|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
The Prime Minister: This is exactly what I mean about trying to make an industrial relations issue a partisan issue in politics. What we need to do is to get the unions and the management to talk to each other. Perhaps I should report to the House that I have talked to both sides and I believe that the agreement that was near to being reached last Thursday is one that they can build on for an agreement this week. I hope that the Leader of the Opposition, instead of calling for action that would happen after a strike took place, would help us by trying to call for a resolution of the strike in the first place.
Mr. Cameron: It is back to the 1970s. We have hand-wringing from a weak Prime Minister while companies go down. Let me ask him the question again. This weekend, will he join me in urging unionised workers to cross that picket line and help get this business going?
"David Cameron has launched a secret mission to win over Britain's trade unions...The trade unions have also been asked to help draw up opposition policy, the Daily Telegraph can disclose".
"party officials have met with the unions more than sixty times since the spring."
In three years of asking the Prime Minister questions, that has got to be one of the most pathetic answers I have ever had. It is one thing to talk to the unions, but it is another to give in to them like he does. Let me ask him the question again. Does he back brave workers who want to cross a picket line and keep a business going? Does he?
"we have been having lots of meetings with top trade union officials over the last few months...I think the old antagonisms have long gone."
On the one hand, the Conservative party wants to attack the unions and does not want a resolution of this dispute, but on the other it wants to talk to the unions. That is complete opportunism. It should be trying to find a resolution to this dispute and should be calling on us to work with the unions and the management to do so. Anything else is likely to inflame the situation, and I hope that instead of becoming a partisan politician in this, the Leader of the Opposition, who is showing his opportunism at every moment, will start to become a statesman.
Mr. Cameron: Wriggle, wriggle, wriggle. It is a simple question. It is a question of backbone, it is a question of judgment and it is a question of character. Do you back people who want to go to work-yes or no?
The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman has never once said that he backs a resolution to this dispute. He has never called for management and unions to get together to resolve the dispute. I have already made my views clear about this issue, but I know that what passengers want to know and what the country wants to know is whether we can resolve this dispute. He has said nothing positive about resolving this dispute. It is the same old Tories.
Mr. Cameron: This is why the right hon. Gentleman cannot lead this country-absolutely no backbone when the big tests come. He has failed the big test and we know why: because his party is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Unite union. It picks the candidates, it chooses the policies, it elects the leader and it has special access to Downing street. That is why his response is so feeble. Is it not true that when the crunch comes, he can act only in the union interest, not the national interest?
The Prime Minister: Not once has the right hon. Gentleman asked for a resolution of this dispute. Any previous Tory Administration would be trying to resolve the dispute rather than provoke the dispute. I ask him to think again about the words that he has used. They are not calculated to end the dispute; they are calculated to provoke the dispute. I have to say to him also that on the day we are publishing unemployment figures that are coming down, showing that we have a flexible labour market in the United Kingdom, showing that we have taken the action that is necessary to get people back into work, what he has shown once again is that he has no positive policy, no substance and no programme-no wonder he talks without notes: he has nothing to say.
Chris McCafferty (Calder Valley) (Lab): In the light of mother's day 2010, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is time to give women in the developing world a real present this year by further investing in maternal and reproductive health at the millennium development goal summit in September? After he is re-elected, will he use his considerable acumen to encourage colleagues in the G8 to recognise the financial value of investing in women's health and lives?
The Prime Minister: Five hundred thousands mothers die avoidable deaths each year, but there are things that we can do- [ Interruption. ] I hope that the Conservatives will be prepared to listen to a concern that is expressed across the world about the levels of maternal mortality. Five hundred thousand mothers die each year. These are avoidable deaths, and this is one of the policy themes of the G8 summit. It is important that we support whatever action can be taken. We as a Government are doing more than most to try to reduce this appalling level of suffering, which can be avoided.
Mr. Nick Clegg (Sheffield, Hallam) (LD): I should like to add my own expressions of sympathy and condolence to the family and friends of the soldier from 1st Battalion the Royal Anglian Regiment, who died at Selly Oak hospital on Monday after sustaining terrible injuries in Afghanistan, and to those of the two soldiers from the same regiment who were killed just yesterday in Afghanistan, having served so bravely there.
In addition, I of course wish to add my own tribute to Dr. Ashok Kumar. He had a reputation as an absolutely first-class local MP. He was a defender of the steel industry, and spoke out on the environment before it was fashionable to do so. He always spoke out for fairness.
Charlie Whelan and Lord Ashcroft are exactly the same. One is the baron of the trade unions, and the other is the baron of Belize. Both are bankrolling political parties, and both are trying to buy- [ Interruption. ]
Mr. Clegg: The Tories are shouting about something that happened five years ago, but I am talking about cleaning up politics right now. We need a deal on party funding, but both of the other party leaders blocked the Hayden Phillips agreement on that, so why should anyone believe a word that they have to say about party funding now?
Mr. Clegg: That is rewriting history. They both blocked the Hayden Phillips agreement- [ Interruption. ] Maybe the Prime Minister could listen to this; he might learn something. Both other party leaders blocked amendments to cap donations that we tabled to the Political Parties and Elections Bill just last year. It is just like the expenses scandals: lots of talk, and yet both of them have no desire to change anything at all.
The Prime Minister: As a result of the legislation that we have agreed on, we have made political party funding far more transparent and the conduct of elections far fairer. We have also made it a requirement that people declare in the House of Commons register of interests things that were never registered before. I cannot accept the comparison that the right hon. Gentleman makes. Lord Ashcroft lives offshore, and he is funding the Tory party without paying taxes in Britain.
Colin Burgon (Elmet) (Lab): Is the Prime Minister listening to the growing number of voices calling for investment, not cuts, in next week's Budget? Does he agree that the Budget should serve not the interests of the speculators in the City of London, but those of the British people as a whole?
The Prime Minister: The Budget will be about building a stronger economy and taking forward the decisions that have taken us through the recession. In every case-on employment, mortgages and small businesses-those decisions were rejected by the Conservative party.
We have been trying to increase lending in the economy by having a range of lenders and not just one bank. We have been trying to get other banks into the business of lending. I have to tell the right hon. Gentleman that 300,000 small businesses have been given direct, cash flow help by the Government amounting to £5 billion over recent years. The Conservative party opposed that, but we made it possible. As a result, there are more small businesses in this country now than there were a year ago.
Q3.  Gwyn Prosser (Dover) (Lab): Norfolkline, SeaFrance and P&O Ferries have all attacked Dover Harbour Board's proposals to sell off the port of Dover, accusing it of abuse of power and threatening legal action through the courts. The people of Dover, the seafarers and the port workers all oppose privatisation. Does my right hon. Friend agree that to sell the port of Dover would be the wrong thing? I do not expect that he will say yes to that, but does he agree that no Government would allow the sale of a port without the trust and support of the main stakeholders?
The Prime Minister: I have always seen my hon. Friend as the most effective campaigner on behalf of the people of Dover. I repeat today what I said recently: there will be no forced privatisation under Labour. We are not pressurising the port to privatise, but we must look for new options in the investment necessary for port expansion and Dover's regeneration. Any proposals, however, would need to take account of the views of the local community and the stakeholders.
Sir Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield) (Con): Macclesfield's economic success has historically been based on manufacturing industry-textiles, pharmaceuticals and aerospace. Does the Prime Minister agree that manufacturing industry is one of the only sources of non-inflationary sustainable economic growth, and that if it is to be competitive and succeed in the future, it needs more regulation, particularly from Europe, and more taxation like it needs a hole in the head?
The Prime Minister: We are the sixth biggest manufacturing power in the world. We are expanding in advanced manufacturing, digitalisation and a range of new industries, including aerospace, where we are doing extremely well. It is a vital part of the hon. Gentleman's region. Our capital allowances programme does more for manufacturing than any corporate tax cut proposed by the Conservative party, which would remove funds from manufacturing. Also, the regional development agencies and their commitment to manufacturing are vital to the future of this country, and they should not be abolished.
Q4.  Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab): Will my right hon. Friend ensure that public sector investment continues in constituencies like mine, to help to bring in private sector investment and build on the 800 jobs being created by Stobart and Tesco, helped by the Northwest Regional Development Agency grant of £4 million and with the help of Halton borough council?
The Prime Minister: The growth of jobs in my hon. Friend's constituency and the announcements that have been made are very important to the recovery of the British economy. Three hundred thousand people are leaving the unemployment register every month, and we are seeing numbers of unemployed and numbers of youth unemployed falling as a result of the action that we have taken. Those new investments by Stobart and Tesco are crucial, and we also need the regional development agency working with businesses in his region to ensure that the economic growth that the region deserves comes about.
Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP): Given that the Prime Minister will have looked closely at the tragic case, will he say whether a Downing street staffer took part in a conference call in July 2008 to discuss the suitability of Steven Purcell?
Q5.  Linda Gilroy (Plymouth, Sutton) (Lab/Co-op): Does the Prime Minister agree that marine renewables have a big part to play in meeting our energy needs, reducing our carbon footprint and generating the jobs of the future? Will he continue to invest in that important sector?
The Prime Minister: We are talking about low-carbon jobs for the future. Marine renewables are at the centre of that, and my hon. Friend's constituency is crucial. Once again, we are investing in the jobs of the future. We are investing in an industry policy that will create the jobs of the future. Under the Conservatives, unemployment would rise.
Q6.  Mr. Anthony Steen (Totnes) (Con): May I first thank you personally, Mr. Speaker, for the support that you have given me in my campaign against human trafficking? May I also thank Ministers for their backing, and the leader of my party, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron), for his continuing support for and interest in the subject? Now for the Prime Minister. Does he realise that modern-day slavery is here in London, with some overseas diplomats exploiting and abusing modern young people, domestics principally, who have restricted work permits, which prevent them from seeking other employment? They are then forced to leave this country and are deported back to the country they started from because they cannot go to other employment. This is a tragedy both for the families and for the embassy. Will he please see that something is done, because these people are crying out for the Government to take action against modern-day slavery?
The Prime Minister: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his chairmanship of the all-party group on trafficking of women and children. I welcome his proposal to set up a human trafficking foundation when he stands down from Parliament, and we thank him for the work that he has done while he has been a Member. I know that on this very tragic and very difficult issue he had a meeting with the Borders and Immigration Minister just before Christmas, and I know there is a belief that we could actually make some progress on the very issues that the hon. Gentleman raises. The Borders and Immigration Minister is considering his decision in the light of the advice he has received, and he will be in touch with the hon. Gentleman about that. I hope that we can bring a resolution to at least some of these tragic issues of human trafficking.
Q7.  Mr. Lindsay Hoyle (Chorley) (Lab): I lost a great friend in Dr. Ashok Kumar. He was a gentle man, a true politician and a scientist who must never be forgotten. He was a great friend of this House, and all our thoughts are with his family and his constituents.
There is a campaign called Think Jessica to develop the awareness of vulnerable people, including pensioners, who are preyed upon by scam mail. Those people are losing their life savings to scam mail, and I challenge the Prime Minister to take up the case of Think Jessica and ensure that we outlaw scam mail using American ideas.
My hon. Friend has identified a very bad practice that preys on large numbers of people in this country. These are the worst rogue trading practices and scams, and as a result of action that we have taken we have uncovered an estimated £4 billion of fraud and saved an estimated £5 million for consumers. Recently, 39 organisations or people have been successfully prosecuted. The Office of Fair Trading is running an awareness campaign to alert the public to these scams, and I urge people to visit the Consumer Direct website, where there are a number of interactive online guides to dealing with those problems. But my hon. Friend is absolutely right: we must empower consumers to recognise and avoid these scams, and we must back this up with the strongest punishment.
Q8.  Simon Hughes (North Southwark and Bermondsey) (LD): Why should every pensioner in Britain not feel as betrayed by Labour, which has never restored the link between state pensions and earnings, as by the Tories, who abolished the link in the first place?
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|