1. What advice her Department is issuing across Government on the greater use of the internet for advertising job opportunities in Government and Government activities. (131494)

It is important that we make optimum use of the internet in job advertising and other areas to maximise value for money for the taxpayer while at the same time ensuring access to information about job opportunities in Government for the one third of the population who do not use the internet. All Departments are instructed to advertise vacancies on the civil service jobs website, at http://www.careers.civil-service.gov.uk/ and also, where appropriate, on the Jobcentre Plus website. We recognise that civil service spending in this area is a small part of total public sector spending, but we are committed to making better use of the internet and reducing expenditure on press advertising. To that end, we expect to reduce the £1.3 million estimated spending on senior jobs in the six largest spending Departments by up to 80 per cent. over the next few months.

I am pleased by the Minister’s recognition of the dramatic increase in the use of the internet. Can he get a sense of urgency into Departments so that they use the internet to a much greater extent, not only for job advertising but also for public notices about Government activity? Will he spread that practice to other publicly funded bodies, not least local government?

I agree with my right hon. Friend that more could be done both nationally and locally, and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and I will shortly be meeting the First Civil Service Commissioner and the Commissioner for Public Appointments to see what more can be done. Some moves are already being made to have more generic press advertising, with signposting to appropriate websites. Some aspects of local notices are governed by legislation, but our priority throughout will be to maximise value for money for the taxpayer, to make the best use of the technology available and ensure proper access for everyone to information about Government jobs.

Literally thousands of job ads pour out by e-mail from the Government Communication Network, many of which are readvertisements for what seem to be challenging roles that are sometimes difficult to fill, such as the head of external communications at the Rural Payments Agency, who has the seemingly difficult role of

“improving customer communication and stakeholder engagement”.

I also saw a vacancy for “communisation” at the Identity and Passport Service. I have to—

Order. I call the Minister.

I think the hon. Gentleman was trying to make a point about the type of job available. Our concern in this question is to ensure that whatever type of job is advertised we make proper use of the technology and that we also cater for those who do not have access to the internet. By combining both things we can improve value for money and still do the right job in advertising Government posts.

Next week, Sir Alistair Graham stands down as chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life. Have we advertised for a replacement yet and if not, why not?

Do you want a job?

I shall endeavour to find out for my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) exactly what the position is with regard to that job. If he is interested, I am sure he will be a strong candidate.

2. What discussions she has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the impact on charities of the 2 per cent. cut in the basic rate of income tax from April 2008. (131495)

My right hon. Friend the Chancellor and I have discussed the impact of the cut in the basic rate of income tax on gift aid and the need to build on the progress made since 1997, which has led to an increase in the resources going to charities through gift aid from £134 million to £750 million. The Charities Aid Foundation estimates that £700 million is potentially available from more tax-effective giving and we aim to come forward with measures at the time of the pre-Budget report, before the introduction of the basic rate tax cut next year.

Bearing in mind the fact that charities will probably lose a total of £70 million, can the Minister clarify what some of the strategies will be either for increasing the take-up of gift aid or reforming the system altogether so that it is simpler for people to use?

I agree that we need to do all we can to drive up tax-effective giving. Just in the last year for which figures are available, there was an increase of £125 million in the receipts to charities under gift aid. We want to take action on a number of fronts: first, by building on the improvements that have already been made in gift aid; secondly, by seeing how we can promote payroll giving, which is a very tax-effective form of giving; and, thirdly, by ensuring that there is greater awareness of how to give effectively—the Charities Aid Foundation has identified £700 million that could be available to charities and we want to do all we can to make that money available.

Last week I was pleased to organise for Oxfam a breakfast meeting in my constituency with leading Swindon companies such as Nationwide, Zurich, npower and Barclays, all of which have worked hard on payroll giving. Does the Minister agree that payroll giving will increase giving to charities, and would he encourage MPs to join in?

I agree with my hon. Friend. I have recently taken advantage of being able to give through the payroll giving scheme and I have written to all Members of the House to encourage them and their employees to do so too. It is still the case that too few employees take advantage of payroll giving. We want to do all that we can to promote the scheme. As I say, I encourage Members of the House both to take up the scheme themselves and to promote it in their constituencies.

Charities in Scotland will lose around £7 million as a result of the change and will also be badly affected as the Minister’s colleagues divert lottery funding away from good causes in Scotland and towards filling the Olympics deficit. What comfort can he give to charities such as Crossroads in my constituency, which are being hit hard by the changes at a UK level and also by unacceptable cuts at local authority level, so that they can continue to do their good work in supporting older people in the highlands and across Scotland?

The hon. Gentleman should join us in working on the different ways in which we can promote more tax-effective giving. We want to see improvements in gift aid. If he or the charity that he mentions have any suggestions, we would be interested to hear them. We want to find ways of promoting payroll giving and of raising awareness of how to give effectively. This is one of the occasions when there are greater resources available under gift aid if people give more effectively and charities encourage them to do so.

I agree with the Minister that payroll giving is effective. Has he had any discussions with the professional accounting bodies or the professional human resources bodies to ensure that, particularly in small and medium-sized enterprises and other small organisations, the staff who organise the payroll are aware of the process and the HR staff are making employees aware of the scheme?

My hon. Friend raises an important point. It is particularly hard for people working in small and medium-sized enterprises to take advantage of payroll giving. In the past, we have made resources available to encourage payroll giving by small and medium-sized enterprises, but I will take up her suggestion and ensure that we have discussions with the bodies that she mentions.

No one doubts the Minister’s good intentions, but he will be judged on his record. Since his role was created, the Government have taken £100 million from charities to prop up the Olympics. They have reneged on their promise on full-cost recovery and now they are taking £70 million a year from gift aid. That is a pretty disappointing record. Was he consulted by the Chancellor in advance of the Budget, and did he object, or does meekness before the Chancellor run in the family?

I did talk to the Chancellor about the issue. I thought that the Conservative party used to be in favour of cutting the basic rate of income tax, but clearly it is not any more. We on this side of the House are in favour of cutting the basic rate of income tax to 20p. I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman would come to the Dispatch Box to congratulate us on our record on gift aid, because the amount of money going to charities has gone up from £124 million to £750 million. It is not just we on this side of the House who think that we have a good record on gift aid; the Leader of the Opposition has said that

“there have been some positive developments.”

3. What estimate she has made of Government funding allocated to the third sector between 1997 and 2001; and if she will make a statement. (131496)

Between 1997 and 2001, total public funding to the charitable sector increased from £5.5 billion to £7.5 billion, and it increased to over £10 billion in 2003-04, the latest year for which figures are available. For central Government, there has been a 96 per cent. real terms increase in funding since 1997.

I welcome that response. Does my hon. Friend agree that the £80 million announced in this year’s Budget for small grants to community organisations is of particular importance to groups such as the Tame Valley Green committee in Dukinfield and the Friends of Reddish Baths, who will be able to continue to fight for improvements to their facilities locally, giving them a sense of ownership once those improvements are achieved?

I agree with my hon. Friend. In the consultations that we have been doing with small voluntary sector organisations around the country, one of the biggest things that has come through is the need to have small amounts of money, which the smallest community groups can access to allow them to undertake one-off events and create a series of activities in constituencies around the country. I am extremely pleased that the Chancellor was able to announce an £80 million fund in the Budget and I hope that the organisations that my hon. Friend mentioned will be able to take advantage of that.

A number of years ago, the Treasury set up the Goodison review to try to encourage more funding to be given to good causes. There were a number of excellent recommendations, but none of them has been implemented. Can the Minister tell us when some of the Goodison review recommendations will be implemented?

I vaguely recall the Goodison review and will endeavour to investigate the matter further and write to the hon. Gentleman about it.

For small community organisations in my constituency, access to grants for capital projects and other activities is very important. However, they are often put off by the complexity of applying for grants. Will my hon. Friend assure me that for the new funding that he has announced, the application process will be as straightforward as possible? May I invite him to visit my constituency to see the very good work being done by community organisations?

I certainly accept my hon. Friend’s offer to visit her constituency. She is completely right that the micro-grants scheme needs to be made to work as simply as possible. We are talking about small amounts of money that organisations will apply for, so there should be as little bureaucracy as possible, as too much bureaucracy puts off small organisations that rely on volunteers for their work. We will endeavour to achieve that.

11. What visits he has undertaken while deputising for the Prime Minister on international issues; and if he will make a statement. (131484)

In addition to those visits I announced to the House on 7 March on behalf of the Prime Minister, I recently visited the Czech Republic and Malta to discuss with their leaderships the issue of climate change and other European matters. I held a number of bilateral meetings with the Prime Ministers and deputy Prime Ministers of both countries, and with the President of Malta. I addressed and debated the issue with an audience of politicians, some of them Cabinet members, academics and senior industry figures. I also gave a speech at the British Council’s youth forum seminar on climate change.

I am very pleased to hear my right hon. Friend tell the House that he has visited Czechoslovakia—[Interruption.] I apologise to the House, I mean the Czech Republic—and Slovakia. I hope that my right hon. Friend, as well as debating the vitally important issue of climate change, also took the opportunity to discuss any innovative opportunities presented to our country—and particularly to John Lightfoot in my constituency, an innovative producer of air-sourced heat pumps that reduce CO₂ emissions. Will my right hon. Friend use his good offices to support innovators such as those in Yorkshire who—[Interruption.]

Order.

The House will be aware that the Prime Minister of the Czech Republic is very sceptical about the science of climate change, but I must say that many of his Ministers—and, indeed, the deputy Prime Minister—are members of the Green party, clearly showing that the debate on climate change is well under way in the Czech Republic. My hon. Friend will know from my work as the China taskforce chairman that I am delivering a report in Beijing next week on the work being done on climate change. I will also be in Shanghai tomorrow to deliver a speech on those matters and I should like to apologise to the House for having to leave here immediately after my parliamentary time. I will, of course, be happy to mention the excellent work of Yorkshire Forward in promoting the industries of our great county.

I read the Deputy Prime Minister’s speech on climate change—it was a very good speech—but how can he expect it to be taken seriously when the Government are cutting back on climate research at the Hadley centre and when carbon emissions in the UK have risen over the last 10 years while the share of environmental taxes in the economy has fallen? [Interruption.]

As has just been said from a sedentary position, as usual, this is another opportunity for the Liberals to do nothing about these matters except complain. The Government have fully supported the Hadley centre and everyone recognises the professional contribution that it has made to the debate on climate change. The hon. Gentleman should also bear in mind that during the 10 years of the Labour Government, there has been a 28 per cent. growth in our economy, an 8 per cent. cut in greenhouse gases with only a 1 per cent. increase in carbon. That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has made several proposals to be put before the House in a climate change Bill to deal with emissions. We are proud to put forward our record of achieving twice the target set for us at Kyoto.

12. What recent steps he has taken to co-ordinate Government policy on European matters; and if he will make a statement. (131485)

I regularly discuss policy relating to Europe with ministerial colleagues. For example, earlier this year and shortly after their accession to the EU, I visited Romania and Bulgaria on behalf of the Prime Minister. I met the Presidents and Prime Ministers of both countries to discuss issues of bilateral and regional importance

Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree with recent comments of Mr. Barroso, the President of the European Commission, who suggested that Europe should have a common migration policy? If he does, does he think that that will help or hinder good community relations in this country?

I have not read the comments of Mr. Barroso. [Hon. Members: “Oh!”] Oh, shock, horror—no, I have not. But all these matters are important. I have common consultations in Europe and nationally. They were involved in some of my discussions abroad. It is an important issue, and we will work to find common agreement and consensus, to the benefit of all.

Has the Deputy Prime Minister consulted colleagues on whether a policy of little Englander isolationism and alliance with nobody but crackpots, fanatics and the Czechs might be the best thing for the United Kingdom?

My hon. Friend can say that, but I certainly cannot comment on it.

Is it not time that the Prime Minister brought some coherence to the Government’s European policy? Four years ago, the Prime Minister said that we needed a proper constitution for Europe; but on Monday, he said that we did not need a constitution but that we had to have a new treaty, which contradicted the Foreign Secretary, who said that the EU was coping just fine as it was, who was in turn contradicted by the Minister for Europe, who said that the current rules are unsustainable. Is it not time that the Deputy Prime Minister stepped in to sort out the chaos, and will he reiterate the pledge that there will be no bringing in of parts of the constitution through the backdoor?

The Prime Minister made it clear at his joint conference with the Dutch Prime Minister on Monday that his concern was obviously to secure some agreement on those matters in the European Council of Ministers when it meets in June and to make it clear that we are concerned about the administrative changes and that we would be supportive of them, but not of the constitutional changes.

As a member of the Government who held a referendum in the north-east, with a result that will never be forgotten in the north-east or the rest of the country, will the Deputy Prime Minister, in his final weeks in office, leave a legacy to democracy and join us in declaring that any new treaty that transfers powers from Britain to the European Union should be subject to a referendum of the British people?

The Prime Minister has always made it clear in regard to constitutional change that we have promised that we would hold a referendum. That is a matter of the judgment to be exercised at the next summit meeting, and that is the important decision. It has been confirmed by the Prime Minister, and no doubt, the House will have a chance to debate those issues once the summit comes to its conclusion in June.

13. What plans he has to reduce his departmental expenditure in line with Whitehall efficiency savings targets. (131486)

This Government are committed to improving the delivery of public services and ensuring maximum value for money for the taxpayer. The 2004 spending review set a target for achieving annual efficiency gains of £21 billion by 2007-08. Against that ambition, Departments and local authorities already reported annual efficiency gains worth over £15 billion by the end of 2006. That will, in fact, lead to £26 billion a year for front-line services by 2010-11. My Department is, of course, subject to the same efficiency targets as other Departments.

With inflation, interest rates, debt and unemployment all on the rise, that is exactly what the right hon. Gentleman is doing with the British taxpayer’s money. Will he explain to the House how his Department’s budget was increased by a third in March, already having been increased last November, in spite of the fact that he has lost most of ministerial responsibilities?

The hon. Gentleman uses propaganda by saying that unemployment is increasing in this country. There are now over 2 million more people in work, which is something that we are quite proud of. He talks about an increase in my Department’s expenditure, but that was an auditor’s requirement, not extra departmental expenditure, as I explained to the House last time I answered questions. The hon. Gentleman seems to be concerned about Government efficiency, but he was proud to advocate the poll tax, which was neither fair to ordinary people, nor efficient for the Government. If he was so proud of the poll tax and the Tory Government, he should have fought the 1997 election on that Government’s record in Basildon, instead of doing a chicken run down to Southend to save his skin.

14. What steps the Government are taking to develop international initiatives to abolish modern forms of slavery. (131487)

I would like to begin by recording my thanks to you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing the House to hold a very successful full-day Adjournment debate on Tuesday 20 March to mark the bicentenary of the abolition of the slave trade Act. As was agreed by all participants in the Adjournment debate, slavery is still with us in its modern forms. On 23 March, the Government were proud to sign the Council of Europe convention on action against trafficking in human beings to tackle this appalling modern-day form of slavery. The Home Secretary has published an action plan on what the UK will be doing. We will be working towards ratification and we are co-operating closely with our international partners to take forward this work. I recently visited Geneva, where I held discussions with a number of UN and other international organisations on how we may do more.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that alongside the important debates on the bicentenary of the abolition of the slave trade, the best way in which the House could mark that would be to eliminate modern-day slavery? Will he give the House details of his talks with the United Nations and, especially, countries to which modern-day slaves are exported, on ensuring that we eliminate this filthy trade?

I agree greatly with what my hon. Friend says. It was the unanimous opinion of hon. Members on both sides of the House that more should be done about modern-day slavery. Indeed, as I mentioned, I have held discussions with UN bodies about the matter. Hopefully, we will be able to do more. The ratification of the Council of Europe convention will be an important step forward. I welcome the fact that Kofi Annan will address the House on 8 May. From the discussions that I have had with him, I know that he has always felt that the UN could be more effective in deploying the policy. I hope that he will be able to say something about the matter when he addresses the House—[Interruption.]

Order. May I ask the House to come to order? It is being unfair to hon. Members.

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that one often-neglected modern form of slavery is the use of child soldiers? Given that the Government of Burma, a brutal military dictatorship, use such soldiers on a scale that is proportionately greater than in any other country of the world, will the Deputy Prime Minister consider launching an international initiative to bring that appalling practice to an end?

I very much agree with every word that the hon. Gentleman says about that. When I have addressed meetings of the Association of South East Asian Nations on behalf of the Prime Minister, we have discussed Burma’s membership and the terrible circumstances of child soldiers. We are doing everything that we can to do end that deplorable practice.

I was delighted to meet my right hon. Friend in Sierra Leone recently. He will be aware that British companies intend to develop there world-class library and literacy facilities to the environmental standards that he introduced in this country. Will he do all that he can to ensure that we support such initiatives?

Again, I congratulate my hon. Friend on the work that she has done in regard to Sierra Leone, especially on effectively getting community facilities and buildings established there. I was pleased to meet her and several officials recently to encourage her to take part in the development of Equiano centres. The project gives various cities and towns in Sierra Leone that enjoy the same name as some of the towns in this country the opportunity to develop Equiano community centres. Using the name Equiano—perhaps more so than Wilberforce—gives us the chance to recall the contribution made by black people to getting rid of the horror of the slave traffic.

15. What meetings he has had with just the Prime Minister and Chancellor of the Exchequer in his ministerial role in the last 12 months. (131488)

I have held regular meetings with the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and other Cabinet colleagues on a wide range of issues. Sadly, even the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and I do not have enough time to discuss all the achievements of this Labour Government, although we do discuss the programme of future Labour Governments.

I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for that reply, but does he share my concern and that of the British taxpayer that this is turning out to be a rather expensive dating agency between himself, the Chancellor and the Prime Minister?

Discussions between the Prime Minister, the Chancellor, myself and other Cabinet members are one of the responsibilities I have in my job, and I am delighted to play some part in producing a very successful record for the 10 years of this Government.

1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 18th April. (131469)

Before listing my engagements, I know that the whole House will again wish to join me in sending our profound condolences to the families and friends of those of our service personnel who were killed in action in Iraq and Afghanistan during the Easter recess. They were: Kingsman Danny Wilson of the 2nd Battalion, the Duke of Lancaster’s Regiment; Rifleman Aaron Lincoln of the 2nd Battalion, The Rifles; Second Lieutenant Joanna Yorke Dyer of the Intelligence Corps; Corporal Kris O’Neill and Private Eleanor Dlugosz, both of the Royal Army Medical Corps; Kingsman Adam Smith of the 2nd Battalion, the Duke of Lancaster’s Regiment; and Private Chris Gray of the 1st Battalion, Royal Anglican Regiment.

In addition, I know that the House will wish to send our condolences to the families and friends of Colour Sergeant Mark Powell of the Parachute Regiment and Sergeant Mark McLaren of the Royal Air Force, who were killed in the incident involving a collision between two Puma helicopters in Iraq at the weekend.

All those service personnel and, indeed, those still serving have shown heroism, dedication and the most professional commitment to their country. Britain owes them a deep debt of gratitude.

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.

The Prime Minister’s 10-year drug strategy is coming up for renewal and the independent UK Drug Policy Commission has reported that it is not working. One third of crime, much of it acquisitive and drugs related, is committed by 13 to 19-year-olds, who believe that cannabis is not only legal, but harmless. Will the Prime Minister now reverse his disastrous decision to downgrade cannabis and restore it as a class B drug?

I have to correct the hon. Lady. In fact, the UK Drug Policy Commission has not found that there has been no progress in drug policy; on the contrary, the commission believes that there has been progress, but there remains much more to do. According to the most recent British crime survey, drug misuse is down some 16 per cent. since 1998, drug use among young adults is down 21 per cent., and class A drug use remains relatively stable for the first time in a long time, as the commission points out. In addition, we have doubled the amount of money for the treatment of people on drugs. I appreciate that we have a very great deal more to do, but it is simply not the case that we are not making the investment or the changes that are necessary. As for tougher sentences for those who peddle drugs, many of those were contained in the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which the hon. Lady voted against.

2. The Prime Minister will be well aware of the strength of feeling in Blackpool about the casino advisory panel’s recommendation. Will he take into account the opinions strongly expressed both in this House and in the other place that the new super-casino should be located in an area where the social impact will be minimised and the regeneration potential maximised? (131470)

I know that my hon. Friend has campaigned very hard indeed on this issue. I am entirely sympathetic to the concerns that Blackpool has expressed. It is a pity that we ended up with Manchester being the site for the super-casino— although I think that it is perfectly justified there—and Blackpool unable to make the regeneration plans that it wants to make. As we have said, we shall consult carefully and come back with proposals after 3 May, which we have to do because of purdah. As a House, we need to look carefully and sensibly at the issue and recognise that in a world of online betting and huge opportunities for people to bet, casinos—especially when they bring regeneration with them—are not something that is against the proper norms of society, but something that can, in places such as Blackpool and Manchester, bring in much needed private investment and regeneration that will help to provide jobs and high living standards for people.

I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to the nine servicemen and women killed in Iraq and Afghanistan since we last had Prime Minister’s questions. They died serving their country, and that is a reminder of what we owe them and their families for the service that they gave.

There are 125,000 people who have paid into company pension schemes who have seen them collapse, and who have been left with little or nothing—

Get the money back off those who stole it—the gaffers.

I hope that hon. Members who are going to retire on fat pensions will actually listen, because many of the people concerned are getting nothing. We are all dealing with such constituency cases, and some of them are heartbreaking. The Budget changes were welcome, but they did not help those who have already retired, and they did not speed up the payments. Today, we can help those people, and I ask the Prime Minister in a genuinely cross-party way—[Interruption.] Yes. We have tabled amendments to the Pensions Bill, and they are signed by MPs from across the House, including his own former Pensions Minister. Will the Prime Minister look urgently and positively at those constructive proposals?

Let me just correct the right hon. Gentleman on one point: we most certainly have been listening to people on this subject. After all, there was no financial assistance scheme—absolutely none—in place for all the years of the last Conservative Government, when, as a result of pension mis-selling, people were in real difficulties as regards their pensions; so with respect we most certainly are listening to the plight of people. In addition, of course, we have put some £12 billion a year extra into support for pensioners.

It is however precisely because we have listened that, in the Budget, the Chancellor upped the scheme to, I think, £8 billion; that is what it is going to cost over the years to come. It lifts it up to 80 per cent. support, and 125,000 people will benefit. The problem with going still further is that we do not know that we can afford to make that commitment to people. For precisely that reason, and because people have raised the issue of whether there are unclaimed assets that could be used, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has announced a review of that. We will look at it carefully and we will see whether it is possible to do more, but we do not believe that it is responsible to make a commitment now to pensioners to pay them even more when we have not got the ability at the moment to up that figure from £8 billion.

I am grateful for the Prime Minister’s answer. The problem with the Budget changes is that they do not help people who have already reached retirement age. Many Members will have cases, as I do, of people who have reached retirement age, some of whom are dying, and who are not going to get their money; some of them are having to go on working. That is the problem that we have to address. Does the Prime Minister understand that so far only about 1,000 people have actually been helped? The financial assistance scheme is not working. Will he not look at a Treasury loan? That is how we dealt with the mess that was left by the Maxwell scheme. Surely he agrees that only 1,000 people helped so far is not good enough? As I say, some of the people are in great hardship. Surely we should act now, so that at least they can get some of the pension for which they worked and saved so hard.

It is, of course, precisely because we want to do what we can to help people responsibly that we have introduced these new proposals, the Pension Protection Fund and a host of other measures designed to support people, but I am afraid that the position, very simply, is this: we cannot make that additional commitment unless we are sure that the finances are there to fund it; otherwise we will be saying to people, “Yes, we can give you this additional payment,” when we cannot be sure until the review is published that we are able to make that commitment. As for taking out some unspecified loan from the Treasury, we do not believe that that is a proper way to deal with the issue, because it leaves us with a financial liability that we cannot be sure we can meet. The issue between us is not who wants to help people more, because, as I say, we have already introduced the first ever system of help for people in those circumstances. However, we need to be sure that we can actually fulfil a commitment that we make to people, since it would be the cruellest thing to tell them that we can make that commitment and can bail them out, if it may actually transpire that we cannot.

The Prime Minister says that the amount is unspecified, but it is not. We know that the first-year cost is £30 million, which would help the people who have hit retirement age with nothing, as only 1,000 of them are being helped. May I ask the Prime Minister something specific? We welcome the fact that there is review, but can it be a cross-party review, because we have a great contribution to make, and when does he expect it to report? The Prime Minister’s former pension adviser, Ros Altmann, said:

“Suddenly we are on the verge of a breakthrough, which could give these people the pension they’ve earned. All it needs is for enough Labour MPs to have the courage to back it”.

He listened to her advice in the past. Why will he not listen again now?

I understand that the review will report in the summer. No, we cannot make it a cross-party review as such, but we are perfectly happy to listen any ideas put forward by Opposition parties or, indeed, by anyone else. If I can come back to the nub of the issue, when the right hon. Gentleman says that it is only a £30 million cost in the first year, that is correct, but it then builds up over time, so our worry is that we would end up with an unfunded commitment that runs into hundreds of millions of pounds. If we accepted the amendments today, I think that I am right in saying the full cost would be £2.48 billion. We simply cannot responsibly make such a commitment until we know whether we can fund it. That, with the greatest respect, is the difference between being in opposition and being in government.

Is the Prime Minister aware of the major disruption that will occur in NHS hospitals in Northern Ireland and in parts of Britain, too, on 1 August next, following the introduction of the hospital doctor training programme known as modernising medical careers? Will he advise the Secretary of State for Health to postpone the programme for a year until the administrative problems are sorted out?

Yes, we are aware of those problems, which is precisely why the review was announced, as we want to make sure that this happens in a better way for next year. I understand entirely both the complexities of the system that has been introduced and the need to make sure that it accords properly with the needs of the health care system in Northern Ireland and elsewhere. I would point out, however, that as a result of the measures that we have taken in Northern Ireland and elsewhere in the United Kingdom, there has been a huge increase in the number of junior doctors, a 70 per cent. increase, I think, in the number of training places and, of course, pay has gone up in real terms by 30 per cent.

I join the Prime Minister in his expressions of sympathy and condolence. This is a bleak and sombre day. He will be aware that nurses’ leaders are threatening strike action in relation to the Chancellor’s pay offer. Can he explain why nurses in England and Wales are not getting their full increase up front?

For the reasons that the Chancellor gave. To make sure that we deal with the overall issue of pay in the economy, it is important that we stage the awards. However, on average, as I understand it, there will be an over 4 per cent. increase for nurses. May I point out to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that when we came to office, pay was just over £12,000 for nurses starting out in their profession? It is now almost £20,000, so there has been a huge real-terms increase in nurses’ pay over the past 10 years. Incidentally, there has been an 85,000 increase in the number of nurses, too. I entirely understand why staging an award is never popular, but in this instance it is necessary.

It is not just pay that is at issue in the national health service. Newly qualified nurses cannot get jobs; nursing assistants will be hit by the Chancellor’s abolition of the 10p tax rate; and junior doctors are up in arms. Is it any wonder that the Government have lost the confidence of health care workers and of their patients?

If we look back over the past 10 years, we can see that the publication, for example, in the past few weeks of the annual winter report on the NHS was instructive. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will know that in the last years of the Conservative Government—even, indeed, in the first years of this Government—every single winter there was a winter crisis. There has not been one for several years, because of the extra investment and the extra capacity. [Hon. Members: “Warmer winters?”] No. If we look at waiting times, investment in the national health service, the treatment of cancer and cardiac disease, and accident and emergency departments, the truth is that the patient is getting a better deal in the national health service today, precisely because of the investment and reform that we have put in.

Q3. Will the Prime Minister please join me in sending condolences to the family of Eden Galvani-Skeete, a beautiful six-year-old girl who burned to death in Turkey last summer, and assist the family in getting justice from the Turkish authorities and ensuring that those responsible are brought to trial? (131471)

I am sure that the whole House will want to join the hon. Gentleman in sending our condolences to Eden’s family. I understand that the deputy head of mission and British vice-consul at our embassy called the Minister at the Turkish Ministry of Tourism on 8 February to raise our concern about the general safety of British nationals in such unsupervised shows. The Turkish authorities have started legal proceedings against some members of staff at the hotel complex. The next hearing is scheduled for 8 May. Consular staff in London have remained in contact with the Galvani-Skeete family and are keeping them updated with any news from the court case in Turkey. We will continue to do that up to and all the way through the proceedings.

Q4. When he next plans to visit North-West Leicestershire on official business. (131472)

I have no current plans to do so.

Last Sunday, on the BBC politics programme, the Prime Minister gave an excellent summary of the myriad benefits delivered by our Government’s domestic policies since 1997, but I was alarmed by his assertion that all English secondary schools should soon become academies or trust schools. If he comes to North-West Leicestershire before late June, will he meet the governors of Ibstock community college to tell us why an excellent, accessible, genuinely comprehensive school should pursue this policy path and risk distancing ourselves from the local community or being taken over for a knock-down price by the richest local bidder?

I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words about our record on education. It is true, for example, that when we came to power there were only just over 80 secondary schools in the whole country with 70 per cent. of pupils getting five good GCSEs; the figure is now more than 600. The reason why I believe that in future most secondary schools, or all secondary schools, will become trust or academy schools—it is a choice, of course—is that they benefit from these partnerships. In doing so, academy and trust schools remain with a fully comprehensive intake. Indeed, academy schools have a higher percentage of pupils taking free school meals than the average secondary school. We have increased results dramatically since 1997 partly because of the ability to have partnerships with outside bodies. Specialist schools were the first step in that. At the time, people said that they would spell the end of the comprehensive system; they did not. Of course, my hon. Friend has four excellent specialist schools in his own constituency.

When it comes to who should be the next Prime Minister, the Environment Secretary has now ruled himself out, so will the Prime Minister now explicitly endorse the Chancellor?

I am afraid that once again I have to disappoint the right hon. Gentleman and others, because I will make my statement at the time I decide to stand down. However, I would say that after yesterday’s debate, and the absolute and comprehensive drubbing that the Chancellor gave the Tory Front Bench, he should be rather more worried about the leadership potential on his side of the House.

If the Prime Minister thinks the Chancellor did such a good job, why did not he turn up and vote for him? Was he too busy? I am not asking the Prime Minister to say anything new. Before the coup last year, he said:

“I’m absolutely happy that Gordon will be my successor.”

Why cannot he repeat those words now?

For the very reasons that I have just given. What the right hon. Gentleman, and the Conservative party, will have learned from yesterday’s debate is that when it comes to serious policy on the economy, on health, on education and on law and order, we have the serious answers to the serious questions, and he is not at the races.

The interesting thing is that the Prime Minister will not endorse the Chancellor. We know why we do not want the Chancellor—he has complicated the tax system and virtually bankrupted the pensions system, he is impossible to work with and he never says sorry. That is why we do not want him—what does the Prime Minister think is wrong with him?

Let me tell the right hon. Gentleman what is right with the Chancellor. The right hon. Gentleman has some experience of the economy, has he not? He had something to do with the British economy once, back in 1992, did he not? He was the special adviser to the Chancellor of the time—we remember Black Wednesday.

The Chancellor has delivered the strongest economic growth that this country has ever seen, interest rates that are half what they were under the previous Conservative Government, the highest employment, the lowest unemployment for years and rising living standards. What has the right hon. Gentleman delivered for the British economy? A bit part on Black Wednesday.

More!

Order.

The council tax in Scotland raises just over £2 billion. Increasing income tax by 3p in the pound would raise £1 billion. That would leave a shortfall of more than £1 billion. Does my right hon. Friend agree that introducing such a scheme would lead to massive cuts in public services or tax hikes in unforeseen areas?

The policy, which we will not adopt, of replacing the council tax in Scotland with a rise of 3p in the pound in the basic rate of income tax means that—apart from the shortfall in the money, which would leave public services short of several hundred million pounds—a two-earner couple in a household, or, even worse, a three-earner household, would be hit heavily by a local income tax. That is why it is such a bad idea and why I believe that people will reject that policy on 3 May.

Q5. Under this Government, millions of innocent people have been added to the DNA database, which is the largest in the world. People are locked up without trial for 28 days—the Prime Minister wanted 90 days. Free speech outside Parliament has been banned, children are routinely fingerprinted in schools and there are plans to curb trial by jury and force ID cards on us. Yet, last year, the Prime Minister said:“I don’t want to live in a police state or a Big Brother society or put any of our essential freedoms in jeopardy.”Is it not time the Prime Minister showed some consistency between what he says and what he does? (131473)

I gather from that rant that the hon. Gentleman is not entirely in favour of my position on those issues. I caught at least part of it, about the DNA database. Let me explain why it is an important policy for the country and for fighting crime. As a result of the DNA database, we can now match samples, sometimes several hundred and even several thousand a month. Consequently, we are solving murders, rapes and some of the most serious burglaries and assaults. It is essential to use new technology, such as CCTV and other things, to ensure that we make our country safer. The idea that, by doing that—and thereby, for example, solving some of the unsolved murders from years ago—we are creating a police state shows how far the Liberal Democrats are out of touch with reality.

Q6. With the ever-increasing rise in house values, the prospect of further interest rate increases and the Halifax telling us that it is difficult for key workers to find homes in some of our towns, will the Prime Minister assure me that the Government are doing all that they can to ensure that key workers, young people and first-time buyers can get on the property ladder without incurring punitive and potentially dangerous levels of borrowing? (131474)

My hon. Friend raises a crucial issue for the country. It is interesting that his constituency in the Wirral shows that it is not simply a problem of London and the south-east. We have to do three things: invest more in social housing, which we are doing; improve the availability of shared equity schemes, since I think that they will be of great help, especially to young couples buying their first home; but also make available land for development. The simple truth is that, unless we are prepared to make more land available for development and build the homes that people need, prices will be even higher. It is obvious that many young couples are finding it a tremendous struggle to get their feet on the first rungs of the housing ladder, but we cannot solve that unless we are prepared to make the difficult decisions about housing supply.

May I associate myself and my Friends on these Benches with the remarks already made from both Front Benches about those who have given their lives for our freedom? May I also ask the Prime Minister whether he is going to come to the opening of the new Assembly to mark the new regime that is going to come into order on 8 May? That is a firm date that is not going to be changed, because the people of Ulster—not any of his Ministers—have set it in stone. Although it will be the birthday of his hard-working Home Secretary, I am not asking him to come and celebrate that in Northern Ireland. I am asking him to join the Northern Ireland people to mark the fact that that part of the United Kingdom is going to have a Government in the same way as Wales and Scotland have. It is his duty as Prime Minister to be there, after all the work that he has done on this matter.

It is not absolutely universal, in my experience, that people actually want me to visit that particular part of the country, but I thank the right hon. Gentleman very kindly for his invitation. Certainly, we have it well in mind.

7. Will the Prime Minister join me in paying tribute to the nurses, doctors and other health professionals in my constituency whose hard work and dedication have contributed to a 37 per cent. fall in mortality rates from heart disease since 1997? Assuming that he agrees with me that that is also due to the sustained rise in investment in the NHS, will he guarantee today not to threaten that investment by an irresponsible policy of sharing the proceeds of economic growth between tax cuts and public spending? (131475)

The point that my hon. Friend makes is correct, in the sense that the winter report that I mentioned a moment ago shows that the number of cancelled operations has gone down in the past few years by about 30 per cent., and that the rates have hugely improved for people being seen quickly for cancer treatment and in accident and emergency departments. It is also true—this is something that even the Conservatives apparently do not realise any more—that we need to make changes and reforms in the way that the health service works. The report published today by Professor Darzi shows clearly that, as a result of the changes in the NHS, we are moving towards a system in which more care is done in the community and in which the number of day cases has risen by about 1.5 million a year. People can now often get day-case surgery when previously they would have had to spend days in hospital. We are therefore having to change the health care system; that is inevitable. If we manage to carry on making these improvements, by the end of next year the constituents of my hon. Friend and others will have a maximum wait of 18 weeks for diagnostic, out-patient and in-patient treatment, with an average wait of eight weeks. That will be a fundamental change from what we inherited in 1997, when people often had to wait 18 months or more just on the in-patient list.

Following the Prime Minister’s last answer on housing, is he aware that official figures show that, over the 10 years of this Labour Government, average earnings across Britain have gone up by 41 per cent., while average house prices have gone up 169 per cent.—more than four times as much? Is not the truth that, for the millions of people in terrible housing debt, and for those who are not even able to get on to the housing ladder at all, one fundamental thing has not changed—

Order.

It is correct to say that living standards have gone up, and that house prices have gone up significantly. I agree with that, but the answer, as I said a moment ago, is that we must be prepared to release more land for development and to do more brownfield development, which this Government are doing. With the greatest respect to the hon. Gentleman and to the Liberal Democrats, we cannot have a situation in which the Liberal Democrats say that there should be more housing, while locally opposing every development that is proposed. In the end, they, like the Conservatives, have to understand that if the Government want to deal with these problems, hard decisions have to be taken, and the truth is that we take them.

9. What is the Prime Minister’s response to the campaign by speeding motorists against the £15 surcharge on court fines that has been imposed on them to finance services for victims of crime? (131477)

That surcharge is paying for a whole range of victim and witness services. It is providing some £3 million for witness care units, and some £3 million for independent domestic violence advisers. If victims feel more comfortable about giving evidence in court, they will be more likely to secure the convictions of those who are guilty. One reason why we have significantly lowered levels of domestic violence is the fact that we are giving more support to people who need to bring such cases to court. The surcharge, although controversial at the time of its imposition, is yet another example of a difficult decision that was fully justified.

Is the Prime Minister aware of the widespread hospital closures throughout Wales? Is he also aware that the British Medical Association in Wales has called for an independent review of the working of the Barnett formula to establish whether Wales is being short-changed, as many of us believe it is?

While the Prime Minister ponders that, may I echo what was said by the right hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) and warmly invite him to visit Wales as many times as he can between now and 3 May? His presence there will dramatically affect voting patterns.

The hon. Gentleman says that we have been cutting NHS investment in Wales. Actually, we have increased NHS investment in Wales enormously. Ten new hospital schemes are coming to Wales, and waiting times have shortened. People receive vastly improved treatment and receive it faster, and they receive it precisely because of the investment that a strong economy has allowed us to deliver. The truth of the matter is that the policies of the hon. Gentleman’s party—well, the leader of the Welsh Nationalist party wants to form a coalition with the Tories, does he not? [Interruption.]

indicated dissent.

Yes! I remember now! The hon. Gentleman wants to join in a ragbag coalition with the Tories. Well, if he thinks the people of Wales believe that the Tories are better than us at running the national health service, it is he who will be worried on 3 May.