Sadly, before listing my engagements, I must once again ask the House to join me in sending our condolences to the families and friends of the three servicemen killed in Afghanistan and Iraq in the past few days. They were: Royal Marine Thomas Curry of 42 Commando; Lance Corporal Mathew Ford of 45 Commando, and Kingsman Alex Green from the 2nd Battalion the Duke of Lancaster’s Regiment. They were all performing vital roles in working towards a safer and more secure world for this country and the whole global community, and we should be very proud of them.
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.
May I be associated with the Prime Minister’s opening remarks?
On 30 November 2005 at the Dispatch Box, the Prime Minister guaranteed that nobody would wait more than six months for a national health service operation. Every month since then, that guarantee has proved worthless and bogus. Today, official Government figures show that 15,832 patients are waiting more than six months. Why?
They do not, as a matter of fact; literally a handful of people on the in-patient list wait more than six months. That contrasts with the position in 1997, when 300,000 people waited more than six months. There has been a dramatic improvement, with the waiting list—the lowest since records began—400,000 down since we came to office and waiting times now an average of seven weeks. I thank the hon. Gentleman for letting me point that out.
Will the Prime Minister join me in condemning racism and xenophobia in any form, including on the so-called reality television show “Big Brother”, which has prompted 13,000 individual complaints? Does not he agree that it is important that broadcasters take great care before broadcasting any such prejudices to millions of people throughout the country?
First, let me tell my right hon. Friend that I have not seen the programme in question and I cannot therefore comment on it. Of course, I agree entirely with the principle that he outlined: we should oppose racism in all its forms.
I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to Royal Marine Thomas Curry, Kingsman Alexander Green and Lance Corporal Mathew Ford. I also congratulate the Royal Marines on the bravery of their operation to recover Lance Corporal Ford’s body. It was a reminder of the incredible professionalism of our armed forces.
Last week, the junior Home Office Minister responsible told us that she knew nothing about the fiasco of the foreign criminal records. Now we know that she was receiving and signing letters about the issue as long ago as October. Why is she still in her job?
As the permanent secretary indicated in his evidence yesterday, the backlog was not drawn to the Minister’s attention. There is an internal inquiry about exactly what took place. Let me emphasise that, as I explained last week and shall explain again this week, since the Association of Chief Police Officers and those people at the Home Office have gone through the matter, no significant public protection issues have arisen so far in respect of the Criminal Records Bureau checks. It is correct that—since May 2006, when ACPO was given responsibility for the matter—a new system is in place. It is working well but, of course, we have had to work through the backlog of cases. Let me emphasise that we are in no different a position on the matter from any other European country.
The Prime Minister tries to say this is not serious, but someone went on to kill and a people trafficker was cleared to work with children. The Prime Minister’s defence seems to be that the Minister knew about the problem, but not about the backlog—but the problem was the backlog. Do we not want Ministers who are going to ask some questions and show some judgment, rather than just operating like giant franking machines signing letters? The Prime Minister could clear up a lot of this if he published the letter that the Association of Chief Police Officers sent to the Home Office. Why does he not publish that letter? It is probably in his file right there. Go on and publish it.
First, let me point out that if the right hon. Gentleman is referring to the case that was in the newspapers at the weekend, my understanding is that this particular individual in fact was on the police national computer. Secondly, let me point out that it is simply not correct to say that the problem was the backlog alone. The problem was that there was no proper system and had not ever been a proper system—[Interruption.]—for the exchange of information between European countries. That has now changed. Indeed, I can tell the House that, in addition, there is a proposal from Germany, France, Spain and other countries now to connect databases across Europe. We will look very carefully at that, but it is simply not right to say that this was a problem that we had and no other country had. Every country had it. We have now introduced a new system. If I may say, yet again with this issue, as with many others, prior to 1999 there were absolutely no records kept at all.
The Prime Minister likes to tell us that he believes in freedom of information, so I ask him again: publishing the letter would not harm national security or confidentiality, so publish the letter—why not?
There is an inquiry under way and when it completes its investigation, everything will be published fully so that people can see it. Let me however once again repeat to the right hon. Gentleman that this is not an issue where prior to May 2006 there should have been a proper system in place in Britain, because there was no proper system in place across Europe. We have now introduced a proper system for the very first time, and that means, as with many of the other issues, for the first time data are being properly collected and acted upon.
So much for freedom of information. Let me ask the Prime Minister about the inquiry. Will he confirm that it will look at the role played by Ministers, including the Home Secretary?
Of course it will look at the role played by Ministers; it will look at the role played by everybody. I simply point out to the right hon. Gentleman the evidence that was given yesterday by the permanent secretary.
Let us be clear. This inquiry is being carried out by the head of personnel at the Home Office. If this scandal had happened in a care home, in a hospital or in any business in this country, do you think you would ask the head of personnel to conduct the inquiry? This comes at the end of the week in which two more murderers have walked out of open prison, the immigration staff at Heathrow say they cannot cope and potential terrorists walk free from house arrest and nothing is done. The Government’s response when things go wrong is to put junior officials in charge of an inquiry. Does that not show that this Government and these Ministers are interested in protecting themselves, not in protecting the public?
Let me remind the right hon. Gentleman, since he mentioned control orders and terrorism, that it was the desire of this side of the House to detain people. We were the Government who introduced legislation toughening up the laws on terrorism which he and his colleagues voted against. The one group of people we will not take lessons from on control orders or action on terrorism is him and his colleagues.
I have a constituent whose life expectancy is no more than four months. He has asked me to pass on his experience that, first, people in that situation, especially those under chemotherapy, do not get the full support from the benefits system that they need; and, secondly, that he fully supports the Government’s effort to merge databases within the Government so that others do not have to go through the multiple form-filling that he has had to go through. Will the Prime Minister ask the Department for Work and Pensions to take account of both points?
I know that there has been a meeting with the relevant Minister. It is very important that we look at the support that we give to people in this situation, and obviously I am grateful for the support in relation to the sharing of information, but it is important that we ensure that the appropriate help is given, and that can sometimes be through the benefit system rather than through specific allowances which, in this case, are really directed towards pensioners.
Once again, I join the Prime Minister in his expressions of sympathy and condolence for those who have lost their lives in the service of their country.
Yesterday, the Government appeared before the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development in order to explain their decision to drop the investigations into allegations of corruption in relation to arms sales to Saudi Arabia. When will the Prime Minister publish and make public the Government’s submissions to the OECD so that the British public can judge for themselves?
They can already judge for themselves because we have made it clear the reasons why my advice—certainly—was that the investigation would do enormous damage to our relationship with Saudi Arabia. I said that because I believed then, and believe now, that it would do enormous damage to our co-operation on terrorism, and to issues to do with security and the broader middle east—quite apart from the thousands of jobs that would have been lost as a result of the loss of that contract, although that was not the reason why the decision was taken. I believe that that was right then, and I believe that it is right now. Sometimes, in government, I have to give such advice and take responsibility for acting in the interests of the country as a whole. The Government have to put those views forward. I put them forward then; I believed them to be right then and I believe them to be right now.
As a result of that answer, can we now expect the other current investigations into allegations of corruption in arms sales—in relation to Tanzania, for example—to be dropped in the same way? How can the Government’s handling of this squalid affair be in any way squared with the Prime Minister’s promise that his Government would be “whiter than white”?
To be frank, I would have greater respect for the opinion put forward by the right hon. and learned Gentleman if he were prepared to accept that, irrespective of the damage to our relationship with Saudi Arabia, the investigation should none the less proceed. But when he attempts, somehow, to have it both ways by saying that there would not really be any damage, and that the investigation should none the less proceed, he simply indicates once again what the problem with the Liberal Democrats is: they are an object lesson in the absence of leadership.
Last Thursday, following months of refusing to discuss future plans with trade unions, local politicians or—most importantly—the work force, NCR in Dundee announced 650 job losses. It did so in the most callous fashion imaginable, assembling the 800 manufacturing staff in a room with a large-screen television, from which the chief executive announced via video link from America that 650 of them had been made redundant. Will the Prime Minister join me in reassuring the people of Dundee that we will do everything that we can to help them? Will he meet me to discuss how we can reassure the people of Dundee of the Government’s commitment to full employment and high-quality jobs, including the 700 NCR jobs that remain in Dundee?
I sympathise fully with those who will lose their jobs as a result of the decision by the company. I know that the Scottish Executive’s Partnership Action for Continuing Employment has stepped in to try to ensure that other work is made available for those who are, sadly, going to be made redundant. It is also important that we safeguard the company’s position in other parts of Scotland. I would certainly be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss what we can do. As a result of different measures taken over the past few years by the Government on a UK-wide basis and by the Scottish Executive, we now have very good schemes that go into effect immediately when redundancies are announced and that often help people to get alternative employment. It is important that we try to ensure that this operates in the particular circumstances to which my hon. Friend has drawn my attention.
No; unsurprisingly, I do not accept that. The most important thing that we have done is to set the principle—which the Iraqi people demonstrated by voting in the election for a non-sectarian Government—that the vast majority of people would prefer to live in peace, whatever their religious or ethnic background.
I raised this issue particularly when I was visiting British troops in Basra before Christmas. I am pleased to say that the operation that they are conducting in Basra is going well and is successful, and their clear view is that those who are creating the trouble are a minority, and that the vast majority, whether Shi’a or Sunni, want to live in peace together. I had a conversation the other day with the Vice-President of Iraq, who is one of the main leaders of the Sunni community, and he made the same point. We should never fall for the extremists’ propaganda that says that the majority want what they offer. Actually, the majority of people, in whatever part of the world, prefer to live and raise their families in peace and prosperity, and to treat their neighbours, of whatever race or whatever background, with some semblance of decency.
Mohammad Daud, the provincial governor of Helmand province, was principally responsible for the ceasefire in Musa Qala, which brought peace to that area and has saved lives. He was singled out by the Defence Secretary as, unlike other provincial governors, a man of integrity who certainly was not corrupt. Last month he was sacked. Will the Prime Minister make representations for his reinstatement?
I must say to my hon. Friend that Mohammad Daud’s successor shares exactly the same strategy for Helmand province. I want to pick up on one implication of my hon. Friend’s comments. What British troops are doing down in Helmand province is remarkable; tragically, we have again had to remember those who have fallen in the service of their country. They fell fighting the Taliban, however, and that fight is having huge success in the south of that country. Every time that they are able to inflict such losses on the Taliban, reconstruction and redevelopment can proceed. The new governor of the province is helping very much with that. Despite all the challenges and difficulties, there are real reasons for optimism about what we are doing in Afghanistan. The alternative was seen clearly a few months back, when the Taliban executed a teacher in front of a class for teaching girls in school. Those are the two alternative futures for the country, and I know which side we should be on.
Yesterday, it emerged that the Department for Education and Skills had issued guidance that will make it more difficult for head teachers to enforce school uniform policies. I know that the Prime Minister and I agree about the importance of school freedom and professional responsibility. I have one simple question, which requires a simple answer: will he scrap this unnecessary and wrong piece of central guidance?
The right hon. Gentleman probably has not seen the letter already issued by the Minister for Schools at the Department for Education and Skills making it absolutely clear that we support fully the right of schools to enforce their school uniform rules. [Interruption.]
Is my right hon. Friend aware that in spite of only having entered their second term since opening, the two new city academies in my constituency, St. Mark’s and Harris Merton, will be oversubscribed next year, such is the support of local parents and the community? Will he join me in congratulating the parents, teachers and staff at that school, and their enlightened sponsors, the Church of England and Lord Harris of Peckham?
I would be delighted to join my hon. Friend in congratulating both the schools and sponsors who have put so much hard work into the city academy programme. In light of some of the publicity about the new school building programme, building schools for the future, let me say that, since 1997, 800 new schools have been built around the country. Those new or completely refurbished schools have made an enormous difference to what is happening in our country. In addition, more than 1,600 new science labs, better classrooms for more than 4,000 schools, hundreds of new sports halls and thousands of new computers and electronic whiteboards have been provided. As the results show, a revolution is going on in our schools at the moment, of which the city academy programme is an important part, and it is delivering quality education to some of the poorest kids in our country.
It was the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s announcement of the extra defence spending a few years ago in the comprehensive spending review that meant that defence spending has been rising for the first time in years. In the 10 years before we came to office, there was a cut of something like a third. Moreover—I am grateful for the opportunity to point this out—if the additional sums for Iraq and Afghanistan are included, we have been holding defence spending constant as a proportion of our national income in what is, of course, a vastly growing economy. That compares with, again, a cut of about a third in the years before we came to power. I agree that we have far more to do, but, thank goodness, our record is a lot better than that of the last Government.
Earlier this week the leader of the Scottish National party suggested that the forthcoming Scottish parliamentary elections would constitute a vote for a referendum on independence. Given that not a single constituent has ever contacted me to request such a referendum, does my right hon. Friend agree that people of Scotland have much more serious issues with which they wish this Government to deal?
My hon. Friend is right. Of course issues such as crime, health, education and the state of the economy are immensely important to the people in Scotland who will vote in the forthcoming elections. As she says, however, the point is that the Scottish National party has now put on the agenda its desire for independence for Scotland and a referendum to achieve it. That would not only have a disastrous effect on the Scottish economy, but waste the enormous benefit that the Union has brought to England and Scotland over the past few years.
Surely the modern way forward for a country such as ours is devolution, with a Scottish Parliament to deal with issues that should be dealt with solely in Scotland, and a UK-wide arrangement enabling us to deal with issues such as the economy, security and defence with which we need to deal together. That is why it is so important for us to reject the option of independence.
I certainly do confirm that, yes.
Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating police in Burnley on their recent success in reducing crime, which last year alone was down by 6 per cent. in Lancashire as a whole? Does he think that that is due in any way to the increase in police numbers, which have risen by 336 in Lancashire since 1997? Will he personally guarantee not to jeopardise that investment through unfunded and irresponsible tax cuts in the future?
I can assure my hon. Friend that we will continue to invest in our police services. The work that has been done in Lancashire is remarkable: it has had an excellent record over the past few years. Given all the criticism of the Home Office, it is worth pointing out that crime has fallen, not risen, over the past 10 years. That contrasts with the record of the Conservatives, who doubled crime and, in the last few years before we came to office, cut the number of police. We have record numbers of police officers, we have police and community support officers, and we have falling crime.
As I am sure the hon. Gentleman would be the first to accept, as a result of the desire to centralise specialist services at Watford there will be far better specialist care for patients. The plan that he has described has been presented by child care clinicians precisely because they believe that it will help to provide better specialist services for people. He is, however, right to say that there has been massive additional investment in his area. That is why there are more nurses, more doctors and shortening waiting times.
I feel sure that my right hon. Friend would like to join me in congratulating Phoenix high school in my constituency, which last week was named as the most improved secondary school in England. However, is he aware that Tory councillors in Hammersmith and Fulham, who continually call for Phoenix to close, are now seeking to close the much improving Hurlingham and Chelsea school? Can he do anything to stop that?
Of course, such decisions are taken locally but I am sure that the strong campaign launched by my hon. Friend will have an impact, because where schools are improving dramatically we want to keep them improving.
I understand the difficulties that have been caused in the hon. Gentleman’s area as that particular trust comes back into financial balance. However, it is worth pointing out that, at the same time as the trust is facing those financial difficulties, over the past few years in his local area the number of people waiting for more than 26 weeks for in-patient treatment has fallen from 31,000 to 16. Only one patient in the whole of his strategic health authority is waiting for more than 13 weeks for a first out-patient appointment, and there has been dramatic improvement in both cancer and cardiac care. I understand the problems being faced as the trust comes back into financial balance, but let us be clear that once that happens we will be able to use the additional capacity that we have provided and bring those waiting times down further. Our desire is to get to the end of 2008 with an 18-week combined in-patient and out-patient waiting period. That would be a dramatic improvement.
What my hon. Friend says is absolutely right, and the two things that will be important are, first, the additional investment in schools which will run into hundreds of millions of pounds in the next few years, and also that we are moving to the new system of vocational education which will allow a far better choice for youngsters at the age of 14 to opt for a high-quality stream of vocational education. That is what we need to do. We have very much focused on lifting academic standards and there has been considerable success on that, although there is lots more to do. We now need to have the same focus on vocational education, and the combination of the money and the reform over the next few years should deliver results.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman entirely. The highlands has made an enormous contribution to the whole of the United Kingdom, and one of the reasons why we have special help and provision and we organise that in a way that allows the whole of the UK to support the highlands is that we recognise that it is far more sparsely populated than other areas and therefore particular help is needed for local services. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we will continue the investment to make sure that the highlands carries on playing the vital role that it does in terms of the future of Scotland and also the whole of the UK.
Order. There is more.
It also gets excellent value from its £100,000 grant to Battersea arts centre, having just given—[Interruption.]
I agree with my hon. Friend that Battersea arts centre does a fantastic job. They should do everything that they can to keep it open, and they should keep it open.
The Prime Minister and his Government are about to abolish the right to elect jury trial in serious fraud cases. Will he retain the right to jury trial for political corruption, such as the selling of honours?
The proposals that we have simply relate to fraud trials in the way that we have described. I doubt whether the Scottish National party will support those proposals, but it should, because they will free up—[Hon. Members: “He is Plaid Cymru.”] Let me explain exactly why. They will free up money that we desperately need to make sure that we have both the police and the criminal justice system that allows criminals to be caught and punished.
Yes, that is precisely the reason why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said that the Government have decided that we will continue with the new account after 2010. That, incidentally, is in addition to the £2 billion of extra support for post offices, particularly rural post offices. We all know the reasons why post offices face a great deal of challenge and difficulty at the moment—because of the changing way that people are handling their accounts—but I can assure my hon. Friend that we are doing everything that we can to make sure we preserve as many of them as possible, that we make the investment and that we keep the account going.
A few minutes ago, in answer to a question from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition about criminal records exchange, the Prime Minister said that before 2006 there was no system across Europe for the exchange of criminal records. Can he explain why, in 2001, the Government negotiated a protocol to the 1959 Council of Europe convention on the exchange of records, but have neither ratified nor implemented that protocol? So before 2006, it would have been possible to exchange those records.
The hon. Gentleman is completely mistaken about that. The fact is that there was no proper system prior to 2005 and the decision of the European Council. If I may, I will point this out to him: it was only because we were able to work with other European partners that we managed to get agreement to implement a new system. That new system is in place, and for the first time we have proper records that we can implement properly and make sure that we monitor properly. That is the change that has been brought about in the last year.
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
After the statement.