Previous Section Index Home Page


21 Oct 2009 : Column 905

The Prime Minister: As a result of the modernisation plan, 40,000 jobs have gone in the Royal Mail. The right hon. Gentleman may wish to seek to bring the industrial relations of the Royal Mail into the political arena in the way that he is doing now, but it would be far better if the Conservative party and other parties encouraged negotiation and, if necessary, arbitration on this matter. I repeat to him: the 2007 modernisation is at the heart of this dispute and that is what has got to be moved forward. Already, large numbers of jobs have had to go as part of that. I also say this to him: the Bill that came before this House is nothing to do with the dispute.

Mr. Cameron: The Prime Minister says that we must not bring this strike into the political arena, but the fact is that it is in the political arena, not least because the communication workers pay half his bills— [ Interruption. ]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Leader of the Opposition must be heard.

Mr. Cameron: The Prime Minister keeps saying that there is no connection between the Bill and the action that we are seeing from the trade union, yet his own Business Minister, the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. McFadden), said yesterday in the House of Commons that

Even his Minister says that there is a connection. Is it not the case that this trade union can sense weakness, and it sees weakness in this Prime Minister and this Government?

The Prime Minister: I would have thought that a Conservative Opposition would be trying to ensure that this strike did not take place. I would have thought that they would say that people should negotiate and that there should be arbitration if necessary. I would have thought that they would have repeated with me that this is a counter-productive strike and that it could be resolved only by proper negotiation and arbitration. I would urge the right hon. Gentleman to reflect on his comments as to whether anything that he is saying is making it easier for us to solve what is a difficult dispute.

Mr. Cameron: The way to stop these strikes and this militancy is to show some leadership, some backbone and some courage. Are we really going to spend another six months with a Prime Minister who cannot give a straight answer, who cannot pass his own legislation, and who sits in his bunker not even able to decide what sort of biscuits he wants to eat? Does he not understand that stopping these strikes will take some courage and leadership, and is it not clear that he has none of that to offer?

The Prime Minister: That party has been wrong on every issue affecting the British economy. They were wrong on the nationalisation of Northern Rock; they were wrong on the rescue of the banking system; they were wrong on tackling unemployment; they were wrong on helping to protect people against mortgage repossessions; they were wrong on the fiscal stimulus; and they were wrong on international co-operation. On every economic issue, they have not shown any leadership. They were wrong on the recession and they are wrong on recovery.


21 Oct 2009 : Column 906

Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab): May I begin by thanking the Prime Minister for meeting some West Lancashire residents and discussing their issues? They told him about the failure to develop the town centre in Skelmersdale and transport issues such as the Ormskirk bypass—really important local issues. Does he agree that we must continue to invest in people and communities and in delivering such services, aiding regeneration and growth and not cutting services, which should not be on the agenda today?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I was pleased to visit her area in the past few days and talk about regeneration there. I appreciated the opportunity to meet the West Lancashire residents in her constituency and talk about the challenge of regeneration for the future. We can regenerate our economies only if we invest in recovery. We cannot do so with a party that says all the time that we should remove the fiscal stimulus. The only way forward for this economy at the moment is to maintain the fiscal stimulus and ensure that we have growth in the economy.

Mr. Nick Clegg (Sheffield, Hallam) (LD): In June, and again in July, I asked the Prime Minister whether he would do the right thing and break up the biggest banks. Yesterday, the Governor of the Bank of England also repeated his view that the banks should be split up. Is the Governor wrong?

The Prime Minister: The reforms that we are bringing into the banking system will include greater competition in banking. We will have a judgment from the European Commission soon, which we are supporting, that will allow more competition in British banking. As for the restructuring of the banking system and whether there should be investment banks on one side and retail-only banks on the other, the right hon. Gentleman must remember that Northern Rock was effectively a retail bank and it collapsed. Lehman Brothers was effectively an investment bank without a retail bank and it collapsed. The difference between retail and investment banks is not the cause of the problem. The cause of the problem is that banks have been insufficiently regulated at a global level and we have to set the standards for that for the future. We will be doing that at the G20 Finance Ministers summit in a few weeks’ time.

Mr. Clegg: The basic failings that let the banks bring this economy to its knees are still in place. In fact, the position is worse than it was before. The banks are increasingly operating like a cartel, they are underwritten by the taxpayer, they have fewer competitors and they are now paying themselves eye-watering bonuses while the taxpayers who bailed them out are losing their jobs. If the Prime Minister will not make up his mind about splitting up the banks, does he at least agree that as long as those banks have a blank cheque from the taxpayer it is right to consider imposing an additional tax on their profits?

The Prime Minister: I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman is wrong on both counts, and wrong again. The basic fact is that we expect that when we have completed the restructuring of the banks the taxpayer will benefit financially from that, not lose money. His assumption that somehow we will lose money is wrong:
21 Oct 2009 : Column 907
we are determined to make money out of this. On the restructuring of the banks, competition regulations will require the competition that is necessary in the banking system.

The right hon. Gentleman says that the situation is worse than it was last year, but last year banks in Britain threatened to collapse entirely. We have restructured the banking system and we will continue to do so, so that it serves customers properly. I hope that he, unlike the Conservatives, will support our measures to stimulate the economy.

Paul Flynn (Newport, West) (Lab): Why should our brave soldiers be asked to put their lives at risk to re-elect the corrupt thief Karzai?

The Prime Minister: I do not accept what my hon. Friend is saying. We have an electoral process in Afghanistan that has revealed that, where there is fraud and where there has been malpractice, there has to be a new election. We have an election process in Afghanistan that, despite the fact that the Taliban insurgency tried to prevent an election from taking place, had millions of people voting. Our job is to help the infant Afghan democracy, and that is what we will continue to do. I think that hon. Members will have seen, from the comments by President Obama and all the European leaders yesterday, that we are determined to do what we can to support the security during that election period, and to make sure that, by training the Afghan forces themselves, our troops can eventually come home.

Q2. [294237] Paul Rowen (Rochdale) (LD): Springhill hospice, in my constituency, last week celebrated its 20th anniversary. I am sure that the Prime Minister will want to join me in congratulating Margaret Geoghan and others on their work. However, hospices are struggling in the recession, due to dwindling fundraising. What additional help can the Prime Minister offer the hospice movement?

The Prime Minister: I understand the work of the hospice movement. Obviously, I have been in contact with many people who work in it, and try to help. We are trying to give the hospice movement more money to enable it to do its job, and we are looking at what more we can do in future. I thank the hon. Gentleman’s constituents for the work that they do. I understand that this area of health care has not had the resources that it needs in the past and will need greater support in the future. We will do what we can to support a movement that gives dignity to people in the last years and months of their lives.

Lynne Jones (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab): Will the Prime Minister commit all Departments and Government-controlled organisations to reducing their greenhouse gas emissions by 10 per cent. by the end of 2010? After all, what chance do we have of achieving challenging targets for later years if we do not take this opportunity now?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right that Departments have a responsibility, and so do all public organisations—and I know that many commercial companies want to do this—but there can be no substitute for an agreement in Copenhagen. If we do not get an
21 Oct 2009 : Column 908
agreement in Copenhagen, the world will drift backwards, not move forwards, so I am determined to work with other leaders over the next few months and to go to Copenhagen to make sure that we can make progress at this vital time. I believe that there is support in all parts of the House for doing so.

Q3. [294238] Mr. Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale, West) (Con): Why should my constituents pay more tax so that the Prime Minister’s can have their council tax frozen?

The Prime Minister: The purpose of devolution, whether to Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland or London, is to allow those people in those areas who are represented to make the decisions that affect their lives. If they make these decisions by doing one thing, it is at the cost of their ability to do other things.

Q4. [294239] Jacqui Smith (Redditch) (Lab): Over the past month, I have been able to visit every Sure Start children’s centre in my constituency and to hear the parents’ and children’s wishes for the future of those centres. One of the children wished that his centre could get a rabbit; one of the parents wished that every child was able to achieve their potential; but many parents are fearful about the plans of the Conservative party to cut support for their children. What will my right hon. Friend do to ensure that their wishes can be fulfilled, but that their fears will not be realised?

The Prime Minister: This allows me to thank my right hon. Friend for everything she did to make Sure Start possible in the first place. I think that all Members of the House will acknowledge that Sure Start has been pushed forward in the past 10 years. There are now 3,000 Sure Start centres across the country; our aim is 3,500 Sure Start centres. That means roughly five or six in every constituency. I would say to those who are thinking of cutting the Sure Start budget that they are making a grave mistake—for the education and learning of young children, the needs of their parents and the stability of these communities. We will keep the Sure Start centres; I am afraid that the Conservative party wants to cut them.

Q5. [294240] Mr. Michael Moore (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (LD): It is nearly 30 years since the Conservatives decided that pensioners did not deserve the same annual increase in their incomes as people who were in work. Does it not pain the Prime Minister that after 12 years of a Labour Government, pensioners are being told that it may still be six years before the earnings link is restored?

The Prime Minister: As a result of the other measures that we are taking, pensioners have received more than an earnings link would have granted them, because they have the winter allowance, free television licences, national concessionary bus travel and pension credit, and this year, even though inflation is around zero, the pension will rise by 2.5 per cent.

Mr. Stephen Hepburn (Jarrow) (Lab): I welcome the fact that pleural plaques victims in Scotland and Northern Ireland have been promised the right to compensation. May I ask the Prime Minister what he is going to do for the pleural plaques victims in England and Wales?


21 Oct 2009 : Column 909

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I offered yesterday to meet a delegation of those Members of Parliament concerned about pleural plaques, and that I will do in the next few days.

Q6. [294241] Mr. Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con): In 2005 Tony Blair surrendered Mrs. Thatcher’s EU rebate. Next year we will be paying £4 billion more to the EU than we did last year. Is that (a), because we want to be seen as good Europeans; is it (b), because we want to subsidise French, Spanish and Irish farmers; or is it perhaps (c), because that is the price that we have to pay to let Tony Blair become El Presidente of Europe?

The Prime Minister: It was a negotiated settlement, because we are part of Europe: 60 per cent. of our trade is with Europe, 3 million jobs depend on our membership of the European Union and 750,000 companies trade with the European Union. I would have thought that at this time, when we need an export-led recovery which will include trading with the rest of Europe, instead of disparaging our membership of the European Union the Opposition should be saying that it is an absolutely important element of the economic future of our country.

Q7. [294242] Jim Dobbin (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab/Co-op): I declare a personal interest in the subject matter of this question. The Prime Minister will be aware of a report launched this week by Diabetes UK that indicates that up to 7 million people have contracted pre-diabetes, which makes them 15 times more likely to develop type 2 diabetes. What can the Government do to encourage our communities to eat more healthily throughout the coming years and try to prevent this serious illness?

The Prime Minister: Our proposal to deal with type 2 diabetes is to offer adults between the ages of 40 and 74 an assessment of their risk of developing it. That will be a major means by which we can identify the disease, help people to get on better diets and, potentially, deal with kidney failure as well as diabetes. There is a nationwide drive to deal with obesity, which is an issue that my hon. Friend has raised. A key factor, of course, is type 2 diabetes. The Change4Life programme, which was set up by the former Health Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West and Hessle (Alan Johnson), is one of the means by which we can address this. I hope that we can publicise the existence of that programme for everybody who is a diabetes sufferer.

Mr. Peter Robinson (Belfast, East) (DUP): I welcome the Prime Minister’s decision to publish his proposals for funding policing and justice in Northern Ireland. Setting aside how he intends to assist in dealing with foreseeable but inescapable pressures, would he give us his views on how the Government will assist if unforeseen emergency circumstances arise, so that the Northern Ireland Executive will not have to raid their budget for health, education, housing and other critical elements?

The Prime Minister: I praise the First Minister and Deputy First Minister for Northern Ireland for the way in which we have discussed all the issues that will affect the devolution of policing and justice. I also praise all the party leaders in Northern Ireland, whom I have met
21 Oct 2009 : Column 910
to discuss this issue, and thank all those who have been involved in meeting me and others to discuss how we can progress the devolution of policing and justice. This is the final stage of the devolution settlement for Northern Ireland, and it must be accompanied by a financial settlement that makes it possible for Northern Ireland to address its security and policing needs. We have made provision in the letter that I have sent—I believe that the Opposition parties will now have a copy available—for the reserve to be available if exceptional security needs arise in any one year. We have done so this year because of what happened with the killing of soldiers and the killing of PC Carroll; we will do so in future years if such an emergency or difficulty arises. I have made that clear in the letter that I have sent to the First Minister and Deputy First Minister. A secure Northern Ireland is the key to a more prosperous Northern Ireland. We will take no risks with the security of Northern Ireland.

Q8. [294243] Mr. Ronnie Campbell (Blyth Valley) (Lab): The capitalist system and the banks have made a gigantic mess not only of the world economy but of ours as well, so why are the public services, the pensioners, the poor and the working class people of this country having to pay for it? Will the Prime Minister ensure that the next Labour Government will do something about the banks, so that this never happens again?

The Prime Minister: The reason that we took action on the banks was not to save the bankers but to ensure that ordinary people’s savings, jobs and mortgages, and the businesses on which jobs depend, were secure. There is not one saver who has lost money as a result of the failure of a British bank to make good its promise to pay money to savers. Equally, my hon. Friend is absolutely right: the banks have failed us in many ways. That is why we are making the necessary reforms, but we have to make these changes globally to make them work. Otherwise, banks will just move from one country to another. We have to create a system of remuneration that has global implications for all banks, rather than one that applies to just one country. We have to ensure that the banks will again lend the money necessary for industry and for home owners, and that is exactly the Government’s policy.

Q9. [294244] Mr. James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con): The Prime Minister has often emphasised how important it is that all the participants in the forthcoming and vital Copenhagen talks should be ready to compromise in order to achieve consensus. Will he tell us on which British principle he is ready to compromise? How about the third runway at Heathrow?

The Prime Minister: Aviation emissions will come within a total of emissions that have to be met. We have said that if we can get a climate change agreement and Europe is able to sign up to it, we will go to 30 per cent. emissions instead of 20 per cent. emissions. So we are prepared to go further on the level of emissions that we will agree to, if we can get a global agreement. Far from not being ready to compromise, we are therefore ready to do so further if we can get an international agreement. I hope that, instead of criticising us, the hon. Gentleman will support us in the negotiations.


21 Oct 2009 : Column 911

Gordon Banks (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Lab): Will my right hon. Friend make a commitment that he will do nothing to make it more difficult for women approaching state retirement age to secure their state pension?

The Prime Minister: It is absolutely remarkable that a political party can say that it is going to tell people in their 50s that they have to retire later, while at the same time insisting on giving the richest estates in the country £2 billion extra in tax cuts. They should be ashamed of themselves.

Q10. [294245] Richard Ottaway (Croydon, South) (Con): The Director of Public Prosecutions recently published his interpretation of the law on assisted suicide. Whatever his views on the subject, does the Prime Minister agree that it is not for the public prosecutor to decide on the criminal law of this country? Will the right hon. Gentleman table a substantive motion on the Director of Public Prosecutions’ proposals so that we can ascertain the will of the House on this matter?

The Prime Minister: The process that we have is right: the law is settled by Parliament. I have made my views clear on this, and there have been debates in Parliament. The law is settled by Parliament, and if people interpret that law, it must be in line with the decision of Parliament. That is where I stand.

Mr. David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab): As someone who was engaged with working people in Northern Ireland for 20 years, may I tell my right hon. Friend how much I welcome his statement? I congratulate him and the leaders of all the parties in Northern Ireland on the great work that they have done to get us to where we are. Will he tell us exactly what we are going to do next to ensure that this is implemented as quickly as possible?


Next Section Index Home Page