1. What discussions he has had with the Scottish Executive on the transfer of fishing licences and fixed quota allocations from Scottish fishing vessels. (207929)

I have had no discussions with the Scottish Executive on the transfer of fishing licences and fixed quota allocations.

We have some experience of salmon poaching on the River Esk, but this is the first time we have come across Salmond poaching of quota. The First Minister has imposed a one-way valve, in effect, on quota transfers, whereby quota can be transferred into Scotland but not out. Does the Minister agree that the First Minister is getting a bit big for his boots and is exceeding his powers? Will the Minister take legal action to enforce the rule of law?

The hon. Gentleman raises a serious issue affecting fishing communities, not just in Scotland but around the coast of the UK. The unilateral moratorium imposed by the Scottish Executive without any warning or consultation will be damaging not just to English fishing interests, but to fishing interests in Scotland. It is not just me saying that; the secretary of the Scottish White Fish Producers Association, George MacRae, said it was unfortunate that a moratorium had been placed on

“a perfectly correct and legitimate trading activity.”

In these circumstances, there can be little doubt that the Scottish marine directorate—that is, the Scottish Government—has scored an own goal.

Does the Minister believe that the moratorium is legal? What steps are he and his colleagues taking to tackle that issue? More broadly on quotas, he will be aware that as a result of the climate conditions in the North sea and of boats not leaving the harbour because of the fuel crisis, the east coast nephrops fishery in the Farne deeps is down 50 per cent. this year. Given those circumstances, will he give an assurance that there will be no reduction in quota next year?

Issues to do with next year’s quota have to be decided at the Fisheries Council. On the first point, the Marine and Fisheries Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Jonathan Shaw), has been in long discussions with Richard Lochhead and the Scottish Executive about ways in which these quota exchanges can be managed and carried out more professionally, but the reality is that to circumvent all of that with no warning and to impose a moratorium that is not universally welcomed in Scotland, let alone elsewhere, is deeply irresponsible.

The fact that Richard Lochhead and the SNP Administration have taken such a unilateral decision blows a rather large hole through the SNP’s desire that a Minister from the Scottish Parliament should lead on UK fisheries negotiations in Europe. Obviously they do not think of the good of the fisheries industry across the whole of the UK, or even, as my hon. Friend the Minister has said, in Scotland.

My hon. Friend is right, which is why this will be seen to be a very short-sighted decision. The reality is that when it comes to negotiating the UK position within the common fisheries policy, the SNP is all over the place. It does not want to be in the common fisheries policy and will not even be in the room when these things are being negotiated.

I recommend to the Minister that he read the latest editorial from Fishing News, which says:

“Active Scottish fishermen will be delighted that they have a government that is taking their interests to heart.”

That is the SNP Government in Scotland. The editorial goes on to say, importantly:

“Clearly, safeguarding quotas will be of little use if the price of the fuel the boats burn in catching the fish is so high that they are forced out of business.”

Why does Scotland have the highest fuel prices when we are the biggest oil producer in the EU?

Is it not absolutely typical that on a question about fishing the hon. Gentleman neglects his core policy, which is to pull out of the common fisheries policy? He knows that such a move will mean renegotiating the entire treaty of Rome, which means getting 27 nations to agree with him. This very point was put to the hon. Gentleman’s colleague Richard Lochhead by Gordon Brewer, who asked:

“Can you name me one member state of the EU which agrees with your idea that the common fisheries policy is in fact optional?”

Richard Lochhead replied:

“Well, I don’t ask other member states for their opinion.”

How on earth is he going to negotiate the treaty of Rome from scratch if he does not even ask other member states what their opinion is?

2. What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on the carer's allowance in Scotland. (207930)

I have regular discussions with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on a range of issues. The carer's allowance provides financial support to more than 472,000 carers across Great Britain, including 44,170 in Scotland.

In the east midlands of England, we can only aspire to the admirably high standards delivered by the Scottish social care system, rooted in the Care 21 report on the future of unpaid care in Scotland. How is the idea of devolving the carer’s allowance to Holyrood being implemented? What will be the source of funding for any subsequent increases in the allowance rate and in the new kinship carer’s allowance, details of which were announced yesterday?

My hon. Friend has a long tradition of, and reputation for, campaigning on these issues. I am aware that he has raised the issue of the carer’s allowance with my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for disabled people. He rightly points out that Scottish standards in social care are excellent and have been through various Administrations, and I commend Scotland’s social care practitioners on that. I shall reserve judgment on the kinship carer’s allowance until I have seen the colour of the Scottish National party’s money, because what we have got used to in Scotland over the past year are high-falutin’ announcements with absolutely no money to pay for them.

Given the increase in child care places in England following the Aiming High review, does my hon. Friend agree that if that were replicated in Scotland, as intended, the need for the carer’s allowance would decrease as more parents would be able to find jobs?

I think the whole House acknowledges the role that my right hon. Friend has played in campaigning in this area, particularly for the rights of disabled children and their carers. It is simply a matter of growing national scandal that the money that has been allocated, thanks to the report that he offered, precisely for carers of disabled children in Scotland has simply not got through to them. The issue must be pursued with the First Minister to ensure that money that should be going to the families of disabled children actually gets to them.

Given that next week is carers week, it is important to recognise just what a vital role carers play in supporting their family and those in need. Could the Minister say what reassurance he can give carers who collect their carer’s allowance at post offices that following his discussions with the Department for Work and Pensions they will continue to be able to do so after 2010?

It is our intention that people will be able to carry on collecting carer’s allowance on a universal basis, but, obviously, negotiations on the Post Office card account are ongoing. I commend the hon. Gentleman on getting in a question about post offices, though.

3. What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport on the nomination of the Antonine wall as a world heritage site. (207932)

This is a very exciting opportunity for Scotland, which already boasts five world heritage sites. In 2003, the Government endorsed the working up of a formal bid for world heritage status for the Antonine wall, and in 2007 the nomination was submitted to UNESCO as an extension of the frontiers of the Roman empire transnational world heritage site. As my hon. Friend knows, between 2 and 10 July in Quebec a decision will be made on the bid by the World Heritage Committee.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply; obviously, he has researched the matter well. He will know that one third of the Antonine wall runs through Falkirk district, starting from Borrowstouness—or Bo’ness—in my constituency, and passing through Camelon, where the most northerly fort of the Roman empire, Rough castle, is well preserved. Will he join me in praising the work of Falkirk council and, in particular, the chair of the cultural committee, Adrian Mahoney, who has made this his priority for Scotland? Can the Secretary of State assure us that the resources of the UK Government will be put together with the efforts of Falkirk to ensure that this is delivered as a UNESCO world heritage site in 2008?

I commend my hon. Friend and Falkirk council, which is one of five councils across Scotland supporting this bid and has sustained the infrastructure of the Antonine wall in its present state. That allows it to become part of this international application for world heritage status. I have no difficulty in commending Falkirk council on the work that it has done. In 1999, it secured lottery funding to improve the infrastructure, and it continues to discuss with the Heritage Lottery Fund not only how to exploit the tourism potential, but the restoration and maintenance of the sites, as indeed do other councils. My hon. Friend can rest assured that not only the United Kingdom Government but the Austrian and German Governments, who are also involved in this international bid, will put all the resources necessary behind it to secure this important status.

I very much welcome the Secretary of State’s comments. I am sure we all wish the Antonine wall bid team well and congratulate all those involved in preparing the bid, including those in East Dunbartonshire, which also contains a section of the wall. If, as we hope, the Antonine wall secures world heritage status next month, will he facilitate discussions between the Scottish Government and those involved in the Glasgow 2014 Commonwealth games project to ensure that that opportunity is taken to promote this fascinating piece of Roman heritage in the cultural activities surrounding the games? That would also help to bring the wall to an international audience.

The hon. Lady and her local council deserve credit for the energetic support that they have given to the bid. She will be aware that the Scottish Executive are part of the international group of those who are supporting the bid. Securing that status will generate significant potential, not just in cultural terms but in terms of tourism, and will present a good opportunity to combine the exploitation of that potential with the 2014 Commonwealth games. I shall do everything I can to ensure that all these objectives and opportunities are exploited fully. For my own part, I have already written to the committee to express the support of the Scotland Office and the UK Government at that level for this bid.

It would appear that the whole House is in agreement with the efforts to ensure that the Antonine wall is regarded as an important and historic site. Will my right hon. Friend do all he can to add to the representations of the Labour-led North Lanarkshire and East Dunbartonshire councils for this recognition to be awarded to the wall, significant parts of which run through my constituency?

It may only be a coincidence, but conspicuous by the absence of their support for the wall are those who were kept out by it when it was built. We may hear from that part of Scotland as well. It is good that there is cross-party support for the bid, for obvious reasons. My hon. Friend is a champion of this bid and deserves recognition for that, as do her local councils for the work that they have done. This is an important part of Scotland’s heritage and we are proud of it. It is now getting the recognition that it deserves after a significant time. It links Scotland into international relationships across Europe, of which Scotland is very proud and has been for some time.

4. What recent discussions he has had with his ministerial colleagues on postal services in Scotland. (207933)

My right hon. Friend and I have regular discussions with ministerial colleagues on a range of issues.

The interim report of the Hooper review concluded that the only people who had benefited from the liberalisation of the letter post market were a handful of banks and credit card companies and that it had also led to a real threat to the universal service obligation. Was that what the Government intended when they undertook this enterprise? What are the Government doing now to ensure that the threats to the universal service are not realised, because once it is lost we will never get it back?

We remain committed to the universal service obligation, which is why we are investing hundreds of millions of pounds in a sustainable post office network. I know that some closures of post office branches in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency have recently been announced, with six to close and 66 to remain open. If we were not investing to the degree that we are in sustaining the post office network and the universal service obligation, those figures would most likely be reversed. We are committed to a universal service and a vibrant post office network, and that is why we are putting the money in.

With the closure of Montgarrie post office, and the announcement of the closure of—[Interruption.]

Order. The SNP group must behave themselves in the Chamber. It is bad manners: when an hon. Member is putting the case for his constituency, he should be heard.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. With Montgarrie post office closed and Rhynie, Lumsden, Kennethmont and Collieston suffering reduced hours, does the Minister acknowledge that those communities will lose both income and services? More to the point, with uncertainty over the future of the Post Office card account, no post offices in my constituency or any other can feel confident about the future, even if they do not face closure now.

The right hon. Gentleman raises an important point. There have been several closures but, as he recognises, the future is now more certain for many post offices because we are providing help and support. As I said to the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith), discussions on a replacement for the Post Office card account are under way and we are committed to its continuation. The right hon. Gentleman knows that people’s shopping habits have changed, and they are now accessing services in different ways. The Post Office has to adapt to that new reality, but we are not walking away from our commitment. Indeed, we are investing massively to sustain the network.

5. Whether personal data held by the Scottish Executive and their associated public bodies will be held on the national identity register. (207934)

The answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question is no. The national identity register will hold basic personal identity information obtained during the enrolment process and maintained by the applicant.

If the Scottish Government refuse to use the ID card, does the Secretary of State not agree that having a separate scheme in Scotland from that in the rest of the UK will fatally undermine a national ID card?

Not at all. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman does not fully understand where the strengths of the scheme lie. He also probably does not understand his party’s policy on identity cards, given that 80 per cent. of the scheme and its costs relate to e-passports, which are supported by his party. The scheme and its integrity depend on being able to build a database that links biometrics to the individual person’s identity so that it can be protected. Whether any service, devolved or otherwise, chooses to use that opportunity to check the identity of those people who access the service will in no way undermine the scheme.

The Government have constantly said that the ID card scheme would help to protect Scotland from the threat of terrorism. The Anglo-Irish treaty in 1921 will mean that Irish citizens will not be required to have an ID card, and the Government’s legislation will mean that foreigners who stay for three months or less in Scotland will not have to have one either. Do not these foreign exemptions, plus the opposition of the Scottish Government, mean that the ID card scheme in Scotland is a colossal waste of money and an unnecessary threat to civil liberties?

It is nothing of the sort. The hon. Gentleman has asked me questions at the Dispatch Box about the ID card scheme before. On the last occasion, it was manifest that he did not understand his party’s policy of support for 80 per cent. of the scheme. The scheme underpins e-passports, and 80 per cent. of the cost and administration of the scheme is required for the e-passport scheme that his party supports.

Let me deal with the issue of whether the existence of a national identity scheme helps us to tackle terrorism. Of course it will, for the following reason: 67 terrorists have been convicted in the UK courts in the past 18 months, and it is almost certain that 90 per cent. of them had multiple identities. Anything that helps those whom we charge with stopping those people carrying out their evil tasks in this society will be useful. That is not only my view; it is that of those we send to police such matters, who say that the single most important thing we can do to protect ourselves against terrorism is to introduce an identity scheme.

The Scottish Parliament has quite rightly decided that it wants nothing to do with the scheme, yet Scottish residents will still have to pay for identity cards and for the running of the national identity register through their taxes. Will the Government not accept that this is just an expensive waste of money that would be better spent on employing more police?

There is a fundamental misunderstanding about this scheme, it would appear, across the Opposition Benches. I know what the hon. Gentleman’s party’s position is, but I ask him rhetorically whether he supports the e-passport system. If he supports his party’s policy, he will. The national identity scheme is necessary to underpin and support that e-passport system. Any UK citizen who wants to travel in the 21st century will require an e-passport. We will require a database that connects biometrics to those citizens’ identities. To extend that for the comparatively small number of people who will not have passports so that they can take advantage of the opportunity seems positive to me. That is what the people of Scotland think, and it is what the vast majority of people in the UK think. The hon. Gentleman and his party had better get connected to the opportunity.

6. What representations he has received from the Scottish Executive on arrangements for collection of local taxation. (207935)

I have received no representations from the Scottish Executive in relation to the arrangements for collection of local income tax.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer. Does he share my concern that the Scottish National party Administration’s plans for a local income tax in Scotland appear to bring 55,000 students within the ambit of local income tax for the first time?

Another flaw in the SNP local income tax policy is uncovered daily, and this particular one relates to the policy’s alleged fairness. An answer to a question in the Scottish Parliament revealed that 55,000 students would be brought into paying local income tax. Of course, all those students are exempt from paying council tax. I have a series of quotations from student leaders indicating how unfair the policy would be, but I think that we all know how unfair it would be. It is bad enough that we did not know that it would affect those students, but we do not know how the money would be collected, and those are only two of several major flaws in the plans for local income tax.

On local taxation in Scotland, the Secretary of State will know that the UK Government confirmed in 1997 that council tax benefit would form part of the Scottish block. That was repeated in the funding statement published by the Government in October 2007. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that if the Scottish Government proceed with changing the nature of local taxation in Scotland, this Secretary of State will hold fast against the Treasury and ensure that the UK Labour Government do not denude Scotland of the £400 million that it gets to offset local taxation in Scotland?

To all but a very small minority of people, it appears quite clear that if there is no council tax, there is no need for any council tax benefit. The SNP’s fundamental problem with the policy—there are many other problems—is that it promised the people of Scotland that it would unveil a tax system that would be fair, but it has unveiled a tax system with a number of manifest unfairnesses, and it is seeking to cover them up by trying to access a benefit that relates to the taxation system that it said was unfair and that it wanted to remove. That does not make any sense.

I share the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk (Mr. Joyce) about the effect on students in Scotland. When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State next meets the First Minister, will he get clarification of whether the policy will affect English students studying in Scotland or Scottish students studying in England?

I will of course seek to clarify that issue for my hon. Friend. The fundamental problem faced by the SNP with its proposal for a local income tax—it would certainly not be local, of course, having been fixed centrally—is that we have revealed this week the flaw that it will affect 55,000 students. The SNP must explain why that manifest unfairness will be imposed on students, whom it was elected to help support.

The Treasury, no doubt in consultation with the Justice Secretary, has said, along with several legal experts, that a tax that is set and collected on a Scotland-wide basis would not be sufficiently local to remain within the powers devolved to the Scottish Parliament. Does the Secretary of State thus intend to make a formal legal assessment of the competence of the Scottish Government’s proposals, or does he propose to leave it to aggrieved taxpayers to test them in the courts?

I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows that we have not yet seen the legislative proposals. I am not surprised that the SNP Executive are having such difficulty in drafting and revealing them because another problem becomes apparent every week and every day. When we eventually see the proposals, there will of course be an assessment, as is the case with all legislation, to ensure that they are compatible with the devolution settlement.

I thank the Secretary of State. He might be aware that Professor Alan Page, a professor of public law at the university of Dundee, has said of the SNP’s proposed local income tax:

“It is inevitable that the matter would end up in the courts; it is unavoidable…The question of legality will cast a long shadow over the proposal until it is settled one way or another.”

As the guardian of the devolution settlement, does the Secretary of State not believe that he has a responsibility to help to settle the matter?

Of course I have responsibilities in relation to the devolution settlement; they are set out in law, and I intend to fulfil them. In my experience of practising law, it is always unwise for a person to anticipate what they will be asked to express a legal opinion on, and if one asks five lawyers for a legal opinion, one gets six different opinions. In my position as Secretary of State for Scotland, with those responsibilities, it seems wise to wait to see the legislative proposals. I have, in the Advocate-General, access to one of the leading lawyers in Scotland. I rely on his advice regularly. He will give me advice, and if it is necessary for me to act on it, I will do so.

Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 4 June. (207944)

Before listing my engagements, I am sure that the whole House will wish to join me in sending our profound condolences to the family and friends of Marine Dale Gostick, who was killed in Afghanistan on Sunday 25 May. We owe him, and all those who have given their life in the service of our country, 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.

On behalf of myself and other Back Benchers, may I add my condolences to the family and friends of Marine Dale Gostick, who was killed in an explosion in Afghanistan? Our thoughts are also with his two comrades who were seriously injured in that explosion.

The tragic killings from stabbings are causing concern everywhere in the country, though I stress that they are not happening everywhere. Will my right hon. Friend accept that, alongside tough laws on possession and use, it is important to take action with families, schools and communities to tackle a culture that allows some people to think that it is acceptable to carry a weapon?

I, too, send my condolences to the families of those who have suffered as a result of knives and violent crimes in recent weeks. Every parent will want their teenage sons and daughters not only to be safe, but to feel safe in our neighbourhoods. That is why knives are unacceptable, and we have to do everything in our power to deter their use. That is why the average sentence for carrying a knife is rising, and that is why there are three times as many people in prison for the possession of knives. That is why we are using the powers of stop and search. In London, in Operation Blunt 2, some 4,000 people were stopped and 200 arrested. That is why wands, arches and metal detectors are being used. That is why we need visible policing to back up our safer school policy, support for parents in their communities, and the education programme that we are carrying out.

The whole House will agree on the presumption that we prosecute, on which the Association of Chief Police Officers will lay down its proposals in the next few days. It is right, when we see young teenagers below the age of 18 carrying knives, that the presumption that we prosecute should now extend to 16-year-olds as well; that is what the Government propose.

I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to Marine Dale Gostick, who was killed in Helmand province on 25 May. He died serving our country and we should honour his memory.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer is today in front of the Select Committee on the Treasury. The next tax hike planned by the Government is to hit family cars, including those bought seven years ago, with massive increases in vehicle excise duty. Is the Prime Minister really going to go ahead with this deeply unpopular tax when families are struggling with the cost of living, or can he give us another of his trademark U-turns?

If the right hon. Gentleman looks in detail at the proposal, he will see that the majority of drivers will benefit from it. If he looks in detail at his own policy, it says:

“We recommend…changes in VED, aimed primarily at influencing the used car market where annual running costs comprise a larger proportion of total costs.”

What he proposes is a band in excess of £500; that is far worse than what he says that we are proposing.

When is the Prime Minister going to learn that new green taxes should be offset, one by one, by cuts in family taxes? The Prime Minister says that we should look at the detail; let me take him up on that, because he spews out statistics that, in any other walk of life, would result in trading standards officers coming in and clamping him in irons. He says that next year, half of all motorists will be better off or no worse off; that is what he has just said. The full effect of the tax rise is not planned to take effect until 2010, and the Treasury has said that under this regime, 81 per cent. of cars will be worse off—once again, dodgy statistics from the Prime Minister.

Let us start when the tax was first announced. Can the Prime Minister tell us why the Chancellor, in his Budget speech, made no mention of the fact that the tax would hit people who had bought a car up to seven years ago? Why no mention?

It was in the Budget documents. Twenty-four of the 30 top models, which are the most popular models, will have the same or lower tax as a result of it. The right hon. Gentleman says that he supports green taxes. He also said a few days ago that

“there will be tough choices to make for the environment and I won’t shy away from them for one moment”.

Let us assume that we both agree on the need for green taxes. Let us also agree that we need to deal with polluting cars, and let the right hon. Gentleman tell us that he now supports our policy.

If a company director got up and read out a statement like that, the authorities would be after him. The Prime Minister says, “Let’s concentrate on the detail.” Let me take one of the things that he has just said. He said that 24 out of the 30 car models will not be affected. That is what he just said. What he is doing when he uses that figure of 24 is treating the Ford Focus, for example, as one model. In fact, there are 40 models of the Ford Focus. There is the saloon, the estate, the green car—[Interruption.]

Order. Let the Leader of the Opposition speak.

rose—[Interruption.]

Order. Are hon. Members defying the Chair?

I know the Prime Minister thinks that one fills up a car with a barrel of oil, but I am speaking about the cars that people buy with their money. There are 40 models of the Ford Focus—[Interruption.] I do not know why Labour Members are all shouting at me. It is the Prime Minister who has given them the lowest poll rating since Michael Foot.

Back to the Ford Focus. There are 40 models of the Ford Focus. Only three of them are better off. When will the Prime Minister stop using such dodgy statistics to back up his figures?

As a result of the measures that are being taken to deal with polluting cars, a third more cars in this country are low polluting and a quarter are less polluting, so we are making advances in encouraging people to buy the less polluting cars. The right hon. Gentleman says that he supports green taxes. Steve Norris, who was on his quality of life review, says we should return to the fuel duty escalator. When will the Conservative party be honest? When Conservative Members say that they support green taxes and then run away from every one of them, is it not like the Leader of the Opposition when he cycles to work, with his car following? He is sounding more and more like a used car salesman today.

It is not my Back Benchers who are telling me to get on my bike. It would do the Prime Minister good to get out a bit. The tax is not a green tax; it is a stealth tax. The former Transport Minister, the hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman)—I do not know whether he is on the Prime Minister’s cold calling list—said:

“A ‘green’ tax that you cannot avoid by changing your behaviour is not a ‘green’ tax, it’s just a tax.”

What on earth is green about taxing someone who bought a Ford Mondeo five years ago?

Now the right hon. Gentleman says that there can be green taxes, but he excludes any tax on a car from being a green tax. Does he not know that the reforms will save 1.3 million—[Interruption.]

Order. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) is too near the Speaker’s Chair to be shouting. He should be quiet.

I was pointing out to the House that we expect the reforms to save 1.3 million tonnes of CO₂ and to increase by 650 per cent. the number of clean cars that pay little or no vehicle excise duty because they are the least polluting cars. So we are making a change in the way we use energy for the environment. The Leader of the Opposition says that he wants significant incentives to encourage the ownership of vehicles. Why will he not support the measures that are before us?

That is absolutely no answer to the question of how on earth it is green to tax someone who bought a car five years ago. The director of Greenpeace says:

“It’s the kind of measure that gives green taxes a bad name because it does not change behaviour.”

A bit closer to home, we have a Government Parliamentary Private Secretary, the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris), who asks, quite rightly

“how can you change behaviour when you are introducing a tax on an action that took place seven years earlier? ...millions…could be affected”.

The hon. Gentleman said that this is “retrospective taxation” and that it is “undesirable”. If this is the Government policy that the Prime Minister is so proud of, what is that man still doing in the Government?

We have put forward our proposals on VED. The Conservatives put forward a document suggesting even more extreme and radical proposals than this. The right hon. Gentleman is backing away from his proposals as he has done on just about everything else. I believe that we have to deal with the problems of pollution. He said that he would, but he refuses to do so.

This Prime Minister is now so weak that members of his own Government can come out and attack his policy, and they just sit there as part of his Government.

The Prime Minister keeps telling us about reports to the Conservative party; let me read him some reports to the Labour party. This is one from The Times yesterday, with quotations from Cabinet Ministers: “He’s made terrible misjudgments,”; “He’s crap at communication,”—[Interruption.] None of them have the nerve to challenge him in a leadership election; perhaps they would like to own up to the quotes. Come on—who was responsible for this one:

“the Government is being buffeted by storms rather than steering a clear course”?

Anyone? Hands up!

Order. Just ask the question.

Why does the Prime Minister not realise that if he is still here next April, he will have to get rid of this deeply unpopular and unenvironmental tax? Does he not understand that if he does not get rid of it, they will probably get rid of him?

I now know what the head of the right hon. Gentleman’s own policy commission on the environment meant when he said of the Leader of the Opposition:

“Whether he’s riding a bike, or visiting glaciers, it’s all part of projecting a message…A lot of people will say this is just opportunism. They may be right.”

When it comes to the issue of supporting action on the environment, we now find that the right hon. Gentleman runs away at every point. When it comes to helping the poor, he says that he wants to help the poor and then does not support our tax cut. When it comes to helping the low paid, he does not support the minimum wage. When it comes to helping the environment, he runs away.

I welcome the Prime Minister’s comments on tackling knife crime. Will he join me in sending condolences to the family of 18-year-old Laura Thomson, who was knifed to death in a brutal murder in my constituency? Does he agree that this issue affects families throughout the United Kingdom and will he have discussions with the Scottish Government on how this can best be tackled throughout the UK?

I thank my hon. Friend and I join her in sending condolences to the family that have suffered so much as a result of a knife crime that has led to a death. As I said earlier, we have to take every possible measure to remove knives from our streets. That is why we have taken the action that we have, and that is why tomorrow we will be publishing more proposals about what we can do. I think that it is very important that every parent gets the message that they, too, are responsible when their teenage children are carrying knives. We want to support them in every effort to get knives off the streets.

I would like to add my own expressions of sympathy and condolence to the family and friends of Marine Dale Gostick.

We have all been appalled by the grotesque spectacle of Robert Mugabe lecturing the world on food security just as his Government are blocking the distribution of food aid to his own people. What message does it send when a man who has brought ruin and starvation to his own country continues to be honoured by a knighthood from ours? Will the Prime Minister at least accept that it is difficult to put pressure on other countries to do their bit to bring the Mugabe regime to heel if we do not take this simple, basic step? Will he take immediate action to strip Mugabe of his knighthood?

I am less interested in the symbols than in the substance. We have got to get elections in Zimbabwe that are seen to be free and fair, and we have got to get international observers to be present at those elections so that they are seen by the world as free and fair. Zimbabwe deserves to have a Government who are fully democratically elected and put in place, and that is where I will put my efforts. As for the famine in Zimbabwe, and the loss of lives around the world as a result of famine, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that it was important that we were represented at the United Nations conference yesterday.

Of course I agree with the Prime Minister’s tough words, but they need to be translated into action. Will he therefore make it clear that unless minimum standards are met for the conduct of the elections, including the admission of international observers and explicit statements from Zimbabwe’s military leaders that they will recognise the outcome of the poll, the UK will block all foreign currency remittances to Zimbabwe that fund Mugabe’s odious regime, and that he will request our allies in the region, and the world, to do the same?

We will of course look at every action that we can take, but the first thing to do is to ensure that these elections are free and fair. We are working with other countries to ensure that there are international observers from other parts of the world, as well as from Africa. There is a need for hundreds of observers because of the geography of the country and the threats of intimidation. I am working with the president of the African Union, the president of the South African Development Community and other leaders around the world to ensure that the offer of international observers is there and is taken up. I hope that the whole House will agree that that is the first priority to ensure that the elections are free and fair.

Will the Prime Minister accept the very wide welcome that there has been for the shift in policy by his Government that contributed to the ban on cluster munitions being agreed in Dublin last week? Can he assure us that he is determined that the British Government will be among the first 30 to sign the treaty later this year to bring it into effect? Can he give us indications as to the time scale for ratification in this Parliament, and also the time scale for the ending of the British Government’s stockpiles and the removal of the US stockpiles?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this issue and for his long pursuit of a ban on cluster bombs. I was pleased that the United Kingdom was able to break the deadlock in the negotiations that were taking place and pleased that other countries followed us in making their decision that they too would ban cluster bombs. I believe that this treaty can now move forward to being signed. Of course, there were countries who were not present at these negotiations and who also have to be brought in, and it is my intention to talk to all those countries to see that we can have a global treaty that will outlaw the cluster bombs that have done so much harm.

Q2. What advice does the Prime Minister have for people who receive nuisance phone calls early in the morning? The caller has a metallic voice, he just will not hang up, and he has a very repetitive message. If the Prime Minister is not able to put a stop to it, will his Cabinet? (207945)

Again, the Conservatives have the chance to ask anything on behalf of their constituencies and they reduce the debates in the House of Commons to trivia. I am happy to be in contact with and talking to people in the electorate; perhaps the hon. Gentleman should do so as well.

Q3. The Prime Minister will be aware that energy forecasters are predicting that oil prices will be $150 a barrel by the end of the year. He will also be aware that because of oil contract price indexing, gas prices follow oil prices, making windfall profits for the energy companies worldwide. Does he agree, therefore, that there is a need for a united and concerted effort to decouple gas prices from oil prices? (207946)

I agree with my hon. Friend about the problems that have been caused to every citizen of the country by rising oil prices and rising gas prices. I think that people know that oil was $11 a barrel 10 years ago; it is now $130 a barrel. That means that petrol prices have risen and gas and electricity prices have risen. There are things that we can do internationally as well as nationally. We have raised the winter allowance, taken action to help low-income households, and suspended the rise in fuel duty for the time being, but there are also things that we can do internationally. One is that the European Union sorts out the gas and electricity markets, and we are pressing for that liberalisation to go ahead in the next few months. Another is the inquiry that Ofgem is mounting into competition in the industry. I believe that we need a dialogue between all oil consumers, gas consumers and gas and oil producers so that we can get the price of oil down, to the benefit of all people in this country.

The Prime Minister will be aware of the Sinn Fein threat to bring down the Northern Ireland Assembly tomorrow. I am sure that the irony of republicans wishing to reinstate rule from London will not be lost on the House, or on the people of Northern Ireland. Will he give an assurance that the Government will not cave in to this blackmail, and that in the event of direct rule having to be reintroduced—something that my party will do its best to avoid—the Sinn Fein agenda, which it has not been able to persuade the Northern Ireland Assembly to adopt, will not be adopted by his Government or the House?

The hon. Gentleman can be absolutely sure that we will stick to the policies that we have pursued. I can also tell him that I have had talks with the leaders of all the parties in the Administration in Northern Ireland; I hope that we can move forward tomorrow, and that the new First Minister will be nominated, as will the Deputy First Minister. I believe that that can and will happen. I would also like to take the opportunity to thank the retiring First Minister, who is not with us today, for all his efforts on behalf of the peace process and on behalf of reconciliation. He truly has made a historic contribution to the future of Northern Ireland.

Q4. Can the Prime Minister tell the House why his judgment is that we need 42 days’ pre-charge detention, and not to rely on the Civil Contingencies Act 2004? (207947)

This is an issue that the House will debate next week. It is important for the House to know that we have put in place what I believe are major civil liberties safeguards to prevent the arbitrary treatment of the individual. We have put in place safeguards that require any order that comes before this House to be approved by the Director of Public Prosecutions. We would require a vote of this House—a second vote—before there could be any opportunity to go up to 42 days. We are putting in place the right for the independent reviewer to examine any case where the up-to-42 days provision is used. At the same time, a judge must review the case every seven days.

I have to tell the House that for 11 years, I have been looking at these issues, whether as Chancellor or in this job, and we have seen how the complexity and sophistication of the investigations that need to be conducted have grown. We saw in one case only two years ago that there were 400 computers, 8,000 CDs and 25,000 exhibits that needed to be examined, which compares dramatically with where we were 10 years ago. If we are to take the advice of the police, the former head of the counter-terrorism command, who published an article this week, the former head of MI6, Sir Ian Blair, who is the head of the Metropolitan police, and the head of the Association of Chief Police Officers, we know that this power will be needed at some time. With all the safeguards that we have put in place, I believe that it is right for the House to vote for the up-to-42 days proposal that we are putting forward.

I call Boris Johnson.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you for all your kindness over the years.

Can I use my last few seconds in this great cockpit of our nation to ask the Prime Minister to join me in congratulating the London authorities on successfully implementing the ban on alcohol on tubes and buses, and on doubling the safer transport teams so that we will have more uniformed people on buses than at any time in the last 25 years? Can I point out to him that no matter how hard working—

Order—[Hon. Members: “More!”] I am the boss in here, not the Mayor, and I have got to tell him that he should only have one supplementary. He has had three, so we will have to leave it at that.

I am sure that the whole House is going to miss the contributions of the hon. Gentleman, not only in speech, but in writing—those have been more significant over the last few years.

I welcome the ban on alcohol. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that the policy put forward by the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families earlier this week to deal with the problems of alcohol among young people is a major step forward in holding parents, as well as young people, responsible for binge drinking. I hope that he will also accept that the reason why crime has fallen in London is that there are 6,000 more police officers and 4,000 community support officers. That would not have been possible without the previous Mayor and the decisions of this Government.

Q5. In the pending equalities Bill, will my right hon. Friend agree to put discrimination on the ground of age alongside discrimination on the grounds of religion, sexuality and disability and at the heart of what could be a world-beating Bill? Many people think that the claims of the elderly are only a matter of perception, but it is a true problem in the health service and in access to insurance services. I hope that he agrees that, having introduced winter fuel payments and free bus passes, it would be very sad if notices suddenly went up saying, “No old people here.” (207948)

The Government will publish our response to the consultation on discrimination law later this month, and we propose to have an equalities Bill in the Queen’s Speech when it is published later this year. I agree with my hon. Friend: 1.2 million people now work beyond state pension age and many over-60s need protection in law. That is why, in 2006, we introduced legislation to outlaw age discrimination in employment and vocational training, and it is why he can look forward to the proposals from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.

Q6. The Prime Minister might want to watch “Truth, Lies, Oil and Scotland” on the BBC tonight—a programme about Scotland’s oil, which is not even at its peak. But may I give the Prime Minister another truth? My constituents in Lewis, Harris, Uist and Bara are paying the greatest fuel tax in the UK, with fuel priced at £1.40 a litre—about £6.50 a gallon. Will he give some of the £4.4 billion fuel windfall to offset the cost of fuel by 3 per cent. in the Scottish islands—something that he has already agreed to do for areas of rural France? (207949)

It is precisely because Scotland is part of the United Kingdom that there are 200,000 more people in employment in Scotland today than there were 10 years ago. Just as Scotland benefits from all the measures that we have taken to deal with fuel poverty, so, too, is North sea oil part of the revenues of the United Kingdom. I will fight to defend the Union of the United Kingdom and I hope that all other parties—except the nationalists—will continue to do so as well.

Q11. The hospice in my Bolton constituency wants to take part in a national hospice lottery draw, but is prevented from doing so by the limits on proceeds in the Gambling Act 2005. Will my right hon. Friend take a sympathetic look at the legislation to allow hospices across the country to raise funds and deliver their extremely valuable work? (207954)

The 2005 Act made it possible to double the limits on society lottery proceeds to £10 million over the course of a year and £2 million for an individual lottery. I know that the Lotteries Council and the Hospice Lotteries Association submitted a request to the Sports Minister to change those limits and we will consider that proposal, but I remind my hon. Friend that the amount that can be raised has been doubled. We continue to want to do all we can, both in Government finance and in helping charitable fundraising, for this country’s great hospice movement.

Q7. Given the Prime Minister’s keen interest in constitutional matters, what is his view of the strong possibility that there will be not merely one but two unelected Prime Ministers in this Parliament? (207950)

Again, the hon. Gentleman had a chance to ask about employment, the health service or transport. The more important issue is what we do for our constituents. That is what I shall continue to do.

Q8. My right hon. Friend will be aware that many of our most prestigious sporting clubs, which have millions of young supporters, are sponsored by alcohol firms. Given the evidence that young people’s alcohol intake is influenced by advertising, will he take this opportunity to organise a review of alcohol advertising in sport, especially in the light of the welcome publication this week of the youth alcohol action plan? (207951)

My hon. Friend has great experience as a doctor and I praise him for the work that he has done in the medical profession. I agree with him that all sports should take a responsible approach to alcohol advertising. The Portman Group, which brings the drinks companies together, has agreed to place a voluntary ban on advertising on children’s football shirts, and we are undertaking a review of the relationship between the price of alcohol, promotion and harm. The very issues my hon. Friend raises will be dealt with as part of that review.

Two and a half years ago, as Chancellor, the Prime Minister signed a policy statement, which said that domestic food production was neither necessary nor a sufficient condition for food security. Given all the meetings that he has had on the subject, does he still agree with that—yes or no?

We are a trading nation and we benefit from our ability to trade with the rest of the world, and food imports and exports will always be part of what we do. I do not think that anybody believes that one country on its own, operating in a global economy, will produce all the kinds of food that it needs. We should get a trade agreement so that we can get food prices down and deal with the food shortages by encouraging production in other parts of the world. We must also look at the eco-fuel issue, which many people have raised as being a diversion from food production, but we are part of a global economy and we should accept that as a reality.

Q9. When responding to my constituents, who rightly raise concerns about the rising cost of living, does the Prime Minister agree that I should remind them of not only the practical steps that the Government are taking to help people on low incomes with their fuel bills, but the fundamental strength of our economy, compared with the crisis that we faced 20 years ago? That strength has enabled cities such as Sheffield not only to regenerate its local economy but, most of all, to create in one city, in the past 10 years alone, 72,000 new jobs. That has happened through the policies of the Labour Government. (207952)

Even in the past year, under difficult economic circumstances, 500,000 new jobs have been created in this country. People will at some time have a choice between whether to go with the policies of the Leader of the Opposition, who was economic adviser to the Government who created 15 per cent. interest rates, 3 million unemployed, the biggest tax rises in history and, at the same time, negative equity, and a Labour Government who have got more people in work than ever.