Scotland
The Secretary of State was asked—
Electricity Generation
The most recent estimate is that Scotland has about 10.5 GW of generating capacity.
Generating capacity has an effect on prices. As my hon. Friend is aware, Ofgem has launched a welcome investigation into the electricity and gas markets. In view of the similarities between the price increases imposed on consumers by energy companies, will the Minister ask Ofgem specifically to look into the possibility that the companies are operating a nice, cosy cartel against the public interest and are a major cause of fuel poverty?
My hon. Friend has reflected the concerns of many by talking about fuel poverty. As he is aware, given that in today’s climate the cost of a barrel of oil is now in excess of $100, the issue affects not only the UK but countries right around the world. My hon. Friend is right to point out that Ofgem’s role is to ensure that no cosy cartel exists, and I am sure that that will be part of the review that it is undertaking.
As a Government, we can ensure that those discussions can take place. My hon. Friends in the Treasury and the Department for Work and Pensions have been talking with Ofgem representatives about those matters, too. In the meantime, we will continue our attack on fuel poverty through measures such as the winter fuel payment—now worth up to £300 in households where somebody is aged 80 or more—and by ensuring that the great inroads that we have made to reduce fuel poverty are not undone by rising fuel prices.
Does the Minister agree that it is important to ensure Scotland’s future generating capacity? In that regard, is he aware that the Pentland firth is estimated to have 31 GW of potential? People on both sides of the firth are working to exploit that potential. The last Scottish Executive helped, and the current one is helping; on the other hand, the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform is being somewhat slow. What can the Minister do to help that UK Department ensure that there is a UK supply of electricity from the far north?
I commend the hon. Gentleman for his question. He is, of course, a distinguished former Liberal Democrat Scottish spokesperson, and if press reports are to be believed, he may be back in that job tomorrow. I look forward to welcoming him back to the post, following the outcome of this evening’s vote.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am well aware of the potential of Solway firth; I have been to look at it twice in the past couple of months, and the Minister for Energy has been to the hon. Gentleman’s constituency as well.
I do not accept that DBERR is dragging its heels. We have ensured the correct levels of subsidy at the correct time in the development of technology. Because we have international targets to meet and the threat of climate change is real, those have been designed predominantly to meet the needs of onshore wind technology. However, the next generation of tidal and wave power will have a part to play and the Government stand ready to assist it.
Does my hon. Friend agree that nuclear power generates more electricity than any other form of power in Scotland, and that the Scottish Executive are irresponsible and short-sighted to rule out building any new nuclear power stations?
Factually, my hon. Friend is entirely correct. Nuclear power is responsible for producing about 40 per cent. of Scotland’s electricity. It should be part of a balanced portfolio of energy that includes renewables, which have a very important part to play, as well as clean coal technology and carbon capture and storage. I also agree with my hon. Friend’s criticism of the Scottish Executive.
The Minister is, of course, quite wrong. The last figures from DBERR itself show that nuclear power made up only 26 per cent. of generation and was falling as renewables rise. Is the future not with renewable energy, such as that to be produced by the Glendoe hydro-station, which, when it comes on line, will produce enough energy to cover the whole of Glasgow?
I support the Glendoe hydro-scheme, which the previous Labour-led Scottish Executive consented to. The fact is that, even if we accept the hon. Gentleman’s figures—which are only the case because of temporary outages at Hunterston—historically speaking, nuclear power has been responsible for 40 per cent. of Scotland’s electricity. How would the hon. Gentleman replace that? He could not replace it with intermittent renewables, and he is attempting to con the Scottish people if he says that he can.
Devolution
As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made clear, the time has come to assess how we can strengthen devolution. The cross-border, cross-party Scottish parliamentary review is the right place for that assessment to be made and I am not in a position to prejudge its outcome.
We have another review, but I remind my friend that Joel Barnett called for a review of the Barnett settlement, which gives to Scotland £1,500 more in public spending per head than it does to England. My question is this: should Holyrood have additional tax or revenue-raising powers, and if so, what are the implications for the Barnett formula?
I say to my hon. Friend that, as he is well aware, the Scottish Parliament has tax-raising powers under the Scotland Act 1998, but it has chosen not to exercise them. Members of the Scottish Parliament, in a motion that they overwhelmingly passed, accepted that proper financial accountability must be looked at in the context of the review, and we shall have to wait and see what comes out of that process. The Barnett formula has delivered stable and transparent settlements for Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales for about 30 years. Despite the lurid headlines in some of the newspapers this morning, there are no plans for any review of the Barnett formula.
Last August, the First Minister called for the reconvening of the Joint Ministerial Committees, and we have heard today that that will happen, which my colleagues and I welcome. We also learned today that when Scottish voters last year were deciding in favour of change, there was an embarrassing secret meeting between the Prime Minister and the leader of the Liberal Democrats to stop that change. Still going against public opinion, the Prime Minister says that he wants to take away democratic powers that the Scottish Parliament holds as part of the devolution settlement. Which powers would those be?
The hon. Gentleman sometimes gets slightly over-excited in these circumstances. We saw there a fine example of the Scottish National party’s attitude to Scotland. His question was not, “another day, another grievance”, but “another day, another three grievances”. As I recollect—I was not party to any of the discussions—in the aftermath of the Scottish Parliament elections, discussions took place between all sorts of people about the formation of a Government in Scotland. I am absolutely certain that the man who is currently the First Minister in Scotland took part in such discussions. If the hon. Gentleman wants to reveal which discussions took place with various other parties, I would be delighted to hear about them.
As far as the powers of the Scottish Parliament are concerned, as the hon. Gentleman well knows, the settlement for that Parliament includes a degree of flexibility that has, over the years, allowed powers to be transferred to the Scottish Parliament and, on occasions, from it. The test that we will apply as to which powers go and which powers come will be what is in the best interest of the people of Scotland and the Union. If he wants to join me in those discussions, he is welcome to do so.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that if we are going to discuss the powers of Westminster and the Scottish Parliament, one of the best places to do so is not in the media or commissions, but on the Floor of this House or within parliamentary structures? Would it not be a good idea, as I have suggested to my right hon. Friend in the past, for the Grand Committee to discuss all matters concerning Scotland—[Interruption.] My right hon. Friend will note that the Liberals and the SNP do not want to discuss Westminster issues in Scotland in this Parliament. I hope that my right hon. Friend agrees with me.
My hon. Friend has raised a point that he has been raising consistently for some time. He is to be commended for his consistent championing of that agenda, but it is a matter for the House rather than the Executive. However, he has made a good point. Those issues are alive, and they ought to be discussed in this Parliament and in the Scottish Parliament. The democratic deficit in Scotland is that, allegedly, a conversation is going on, although it is a pretty muted one, instigated by the Scottish Executive and paid for with public money, but without the authority of the Scottish Parliament. The democratic deficit in Scotland is that the SNP has been unwilling—dare I say it, afraid—to bring the national conversation to the Scottish Parliament to get it endorsed.
I thank the Secretary of State for his input so far into discussions leading to the setting up of the Scottish Constitutional Commission. He has always been very positive and engaged. However, he will need to explain to the Prime Minister that there is no appetite in Scotland for the transfer of powers between here and Edinburgh to be a two-way street. Unless that can be explained to the Prime Minister, the prospects for the commission’s success will be diminished.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his recognition of my contribution. For my part, I reciprocate that and look forward to building the same sort of relationship with his successor. Our discussions have been constructive, because all the people at the heart of those discussions have the best interests of the Scottish people at heart and reflect the overwhelming view of the Scottish people that devolution must be made to work. Currently, we see a significant reduction in support for independence in Scotland, but that is no wonder, given that we have an Executive running Scotland who are more interested in powers that they do not have than in using those that they do for the people of Scotland. As for the point that the hon. Gentleman has made, I well understand his party’s position, but the reality is that the transfer of powers under the 1998 Act has been a two-way street, and we should not deny it.
I understand that the Secretary of State does not want to pre-empt the outcome of the commission, but does he agree that it is a matter of principle that where a Government have responsibility for spending money, they should also have responsibility for raising it and not just have tax-raising powers as an option?
It is interesting that the current Scottish Executive aspire to that position but are taking such powers away from local government in Scotland. There is no question but that financial accountability is an important part of democracy, and I am sure that the review consideration will come up with an answer to that.
I have heard what the Secretary of State has said about reviewing the Barnett formula, but is he really telling the House that no one on the Government Benches believes that such a review should take place? Specifically, will he confirm the position of the Justice Secretary on the Barnett formula, as he appears to be playing an increasingly shadowy role in Scottish devolution?
The hon. Gentleman knows what I have said at the Dispatch Box, but I cannot speak for everybody who sits on the Government Benches, any more than he can speak for everybody who sits on the Conservative Benches behind him. If he wants to know what each person believes, he should ask them. To describe the Secretary of State for Justice, who has responsibility for devolution in departmental terms, as a shadowy figure is a distortion of the truth. The fact of the matter is that no review of the Barnett formula is planned, and I understand from the Leader of the Opposition’s comments yesterday that he does not plan one, either.
Perhaps the Secretary of State will explain to the House how it is tenable for Labour to agree to review the financial powers of the Scottish Parliament on the one hand, as he and the Prime Minister have done, but on the other hand to declare the Barnett formula to be sacrosanct.
It is as tenable for the Government to be in that position as it is for the Conservative party, and that is exactly the position that the Conservative party is in.
Armed Forces (Health Care)
I have had various discussions with the First Minister on a range of subjects, including armed forces personnel. The Scottish Executive have the duty to ensure that NHS boards in Scotland implement their responsibilities to the armed forces, service families and veterans. The Ministry of Defence has numerous regular discussions at various levels to assist the Executive and NHS Scotland in that respect.
Although I acknowledge the excellence of the medical facilities for our military personnel at Selly Oak, what discussions has the Secretary of State had with the First Minister about providing an equally good range of facilities—a centre of excellence—for those serving who are based or living in Scotland, such as those in 52 Brigade, which is currently in Afghanistan? Most personnel will be based in Scotland, but there will be people from the north of England, too. Should they not receive equal treatment to that which people being looked after at Selly Oak receive?
I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s recognition of the world-class clinical care that our troops receive at Selly Oak hospital. That has not always been recognised, but the Defence Committee has done the House, Selly Oak hospital and our troops a significant service by clearly confirming that a world-class service is provided there. The reason the service is world class is that there is a concentration of expertise at Selly Oak hospital that would be almost impossible to replicate anywhere else. I am aware of one occasion, for example, on which a soldier returning from Afghanistan required the attention of 16 trauma consultants. Only Selly Oak hospital can provide that. Any attempt to replicate that anywhere else in the United Kingdom would run the risk of diluting the care that we can give. Selly Oak should be built up.
May I draw my right hon. Friend’s attention to the Defence Committee’s report, which highlights the fact that veterans in Scotland do not receive the same treatment as veterans in the rest of the United Kingdom? The Select Committee was highly critical of that. When my right hon. Friend meets the First Minister of the minority Government in Scotland, will he make it clear that our troops deserve to be treated in exactly the same way in Scotland as they are throughout the rest of the UK?
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who is a member of the Defence Committee, and to the work of the Committee. It has done a service to our armed forces by identifying that one criticism among a small number of criticisms in a report that was otherwise substantially complimentary about medical care. The Scottish Executive—in particular, the Health Minister in Scotland—have responded immediately to that matter. They have suggested that their dealings with the Ministry of Defence are very good on that issue, and I can confirm that they are. We will work together to deal with that and sort it out.
Given that many veterans are now retired and elderly, does the Secretary of State agree with the report by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities that free health care for the elderly should now be subject to eligibility criteria?
I am not aware of the individual report that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned, but I will consider the matter in the context in which the report is written and get in touch with him.
If there have been any failings in the treatment of veterans in the past, the Secretary of State has only his Scottish colleagues in the previous Labour Executive to thank. Will he join me in congratulating the Scottish Government on putting an extra £500,000 into helping veterans with mental health issues, and on the priority treatment that veterans with service-related conditions are now about to receive from the Scottish Government? Does that not contrast vividly with the failings and shortcomings of the previous so-called Executive?
That is unworthy of the hon. Gentleman—
But not surprising.
Indeed. It is unworthy of the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) to play party politics with the health and welfare of our troops, particularly those who are serving in Afghanistan or Iraq and who might come back injured. His party has responsibility for the delivery of that service. I have told the House that I am pleased with the response by the Health Minister in Scotland that she will engage with the issue now that it has been brought to her attention. The fact is, however, that it took her some months to find out that it was even an issue.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the treatment of our veterans is of the utmost importance to Members on both sides of this House—except, it would appear, to Members from one party, which happens to be in a minority Government in Scotland? Does he agree that, if we were to open up the Scotland Act 1998, the important function of looking after our veterans might be one of the powers that we should bring back to this House, so that we can look after the people who defend this country?
There is growing consensus across the House that, in regard to the delivery of our public services, we ought, as a country, to recognise our commitment to our veterans and our serving troops, and to the families and extended families of those who serve our country in that way. It is disagreeable and disappointing that the Scottish National party should choose to make party advantage in that matter. However, I have no doubt that, as it learns more about the responsibilities of Administration, it will learn that that does not help, and that it will not be forgotten by the people of Scotland in the long term.
The recent Defence Committee report made it clear that the Scottish Executive were not giving high enough priority to the medical care of our service personnel. Last year, Scottish nationalist MSPs supported a ban on the Army visiting schools. Does the Secretary of State agree that the SNP’s treatment of our soldiers as second-class citizens is simply the worst kind of politics? Will he seek an urgent meeting with the Secretary of State for Defence to ask him to raise that matter with the First Minister, in order to remind the First Minister that our armed forces personnel are part of the British Army, and that we stand together and fight together?
I will do what I can to get an early meeting with the Secretary of State for Defence, but I know that his diary is very busy. However, the hon. Gentleman has made the good point that one party in the House plays around with those issues for political purposes. In the absence of a coherent defence policy, it is not surprising that it chooses to exploit circumstances as it does. Members of that party should not continue to believe, however, that our armed forces do not recognise that. Those Members do not provide the coherent strategic support that our armed forces need, and they should not play about with those issues as they do.
Unemployment
I have discussed the issue of Government support to assist unemployed people to return to work in Glasgow with my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and the Minister for Employment and Welfare Reform on a number of recent occasions.
I welcome the good work of the Department for Work and Pensions in Glasgow and Glasgow city council in focusing on employment in the city. They have identified two main challenges, namely the lack of skills among low-paid workers and the lack of appropriate after-school care for lone parents. When my hon. Friend next meets the First Minister, will he remind him that Glasgow needs more, not fewer, apprentices and more funding for comprehensive after-school care rather than taking money out of the voluntary sector?
I agree with my hon. Friend that, after many years of decline, the city of Glasgow has undergone an astonishing renaissance in recent years. It is now important that economic opportunity is expanded out from the centre to all Glasgow’s inhabitants. We will be able to do that only if we ensure that people have the right skills and training to be part of Glasgow’s economic success. That will not happen by capping the number of available apprenticeships, which is what the SNP has done, in sharp contrast to the big expansion in apprenticeships that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has announced. We have ambitions for Glasgow, but it seems that the SNP does not.
One way of getting more people into employment in Glasgow and elsewhere is through the Department for Work and Pensions’ Workstep programme, which provides job subsidies to employers of people with severe disabilities. What would my hon. Friend say about a local authority that signed a Workstep contract with the DWP to supply work for 35 disabled people a week after SNP and Liberal Democrat councillors effectively voted to close the same factory in which those people work? How can that help people get into employment?
My hon. Friend is an acknowledged and nationally respected champion of disabled people, who has championed many programmes to help disabled people get into work not only in Glasgow, but in her own Aberdeen constituency. I am very concerned to hear about that proposed cut by Aberdeen city council, so I beg it not to take any action that would make it more difficult for disabled people to get into work, which would be entirely wrong.
Devolution
I have discussions with the First Minister on a range of issues and I look forward to further constructive discussions in the interests of the people of Scotland in the future.
I speak as a Conservative and Unionist Member. Will the Secretary of State explain why the Minister of State, who is sitting alongside him, has concluded:
“There is no case for the massive restructuring”
of the current fiscal arrangements for Scotland, when apparently the Labour leader in the Scottish Parliament believes that they should be fundamentally reviewed? May I have a straightforward answer?
The hon. Gentleman does not need to remind us of his qualifications to ask that question, as the whole House knows who he is. May I say that if I infer from his question correctly, he is a welcome convert to the improvement of the devolution settlement? This Government believe in devolution and we delivered it. I am delighted to be working with the Conservative Front Benchers both here and in the Scottish Parliament to devise a method for the review of the devolution settlement in order to improve it for the people of Scotland. I welcome his contribution.
Employment
The employment level in Scotland stands at 2.53 million, with the rate of employment at 76.5 per cent. In my hon. Friend’s constituency, the employment rate stands at 78.4 per cent.
Unemployment in my constituency stands at 2.4 per cent., but that figure will increase because of the cuts being implemented by the Scottish National party. Along with a 6 per cent. increase in rents, there are cuts in the Education Department, cuts in the Health Department and cuts in the Development Department, yet the SNP is spending £70,000 on a tent. Does my hon. Friend agree with me about that?
My hon. Friend is right. Since 1997 there have been more than 250,000 additional jobs in the Scottish economy thanks to Labour’s management of the economy, and it is a great shame to see that good work being undone by the SNP, both in the Administration in Edinburgh and locally. I am sure that the voters of Livingston will bear that in mind the next time that they go to the polls.
Prime Minister
The Prime Minister was asked—
Engagements
Before I list my engagements, let me say that I am sure the whole House will wish to join me in sending condolences to the family and friends of Royal Air Force Sergeant Duane Barwood, who died in Iraq on Friday. To him and to others who have lost their lives we owe 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.
I endorse the Prime Minister’s comments.
Poverty pay in this country was largely eradicated by the national minimum wage legislation introduced by this Government 10 years ago. Will my right hon. Friend reassure my constituents and the House that the minimum wage will continue to rise in line with average earnings, and that he will maintain his commitment to high employment and investment in our public services?
I am pleased to announce that the minimum wage will rise to £5.73 this October. That is a 60 per cent. increase on the original minimum wage introduced in 1999. Some people said that the minimum wage would cost us 2 million jobs. We have a rising minimum wage, and we have created 3 million jobs. I am also delighted to say that in contrast to what others are suggesting—£10 billion of tax cuts will be paid for by huge cuts in public spending—we will maintain public services in health, education and transport infrastructure, and those for children and pensioners. We will keep our promises on public services.
I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to Sergeant Duane Barwood, who was killed in Basra on Friday. His family live in my constituency, and our thoughts and prayers are with them as they honour his memory.
Does the Prime Minister think that if he held a referendum on the Lisbon treaty he would win it?
No country in Europe apart from Ireland is holding a referendum on the constitutional treaty—Interruption.]
Order. Hon. Members should not be shouting down the Prime Minister, or the Leader of the Opposition.
If this were a constitutional treaty, we would hold a referendum. If there were a vote on the euro, we would hold a referendum. But the constitutional concept was abandoned, and that is why the nine countries that proposed a referendum—including Ireland—are not holding one.
The question that the Opposition must answer is this. If after ratification they hold a referendum, they will essentially be renegotiating our membership of the European Union, and that would put thousands of jobs in this country at risk.
Everyone who is watching will see that the Prime Minister will not answer the question. The truth is that all of us in the House promised a referendum. We have the courage of our convictions and are sticking to that promise. The Prime Minister has lost his courage, and that lot—the Liberal Democrats—have lost their convictions. So let me ask the Prime Minister again: does he think that if he held a referendum, he would win it?
The last time a referendum was held on Europe, it was won with a massive majority. Let me also say to the right hon. Gentleman that his proposals put our membership of the European Union at risk. When will he wake up to the fact that three and a half million jobs are dependent on our membership of the European Union, that 700,000 companies are trading with Europe, that 60 per cent. of our trade is with Europe, and that all that is put at risk by Conservative intransigence on Europe?
And answer came there none.
The Prime Minister says that the constitutional concept has been abandoned, yet this treaty includes provision for an EU Foreign Minister, an EU president and an EU diplomatic service. I do not think that Tony Blair is running for president of some feeble organisation. He is running for president of the United States of Europe.
This treaty gets rid of dozens of vetoes, and gives the European Union, for the first time, the ability to get rid of further treaties without another treaty. If it looks like the constitution and sounds like the constitution, that is because it is the constitution. Tony Blair found the courage to back a referendum; why will not the Prime Minister?
The Conservative party is wrong: this is not “the United States of Europe”. The Conservative party is wrong: foreign policy is decided at intergovernmental level. As far as what the right hon. Gentleman says about this institutional arrangement, a former Conservative Chancellor says:
“What we have now is far less important than Maastricht”
—and their party did not have a referendum on Maastricht.
If the Prime Minister wants to trade quotes, why does he not try this one from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart), who was Labour’s appointment to the organisation that drew up the constitution? She said:
“A referendum was promised. It should be delivered. If Labour can’t trust the people, why should the people trust Labour?”
Does not the Prime Minister understand that this is one of the reasons why our political system is so badly broken? All three main parties in this House made a promise to our constituents for a vote on the EU constitution. When we turn around and say, “You can’t have it any more,” it is no wonder people feel cheated and cynical because promises are being made and broken. Why cannot the Prime Minister see the damage that he is doing?
I have explained to the House that if this was a constitutional treaty, we would be having a referendum. The constitutional concept was abandoned. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to persist in talking about “the United States of Europe” and a “constitutional treaty”, he will have no support in the rest of Europe. Indeed, the only party that supports him in Europe, the Czech ODS party, says:
“The document is no constitution any more.”
If the right hon. Gentleman’s party had truly changed and moved to the centre, he would be standing up to his Back-Benchers: he would be leading them instead of following them, he would be standing up to the Eurosceptics instead of appeasing them, and he would be moving to the centre of Europe instead of being left at the margins of Europe.
More, more.
The opportunities for young people to receive a higher education are greater than ever before. Is Swindon, with its high employment level but low skills base, a suitable candidate to bid for a much needed new university?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Many towns and cities in this country will want a university or higher education institution in the next few years. We are expanding higher and further education because we are investing more in education and not cutting it, and as we do so there will be scope for towns and cities in this country to apply to have universities or higher education institutions. That is the right way forward for Swindon and for many other towns and cities, and I hope that people will support the increase in education investment that makes that possible.
May I— [Interruption.]
Order. I call the right hon.—[Interruption.] Order. I call the right hon. Gentleman.
May I add my own expressions of sympathy and condolence to the family and friends of Sergeant Duane Barwood?
The Prime Minister once said that he would,
“build a wider pro-European movement in Britain”.
How does he think he can achieve that by colluding with the anti-European Conservatives to block the in out referendum that the British people really want?
By not walking out of the House of Commons, for a start. By not saying that there is a principle in abstention when it comes to a European issue. I tell the right hon. Gentleman that we will lead the agenda on the future of Europe, and that we will lead on the environment, international development, the approach to globalisation and security. There is not much principle in recommending abstention.
The Prime Minister talks about leadership, but the fact is that he has bottled it and, as far as I can make out, the leader of the Conservatives wants to leave the European Union but has not got the guts to say it. Is not the truth that this country will never lead in Europe until politicians who believe in the European Union have the courage to stand up for it, and politicians who want to leave it are flushed out in an honest debate on our membership?
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman entirely. The Conservative party leadership is being driven by the Eurosceptics on the Back Benches. I also agree with him that we need to put the pro-European case in the country, but I have to say that to go back to the 1970s and relive a referendum in the 1970s is not the way to plan for the future. The way to plan for the future is to have an agenda for a global Europe, which is exactly what this Government have.
I am proud that this Government have made it possible to have free local pensioner travel and now free off-peak national pensioner travel. That is why we have made available £650 million over the next three years. We consulted local authorities and we agreed to the scheme that they put forward. There is no excuse for local authorities denying pensioners their right to travel throughout the country. This is a scheme that is right, that can be done and that should happen from next month.
There are currently six police investigations under way into the conduct of government in London. The most recent allegations are that the London Mayor’s director for equalities and policing has been channelling public funds into organisations run by friends and cronies. Does the Prime Minister agree with me that that is completely unacceptable?
As on any occasion when a matter referring to a police investigation is raised, I have to say this is a matter for the police. It should be fully investigated, but it is not a matter for this House until the police complete their investigations.
The point is that while these accusations are going on and this investigation is under way, the Mayor—the Labour Mayor—has said that he
“trusts Lee Jasper with his life”,
and last night he said that he is already planning to reappoint him. Does not every element of the Prime Minister’s moral compass tell him that this is wrong?
As I understand it, the person whom the right hon. Gentleman is talking about has resigned and is no longer in that employment. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to support the police in their investigation, why does his candidate for the Mayor of London say that the first target for cuts is transport and policing? That is the Conservative party—cutting transport and cutting policing.
One of the good things of recent years is that the number of people using drugs appears to have fallen. It is also true that the number of people receiving drug treatment is up, and we have doubled the budget available for people receiving treatment for drugs. But I have to agree with my hon. Friend that it is very important, when there are celebrities and role models for young people, that they send out the proper messages. Some of our role models and celebrities send out the right message about the damage of drugs, but I hope that those people who take a casual attitude to drugs will think again and remember the message, as celebrities, that they are sending out to young people in our country.
The Prime Minister, speaking of education, boasts of opportunity for all, but has he forgotten that under his stewardship, the number of young people not in education, employment or training has soared to 1.25 million? Does he believe that the principal reason for that failure is that nine in 10 jobs go to foreign workers, or is it that 40,000 school leavers leave at 16 functionally illiterate and/or innumerate?
The hon. Gentleman seems to forget that about 500,000 more young people are in education after school than when we came into power in 1997, so far from there being fewer young people in education, there are more. He has also forgotten that more young people are in work now than there were in 1997, and that youth unemployment has fallen by 80 per cent. Yes, there is an issue to address about young people who fall through the net and young people who leave school without qualifications, but the only way to deal with it is through the measures that we are taking to raise to the age of 18 the opportunities for young people and not to cut them, as the Conservative party would do.
As my hon. Friend knows, the head of Ofgem has set up an inquiry into the market in electricity and energy in this country. It is right that he pursues an investigation to see whether competition is working effectively in the industry. It is also true that as a result of the European emissions trading scheme windfall profits have been made by the energy companies. That is a matter on which the head of Ofgem has also commented. The energy companies have made additional money available this year to help people on low incomes pay their fuel bills, but that is a small amount in relation to what the Government are doing through the winter allowance. Our winter allowance is £200 for the over-60s and £300 for the over-80s. This winter, when people are experiencing high utility bills, the winter allowance that we are giving is crucial.
Since last November, the Government have secretly trebled the bribe offered to foreign national prisoners to go home. Have the Government done that in secret because they have failed?
Two years ago, only 1,500 foreign national prisoners were leaving and being thrown out of this country. Last year, as a result of the actions that we have taken, the figure more than doubled to 4,200. I think it is right that we get as many foreign national prisoners in British prisons back to their country of origin as quickly as possible. I would have hoped that the hon. and learned Gentleman would support the measures that we are taking to return people to their country of origin.
Answer. [Laughter.]
Order. I will remember some hon. Members when they make a mistake.
In the week when we are celebrating both mother’s day and international women’s day, would my right hon. Friend commit to helping improve maternal and child health programmes in developing countries through improvements in reproductive health services and, in particular, through the international health partnership?
There would be no better way to mark international women’s day than by taking action to deal with infant and maternal mortality. I would have thought that both sides of the House would think it a tragedy that 500,000 mothers die unnecessarily each year in childbirth and that in a country such as Sierra Leone one in every seven mothers dies in childbirth, bringing into life a baby while dying herself. That is why it is very important that the international health partnership that we have formed takes action to deal with maternal mortality. It needs more nurses, more midwives and more help with treatment in those countries. I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because she has put this issue on the agenda in this country. If the Opposition would get serious about issues relating to maternal mortality, perhaps together, as a House, we would take action on this matter.
Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating my right hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley), and First Minister of Northern Ireland, on the announcement that he made yesterday that he plans to stand down from his position as Northern Ireland’s First Minister? Will he also join me in congratulating my right hon. Friend on almost 40 years in this House and on his resolve and determination not to give in to terrorism? Will he also join my right hon. Friend, my colleagues and me in reassuring all of those who want to see continuity in Northern Ireland that true democrats will have nothing to fear from the next Democratic Unionist party First Minister in the Assembly?
The hon. Gentleman is right: all of us want to pay tribute to the work that the First Minister did in making possible the final stages of the peace process, the work that he has done as First Minister, his resolute determination to stand up to terrorism at every point and his decision to work with other parties for reconciliation in Northern Ireland. I had the privilege of phoning him last night to thank him for the work that he has done as First Minister, and I hope that the whole House will join me in acknowledging his 40 years of service in this House and the historic role that he has played in the peace settlement in Northern Ireland.
The Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills made an important announcement on Monday about the designation of 20 towns or cities for new universities or higher education institutes. I hope that all cities and towns will consider whether they could add to their higher education and university amenities, and I hope that many will make submissions as part of that process. Milton Keynes has done a historic job as the home of the Open university, which is known throughout the world, and given Milton Keynes’ size, its application for university status will be welcomed in every part of the country.
To return to the European treaty, what polling or survey evidence did the Prime Minister have on what the result of a referendum would have been?
The one poll that people look at is an actual referendum. In 1975 there was a referendum that recorded a yes vote, with more than two thirds of the population voting yes. I remind Conservative Members that most of those who were here in 1992 walked through the Lobby to oppose a referendum on Maastricht, and now they want a referendum on a treaty that is far less significant. They should think again about their position.
In the White Paper on the constitution, the Government said that we would consider lowering the voting age to 16 and that is now part of the debate that will take place in the country. On Friday, we announced the appointment of Jonathan Tonge as chair of the Youth Citizenship Commission, which will consider a range of issues including not only the voting age, but the curriculum on citizenship and whether there is a case for a citizenship ceremony when people come of age. All those issues should be part of a public debate.
We have a Parliament, we have a democracy and we are having debates on that very treaty in this House as part of our democracy. The hon. Lady should be honest with the House, because she was a member of the campaign—[Interruption.] I hope that Conservatives who are putting the case for the referendum will tell the House what they really want. They want a no vote in the referendum and many of them want to renegotiate our membership of the EU. They are not simply anti the amending treaty; they are anti-Europe.
Ministerial Visits
I visited Leicestershire in September, when I visited policing in the community. I look forward to returning to the area soon.
When he comes to north-west Leicestershire, the Prime Minister will receive a warm welcome, not least from the area’s general practitioners, who have implemented our Government’s primary care policies very successfully since 1997. Will he meet those GPs, such as the highly respected Dr. Orest Mulka, whose experience with polyclinics abroad indicates that they will be a step too far and that they might lead to a lower regard for generalist doctors, damage the GP- patient relationship and be wasteful and demoralising as a consequence?
The key priority is that we have more doctors who are serving their communities, not just during working hours but during evenings and weekends. That is why it is right that in every area of the country we are investing more in the GP service. I hope that our GPs will vote for the three extra hours that will allow half the practices in this country to offer weekend opening or evening opening so that doctors are available for people when they need them.
Engagements
Of course, I would be very happy to meet an all-party delegation. The work of hospices and the great contribution that they make should be commended in every part of the country. It is true to say that we are providing more finance for hospices than ever before. We will continue to look at what we can do and to value the service that is given by volunteers, as well as professionals, in this area. When we meet, we will discuss the future funding needs of hospices.
I do not entirely agree with my hon. Friend’s second point. We are proposing major changes in the EU so that it is more outward looking, more global in its orientation, more flexible and less bureaucratic. On her first point, let us be absolutely clear that on every other amending treaty for the EU, the decision has been made by this House and not through a referendum. The Single European Act, Nice, Amsterdam and Maastricht were all decided on in this House. It is the Conservative party that has changed its mind, not the Labour party.
I understand that security vetting does take place. The important thing for the hon. Gentleman to recognise is that we have created 20,000 more prison places over the past 10 years. Even this year there will be a rise in prison places from 82,000 to 85,000 and we will create 15,000 more prison places in the years to come. The reason that we are doing that is that we have brought more offences to justice. Five years ago, 1 million offences were brought to justice; now the figure is 1.4 million. That is a tribute to good policing in this country, and it is because we have been prepared to invest in the police services through our public expenditure.
I can tell my hon. Friend that weapons that cause unacceptable harm are something that we have got to negotiate about. We are engaged in a negotiation on this, and of course the Defence Secretary will report back to the House when that negotiation is completed.