The Secretary of State was asked—
I have established an independent review into affordable housing under the leadership of Sir John Semple to look at the barriers affecting those seeking affordable housing across all tenures—social, private and private rented. Social housing start targets of approximately 1,500 houses per annum have been achieved in the past three years, and I hope to build on that success in future.
Bearing in mind the fact that getting on the housing ladder is the major difficulty facing our young people, as well as the crisis in social housing, will the Minister tell the House what is the total waiting list for housing in Northern Ireland? How many of those cases are deemed a priority, and how many houses are planned in the next two years to meet that need and tackle the crisis in social housing? That is of the utmost urgency, and the planned 1,500 houses are quite inadequate to meet that need.
In total, about 695,000 properties in Northern Ireland are available for social housing. The current projected build is 1,500 houses per annum, and I hope that we will be able at least to maintain that figure in the next three years and, indeed, with a devolved Administration, increase it. Housing waiting lists are relatively stable. I do not have the figures to hand, but I will make sure that the hon. Gentleman receives them. My purpose in establishing the review under Sir John Semple is to look at the great challenges that we face in Northern Ireland resulting from increased homelessness, which itself is caused by a range of factors such as employment opportunities; high house prices; family break-up; and cultural changes. We need to address those issues. The Semple review will do so, and I hope that we can publish the final results shortly.
Given that average incomes in Northern Ireland are still relatively low while the increase in house prices has accelerated in the past few years, what specific measures has my right hon. Friend taken to assist first-time, aspirational home owners in Northern Ireland so that they can get on the housing ladder?
My hon. Friend raises an important issue. We have tried to do several things. We have established and increased the co-ownership scheme to ensure that we provide shared ownership potential in housing. I recently amended the threshold for co-ownership so that it can increase with house price inflation, particularly in hot spots such as Belfast and the north-west of the Province. We have also increased the property threshold for stamp duty to £125,000, so that first-time buyers do not need to make a major up-front financial contribution and can instead put that money towards their capital costs and mortgage payments. It is an important issue, and there is more that we can do. When the report is published shortly, I am hopeful that it will include positive suggestions for action.
I know that the Minister will accept that Northern Ireland house prices have gone up more than house prices anywhere else in Europe—they have increased by up to 40 per cent. in the past year. Does he accept that part of the problem is the high price of land in Northern Ireland for new build? Up to 50 per cent. of the cost of a house is the cost of the site, so the release of land is a critical issue. Because of the slow zoning of the planning service, will the Minister follow John Semple’s suggestion that the Department should give up surplus land and make it available for affordable housing?
I share the hon. Gentleman’s aspirations, and I hope that an incoming Administration—a devolved Administration—can deal with those issues in detail. I have made it clear that I want the provision of Government-owned land for housing purposes to be maximised so that we can provide affordable housing through private sector development and, indeed, social housing. I have undertaken a trawl of Government Departments with surplus land, and, through the Semple report, we will try to ensure that we examine that potential in detail so that we maximise the benefits of reducing the cost of new build by using any surplus Government-owned land as, indeed, is done by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and his Department and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and her Department.
The Minister will be aware that a recent report indicated that house prices have increased by 52.9 per cent. in the past 12 months, for which the Government must bear some responsibility. Awaiting the Semple report is one thing, but we well know that three issues must be addressed. First, planning regulations must be changed to ensure that private development includes mixed tenure; secondly, the ill-fated planning policy statement 14, which forbids any building in rural Northern Ireland, must be immediately withdrawn; and, thirdly, public and brownfield sites should be released for mixed-tenure building. Will the Minister implement those three things immediately without waiting for the results of another investigation?
I welcome my hon. Friend’s comments. He will know that the Semple report, which will shortly be published in full, addresses many of those issues in its draft form. I hope that the matters that my hon. Friend raises will form part of the challenges facing the incoming Administration on 26 March, because there is much that can be done in relation to planning matters, land use, social housing build and improving co-ownership. I have an agenda for that, but it is the responsibility of the new Administration to take it forward and to respond positively to Sir John Semple’s recommendations. I hope my hon. Friend and his colleagues in the Social Democratic and Labour party will play a significant role in taking forward that agenda.
The most recent figures available from 2005 showed that almost 2 million visitors stayed in Northern Ireland during that year.
I congratulate the Minister on that fantastic figure. When I visited the country and visited the glories of the north Antrim coast, the Giant’s Causeway, Portstewart strand and the wonderful hills of Fermanagh, I noticed the difference from 20 years ago, when there were tanks on the streets of Belfast. What is my hon. Friend doing, particularly for the coastal areas? I noticed that there was nobody on the beaches, although admittedly, it was October. What can we do to diversify tourism in order not only to attract Americans seeking to trace their rich family history and heritage, but to get people to go to the wonderful mile-long white sandy deserted beaches?
May I say that 2005 was the first year since the troubles began that more people visited Northern Ireland than live there. That is a landmark. When the new Executive and Assembly are up and running in a couple of weeks, they can build on that. There is nothing like political stability to attract more visitors to that fantastic landscape. I am sure that achieving a proper political settlement in Northern Ireland will boost visitor numbers enormously. My hon. Friend is right. In a recent poll the Antrim coast road was named the fifth most spectacular view in the world. It came higher in the poll than the Grand Canyon—a reflection of the glories of Northern Ireland. A poll in The Guardian placed it second among the best road trips in the world. There is no doubt that there are glories in Northern Ireland that more visitors need to see, and the best way of ensuring that visitor numbers increase is through a stable political situation and devolved government.
I am delighted that the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) agrees that Northern Ireland is a worthwhile place to visit. I believe that Strangford in my constituency is one of the most beautiful areas of Northern Ireland, but like others, I believe that the Ards peninsula and Killyleagh in particular are not properly marketed for their tourism potential. Does the Minister agree that the draconian planning policy guidelines for the rural areas, which include the coastal areas, are inhibiting the hospitality sector from building hotels and bed-and-breakfast accommodation?
It is interesting to hear the hon. Lady’s views about that. She may be a Minister in the new devolved Government in not too many weeks, and she will have an opportunity then to focus on making the most of the tourism potential in her constituency. I agree that marketing is important, and that it is important to take note of the detailed implications of visitor numbers as they come through and to adjust marketing to make the best of the tourism potential. There is no doubt that that potential exists. There are already 52,980 jobs in the tourism industry and it is clear that that number could increase significantly with proper marketing. If proper services are available, the tourism potential to exploit in Northern Ireland is enormous. I hope the hon. Lady and her right hon. and hon. Friends will shortly have a hands-on opportunity to make that potential a reality.
The next time a Northern Ireland Minister is in Dublin, will he or she visit the Northern Ireland Tourist Board in Nassau street, opposite Trinity? It is unattractive, unappealing and lacking in marketing skills for the beautiful Northern Ireland that hon. Members have described. It is important that such a visit be made in order that we can attract people interlining to the island of Ireland through Dublin to come to the North, and more importantly, to attract citizens of Dublin and elsewhere in the Republic to come to the North. I have seen more appealing funeral homes than that office in Nassau street.
The Northern Ireland dairy industry is well placed to face the competitive challenges that lie ahead.
Recently, dairy farming has been in dire straits, particularly because of the low price of wholesale milk. One of the issues that will affect prospects for the future is the high incidence of bovine TB in Northern Ireland compared with the Republic, where a selective cull has been exceptionally successful. Will the Northern Ireland Office consider that matter and take action to assist dairy farmers in Northern Ireland?
I assure the hon. Lady that animal health issues are a significant priority for my Department. We work very closely with our counterparts in the Republic, and I discussed this issue with Mary Coughlan, the Republic’s Minister for Agriculture and Food, when I met her last year. On a small island such as Ireland, it is important that we have an all-Ireland animal health strategy. If the hon. Lady is particularly referring to the selective cull of badgers, we have a group considering that. As with all such emotive issues, it is best to proceed on the basis of fact and evidence, and we are looking at the lessons that we can learn from the Republic. However, she is absolutely right that big challenges face the dairy sector in Northern Ireland. That is why it requires a full-time Agriculture Minister, who is accountable to local people in Northern Ireland, and I very much hope that one will be in place the week after next.
There are only two ways in which the Northern Ireland dairy industry can remain competitive. One is to produce bulk milk cheaper than alternative suppliers—that option is not open because of limited scale—and the other is to target high-value markets, perhaps through ethical dairy production with integrated supply chains. Does the Minister believe that the dairy industry in Northern Ireland is investing in those areas and not making the same mistakes as the dairy industry here in Great Britain?
My hon. Friend is correct. The industry is over-reliant on exporting powderised milk. The changes to the common agricultural policy in relation to export guarantees, which we entirely support, will mean that that is not an attractive option in future. There must be diversification into higher-value products such as cheese, yoghurt and premium ice cream—for example, the excellent Tickety-Moo ice cream. The Government have a role to play in this, and we can help by making grants available, but essentially it has to be a market-led process. I recently opened a new line at the Dunmanbridge cheese factory, which has risen to the challenge. My hon. Friend is right that such diversification has to be the way ahead.
Given that the average market price across the globe for whole milk powder has risen to some $900, does the Minister agree that it should be a realistic expectation for farmers in Northern Ireland that prices for milk should increase, and increase now?
There is of course a very competitive free market in milk and milk products, and it is not the role of the Government to interfere in that. However, the hon. Gentleman highlights the fact that given that the price of whole milk powder fluctuates wildly, it is folly to stake one’s entire economic development strategy for the dairy industry on what is essentially a global commodity. He is right that prices go up and down. However, I return to the point that I made earlier: the future for Northern Ireland’s dairy industry—which is tremendously important, as dairy products represent 30 per cent. of the value of its agriculture industry—is to diversify into cheese, yoghurt and other high-value products.
I agree with my hon. Friend about diversification, but what is he going to do? We cannot just allow the market to run things for farmers—we need some intervention by Government. Can he tell me what his Department is doing to help them?
Yes, I can. My hon. Friend is correct to say that we need to support the industry in this period of transition, and processing and marketing grants are available from national funds. The extra dairy premium on the single farm payment has also helped the dairy industry to diversify. The factory at Dunmanbridge has benefited to the tune of £500,000 from Government assistance for developing its product line. We stand ready to support the industry as it makes this important transition, but ultimately this must be an issue that the market determines, with Government support.
First, I want to congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his election to the Northern Ireland Assembly, and to congratulate all those who signed the roll in the Assembly yesterday. The results of the election issue the clear message that voters want devolution on 26 March. An historic opportunity lies before the Northern Ireland political parties.
I thank the Secretary of State for his good wishes to Members on the Democratic Unionist party Benches. Central to the stunning and tremendous victory of the DUP in the elections was our requirement for delivery by republicans and the Government on a range of outstanding issues, if devolution is to happen. We require delivery by republicans on unambiguous and clear support for policing, the courts and the rule of law. We require the ending of criminality, paramilitarism and all the rest of it. We also require delivery by the Government, not least on a financial package. At the moment, what we are hearing from them falls well short of what will be necessary. Will the Secretary of State assure us and the people of Northern Ireland that an adequate financial package will be on offer to ensure that devolution can be bedded in and that a success can be made of any future Administration?
I agree with the hon. Gentleman; his party did indeed have a stunning victory—he also had one in his own constituency—and I congratulate it on that. It is the case that Sinn Fein needs to deliver—as it is doing, and as its president did on Monday in calling for information about two brutal murders in Belfast to be brought to the police. I want to quote the Belfast Telegraph on this. Interestingly, it says:
“The difference this time is that, although there were reports that the killings had links with republican dissidents, Gerry Adams asked anyone with information to take it to the police. ‘They should co-operate’, he said, ‘to bring the perpetrators to justice.’ Now that as senior a figure as Gerry Adams has urged people to co-operate with police in specific murder inquiries, the barriers that were erected between republicans and the police, over 80 years, are crumbling.”
I agree with the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds) that an incoming Executive will have to have a good financial package. The Chancellor is very aware of that, and he will not want to stand in the way of successful devolution on 26 March.
Does the Secretary of State agree that, as we hope that the institutions will shudder to a start on 26 March, financial lubrication would certainly help the process, but that we also need fiscal additives to ensure longer-term better economic performance? Does he also agree that, in making this case to the Treasury, the Northern Ireland parties need to present it by way of long-term plans, not short-term demands? People in Northern Ireland want to see long-term planning that will lead to sustainable institutions delivering differently and better. That is the message that all the parties received, no matter what their manifestos said.
I agree with my hon. Friend. Indeed, it was notable that, instead of the old issues dominating the election, water charges, the rating system and academic selection were the key issues on the doorstep and at the ballot box. The message from the people is that they want locally elected politicians to take those decisions, and the Government will assist in providing an environment for that to occur. It is important that the will of the people be respected, and that the Assembly be up and functioning on 26 March.
The Secretary of State will be aware that there were two major election issues on the doorstep: the important constitutional issues, and water charges. The people of Northern Ireland feel great anger and resentment that the Government, who are telling us today what a wonderful future we have, did not give us that wonderful future when they were in office. Why did they not do all these wonderful things that they tell us we should be doing? They missed out very badly.
I say to the Government today that it is no use putting a beautiful engine on the road, saying, “Here is devolution. Here is a wonderful form of government”, if there is not the money to pay for the fuel to run that engine. The Government have a responsibility not only to put the engine on the rails but to supply the people of Northern Ireland with the money. Instead of doing that, they are saying—
I got the impression that the right hon. Gentleman was feeling strongly about water charges. The Chancellor was listening closely to his point, and we will do our best to provide an incoming Executive with the wherewithal they need to have the successful start to devolution that he wants.
May I follow the potential engine driver and ask the Secretary of State to talk to the Chancellor, who is, I think, now listening? Will he tell him that the people of Northern Ireland really are concerned about water charges, and do need a moratorium of at least a year, and not to be double-charged for the privilege?
All that the Government were doing was introducing water charges in Northern Ireland as they are paid in Wales, Scotland and England. The verdict on the doorstep, however, was very clear. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor is well aware of the situation and will no doubt take close notice of the hon. Gentleman’s points.
Will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating the Alliance party of Northern Ireland on its super-stunning victory and on returning the first ethnic minority Member of the Legislative Assembly, Anna Lo, in the Assembly’s history? Does he accept that the nine-strong united community group is truly committed to the shared future agenda? Will he work with the UCG to ensure that, however unstable any potential Government in Stormont, there will be a stable and progressive Opposition, led by the Alliance, which maximises the chances of a principled shared future and a prosperous Province?
I join the Secretary of State in hoping that on 26 March we see the Assembly and Executive fully restored and exercising powers over the government of Northern Ireland. For that to endure, however, does he agree that the tendency of some republicans to make an artificial distinction between so-called civic and political policing must end, and that there must be a readiness to support the police unreservedly?
Indeed, and that has been made clear by both the president of Sinn Fein and the ard fheis motion. I agree with the hon. Gentleman and am grateful for his support on the objective of getting devolution up and running on 26 March. I am sorry that I cannot congratulate his party on its performance in the elections. It was beaten by the DUP, Sinn Fein, the Social Democratic and Labour party, the Ulster Unionist party, the Alliance, the Green party and the Progressive Unionist party, but at least it beat the Rainbow candidate who stood on a commitment to remove cash from circulation and introduce an electronic currency called the wonder.
At least my party was not afraid to put up candidates for those elections, unlike the Secretary of State’s party.
To return to the policing issue, does the Secretary of State agree that the comments of the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Michelle Gildernew) that she would not report to the police knowledge of the activities of republican dissidents are unacceptable, and that politicians must be prepared to support the police even if it leads to the investigation and arrest of their former comrades?
I think that Gerry Adams’s statement on Monday about the brutal murders committed that day, which I quoted earlier, was very clear. Gerry Adams, the president of Sinn Fein, has said that anyone who has information on the McCartney murder should supply it to the police. He has encouraged people to report crimes such as rape, car theft and violence against old people and to co-operate with the police, and he has encouraged republicans to join the police. Those are sea changes of historic proportions, which I know the hon. Gentleman will welcome.
I think the path is very clear. The people spoke on 7 March: they want devolution back. Parliament has spoken: it wants devolution back on 26 March, and we should proceed towards that objective.
The Prime Minister was asked—
Before I list my engagements, let me say that I am sure the whole House will wish to join me in sending condolences to the family and friends of Warrant Officer Class 2 Michael Smith of 29 Commando Regiment Royal Artillery, who was killed in Afghanistan last Thursday. He was part of the mission in Sangin to protect the Kajaki dam project. Once again we pay tribute to his heroism, his sacrifice and the work done by him and his colleagues in Afghanistan.
This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
May I associate myself with my right hon. Friend’s expression of condolence?
My right hon. Friend has made a huge contribution to the peace process in Northern Ireland. Following last week’s election, does he agree that what the people of Northern Ireland want is for their interests to be put first, and for local politicians to get on with the business of forming a Government? Will he confirm that the deadline for devolved government in Northern Ireland remains 26 March, and that that deadline will not change?
As my hon. Friend knows, the deadline is set out in the legislation.
I pay tribute to the leaders of all the political parties, including those in the House, who have played such a prominent part in the politics of Northern Ireland over the past few years. Let me also say that one significant development—in addition to all the other things that are happening in Northern Ireland—is the publication today of the employment figures, which show that over the past few years there have been 100,000 extra jobs in Northern Ireland and a reduction of 30,000 in the number of unemployed people.
What was fascinating, by all accounts, about the election in Northern Ireland was that the bread-and-butter issues—water charges, health, education and the local economy—were prominent on the doorstep. That in itself says a great deal about the modern face of Northern Ireland.
I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to Warrant Officer Michael Smith, killed in Afghanistan last Thursday.
Replacing Britain’s independent nuclear deterrent is in the national interest. A submarine-based alternative is the right answer, and the decision needs to be made now. Does the Prime Minister agree that in a dangerous and uncertain world, unilateral nuclear disarmament has never been and will never be the right answer?
For precisely the reasons that I gave when I made my statement to the House, I think it right that we make the decision now to begin work on replacing the Trident nuclear submarines. I think that that is essential for our security in an uncertain world. It is important for us to recognise that, although it is impossible to predict the future, the one thing that is certain—as I said in my statement—is the unpredictability of it. For that reason, I think it sensible that we make this decision today.
I agree with the Prime Minister. Does he agree that replacing Trident meets both the spirit and the letter of our international treaty obligations? Will he confirm that the last Conservative Government cut the number of warheads, that his Government cut the number of warheads, and that there will be further reductions in the future? Does he agree that, as a result, the argument against replacing Trident on the basis of non-proliferation simply does not stand up?
We are very proud of our record in this respect, and making sure that we reduce the number of warheads is important, as we have said. It may be possible to reduce the number of submarines, although that is a decision that will have to be made at a later stage.
Yes, of course it is important that we conform fully with our non-proliferation treaty obligations, and we are doing so. I think it is possible for us to continue to play our full part—under the non-proliferation treaty—in the multilateral negotiations that I hope will take place over the years to come, so that the world becomes a safer place with fewer nuclear weapons. However, I think that we shall be best able to achieve that if we maintain our nuclear deterrent.
We are discussing this now because the system could take about 17 years to put in place, so the timing is right, the legality is clear and maintaining the deterrent is in our national interest. Because the Prime Minister has the support of the Conservative party, we can work together in the national interest. Will he tell us clearly that tonight’s vote is the vote and that there is no going back after tonight’s vote? Will he also confirm that he will stand by his policy and that he will not appease those in his own party, or the Liberal Democrats, who simply want to run away from a tough decision?
It is precisely because I believe that this decision has to be taken now that we have the vote today in the House of Commons. I entirely understand why people might want to put off this decision, but the fact is that we need to take the decision today if we want to get parliamentary approval for the work that has to begin now on the concept and design phase—of course, the actual contracts for the design and construction are to be left for a later time. If we want to get proper parliamentary authorisation, this decision has to be taken now. I entirely understand and respect the views of those who hold a different opinion on this issue, but I have been pretty clear and firm on it from the beginning, and I think that we should continue to be so.
Is my right hon. Friend aware of the petition submitted to Downing street seeking a posthumous knighthood for the late Jock Stein in recognition of his achievements as the manager of Dunfermline, Celtic and Scotland? As this year is the 40th anniversary of Celtic and Stein winning the European cup—the first British team to do so—will the Prime Minister give serious consideration to giving approval for this petition to go online as soon as possible?
I join the Prime Minister in his expressions of sympathy and condolence.
I cannot help remembering that the last time the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) and the Prime Minister voted together in the same Lobby on an issue of national interest was on Iraq, and that has not proved to be a comforting precedent. Does the Prime Minister accept that the most immediate nuclear threat is from other countries acquiring nuclear weapons? What then will be the role played by his Government at the nuclear non-proliferation review conference in 2010?
We will continue to play a positive role on this issue. However, I must say to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that there is absolutely no evidence whatever that if Britain now renounced its independent nuclear deterrent that would improve the prospect of getting multilateral disarmament. On the contrary, I think that the reverse is the case. I must also say to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that although of course I understand why he wants to put off this decision—I understand that that is his position—the fact is that the 17-year programme is what has been advised by the experts who advise us on this issue. I recommend that he read the evidence given to the Defence Committee on this very point by Rear-Admiral Mathews. So the 17-year period is clear, and that must be worked back from 2024, which takes us to 2007. That means that we have to take the decision now if we want parliamentary approval for the concept and design phase. I am sure that if we did not seek parliamentary approval but continued with the work on the concept and design phase, the right hon. and learned Gentleman would be standing up and asking why I had not sought such approval.
The Prime Minister surely accepts that a hasty decision to replace Trident is bound to undermine our ability to have influence at the conference in 2010. Should we not now be offering to reduce the number of warheads on Trident in order to give a lead to others?
We are set to reduce the number of warheads, but it is absurd to say that we can somehow put off the question of whether we take a decision now on this concept and design phase. That is absurd because obviously we have to take the advice of the experts, such as the director general who is in charge of this matter in the Ministry of Defence and others, who say to us that it is a 17-year programme and it must therefore begin now if we want to maintain the nuclear deterrent. Therefore, we cannot put this decision off; we have to take it now. I recall that a few days ago, the right hon. and learned Gentleman said on this issue,
“I will not sit on the fence.”
I am afraid that “on the fence” is exactly where he is, and as I think that he will find, it is not a very comfortable place to be.
I totally agree with what my hon. Friend says. Many of the stories in the Sunday newspapers were from cases of some months ago, all of which have been investigated and looked into. I want to say this on behalf of the staff of the medical defence services at Selly Oak hospital and those who work elsewhere in our armed forces. They do a superb job for our armed forces, and it is simply not true that the national health service staff who work alongside them do not give excellent care to those who are injured. They do give excellent care, and I can tell my hon. Friend, based on the discussions that I have had with people working at that hospital and on the visits that I have paid to that and other facilities that handle injured soldiers, that there is an immense amount of praise, which never gets any publicity, for the staff who work there and the care that they give. When these stories appear, we should at least balance them with a fairer and I think truer picture of what is actually happening.
May I press the Prime Minister a little further on the point raised by the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle)? As the Prime Minister says, anyone who has been to the Birmingham Selly Oak hospital is hugely impressed by the work that the doctors and nurses do. I have seen it for myself and it is impressive, but surely what matters is not just the quality of care but the environment in which our soldiers are cared for. Is it not the case that when soldiers are injured in battle one day and in a British hospital the next, it is easier for them if they are surrounded by soldiers who have been through what they went through? I know that the Prime Minister has made progress in getting a military managed ward, but when does he expect to have a dedicated military facility in the hospital?
The commitment is precisely to have a military managed ward, and there is such a ward and has been since December of last year. Let me explain why it is important to express the situation in that way. Hospitals such as Selly Oak, to which very serious cases are brought, need the advantage of having the full range of NHS facilities and experts. It is precisely for that reason that the last Conservative Government rightly took the decision to phase out the military hospitals and to replace them with facilities for the armed forces within the NHS. But I totally agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it is important that those who are injured in war are then surrounded by their own comrades, and that they have a sense of their own feeling and sentiment among them. That is precisely what is happening now. I got the latest report from that hospital just a couple of days ago, and if either he or I were to visit it, we would find that the facilities offered to people are very good.
There is a difference between a military managed ward and a dedicated military ward—that is the important point. General Sir Richard Dannatt said yesterday that he has
“every confidence that in three years’ time”—
when the hospital is rebuilt—
“we will not just have a military managed ward, but effectively a dedicated military ward where our people will be exclusively”—
If it is right for three years’ time, why cannot we do more, quicker?
As I understand it, the point is that there may be beds in some of these wards where the level of care is intensive and high, and where anything between six and eight consultants may be looking after a particular person. But if, for example, there are spare beds within such a ward and the staff are required to look after a civilian patient, it would be wrong to say that such a bed could not be used for a civilian patient. It would also be a very inefficient use of resources. But the whole point is to create the circumstances in which our armed forces who are injured are given the best and highest possible care, and in which they receive that care surrounded by other soldiers and members of the armed forces. General Sir Richard Dannatt said the other day that, having visited those facilities, he was satisfied that they were doing the very best for our armed forces.
First, I can tell my hon. Friend that I am very happy to welcome the commencement of the tenancy deposit scheme on 6 April. It represents an end to the scandal of the small minority of unscrupulous landlords who refuse to return rent deposits left with them by short-term tenants. I would also say that the work done by Shelter, Citizens Advice and the NUS has been very important. It is good news for vulnerable tenants and students everywhere.
What I would say is that decisions on whether or not drugs should be available are taken by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. I am afraid that I cannot make a commitment for a meeting, but I am happy to look into the case that the hon. Gentleman mentions and to correspond with him about it.
I agree with my hon. Friend. What is important is to have action that is available to the individual citizen. The energy White Paper will detail some of the proposals for that shortly. Secondly, it is important to get international agreement within Europe and then at the G8 plus 5. Finally, it is obviously important—my hon. Friend is absolutely right—that we have practical policy making in this area. That is why I believe that the proposals that we have put forward this week will give us a realistic chance of meeting very ambitious targets. They are certainly preferable to the proposals put forward by the Conservative party.
Is the Prime Minister aware of the extent of the funding crisis faced by Greater Manchester police, which has already seen the loss of some 216 officers? According to the Labour-run policy authority, it faces a financial shortfall of up to £27 million over the next two years. If he is aware of it, could he explain what he is doing to help?
My understanding is that the police in Greater Manchester and elsewhere are getting increases—significant increases—in the amount of funding available. However, the hon. Gentleman will know that the chief police officers came to us and asked for greater flexibility in how the money is used. I think that I am right in saying that there have been almost 1,000 extra police officers in Greater Manchester since we came to office and there are, of course, in addition, the community support officers. It was in response to the request from the chief police officers that we now give them greater flexibility in how they use their funding.
The issue that my right hon. Friend raises is a very serious and important one and I can assure him that we are in touch at the present time with the International Red Cross and other UN agencies. He is right in saying that the Norwegian authorities have played a significant part in trying to put together a peace process in Sri Lanka. I totally understand the difficulties that the Government there face at present; it is a very challenging situation. We have said to them that we will do all we can to help, but my right hon. Friend is right to say that the only realistic way to get a solution is to come back to the 2002 agreement and make sure that it is implemented. I know that he will also agree that terrorism and violence can never be the way to achieve a negotiated solution.
I am perfectly prepared to meet the hon. Gentleman, because it is obviously a serious issue for mid-Essex and his constituency. However, he will be aware that, at the same time as the proposals on the community hospital are being discussed, there is also discussion on what will be a huge multi-million pound investment by the Government in Broomfield hospital. Over the past few years, he will know that there has been huge investment in the local NHS infrastructure, so I am very happy to meet him to talk about how we can get the benefits of this investment in his constituency and elsewhere in Essex. However, I know that he will be the first to say that the NHS has improved considerably in the last few years.
Does my right hon. Friend understand that today’s motion on Trident effectively commits this country to the possession of an independent nuclear weapons system for the best part of the next 45 years without the House being guaranteed any future opportunity to consider whether it remains the best strategy? Does he understand that many of us accept the need to ensure our ability to replace the Trident system, but none the less believe that in a fast-changing world this House should be guaranteed the chance to revisit that decision at an appropriate point in the future?
I entirely understand my right hon. Friend’s point. If I may put it like this, it is at what I would describe as the reasonable end of the opposition to what the Government are doing. However, let me try to explain why I think we have still got to take this decision today. It is absolutely right that this Parliament cannot bind the decisions of a future Parliament and it is always open to us to come back and look at these issues. He is right to suggest that when we get to the gateway stage—between 2012 and 2014—when we let the main contracts for design and construction, it will always be open to Parliament to take a decision. However, I believe that the reason why we have to take the decision today is that if we do not start the process now, we will not be in the position in 2012 or 2014 to continue with the nuclear deterrent should we wish to do so.
The real dilemma is that we decided rightly or wrongly—but I think rightly—that we should seek parliamentary approval even for the design and concept stage. When we came to the previous Trident nuclear submarine, it was only at a later stage that parliamentary approval was sought. That was much criticised at the time, so we decided that we should seek parliamentary approval at the very beginning of this process. Of course, it is a statement of fact that the gateway takes place at a later stage and in a later Parliament but if we want to spend at least the more limited sum of money now on the concept and design stage, we have to take a decision now.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As I was saying, cash for peerages is probably not the biggest disaster of the right hon. Gentleman’s tenure; Iraq is. We have heard concerns already about poor medical treatment for soldiers, lack of body armour and delays in coroners inquests. Indeed, some of my constituents from Stornoway have to pay council tax when they are in Iraq. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that families are having to send food parcels to some soldiers in Iraq because of the lack of 24-hour canteen facilities? Why is this Prime Minister, who was so cavalier in taking this country into Iraq, failing in his duty of care to these soldiers?
I simply dispute that we are failing in our duty of care towards our soldiers. Our soldiers are doing a magnificent job in Iraq. They are doing a necessary job for our security and the security of the wider world. I have to say, even though the hon. Gentleman and I may disagree strongly over the issue of Iraq, it is completely wrong for people to undermine the morale of our armed forces by suggesting that we are deliberately not giving them the equipment they need or the care they need when injured. It simply is not true and it is not right to say it.
The only talk in Crawley for years was the closure of Crawley hospital. Now, under new management, under the primary care trust, there is over £20 million of investment, a new urgent treatment centre opening, and new services every day. Will my right hon. Friend come to see for himself?
I would be delighted to do that. I remember that, before the last election, the Conservative party said that this would never happen and that it would not be done. It has been done. Later today, we will launch the results of the Government’s coronary disease programme over the past few years, which indicate that, since we came to office, over 100,000 lives have been saved as a result of investment and reform. The point is that every bit of that investment and reform, including in my hon. Friend’s constituency, has been opposed by the Opposition.
It is important, of course, that we invest more in social housing. We are doing that and, as a result of the investment, we are not merely helping people with the refurbishment of their homes, we are building new homes as well. I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that there will always be a limit on the resources that we are able to spend, but the Government have put £2 billion into council and social housing over the past few years and we intend to put in hundreds of millions more in the next few.
The Prime Minister will probably know that the police estimate that the largest ever mass lobby of Parliament took place a few weeks ago, when 1,200 blind people came here to call for a higher rate of mobility allowance. He may also have noticed that more than half the Back Benchers in the House have now signed my early-day motion to that effect. Will he perhaps have a word with the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr. Brown) to suggest that, at a cost of £50 million, it might be something that he could include in his forthcoming Budget and thereby enhance his reputation as a humane and caring Chancellor?
We have obviously increased the payments for mobility allowance over the past few years. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will have heard what the hon. Gentleman has said and I will study carefully the early-day motion. I can give no commitments at this stage, but we will take into account what he says.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that the liaison officers do a fantastic job. This is an example of liaison co-operation between the different services. The number of drugs seizures is now way above what used to be the case. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend and I am happy to look into what more we can do. Obviously, the other measures that we are taking to protect our borders will play a part as well.
What progress is the Prime Minister making on delivering the outstanding issues—many have been supplied by my party to him and his officials—that are essential for the delivery of devolution at some point in the very near future?
As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are in receipt of the proposals that have been put forward by his party. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is meeting representatives of his party and I will do the same. We will honour the commitments that we have given, and we entirely understand why those proposals are an important part of the overall package to get devolution back up and running in Northern Ireland.
My hon. Friend is right on both points. There has been a dramatic drop in the number of deaths as a result of various measures that have been taken over the past few years. It is sometimes worth pointing out that the number of lives saved, especially young children’s, as a result of some of the road measures that have been taken runs into many hundreds. However, my hon. Friend is also right that a very specific problem has arisen. Discussions are under way in government about what we can do about that and, especially, about what can be done to ensure that we are able to deal with young drivers in either stolen or uninsured vehicles far more quickly than we do at present.