The Secretary of State was asked—
With your permission, Mr. Speaker, may I take the opportunity before I answer the question to wish all hon. Members a happy St. George’s day? I know that I am here to answer questions, but may I ask my English colleagues why they do not make more of William Shakespeare’s birthday?
With regard to the hon. Gentleman’s question, although I have had no such discussions, I have regular discussions with the First Minister on a range of issues. I look forward to further constructive discussions in the interests of the people of Scotland.
May I echo the Secretary of State’s sentiments on St. George’s day?
The Secretary of State will know that the next Conservative Government are pledged to abolish identity cards anyway, so any discussion held now might become rather academic. He knows that the Scottish Executive are pledged to obstruct the implementation of ID cards in Scotland. Does he not realise that non-implementation in Scotland would fatally undermine any identity cards system throughout the UK?
The hon. Gentleman aspires to a Government with a policy to abandon the scheme. However, I venture to suggest that the necessity for secure and reliable proof of identity, which will continue, requires the Government to respond to the desire of the people of the United Kingdom. As presently measured, the idea attracts support from more than 60 per cent. of the population. The Scottish Executive will not be able to obstruct the introduction of the identity cards scheme throughout the United Kingdom. If they, as providers of devolved services, choose not to avail themselves of the opportunities that the scheme allows to assert the identity of those who seek public services, that is entirely a matter for them. That is what devolution is all about.
When it comes to tackling terrorism and providing security in this country, does my right hon. Friend agree that ID cards have a part to play? Such things should be dealt with at the UK level, contrary to what that bunch diametrically opposite suggest. Their suggestion that they should be dealt with in Scotland is, at best, a dangerous distraction.
My hon. Friend is quite right. The evidence is overwhelming that those who have been convicted of terrorism—during the past year, a significant number have been convicted beyond reasonable doubt in our courts—almost invariably use multiple identities to advance their horrific objectives. There is no question but that a secure and reliable system of identity that fixes the identity of a person through biometrics will assist in dealing with terrorism, and everyone involved in policing terrorism confirms that that is the case. Many quotations from those charged with that responsibility express the idea that one of the most important things we could do to assist in that task is set up an identity card scheme underpinned by biometric identity. Moreover, 71 per cent. of the people of the UK agree with that, because they understand its importance in our fight against terrorists.
When the right hon. Gentleman does have that discussion with the First Minister, he will clearly learn that the people of Scotland do not want ID cards. The Scottish Parliament has voted against the introduction of ID cards, and they will not be required for Scottish Government services. Will he assure me that there will be no attempt to introduce ID cards in Scotland through the back door—by targeting students’ bank accounts and loans, for example?
For the bulk of the things that matter to the people of Scotland, this House is the front door. As far as security of their identity is concerned, the people of Scotland are in no different a position from the rest of the United Kingdom, or indeed, I venture to suggest, no different a position from the hon. Gentleman. If he were to open his wallet today, I suspect he would find many proofs of his identity. If that identity were underpinned by a biometric database, he would be secured against others seizing that identity and abusing it. We will deliver that for the people of Scotland. We will roll it out incrementally, and they will welcome it and use it voluntarily much more than he would wish them to.
My right hon. Friend will be aware of the genuine concerns that the public have expressed about the increasing amount of fraud. When he meets the First Minister to discuss the implementation of identity cards, will he explain its benefits for reducing fraud?
On a day when we probably all woke to the announcement of the publication of yet another report that shows the amount of identity fraud through credit cards and the cost to the United Kingdom, there is no question but that we need to move to the same position as 24 out of 27 of the countries in the European Union and have identity cards. Those countries do not have oppressive regimes. Indeed, in many respects, the current Administration in Scotland look to them with envy. They are social democratic regimes that have moved to identity cards because they help people to protect their identity, especially against the sort of fraud that is perpetrated daily.
One aspect of the Government’s identity card scheme is that everyone, of any age, will have to travel to one of only 11 biometric centres in Scotland. For some people who do not live close to the centres, that means long and expensive journeys to get their identity protected. Of course, the Secretary of State knows all about identity theft, having stolen one from the Secretary of State for Defence. Is not it absurd that the Government solution to counter-terrorism is that 80-year-olds in Pitlochry will have make 100 mile round trips to get their data scanned, while people in England have to have an identity card to get the services that they need?
I will speak to the hon. Gentleman afterwards so that he can explain the joke, because I do not believe that any of us got it.
The hon. Gentleman and his party support a passport system, which is underpinned by biometrics. That is his party’s policy. Eventually, every adult who has a passport in this country—that is a significant number of adults of all ages—will have to go through exactly that process. That is why we have developed a network of offices, which will be expanded if necessary. There currently are nine throughout Scotland. The journeys that people must make to have their biometrics secured are no different from those that he would continue to impose on them through supporting the policy on biometric passports. The criticism is nonsense and he knows it.
I have received no representations on assisting staff that may be made redundant at Glaxo SmithKline’s operation in Irvine. However, I expect at least some of my constituents to be in that category, so I also expect representations to be made to me as a constituency Member of Parliament, if for no other reason. Clearly, it is a worrying time for those concerned and I extend my sympathies to them.
I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. I am the local Member of Parliament, and as my neighbouring Member of Parliament he will remember the redundancies at a nearby company called Simclar. Jobcentre Plus had enormous success in getting almost every employee a job. Since some of my right hon. Friend’s constituents are affected, will he consider approaching Jobcentre Plus and asking it to become involved in the current case?
As I know the detail of what my hon. Friend consistently does for his constituents, I pay tribute to him for his support. The closure to which he referred had a devastating effect on several people, and they were ably assisted by his involvement. He will be pleased to know that Jobcentre Plus is slightly ahead of him. It leads on what is called Partnership Action for Continuing Employment—PACE—in Central Ayrshire. Indeed, it was in touch with Glaxo SmithKline on 2 April—the day after the announcement of the consultation. I understand that Glaxo SmithKline will meet the PACE manager shortly—in the next two or three weeks—and I am sure that Jobcentre Plus and the PACE scheme, which goes beyond it, will have success similar to that that they have consistently had in the past in placing people in training or new jobs.
The Secretary of State met the First Minister on 25 January, when they discussed several issues, including the organisation of elections in Scotland.
I thank the Minister for that reply. I also congratulate him on the work that he did on electoral administration as a Minister in the Department for Constitutional Affairs. Progress has been made on registration; indeed, there are an extra 500,000 people on the electoral register. Progress has been mixed across the UK. In my constituency we have an extra 5,000 people on the register. What actions can the Minister take in Scotland against recalcitrant EROs—electoral registration officers—who do not take their work seriously, do not think that people should be registered to vote and have not taken up the powers that he has given them to do the job?
My hon. Friend has done more than any other Member of the House to raise the issue of under-registration of voters. The progress made in the past couple of years is in no small measure due to his efforts. Following the passage of the Electoral Administration Act 2006, I wrote to registration officers in Scotland, in February 2007 and again in August 2007, pointing out their new duties under the Act and asking what progress had been made. I tell my hon. Friend in all candour that I am disappointed with the progress that has been made. We might have to revisit the issue in the light of any reforms that follow the recommendations of the Gould report.
Would the organisation of elections in Scotland not be made much simpler if we adopted the same voting system for all elections in Scotland and throughout the UK? Would the best system not be the single transferable vote by proportional representation, which was agreed by the Minister’s party and mine when we were friends together in the Scottish Executive?
Having the privilege of representing the constituency that, sadly, had the highest number of spoilt ballot papers last May, can I urge my hon. Friend to continue working constructively on the follow-through to the Gould report? In particular, does he agree that it is vital to decouple the Scottish Parliament elections from the Scottish local government elections? That would completely eliminate the need for a joint ballot paper. Obviously these are matters for the Scottish Administration, too, but may I also suggest that he give careful consideration to the recommendation of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities that the Scottish local government elections be held a year after the Scottish Parliament elections?
As my right hon. Friend knows, that issue is currently out to consultation by the Administration in Scotland. Their preferred option would be to decouple the elections and to have the local council elections a year later, as he suggested, which is one of the options in the consultation. It is important to send the people of Scotland a clear signal today that what occurred on 3 May last year will not happen again, that we will not see a repeat of the confusion that led to the unacceptable number of spoilt papers again, and that steps have been taken by the Government and will be taken in due course by the Scottish Administration to restore people’s confidence in the integrity of the electoral system.
No, I do not agree. One of the most disappointing aspects of the debate has been the consistent misrepresentation of what Mr. Gould actually believes. I remind the hon. Gentleman of what Mr. Gould told him about devolution when he gave evidence in this place:
“This was…raised in the context of a chief returning officer. The concept here was that if there is going to be accountability there needs to be a point of focus…The recommendation that the jurisdictional responsibility for that management of the election be located in Scotland…so it is a management process here…if the legislation remains in Westminster for the parliamentary elections that is fine”.
That is what Mr. Gould said, and the hon. Gentleman’s party should stop misrepresenting him.
The Royal Society of Edinburgh’s “Inquiry into Energy Issues for Scotland” found that, over time, 8 to 10 per cent. of Scotland’s electricity comes from distributed hydroelectric stations, 33 to 35 per cent. comes from coal, 16 to 18 per cent. comes from gas and 38 to 40 per cent. comes from nuclear. Those proportions will, of course, vary owing to factors such as increased development of onshore wind and planned maintenance closures of power stations.
I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Does he share my concern, and that of the Scottish TUC and the Unite union, about a balanced energy policy? We must live in the real world, not in the world of the nationalists, who think that they can run the energy supply only on renewables—laudable though those renewables are. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need a mix that includes nuclear power that is home grown and not bought in from other countries?
My hon. Friend is right to focus the debate on the issue of Scotland’s base load—in other words, the electricity that we need seven days a week, 52 weeks a year, irrespective of whether the wind is blowing or the waves are crashing. We know that the Scottish National party is against nuclear; we also know that it is against wind farms in its own constituencies. What we do not know is how it is going to provide Scotland’s base load electricity and keep the lights on. It is time that we were told.
Regardless of how Scotland’s electricity supply is produced, people across the country are facing massively increased fuel bills. That is particularly true in rural areas. Will the Minister therefore explain how the abolition of the 10p rate of income tax is going to help with the Government’s stated aim of abolishing fuel poverty?
I first welcome the hon. Gentleman to his promotion to shadow Secretary of State for Scotland. I can see looks of great relief on the faces of some of those sitting behind him that he has accepted the post. What has happened to fuel costs is a global phenomenon. A few years ago, the price of a barrel of oil was $10; today it is $117. Of course that puts pressure on the tremendous inroads that we have made in reducing fuel poverty. That is why the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Treasury Ministers met the fuel companies to discuss the extension of social tariffs, and why we have increased the winter fuel payment, which is now worth considerably more than any previous scheme. We have done that precisely to help people who are facing rising fuel bills, and we will continue to take action because we believe that fuel poverty is a genuine social evil that has to be combated.
May I merely make the point to my hon. Friend that we are sitting on millions of tonnes of coal in Scotland? If we are talking about increasing oil and gas prices, surely we should also be talking about an expansion of the coal industry and clean coal technology. We should be exploiting and pushing that in Scotland.
My hon. Friend is a long-standing advocate and proponent of the coal industry in Scotland, and he is quite right. Let me refer him back to my original answer and remind him that 33 to 35 per cent. of Scotland’s electricity comes from coal-fired power stations, so coal has to play a part in the balanced energy mix. Clean coal technology is being pioneered in Scotland by Doosan Babcock, Clyde Blowers and others, and Scottish companies are also playing their part in the carbon capture and storage competition that is being run at the moment. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that coal has an important part to play in the future.
The Minister will be aware that the availability of fossil fuels for electricity generation and other purposes is a major concern in Scotland, given the potential shutdown of the Grangemouth refinery. Will the Minister tell us what role the UK Government are playing in seeking a resolution to this matter, and will he update the House on the current position? Can he also offer business and private motorists in Scotland a reassurance that contingency arrangements are in hand to ensure that there will be no threat to fuel supplies, and that the panic buying and stocking up of petrol is therefore completely unwarranted?
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been in regular contact with the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform over the past few days, and they have made it clear that by far and away the best solution will be a negotiated solution between the management and the trade unions. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that such talks are under way, and being facilitated by ACAS. I am happy to offer him the reassurance that contingency plans are in place and that there is no need for motorists to buy more fuel than they would normally buy at this time. Of course, all our focus at present has to be on getting a negotiated settlement.
Is the Minister aware that a substantial amount of electricity will be required to manufacture the two new aircraft carriers? Can he tell me—or can he ask a friend—when he expects those orders to be placed?
Neither I nor the Secretary of State has had any recent discussions with the Driving Standards Agency on test facilities for motorcyclists in Scotland.
A well intentioned plan to improve training for motorcyclists is backfiring. From September, motorcyclists from Argyll and Bute will have to travel to Glasgow to take their test—a round trip of more than 200 miles for many. A motorcycle school in Oban has already closed as a result and the same thing is happening elsewhere. Will the Government apply the brakes to those new plans for the test centres, review their locations and build such centres in all parts of the country before the new test regime comes into effect? Closed motorcycle schools are not going to help road safety.
I am aware of the concern about this issue in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency and elsewhere—and, indeed, in my own constituency. The question of the siting of the new test centres is obviously an issue for the Driving Standards Agency, not for the Government, but it is important that such things are kept under review. Motorcyclists represent 1 per cent. of road traffic users, but have 19 per cent. of fatalities and accidents, so it is in the interests of motorcyclists themselves that standards are raised. That, as the hon. Gentleman says, is the good intention behind the move, as part of a European directive. I take his point that it is important to keep these issues under review. I, for one, would not want to see closures of the training centres of the type that he mentioned.
On behalf of the Scottish National party, I wish our friends and neighbours in England a very happy St. George’s day and look forward to England’s independence.
The biggest protest against Driving Standards Agency closures took place recently in Moray where more than 700 bikers protested against the DSA’s plans to close a testing centre. Does the Minister agree that the safety of bikers, learners and those about to take their test has to be paramount?
I am aware of the issue of the Elgin test centre and of the hon. Gentleman’s involvement in the campaign. I saw a photograph of him in the newspaper in motorcycle leathers—at least, I assume they were motorcycle leathers—so I know that he has been part of the campaign. I entirely agree that the safety of motorcyclists has to be the paramount concern, which is, of course, why the new testing regime is being brought in—because motorcyclists are dying on our roads to a hugely disproportionate extent in comparison with their total number. Having said that, I think it important to keep the location of the new test centres under review to ensure that we do not see the closure of the training centres such as has been mentioned, which would clearly not be in anyone’s interest.
Scottish Constitutional Commission
I meet regularly with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to discuss a wide range of issues. The hon. Gentleman will, however, wish to note that the remit of the commission is clear: it will put forward recommendations to improve financial accountability to the Scottish Parliament.
The Scottish Executive of course already have the power to introduce road tolls. Does the Secretary of State share my concerns at the threats that have been made to introduce them in a disproportionate way that would threaten the operation of the Faslane nuclear base?
We in government accept our responsibility —our primary responsibility—to ensure the safety and security of this nation, and the strategic deterrent is an important part of securing that. It is our responsibility as the UK Government, and we will not allow anything to interfere with the defence of the United Kingdom.
In view of the somewhat imperious decision of the First Minister not to meet me on the issue of the £34 million allocated to disabled children and their families, does my right hon. Friend agree that the Barnett formula is an important issue for discussion, because transparency is clearly of the essence?
We have no plans to review the Barnett formula; indeed, I do not think that any party in this House has any plans to review it. My right hon. Friend is right to desire transparency, and I pay tribute to him for the good work that he has consistently done for disabled people, particularly in securing additional funds from my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer for families with disabled children. The people of Scotland are entitled to know what additional resources will be made available to those families as a result of that extra money. The failure of the Scottish Executive to answer my right hon. Friend’s simple questions on these matters will be noted by the people of Scotland, particularly by those families.
Has the Secretary of State discussed with the Chancellor of the Exchequer the exact purpose of his factual paper on the Barnett formula? Given that the formula has been in operation for 30 years, that its details are well known and that the Treasury has not even consulted Lord Barnett about the preparation of the paper, is not the real purpose of the exercise not, as the Prime Minister claims, simply to inform the work of the Scottish constitutional commission, but to serve as the beginning of the review of the Barnett formula for which the Secretary of State for Justice and Labour Back Benchers have been lobbying?
It is nothing of the sort. The purpose of the exercise is exactly as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer described it: to inform the debate. The hon. Gentleman may know exactly what the Barnett formula is, but the ill-informed debate that constantly rages around the place suggests that many people could do with a refresher course on what it actually is and does.
The Prime Minister was asked—
Before I list my engagements, let me say that I am sure the whole House will wish to join me in sending profound condolences to the families and friends of Senior Aircraftman Graham Livingstone and Senior Aircraftman Gary Thompson, who were killed in Afghanistan on Sunday 13 April, and Trooper Robert Pearson, who was killed in Afghanistan on Monday 21 April. We owe them, and all others who have lost their lives, a deep debt of gratitude.
I am also sure that I speak for the whole House when I say how sad we were to learn of the death of Gwyneth Dunwoody. She was a great parliamentarian, and she will be greatly missed from her usual seat in the Chamber. Our thoughts and prayers are with her family.
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.
While I welcomed the letter from the Chancellor that was published recently, may I ask the Prime Minister to make a specific commitment to introduce, in the current financial year, measures to protect the 5 million people who will be penalised by the abolition of the 10p tax band? Does he agree that such a step would be consistent with the Government’s successful policies in combating poverty, making work pay, and moving people from welfare into work?
For over a decade, with the minimum wage and child and pension credits, this Government have done more than any Government for a century to tackle child poverty and help low-income families. However, as we have found, there are better ways of helping low-income families than the 10p rate.
I think I should tell the House that 85 per cent. of the benefits of the 10p rate go to higher-rate and basic-rate taxpayers, and that 11 million people, mainly the lowest-income people in the country, receive no benefit at all from it. That is why we have increased tax credits to tackle poverty. That is why we have increased child tax credits, pension credits and the pension tax allowance in our Budgets. That is why the Chancellor said today in his letter to the Treasury Committee, repeating what he had said yesterday, that for the group that had missed out—those of pensionable age, between 60 and 64, who were benefiting from the 10p rate—we would present proposals, perhaps using the mechanism of the winter allowance, to provide them with additional payments that could be backdated to April this year. And that is why we will present proposals on the working tax credit, which involves issues relating to young people and part-time workers, in time for the pre-Budget report.
We are determined to take action, because we are the party of fairness tackling poverty. I should prefer to be on this side of the House cutting poverty than to have been in the Conservative Government when they were in power trebling poverty.
I think that we should call this session Prime Minister’s U-turns rather than Prime Minister’s questions.
I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to Senior Aircraftman Graham Livingstone and Senior Aircraftman Gary Thompson, who were killed in Afghanistan on Sunday 13 April, and to Trooper Robert Pearson, who was killed on Monday. The whole country owes them a great debt of gratitude.
I also associate my party with the Prime Minister’s warm words about Gwyneth Dunwoody. She was the very model of an independent Back Bencher and Select Committee Chairman. She spoke her mind, she had no truck with political correctness, she was courageous in her political beliefs and she—[Interruption.] I can remember exactly where she sat. She was never afraid to hold any Government to account if she thought that they were doing the wrong thing. She will be sorely missed on both sides of the House.
The Prime Minister’s emergency announcement about income tax this morning represents a massive loss of authority. This morning, we have had panicked concessions before he came to the House of Commons. We were told that there would be no back-down; we have had a back-down. We were told that he could not rewrite the Budget; he is rewriting the Budget. We were told that there would be no concessions; there are now massive concessions. So will the Prime Minister tell us whether he is making those changes because he thought he would lose the vote next week?
We have said for some time that we want to do more to help people on low incomes. His party policy, two years ago, was to abolish the 10p rate. Last year, it was to abstain on the 10p rate. This year it is to keep the 10p rate. They are the “no, don’t know, yes” party: they cannot make up their minds what they want to do. We will be consistent in our desire to tackle child poverty.
Consistent? Does the Prime Minister have any idea what a pathetic figure he cuts today? He is making these changes because he thought he would lose the vote. Or is this like the general election that he cancelled even though he thought he was going to win it? Is he not just taking people for fools once again? Why will he not admit it? He is not making these changes because he thinks they are right. He is not making these changes because he wants to help the people whom he hurt. He is making these changes because he was frightened of losing a vote. Why not admit it? Why not be straight with people?
I see the right hon. Gentleman’s new-found enthusiasm for poverty has lasted only a few seconds. Why does he not address the central issue? The central issue is that we are taking more people out of poverty than any previous Government. If we took the advice of the Opposition, we would not have a minimum wage, but 2 million people are better off. If we took his advice, we would not have tax credits, but 6 million people are better off. If we took his advice, there would be £10 billion of tax cuts, depriving the poor of the public services they need. The choice is clear—between a Conservative party that would cut the incomes of the poor and a Labour party that will increase them.
What this is about is weakness, dithering and indecision from the Prime Minister. He talks about the central issue, so let us deal with the central issue. Why did all this begin? This began because as Chancellor of the Exchequer he stood there and presented a tax con Budget to try to wrong-foot the Opposition, to try to pose as a tax-cutter and to try to win a few cheap headlines in the newspapers. He did all that on the back of 5.3 million of the poorest people in our country. Will he admit now that that Budget was a gross miscalculation and it was immoral, and will he apologise for the tax con Budget?
Everybody now agrees that the 10p rate is not the best way to tackle poverty. The Conservative party agreed with that two years ago. They abstained on the vote a year ago and now they are supporting the 10p rate, and nobody believes their credibility on that matter.
The Leader of the Opposition has said that he wished we had
“simplified all our tax rates and produced one band, somewhere around 20 per cent., that applied to spending, saving, capital gains and income”
“all…endless relief and credits”.
The policy he announced in 2002 was not just cutting the 10p rate but abolishing tax credits and allowances. That is not a party that cares about the poor; that is a party that put more people in poverty.
As ever, the Prime Minister was about to thump 5.3 million of the poorest people in our country and he is scrabbling around with policy documents trying to find some excuses. As ever, there is no apology or admission of guilt, just a U-turn to try to save his skin. Does that climbdown not tell us all we need to know about this Government? It is always about politics, not policy. It is always about calculation, not conviction. It is always about his self-interest, not the national interest. Does the Prime Minister think that his reputation can ever recover?
Why does the right hon. Gentleman not address the central issue, which is how we lift people out of low incomes and poverty in this country? Why does he not admit that as a result of our tax credits, which he opposed, 3 million children are in families with incomes of £80 more a week than in 1997? Why does he not admit that 2 million pensioners have incomes of £40 more than in 1997 because of the pension credit? None of that could have been achieved through the 10p rate. It can be achieved only through tax credits, which he opposes.
Why does the right hon. Gentleman not recognise that under the Government 1 million pensioners and nearly 1 million children have been taken out of poverty and 3 million more jobs have been created? We are nearer to full employment than at any time in our history. None of that could have happened if we had followed the policies of the Conservative party.
The truth is that under this Government —[Hon. Members: “More!”] I shall tell you what is more: under this Government, 600,000 more people are in extreme poverty than when the Government came to power. The Prime Minister talks about the central issue. The central issue is his massive loss of authority. Was there ever anything more humiliating than a Prime Minister breaking off talks with the President and asking for an outside line in the White House in order to beg one of his Parliamentary Private Secretaries not to resign? This is what Labour MPs—[Interruption.] They should be quiet and listen. This is what Labour MPs are saying—[Interruption.]
It is not often that you have to give the Lord Chancellor an ASBO, Mr. Speaker.
This is what Labour MPs are saying about their Prime Minister: he is losing touch; he does not know what fairness is; he needs to see the world through the eyes of voters; he is like a scared rabbit in the headlights. The Labour peer, Lord Desai, said that the Prime Minister’s leadership style is like porridge. Another week like this and it will be Cheerios. Is it not the case that the Labour party has finally worked out that it has a loser, not a leader?
Why does the right hon. Gentleman never address the central issue? Child benefit increased from £11 to £20 under this Government. The poorest child in this country received £27 under the Conservatives and receives £75 under Labour. Tackling poverty so that we get nearly 1 million children and 1 million pensioners out of poverty—that is what we are doing. Here is the choice: a Labour Government who support a minimum wage and tackling child and pensioner poverty and who have got 3 million people in to jobs, or a Conservative party that would go for £10 billion of tax cuts, with the priority being stamp duty on shares and not the poorest in the country. I know which side the country is on.
The central issue is the Prime Minister’s weakness and his inability to hold to a position for longer than half an hour. That is what today’s humiliating climbdown is all about. Is not the real lesson today the fact that the only time that the Prime Minister listens to people is when he is faced with personal defeat? Is that not the lesson that everyone in this country, in London and beyond, should think about on 1 May, if they want to send a message to this weak and incompetent Government that enough is enough?
OAPs can now travel with their freedom passes before 9 am. That has been warmly welcomed in my constituency in Brent and all around London, and has even been replicated around the UK. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Opposition’s proposal to abolish the freedom pass is more dim-witted than Dick Whittington?
I am proud of our record on free travel for pensioners. I am also proud of the fact that in London the Mayor has been able to extend free travel to many additional groups of people. However, we have to remember that the Conservative candidate for Mayor has said:
“We have got to be absolutely clear where the scope for real economies is…the real big ticket…is the Metropolitan Police and Transport for London. That’s where the real savings, believe me, are to be found.”
So the choice is very clear: investment in transport under Labour, cuts in transport under the Conservatives.
I should like to extend sympathy and condolence to the family and friends of Senior Aircraftman Graham Livingstone, Senior Aircraftman Gary Thompson and Trooper Robert Pearson. I also want to express my sympathy and condolence to the family and friends of that exceptional parliamentarian, the unforgettable and formidable Gwyneth Dunwoody. As we know, she enjoyed enormous admiration on all sides of the House.
I thought that penalising the poor to reward the rich was the job of the Conservative party. The Prime Minister is deliberately making more than 5 million of the lowest earners in this country even worse off, so will he explain why he is doing the Tories’ job for them?
We have done more to take children and pensioners out of poverty than any Government in the history of this country since the second world war. Contrary to the advice of the Liberal party, which wanted us to abolish the new deal, we have helped more young people and long-term unemployed into work than any Government since 1945. If we had taken the Liberal party’s advice, there would have been high unemployment where there is now low unemployment.
Labour Members are now in full cry, but where were they on Budget day? Why were they silent then? The truth is that, under the Prime Minister’s Government, income inequality is rising, working age poverty is up and now he is doubling the tax rate for the lowest earners. The Prime Minister used to be a man of principle but, if he cannot deliver on poverty, what on earth is the point of this increasingly pointless Prime Minister?
The point is to have economic growth in this country that gets more people into work. That could not happen under Liberal policies. The point of this Government is to take more people, including children and pensioners, out of poverty, and that is exactly what we are doing. I repeat: if we had followed the Liberal party’s policies, there would be fewer people in work, and more in poverty.
People know that more people are able to use public transport—buses and the London underground—as a result of the Mayor of London’s policies. In addition, more people are able to get affordable housing as a result of his policies. What would be completely unacceptable to the people of London would be to wake up and find that, as a result of a Conservative Mayor, housing was being cut, affordable housing was being taken away and the very transport services they relied on were being savagely cut. We will not allow that to happen.
Tomorrow, teachers are going to be on strike and away from work. Today, should they be away from work on a bank holiday?
Let me deal with the first part of the question first. I think that it is very regrettable that teachers are going on strike tomorrow, and the reason is that even the chairman of the pay review body has said that this is an independent award, independently adjudicated, and one that the teachers should be prepared to accept. I hope that, after reflection, the teachers will reconsider the action that they are going to take in future on this matter.
As far as St. George’s day is concerned, it is a matter for public debate on whether this is going to be a holiday.
I know that the school in my hon. Friend’s constituency to which he refers was subject to a fire but that the children are now back in the school, and I know that he wants resources for urgent repair work. The Building Schools for the Future programme is increasing the number of secondary schools that are either renewed or completely rebuilt, and he is absolutely right—what would put that at risk is the Conservative proposal to take £4.5 billion from that programme and to deprive people of the secondary schools that they have been promised.
We had a seminar on food yesterday in Downing street, with all the different organisations that are involved, and I think there is a general recognition that the policy on bioethanol has got to be reviewed. I may say that we have reviewed the tax incentives associated with it. But there is also a determination that we do more to increase the supply of food in the world. I think the hon. Gentleman will be aware that the increasing numbers of consumers in China and India are pushing up the demand for food, at the same time as the supply is not rising. That is why we discussed yesterday emergency measures that could both increase food supply in the short term and avoid famine, and increase food supply in the longer term to cut the prices of food in this country, as in every country in the world. I hope that there would be all-party agreement on the need to take action on this.
The Prime Minister will know that the Chancellor’s recently implemented Budget has benefited four out of five households in this country. May I say to him that I am pleased that we are going to look at the fifth household as well? He will know that constituencies such as mine have suffered from poverty for generations now, not helped by Governments in the past who have closed coal mines and caused massive unemployment, and that this Government have no lessons to learn from the anti-poverty lobby sat on the Opposition Benches.
We have halved unemployment in the past 10 years. There are 3 million more people in jobs, and we have virtually eliminated long-term youth unemployment. We could not have done that without the new deal, which was opposed by the Opposition parties. We will continue to create jobs; the Opposition are the party that, in government, created mass unemployment.
Of course whenever jobs go in any particular part of the country, that is to be regretted, but the important thing is that we are creating more new jobs, and creating them more quickly, than other countries. I just have to remind the hon. Gentleman that employment, according to the last figures, was at record levels—29.5 million people in work, 3 million more than in 1997—and that employment is up in every region and country of the United Kingdom. Our unemployment rate contrasts with a rate twice that in Germany and France and rising in America, and I think he should give some recognition to the fact that, even in difficult global times, we are continuing to create jobs and continuing to bring unemployment down.
May I welcome the Chancellor’s letter to me this morning on the Treasury inquiry and the 10p tax rate, and in particular his clear commitment to help the low-paid without children and the pensioners under 65 and to make those changes backdated to this financial year? The Prime Minister will be aware that the Treasury Committee has identified four groups, and that our inquiry will report before the Report stage of the Finance Bill. May I seek the Prime Minister’s co-operation in seriously considering our recommendations and in contemplating any further measures that the Treasury Committee proposes in its inquiry?
I have to point out to the Treasury Committee that 70 per cent. of the people who were losing under the Budget have incomes above £20,000. Although many people who are low-paid and on low incomes are now being helped by the child tax credit, which we have raised, by pensioner tax allowances, which have been extended, by the pension credit, which is rising, and by the working tax credit, more can be done in the two areas I have talked about: helping pensioners aged 60 to 64—we shall bring forward proposals soon—and equally helping those on low pay who are part of the low-paid group in our society but not part of the working tax credit. That is what we will look at over the next period of time and we shall obviously do so in consultation with the Treasury Committee, but it is important to recognise that of those who lost in that Budget 70 per cent. earned above £20,000.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend because she works with her local Army cadets and plays a prominent role with the cadet force in her area. I have been hugely impressed by the good work of our cadet forces—the combined cadet force, the sea cadet corps, the Army cadet force and the air training corps. They develop a sense of self-reliance and service to the community among young people and I praise all the adults involved. We will provide extra money to help the development of cadet forces, not just in some schools but across a whole range of schools. We are of course committed to providing more money for positive opportunities for young people in this country. The cadet forces play an important role and we are determined to extend them.
As my hon. Friend says, tax credits are important because they can take people out of poverty. That is why, whether it be tax credits or council tax benefit and housing benefit, we are promoting an awareness campaign targeted at pensioners so that they know of their rights and can apply for the benefits. We are determined that all the benefit due to pensioners and others gets to them as quickly as possible.
The Westmorland general hospital is the major provider—or rather the provider—of acute coronary and other medical services to an area larger than Greater London, but those services are proposed for closure later this year. If we believe our local ambulance service—as of course we must—that would leave 63 per cent. of my constituents taking more than the golden hour to get to hospital in the event of a stroke or a heart attack. Will the Prime Minister take a personal interest in the matter and agree to meet me and local health professionals in South Lakeland to help to resolve it?
Obviously I shall look at what the hon. Gentleman says and the facts he brings before me, but he needs to put the matter in its proper perspective. We have doubled expenditure on the national health service, there are 30,000 more doctors and 80,000 more nurses, and 110 hospitals have either been built anew or are being refurbished. Of course I will look at what the hon. Gentleman says, but he should put it in its proper perspective: there is more investment than ever before in the health service in his area.
I agree with my hon. Friend that a message should be sent from the whole of the United Kingdom that what is happening in Zimbabwe—failing to announce an election result and trying to rig an election result—is completely unacceptable. I call on the whole world to express its view that that is completely unacceptable to the whole international community. Because of what has happened in South Africa, where there is an arms shipment trying to get to Zimbabwe, we will promote proposals for an embargo on all arms to Zimbabwe. At the same time, we ask all African Union observers and international observers to make their views known about the unfairness of the election.
Perhaps I could remind the hon. Gentleman that it was a Conservative Government who abolished the earnings link for pensions. Perhaps I could also remind him that it is a Labour Government who are committed to restoring it. The reason for that is that we take seriously our responsibility to the dignity and security of everyone in retirement. We will restore the earnings link for pensions.