I am sure that the whole House will wish to join me in paying tribute to Private Sean McDonald and Corporal Johnathan Moore from 1st Battalion The Royal Regiment of Scotland, attached to 3rd Battalion The Rifles, and to Warrant Officer Class 2 David Markland from 36 Engineer Regiment, Royal Engineers. These were men of great character and commitment, whose loss is already keenly felt by their colleagues. I want to pay tribute, on behalf of the whole House, to their courage and dedication. We think of their families and friends, and their sacrifice will not be forgotten.
This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and friends. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
I am sure that the whole House is at one with the Prime Minister in sending our sincere condolences to the relatives and friends of the brave servicemen who have lost their lives in serving this country.
I am astonished at the orchestrated campaign of opposition to our social care plans that seems to have been mounted in some newspapers this morning, supported by Tory councillors and BUPA, especially as the Conservatives did not oppose those plans when they were before the House. Will my right hon. Friend commit himself to continuing the fight to improve the lot of some of our most vulnerable citizens, the poorest pensioners in the country?
I am passionately committed, as are the Government, to finding a better way of ensuring security and dignity for the elderly generation in retirement. That means not just providing institutional care of the highest standard, but helping people to stay in their own homes for as long as possible with as good amenities as possible. I hope that there will be all-party support for the Bill that is now going through the House of Lords, and has already been through the House of Commons, because it will enable us to make urgent need payments to all people—whatever their income—who need the very highest level of care in their homes. It will take time to develop a full social care system for the future, but it is in our interest to establish a consensus in the country about how we can move forward to a better system for every elderly person.
May I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to Corporal John Moore, Private Sean McDonald and Warrant Officer David Markland, who have been killed in Afghanistan this week? Their deaths mean that more people have now died in this conflict than were killed in the Falklands war. That is a measure of the scale of the sacrifice being made. Our armed forces need to know they have all our support in the vital work they are doing.
May I return to the question asked by the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon)? This morning local councils controlled by all parties have said that the Prime Minister’s social care plans are “unclear” and “unfunded”, that they will lead to “possible cuts” and “rises in council tax”, that they have “major weaknesses”, and, crucially, that they will falsely
“raise expectations among many of the most vulnerable”.
Everybody wants to do more to help with care, but why does the Prime Minister think that so many of the people responsible for delivering this policy are so completely unconvinced by what he has put forward?
The right hon. Gentleman’s party supported this Bill as it went through the House of Commons; I do not know whether he has done another policy U-turn over the last few hours. We have set aside £670 million in the next year; £420 million will come from the health service for providing that care for urgent needs. I know how much the right hon. Gentleman likes personalising politics, and of course I know how he hates Punch and Judy politics; I also know how much he wanted to build a consensus—such as we had, for a week, on the economy—but surely it is in the interests of this House that we are united in the way we help old people in their own homes. Surely a party that supported the policy one week should not be opposing it the next week.
If the Prime Minister is going to have pre-prepared jokes, I think they ought to be a bit better than that one—probably not enough bananas on the menu. We have consistently raised questions about the funding of this policy, and just this morning the response to a freedom of information request from the Treasury shows that it could put £26 on the council tax. I have to say to the Prime Minister that it is not just Labour councillors who are angry about the way the policy has been put forward, but Labour peers as well. Lord Lipsey was a member of the Government’s own care commission, and he says that this is
“one of the most disorderly pieces of government I have ever seen”.
Lord Warner, who was one of the Government’s Health Ministers, described the policy as a “cruel deception” of the elderly, the vulnerable and families. So can the Prime Minister explain why Labour councillors, Labour advisers and Labour Ministers are all angry about his mishandling of this?
When the right hon. Gentleman knew what Lord Warner and others had said about it, why did his party support it in the House of Commons? [Interruption.] He cannot one day say he supports a policy, and the next day have a completely different policy, on a very important matter. [Interruption.]
Order. I apologise for interrupting the Prime Minister, but there is far too much noise in the Chamber. I want questions and answers to be brief and focused on Government policy, and I want to get down the Order Paper. Let us have a bit of order, for the Prime Minister and others.
We have had U-turns every month—every day of the month—from the Conservatives. They said it was moral cowardice not to cut and tear up our Budget for 2010, and then they changed their minds and took a different position. On this issue, are they really going to say to the elderly of this country that they voted for this measure in the House of Commons, they have urged their people in the House of Lords to vote for it as well, and now they are refusing to support what we are doing to give local authorities and the elderly an extra £670 million a year? As I understand it, the shadow Health Secretary asked for talks with the Secretary of State for Health so that there could be consensus on this issue. It was only last night that they broke the consensus. They had to take down a poster that they had at the beginning of the year because it was not authentic—and they will have to bring down their new poster, because it is simply wrong.
What we want to know is: where is the money coming from? People who have worked very closely with the Prime Minister are completely opposed to the way this is being done. Let us try Andrew Turnbull. He was Cabinet Secretary, and he was permanent secretary for four years. [Interruption.] The Prime Minister waves him away, but Andrew Turnbull probably knows this Prime Minister better than anyone else, and he says this:
“It is doubly objectionable. It is objectionable in process and it is objectionable in substance.”
He also says:
“It’s a classic Gordon Brown dividing line”:
“politically expedient”, “poorly costed” and “badly constructed.” Why does the Prime Minister think Lord Turnbull has got it wrong?
Why does the right hon. Gentleman not address the policy issue? We have provided £420 million from the NHS for social care for urgent needs. We are providing £250 million from local authorities for efficiency savings. If he agrees with the local authorities and thinks that that is impossible, why is it his policy to freeze the poll tax by demanding hundreds of millions more savings from local authorities? Nothing he says adds up; nothing is consistent. He changes his policy almost every hour.
The fact is that it is Labour councils that are telling the Prime Minister that his policy does not add up. It is perfectly clear what the Prime Minister is doing: he wants to tell us about the benefits of the policy before the election, and the costs of the policy after the election. This is not about the benefit of the elderly; it is about the benefit of the Labour party. He wants to concentrate on the detail, so let me ask about the details of his social care plans. Will he say whether he is ruling out all forms of a compulsory levy, means-tested or not, that elderly people would have to pay? Is he ruling that out?
The right hon. Gentleman should read the White Paper that we put forward, which sets out all the various options before us—[Interruption.] The Conservatives can make all the noise they want, and they can put up all the posters, but they have absolutely no policy to deal with the problems. They have no substance, they have no judgment—but they can hurl insults. They are not the new politics; they are the same old Tories.
I have the paper right here, and one of the options is a £20,000 levy on every elderly person in this country, except the very poorest. That is what it says. Let me ask the Prime Minister again: will he rule out any form of compulsory levy on the elderly? Yes or no?
If the right hon. Gentleman reads the White Paper, he will see that he has not reported it correctly. He should read the whole chapter, so that he sees what it means. Once again, what positive policy has come from the Conservative party? He has been the leader of the Conservative party for four years. He has put up lots of posters, he has lots of soundbites, but there is no policy coming from him. When we are dealing with social policy—[Interruption.]
The Prime Minister keeps saying, “Read the White Paper.” Actually, it is a Green Paper, and I have it here. He wants a question about the detail. It says:
“people might need to pay around £17,000 to £20,000 to be protected under a scheme of this sort”.
Let me ask him one final time: are such levies ruled in or ruled out? He says that he wants consensus, and the fact is that there is consensus. Labour advisers, Labour Ministers and Labour councils all think that he is doing this to set up cheap dividing lines before an election. One last go: are you going to do a levy? Rule it in or rule it out.
The wall of noise will not disguise the fact that the Conservative party has absolutely no policy on an issue that is vital to the needs of the elderly for the future. This is a big challenge that this country faces because of the demographic changes that are taking place and the needs and ambitions of old people. I have to conclude that, when it comes to dealing with big areas of policy, this is no time for a novice.
I applaud the way in which my hon. Friend has promoted the development of Blackpool and all the seaside towns. The Sea Change programme has benefited 32 seaside resorts, and there has been £38 million in extra funding—money that would not be available if there were ever a Conservative Government. Regional development agencies are helping coastal towns to fulfil their economic potential—again, RDAs that would be abolished under a Conservative Government. We will do more to help the coastal towns, and employment in those towns, but that cannot be said of the Conservative party.
I add my expressions of sympathy and condolence to the family and friends of Warrant Officer Class 2 David Markland from 36 Engineer Regiment, and Corporal John Moore and Private Sean McDonald from the Royal Scots Borderers, 1st Battalion the Royal Regiment of Scotland, all of whom tragically lost their lives serving so bravely in Afghanistan this week. Reports that wounded soldiers will receive better compensation is a glimmer of good news on the day that we hear that injured veterans are having to pay for their own treatment abroad. Let me ask the Prime Minister about another hidden scandal that faces our troops. Why are our soldiers who are serving on the front line in Afghanistan receiving thousands of pounds less in basic pay than a new recruit to the police or fire service?
First of all, I have to assure the right hon. Gentleman that the new recommendations on the compensation scheme that are being prepared by Lord Boyce—and, I believe, welcomed as a review by the Royal British Legion—will extend compensation in a number of areas where there has been controversy in the past. We want to do the best we can by soldiers who are wounded. The Secretary of State for Defence will announce, later this afternoon, how the armed forces compensation scheme will be improved and in what areas, and how it will do more, particularly for award levels below the current high of £570,000. We will also introduce a faster interim payment. As for the pay of the troops, we have been determined to raise the pay of our forces at a higher rate than that of the other public services. I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that for the lowest-paid troops, there was a 9 per cent. rise a year ago. I can also tell him that there is a theatre allowance, and that there is a withdrawal of any requirement to pay council tax while they are in Afghanistan. We are doing everything we can to ensure that our troops are not only well paid, but properly equipped for the challenges ahead.
Thousands of servicemen and women are about to put their lives on the line in the biggest offensive yet in Afghanistan. They have been stretched to the limit by a Government who have got their priorities wrong—employing 800 people to do media and communications for the Ministry of Defence but not giving our brave young soldiers a decent living wage. Is it not time for the Government to get their priorities right? They should cut the bureaucrats and pay our soldiers what they deserve.
We have always accepted the recommendations of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body, which is set up on an independent basis to take information and evidence and then to make recommendations to the Government. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will agree, when he looks into this, that we have accepted recommendations that, in the past few years, have been for higher pay rises than elsewhere. I also remind him that 70,000 civilian staff have gone from the Ministry of Defence as we have made the focus of our efforts our front-line services. There will be more civilian redundancies as we use new technology to make available the back-office services that enable the front line to have the best equipment. The right hon. Gentleman cannot deny the fact that £14 billion in urgent operational requirements and additional money, on top of the defence budget, has gone to our troops, particularly for Iraq and Afghanistan. It really is not fair to tell our troops that they do not have the equipment that is needed when we have done everything in our power. I asked the Chief of the Defence Staff yesterday if the proper equipment was available for any exercises that we had to undertake, and he said that he had checked with those people on the ground, and that was exactly the case.
We are trying to transform cancer care in our country. Over the next 10 years, £15 billion is being invested in research, much of it in cancer. The cancer guarantee is that people can see a specialist within two weeks. We hope that this will happen within one week, so that people can sometimes have their diagnostic test and results on the same day. We want to introduce a service in which there is personalised care available for those suffering from cancer, so that they can also be visited at home. This is how the modern health service is going to develop—personalised services available to people and tailored to their needs. With the reforms that we have made, that is now possible. I cannot for the life of me understand why the Conservative party is rejecting the cancer guarantee that would allow people to see a specialist within two weeks. I believe that that challenges its very commitment to the health service.
Greece should stick by the commitments that it has made to the European Union and the world. As the House knows, at the G20 conference in London in April we put in place arrangements that could help countries if they were in difficulty. These arrangements are still in place and have been used by some countries. It is up to the euro area to decide what it wants to do in relation to euro area countries, but there is international support available if Greece wishes it.
Under a Labour Government there has been an increase of 6,000 police in the Metropolitan Police Service since 1997. We are also proud that there are 4,500 police community support officers available. However, I have to say that for the Conservative party to publish a document on law and order that does not mention police numbers, prison places, CCTV or DNA shows that it is the first Opposition party to run out of ideas even before facing an election.
I know that the former Prime Minister wrote to people at the time and expressed his condolences and sympathies to every family. I also know that on many occasions he has expressed his sadness at the losses that have taken place in Iraq. I say to the whole House that I think that we have been united at every point in mourning the losses of our troops, and also the loss of civilian life in Iraq.
The Conservative party cannot talk about new politics or transparency unless it answers the central question about the tax status of its chief fundraiser, Lord Ashcroft. The Information Commissioner has already said that the party has been “evasive and obfuscatory” about the Ashcroft scandal. The Opposition have questions that they have to answer.
I hope the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that we have doubled the science budget over the past few years and done more for British science than at any time since the second world war. An innovation fund has been set up to benefit scientists as they develop their innovations and put them into the marketplace. I know that Lord Drayson, the Science Minister, announced today the thousands of jobs that can be created in new scientific industries as a result of our investment, and I believe that universities and science researchers recognise that we have doubled research activity in universities over the past few years.
As my hon. Friend knows, a decision was made at the Commonwealth summit that Sri Lanka would not host the next Commonwealth summit. We are aware of the human rights issues that have arisen in Sri Lanka since the fighting that took place with the Tamils. We urge the Government to recognise the human rights of all those who are Tamil citizens in Sri Lanka, and we also urge them to move forward with the reconstruction of the country so that those who have been excluded both from power and from the chances of a livelihood can benefit now.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. Gentleman is saying that the Conservatives have nothing to congratulate themselves about. It is the Government who have published a stroke strategy. It is also the Government who want to introduce a health test so that people can get a health check-up. We believe that that would remove the possibility of hundreds of deaths as a result of strokes or heart disease, and we will introduce that during the next Parliament. [Laughter.] The Opposition laugh every time we talk about measures that try to improve people’s health in this country. If they were really interested in the health service they would support the new health service guarantees, but because they are not, they cannot bring themselves to support a guarantee that every citizen of this country could get a health check-up, whereas previously they would have had to pay.
Thank goodness, Mr. Speaker. It is my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Gwyn Prosser) who has been a great champion of Dover and its people, and I know that he wants the best for the people of Dover, including a flourishing port. I share that aspiration. There will be no forced privatisation under Labour—[Hon. Members: “Reading!”] We will look for new ways of getting new investment into the port—[Interruption.]
If we took the right hon. Gentleman’s advice there would be massive cuts in public expenditure. He is the one who says that there should be even more cuts than are being proposed by the Leader of the Opposition. We would lose jobs and businesses, and our economy would go deep into recession again. That is not a policy that the people of this country want. The Conservatives have dozens of policies on this, and the right hon. Gentleman’s is the most extreme—but we will follow none of their advice.
Further to the question asked by the hon. Member for Harwich (Mr. Carswell), and ahead of the European Council, will the Prime Minister confirm that any negotiations involving a bail-out for the Greek economy will be completely confined to eurozone countries, and have no impact on the UK?
I have already said that international support is available for countries, as set up by the G20 summit in London in April. That support can be drawn on at an international level. If the euro area wishes to move ahead with a proposal, that is for the euro area.
GPs are already required, under relevant legislation, to make reasonable adjustments to their written information for patients with a visual impairment. The Equality Bill also contains legislation that will avoid discrimination against people with lesser sight, and anybody with a visual impairment should also be aware that the General Medical Council has issued guidance that doctors must ensure that arrangements are made to meet patients’ language and communication needs. We will do everything in our power to improve the services to those with visual impairments, and I would be very happy to meet any delegation that the hon. Lady brings to me.
Does the Prime Minister accept that the welcome international support for eurozone countries facing economic difficulties is undermined by the $8 billion-worth of speculative transactions that are currently taking place against the value of the euro? Does that not reinforce his case for the urgent introduction of a Tobin tax, which could bring to the international table £400 billion per year? That would be as relevant to the developing needs of the poor countries in the south as it would be to avoiding austerity measures in the north.
What we want is international agreement to restructure our banking system in the way that is necessary. It cannot be done by one country on its own; it must be done by countries working together. We have put proposals to the G20 whereby we could co-ordinate activity in terms of capital requirements for banks, liquidity ratios and the rewards that they are prepared to pay, but it is also true that the relationship between banks and society needs to change. I have proposed, with other people, that a levy be raised from banks. There is new interest in that around the world, and I believe that over the next period we will reach agreement on a global financial levy. I am sorry that many people opposed it when it was first announced, because I believe that we will be able to go ahead with it in the not too distant future.