1. What recent assessment he has made of the security situation in Northern Ireland. (132681)

The security situation continues to improve beyond all recognition, as the 15th report of the Independent Monitoring Commission, which I have published today, makes clear. But the report also points out that loyalist paramilitary groups need to move more quickly to cease their activities, and a significant security threat remains from dissident republican groups.

Although it is good news that the Sinn Fein ard fheis has decided to support the police and criminal justice system, does the Secretary of State share my grave concern that the IRA still has not disbanded its army council? Sinn Fein is about to go back into government and appoint Ministers. How can it justify its sister organisation keeping in place an army council whose sole purpose is to retain a terrorist capability?

Obviously, at the appropriate moment, everybody would like to see such structures go, because they have no purpose. It was interesting that, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, the Independent Monitoring Commission report a few reports ago said that the structures of the IRA were helping to drive out criminality and any remnants of paramilitary activity, and that the organisation was delivering on what it promised on 28 July 2005. In the report that I have published today, it is significant that in paragraph 2.15 the IMC said:

“The terrorist capability of the organisation continued to deteriorate following the disbandment of paramilitary structures… There has been no reversal of that disbandment.”

As the demand has been for the disbandment of the paramilitary terrorist capability, which the hon. Gentleman, together with other right hon. and hon. Members, has quite properly pressed for, it is significant that that is where the IRA now is.

The Secretary of State rightly highlights the positive security outlook reflected in the IMC report, but he also reflects the fact that the IMC makes it clear that the loyalist situation is well behind where it needs to be. In circumstances where we hope that there will be something significant and decisive from the Ulster Volunteer Force, do we not need Government and all parties to give a clear message to the Ulster Defence Association that its refusal still to have anyone engaging with General de Chastelain’s decommissioning body and its continuing range of activities is completely unacceptable? It is hard for people to see how the Government are sending a clear message to the UDA—

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but the supplementary question must be brief.

I agree with my hon. Friend about the fact that gangsterism and remnants of paramilitary activity among loyalist groups including the UDA are still unacceptable. The IMC report says that, although it is also significant that the IMC report says that the leaderships of both the UDA and the UVF are seeking to move their organisations away from that dark and violence-strewn past. It is important that loyalism moves into the mainstream, otherwise it will get left behind. The last thing that the loyalist community needs is to be further isolated because there are those within it who cling to the past. I am clear that the leadership of both the UVF and the UDA want to move their communities into a better future to follow the transformation of the political and security situation in Northern Ireland, but there are still elements that do not. Finally, in respect of the Ulster Political Research Group funding, there was a trial period which showed that its leaderships were delivering on what had been promised. That is why we extended it. It is part of the transformation that we seek and have successfully delivered in Northern Ireland in the recent period.

I welcome the positive aspects of the report that has been published today, which is an indication of the continuing success of the policy advocated for years from these Benches—that there had to be delivery from the republican movement and others before they could in any shape or form be considered fit for government. Does the Secretary of State accept that there can be no room whatsoever for the continued existence of any paramilitary structures, either loyalist or republican, in Northern Ireland, and that it is imperative that every move is made to ensure that all the remnants of paramilitarism and terrorism are removed from society? Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that no policy in the Northern Ireland Office, no programme or strategy will be used during the period of devolution that will promote the continued existence of any paramilitary organisation?

rose—

Order. Once again, may I say that the supplementaries are getting very long?

I can give the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds) an absolute assurance that from a Northern Ireland Office point of view—I know that the hon. Gentleman will be a member of the incoming Executive and that the same will be true of the Executive and its funds—that nothing will be directed at supporting any paramilitary structures. I also acknowledge that the firm stance that he and his colleagues have taken on the matter have helped, along with other factors, to move the situation in such a dramatic way as has occurred over the recent period. I welcome what he said.

The Secretary of State has rightly drawn attention to the fact that there remains a threat from loyalist paramilitaries and dissident republican paramilitaries. There is also a problem with existing criminality. Is he not therefore a little concerned that the police could be diverting very important and scarce resources to historical inquiries? Has he discussed that situation with the Chief Constable, and what was the outcome of such discussions?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, there is an historical inquiries team which was quite properly set up by my predecessor and provided with funds. As I mentioned to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee last week, the Chief Constable says that about 40 per cent. of his time is now spent on the past, including assisting with the inquiries that have been set up into Bloody Sunday, Hamill, Nelson, Wright and so on. That is a disproportionate demand on him. We should be working towards a situation whereby he is able to concentrate on the here and now and the future rather than being completely dragged back into the past. We need to continue to monitor that very closely.

3. If he will make a statement on the performance of the Assets Recovery Agency in Northern Ireland. (132684)

The Assets Recovery Agency plays a key role in the fight against organised crime in Northern Ireland and has an excellent record, exceeding its targets for freezing and restraining assets in each of the past three years.

As the Minister says, the Assets Recovery Agency has a good track record in Northern Ireland in disrupting serious criminal groups and recovering or freezing their assets, in contrast to its rather less impressive performance on the mainland. Why, then, does he propose putting its success at risk by merging it with the Serious Organised Crime Agency, which is untried in this area in Northern Ireland?

The decision to merge SOCA and the Assets Recovery Agency is not my decision to take: it is a decision for the Home Secretary, although one that I fully endorse. As effective as the agency has been, we believe that combining its track record and powers on the civil recovery of criminal assets with SOCA’s capacity to undertake criminal investigations and gather intelligence will give us an even more effective law enforcement agency.

But is the Minister unconscious of the concern rightly or wrongly expressed by some people that the abandonment of the Assets Recovery Agency in Northern Ireland is part of a pay-off—an unspoken deal? That notion is being canvassed around Northern Ireland. Is there not a case for matching as regards the comparable agency in the Republic of Ireland? If we are going to have different arrangements in England, Wales and Scotland, surely the Assets Recovery Agency should stay in Northern Ireland doing its work as a self-standing statutory agency.

Let me say to my hon. Friend, who takes these issues very seriously, that we are not abandoning the Assets Recovery Agency in Northern Ireland. The agency will be merged with SOCA to create an even more effective law enforcement agency. I can say to him absolutely categorically that the decision to merge was not part of any political deal or fix with any party in Northern Ireland. He makes a strong case for close collaboration with the Criminal Assets Bureau in Dublin. That collaboration is in place, and effective working across the border will be a key element of assets recovery work in the years to come.

Will the Minister give an absolute assurance that the transitional costs of merging SOCA with the Assets Recovery Agency will be taken as additional funding from the Home Office rather than out of the budgets of the agency and SOCA, because those budgets should be used to fight crime, not to cover this merger?

All the costs related to the merger of the two agencies will be borne by the Home Office, which is the parent Department for the new agency. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has received a categorical assurance from the Home Secretary that the level of resources committed to assets recovery work in Northern Ireland will remain at least at the level that we have at the moment. I take great encouragement from that. The message is very clear that assets recovery work, and indeed the whole fight against organised crime, will continue as never before in Northern Ireland, and rightly so.

As the merger between the Assets Recovery Agency and the Serious Organised Crime Agency progresses, will the Under-Secretary assure the House that the battle against organised crime and to remove the illicit assets of criminals and terrorists will not be undermined? What progress has been made on recovering the Provisional IRA’s £26 million, which it stole in the Northern bank robbery?

Any assets that have been gained through criminal activity are a target for the Assets Recovery Agency and the new merged agency when it comes into operation. Let me say categorically to the hon. Gentleman that the work of the Assets Recovery Agency has continued apace, even since the announcement that was made a short time ago. Indeed, since then, the agency has frozen and restrained nearly £10 million of criminal assets. That is important. Wherever assets have been gained and whoever has gained them are a target for law enforcement in Northern Ireland. That work will continue.

The Under-Secretary knows that there are genuine fears among the police in Northern Ireland that a consequence of the merger could be that the new combined agency’s priorities will be set to raise the greatest amount of revenue on a UK-wide basis rather than in terms of how best to disrupt organised criminal activity. Will he match his assurance about resources with a clear assurance that, in future, assets recovery work and priorities in Northern Ireland will be determined by Northern Ireland’s need to disrupt the evil work of organised criminal gangs?

I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurances that he seeks. Indeed, anything less would not be good enough. I confirm to him and the House that the Home Secretary has agreed that a designated official will be in charge of assets recovery in Northern Ireland. That will be a senior figure in the new agency. No monetary threshold, as exists elsewhere in the UK, will operate in Northern Ireland. That means that we can go for Mr. Small as well as Mr. Big—that is important. We will have our own strategy and targets in Northern Ireland, which will reflect the needs of Northern Ireland.

I welcome that answer. May I press the Under-Secretary further? Does he agree that it would be a good idea and make for an even more effective assets recovery operation in Northern Ireland if the ARA or SOCA in future had the additional powers that the Criminal Assets Bureau in the Republic of Ireland already enjoys?

We continue to examine the powers that are necessary. Indeed, there have been reviews and increases in powers for agencies not only in Northern Ireland but throughout the United Kingdom. Several hon. Members of all parties have raised the matter to which the hon. Gentleman referred. There is a difficulty with the transfer of information from Revenue and Customs in the United Kingdom to the Criminal Assets Bureau in Dublin. We are trying to remove that obstacle at the earliest opportunity. I hope that he and others will be encouraged by that.

4. What the costs have been to date of work towards the proposed stadium at the Maze, including consultants’ fees. (132685)

To date, the Government have paid out £1,148,343.71 on work directly related to the proposed multi-sports stadium on the site of the former Maze/Long Kesh prison. The figure includes consultancy fees.

I thank the Minister for that slightly strange answer. There is genuine concern, among not only football supporters in Northern Ireland but the wider community, about the handling of the Maze project and the lack of transparency and accountability. Does he welcome the fact that the new Administration starting on 8 May will be able to consider the whole project again and ensure that all the sports organisations and all the people of Northern Ireland know its true cost? Will the question of whether the stadium should be in Belfast be properly studied?

I have to take issue with my hon. Friend on those points. The Maze panel is constituted from members of all the political parties in Northern Ireland. It has been supported and it has helped develop the project to date. The incoming Administration, with Member of the Legislative Assembly Edwin Poots as the Minister responsible for the project, will have an opportunity to review the matter in due course. However, my hon. Friend knows that we have considered stadium sites in Belfast and ruled them out on the grounds of cost and efficiency. We have the support of all three sports, all four parties and many people in Northern Ireland to develop the site for not only the sports stadium at the Maze but the economic and social well-being of Northern Ireland, especially Lisburn.

Given that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recently praised the advantages of a city centre stadium in Cardiff compared with out-of-town and suburban stadiums in generating atmosphere and a sense of occasion, does my hon. Friend think that any lessons can be drawn for the correct siting of the stadium in Northern Ireland?

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is correct: Cardiff’s millennium stadium is the best site for Cardiff and Wales. We have examined the opportunities offered by sites in Belfast at the Titanic quarter and the north foreshore, and both proved unsuitable. The three sports, the four political parties on the Maze panel and many others, including the Royal Ulster Agricultural Society, wish to see the development of the Maze site. That is rightly a matter for the incoming Assembly, and I hope that it examines it. I hope that, as our team has done, it will conclude that the Maze is the best site for the stadium and the development generally.

6. What progress is being made in ensuring that applications for the general service grades of the civil service in Northern Ireland are broadly reflective of the wider community. (132687)

Good progress has been made towards fair Catholic and female participation at senior levels in the Northern Ireland civil service. There is, however, still a need to increase the proportions of applications from Protestant males in particular for administrative and junior management positions.

I thank the Minister for that reply, and for the reference that I did not ask for in my question. He will be aware that the Protestant community continues to be under-represented in the general service grades, in the civil service as a whole, in the Child Support Agency and in the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. What additional steps can be taken, because those already taken are clearly not working?

As the hon. Gentleman will know, the matter will fall to the incoming Executive shortly, and I hope that it will consider plans. We are trying to ensure fair representation. There is no discrimination in the recruitment process, but there is under-application from the Protestant community for some of the lower-grade positions in the Northern Ireland civil service. We want to see more encouragement, and I would like to work with the incoming Executive to achieve that. Many strategies can be used, including advertising jobs and encouraging people to apply, but, currently, those applications are not forthcoming.

Why on earth have the Government introduced positive discrimination for civil servants in the police—community support officers—when there is obviously no anti-Catholic bias in that regard, as there have been no CSOs to date? How can anyone believe that the Government will abandon their discriminatory 50:50 policy in the future, given that the only discrimination has been by the Government?

The hon. Gentleman will know that, historically, the Catholic population has been under-represented in the Police Service of Northern Ireland. For that reason, my right hon. Friends the current and previous Secretaries of State have secured support for the Patten recommendations, which are working at the moment. Additional recruits from the Catholic community have increased its representation in the police from 8.3 per cent in 1998 to 21 per cent. in 2005. Recently, we have reinforced the provisions, allowing them to be renewed for a further three years. My hon. Friends have reviewed the matter on several occasions, and we will continue to monitor it. We need to ensure, however, that we get more Catholics into the police force.

7. What additional funding he plans to make available to make the alley-gating scheme operational across all areas of Northern Ireland. (132688)

The Government are supportive of the development of alley-gates, and once evaluation of the current pilot is complete, I will examine the outcome.

I am sure that my hon. Friend will join me in congratulating all those connected with alley-gates. Currently, the results are favourable. Other than commenting on the money needed to roll out the scheme, will he say when he expects to get the final results of the pilot, and when he expects to be able to roll out the project to the rest of the region?

I thank my hon. Friend for his support of the alley-gating scheme. An evaluation has been undertaken, and the Government have contributed more than £500,000 towards the implementation of 180 new alley-gates across alleys in Northern Ireland. Those have had a positive effect on crime prevention, and, in conjunction with the Executive, we will examine how to take the scheme forward in due course. The evaluation will report in the summer, and I am confident that it will show great success for the alley-gating scheme in reducing both crime and, more significantly, fear of crime. I hope that we will look positively at developing the scheme once the evaluation is complete.

8. What estimate he has made of the unfunded liabilities in Northern Ireland departments' budgets. (132689)

Following restoration, decisions on the Northern Ireland budget will be for the Executive to make. Clearly established mechanisms such as the end year flexibility mechanism and the in-year monitoring process will enable them to deal with any emerging issues in the forthcoming budget.

On 11 April the Minister said that there were “emerging financial pressures” in respect of the reform programme, including the review of public administration, rates and water charges. On 23 March, all the parties in Northern Ireland were informed that there were no unfunded liabilities. Will the Minister tell us which is correct, what is the quantum of the deficits, and what will be the impact on the Northern Ireland budget and the Chancellor’s package for Northern Ireland?

There are certainly unfunded liabilities for the future, as is always the case in any budget circumstance. The incoming Executive and the incoming Finance Minister, the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), will have an opportunity to examine the position in-year. I can tell my hon. Friend, however, that thanks to this Labour Government—[Interruption.]

Order. There is a great deal of noise in the Chamber. It is unfair to Members who are present for Northern Ireland questions.

Thanks to this Labour Government, expenditure is twice what it was in real terms when the Government came to power in 1997. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has secured not just a real-terms budget increase for the comprehensive spending review—which will ensure that we spend well over £9 billion a year in Northern Ireland—but an extra £100 million for Northern Ireland, along with a commitment to £1 billion of infrastructure each and every year for the next 10 years. There will be difficulties in connection with, for instance, the RPA, but they can be managed in-house by the Government, and I am sure that the incoming Executive will do a very good job.

10. If he will make a statement on the performance of the Assets Recovery Agency in Northern Ireland. (132692)

I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the answer that I gave earlier to the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Dunne).

Will the Minister guarantee that when the merger is complete, tax fraud will remain within the agency’s remit rather than being handed over to the Treasury here in London? The agency will be much better able to deal with it, given the special circumstances in Northern Ireland.

When the Assets Recovery Agency and the Serious Organised Crime Agency are merged, both will be the responsibility of the Home Office. However, the right hon. Gentleman has drawn attention to an important aspect of the system, namely the incentivisation scheme whereby any agency that is able to recover assets can keep half of them when they are turned into cash. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is examining the scheme to establish whether there are ways in which it can be further enhanced.

11. Whether it is the policy of the Government to distinguish between civic and political policing in Northern Ireland. (132693)

The Government's policy is to deliver effective, impartial and accountable policing, supported by the entire community in Northern Ireland.

Does the Secretary of State agree that it is not right for Sinn Fein Assembly Members to make a distinction between civic and political policing, as they appear to be doing?

Time is moving on. People may have made that distinction in the past, but it is not being made now. Sinn Fein has made an historic commitment to support policing and the rule of law, it is actively encouraging people from its communities to report criminality to the police, and in the very recent past it has indicated that its members intend to take up their positions on the Policing Board. There is no such distinction in Northern Ireland, nor should there be.

Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 25 April. (133604)

Before I list my engagements, let me say that, sadly, I am sure the whole House will wish once again to join me in sending our profound condolences to the families and friends of Corporal Ben Leaning and Trooper Kristen Turton of The Queen’s Royal battlegroup, who were killed in Iraq last Thursday, and Kingsman Alan Jones of the 2nd Battalion The Duke of Lancaster’s Regiment, killed in Iraq on Monday. Those young men were brave and committed soldiers; they died in the service of their country, and we owe them a huge debt of gratitude.

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.

The whole House will wish to join the Prime Minister in offering condolences to the families of the brave soldiers who lost their lives, and will also be joyful in welcoming back the Staffordshire Regiment, which has just returned from Iraq.

Despite claims that a full consultation is taking place in Staffordshire, Labour-controlled Staffordshire county council has announced the closure of all residential care homes and day centres within the next two years. We recognise that change must come about, but it should be phased in over time. Many elderly people are worried about their future and have no relatives to look after them. What can the Prime Minister do to ensure that, in Staffordshire at least, this change is phased in gradually over time?

I know that the hon. Gentleman is aware that there have been meetings between my hon. Friend the care services Minister and local Members of Parliament, and I am happy to facilitate a similar meeting between the Minister and the hon. Gentleman. In fairness to Staffordshire council, it does understand that this has to be done in a planned and careful way. As I understand it, what it is trying to do is move from the current situation whereby it has responsibility for about 4,000 people, of whom about 10 per cent. are in its residential care homes. It wants to move those people into the independent sector and to improve community services, and it is willing to invest an extra £19 million to do that. It is important that the consultation is undertaken properly, and it has listened carefully to the representations that have been made. As the hon. Gentleman implied in his question, it also believes that it is right to make these changes in the interests of elderly people and those in residential care homes, but, of course, that must be done with a great deal of care.

Q2. At the weekend, I met a group of my constituents whose lives have been made a misery over a long period by the antisocial behaviour of two neighbouring families. Will the Prime Minister outline the range of powers that are available to local councils to deal with such issues, and can he give any explanation of why Milton Keynes council seems to be so disinclined to take effective action in this case and in other similar cases? Could that be because it is Liberal Democrat controlled? (133605)

Yes, a full range of powers is now available under antisocial behaviour laws. The powers range from antisocial behaviour orders to dispersal orders, and to, for example, evicting people who are using homes for dealing drugs. They are important powers and where they are being used by local councils and the local police they are making a real difference to people’s lives. The Liberal Democrats voted against those powers—quite wrongly, because they help people—and it appears that even the leader of the Conservative party called them short-term and costly, bureaucratic and counter-productive. They are not counter-productive for families in communities who desperately need that help. The powers are necessary in order to make life workable for the vast majority of people in all communities who live in a law-abiding way.

I join the Prime Minister in sending condolences to the friends and families of Ben Leaning, Kristen Turton and Alan Jones, who have been killed in Iraq in the past week. We all pay tribute to their memory.

Last night, Peter Clarke, one of the most senior officers in the Metropolitan police, spoke about leaks of anti-terrorism operations to the press. In his words, the people who do this

“to squeeze out short-term presentational advantage … compromise investigations … put lives at risk”

and “are beneath contempt”. He referred specifically to the recent investigations in Birmingham, where the press seemed to know about the arrests almost before they took place. Does the Prime Minister share both Mr. Clarke’s analysis and his concerns?

I share his analysis entirely, and let me say that I completely deprecate any leaks of sensitive information that can impede terrorist investigations, which are immensely important in protecting this country’s security. I understand that Peter Clarke has said today that he is not making any allegations in respect of anybody. However, what he is saying is that there can never be any justification for doing this, and I entirely agree.

Both the shadow Home Secretary and the shadow Attorney-General have been pressing this issue for some time, and Mr. Clarke’s remarks today show that their concerns were well-founded. Can the Prime Minister give a guarantee that leaks about the operation in Birmingham did not come from any Minister, civil servant or special adviser?

The only guarantee that I can give is that as far as I am aware, they did not, but let me make it absolutely clear that I completely condemn any leaks of sensitive information from whatever quarter. However, I do not think it right to leave an allegation suggesting that there may be a Minister who has done this, unless the right hon. Gentleman has actual evidence that that is so. I would have thought that everyone should understand that, particularly when the police are conducting very sensitive operations and there is the potential for significant loss of life, it is incredibly important that that information be kept confidential and tight, and as far as I am aware, that is the case.

As the Prime Minister says, this is a very serious issue, so will he confirm that a full-scale leak inquiry is under way?

I am not going to confirm that. However, if there is any evidence at all that people have been engaged deliberately in leaking information of this sort, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I will take the strongest possible action in respect of whomsoever it may be.

The Prime Minister says that he is pretty certain that it is not a Minister or a special adviser, but if he has not had a leak inquiry, how on earth can he know? I am sure that the Prime Minister understands the damage that the culture of leak and spin has done to his Government, and when it comes to national security, this can actually cost lives. So will he today—today—confirm that he will establish an independent leak inquiry led by a senior and independent figure: yes or no?

No, I will not confirm that, and for this very simple reason. If the right hon. Gentleman has evidence that someone has been involved in such a thing, I will of course have it properly investigated, but I am not going to have a situation in which he simply makes this allegation and leaves it hanging there, without any evidence to back it up whatever. If I were being unkind, I would call that a smear.

The Prime Minister is committed to an NHS that delivers the right care to patients at the right time and in the right place. Will he show his commitment to the carrying out of a feasibility study regarding the establishment of an urgent care centre on the Ormskirk site of Southport and Ormskirk hospital? That would be much appreciated by those of my constituents who have campaigned long and hard for the return of such a service.

As my hon. Friend knows, this is a matter for local primary care services and the local primary care trust to determine, but I understand that a full assessment is being made of the advantages of having a primary care assessment centre at Ormskirk. The importance of such centres is that they are part of bringing care closer to the community, of reducing some of the pressure on local hospitals, and of the different way in which we are delivering health care services in today’s world. As my hon. Friend also knows, there has been a dramatic fall in waiting times and lists in her area, along with the improved treatment of cancer and heart disease. It is important that we have primary care facilities that are appropriate for the type of care available in the 21st century. So I am pleased that this assessment is being made, and I wish it well.

I join the Prime Minister in his expressions, yet again, of sympathy and condolence.

Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that Members of Parliament should be exempt from freedom of information legislation? Why should there be one law for MPs and a different law for everyone else?

I think that this is a matter for the House, which can make its view known about it. Since the Bill in question is a private Member’s Bill that is before the House, it would obviously not be appropriate for the Government to make a commitment one way or another.

Does the Prime Minister not understand that the failure of the Government to oppose this Bill, which emanates from a former Conservative Chief Whip, undermines their own legislation and simply persuades people outside here that Parliament has something to hide? Does the Prime Minister support this shoddy Bill: yes or no?

I am not going to express a view on this, but I will point out that in this House and elsewhere, we have one of the most transparent systems anywhere in the world. Occasionally, Members of Parliament should stand up for the public service that they give and do. [Interruption.] Well, I happen to think that the majority of Members of Parliament in this House—from whatever political party—do a good public service job in the interests of their constituents, and against the background of a more transparent system than most countries in the world have.

Q3. Does the Prime Minister agree that the re-opening of St. George’s hall by Prince Charles, the halving of unemployment and the 40 per cent. increase in Government funding for education in Liverpool show the Government’s commitment to the people of the city? As the people of Liverpool go to the polls, will my right hon. Friend suggest what additional support the Government could give to ensure that the city’s growing success is shared by all its citizens? (133606)

The story of the renaissance of Liverpool, including regeneration, the new proposals for schooling, which have increased results fantastically, and the fact that it will be the European capital of culture next year indicate that the Government’s huge and strong support for the city has yielded real benefits to the people over the past few years. The best thing that they could do is to vote Labour in the local elections.

I wish to return to the subject of the 125,000 people who lost their occupational pensions when their pension schemes collapsed. In the last week, the Minister for Pensions Reform has said explicitly that all those covered by the financial assistance scheme will get 80 per cent. of their pension. Vitally, he said that that 80 per cent. level of support will be from the taxpayer and will not depend on unclaimed assets. Of course, we would like 90 per cent. to be paid.

Given that thousands of those affected have already reached retirement age and are not getting the 80 per cent., will the Prime Minister look again at the issue of a Treasury loan so that he can start to make those payments straight away?

Let us nail down the issue of 80 per cent., 90 per cent. or 100 per cent. I am sure that we would all like to give everyone 100 per cent. of what they want all the time, but it has to be paid for. Even with a payment of £8 billion, we can only afford as much as 80 per cent. We are prepared to look at any measures, and we have looked at the Treasury loan idea. Having looked at it, we do not think that it is a suitable or correct way to try to provide that help. In the end, it all has to be paid back. It is like the right hon. Gentleman’s policy on unclaimed assets. We are happy to look at the issue and in the next few months we will report on it, but I cannot make promises to people on the basis of some unspecified Treasury loan that would have to be paid back or the idea that there is a pot of gold lying about in bank accounts, building society accounts or pension fund accounts that we can lift up and give to people. Life does not work like that.

I do not think that the Prime Minister understands the point. Many of those people have reached retirement age. Some of them, such as my constituent John Brookes—who is 67, has leukaemia and paid into a company pension scheme for 40 years —are desperately in need of the money. Given that the Government have said that he will get 80 per cent. of his money anyway, why not use a Treasury loan and start the payments now?

That would have a financial consequence, which we would have to meet. I am totally sympathetic to the right hon. Gentleman’s constituent and to others, and it is only under this Government that any help has been available to people in those circumstances. I am happy to correspond with the right hon. Gentleman about the problems with the Treasury loan idea. What I will not do is say to his constituent or any others that I will promise something unless I am sure that we can actually deliver it within the financial means that the Government have.

Will my right hon. Friend join me in condemning the cuts to the voluntary sector by Tory-run Hammersmith and Fulham council? Our local law centre has been cut by 60 per cent. and organisations helping refugees, the homeless and the unemployed have been cut by 100 per cent. I thought that the Tories claimed to support the voluntary sector: can he explain what is going on?

What is happening is a metaphor for what would happen with a Conservative Government. Having said that they would support the maintenance of services, the Tories have instituted some £34 million of cuts in those services, which are having a damaging effect on some of the most vulnerable people in my hon. Friend’s constituency. People should understand that when they come to vote on 3 May.

Q4. Why is it that my constituents in the London borough of Bexley face cuts and the downgrading of NHS services of locally? Who does the Prime Minister think is responsible for that, and perhaps he will give an answer for which we would be grateful? (133607)

I do not believe that in the hon. Gentleman’s area health services are being degraded or downgraded. In fact, in the strategic health authority that covers his area there has been an investment of about £1.7 billion; there have been 27 LIFT—local improvement finance trust—schemes for primary care premises; there are about 16,000 more nurses and 2,500 more consultants. It is true—and I understand the problem in his area—that people are changing the way in which services are delivered, but that is for a very good reason that affects many constituencies, and I truly believe that the Conservative party has taken the wrong position. The reason services are being changed and reconfigured is that they are becoming more and more specialised, and it helps patients if they can gain access to more specialist services. That is not being driven by cost-cutting, because the NHS is receiving billions of pounds more. It is being driven by the fact that we have a changing health care system in a changing world.

In a most excellent report published today, Lord Lofthouse highlights the scandal of overpaid solicitors double-charging miners. Will the Prime Minister get the Department of Trade and Industry to write to every miner and miner’s widow who has put in a claim to highlight both the scheme’s success in paying out compensation and the way in which people can make a complaint to the Law Society if they have been doubled-charged by their solicitor?

I entirely understand the point that my hon. Friend makes. Lord Lofthouse’s report is obviously very important, and I will certainly ask the DTI to look into his suggestion about how that is taken forward. As a result of the action that has already been taken, about £100 million of fees have been taken back from law firms. However, I would like to emphasise one thing: as a result of the measures that we have taken, we have paid out over £3 billion in miners’ compensation. I believe that for those who used to work down the mines and for mining communities that is something that would only ever have happened under a Labour Government.

Q5. In 1999, the Prime Minister made a personal pledge that within two years everybody would have access to an NHS dentist, regardless of where they lived. Eight years later, according to the British Dental Association, less than 50 per cent. of the adult population of this country is registered with an NHS dentist. In my own constituency, no dentists are currently taking on NHS patients. When does he expect that promise to be fulfilled? (133608)

It is, and has been, a real problem, and I entirely accept that. The reason is very simple: even though we have increased the number of NHS dentists, we cannot stop dentists going outside the NHS if they wish to do so. They are entitled to do so, and despite the fact that we are paying dentists far more and hiring far more of them in the NHS, we have not been able to fulfil that pledge. The majority of people can access an NHS dentist in their area if they want to do so, but the figure is not 100 per cent.—I accept that. Ultimately, that will be dealt with only by increasing still further the number of NHS dentists, and that is what we intend to do.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the recently published crime statistics for London are thanks, at least in part, to the commitment that the Mayor of London has shown to safer neighbourhood teams? Does he agree, too, that local authorities have a part to play in fighting crime, but that it has hardly been played well by my local Liberal council in Islington, which, despite its recently trumpeted installation of CCTV cameras, has installed fewer cameras in the whole borough than Ken Livingstone has installed at Angel tube station?

I pay tribute to the work of the police, the Mayor of London and the local authorities that have used the powers and resources available to them. The other thing to which my hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention is the fact that crime in London, particularly violent crime, has fallen significantly. That is extremely important, but she is right, too, in saying that a major reason for that is the neighbourhood policing teams and antisocial behaviour and other laws that the Government have introduced.

Q6. Will the Prime Minister have a word with his further education Minister and Minister with responsibility for regeneration and European funding to ask them to block a potential £20 million of taxpayers’ money being used to relocate Dartington college from one part of the south-west region to another? That would have a devastating impact on the south Devon economy. (133609)

I am perfectly happy to look into the matter, but I shall have to correspond with the hon. Gentleman about it as I do not know the details.

I was delighted to hear from my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Education and Skills and for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs that a video of Al Gore’s film will be released to all secondary schools. However, will my right hon. Friend join me in condemning the local Conservative councillor who has taken the Government to judicial review over the decision?

I am sure that the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) can have a word with his local councillor and bring him into line, although I wish him better luck than most party leaders on that score. However, I think that it is a very important film, and I am sure that schools will enjoy seeing it. It is both entertaining and highly informative, and it deals with one of the most important issues in our politics today.

Q7. I am sure that the Prime Minister will agree with me and all members of this House about the need for conservation in the marine environment. The Government have published their White Paper, but, if the Prime Minister wants a legacy, does he think that it would be a good idea to give a firm commitment to introducing a marine Bill? Otherwise, could he leave a note for his successor? (133610)

As I recall, introducing a marine Bill was part of our manifesto so, given that the Parliament has not finished, we will no doubt proceed with it.

On the theme of the marine environment, my right hon. Friend will be aware that hundreds of millions of gallons of raw sewage were discharged into the Firth of Forth last weekend from a plant operated for Scottish Water by the privatised water company, Thames Water. Initial investigations have raised real concerns about the stand-by procedures and contingency plans at that plant. Will he ensure that Ministers work closely with the Scottish Executive to ensure that such procedural failures cannot be repeated elsewhere in the UK? In that way, we can ensure that no other community is damaged in the way that Edinburgh and the communities around the Firth of Forth have been damaged by that incident.

I entirely support the First Minister’s decision to hold a proper inquiry into the incident. I am sure that we will learn the lessons for Scotland and the UK as a whole.

Q8. With barely two weeks to go before the Prime Minister announces the timetable for his departure, will he share with the House what his greatest regret will be when he leaves No. 10 Downing street? (133611)

Having defeated the Conservative party three times at successive general elections, I think that it is probably the hon. Gentleman who should be expressing his greatest regret, not me.

Q9. A year ago, a brand new £7 million health centre opened in my constituency, and that was followed last month by the opening of a second health service facility. Together, they are transforming the primary care and community services available to my constituents. Inevitably, however, what my constituents want from the NHS is the £110 million redevelopment of North Middlesex hospital, which serves some of the most deprived communities in the country. We are nearly there, and the redevelopment is almost complete. Will my right hon. Friend do what he can to assist with the project, so that we can start the new build in June this year? (133612)

I can tell my hon. Friend that, as a result of the decision taken in February, the project to which he refers will proceed, subject to a number of conditions being met. I hope that a full and proper announcement about that project will be made shortly, but it is only one of a scheme of changes that are being made across the country. Investment in that project amounts to £111 million, and the new wards will provide 150 in-patient beds. The development will house a diagnostic and treatment centre, an emergency care centre and an acute critical care centre. My hon. Friend is right to say that it is part of the changing pattern of health care. In 1997, the clear majority of NHS buildings were erected before the service came into existence, but that figure is now down to 25 per cent. That is the scale of the capital investment in the NHS that this Government have made.

Will the Prime Minister think again about his ill-considered plan to break up the Home Office, which has attracted such widespread criticism? Just for a moment or two, will he cast his mind back to those halcyon days when he was shadow Home Secretary, when of course the Department had a much wider remit than it does today? Does he share my recollection that at that time both he and the Home Secretary of the day were able to discharge their respective responsibilities perfectly competently and without any undue difficulty?

That is not exactly my recollection, actually. I recall that when we came into power, after the right hon. and learned Gentleman had been Home Secretary, the average time that an asylum claim took was 20 months and the backlog was 60,000. There had been a number of category A prison escapes. Although not under him, to be fair, but under the Conservative Government, crime had doubled, so I think that I prefer our experience to his.

Q10. The Prime Minister will recall that DAC Peter Clarke’s speech included a reference to the leaks leading to a damaging lack of trust in intelligence. What impact does he think the unfounded allegation made by the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron)—that they might be the responsibility of Ministers or civil servants—will have on trust in intelligence? (133613)

My hon. Friend makes a very fair point. If people have evidence, they should produce it; otherwise they should not make the allegation.

Q11. Over recent years, there has been a decline in the health service throughout the United Kingdom and the closure of schools, yet we see in the press today that the Government plan to spend £30 million to open an academy to teach parents to sing nursery rhymes to their children. How can the Government justify that? (133615)

At this moment in time I am loth to disagree with anything that anyone from the hon. Gentleman’s political party says. However, I cannot agree that we have cut spending on the health service or schools. I do not know the precise facts in respect of Northern Ireland, but the investment that has gone into health and education throughout the UK has been enormous. I gave a statistic about the health service a moment or two ago. More new schools have been built in this country in the past five years than were built in the previous 25. I do not know about the £30 million investment in nursery rhymes—that strikes me as not very likely—but I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are making a huge investment in public services.

Q12. Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating Avon and Somerset police on making full use of the powers given to them under antisocial behaviour legislation to close 56 crack dens, which is more than have been closed anywhere in the country outside London? Does he share my astonishment that the local council is claiming credit for this, given that its controlling party voted against the legislation that made that possible? (133616)

That is a fair point. My hon. Friend talks about the record on closing crack houses. When we introduced the power, the Conservative party told us that it was a gimmick, while the Lib Dems opposed it and said that it represented an interference in people’s civil liberties. It allows local authorities to evict people from a house—

How come so many Labour MPs have Lib Dem councils?

The hon. Gentleman voted against these powers, did he not? He should be getting Liberal Democrat councils to stand up and thank the Labour Government for introducing the powers. When we next bring forward a new batch of powers, he should be voting for them, not against them.

My constituent, Jamil el-Banna, has been held in Guantanamo Bay for more than four years without charge, without trial and without hope. The British Government claim that they cannot intervene on behalf of a non-British citizen because they have no consular locus. Does not the return of Bisher al-Rawi entirely undermine that position?

No, I do not agree. It is important that we do not take on responsibility for people in those circumstances who are not British citizens. Although we have made clear our desire to see Guantanamo close and to make sure that the people there are subject to a proper trial, it is also always important to remember that there have been real issues about them and their conduct over a period of time. The hon. Lady should remember that this arose from 11 September and Afghanistan, so I am afraid that I cannot give her the assurance she wants.