Engagements

HC Deb 20 December 2000 vol 360 cc351-60

Q1. Mr. Simon Thomas (Ceredigion)

If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 20 December.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair)

This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Thomas

When the general secretary of the Wales TUC said this week that manufacturing in Wales was in crisis, was he whingeing or telling the truth? When will the Prime Minister meet industrialists and inward investors in Wales to discuss what steps are needed to stop the current haemorrhage of jobs?

The Prime Minister

There are indeed serious problems in parts of manufacturing industry, particularly those affected by the strength of sterling and the weakness of the euro. However, the overall picture on manufacturing is not as bad as the hon. Gentleman suggests. Indeed, manufacturing investment is up, exports are up and productivity is up. It is important to realise that although real difficulties are suffered by certain manufacturing sectors, there are enormous success stories in Wales and elsewhere.

Mr. Ken Purchase (Wolverhampton, North-East)

The Prime Minister will no doubt wish to join many others in congratulating the three towns granted city status this week, my own town of Wolverhampton included.

Knowing that my right hon. Friend shares my deep concern about manufacturing, I know that he will be disappointed to learn that, early this morning, the Goodyear tyre company announced a further 52 redundancies at its distribution plant in Wolverhampton. Those come on the back of 520 redundancies there and, sadly, 170 redundancies announced on Friday at Chubb, which is perhaps the oldest manufacturer of 1ocks and safes in the world. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is time to rethink our views about consulting workers in good time before such decisions are made, given that in the case of Goodyear the decisions were made in America and handed down here, and in the case of Chubb, made in Sweden and handed down?

The Prime Minister

First, I congratulate Wolverhampton on its city status.

On manufacturing, of course we believe that it is important that employers consult their work force, but it is better that our laws are fashioned for our own circumstances. Huge restructuring is occurring in many parts of manufacturing and, as I said a moment ago, there is a real problem in industries that have been heavily affected by the strength of sterling and the weakness of the euro. However, artificial devaluation would be wrong.

It is important that we keep the stability in the economy which has given us interest rates that are, on average, almost half what they were when the Conservative party was in power. It is important also that apart from running a strong economy, we make sure that wherever people lose their job, we are on hand with help so that they get a new job. That is precisely why we have invested so much money in those areas—money that the Conservative party would cut.

Mr. William Hague (Richmond, Yorks)

When the Government decided to use electronic tagging, which we support, for their disastrous early release scheme, which we strongly oppose, the Home Secretary said: We have no plans or intention … to facilitate the early release of serious or sexual offenders. Let me make that clear, with a full stop—none whatever.—[Official Report, 29 November 1999; Vol. 340, c. 27.] Have any serious or sexual offenders been released under that scheme?

The Prime Minister

It is correct that some have been, but overall the scheme is working extremely well. When it was put before the Select Committee on Home Affairs, it was supported unanimously by Conservatives. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman has decided to take a different position now. It is important that we exclude serious sexual offences. We have done so and taken the other measures necessary to tighten up the scheme.

Mr. Hague

What the Prime Minister did not make clear is that when Members on both sides of the House supported electronic tagging, they had the assurance of the Home Secretary that I have just quoted. Now, almost 27,000 prisoners have been released under his scheme, including those who have committed offences of robbery, drug trafficking, grievous bodily harm with intent, attempted murder and sexual offences against children. Those people have been let loose to offend again. The result has been more than 1,000 crimes committed by people who have been released early, including robberies, kidnapping and two rapes. What does the Prime Minister have to say to the victims of those crimes?

The Prime Minister

First, the right hon. Gentleman should point out that the scheme is for people who are released two to four months before the end of their sentence in any event. Secondly, the scheme that we now have is precisely the one which was put before the Select Committee and which it endorsed. Of course, in certain circumstances, people have committed offences from early release, as, indeed, under ordinary parole schemes. That is true, but in the end, it is better to have a system that allows us that than one that does not. That is precisely why all Governments, including the one of whom the hon. Gentleman was a member, have early release parole schemes.

Mr. Hague

Never have we had a clearer demonstration of the complacency of this Prime Minister on crime. He says that early release does not matter because people are let out only a few months early. They have committed 1,000 crimes in those few months. Those crimes would not have been committed but for the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary, who have set a new criminal record in the affairs of Government.

There has also been the early release of 178 criminals convicted of assaulting police officers; some of whom have gone on to assault police officers again. That is on top of falling police numbers and on top of excessive paperwork. Cannot the Prime Minister see why the police force feel under siege and that the criminal is winning? Does he at least recognise that there is a morale crisis in the police, or is he so out of touch that he will not admit that?

The Prime Minister

The only difference between the parole scheme that operated under the right hon. Gentleman's Government and our scheme is that people are now tagged when they are released. It is true of any early release scheme that some will reoffend, but that is not to say that we should not have such a scheme.

Yes, it is right that police numbers have fallen for something like seven years—10 years in London. As a result, we found the money in the comprehensive spending review to increase the numbers of police recruits. Now, in 27 of the 43 forces, more people are joining the police service than leaving it—for the first time in seven years. We are committed to that extra investment in the police service. Let the right hon. Gentleman put his money where his mouth is and say what he has consistently refused to say: that he supports that extra investment.

Mr. Hague

We set out our spending plans stage by stage. If the Prime Minister is banking on fighting the next election in the belief that we will be proposing a reduction in the police budget, he is even dafter than we thought.

The Prime Minister talks about police numbers, but, just last week, the Home Secretary published the table of police numbers, which shows that the number has gone down in every six-month period—the official recording period—since the right hon. Gentleman became Prime Minister. He says that the number has gone up in 27 out of 43 police forces, but will he now admit to the House that the decrease in the other 16 more than cancels out the increase in the 27 to which he refers? It is not surprising that a chief inspector of West Yorkshire police says: the situation is far more frustrating nowadays than at any time in my 28 years of service. Will the Prime Minister now admit that the combination of what the Government have done has undermined the morale of the police force and damaged the fight against crime?

The Prime Minister

What I certainly accept is that police numbers are an issue and that they have been falling. It is for precisely that reason that we have put in the additional sum of money. As a result, police numbers can now rise. Indeed, let me tell the right hon. Gentleman that, for the past two months, for the first time in 10 years, the number of people being recruited to the Metropolitan police in London has been greater than the number of people leaving. Let me quote from an announcement to be made tomorrow by Greater Manchester police, that they have The largest intake of police officers ever to be recruited into the Greater Manchester Police and that There are currently 1,700 applications being processed. That is all the result of the extra investment that we have put in.

Let us return to the difference between us. The right hon. Gentleman says that he has not yet made his position clear—well, he can say that again—but let me quote the shadow Home Secretary. When asked a short time ago whether she would support our investment, the right hon. Lady answered: I'm sorry, I'm just not going to say yes or no to that, I think that is not a valid question at this stage. But that is the question. I am the Prime Minister and I am putting in the money: the extra investment is going in. When the right hon. Gentleman returns to the Dispatch Box, will he tell us whether or not he would match that investment?

Mr. Hague

We had 3,000 more police officers only three and a half years ago. I have given the Prime Minister his answer: if he thinks that we shall propose a cut in the police budget, he is off his head. That is not what we shall propose at the next election. Now, will he answer our questions about the morale of the police force? Does he accept that one of the reasons for the collapse in morale is the way in which the Macpherson report has been used to undermine the police—[Interruption.]—used by others to undermine the police? The head of the Police Federation says: The spirit, the confidence, the whole feeling of the police service has been affected in the past two years since the publication of Macpherson. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with his own police Minister, the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), that there has been "an impact on morale"?

The Prime Minister

It is of course right that, after the Macpherson report, it was extremely important that police officers understood that they should carry on using the stop-and-search powers that they have. It is precisely for that reason that, in January this year, I said in the Police Federation magazine after my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary had said the same, that the police should carry on using those powers. Indeed, contrary to what the right hon. Gentleman was saying last week, those powers are still in use, and the latest figures we have indicate that they are as much in use in respect of people from ethnic minorities as they are in respect of those from the white population. Let me put this point to the right hon. Gentleman. When we launched Macpherson in February 1999, he said to me: does the Prime Minister agree that our police force will need—and will want—changes to be made to root out racism and to prevent such an injustice happening again?—[Official Report, 24 February 1999; Vol. 326, c. 380.] That was right. It is also correct to say, as he did, that the vast majority of police officers are not racist and that the vast majority of police officers do a good job. We said exactly that at the time.

What is affecting police morale now is the issue of pay and allowances. Let me remind the right hon. Gentleman that the single most disastrous element in that respect was the decision made by the Conservative Government, when he was a member of the Cabinet, to get rid of the London housing allowance for officers. We have now put an extra £3,300 per year on the pay of new recruits joining after 1994. That is part of our investment, which is why it is not good enough for the right hon. Gentleman to attack us without being prepared to commit himself to the investment to which we have committed ourselves. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that he made a commitment in July that he would not match our spending, saying that it was unsustainable. He may talk about police morale in London, but we are the Government who are putting more money into the Met. He is committed to taking that money back out again.

Mr. Hague

The right hon. Gentleman has obviously prepared his answers on the basis of certain questions, and they are not relevant to the questions that we are asking. We are clearly not committed to taking the money out again. The right hon. Gentleman could at least have read on when he quoted me. I went on to say: However, will he also agree that to condemn every police officer in London or the country as racist would itself be prejudiced and wrong?—[Official Report, 24 February 1999; Vol. 326, c. 380.] Why did he not read the rest of the passage?

Now that we know that we cannot believe the right hon. Gentleman's figures on crime, I ask him whether the following is right. Police numbers have fallen by 3,000 since he came to power. That is right. The number of constables has fallen from a peak in the spring of 1997. That is right. Voluntary resignations from the police force have increased by 60 per cent. under Labour. That is right. Crime has increased by 4 per cent in England and Wales in the year to April. Violent crime has increased by 16 per cent. Robberies have increased by 26 per cent. More than 26,000 criminals have been released early and 1,000 crimes have been committed by those criminals. Instead of being tough on crime, the right hon. Gentleman has been tough on the crime fighters instead.

The Prime Minister

I remind the right hon. Gentleman of one uncomfortable fact for the Conservative party. In its 18 years of office, crime doubled. Crime has fallen under this Government according to the British crime survey. The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that in the first three years of the Labour Government police numbers have fallen. However, they also fell when he was a Member of the previous Cabinet. They have fallen for seven years. In London, they have fallen for 10 years.

We have to decide how we deal with the situation. We decided that it was right to put in additional sums to recruit police officers. That is why I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that when the next recruitment figures are published, they will show that police numbers are rising. His position is to cut the very n oney—[Interruption.] I know that July may be a long time away in policy-making terms, but in July he said: We are concerned that Gordon Brown is setting an unsustainable course for public spending. It will increase in real terms by 3.3 per cent. compared to a growth forecast of just over 2 per cent. The right hon. Gentleman added: We are making it clear … that a Conservative government will increase public spending by a smaller proportion than … growth of the economy. We have a 3.3 increase and on the other side we have 2 per cent. That means a cut of a third in the extra numbers of police because of the money. With the greatest respect to the right hon. Gentleman, he cannot complain about police numbers if he is cutting the money that is put in to increase those numbers. What people will not forget about him and the previous Conservative Government is that under them crime doubled. Under this Government, crime is falling. When the right hon. Gentleman was a Minister, the numbers of police were falling; we are lifting the numbers of police again.

Mr. John Hume (Foyle)

In the light of the Prime Minister's discussions in Nice last week, does he agree that European union is the best example in the history of the world of conflict resolution, given the first half of the previous century, when in two world wars millions of human beings were slaughtered? Who could have forecast that the same peoples in the second half of that century would come together? For that very reason, would it not be a good idea, given that the right hon. Gentleman was discussing a European army last week, to discuss also the setting up of a department of peace and reconciliation and a Commissioner for peace and reconciliation at European level?

The Prime Minister

I do not know whether it would be wise to suggest another Commissioner at this point, but I say to my hon. Friend that there is no doubt at all that the European Union has been a force for security and peace in our world. There may be those on the other side of the House who wish us to withdraw from the EU, but I think that we should be proud of the fact that we are members. We should be in there to make the EU work for this country and get the best out of it for Britain. That is the common-sense view.

Mr. Charles Kennedy (Ross, Skye and Inverness, West)

In the festive spirit, may I inquire whether the Prime Minister and his family will manage to take a well-earned break abroad after Christmas? Can he confirm whether, should he be out of the country, the Deputy Prime Minister will add his presence to every other Department of responsibility, as opposed to transport, of which he is making such a success?

The Prime Minister

To get to the point about which the right hon. Gentleman asks by a circuitous route, it is important that we make sure that the transport system has the investment that it needs and the rail recovery plan, which has been important. After Hatfield, it was absolutely right that we and Railtrack took the steps to ensure that safety was restored to the railways. We are putting the extra investment in—there is no alternative to that. The plain fact of the matter is that British railways have been under-invested for more than 20 years, and it is time that we put that right.

Mr. Kennedy

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the funding of the railways has been cut by 25 per cent. since he became Prime Minister? We face a Christmas period in which passengers have chaos before them— connections that will be impossible to make and timetables that do not add up. When will that maladministration of our railway network come to an end?

The Prime Minister

First, I do not recognise the figures that the right hon. Gentleman has given. Secondly, investment in the railways is set to increase by a dramatic amount over the next few years. However, it is the case that—as with the police and, in part, as with the national health service—we had to be careful on the money that we spent because when we came to office there was a very large level of debt. It was important to clear that. Now that we have the stability that we need in the economy, we are able to put in the public service investment that we require so that we can have additional teachers that we need and, the additional police that we need so that the extra investment in the railways can be done.

I make another point to the right hon. Gentleman. In each case, we shall put in far more money than the Liberal Democrats ever asked for. The one thing that is absolutely, consistently sure in politics is that, however much money we put in, the Liberal Democrats want more.

Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)

What action is to be taken about the alarming, escalating violence involving KFOR in Kosovo?

The Prime Minister

KFOR is there, obviously, to keep the different sides apart. It is performing that task—I think in difficult circumstances—extremely well. I do not know whether my hon. Friend means the actions taken by certain of the extremist Kosovar Albanian groups, but, precisely for that reason, additional measures were announced in the past few weeks and are being taken.

I say to my hon. Friend that, were it not for the fact that we allowed those refugees from Kosovo to go back, we would have, in addition to all Europe's other problems, 1 million Kosovar Albanians seeking refuge in parts of Europe. We were entirely justified to do what we did. There will be difficulties of course, because of the ethnic hatred which goes back a long way, but it is right that KFOR is there. I think it is doing an excellent job.

Q2. Mr. Nick St. Aubyn (Guildford)

The Government grant for rural policing in Surrey next year is only £11,000. The chief constable wrote to me today to say that that is equivalent to only £20 a week for each Surrey borough. He also warns of the adverse impact on the services provided by Surrey police. Is it not clear that there is new crime in our communities because the Government have denied our police the support and the flexibility that they need to do the job?

The Prime Minister

Given that part of the extra money that we announced was specifically for rural communities, and given the fact that the hon. Gentleman and every other Opposition Member who spoke condemned that extra spending at the time, it is the richest opportunism for the Conservatives to say that there is a problem and that more money is needed, and then, when it comes to more money, oppose it. That is absurd.

Q3. Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden)

My right hon. Friend will be unaware that 100 first-time voters from Mitcham and Morden will attend a reception in the House of Commons this evening. He would be very welcome to join them if he is free, as would you, Mr. Speaker. My right hon. Friend will be aware, however, that over the next few years many of those young people will want to buy their own home—an enormous financial investment, particularly in the London area. Will he give an assurance that his Government will do all they can to make the dream of home ownership a reality, and affordable? Will he prevent the increases in interest rates and mortgage rates that occurred under the previous Government?

The Prime Minister

The most important thing for any home owner is low mortgage rates. The House will remember that over the past three years, we have had average mortgages and average interest rates of about 6 per cent. The House will also remember what happened under the previous Government, when interest rates went to 15 per cent. for a year and 10 per cent. for four years. I know that the Opposition do not like to be reminded, but that is what happened when they were in government. As a result of this Government stabilising the economy and getting rid of the previous level of debt, mortgages have come down. As a result of measures such as the working families tax credit and other help, people have the income with which to buy homes. The single most important thing that we can do is to make sure that we keep the economic stability that we have, and never, under any circumstances, return to boom and bust.

Mrs. Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham)

I remind the Prime Minister that on 24 November last year, I asked him to keep the promise made by his Health Secretary, who said in the Chamber that no patient will be denied the drugs that they need. That is a guarantee.—[Official Report, 30 June 1998; Vol. 315, c. 143.] I was specifically referring to my constituents who needed beta interferon to treat the progressive disease, multiple sclerosis. More than a year later, we have no decision from the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. My constituents' lives have deteriorated and, in many cases, will be beyond the help of that much-needed treatment. Is not the Prime Minister ashamed that he has let down patients so badly? Does that not show that all his guarantees are worthless, and that one cannot trust a word that he says?

The Prime Minister

First, the postcode lottery on drugs was not invented by the Government. It went on under the hon. Lady's Government, year in, year out, as she well knows. Secondly, it is correct that the National Institute for Clinical Excellence is considering beta interferon. That is the right thing to do, so that on the basis of a proper assessment, we can make sure that people get the drugs that they need. I point out to the hon. Lady that there is, again, a simple choice: if we want people to get the extra drugs that they need, not just in respect of multiple sclerosis, but in respect of cancer, yet again, we need extra investment and money going into the national health service. I remind her that whereas we are committed to that extra money, she and every Opposition Member are committed to cutting that extra money.

Q4. Ms Rosie Winterton (Doncaster, Central)

Is my right hon. Friend aware that if the Government implement proposals by children's charities and adoption agencies, many children who are spending this Christmas in care could soon be living in new families? Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that the Government will consider reforming the adoption process, and will also put in place clear, enforceable and properly funded support services for adopted children and their families?

The Prime Minister

Without stating what will be in the White Paper tomorrow, there is a general recognition that the law on adoption needs changing, that it has been far too inflexible in the past, and that there have been children who, given the chance to have a loving and decent home, were prevented from getting that home by the inflexibility of the current system In the White Paper tomorrow, we will make sure that additional flexibility is introduced. I hope very much that the document will get a warm welcome in every pan of the House.

Q5. Mr. Crispin Blunt (Reigate)

Will the Prime Minister reflect on just who played the race card recently?

The Prime Minister

I will make it quite clear. I am not suggesting that the Leader of the Opposition is a racist; I am simply suggesting that he is an opportunist. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker

Order. I must have quiet in the Chamber. I expect better from Front Benchers. [Interruption.] Order. I expect better from everyone, especially Front Benchers.

The Prime Minister

I do not think that the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) should have asked the question unless he wanted the answer. While I hope very much that the police will continue to use their stop-and-search powers over Christmas, I suggest that the Leader of the Opposition employ a policy of stop and think. With a little bit of luck, he might come back in January and, instead of raising problems, actually have a solution to them.

Q6. Mr. Roger Casale (Wimbledon)

Does my right hon. Friend remember the cancellation of £600 million of investment in London Transport, and the postponement for two years of the refurbishment of the Northern line? That was a direct result of the last Tory Budget, in 1996.

Would my right hon. Friend agree with my constituent James Leek, and many other former Tory voters in Wimbledon, that what Londoners want this Christmas is a clear commitment from this Labour Government to massive new investment in the tube?

The Prime Minister

We are back to what is one of the key debates between the two parties. We are indeed committed to increasing investment in the London underground in the next few years, and in transport generally. What we know from the shadow Chancellor is that he is committed to cutting that investment.

Let me tell Opposition Members that—if the issue is police numbers, if the issue is the national health service, if the issue is our schools, or if the issue is transport—we are very happy to have this debate with them. We believe in investing in our public services, and they believe in cutting them. We know that because, in 18 years of government, that is precisely what they did.