept as clean as possible.
Pledge of Office
The Northern Ireland (St Andrews Agreement) Bill, which was debated in the House last night, incorporates four new commitments within the pledge of office.
Given that the new pledge of office does not include a specific or explicit requirement for a commitment to non-violence and exclusively peaceful and democratic means, will the Secretary of State assure the House that, in the event that Stormont is restored and a Minister or his political party is in any way connected with violence or criminal activity, that behaviour in itself will constitute a breach of the pledge of office and he will take action?
There are procedures under legislation dating from the Northern Ireland Act 1998 on the Good Friday agreement for exactly that eventuality. Of course, as I have said before, I think, to the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), I would take action, as would any Secretary of State in those circumstances. We should not underestimate the importance of the change in the pledge of office which, for the first time, includes specific commitments to support policing and the rule of law, as detailed in paragraph 6 of the St. Andrews agreement, reference to which appears in the title of the Bill.
In the Secretary of State’s opinion, would it be a breach of the commitment in the new pledge of office to uphold the rule of law, including support for the courts, if a Minister were deemed to have misled a court, if a senior civil servant were deemed to have misled a court in an affidavit seen and approved by a Minister, or if a Minister misrepresented a court when it clearly found against him on a key matter?
I have no idea what the hon. Gentleman is referring to, but if he is talking about a situation in which devolution takes place, of course all Ministers, including that Minister and their ministerial team, must abide by such conditions. It is important, if we are to make devolution work, to prepare for government through the Programme for Government Committee. What will happen on Friday is absolutely key; if it falls over on Friday, there are no prospects of moving forward. People need to understand that; that was part of St. Andrews. That is where we should focus—on the big picture, as I hope the hon. Gentleman will do.
As the right hon. Gentleman will know, because he was party to the St. Andrews agreement—he was present at it and played a constructive role—24 November, this Friday, was always part of the process of moving forward in that an intention needed to be indicated as regards who would be nominated by the two largest parties to be First Minister and Deputy First Minister on 26 March, when restoration occurs. If that does not happen—if the parties, including the Democratic Unionist party, are not even in a position to indicate an intention to nominate on 26 March—people will say, “What is the point of going on at all? Where is the confidence in the system and what is the prospect of success?”
Tomorrow I will make a direction to the Stormont Speaker for the parties to convene under her in Stormont at 10.30 am on Friday for that process to go forward. If people do not turn up and give that indication, we will all draw our conclusions, which will be very bleak indeed, as there would not seem to be a lot of point in proceeding with the rest of the process. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that, as the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) said yesterday, the legislation that went through yesterday, which is going through the House of Lords today, probably contains 90 per cent. of what his party—the DUP—wants.
I am happy to clarify that for the hon. Gentleman, particularly given his key position as Chairman of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. It was always the case that nobody will be taking ministerial office on Friday. Ministerial office is taken on 26 March when the pledge is taken. On Friday, it is an absolutely key and indispensable part of the St. Andrews process—let the House be in no doubt about that—that the parties make an indication to nominate for 26 March, when the pledge will be taken. Everybody knows that when they give that indication on Friday, they accept the process whereby they will be taking the pledge when they assume full ministerial office, because it will be the law of the land, assuming that the legislation receives Royal Assent. That is what should proceed on Friday; if it does not, I do not think that people will have any confidence at all in the rest of the process.
(Aylesbury) (Con): Does the Secretary of State agree that a verbal pledge to support policing has to be matched by practical action to support policing, particularly by a readiness on the part of republicans to give information and evidence to the police, the courts and the Assets Recovery Agency to ensure that criminals can be brought to justice?
I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman, who puts it extremely fairly and accurately. However, let me reiterate a point that I made in passing last night. If inflammatory statements are made by DUP Members about never devolving policing and justice “in my political lifetime”, that is hardly an encouragement to Sinn Fein to move as quickly as we all want it to move on policing. It is already co-operating on policing, as it needs to do and as any democratic party holding ministerial office needs to do. If it is a question of moving the process forward, making statements such as “never in my lifetime” when Parliament has expressly legislated for the devolution of policing and justice is hardly an encouragement to those who need to fulfil their obligations on policing and the rule of law to do so very quickly.
The UK Parliament retains authority to legislate on any issue, whether devolved or not. However, the Government would not normally bring forward legislation with regard to devolved matters except with the agreement of the Northern Ireland Assembly.
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for pointing out British sovereignty in Northern Ireland and the convention that would be followed. Will he confirm that the Irish language is a devolved matter and that there is no prospect of the Government introducing legislation before the date that he set for devolution? Will he also indicate that the Government have no intention of breaching the convention if there were a devolved Parliament, which would therefore decide the matter, and that, if the Government were to legislate, they could do that only with the Assembly’s agreement?
I am happy to confirm that it is a devolved matter, provided that there is something to which to devolve it and that there is an Assembly up and running from 26 March. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we will shortly announce a consultation paper, which will explore several options on a way forward. That consultation will last three months and we will have to see where we go from there. There is no slot in the Queen’s Speech for rushing through emergency legislation before 26 March. Assuming that restoration happens—as I hope that it will—on 26 March, of course it remains the case that, although Parliament is sovereign, we would not legislate on a devolved matter, except with the Assembly’s acceptance and agreement.
It is clear that the Government are deadline-led while the DUP is condition-led on devolution. Although I believe that setting conditions is reasonable, does not the Secretary of State agree that, for the DUP’s position to remain credible, it must be specific about the exact conditions and how they can be fulfilled? Is not it the case that, unless it does that, it fails the same test as it set Sinn Fein and the Government?
I well understand the hon. Gentleman’s point and I sympathise with it. We are at a difficult moment in the process. The Unionist community is not sure what Sinn Fein will do about policing—that is a serious problem for all of us—although the House made it clear yesterday where it wants to go through the pledge of office, which is explicit in the Bill that we considered and a change from the Good Friday agreement.
On the other hand, nationalists and republicans are not sure whether their goal of devolution of policing and justice, for which the House legislated earlier this year, will be realised in their political lifetimes. When people make such statements, it leads to a lack of confidence rather than encouraging confidence. If we go back to the same old position of, “I’m not going to move until you move; I won’t jump until you jump”, people may fall off the edge of the cliff.
In getting to a devolved Assembly, does the Secretary of State accept that asking parties to designate, nominate or indicate on Friday who will take up specific offices in future is effectively asking people to jump first before Sinn Fein has made the slightest move to support policing? Indeed, it has retreated to its pre-St. Andrews position of demanding that it gets its hands on the levers of power over policing before it supports policing. The SDLP and other nationalists never demanded that. Will the Secretary of State clarify that there can be no jumping first and that this party will not repeat the mistakes of David Trimble and his party?
I am not asking the DUP to repeat anything that it might describe as a mistake. It is not a question of jumping first. I am in danger of repeating myself, but if there is no willingness to express even an intention to nominate on Friday for 26 March, what is the point of proceeding, given the Bill that went through the Commons last night? It is not a question of jumping first. It is my firm view that, unless we breathe a bit of confidence into the process—an indispensable step of it happens on Friday, and consequences will ensue if things do not happen then—we will not achieve the common goal that the hon. Gentleman and I share, for which I legislated in the Bill, at the request of his party, the SDLP and the House by providing for an explicit commitment to support for policing and the rule of law.
Domestic Rates (Revaluation)
Representations to the Government on the domestic rating reforms in the past 12 months have included responses to a consultation on the draft Rates (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 2006, as well as other more targeted consultations on individual aspects of the reforms. In addition, the Government have met political parties, Government agencies, local government, representatives of the community and voluntary sector, and other stakeholders to discuss the reforms.
If I may say so, I will not take lessons on unfair taxes from a member of the party that introduced the poll tax. What I will say to the hon. Gentleman is that the British Government are looking to the Lyons report in respect of England and Wales and alternative forms to the current council tax. Sir Michael Lyons will publish a report in due course and my right hon. and hon. Friends will consider it. One thing that we will not do is reintroduce the poll tax.
With reference to the water and sewerage services order, does the Minister agree that the judgment of Justice Weatherop yesterday in Belfast did not warrant the Government’s jubilant press release, as the Regional Development Department was found wanting in the consultative process—so much so that the court attached a judicial declaration to the legislation for Parliament to consider? Is that not a unique situation? Will the Minister now properly and adequately consult major stakeholders? As the political imperative of Friday 24 November was cited in the case and is now effectively departed, will he postpone consideration of the legislation next Tuesday?
The Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde (David Cairns), is dealing with the matter of water charges. Yesterday in court, there were 16 counts for the Government to consider and the judge rejected 15 of them. The Government are looking at the 16th count, but will continue to lay the order next week. We will proceed to introduce water charges because a significant revenue element needs to be brought forward. As finance Minister, I need to secure it in order to improve services in Northern Ireland. We will continue with the process and examine the legislation in the light of yesterday’s judgment.
That is gracious of you; thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Will the Minister kindly confirm and clarify the doubt that has arisen because of the slippage of the 24 November deadline that there will be a cap on rates and additional relief for pensioners in Northern Ireland?
We have considered strongly in the light of representations made at the same time as the agreement the points made by hon. Members throughout the House. We have set a cap at £500,000 and we have said that we will consult on additional measures to help pensioners, but I must emphasise that they are part of the St. Andrews agreement. If we do not secure agreement on those matters on Friday, I will have to reflect seriously on what I do about the rates order and other proposed changes, which were conditional on that agreement.
The Minister said that he was
“anxious to ensure that no-one in Northern Ireland suffers undue hardship as they adjust to this new rating system”.
Will he now confirm and make it abundantly clear that, if we do not have devolution on 26 March, the Government will still keep the rate cap as in England and that, indeed, he will provide extra relief for pensioners in Northern Ireland?
I have said that issues about rate cap and pensioners arose as a result of representations from parties during the St. Andrews agreement. In the event of no agreement taking place, I will have to reconsider whether we wish to progress down those lines with regard to the cap and help for pensioners. We introduced those proposals because of the St. Andrews agreement; if there is no agreement, I will have to reconsider what I do in the light of that action.
The Secretary of State and his ministerial team have often, and quite rightly, said that decisions about the future of Northern Ireland should be taken by local politicians from the Province. Indeed, they asserted just as much yesterday. Given that the DUP, the UUP and the SDLP voted against the draft Rates (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 2006 in Committee on 25 October, how can its introduction be justified against such local opposition?
The hon. Gentleman will know that we have been consulting on the matter, as the direct rule team, from the start of 2002, when the Assembly brought forward proposals to introduce changes. All parties in Northern Ireland are committed to changing the current system. They have differences about how we do that but, in the absence of devolution, we have a duty to look after the good government of Northern Ireland. We shall progress the order on that basis.
Under fair employment legislation, public sector employers must ensure that their recruitment processes demonstrate equality of opportunity. Specified public authorities are deemed to be registered with the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland and must monitor and review their employment practices and, as appropriate, take affirmative action. The commission will advise employers on their duties.
We have the most stringent equality legislation in the United Kingdom. Yet despite that, the most recent figures in Northern Ireland show that Protestants make up only 34 per cent. of recruits to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, only 46 per cent. of the general service grades in the civil service in Northern Ireland, and less than 50 per cent. of employees in the Child Support Agency. What will the Minister and the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland do to offer genuine equality of opportunity to our community in the public sector in Northern Ireland?
I accept that there are disparities in employment in certain areas. Too few members of the Catholic community are represented at senior level and there are difficulties in recruiting members of the Protestant community to posts at junior levels. We need to remedy both problems. Catholic representation at senior levels has improved steadily, but we are commissioning research to identify the underlying reasons for low levels of applications from members of the Protestant community for junior grades. I understand that the point is serious, and the figures that I have given the hon. Gentleman in parliamentary answers indicate that. We need to examine the underlying causes and improve the situation, to ensure that we have fair treatment of people from all sides of the community.
May I ask the Minister, in the light of his comments, what steps he has taken to ensure equality, fairness and openness in opportunities for promotion in the senior civil service, and to ensure the recruitment of Irish nationals to the civil service on a fair and equitable basis?
We are trying to ensure equality of opportunity for people and equality of outcome if we can. We need to ensure that we improve Catholic representation at the senior levels and that more people from the Protestant community apply for positions at junior levels. On Irish nationals, my hon. Friend will know that we are considering regulations to ensure that all citizens from the European Union have an opportunity to apply for posts in the civil service in Northern Ireland.
The draft Rates (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 2006 was made by the Privy Council on 14 November. It will come into operation on 1 April next year.
If the hon. Gentleman does his homework, he will find that the situation has changed, because of the cap that we have introduced as a result of the St. Andrews agreement, which I hope he will support. Before he starts telling me, my Government and my party about fairness in local government, he should remember that it was his party that introduced the poll tax. That is what we remember about local government finance. The system that we propose is fairer than the current system and fairer than the poll tax, which his party supported.
Since 2001, the number of clinical psychologists working in health and social service trusts has increased from 98 to 150. My Department currently funds 11 training places each year.
I thank the Minister for his response, and for a number of positive decisions that he has taken to improve the lot of the NHS in Northern Ireland. Is he aware that the professional body for psychologists has recommended that a senior clinical psychologist should be responsible for a population of approximately 30,000 people, and yet in Northern Ireland a psychologist will cover an area containing 100,000? Does he agree that the provision of talking therapies often proves much more effective than medication? What progress is being made in ensuring that such talking therapies are more widely available in our Province?
The hon. Lady is correct that various improvements are being made to the health service in Northern Ireland, not least in this area. She is right, too, to point to the role of counselling services in providing support to people. The Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle), recently announced a new £1.7 million scheme to provide more counselling support to young people in Northern Ireland, and I hope that the hon. Lady will welcome that.
The Prime Minister was asked—
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the humanitarian crisis in Darfur continues to be of great concern? Does he also concur that the agreement brokered by the UN in Addis Ababa last Friday is the positive way forward, and that we must do all that we can to ensure that the Government of Sudan abides by that agreement?
First, as my hon. Friend rightly says, the agreement of 17 November last week is obviously the right way forward for Sudan. It would involve a cessation of violence, but, most importantly, the force of the African Union and the United Nations coming into Sudan. It is important that we keep up the pressure on the Government of Sudan, and I pay tribute to the work of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development, who has done a superb job. We will need to keep up the pressure on the Sudanese Government, and I will have an opportunity to speak to President Bashir later today. This is a very serious situation, and it has been so for some time. We have the prospect of a way forward, but we need to take it.
The Prime Minister has recently seen for himself the incredibly brave work that our troops are doing in Afghanistan. Anyone who has visited Helmand is struck immediately by the vital role played by helicopters. Is he convinced that all our NATO partners are doing everything that they can to maximise the number of helicopters in Afghanistan? Will he push that point as hard as he can at the NATO summit at Riga next week?
We certainly will do so in relation to any of the issues that our forces on the ground raise with us. As the right hon. Gentleman rightly says, our work in Helmand is of tremendous importance. I found that both our troops in Helmand province and those who are working on reconstruction were in very good heart at the prospects of success in what they are doing. It is true that at next week’s NATO summit, we must make sure that not just the United Kingdom but all our NATO partners are doing their utmost to stabilise the situation in Afghanistan and to give that Government the prospect of success that they and the Afghan people deserve.
I agree with what the Prime Minister says about the morale of our troops. It is also incredibly welcome that 37 NATO countries are represented in Afghanistan. But does he agree that far too many restrictions—the so-called national caveats—are still imposed on how those troops can operate? Will he press at Riga to have those caveats reduced, so that NATO is not fighting with one arm tied behind its back?
We raise the issue of the caveats the entire time, but several countries, for reasons related to their own politics, are reluctant to remove them. We will say to those countries, however, that even if they retain some caveats on the deployment of their forces, particularly in a fighting situation, much more could be done none the less to support reconstruction and development, for example. The truth is that British troops are doing a fantastic job, and as I saw myself the other day, they have troops of other countries working alongside them. In particular, the Americans and Canadians, who, sadly, have also lost troops in defence of the Afghan mission, are working extremely well with our forces. However, it is important for NATO to recognise that not just the security of our world and the prospects for Afghanistan, but its own credibility, rests on our doing everything we can to help the people of Afghanistan in their search away from the Taliban and in favour of democracy.
May I turn to the issue raised by the hon. Member for City of Chester (Christine Russell)? In Darfur more than 200,000 people have been murdered, while probably more than 2 million have been driven out of their homes and are living in refugee camps. Anyone who goes to listen to their stories cannot fail to be horrified by what they see and hear. Is the Prime Minister aware that while six months ago all of Darfur was open to the aid agencies, today large parts of the area cannot be accessed? What will the Government do to ensure that aid can reach the people who need it?
The only solution is to ensure that the agreement brokered last week in Addis Ababa is implemented. What that involves, essentially, is a United Nations-African Union force of far greater numbers—some 17,300 troops, I believe, and 3,000 police; the United Nations giving logistic support; and the Sudanese Government participating not just in the ceasefire, but in re-engaging with the rebel forces. All that must be done.
It is also important for us to look at the prospect of a no-fly zone. That could play a part as well. However, the difficulty that we face is very simple. It is clear that it is not UK or American forces that can carry out this particular mission. That is clear because it is not just our will, but the will of the African countries that are there. The absolute key is to put significantly larger numbers of troops on the ground, backed by the proper logistics and support, and that is what we will be working to achieve.
I welcome the fact that the right hon. Gentleman went to Darfur. He is absolutely right—it is a terrible situation—but the only solution is the one that we have put forward. It is worth emphasising from the outset that the UK, along with the United States and other allies, has been at the forefront of attempts to get the situation resolved.
The Prime Minister mentioned the peacekeeping force. He is absolutely right: unless it is hugely enlarged, the people in the camps simply will not leave to go back to their homes. Will he ensure that in the negotiations—which are vital—the Government do not give ground and that the force is larger, has better logistics, is better equipped and, vitally, has the link to the UN without which it will not be able to do its job properly?
I think that that is important, and that is why what Kofi Annan agreed last week with the Sudanese Government is extremely important. As I have said, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development has been to Sudan some six times, and has been immensely active. We have the outlines of an agreement; the point is to get it implemented. All I can tell the right hon. Gentleman is that we will be working very closely with our allies, particularly the United States, to ensure that that is done.
The Sudanese Government should recognise that if they do not seize this opportunity, it will raised in the United Nations and the pressure will grow for strong measures against them. I urge the African Union nations to get behind the concept of a hybrid force involving the African Union and the United Nations. It is the only prospect that we have of succeeding, and we must seize it now.
Clearly, in the long term neither aid nor enlarging the force in Darfur will do the trick. We need a political solution.
Is the Prime Minister aware that the last town attacked by Sudanese forces, Birmaza, was the place where the ceasefire talks with the rebel groups were to take place? Does he believe that that shows a complete lack of commitment to the peace process by the Sudanese Government? What steps will he take to maximise the pressure on them and ensure that they see no alternative to stopping the killing and no alternative to a fundamental peace agreement in Darfur?
We will do what we have been doing up to now and ensure that we have the broadest possible support and agreement, and not just for the hybrid force. We must also ensure that we get the Sudanese Government to re-engage with the rebel groups that are still fighting. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, some of the rebel groups accepted the Darfur peace plan and some did not. Some are continuing to fight. The problem arises when the Government of Sudan then use the militia to try to defeat the rebel groups. It is not just a question of the African Union force going in; it is also a question of the Sudanese Government calling a ceasefire and then re-engaging with the rebel groups. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that we will do everything we can to make that happen.
We raise this issue on every possible occasion—in the European Union, in the United Nations and in the course of our relations with other African countries. I had a meeting with the vice-president of Sudan just a short time ago, and, as I said earlier, I will be speaking to the President later today. Ultimately the situation must lie there, but I think that it is clear from the work we have done, and from statements by the United States of America, that if the Government of Sudan do not seize this opportunity, we will have to consider tougher measures against them.
My right hon. Friend leads a Government who have a proud record in compensating our miners and their widows and families for the suffering that the boys endured in Britain’s pits. The one area that is not resolved is compensation for surface workers. Some in the Department of Trade and Industry are scheming to prevent surface workers from pursuing their claims. Will my right hon. Friend agree to meet with colleagues and myself to discuss that, so that we can prevent a scar from growing on the reputation of his Government and a shame descending on the Labour Benches, which will happen if we allow this injustice?
As my right hon. Friend implied, we have paid out more than £3 billion in compensation. Literally thousands upon thousands of miners have had compensation that I do not believe they ever would have got except under a Labour Government. However, my right hon. Friend is also right to raise the surface workers issue, and we are looking into that very closely. I can assure him that the DTI will co-operate fully with those running the scheme in order to see what can be done, and I am perfectly happy to meet him on that issue.
Can the Prime Minister also confirm that the House of Commons will be given the opportunity to vote on the options available, not just the principle? On an issue as significant as the future of Trident, should not the whole House of Commons determine Britain’s future?
I am sure that there will be an opportunity to vote on the issue—I know that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is discussing that with the usual channels—and, of course, there should be. However, I suspect that, in the end, this issue will be less about process and more about where we stand on it. I believe that it is important that we maintain the independent nuclear deterrent. I do not know whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman has a position on that, or not.
My hon. Friend is right that trade unions and local government employers have been working hard to reach agreement on this issue. The Government will soon be in a position to consult on the new pension scheme for local government. It will be fully consistent with the agreement that we reached some time ago. The new pension scheme will reward local government workers with the benefits that they deserve, while ensuring that the costs of it are fair to employees, employers and taxpayers. We will certainly abide by the agreement that we entered into. It protects public service pensions, while making sure that for new claimants we move to a different, more sustainable basis for the long term.
Is the Prime Minister aware of the deep concern that is felt in the boroughs of London about yesterday’s announcement by the Culture Secretary on the Olympic levy? Does he understand that the hard-pressed council tax payers of boroughs such as Bexley already have to contend with the drunken-sailor spending attitude of Mayor Livingstone, and that now they will also have to contend with the untrammelled pressure that will come from the Olympic levy? Will the Prime Minister look again at putting a cap on what that levy should be for London?
We have already outlined our proposals for funding the Olympics, but I must say to the hon. Gentleman that I believe that winning the Olympics was fantastic for Britain—not only for London, but for the whole country. I think that this country will benefit enormously from hosting the Olympics in 2012.
My hon. Friend is right in saying that there has been tremendous progress in the past few years. When we came to office, just over 60 per cent. of suspected cancer patients were seen within two weeks; the figure is now almost 100 per cent. That is a big change and thousands of lives are now being saved every year as a result of improvements in cancer treatment. However, my hon. Friend is also right to indicate that we are six years through the 10-year cancer plan—there are another four years to go—and I know that the head of cancer services in the NHS is looking carefully at whether we need to publish an update of that plan. But it is right to say that cancer services, like cardiac care, is an area in which massive improvements have been made as a result of the investment and reform of the past few years.
What we are doing is making a huge investment in Airbus, which has paid off for the taxpayer because Airbus has been a tremendous success story. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right—thousands of people are employed on the Airbus programme doing fantastic work. These are high-skill jobs, and I can assure him that we will continue to be fully committed to the Airbus programme. Indeed, I think that I am right in saying that it has orders for more than 2,000 aircraft, representing some five years work, or more. It is an investment about which we feel very strongly and we will continue to do all that we can to support Airbus.
The Prime Minister may be aware that over the past decade some 14,500 teenagers have been seriously injured at work. Shockingly, 66 of them died. Will he join me in congratulating the Institution of Occupational Safety and Health and the Health and Safety Executive on preparing a workplace hazards course for year 10 pupils, and will he ask the Education Secretary to consider making that course mandatory throughout the curriculum?
I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Education Secretary will listen carefully to what my hon. Friend has just said. The HSE and the IOSH are absolutely right to bring forward a plan that will help to make young people more aware of the potential hazards in the workplace. However, as a result of legislation passed over many years, I am pleased to say that we have an immensely improved record on health and safety in the workplace.
Of course, the consultants in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency and elsewhere should do what is ethical and what is right for their patients. The decisions are taken, obviously, by the local primary care trust and the strategic health authority, but let me point out two things to the hon. Gentleman. As a result of the investment that we have made in the national health service, which he opposed, there are 4,500 more nurses in his strategic health authority and almost 600 more consultants. Let me tell the Conservatives something. They talk about the inequality or inadequacy of the health funding and its disbursement, but their policy is to ensure that
“NHS resource allocation…reflects more accurately the fact that most NHS resources should be given to those areas where the disease burden is highest.”
That is his policy. If we did that, we would have to reduce health service spending in his area. [Interruption.] Yes, I am afraid that he is wrong and I am right, and what is more, as a result of this Government’s policy we have increased investment in his area by more than 30 per cent. That is what a Labour Government do after the Tories years of neglect.
This August, I visited a hostel in Wakefield for women fleeing domestic violence. There, I met a woman who had had to leave her home because of violence from her own son. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need to do more to help people meet the challenges of parenting out-of-control children, whether they are tackling toddler tantrums or teenage tearaways?
I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend says. The announcement yesterday of additional funding and help for parents is an important part of ensuring that people get the help that they need. Where children may be going off the rails and getting into difficulty, it is especially important that parents get the support and intervention to help them. My hon. Friend is right: this is not about telling people how to run their families or interfering with their family life, but about supporting people who are in need. That helps the families and the children, and it also helps communities that face antisocial behaviour from children who are not behaving.
Will the Prime Minister undertake to stay out of the clutches of the Metropolitan police until the end of the week, because we are looking forward enormously to his visit to the Scottish Labour conference on Friday? Is he aware that every time he attacks the SNP, support for Scottish independence soars to new, unprecedented levels? Will he promise to launch another furious assault on us this coming Friday?
Yes, I will and I shall tell the hon. Gentleman why. It is because by ripping Scotland out of the UK we would damage the economy, living standards, health service and education in Scotland. He has no positive proposals for Scotland because the only policy that he has has been rejected twice before and will be rejected a third time.
Has my right hon. Friend found time to read an article by Polly Toynbee in The Guardian yesterday, which said that a proposal by the NHS to move out-patient facilities into a brand- new building, yet to be opened, and to build a brand- new local care hospital in my constituency is being cynically portrayed as a hospital closure by Wandsworth council? Does he agree with the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) that council would do better to take its social policy advice from Polly Toynbee?
Well, Polly Toynbee has not always been fully in accordance with our policy, but my hon. Friend is right to say that those changes are necessary. As for those who go on about the need to tackle poverty in this country, some of us remember when, under the last Conservative Government, child poverty increased year on year and there were 3 million unemployed. As a result of the policies of this Government, we have taken 700,000 children out of poverty and 2.5 million pensioners out of acute hardship, and the new deal has taken 1.6 million people off benefit and into work. Every single bit of that was opposed by the Conservatives.
When the hon. Gentleman talks about the health service contracting overall, it simply is not right to give the example that he gives without putting the other side of the picture, because it is also true that we have funded a £130 million scheme to concentrate all clinical services on one site and provided a new angiography treatment unit, a new GP practice, 5,500 more nurses and almost 800 more consultants in his area. Yes, there will be changes in any health service—there should be changes as the changing pattern of health care demands them. In the past few years, we have increased the number of people working in the health service, cut the waiting times and lists dramatically—[Interruption.] Yes, we have. We have the largest hospital building programme ever under way and the fact is that the hon. Gentleman’s party, having first opposed the extra money for the health service, is now opposing the reform. That is why, whatever campaign he runs, when people look at which party really cares about the health service they will realise that it is the party that invests in it and is prepared to take the difficult challenges seriously to make it fit for the 21st century.
My hon. Friend is right to say that Hackney has undergone huge changes in the past few years. I used to live in Hackney—opposite the Holly street housing estate, which has been changed significantly in the past few years. She is particularly right to draw attention to the success of the city academy programme, of which Mossbourne is a very good example. It is literally transforming educational opportunities for some of the poorest children in one of the poorest boroughs in the country. That is why, again, we must keep the money going in, accompanied by the reform.
Yes, of course I will honour that. All the time, we keep under review what we need in the Helmand province and elsewhere. I absolutely assure the hon. Gentleman that I am conscious of our responsibility to our forces out there, who are doing immensely difficult work in very challenging circumstances. Of course we will listen carefully to any requests that are made to us.
Let me also point out that the work that the forces are doing in that area is quite extraordinary. I met the Governor of Helmand province when I was there, and the work that they are doing not only in fighting the Taliban, but with reconstruction and development, is quite remarkable. There is a paradigm that can help us to succeed in Afghanistan, which is to do with marrying together the elements of security and force with those of reconstruction and development. I assure the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) that in relation to our armed forces and boosting the development effort, we will do whatever is necessary to succeed.
My right hon. Friend may be aware that some madrassahs in Pakistan call themselves religious schools, but are actually centres for training al-Qaeda terrorists. When he meets the President of Pakistan, will he try to persuade him to close down the madrassahs that are funded by al-Qaeda supporters in the middle east?
As my hon. Friend would expect, I raised those issues with both President Musharraf and Prime Minister Aziz. We are doubling our aid to Pakistan in the next few years, and some of that additional money will go precisely to support education, which helps to deal with some of the causes of extremism in some of the madrassahs. Not all madrassahs are as my hon. Friend describes, but it is important that those that are potential breeding grounds for terrorism are dealt with. One of the most hopeful signs that I got from my visit to Pakistan was the sense that it understood that anything that supports extremism there, or the Taliban in Afghanistan, is a strategic threat not just to Afghanistan and the rest of the world, but specifically to Pakistan.
All I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that as far as I understand it, there are actually more police officers—indeed, record numbers of police officers—in Wales. It is partly as a result of that, and the measures that we have introduced, that crime is down. Of course, I know that there will be concerns about any changes that are made, but I have to say to him that if he looks back over the past few years, he will see that not just on crime, but on education and health, there have been tremendous improvements in Wales, and the numbers of people working in those public services are at record levels.
Will my right hon. Friend urge retailers, the stock exchange and those with huge city bonuses to contribute to the Farepak fund, and will he use the new Consumers, Estate Agents and Redress Bill to legislate so that the situation never arises again?
As my hon. Friend will know, the Department of Trade and Industry has launched an investigation to see what lessons can be learned from Farepak’s collapse, and whether we need to change the law to give consumers additional protection. The Government will work very closely with the administrators, the family fund people and all of those who are trying to deal with a very difficult situation, and I totally sympathise with all those people who are caught up in it. We will do our best not merely to mitigate the effects of Farepak’s collapse, but to learn the lessons and ensure that it does not happen again in future.
We are working hard with our other allies to deal with that issue, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman understands that, in the end, the only way that we will deal with it effectively is to make sure that we deal with the root causes of conflict in the middle east—that means Israel and Palestine, and it means Lebanon. It means making sure that, across the middle east, the cause of extremism is put on the back foot. I believe that it is important always to make sure that we realise that the reason why the conflict exists is deep-rooted, and if we want to deal with the situation, we have to pull it up by the roots.