International Development
The Secretary of State was asked—
Nigeria
The Nigerian debt relief deal has released $1 billion a year for the country to spend on reducing poverty. A virtual poverty fund has been established to track the expenditure of these debt relief savings. Some 145,000 teachers have been retrained, and the recruitment of 40,000 new teachers, the construction of clinics and roads, and the creation of bore holes is now under way.
I welcome that, but given the wide range of challenges still faced by the Nigerian Government, such as the fact that 7 million children receive no schooling and one in five dies before the age of five, what assurances has my right hon. Friend been given that the Nigerian Government are using the financial flexibility that debt relief has provided to ensure that the key issues of health and education are tackled head-on?
Britain worked very hard to achieve this debt deal, which the Nigerian Government wanted—indeed, we played a leading role—and I share my hon. Friend’s concern that the benefits should be felt by the people of Nigeria. That is why I welcome the establishment of the virtual poverty fund, which is overseen in part by non-governmental organisations in Nigeria. They recognise the progress that the Nigerian Government are making, but my hon. Friend is right—Nigeria is home to 20 per cent. of the children in Africa who are out of school, and 20 per cent. of the poor people of the sub-Saharan continent of Africa. There is a long, long way to go before their lives begin to change for the better.
Given our support for debt relief and our positive development aid for Nigeria—I greatly welcome that, and I congratulate the Secretary of State on all he is doing—will he bring his influence to bear to ensure that next year’s presidential elections are not cancelled by the existing President, as is being threatened, and that they do take place, so that good governance and welfare support for the people of Nigeria can continue?
I am very happy to give that assurance. We are already providing some financial support to help civil society organisations prepare for the elections, monitor registration, encourage greater participation by women and provide technical assistance. This is a very important test of the very young democracy in Nigeria. Will the elections be perfect? I doubt it, but they need to take place because they will, in themselves, represent progress, and the huge population of Nigeria want the chance to express a view on how they will be governed in future. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is very important that those elections take place.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the work that the Department for International Development is doing in Nigeria. My all-party group has recently returned from a visit to a village just outside Abuja, where school roofs are being re-done. DFID is supplying equipment for those schools and I congratulate him on that, but can he use his offices to put some pressure on the elected representatives of such areas, so that they realise that they have to become accountable to the people whom they represent?
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for sending me a letter about that visit, and I look forward to meeting him and those of his colleagues who travelled with him to Nigeria to hear at first hand about their experiences. I also pay tribute to the interest that he takes in Nigeria and its future. It is very important that we do that, which is why our work in the south of the country—in the delta states—includes a programme that we launched this year to support better Government accountability. The delta states get higher income per head in recognition of their oil wealth, but the really big issue in Nigeria is indeed the one that my hon. Friend draws the House’s attention to: accountability. That is why the elections matter and why enabling people to have their voice heard matters. That is the best way for the country to resolve its problems, to get more children into school and to reduce the number who die needlessly.
The Opposition remain supportive of the Paris Club’s deal on reducing debt. While in Nigeria, I was encouraged by the additional investment being made, as other Members have said, in public services as a result of the extra resources that are available. However, this progress is predicated on the continuance of democratic institutions and, most immediately, on next year’s elections. DFID currently funds voter registration, but with minimal tangible success. Just 2 million out of 70 million possible electors have been registered, thereby jeopardising the elections. What is DFID’s strategy to put pressure on the Nigerian Government to ensure that these elections take place, and to increase the amount of domestic legislation and the level of public procurement and fiscal transparency initiated by the Nigerian Government, in order to ensure the confidence not just of the international community, but more importantly, of the Nigerian people themselves?
I recognise the scale of the challenge to ensure that the elections take place successfully and that people have the chance to participate in them. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government will continue to encourage the Nigerian Government to make sure that everyone has that chance. His second point is also important, as it is about good governance. Fighting corruption and improving financial management are essential to Nigeria making progress. That is why we have supported the extractive industries transparency initiative, and I welcome the fact that one state governor is currently on trial. In the Dariye case, the High Court yesterday ruled that £1 million of assets that were in London can now be returned to Nigeria. That shows what needs to happen: if money is stolen, we must play our part in returning it to the people from whom it was thieved in the first place. Nigeria can contribute by impeaching governors accused of corruption on a case-by-case basis. I can see no reason why anyone who holds public office in Nigeria should be exempt from prosecution if there are grounds to think that that person has broken the law. That has been discussed in Nigeria’s constitutional commission. Although no progress has yet been made, I very much hope that it will.
Somalia
My Department provided £18.75 million of assistance to Somalia in 2005-06. More than 80 per cent. of that was humanitarian assistance in response to the drought in the region and other needs. The remainder went on education, health and promoting improved governance and the rule of law—all things that Somalia desperately needs.
I thank my right hon. Friend for that response, and for the money that the Government are investing in Somalia. My constituency of Brent has nearly 20,000 Somalian people, one of the highest concentrations of that community in the country. All are concerned about imminent war, and wonder what this Government will do to try to help progress the peace process.
We are encouraging the transitional institutions, to which we are providing modest support, and the Islamic courts to talk about the country’s future and not to return to violence. In effect, Somalia has been destroyed by 15 years of conflict. One consequence of the failure of governance is that 80 per cent. of children there have never seen the inside of a primary school classroom. Discussions are taking place in the UN Security Council about whether a support and training mission for the transitional institutions should be set up. The states belonging to the intergovernmental authority on development have made proposals for a peace and support operation, but the central message that all parties in Somalia need to hear from the rest of the world is that the only way forward is to sit down and talk through the problems. The route to disaster would be to return to the violence that has destroyed Somalia.
The Secretary of State referred to the US draft resolution that would give the intergovernmental authority on development in Somalia the power to bring in peacekeeping troops, and which includes a partial lifting of the arms embargo. The Arab League is facilitating the peace talks but is concerned that the resolution could spark an expansion of serious civil war in Somalia and lead to a broader regional conflict. Will he do what he can to ensure that the focus is on making the peace talks effective and that military force is used to support a ceasefire instead of creating further conflict?
I agree completely. The situation is very delicate and volatile. The hon. Lady has set out precisely the matters that the UN Security Council will take into account when considering the US resolution. As IGAD itself has said, it is very important that front-line states are not involved in support and training missions. We support the transitional institutions, and it is right to help them build their capacity. However, that needs to be done in a way that does not lead to the consequences that she has described, as that would be a disaster. When she gets an opportunity to read the resolution, she will see that it lays a heavy emphasis on the peace negotiations that have been taking place in Khartoum. As I said earlier, the peace process is the only way forward for Somalia.
Given the instability in Somalia, how sure is my right hon. Friend that the excellent assistance that we are giving is getting to the people for whom it is intended? Are there differences in how assistance is distributed in the area around Berbera, for instance, as compared with Baidoa? Is not the north of the country rather more stable?
Precisely because there has been no functioning Government in Somalia for a long period, almost all the assistance we give goes through tried and trusted partners, in particular UN agencies and non-governmental organisations. We have provided assistance for drought relief, and I saw some of that work myself when I went to Wajid in Somalia, and to Baidoa, in May, where very brave people are being very creative, in very dangerous circumstances, in delivering aid to people. The fact that there was no great death toll after that terrible drought is entirely down to the effort of UN agencies and their heroic staff. We are currently providing support because it started to rain in large amountsand there has been flooding, in particular aroundBelet Weyne. In the middle of last month, we provided £2 million. We are also working in partnership with UNICEF. As I pointed out earlier, most children in Somalia have never had the chance to go to school, so we have a £6 million education partnership with UNICEF and UNESCO to try to enable some of the children in that country to have the best start in life, which is to get into a classroom with a teacher.
Cheap Medicines
We are providing more finance to help countries get the medicines they need, to help leverage lower prices and to increase the range of medicines available. We back research into neglected diseases, and we support new and innovative ways of improving the supply of cheaper drugs and vaccinations through, for example, UNITAID—the joint UN programme on HIV/AIDS—advanced market commitments and the international finance facility for immunisation.
What does the Minister say to the recent Oxfam report which asserts that a number of drug companies and certain Governments are blocking poorer countries’ access to affordable and much needed medicines, and that the Doha declaration of November 2001 is simply being ignored? As the Minister knows, the “Stop AIDS” campaign coalition of non-governmental organisations wants the UK Government to champion the issue at next year’s G8 summit. Will they?
Let me make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that we do not support attempts to go beyond the TRIPS—trade-related intellectual property rights—deal that was negotiated last year. We are clear about that and, in particular, we want American drug companies to desist from advocating such attempts. We think that there are many positive moves to implement the flexibilities agreed under TRIPS—the recent decision by the Thai Government, for example, is particularly interesting. The Brazilian Government, too, have used flexibilities under the TRIPS deal to negotiate lower prices, but we certainly do not support any attempt to go beyond that deal.
I am sure that my hon. Friend is well aware that tuberculosis is still rife in poor countries and that new strains are making the disease more serious. New drugs are being developed, but will he ensure that they are available to poor countries through our DFID programmes?
My hon. Friend is right to highlight the emergence of worrying strains of extreme drug-resistant TB. As a result, we were asked to provide further funding to help the World Health Organisation “Stop TB” programme to carry out more research intonew drugs, and we have recently provided a further£1.6 million, bringing our total support for the WHO programme to about £7 million. I share my hon. Friend’s view that new drugs need to be developed urgently to help combat extreme drug-resistant TB and that we need significant improvement in the management of TB control programmes, because poor management of them contributes to TB strains being untreatable.
Will the Minister accept that we need not only to reduce the price of drugs for all AIDS victims but to target marginalised groups, such as sex workers, men who have sex with men, injecting drug users and prisoners, to ensure that they have access to programmes that will help them to stop being the drivers of the epidemic? Only in that way will we reverse and eliminate the rising scourge of AIDS.
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. We not only need to get the price of drugs down; a series of other measures are needed to make drugs better available to all who need them. He is right to say that there must be an increased focus on marginalised groups, such as men who have sex with men, injecting drug users and people in prison.
Does the Minister agree that access to cheaper reproductive health commodities is also vital to reduce morbidity and mortality, particularly in Africa, where 500,000 women die every year from preventable causes related to pregnancy and childbirth?
I agree with my hon. Friend. She is absolutely right to say that there is a considerable shortage of sexual and reproductive health commodities in developing countries, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa. That is one of the reasons why we work as closely as we do with the United Nations Population Fund and with the International Planned Parenthood Federation. The UNFPA is leading a process to discover what more we can do to increase the supply of reproductive health commodities. We are co-operating extremely closely in that work.
The Secretary of State and his Minister know that many developing countries are still imposing tariffs and taxes on the importation of life-saving medicines. As part of his efforts to revive the Doha trade round, what steps is the Minister taking to encourage the removal of what are effectively killer tariffs and thereby reduce the costs for poor people?
As the hon. Gentleman knows, a whole series of steps are under way to try to inject new momentum into the World Trade Organisation round. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has held a series of conversations with the key players to get some movement. We are pleased that Pascal Lamy, the head of the WTO, has restarted the negotiations. We need all sides to give ground. On the specific issue of additional taxes and tariffs placed on essential medicines, the hon. Gentleman is right that we need greater transparency about their impact, which is one of the reasons why we are in discussions with a series of developing countries, a series of pharmaceutical companies and, indeed, other players about what further steps we can take to increase that transparency on taxes and tariffs.
I thank the Minister for that constructive reply. While we all rightly focus on the availability of inexpensive drugs and medicines, is it not the case that inadequate attention is being paid to delivering them on a continuing basis on the ground to people in remote areas who urgently need them? Will the Minister reassure the House that he is absolutely seized of that point and is focusing on those delivery mechanisms?
The hon. Gentleman rightly highlights a key issue. If we are to get cheaper drugs into rural areas and to people who find it difficult to get access to them more widely, we need to improve the quality of health systems more generally in many developing countries. We are working to improve those health systems. For example, we are actively working with the Government of Malawi to pay for an increase in the number of nurses and doctors over a six-year period. We are increasing the nurses’ salary, and since April, when the programme came into effect, we have seen a slow but significant increase in the number of nurses being recruited. That gives us hope that we will see the key essential drugs being delivered to where they need to go.
What progress is being made in ensuring that children get proper access to cheap drugs? In particular, what progress has been made in preparing paediatric antiretroviral formulae and antibiotics for babies and infants at risk of acquiring HIV?
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s campaigning work on these issues. She will already be aware of the research that we fund into finding a more effective paediatric version of antiretroviral therapy. She may also be aware of the funding that we provide to the new international drug purchase facility, UNITAID. She may have heard the recent announcement that, together with the Clinton Foundation, UNITAID has been able to negotiate significantly lower prices for the existing paediatric versions of antiretroviral therapy. We welcome that, but we recognise that there is much more to do if we are to find the essential medicines most appropriate to the needs of children and if we are to get them where they need to go.
Cluster Munitions
The UN mine centre estimates there are about 1 million unexploded cluster bomblets in southern Lebanon. They obviously pose a continuing threat to life, and it will take an estimated 12 to 15 months to clear them. That is why the UK provided £1.5 million for the clearance of those munitions in the immediate aftermath of the fighting and why my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary recently announced a further £1.2 million for the purpose.
I thank the Minister for that answer, but the humanitarian consequences of the use of cluster munitions in south Lebanon are absolutely desperate. Does he not feel a certain frustration that—while the Government, through his Department, are investing in the clearance programmes in south Lebanon—the Ministry of Defence continues to support and condone the use of cluster munitions, thus ensuring the depressing certainty that next time we go in to clear up the aftermath of a conflict, the situation will be exactly the same?
No, I do not share the hon. Gentleman’s view of my colleagues in the Ministry of Defence. They—together with colleagues in the Foreign Office, working with the Department for International Development—have led the effort to make progress in securing a long-term treaty that properly brings in all the major users and producers of cluster munitions. He will know from the statements that have been released on the issue that we are working, first through a group of Government experts, to resolve some of the basic technical questions about cluster munitions that have yet to be resolved. We hope that that will achieve its desired outcome over the next 12 months, so that we can then move forward to the meaningful negotiations that we all want across Whitehall to get the major users and producers into a legally binding treaty.
Does my hon. Friend agree that the issue is not about how we pay in aid for the clearance of cluster bombs, but about the fact that they should not be used in civilian areas at all? Will he take that fight to the United Nations to ensure that they are not used in civilian areas?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that cluster munitions, where they are used, should be used in line with the principles of international humanitarian law. The humanitarian impact is one of the questions that will be considered by the group of Government experts. As I say, there is an initial 12-month process in which those experts will look at the definitions, as I have described, and we then want to move on, through the UN process, to meaningful long-term negotiations to get all the major users and producers of those munitions bound into an international treaty.
Child Labour
Child labour is declining rapidly in Latin America—the International Labour Organisation suggests by as much as two thirds since 2000. Although those statistics require further examination, there is no doubt about the positive long-term trend. We fund work in Latin America on child labour—for example, through our support for the ILO and UNICEF and our contributions to the World Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank.
I thank my hon. Friend for his answer. He and his Department have been working hard to focus support on the plight of street children in Brazil and Peru—[Interruption.]
Order. Allow the hon. Lady to be heard.
Will my hon. Friend pay attention, however, to countries such as Guatemala, Colombia and Honduras which have some of the highest numbers of working children in Latin America? Can we not allow them to have a childhood, too?
My hon. Friend is right to highlight the success in Brazil and Peru. In Brazil, we should pay tribute to the Government of President Lula. In reforming the previous system of cash transfer payments, supported by the World Bank, which we fund, he has helped to ensure that grants are given to families to make sure that their children go to school. My hon. Friend is right, however, to say that a substantial challenge remains in many other parts of Latin America, such as Guatemala and Honduras. That is why, through the ILO, we are supporting programmes there that work to reduce the number of children who are still engaged in commercial agriculture, gravel production and the fireworks industry. We will continue to fund the ILO to do that work, and we hope to see further reductions in Guatemala and Honduras in the same way as we have seen them in Brazil.
Will the Minister accept an invitation to visit the charity Casa Alianza, based in Kettering, which is one of the leading national organisations that helps street children in central America?
I welcome the invitation and I would be happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to talk about the organisation, which he clearly knows well. If I am visiting the area, I will happily come to see that charity.
Prime Minister
The Prime Minister was asked—
Engagements
Before I list my engagements, I am sure that the whole House will join me in sending our condolences to the family and friends of the Royal Marine from 45 Commando who was killed in Afghanistan yesterday. As I saw when I met the troops there some days ago, he was doing an extraordinary job and we can be very proud of him. In addition, I am sure that the whole House will join me in paying tribute to the two members of the East Sussex fire and rescue service, Brian Wembridge and Geoff Wicker, who were killed tackling the fire near Lewes on Sunday. They died protecting their community, and our thoughts and prayers are with their families at this time.
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.
I am sure that we all join my right hon. Friend in the sentiments that he expresses. I am tempted to ask him whether he will bring the boys back home by Christmas—but even with his powers, I do not think that the English cricket team would agree to that. On a more serious note, last Thursday there was a large meeting of the all-party cancer group in the Queen Elizabeth hall, which was well attended. At that meeting, the Secretary of State for Health made everybody feel good about cancer treatments in this country for the future and announced a new cancer strategy, which was welcomed by patient groups, charities and clinicians. That is important. Does my right hon. Friend agree that giving information to patients, from early diagnosis right through to palliative care, empowers them and gives them the choice that we desire them to have?
My hon. Friend is right to emphasise the importance of keeping patients fully informed, especially in the very difficult circumstances when they are diagnosed with cancer. He is right to point out that, over the past few years, there has been enormous progress. Not only are we spending about £600 million more, but there are 1,500 more consultant posts. Most importantly, almost 100 per cent. of people are now seen within two weeks by a consultant when they are suspected of having cancer—up from two thirds a few years back. As a result of the cancer strategy, which, as my hon. Friend indicates, we are now taking forward, about 50,000 lives have been saved—as a result of the improvements in treatment. That is a national health service that is getting better all the time.
I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to the Royal Marine who was killed yesterday in Afghanistan, and I associate this side of the House with what he said about the East Sussex fire service and the two brave men who lost their lives.
Our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are doing a heroic job in difficult circumstances, as I have seen for myself in both places. Yesterday, the new US Defence Secretary said that we were not winning the war in Iraq. Does the Prime Minister share that very serious assessment?
Of course: in July I said myself that the situation in Baghdad, with sectarian killing, was appalling and that the bloodshed was appalling. What is important, however, as the Defence Secretary went on to say, is that we go on to succeed in the mission that we have set ourselves. The most important thing is to understand why this problem has come about. It has come about because outside extremists are linking up with internal extremists to thwart the will of the Iraqi people, expressed in their election, for a non-sectarian Government and a non-sectarian future. Both in Iraq and Afghanistan, it is important that we build the capability of those Governments in those countries to withstand the terrorists and make sure that democracy succeeds.
We had a candid assessment from the US Defence Secretary; my point is that we want equally candid assessments from the Prime Minister. It looks increasingly likely—[Interruption.] That is right: we should not just have to hear from other people; we should hear from the Prime Minister. It looks increasingly likely that the Baker-Hamilton report will lead to changes in US policy. Will the Prime Minister tell the House of Commons today what he thinks those changes should be?
Exactly as I described them last time I spoke to the House, after I gave evidence to the Baker-Hamilton inquiry. They fit into two categories. First, inside Iraq, it is important that we complete the building up of capability, especially that of the Iraqi army. For example, down in the south, the Iraqi army is now capable of taking on security in two out of the four provinces and it is increasingly doing so in Basra. We have to complete that process. We must also ensure that the governance and capability of the Iraqi Government are improved. That relates not only to the way in which the Government function, but to the disbursement of money in both Sunni and Shi’a areas. It is important that we make sure that the process of reconciliation that the Iraqi Prime Minister has outlined is carried through with greater effect than has been the case so far. Secondly, outside Iraq, as I said to the inquiry, and as I have said to the House on many occasions, we have to pursue a policy for the whole middle east, which means in particular—and starting with—finding a solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict. That will be absolutely essential if we are to put that region on a more stable footing.
Of course we should discuss the Baker-Hamilton recommendations with our allies and work with them as closely as possible. However, decisions on the future of British troops in Iraq must be taken by the British Government in the British national interest. Does the Prime Minister understand that the British public want to hear a reassurance from him on that vital point?
Of course we have got to decide this policy on the basis of the British national interest. It has always been my view that it was in the British national interest to remove Saddam Hussein and to stand shoulder to shoulder after 9/11 with our American allies. At the moment, it is important that we complete the mission that we have set for ourselves in the south of the country. Thanks to the work that British troops have been doing, the operation that has been going on bit by bit in Basra to turn over control of security to Iraqi forces has been completed in about half the city. Reconstruction and development projects are going in behind that. I am pleased to say that the process has been relatively successful, and if it is successful, of course it diminishes the need for British troops to patrol in Basra. Our strategy is absolutely clear: to make sure that we build up the Iraqi capability, but to do so in a way that makes it absolutely clear to the people fighting us in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere that we stand on the side of people who support democracy, and that we stand up to terrorists and are prepared to fight them and take them on, wherever they may be.
The Prime Minister will know that I argued for 30 years for the end of the Saddam Hussein regime, which killed so many of my friends. When my right hon. Friend meets President Bush later today, will he make it clear that despite all the setbacks, we will continue to be committed to ending tyranny and upholding justice, whether that is in Iraq, Palestine, or elsewhere in the world?
I certainly will. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend’s steadfast support of those who favour democracy in Iraq and elsewhere. As she rightly implies, it is important to emphasise that the people whom we are fighting are al-Qaeda linking up with Sunni extremists and Iranian-backed elements linking up with Shi’a militia. Those are the self-same forces that we are fighting in Afghanistan and different parts of the world. As we build up the capability of the Iraqi and Afghan Governments, it is important that we send a very clear signal that our mission is to support those who are in favour of democracy, and that we will continue to do so.
I join the Prime Minister in his expressions of sympathy and condolence. The new American Defence Secretary also said that all options were on the table. Among those options, is there phased withdrawal on the part of British forces?
Let me explain again to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. It is our strategy to withdraw as the Iraqis become capable of taking on their security. That has been our strategy from the beginning and it remains our strategy now—I assume that he agrees with it.
Let me say this to the Prime Minister: is it not clear that the British Government have no policy of their own in relation to Iraq and that we are wholly dependent on decisions taken in Washington? What sort of strategy, and what sort of legacy, is that?
It is precisely because we believe in supporting the Iraqi Government, who have asked for our presence in the south of the country to ensure that we protect Iraqi people until the Iraqis have the capability to do so, that we remain in Iraq. As, progressively, the Iraqis become capable of taking on their security, which they are doing in two out of the four provinces and in one half of Basra—we are now completing the mission in the other half of Basra—the need for British troops diminishes. That is our strategy. I say to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that it is very important, especially at this moment when British troops are doing an extraordinary job in the most difficult circumstances, that we make it clear that the people fighting us down in Iraq, as in Afghanistan, are people whom we will take on, fight and defeat anywhere that they are.
Has my right hon. Friend seen early-day motion 140, in my name, which is supported by Members from all parties, regarding the treatment of the Hindu community in Kazakhstan? Only two weeks ago, 60 families were attacked and their homes were destroyed by riot police. Most of them are homeless now, and they face a terrible, cold winter. Will my right hon. Friend talk to his friend the President of Kazakhstan to see what he can do for those victims, who are suffering and whose only crime was to hold the Hindu faith?
We have made our concerns clear to the Kazakhstan Government. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that it is important to make sure, whether in Almaty or anywhere else, that people are free to practise their religious faith. I assure him that we will do all we can, on our own behalf and through the non-governmental organisations with which we are co-operating there, to make sure that Hindus who have been discriminated against in that way are properly protected.
One in five children leaving primary school cannot read properly. Will the Prime Minister confirm that this year the national reading tests results have got worse?
It is correct that the figure is at 83 per cent., rather than 84 per cent., but let me say to the right hon. Gentleman that that is a huge improvement on the situation that we inherited in 1997. Let me say one other thing that I think will be of interest to the House: although it is correct that, at level 4, overall there is a 1 per cent. fall to 83 per cent., the number of children within that who are now attaining level 5, which is over and above what they are required to achieve, has more than doubled since 1997. I am grateful for the opportunity to point that out. For the first time, in reading and in science, the percentage of children within the cohort getting to level 5 at age 11 is now almost 50 per cent. I agree that we still have a lot more to do, but thanks to investment and reform under this Government, much progress has been made.
Does that not just show the complacency of the Government? [Interruption.]
Order. Mr. Cameron.
Yesterday, the new head of Ofsted said that the number of 11-year-olds who cannot read was a national disaster. One fifth of school children cannot find Great Britain on the map. The Prime Minister may be spending extra money, but he is not getting the basics right. Now let us turn to secondary school education. Yesterday the Treasury, the home of the clunking fist—[Interruption. ] But the Chancellor is not much of a clunking fist; he cannot even get rid of a lame duck. Yesterday the Treasury said that more than one in six young people leave school unable to read, write or add up properly. Given that young people leaving school today have spent almost all their schooling under a Labour Government, does that not show the extent of the failure?
The right hon. Gentleman was obviously not listening to a word that I said in my initial reply. The fact is that the results are hugely up since 1997; those are the facts. What is more, as I have just indicated, half of those kids who attain the right grades aged 11 are now getting to level 5, and that is a huge improvement since 1997. In addition to that, the number of computers in the classroom has doubled. In addition to that, for those aged 14 the results are up, as they are for those aged 16 and 18. As for what the right hon. Gentleman said about the chairman of Ofsted, she actually said that things had considerably improved over the last few years. I agree entirely that there is a long way to go—of course there is. It is not acceptable that any child aged 11 does not achieve the requisite literacy and numeracy, but the situation is a darned sight better than what we had under his party.
What she said was that it was a national disaster. Why not look at the five core subjects, and how children are doing in those? If we look at who is gaining five decent GCSEs in English, maths, science and modern languages, we see that the figures have fallen since 1997. Let us look at school leavers. In spite of the new deal, all the money and all the pre-Budget reports, the number of 16 to 18-year-olds who are not in employment, training or education has gone up by 40 per cent. since the right hon. Gentleman became Prime Minister. Why?
Because the proportion of children going through the system has risen at the same rate. It is not acceptable or right that any young person should leave school without going on to education or training, but that is the very reason why we have the new deal, which helps young people into a job—and which the right hon. Gentleman opposes. That is the very reason why we want to increase investment—but he has pledged to cut that investment. He talked about five good GCSEs, but whether we take that as five good GCSEs overall or including English and maths, again, the results are hugely up since 1997. We are very happy to debate education policy in this country. Yes, there is still a lot more to do, but it we look back over the last 10 years, results are up, investment is up, schools are getting better, and anyone who goes into any school in any constituency can see the changes and improvements. We are committed to increasing that investment still further—but the right hon. Gentleman now has a fiscal rule that would chop that investment by sharing the proceeds with tax cuts. Let us not forget what the system was in 1997, how much improvement there has been in10 years, and what a disaster it would be if the Opposition ever got their hands on it again.
Is the Prime Minister aware that last week, the former employees of Chiltons of Girvan in my constituency were the first to receive payments from the Pension Protection Fund, signifying that thanks to the Labour Government, never again will people be left with next to no pension when their company goes bust? Will he look again at the financial assistance scheme for people who lost their pensions before the fund was introduced, to see whether they can receive the same benefits?
We certainly keep the provisions under close review, but as my hon. Friend will know, the difficulty is that there is a limit to the amount of money that we can put through the scheme. By pledging hundreds of millions of pounds to help people who have lost their pensions through no fault of their own, the Government have, for the first time in this country, provided at least some support, particularly for older people of working age who are approaching retirement, as they sometimes find that all the money that they have put in over 30 years of service is suddenly lost. I agree that it is important to keep the terms of the scheme under review, but my hon. Friend is right to say that for the first time people receive protection under the Government.
I do not know about the comparison with the Republic of Ireland, but let me give the hon. Gentleman a comparison between this Government and the previous Government. [Interruption.] I know that Tories do not want to hear this, but it is more relevant to compare rates of economic growth in this country. Under the Chancellor, we have the strongest economic growth of any comparable country. Interest rates are not 10 per cent., as they were when the hon. Gentleman’s party was in power, but average half that figure. We have the lowest inflation and unemployment for decades. Once again, I should like to thank the Conservative party for pointing out our record.
Last week we celebrated the fifth anniversary of free museum admissions, including at the Royal Air Force museum in my constituency, where there has been a 50 per cent. increase in visitors, including people who would never have visited it before. Will my right hon. Friend do all that he can to encourage even more people to visit the RAF museum? Perhaps he would like to visit it himself—and the invitation includes you, too, Mr. Speaker.
Will he ensure—[Hon. Members: “Wait!”]—that they receive the resources that they need to continue that highly successful policy?
I apologise for interrupting my hon. Friend in mid-flow. I think I am right in saying that there have been around 5 million extra visits to museums since we introduced the policy. Opposition Members may try to disparage it, but it has been a major change which has allowed low income families, particularly youngsters, to gain access to our museums. The fact that millions of people are visiting and using museums is a wonderful thing for our country, and we should be very proud of it.
The hon. Gentleman will have to wait for the Budget for that. However, the presentation was excellent. In order to encourage biofuels, it is important that we continue, as the Chancellor has been doing over the past few years, to make sure that the system incentivises the use of clean energy. It is important that we recognise that biofuels, particularly engineered as the company suggests, give us the opportunity of reducing CO2 emissions considerably.
Is my right hon. Friend aware that we are in the middle of the16 days of action against domestic violence? Women who are repeatedly beaten and repeatedly asked to go to court to achieve an injunction say thank you—thank you for the extra £8 million that the Government have given to increase their safety. Will my right hon. Friend do more to increase the safety of survivors of domestic violence by ensuring that Supporting People funds are sufficient to end the refuge postcode lottery, so that survivors have adequate protection when they need it?
My hon. Friend is right in describing the progress that has been made and the challenge that lies ahead. The remaining provisions of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 will be implemented in the middle of next year. We have invested an extra £70 million to tackle domestic violence, and on the latest figures that we have, domestic homicides are down, the number of guilty pleas is up significantly, and convictions at court have quadrupled. One of the reasons why that is happening is that there is far greater co-operation across the agencies, and a far greater willingness in our court system and among the police to take domestic violence far more seriously.
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that no information whatever, whether intelligence or otherwise, will be held back from the proper authorities. I obviously cannot comment on the particular case of his constituent, however.
Will the Prime Minister warmly welcome, as I do, the significant report by Lord Leitch yesterday on the skills challenge facing the country? One of the aspects that Lord Leitch highlights is a focus on adult skills, which is significant in constituencies such as mine. Will that be given adequate representation in funding for education over the next five years?
I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. There has been a massive investment in our school system, with the results that I pointed out earlier. He is right to say that skills are an important part of the challenge that we face. Already we have given hundreds of thousands more people—over a million more people—access to skills and qualifications, but we need to do far more. About7 million adults in this country still have not attained the right literacy or numeracy grade, so it is important that we go further. Further education colleges will be an important part of that. My hon. Friend may hear something to that effect later.
I am afraid that even at the risk of such an event, I have other things to do in my time in Washington.
I know that my hon. Friend has tabled an early-day motion on this subject. Ofgem is engaged in extensive discussions with suppliers as part of the supplier licence review on how to tackle the problem while replacement of meters takes place. I understand that from 1 December British Gas has stopped backdating prices for token users. My hon. Friend makes a fair point. I am sure that a way round this can be found, and I hope that the discussions between Ofgem and suppliers will yield the results that he indicates.
For very obvious reasons, I have absolutely nothing to say on that subject.
At last night’s meeting of the all-party group on AIDS, Martin Narey of Barnardo’s explained that 250 children in this country are kept alive by NHS AIDS drugs, and that those children are due to be sent back to their country of origin. Will my right hon. Friend agree to meet a small delegation to find a way of ensuring that the life of every child matters?
I am certainly happy to meet my hon. Friend and any delegation of his on that subject. In the meantime, I will look into the case and correspond with him.
First, let me say to the hon. Gentleman that I know that there is a consultation on health provision in his area. I would point out that funding for his primary care trust has increased by some 30 per cent. over the past three years. In his health authority, whereas when we came to power there were 50,000 people waiting for more than 26 weeks, there are now only two. Health care in his constituency has improved in every single aspect. The Conservatives opposed the investment that we put in; they are now opposed to the reform too. His party, above all other parties, has no credibility on this issue at all.
Will the Prime Minister discuss with his Cabinet colleagues how we can help elderly people to pay their heating bills this year, given the unprecedented rise in energy bills? Will he consider having a windfall tax on the companies that have made these profits?
Of course my hon. Friend will know of the £200 winter fuel allowance—£300 for those over 80. We will continue to do everything that we can to support the poorest pensioners. I very much hope that the companies that are supplying those pensioners take account of the fact that the elderly, particularly those who are living in poverty, have special and particular needs.
May I just point out to thehon. Gentleman that we have invested approximately£2 billion in post offices in the past few years? For obvious reasons—the way patterns of behaviour change, especially in respect of pensioners and bank accounts—post offices face a challenge. We are sitting down with them and trying to work out the right way forward, but it is unreasonable to say that we have been cutting support for post offices. On the contrary, we have been increasing the investment dramatically, precisely to protect post offices.
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
After the statement.