Wales
The Secretary of State was asked—
Low Carbon Industries
It is nice to be back, even though my appointment was marked by an earthquake a few miles from my home. May I also pay tribute to my close friend, my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy), one of Wales’s outstanding politicians? We have followed each other in and out of this job for 10 years. He had regular such meetings with ministerial colleagues—in particular through the National Economic Council—and I will continue to do so.
I thank the Secretary of State for that answer, and I welcome him back to his role. I also pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) for the excellent contribution that he has made in government to Wales and to the rest of the United Kingdom.
Last Friday, I attended a skills building competition at Coleg Menai in my constituency, where I saw at first hand young craftsmen and students learning and developing skills for the future. Does the Secretary of State agree that Wales is well placed to be at the forefront of the green revolution to come, and does he further agree that we need a skills sharing strategy to build a pool of skills in energy generation for the future, including renewables, clean coal and nuclear power?
I completely agree with my hon. Friend, who is an outstanding Member of Parliament for his constituency. I am aware of the excellent training opportunities available at Coleg Menai, which have been achieved through additional funding of £4 million from the Welsh Assembly Government for its energy and fabrication centre. That funding would be slashed if the Conservative party ever got into power.
Last year I surveyed businesses in Cardiff that install and develop renewable technologies. The overwhelming majority said that business was falling because it was so difficult for families to get grants to install those technologies in their homes and people could not afford them. Since then, access to those grants has become even more difficult. Will the Secretary of State liaise with Cabinet colleagues to ensure that more money is available for families to install such technologies in their homes, so that we can ensure that this key Welsh industry can be developed and grow further?
I very much agree with the hon. Lady that the more funding we can get to assist people to put renewable energy installations into their homes the better, but of course the UK budget under this Government provided an extra £1.4 billion in additional support for the low carbon economy. She may know that the Welsh Assembly Government have invested some £4.5 million in the Carbon Trust to help it to develop its business plan. All of that funding is part of our investment programme driving forward our objective of a low carbon economy.
I, too, congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his return. He knows that I thought that it was utterly unjust that he was pushed out of office on trumped-up charges; it is good that he has now proved his innocence and returned to the Front Bench.
Montgomeryshire is a pioneer in low carbon industry through the work of the Centre for Alternative Technology. However, it is concerned that local authorities in Wales spend less on school maintenance and upkeep than any other council service, to the detriment of the environment. How can we expect to instil a sense of environmental responsibility and global citizenship if the next generation is being taught in schools that are environmentally not fit for use?
The answer may well be to get a Labour county council, to provide the additional funding. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks, and for the support that I have had across the House. He raises an important question, and if there is any other help that I can give him in securing his objectives I will be happy to do so.
As this could be the last time that I am at the Dispatch Box under your auspices, Mr. Speaker, may I take this opportunity to thank you for your courtesy towards me and my Front-Bench team and for your service to this House, and to wish you well?
In welcoming the return of the new Secretary of State, I also wish to express my admiration for his predecessor. I have enjoyed working with the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy), a decent and straightforward man. We will miss his common sense and dedication to Wales. I wonder what sort of Prime Minister we have, who can so easily dispense with his services.
In January the Government announced a £2.3 billion scheme for the car industry, including £1 billion to help it develop low carbon technologies. The German, French and Italian Governments have all delivered on their schemes. What has happened to the money for British and Welsh companies, and why are they the last to receive the help that was promised?
The money is coming through, although it would be threatened if the Conservatives ever got into power. I echo the hon. Lady’s remarks about you, Mr. Speaker. We have worked together for a long time. I am also grateful for the welcome that the hon. Lady gave me. I have been very fond of her over the years and I was glad to see that she survived the twin gaffes of advertising for a researcher for whom knowledge of devolution was “desirable but not necessary”, and letting the cat out of the bag on plans to reverse the devolution of higher education.
Port Security
Recently, the number of staff at ports of entry into Wales has increased significantly. The UK Border Agency has recently reopened its office at Pembroke Dock.
I thank the Minister for that reply. I, too, would like to welcome the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) back to this important office of state. He will be aware that since he last held that office, operations have begun at the first of two major liquefied natural gas facilities at Milford Haven and work has begun on the new 2,000 MW power station at Pembroke. Near the port of Milford Haven, a major concentration of vital energy infrastructure is emerging, comprising important oil, gas and power facilities. Will he give a commitment today that he will sit down with the new Home Secretary to discuss security arrangements at the port and, in particular, consider the level of resourcing for Dyfed-Powys police, who are operating under severe financial constraints? The security burdens created by the new power facilities and energy infrastructure are creating an additional burden for them.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the new liquefied natural gas terminals—I am glad that he welcomed them—and to the new power station that will be built there in the near future. As he said, construction has already commenced. That is a tremendous boost to the local economy, and I am glad that he recognises its importance. Obviously, the issue that he raised about policing and potential counter-terrorist threats is an important one. Discussions have already taken place with my right hon. Friend’s predecessor, and they will continue to take place. The hon. Gentleman can be certain that we are mindful of the importance of the matter and that we will do our utmost to ensure that proper protection is installed for the areas to which he referred.
What discussions has my hon. Friend had with representatives of the Welsh Assembly Government regarding ports in Wales and rail links, particularly in constituencies such as mine, where the docks are so important and where there are competing needs on rail and freight matters?
My hon. Friend has referred to another important issue. It is vital for the port of Swansea, which is a dynamic and vital part of the south Wales economy, to be fully integrated into the transport network of south Wales as a whole. I know that the Welsh Affairs Committee, of which my hon. Friend is a member, will be studying this issue in the near future and plans to visit different parts of the European Union to learn lessons. It is vital that we move as quickly as we can towards having a comprehensive, integrated and intermodal transport system in south Wales and throughout Wales as a whole.
Port security in Wales is the joint responsibility of the four Welsh police forces, but the chief constable of North Wales has suggested that national standards for counter-terrorism policing are forever unattainable. Does the Minister acknowledge that the current fragmented model for policing our ports is no longer adequate, and will he urge the Home Secretary to listen to the advice of Lord Stevens, who has concluded that only a dedicated national border security force can protect our ports properly?
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that greater integration is already taking place. We have seen changes with regard to the UK Border Agency, and in Pembroke Dock, for example, which the hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mr. Crabb) mentioned, we are seeing that integration taking place. We have seen, before our very eyes, members of staff being trained in a range of activities so that they can comprehensively fulfil their role. In Wales as a whole, greater co-operation and co-ordination between police forces is vital. That is firmly on the agenda, and both the Wales Office and the Home Office fully endorse it.
My hon. Friend will be aware of the vital role that Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs plays in protecting our borders and ports. Would he be willing to seek a meeting with the Treasury about the confusion that reigns about moving Swansea staff into the high street in Swansea, together with staff from Llanelli, leaving an underused office in Llanelli? Perhaps that could be reconsidered.
Reorganisation is taking place. Streamlining must occur, and we must have the most effective service that we can provide. At the same time, we must ensure that resources are effectively used. I understand the concern referred to by my hon. Friend, and I give a commitment to meet her and any other colleagues who wish to meet, so that we can discuss how the situation can be expedited as quickly as possible.
Manufacturing
I had my first meeting with the First Minister on the Welsh economy on Monday. I intend to work closely with the Welsh Assembly Government and ministerial colleagues to ensure that the manufacturing sector, which is so vital to Wales, receives all the help that is needed to come through the global crisis as strongly as possible.
Welcome back! Way back in 2005, CBI Wales warned that manufacturing in Wales was continuing on a downward trend. More recently, Professor Pham of the Cardiff School of Engineering has argued that a weakness in the Welsh economy—the fact that it is dominated by small businesses—has inhibited the growth of a strong research and development base. That is a serious point. Does the Secretary of State agree with Professor Pham, and what can be done to rectify that problem in the Welsh economy?
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s welcome, and I acknowledge that he has shown a long and committed interest in supporting manufacturing. He may be interested to know that the latest report from the Engineering Employers Federation shows a slight improvement in the Welsh manufacturing sector, with Welsh manufacturers expecting an improvement over the next three months. He may also be encouraged to know that the latest report by the Purchasing Managers Index shows that total business activity has increased for the first time since May 2008, with growth in Wales greater than the UK-wide trend.
My right hon. Friend will remember the pleas that I and my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) made in 1997 for our area to be covered by objective 1 funding. Does he agree that that funding has been important for the whole of the western part of Wales? Does he still wonder why the Secretary of State in post before that date did not apply for objective 1 funding so that Wales could have benefited a lot earlier than it did?
I certainly do remember the powerful case that my hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) made in representing their constituencies and in persuading me that objective 1 funding should be extended to Denbighshire. Indeed, she is quite right: the shadow Health Secretary announced on the “Today” programme only this morning plans for a 10 per cent. cut in departmental expenditure limits for all Departments except those covering health, international aid and schools. That would mean savage cuts in spending in Wales, and would also put the whole of the European convergence programme, which has done so much for west Wales and the valleys, in jeopardy.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank you for your kindness over the years—even though you have occasionally confused me with the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams). I also welcome back to his former post the Secretary of State, who faces greater challenges now than ever before. I should also like to thank his predecessor, who was kind enough to meet representatives from a group of manufacturing companies in my constituency.
Manufacturing is key to the Welsh economy, but Experian recently released a report that suggested that 350,000 manufacturing jobs would be lost across the UK between now and 2010. We know that a significant proportion of those losses will affect Wales’s already battered manufacturing sector. On his return to the Cabinet, will the Secretary of State make protecting Welsh manufacturing jobs his No. 1 priority? The last thing we want to see is whole communities left on the scrap heap, as happened in the 1980s and 1990s.
I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I shall certainly be happy to work with him. I know that the sort of manufacturing that still exists in his constituency is very important. It tends to be made up of small and medium-sized enterprises that need all the support that they can get. I also thank the hon. Gentleman for his welcome. I do not know who was the more prejudiced by the confusion between him and the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams).
2012 Olympics and Paralympics
I have regular discussions with ministerial colleagues in both the UK and the Welsh Assembly Government on a range of issues, including how Wales can benefit from the 2012 games. Wales has already developed an international reputation for hosting successful major sporting events, and that is reflected in the fact that the Australian Paralympic committee has decided to come to Wales.
I thank the Minister for that reply, and welcome my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State back to his former position. I also pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) for the work that he did in that post.
An important feature of the recent report from the Welsh Affairs Committee on the Olympics and Paralympics is the significance that it attaches to the pre-games training camps and the legacy for sporting excellence that they might provide. There are now 31 designated centres across Wales: that is praise indeed for the facilities that exist already, and also for the ones—such as the Glyncorrwg mountain bike centre in my constituency—still to come. Will my hon. Friend the Minister agree to visit some of those centres, and encourage the Minister for the Olympics to do so as well, so that more Olympic and Paralympic teams will come to Wales? He mentioned the example of the Australian Paralympic team that will be based in Wales—and the New Zealand Paralympic team, too, will be based in Swansea.
I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution, and for the question that he has just asked. I also thank the Welsh Affairs Committee for the excellent work that it has done, particularly on this important issue. As he knows, the Government are four-square behind all efforts to ensure that Wales derives the greatest benefit from the Olympic games, which are for Britain as a whole, and that includes us. Some 32 sites have been shortlisted for use as pre-games training camps, which demonstrates the commitment and involvement. I also welcome his suggestion that I might visit some of those; I would be happy to do so.
Like the Minister, I am disappointed that Wales has failed to attract more Olympic events when we have so much to offer international sport. Does he agree that the Welsh Assembly Government’s decision, at short notice, to renege on their agreement to fund the Wales Rally GB undermines the attractiveness of Wales as an international sporting venue and could result in a much larger bill? Given his new Secretary of State’s remarks as a Back Bencher, will he now ensure that his right hon. Friend gets that decision reversed before more damage is done to Wales’s international reputation?
The hon. Lady raises an important issue, on which discussions are continuing. I can tell her that the Secretary of State has already raised it with the First Minister of the Welsh Assembly Government. The important thing that I wish to stress is that, in general, Wales is benefiting from a range of different sporting activities. For example, it hosted the rugby world cup in 1999, the FA cup finals from 2001 to 2006 and rugby’s Heineken cup finals, to name but a few, and of course the Ryder cup is coming in the near future. All those events are important, and we are absolutely committed to ensuring that Wales stays centre stage in a sporting sense.
I ask my question in my capacity as the joint chair of the all-party group on racing and bloodstock industries. Will the Minister join me in congratulating Ffos Las on the opening of the new race course there, which is being put forward as a possible equestrian centre for international teams taking part in horse racing events?
Yes, I certainly offer congratulations as my hon. Friend suggested. It is important that we recognise that sport, and Wales’s involvement in it, should be as broadly based as we can possibly make it, and I shall ensure that that is the case.
Patagonia
The United Kingdom welcomes Patagonians who are visiting Wales. We welcome the fact that they are keen to explore their Welsh heritage, and of course the UKBA does not have any separate policy in relation to Welsh-speaking people from Patagonia.
I thank the Under-Secretary of State for that answer. Does he share my outrage, and that of people throughout Wales, including my hon. Friend the Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd), at the treatment of a young Patagonian visitor, Miss Evelyn Calcabrini? She travelled for 35 hours to get to Heathrow, but was summarily ejected and sent back. She is not the only young Welsh Patagonian who has, unfortunately, suffered summary ejection for no good cause that I can see. Will the Under-Secretary therefore use his good offices to facilitate a meeting between myself, my hon. Friend and the immigration Minister, so that this disgraceful stain on our welcome to Welsh Patagonians can be remedied once and for all?
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that issue. I am aware of the concerns that he and the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) have about the matter. I give my commitment that the Secretary of State and I will meet the relevant Home Office Minister as soon as possible. Clearly the issue is important, and we want it sorted out as quickly as possible.
May I, through the Minister, congratulate his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on his return to the Front Bench, and also wish the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) all the best for the future?
The point on the subject of the question has been well made by my hon. Friend the Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams). The Minister knows of the historical cultural connection between Patagonia and Wales. The young woman in question had every right to stay for six months to brush up on the Welsh language. I am grateful for the commitment that the Minister and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State have given, and I look forward to having a very early meeting with the Minister for Borders and Immigration.
We have already had a conversation about the issue, as the hon. Gentleman knows. Obviously, I cannot refer in any great detail to the case that he cites, but I underline the fact that it is important that the cultural links between Wales and Patagonia be enhanced. We should make sure that everything is done to ensure that free movement can take place.
As somebody who has consistently opposed the Government’s policy of unlimited immigration, may I say how horrified I was that the young lady in question was turned back for no good reason? May I ask the Minister to ensure that amends are made in some way, and to ensure that she is given the welcome to learn Welsh in Wales that she deserves?
As I just said, it is important that we have the greatest possible cultural interchange between Wales and Patagonia; that is of both historical and contemporary importance. It would not be right for me to go into any great detail about the particular case to which hon. Members have referred, but I underline the commitment that I have made to make sure that meetings take place. We hope that the situation can be resolved and will not arise again.
Welsh Economy
We are determined, together, to deliver all the help we can to businesses and employees, and to build a stronger economy for the recovery to come.
Unemployment is higher, and is growing more rapidly, in Wales than in England, Northern Ireland or Scotland. Men have been affected most adversely, and young people between 25 and 34 have experienced the highest percentage increase in unemployment. What discussions will the Secretary of State have with the first Minister about trying to alleviate the problem, especially as those with no qualifications are the most vulnerable in the market?
I would point out to the hon. Lady that there are already 120,000 more jobs in Wales than there were when we came into power in 1997. There are serious unemployment problems, but I ask her to consider how those problems could be addressed by the Conservatives’ plans to cut Labour’s guarantee that all 18 to 24-year-olds unemployed for a year will receive either a job or training, to cut this year’s £60 cash boost for pensioners, and to cut support for families who are under real pressure, and who need to defer interest payments so that they do not lose their homes. I understand her concern, but her policies would cut all support for all those seeking to get a job.
Yesterday Lord Mandelson announced the backdating of the trade credit insurance scheme to October 2008. That will be a huge opportunity for the Welsh manufacturing industry to move forward. Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming that move, which demonstrates the Labour Government’s commitment to supporting the Welsh economy?
I certainly will, particularly with regard to the furniture industry in my hon. Friend’s constituency. I know that she will agree that the employment prospects and economic prospects in her constituency can only have been enhanced by the Prime Minister’s outstanding leadership of the world at the G20 summit, at which he led the world in a rescue from the global crisis. It is that outstanding leadership that we want to see continue, taking Britain forward; we do not want to be plunged into the terrible cuts that the Conservatives plan for the British economy.
Broadband
I have met stakeholders from the public, private and voluntary sectors across the United Kingdom, including Wales. The purpose has been to consult on digital inclusion, in both a social and a geographic sense. The UK and Welsh Assembly Governments are committed to achieving a digital Britain with a universal broadband service for all of the United Kingdom, including, of course, Wales.
The Minister will be aware of the success of the Assembly’s RIBS—regional innovative broadband support—programme and the six communities, including Cilcennin in Ceredigion, that are part of that project. Will he make the strongest possible representations to the Assembly Government to extend that project, and will he work with BT and the Assembly Government? The universal service commitment is some way from being met and there is real impatience, particularly on the part of small businesses.
The hon. Gentleman is correct in pointing to the work already being done with regard to his constituency. I know that BT, for example, is closely involved in the work being carried out. There is a good partnership on the issue between ourselves in London and the Welsh Assembly Government. We must make sure that that partnership is rolled forward, and that we achieve our commitment to universal connection as quickly as we can. With regard to the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, I give a personal commitment to take a particular interest and to make sure that that comes about.
Prime Minister
The Prime Minister was asked—
Engagements
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.
Our specialist hospitals are the jewels in the NHS crown, but unfortunately their knowledge and expertise are not always passed on to district general hospitals, which means that some patients undergo inappropriate operations which later have to be reversed by specialist hospitals, or even worse, are prevented from having operations which could free them from pain. Could the Prime Minister spare just 10 minutes to meet the chair of the federation of specialist hospitals to see how matters could be improved?
Of course I will, and I think he will understand, as I will understand, that that depends on proper investment in specialist hospitals. He will be as concerned as I am by the remarks of the shadow Health Secretary that he will cut spending in the vital areas that are important to our country. The shadow Health Secretary said that he would review the national health’s organisations on a “zero basis”. He said he wants to ensure that the unit costs considerably reduce, rather than increase. He said this morning that he wants a 10 per cent. reduction in the departmental limits. Before the Conservatives ask for more spending on the health service, they should talk to the shadow Chancellor and the shadow Health Secretary.
Will the Prime Minister affirm the Labour Government’s commitment to maintaining funding for public services such as housing, universities, police, law and order, transport and pensions, and reject the Tory party policy of a 10 per cent. across the board cut, which would take this country back to the worst days of Thatcherism?
Specifically, this morning the shadow Health Secretary spoke of
“over three years after 2011 a 10 per cent. reduction in the departmental expenditure limits for other Departments. It is a very tough spending requirement indeed.”
He said that the job of the shadow Chancellor was to be clear about where the spending restraints bite. There can be no doubt that the choice, whenever it comes, is between a Government who are prepared to invest in the future and a Conservative party that will cut.
When even the old-timers are reading out the Whips’ handout questions, we know things are really bad for the Government. May I say how pleased I am to see the Prime Minister in his place? Let me be clear about what we think of electoral reform. We want to keep the existing system. We support the link between one MP and one constituency, and we back our system because weak, tired and discredited Governments can be thrown out. We supported the system when we were behind, when we were ahead, when we won, when we lost. Why has the Prime Minister suddenly discovered an interest in changing the electoral system? Does it have anything to do with the fact that his party got 15 per cent. of the vote last week?
Finally, after many, many weeks, a question on policy. Is it not remarkable that it has taken that amount of time for the Conservatives to come up with a question? [Hon. Members: “Answer.”] The statement that I shall make in a few minutes, after 12.30, will deal with exactly those problems. I have to remind the right hon. Gentleman that there are different electoral systems in different parts of the United Kingdom, in many cases with the Conservative party’s support. There is a different one in Northern Ireland, a different one in Scotland, a different one in Wales, a different one for the European Parliament, which is based on proportional representation, and a different one in the House of Commons. I shall deal with the issue in the constitutional statement in a few minutes.
Mr. Eric Illsley. [Interruption.] My apologies, I was too quick. Mr. Cameron.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that you will agree that it is no good the Prime Minister saying, “Wait for the statement,” when he has briefed all the details to the press. And, I have to say that, on asking questions about personalities, what is there left to ask when so many members of the Cabinet have walked out because they cannot work with him?
I want to ask the Prime Minister questions about the issue of electoral reform and the process that he intends to follow. On that issue, does he agree that a truly proportional system has massive drawbacks? Did we not see that on Sunday night, when the British National party, a bunch of fascist thugs, got two members elected to the European Parliament? Does he agree with me that that is a very, very strong argument against proportional systems?
Let the whole House send the message that the politics of discrimination, prejudice and bigotry have no part to play in the democratic life of our country. Let us all take action together to expose the racist and bigoted policies of the British National party. And, let us be clear that, on the Labour side of the House, we will do everything in our power to show that the problems that made people vote for the BNP are the problems that we are dealing with—on housing, on social justice and on employment. Nobody, however, will support the BNP’s anti-Semitic policy or its policy that is even against mixed-race marriage. I believe that the whole country can unite on that.
What I say about electoral reform, however, is that I have never myself supported the policy of proportional representation for a Westminster Parliament; that has always been my view. The right hon. Gentleman has to accept that the policy of proportional representation exists for the European elections, and I do not see a proposal from his party to change it at the moment. He has to accept also that the Jenkins proposals for the additional vote plus PR laid down criteria by which it would be impossible for the British National party to hold a seat—even under the PR system—in the British Parliament, unless it won a constituency seat.
Everyone will agree with what the Prime Minister says about defeating the BNP, and it does mean all mainstream parties making sure that they go door to door and get their voters to go out and vote.
Let me ask about the process, and let us be clear about what the Prime Minister seems to be considering. We are in the fifth and final year of a Parliament, and there have been reports that a referendum is being considered for before the general election. Can the Prime Minister confirm those reports? Is that something that he is considering?
There are no plans for that, and let me just say that when the right hon. Gentleman hears the statement later, he will hear that there is an interest throughout the country in what happens on electoral reform. We published a review—[Interruption.] I am sorry, but we published a review on electoral reform only a few months ago. That has led to a serious debate in the country, but we are not putting proposals forward today. If I may say so, I said that he had moved on to policy, but there seems to be an element of self-interest in the way that he is approaching—[Interruption.] Is it not strange—[Interruption.] Is it not strange, Mr. Speaker—[Interruption.]
Order. It is getting too noisy—[Interruption.] Order. I am not getting much help from the Opposition Chief Whip. Maybe I can get a bit of help from him here. It will be a bad day when I have to tell the Opposition Chief Whip to be quiet, but the Prime Minister must be heard.
Is it not strange that the Opposition are not even interested in discussing that democratic reform, and that the first questions that the right hon. Gentleman asks on policy are not about the economy, not about the health service, not about education, not about public services—not about the issues that the public out there know that we and they are concerned about?
I have to say to the Prime Minister that remarks such as that make him a figure of ridicule across this country. Everyone is entitled to ask what the Prime Minister’s motive is. For 12 years there was not a squeak about electoral reform, but now that he has been trashed at two elections he suddenly wants to put it on the agenda.
This is all of a piece with the Prime Minister treating the nation like fools—expecting us to believe that the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, South-West (Mr. Darling) is his first choice as Chancellor, and telling us that he cancelled the election because he was going to win it. The Prime Minister said that he had “no plans” for a referendum. We all know what that means—he said that he had no plans to put up taxes in 1997. Instead of saying “no plans”, let him stand up at that Dispatch Box and rule out a referendum.
I said that I had no plans, and I repeat that I have no plans. Is it not again remarkable? What MPs are being told by their constituents is that they should concentrate on getting the politics of this country sorted out, on getting us through the recession and on building us a better future. Not one question from the Leader of the Opposition has been about the central issues facing our country.
The Prime Minister has chosen today to make a statement about constitutional reform; he cannot complain that I am asking questions about it. The Prime Minister talks about the economy, but let us be clear about what his legacy will be: not the most useless Government that we have had in history—although they are—but the biggest budget deficit in Europe and the biggest that we have had in our history. So let us be clear about “no plans” or “no proposals today”, as he put it. A man with no democratic legitimacy, who has never been elected as our Prime Minister, who has been defeated every time the public have been able to vote for him, is now considering trying to fix the election rules before the next general election. Is that not what is happening?
First of all, on public spending and deficits, let the right hon. Gentleman confirm that his proposals are for a 10 per cent. cut in most departmental expenditure. If he wishes to raise the question of deficits and debt, let him confirm that the proposal of the shadow Chancellor is now to cut public expenditure by 10 per cent., as confirmed by the shadow Health Secretary this morning.
Let us have a debate about the choice that really does exist in the country: between a Conservative party that now wants to cut, even at a time of recession, into our basic public services, and a Labour party that wants to invest in them. Let him also be honest with the country that when it comes to calling for an election, he has absolutely no plan for dealing with the recession. He has no policies for dealing with unemployment, no policies for dealing with small businesses and no policies for dealing with the problems of this country. He is an Opposition leader who has no plans for government, and he does not deserve to be in government.
One of my plans for dealing with the recession was the same as the Prime Minister’s last week—to sack the Chancellor. The Prime Minister might be talking about a second-preference voting system, but the fact is that he is left with a second-preference Chancellor.
On the issue of public spending, let us be clear about the answers that the Prime Minister has given. He said last week:
“Public spending is rising every year”.
His Chancellor said:
“I have cut overall public spending”.
The figures that the Prime Minister is hawking around are his own figures. He is planning to cut public spending by 7 per cent. in every Department over the next three years. The next election—when he has the guts to call it—will not be about Labour investment versus Tory cuts, but about the mismanagement—[Interruption.] It will be about the mismanagement of the public finances, the appalling deficit that he has left and his plan for cuts.
Let me just ask the Prime Minister this question. On the issue of electoral reform, why not admit that the current system gives the country the chance to throw out a Government who are weak, divided and incompetent? That election is what we should be having now.
Let me read the figures for public spending, so that there is absolutely no doubt about the truth of what I am saying and that the right hon. Gentleman has got it wrong. Public spending this year is £621 billion; it rises next year to £672 billion—that is this financial year. It then rises to £702 billion, then to £717 billion, then to £738 billion and then to £758 billion. Those are public spending rises. The only party proposing a cut in public spending is the Conservative party.
The right hon. Gentleman is right. At the next election, there will be a choice: a choice between a Government who helped people and actively intervened to take us through a downturn and a Conservative party that would do nothing. [Interruption.]
Order. Mr. Robathan, you cannot behave like that. You run the risk of being put out of the House. [Interruption.] Order. Everyone has to be quiet.
There will now be a choice between a Government who have actually intervened to deal with the recession and a Conservative party that said “do nothing”. It will be a choice between a Government who are increasing public spending by the figures that I gave and a Conservative leader who, for the first time in the House of Commons during this Parliament, has now admitted that the policy of his party is spending cuts. That is what he has told us today; that is going to be the choice before the country.
Eric Illsley.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I know you are very anxious to hear this question.
The Prime Minister is aware that Barnsley college has been caught up in the incredible bungling of the Learning and Skills Council over the Building Colleges for the Future programme, to the extent that we have a half-demolished college. Incredibly, the LSC has, yet again, delayed the decision from 3 June on which colleges will be funded. My college is now technically insolvent and has announced 53 redundancies. When will the Prime Minister intervene to sort this mess out?
In the Budget, an extra £300 million was put into further education colleges. We are now looking at how we can help the individual colleges that have spending proposals for new investment. Let me remind the House that no investment was taking place in further education colleges when we came into power. We are now investing more in further education colleges than ever before. I believe that my hon. Friend’s college in Barnsley is one of the priorities for getting that new investment.
Everyone who has been out on the campaign trail in the past few weeks knows how angry and frustrated people have become about the way in which this Government always raise people’s hopes only for people to see them disappointed again and again. Nowhere is that truer than in housing, where we have had more announcements than new homes. Since January, when the Prime Minister announced the biggest council house building programme in decades, only 20 new homes have been started. Will he, just for once, make a promise and actually deliver?
I do not accept the right hon. Gentleman’s figures. What has happened since January is that we have put in place measures, first, to protect people in their own homes, so the expected rate of mortgage repossessions has not happened and mortgage repossessions are roughly as they were a few months ago. Equally, at the same time, we are bringing in a programme to invest more in social housing over the next few months and, indeed, over the next few years. I have to tell him that we are prepared to take even more decisions to make available more social housing over the next few months. That is only possible because we have taken the decisions about the increased investment that is necessary at the time of a recession that his party and the Conservative party have opposed. I hope that if he is going to ask us for more social housing, he will support the necessary investment for it.
If that is all true, why are a staggering 1.8 million families in this country waiting for a home—70 per cent. more than when this Government came into power? If the Prime Minister wants to do something now, why does he not stop the Treasury from grabbing all the money that councils raise in rents and sales and allow them instead to use that money to build desperately needed homes? Will he at least do that?
I have to tell the right hon. Gentleman that there are 1 million more people in homes than when we came into government in 1997. We have also improved houses for more than 1 million extra people. At the same time, we are putting aside extra money for social housing. By 2010, more than £40 billion in total will have been invested in housing since 1997, and we will have made house improvements for 8 million people. We are reducing the number of non-decent social homes by more than 1 million. Since 1997, more than £29 billion has been invested in social housing. We are not complacent, and that is why we are planning to invest more this year.
Since the stated objective of bailing out the banks was to maintain lending to businesses and home owners at 2007 levels, and since the latest official figures just published show that that lending is now absolutely flat—indeed, 20 per cent. down on 2007 levels—when will my right hon. Friend use the power that he already has from majority ownership of several major banks to force the banks to give priority to rescuing the real economy rather than simply looking after their own interests and letting the real economy go hang?
My right hon. Friend is right that the banks have a duty now to lend to small businesses and for housing. Since 1 March they have been under an obligation, as a result of quantitative agreements that we have reached. In other words, RBS has agreed to increase its lending this year by £25 billion. Lloyds TSB has agreed to increase its lending by £14 billion and Northern Rock by £5 billion. Voluntarily, HSBC and Barclays have agreed to increase their lending. The total increase in lending that has been agreed, to come from 1 March, is £70 billion extra over what was available last year. We will begin to see the companies that will benefit from that being able to say that whereas rejections were issued before when they put in applications, they are now having their applications accepted. We will continue to monitor the situation, but I assure him that £70 billion of extra money is going into lending to small businesses and for homes.
In all areas, we have to look at what we can afford at different times. Obviously we have done a great deal for those who are on pension credit, to raise the amount of money that they receive. We have done a great deal for people who are on working tax credit and on child tax credit, to raise the amount of money that they receive. Obviously reform of housing benefit is something that we are looking at, but I think the hon. Gentleman has to accept that 1.5 million children have come out of poverty as a result of what we have done, as have 1 million pensioners. If we had not had the pension credit, the winter allowance and the free TV licence, pensioners would not be as well off as they are. There are many people in other parties who did not support those things when we did them.
Order. I think the Prime Minister will manage an answer to that.
Just for Opposition Members, the latest estimate shows that there would be 500,000 more people unemployed if we had followed the policies of the Conservative party.
At all times, we will seek foreign direct investment into this country. We have given people new allowances so that they can invest now, through the recession, in our future. The only way of making a better future is to invest in the future. That is what we are doing. Unfortunately, our opponents want to cut.
Parliament stands accused of being ever more distant from the country. Away from the political arena, what does the Prime Minister feel he has ever achieved in the real world that qualifies him to lead the nation?
I think every MP should return with a bit of humility after listening to their constituents over the past few weeks. Every MP has learned from their constituents that they want us to clean up their politics and get them through the recession, and they want us to build for the future. That is what I am going to do, and I believe I have the experience to do that.
I can also give the House the figures for current expenditure over the next few years. Including the health service, it will rise from £565 billion to £608 billion, then to £645 billion, £666 billion, £689 billion and £712 billion. That is not a cut, that is a rise in expenditure. The only way that the cash figures will be cut is if there is a Conservative Government cutting 10 per cent. out of the major Departments. This is the day when the shadow Health Secretary admitted that the Conservatives plan 10 per cent. cuts in our vital public services. This is the day when the Conservatives revealed their true manifesto for this country. This is the day when they showed that the choice is between investment under Labour and massive cuts under the Conservative party.
I am determined to do that. We have introduced new rules for nurses, for people being checked as they come into hospitals and for cleanliness. We have given matrons more powers and doubled their number so that cleanliness is at the centre of everything that happens in the national health service. We are determined to root out C. difficile and to deal with MRSA. I assure the hon. Gentleman and anyone who has had personal experience of that happening to any member of their family that we will continue our work to remove C. difficile and MRSA and we have the utmost sympathy for those who have been affected.
Does—[Hon. Members: “It is Mr. Speaker.”] Steady. Does my right hon. Friend understand the anger among people who work in financial services, who have witnessed millions of pounds being rightly invested in our banks to shore them up, but now see thousands of jobs jettisoned by, for example, Cheltenham & Gloucester in the middle of a recession? Does he agree that the banks need to work with the unions to keep people in work during a recession rather than shedding jobs to pay money back to the Government?
My hon. Friend is a great advocate for his constituents. I know that Cheltenham & Gloucester has made several redundancies, and that is a big issue not only for him but for the rest of the country. I am happy to meet him to discuss those issues, but let me say that we are determined to keep as many jobs as possible in this country and to prevent unemployment where possible, and, when it happens, to give people new jobs. A hundred and fifty thousand new jobs have been created as a result of new investment that we are making in the flexible new deal to enable young people and others to get jobs. Even in the current difficult situation, more than 200,000 people are finding new jobs every month. We will continue to provide that support, but I have to say again that the issue is clear: we are prepared to provide the investment that is necessary; the Conservatives are revealed again as the party of cuts.
Thousands of companies in the hon. Gentleman’s area are getting help under the Inland Revenue scheme and others that we are introducing. Thousands of companies are getting special help to take them through the recession. If his argument is that we must avoid cuts, he had better talk to the shadow Chancellor because he proposes massive cuts in services today and in future. The Conservative party has been revealed today as the party that will fight for the next few months on cuts in services. At some point, Conservative Members will have to tell us how many nurses, doctors, teachers, carers and public servants will lose their jobs as a result of the new policy announced this morning.
I would indeed. Lawrence Daly was a friend of mine, as well as of many people. There are few people who did more to advance miners’ conditions in this country than Lawrence Daly. He fought for miners’ safety in a way that brought about big changes in safety in the mining industry. He fought for miners to get the right to compensation for pneumoconiosis and other diseases. I believe that he and so many other miners’ leaders who fought for good conditions in what is a very dangerous industry deserve the wholesale gratitude of everybody, in all parts of the House.