The Secretary of State was asked—
Islamic World Group
We have no plans to offer financial support over and above the increased support that the Engaging with the Islamic World Group already receives from the FCO budget. However, we work closely with the FCO on poverty reduction, improving governance and education reform, which all contribute to progress on the group’s objectives.
I think there is a problem. Engaging with the Islamic world is a central British policy objective. The Foreign Office budget is under enormous pressure and will be reduced in the comprehensive spending review. The Department for International Development’s budget is increasing, so would it not make sense for it to help fund the policy of engaging with the Islamic world, which would surely make its work in relieving poverty in countries such as Pakistan, Indonesia, Yemen and Jordan, to name but a few, much easier, and would also support wider British policy objectives that are of central concern to this country’s security? Surely they involve the Department.
I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman recognised that our increasing aid programme in countries such as Pakistan, Bangladesh and Yemen contributed to engagement with the Islamic world and the broader objectives of the Engaging with the Islamic World Group in the FCO. The Prime Minister announced a doubling of our aid programme to Pakistan only last year. One of the key priorities of that increased aid will undoubtedly be investment in education. Given the focus on and concerns about madrassahs in Pakistan, that is a positive example of the way in which DFID support complements other broader Government objectives.
For Arab nations in the Islamic world, the best way of communicating is undoubtedly through Arabic. If the Under-Secretary agrees, what is the Department doing, in liaison with the Foreign Office, to increase the number of Arabic speakers in both Departments?
We have a substantial number of staff based in, for example, Yemen, and we have plans substantially to increase our aid programme there. The head of our office in Yemen has to go on a course to learn Arabic and other members, some of whom we employ locally, can also speak Arabic. Training in Arabic is offered and, as our aid programme in such countries grows, having Arabic speakers is, as the hon. Gentleman said, essential. It is part of the training that our staff are given.
Rising Sea Levels
We are providing assistance to improve climate monitoring in Africa and develop climate risk screening in both Africa and Asia. We are giving support to help Governments to reduce the risks when disasters happen, for example, in Bangladesh. The Department is also the largest donor to the United Nations adaptation funds, which help developing countries to assess and manage climate change risk, including rising sea levels.
The Secretary of State will know that a one-meter rise in sea level could make 200 million homeless, that the leaders of Tuvalu are already in the process of abandoning their homeland and that 300 Pacific atolls could disappear under water this century. That will cause a huge refugee problem. What will the Government’s response to that be? What discussions has the right hon. Gentleman held with his European Union counterparts on the matter?
The hon. Gentleman is right about the potentially devastating consequences, above all for the poorest countries of the world, if sea levels rise as predicted. First, we must support the Governments of the countries that will be affected to work out how they will manage that process. Secondly, we must get international agreement on a new climate change treaty, which will have to involve all the countries of the world, including some of the larger developing countries and China. Before long, China will become the largest carbon emitter in the world, although not in per capita terms, for obvious reasons. We must respond urgently to the problem, and all of us, globally, will have to consider the way in which we manage the movement of people. People will not stay where they live either to die of thirst or to drown because sea levels are rising.
Will the Secretary of State acknowledge the important role of the UK space industry in accurately mapping some climate movements, especially water levels, throughout the country? Will he ensure that some African countries get the benefit of the research and data that the industry provides?
I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the industry’s skill and expertise. One of the other practical things that we do is support countries in Africa better to understand the changing nature of their climate and its impact on them. Not only south and south-east Asia, which the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) mentioned, but parts of west Africa and coastal areas in east and southern Africa, including some large cities, would be similarly affected if sea levels rose.
Do the Secretary of State and his Department—or, indeed, the United Nations—distinguish between rising sea levels and sinking land masses? The hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) described the circumstances in the Pacific, but those areas that are just 5m above the sea are in fact not influenced very much by climate change. It is a geological phenomenon in the Pacific that causes those atolls to sink. What really matters, of course, is what happens to the people, whether as a result of rising sea levels or of sinking land mass. However, there is an important distinction between the two phenomena, and it devalues the debate about climate change if people muddle them up.
I take the hon. Gentleman’s point, but as he acknowledges, the net result for the people who are living there is the same. It is important that we understand the nature of the changes that are taking place; but notwithstanding the phenomenon of sinking land mass to which he referred, the biggest global problem that we face is the impact of human activity on our climate, including the effect that it will have on rising sea levels.
The Treasury Committee is looking at climate change following Sir Nicholas Stern’s report for the Treasury. One of his conclusions was that it is the poorer countries—particularly in Africa—that will suffer if we do little or nothing about this. What strategy does DIFD have for a climate change element in its negotiations, particularly with African countries?
We are doing four things. First, we are providing support, so that better information is available about the nature of the change that is taking place. Secondly, we are providing help with adaptation. We are a significant contributor to the global environment facility, and we are also supporting United Nations funds. Thirdly, we are strongly backing the World Bank’s energy investment framework. One of the dilemmas that developing countries face is that they need, and will invest in, more energy—China is a good example of this—but they need to do so in a way that does not add to the problem. Fourthly, we are looking at our own programmes and asking ourselves what impact they will have on climate change and whether we could do things differently. At the moment, we are doing that specifically in four countries: Bangladesh, China, India and Kenya.
Rising sea levels create significant challenges, including conflict prevention, security, infrastructure degradation, water-borne diseases, soil salinisation and the potential for 50 million environmental migrants by 2010. The Department for International Development must provide assistance in incentivising environmentally sustainable technology transfers and building adaptive capacity in vulnerable communities. The Department has regularly and recently been criticised for not focusing sufficient time and resources on adapting to climate change. Despite what the Secretary of State has said, it is clear that his Department has much more to do. When will he make the interaction of climate change and international development spending one of his Department’s top priorities?
Being a fair-minded person, the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that that is exactly what we did in the White Paper that we published in July. A central theme in the White Paper was that we all need to take the challenge of climate change more seriously. I have already set out the practical steps that we are taking. We are building capacity, including taking on additional staff with expertise in this area, so that we can respond to the challenge. With respect, I think that the hon. Gentleman’s strictures are a bit unfair.
Following the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Olner), may I ask what work is going on between the Departments and British science to deal with catastrophic events that cause a rise in sea level, such as tsunamis? What work is being carried out to develop predictive science in this field?
One of the consequences of the terrible tsunami that struck recently is that arrangements are now being put in place for a system that enables countries to have reasonable warning that catastrophic events of that kind are likely to occur. The second practical step that we are taking is to set aside 10 per cent. of the money that we put into disaster relief to enable countries better to prepare to deal with the consequences of any subsequent disaster. In that way, we can help them not only to deal with the immediate consequences, but to prepare for the consequences of the next disaster, should it occur.
We welcome the recently renewed discussions on the Doha round and are working closely with EU member states, the US and other World Trade Organisation members at all levels to help to break the deadlock in negotiations. We continue in particular to push for progress on the issues of greatest concern to developing countries, especially improved market access and a reduction in trade-distorting subsidies.
I thank the Minister for that reply, and particularly for his comment on improved market access. Farm subsidies and tariff barriers cost poor countries twice as much as they receive in aid. Does the Minister agree that only through fundamental reform of the common agricultural policy will the EU fulfil its moral obligation to make poverty history?
I agree with the hon. Lady’s first point about the need to make further progress in reducing subsidies. One of the great examples to demonstrate the veracity of that is cotton, as subsidies to US and EU cotton farmers have helped to depress cotton prices. The World Bank estimates, for example, that farmers in west Africa lose some $75 million to $100 million per year as a result. In relation to her second point, we have already seen progress on common agricultural policy reform. We have said that we want to do more on that, and preparatory work has started. Substantive discussions will take place at the mid-point in the current EU budget review process in 2008-09, when we hope to see further evidence of progress.
Does my hon. Friend agree that giving the least developed countries the technical support that they need is one of the best ways to ensure good development outcomes at Doha? What support is the Department giving to those least developed countries, because, despite the extremely good work of the South Centre, for instance, they are generally woefully under-resourced at those talks?
My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point: the whole international community has a responsibility to make sure that those least developed countries have proper representation in the World Trade Organisation negotiations. That is one of the reasons why we have provided direct financial support to the LDC group, including help in Geneva, where it is based, to commission research and analysis to define its trade positions. Through our direct country programmes, we have also helped Lesotho and Zambia, for example, to secure the analysis and expertise that they need to formulate their own policies in country. We continue to provide resources to help those developing countries which need to recruit negotiators, such as £1.6 million worth of support to the Caribbean to fund its regional negotiating machinery.
Given that Benin, Burkina Faso, Mali and Chad depend on cotton for between 30 per cent. and 40 per cent. of their export earnings, but that the United States spends more than $3 billion a year subsidising 25,000 inefficient but politically powerful cotton producers, does the Minister agree that the United States should recognise that its policy is morally objectionable and has the effect of exacerbating the plight of some of the poorest people on the planet?
I accept the hon. Gentleman’s point, and I hope that he will accept, in light of my answer to his hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Anne Main), that we believe that substantial progress on cotton can be made in the WTO talks, to make an immediate difference to some of the poorest people in parts of Africa. We need our American allies to show flexibility and to give some ground in the talks. We also need the European Commission to do so. I know that constructive discussions have taken place between the Trade Commissioner and his American counterpart, and we will continue to do all that we can to help to further those negotiations, get the necessary progress and end the deadlock that we have seen up to now.
What reports have Her Majesty’s Government received about the outcome of talks over the weekend between the European Trade Commissioner and the US trade representative? Irrespective of the outcome of Doha, will my hon. Friend continue to press colleagues in Europe for more aid for trade, so that developing countries get the maximum benefit from concessions such as “Everything but Arms” and are able to export more to Europe?
As I indicated in my answer to the hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow), the discussions that have taken place between Peter Mandelson and his American counterpart seem to have been constructive. More progress and flexibility in the American position is needed, and I hope that we will soon see further evidence of that. I also accept my hon. Friend’s point about the need for further progress on aid for trade. That will be particularly important to help the least developed countries to take advantage of progress in the WTO round. He will be aware that my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced a further increase in our target for aid for trade spending back in September. Obviously, we will continue to encourage our allies in Europe to make similar commitments.
There have recently been warm words from Europe and America about reinvigorating the Doha talks, but I am not convinced that there is any real political will behind that. It was certainly not at the top of the agenda of the President’s “State of the Union” speech last night. What new and different steps has the Secretary of State taken recently to break the inertia and take advantage of the different political landscape that now exists in the American Congress?
I congratulate the hon. Lady on her appointment as shadow Secretary of State for International Development. Let me repeat what I have said in response to earlier questions. The EC representative, Peter Mandelson, has taken part in constructive discussions, as did my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on his visit to the United States just before Christmas. My right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry held useful and productive discussions with their Indian counterparts last week, and we continue to talk to our allies in Europe with the aim of advancing the EC’s position further.
There are signs of progress, but we still have some way to go. Obviously we need to do more to lock down the deal which, as I think is recognised by Members in all parts of the House, is fundamental if developing countries are to make the progress that we all want in order to achieve the millennium development goals.
Given that the Doha development round was always meant to be about development, does the Minister not feel that there is a marked lack of urgency and vigour in the way in which the negotiations are being pursued? Why does he not inject some momentum by pushing the European Union to offer—in addition to cuts in agricultural protectionism—complete duty-free and quota-free access to European markets for manufactured goods? Apart from benefiting European consumers, would that not help countries such as India, which, after all, contains more poor people than the whole of Africa put together?
As I have said in answers to earlier questions, I welcome the renewed round of constructive discussions with the United States. Until that development, we were blocked from achieving the outcome that we all want, but now we are seeing progress towards agreement in the negotiations.
I acknowledge the truth of the hon. Gentleman’s comment that the European Commission and EU member states need to give ground. We are continuing to work with allies across Europe to encourage the Trade Commissioner to do just that. We all recognise that more progress is needed. The Government do have a sense of urgency: this is a priority for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and for other Ministers. We will continue to do all that we can to ensure progress in the negotiations.
The latest United Nations assessment, published in June 2006, shows that progress towards each of the millennium development goals in sub-Saharan Africa as a whole is either slightly or seriously off track. However, many countries in the region will achieve some of the goals by 2015, or make substantial progress towards them.
The short answer is “not enough”. That is one of the reasons why the Government are committed to doubling, and then doubling again, our investment in clean water and sanitation by 2010-11, but we need three things to happen in the world. First, we need more investment in clean water and sanitation. Secondly, we need to ensure that the money invested is used effectively to ensure supplies for the people who need them. Thirdly, we need the right structures in the world to help to make that happen. Currently we do not have the right structures, and I should like to see some changes.
I know that the Secretary of State is aware of the close connection between the millennium development goals and progress in the battle against HIV/AIDS. He will also be aware of the recent growth in the XDR strain of tuberculosis in South Africa. Is his Department making every effort to ensure that we are as successful in supporting the distribution of drugs to tackle TB as we are in supporting the distribution of antiretroviral drugs to tackle HIV/AIDS?
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to draw attention to the close relationship between AIDS and TB and to the fact that people with AIDS are more susceptible to TB. One of the most practical things that we are doing to support the point that he has made is to contribute to the global fund which was set up to fight those three great diseases: AIDS, TB and malaria. As he will be aware, we are a very significant contributor. We have pledged to put £359 million into the global fund between when it started and 2008.
I welcome the work of my right hon. Friend and his Department on improving the MDGs on infant and maternal mortality, which are most off-track in sub-Saharan Africa. Does he agree with the World Health Organisation, which is organising a conference here in March, that much greater political commitment is needed from the African Governments in sub-Saharan Africa if we are to stop the needless deaths of 600,000 women a year in child birth?
I agree with my hon. Friend, who I know takes a close interest in those matters. The fundamental problem is a lack of capacity and, in particular, not enough doctors, nurses, clinics and hospitals. We have therefore increased the aid programme to Africa, and put our efforts into debt cancellation. As she will be aware, the debt deal done at Gleneagles has enabled Zambia to introduce free health care in rural areas for the first time. That should enable more people, including pregnant mothers, to get access to the health support that they need.
The Secretary of State is clearly right to be concerned that, while we will probably meet the millennium development goals in Asia, we are way off course in Africa. Does he accept that we need to focus more on outputs and outcomes? Will he look seriously at the proposal that we have made for the establishment of an independent aid watchdog in Britain, like the ones established by the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and in Denmark, to monitor the quality and effectiveness of aid to ensure continued public and taxpayer confidence in the British aid programme?
I am currently considering proposals that would address that very issue, which we have been concerned about for some time. It is true to say that, as the aid budget rises, the public will increasingly want to be assured that every penny that we are putting into that budget is spent effectively. In every waking moment of this job, I am concerned above all about the difference that our effort makes. It is not about inputs so much; it is about the difference that we make to people’s lives.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. One of the millennium development goals is access to clean drinking water. Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating my constituent, Mr. Brian Kite, on his Chembe water project, which has brought clean drinking water to more than 2,000 people in that village in Malawi? We know that 1 billion people do not have that access. That project provided it for just £2.50 per head. As it costs so little, could we do more and encourage other countries to do more to pursue that millennium development goal?
I am happy to congratulate my hon. Friend's constituent on the practical contribution that he is making to one of the most fundamental tasks that we have, which is to ensure that people have enough clean water to drink. It shows that everyone can make a contribution. The Government are playing their part with the increased investment to which I referred earlier.
Ministers approved the UK anti-corruption action plan in July 2006. The plan aims to improve the UK's capacity to investigate foreign bribery, stop money laundering and recover stolen assets, promote responsible business conduct in developing countries, and support international efforts to fight corruption. I shall report on progress to the Prime Minister in February.
The anti-corruption action plan that the Secretary of State has just referred to included a promise to investigate and to prosecute bribery cases. Was he consulted on the decision to drop the Serious Fraud Office investigation into BAE’s arms deal with Saudi Arabia? If so, did he advise fellow Ministers that that decision would probably put us in breach of article 5 of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development convention on bribery?
I was not consulted, and I would not expect to be consulted, because that decision was properly taken by the director of the Serious Fraud Office after discussions with the Attorney-General. The hon. Gentleman should not read into that decision—which was taken for reasons that have been clearly set out—that the Government are not determined to fight international corruption. The steps that we have taken—in particular to increase the capacity of the Metropolitan police and the City of London police to investigate foreign bribery and money laundering, the implementation of the third money laundering directive, and the success that we have had in returning money that was stolen from Nigeria—demonstrate how determined we are to make a difference.
It would be improper for me to be consulted because that is an operational decision, and, quite properly, that responsibility rests with the director of the SFO and the Attorney-General. Indeed, if I had been consulted on an operational decision, the hon. Gentleman might have been the first person to complain about it. My responsibility, which I take seriously, is to make sure that, together with colleagues in the Cabinet, we put the right legislation in place and, above all, that we do practical things, including increasing the capacity of the police to investigate. I am sure that it will not be long before we see the benefits of that.
The Prime Minister was asked—
Before listing my engagements, I am sure that the whole House will wish to join me in sending our condolences to the family and friends of Private Michael Tench of A Company, 2nd Battalion the Light Infantry, who was killed in Iraq at the weekend. He was only a very young man, but his country should be very proud of him and of the work that he and his colleagues have been doing in Iraq in the service of our country.
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 associate myself with the Prime Minister’s comments and send my own condolences to the family and friends of the soldier mentioned?
Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating O2 on the work that it is doing in the United Kingdom by bringing a state of the art call centre to Glasgow, creating more than 1,500 jobs in that city? Does he also agree that it is important that companies such as O2—not only British companies, but foreign companies—invest in this country to ensure that growth in the economy continues, and that separation would stop that happening?
I congratulate O2 on the investment that it is making in Scotland; I welcome that investment very much. That should be set against the background of some 200,000 extra jobs in the Scottish economy, the unemployment claimant count the lowest for 30 years and a very strong Scottish economy. Separation would, of course, put all that at risk by undermining the stability of the economy. I believe that the Union is good for Scotland, but also that it is good for England; it is good for the whole of the United Kingdom. We have such a strong economy because the UK works well together.
I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to Private Michael Tench, aged only 18, who was killed in southern Iraq on Sunday. He died serving his country, and we should be proud of him.
The latest crisis in the Home Office is that the Home Secretary is writing to courts up and down the country pleading with them not to send convicted criminals to prison. Will the Prime Minister give a guarantee that he will not deal with this failure in prison planning by introducing yet another scheme to release criminals early?
First of all, I must correct the right hon. Gentleman on what the Home Secretary said; he is simply reminding the courts of existing sentencing policy as set out in legislation. Let me tell him one other thing: not only will there be 2,000 extra prison places in this country by the end of this year, but as a result of the investment in prison places there will be a further 8,000 on top of that. Might I also remind Members that every penny piece of that investment in prisons is investment that the right hon. Gentleman voted against?
Let us be absolutely clear that the Prime Minister’s answer gives no guarantee, so another early release scheme might well be on its way, with dangerous criminals being released on to our streets. Will he at least guarantee that all options, including emergency prison accommodation, prison ships and Army camps, will be considered before any early release scheme?
All options, of course, are kept under consideration all the time, but let me point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the very reason why we have an issue to do with prison places at the moment is that there are 40 per cent. more dangerous, violent and persistent offenders in prison than in 1997, despite crime having fallen rather than risen. One additional reason is that we now have 2,000 prisoners in prison with indeterminate sentences, precisely because of the seriousness of the offence. That was introduced in the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which the right hon. Gentleman voted against.
The issue about the future structure in the Home Office arises, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, from the review announced by the Home Secretary last October, which has to do with terrorism and security, not prison places. Let me just remind him that since 1997, 20,000 extra prison places have been created, which has required an investment running into billions of pounds. It is in part as a result of tougher sentencing that there are more people in prison, and I repeat: every single measure of tougher sentencing and extra investment he has opposed.
The Lord Chancellor said that splitting the Home Office in two was a “very, very serious proposal”, and indicated that he thought that it was time to do it. Can the Prime Minister tell us whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer agrees with splitting the Home Office in two?
The review announced last October is about the structures of the Home Office to do with security and terrorism. There are proposals that the Home Secretary has made, and we will make an announcement on those in the next few weeks. However, whatever the different structures in the Home Office, there is only one way in which we shall be able to deal with the problems in our prisons—to build more prison places and make sure that we have violent, serious and persistent offenders behind bars. Let me repeat once again: all of that investment—all of it—has been opposed by the right hon. Gentleman. Incidentally, since we are talking about this Government’s record on crime, according to the British crime survey of all recorded crime, crime has fallen; it doubled under the Tories.
I think that the Prime Minister will find that the Chancellor does not want to break up the Home Office—he just wants to break up the Home Secretary. There is no point even considering this proposal unless the Chancellor has agreed it. The Prime Minister is not going to be here for very long, so let me ask him again—he can ask the Chancellor now—does the Chancellor back splitting the Home Office, yes or no?
As I have just explained to the right hon. Gentleman, proposals were put forward by the Home Secretary. The Government will come to a view on those within the next few weeks, and we will make an announcement to the House in the normal way.
However, when the right hon. Gentleman is talking about the relationship between the Home Office, prisons and policing, let me make it clear that there is absolutely no way that we can deal with the current issues in respect of prison places unless we are going to build more. We are building 8,000 more prison places, but the investment necessary to do that is investment that he voted against, as he did the tougher sentences. So it is no use his coming to the Dispatch Box and saying, “Make sure that no serious or violent offenders are let out of prison.” They are in prison precisely because of this Government, and he opposed the measures.
Answer the question!
We have got overcrowded prisons, and all that the Government can do is float half-baked schemes for breaking up the Home Office that they cannot even agree about. Have not this Government now become like the ship stranded off the Devon coast? They are washed up and broken up, and they are just scrabbling over the wreckage.
I think that that probably sounded better in rehearsal than it did at the Dispatch Box. The truth of the matter is that we are building more prison places and people are staying in prison longer, and as a result of the legislation in 2003 we now have indeterminate sentences for violent and sexual offenders. The fact is that crime has actually fallen, not risen, and we have extra numbers of police and community support officers. All of that has taken legislation and investment, and the right hon. Gentleman has voted against both. So the one person who has no credibility on this issue is the person who has opposed the very proposals that are necessary to deal with it. The truth is that the Tory party, which used to be the party of law and order, now votes against the tough measures and the investment.
Does my right hon. Friend share my concern about the growing power of private equity companies? Increasingly, they are in pursuit of a quick buck and quick profit. They cut back on investment and the skills of workers, and they asset-strip rapidly. That is a worrying situation, because such companies now employ more than 3 million British workers. Does he share my concern, and can he do something about it?
Although I am sure that there are the situations of abuse to which my hon. Friend draws attention, I think that private equity companies in this country have provided a valuable basis of investment in British industry. The way of dealing with the issue that he outlines is to ensure that we have proper protections for the work force. In that regard, let me tell him that this Government will never withdraw from the European social charter, which has provided such excellent protection for our work force. That is in distinction to some other parties that I could mention.
May I associate myself with the expressions of sympathy and condolence that the Prime Minister made in relation to the young soldier who was killed? On this occasion, can we also remember those who have been wounded, some grievously, and whose lives have been deeply affected by that as a result of their service in Iraq?
General Dannatt has said that our presence in Iraq exacerbates the security situation. Later today, in the debate in Iraq, we will set out our proposals to bring the troops home by October. Should not the Prime Minister set out his proposals in that debate as well?
As I have already indicated, when the operation going on in Basra that allows us to reconsider the configuration and deployment of our forces is finished, I will of course come to the House and report on future strategy for British forces. I have to tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman, first, that he does not represent General Dannatt accurately: that is not his view. Secondly, let me tell him that for us to set an arbitrary timetable—that is what it is, and it is arbitrary because it is not attached to the conditions in Iraq and simply says that we will pull British troops out in October, come what may—would send the most disastrous signal to the people whom we are fighting in Iraq. It is a policy that, whatever its superficial attractions may be, is deeply irresponsible—which is probably why it is Liberal Democrat policy.
If the Prime Minister feels that strongly, he should come and debate the issues this afternoon. What can possibly be more important than that the Prime Minister should be here to debate the issue of Iraq at a time when the lives of British forces are at risk every day? Is not that the kind of leadership to which we are entitled?
I am debating the issue with the right hon. and learned Gentleman now. I entirely agree that British forces are doing a fantastic job in Iraq in circumstances of difficulty and danger, but let us remind ourselves of why they are there. They are there under a United Nations resolution with the full support of the Government of Iraq—[Interruption.] The right hon. and learned Gentleman shakes his head, but let me remind him that in 2003, after the conflict and the invasion of Iraq, there was a United Nations resolution that specifically endorsed the multinational force. We are there with the agreement of the Government of Iraq. When I spoke to the vice-president of Iraq, himself a Sunni, just a few days ago, he made clear how disastrous it would be to set an arbitrary timetable for withdrawal. The very way that we can ensure that the sacrifice of our troops has not been in vain is to see the mission through and complete it successfully.
May I thank my right hon. Friend for visiting my home city of Brighton and Hove earlier this week to announce new local funds to tackle antisocial behaviour? Now Brighton and Hove is one of 40 respect programme areas, and we will be able both to set up parenting schemes and fight crime more effectively. Will my right hon. Friend assure my constituents that the money will not be a one-off, bringing hope for only one year, but will be repeated year on year?
Of course decisions about funding will be taken in the comprehensive spending review, but my hon. Friend is right to say that the Respect action areas and the funding that goes with them have made a real difference. I know that Opposition Members claim that it is all just a gimmick, but people can see that the new laws on antisocial behaviour are being used in many communities in this country. They can also see the new partnerships between the police and local communities that make sure that we deal with the menace of antisocial behaviour. Those who continue to oppose the measures on antisocial behaviour are completely out of touch with the majority of people in this country.
It is precisely for that reason that we are introducing the new financial measures that will mean that the situation about which the hon. Gentleman is complaining will not arise in the future. I might just point out that his party is opposed to those reforms, but I am sure that he will accept that his area has received an increase in funding of something like 30 per cent. I understand the challenges and difficulties that arise as we transit to a better financial system, but the one thing that the hon. Gentleman cannot complain about is the amount of money that the Government have put into primary care in his area.
The report from the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland shows that a serial killer was protected by special branch and paid by the state for years. That would be a national scandal anywhere else. Does the Prime Minister accept that that collusion was a fact, not a myth? Is it not a disgrace that three former heads of special branch—Chris Albiston, Ray White and Freddie Hall—failed to co-operate with the police ombudsman’s investigation, although two of them have attacked her report and her office? Can Ronnie Flanagan, who presided over a culture of “anything goes, but nobody knows” be credible as chief inspector of constabulary? Will the Prime Minister rethink plans to install MI5 as continuity special branch in Northern Ireland, as that would put it beyond the reach of key powers of the police ombudsman?
First of all, although I agree with the hon. Gentleman about what has taken place, I completely disagree with his analysis of what MI5 is doing in Northern Ireland. It is simply not correct to say that it will have any role at all in civic policing. Secondly, we deeply and bitterly regret any collusion that has taken place, as we said at the time, and any impropriety on the part of anyone working for special branch throughout those years. However, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would want to acknowledge that as a result of the changes made some years ago, that cannot happen any more, and it is precisely as a result of the additional scrutiny that we now have that this matter has been uncovered and laid bare. It is important that we make sure that such things can never happen again. We must deal with those responsible, and that is obviously what we are doing.
Yes, and I believe that this debate is moving in a completely different and more positive direction. First, we have to take measures here, and the climate change Bill that we will shortly publish will set out exactly what steps Government, business and individuals can take. Secondly, we need to make sure that the European emissions trading system is more effective. Thirdly, we need international agreement, through the G8 plus 5 dialogue that we established at the Gleneagles summit. I think that there is a different attitude around the world to this issue, and that the signs from the “State of the Union” address are positive. However, we must make sure that we get a binding international framework that allows us to tackle the problem at the only level, ultimately, where it can be tackled—by making sure that we have an agreement with all the major countries, including America, China and India. I am more positive and optimistic about that possibility than I have been for several years.
I entirely understand why my hon. Friend raises those concerns, and obviously, as a result of what happened earlier in the week, there has been a great deal of debate about First services in Bristol. I am glad that the company has—I think—taken some measures to try to address those concerns. In respect of governance, the road transport Bill, which is due in draft later this year, will enable improvements to be made to transport governance arrangements in cities, including those involving passenger transport authorities. I think and hope that the point my hon. Friend raises may find some echo in the arrangements that we shall announce later this year.
I do not know the precise reasons regarding each of those measures, but obviously there has to be a balance. We need to make sure that people can ask, and indeed that they do ask, so that producers of goods in this country can benefit from people’s desire to eat produce from the UK. On the other hand, we have to balance that with making sure that we do not have bureaucracy that actually undermines—[Interruption.] I am sure that many Members on the Opposition Benches would be the first to take us to task if we were to enter into arrangements whereby rather than the Just Ask campaign, which is voluntary, we ended up with compulsory labelling.
I understand entirely both the point that my hon. Friend makes and why it is important to make it clear that large as well as small organisations will be caught by the legislation. Sometimes there can be greater practical difficulties in bringing prosecutions against those in larger organisations, because there is a different chain of command in bigger companies, but the basic provisions of the measure should apply to large and small alike. I shall come back to my hon. Friend specifically on the issue he raises.
I am sure that the whole House will want to send condolences to the family of the hon. Gentleman’s constituent and to support the trust that has been set up in memory of Mrs. Jeanette Crizzle. We are indeed developing an education pack for schools to promote donation among 14 to 16-year-olds, and that pack will be offered to every school from this September onwards. In addition, we are looking at how we can build up our organ donation levels to those of other European countries. A taskforce is looking at recommendations and it will report shortly. I very much hope that that will align our thinking with that of the voluntary organisation that the hon. Gentleman has just mentioned. This is a serious question, particularly for people who suffer from leukaemia, as Mrs. Crizzle did; there is a real opportunity to make a difference in saving lives if we can extend the organ donation range.
May I reassure my hon. Friend that although the ombudsman said herself that she did not see the need for an inquiry, action will none the less be taken as a result of her report, which will make sure that those who are responsible are properly and rightly dealt with? It is also fair, as far as the reputation of our country is concerned, to make it clear that as a result of measures taken some years ago, this type of collusion has been stamped out; it does not happen and has not happened for several years. As for what happened before then, the ombudsman’s report provides the basis for us to act on it.
I also want to emphasise one thing implied by the first part of my hon. Friend’s question. While we are talking about the activities—the wrong activities—of a small number of people in the former Royal Ulster Constabulary, it is also right to pay tribute to those who lost their lives in withstanding terrorism. The main body of those officers were doing a difficult job in very difficult circumstances. I hope that, as a result of the measures that we now take, we can satisfy people that there is no possibility of this ever happening again.
It is right that if we want a stable and lasting peace in Northern Ireland, it can only be on the basis of unequivocal support for the police, the rule of law and the system of criminal justice there. I also think that the one thing that is now very clear is that the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the changes that we made over the past few years provide a completely different context in which policing can take place. That is why I think that there is now a possibility for moving forward on the basis of a power-sharing Executive on the one side, and full support for the police and the rule of law on the other.
I can tell my hon. Friend that over the next few weeks we will be announcing proposals to give recognition to the Bevin boys and the extraordinary work that they did in service of their country in the second world war. They often worked in very dangerous and difficult conditions underground, and as a result of their work we were able to sustain our war effort, so it is entirely right to find an appropriate way of recognising their service.
Against the carefully chosen backdrop of HMS Albion, the Prime Minister promised to increase defence spending. That was taken by our beleaguered armed forces as a firm commitment, so what are they to make of the humiliating dismissal given by one of the right hon. Gentleman’s Ministers in the other place, who referred to the Prime Minister’s speech as merely one contribution to the debate, which
“will, of course, be regarded very seriously and very importantly indeed.”—[Official Report, House of Lords; 17 January 2007, Vol. 688, c. 647.]?
Is that not evidence that the Prime Minister’s authority is disappearing rapidly in our country?
Let me just point out to the hon. Gentleman that over the past few years we have, in fact, increased defence spending—after years of the Government whom he supported, who cut defence spending by a third. What is more, wholly contrary to what is put out by the Conservative party, defence spending—when we add in the additional money from Iraq and Afghanistan—has kept constant as a proportion of national income, despite a growing economy. In the 10 years before we came to office it was cut by about a third—again, as a proportion of gross domestic product. So let me tell the hon. Gentleman that I did indeed make the commitment that our armed forces would be properly supported. They will be properly supported. That is the commitment of this Government; it was a commitment never given or honoured by the previous Administration.
I would be delighted to meet the group that my hon. Friend draws attention to—although the timing may be another issue—but I can assure him that we are well aware of the fantastic work done by the volunteers who work in mountain rescue. Of course, the decision to support mountain rescue is made by chief constables in their local areas, but I can assure him that the Government will continue to do all that we can to support them.