| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
EU Aid
6. Sir Teddy Taylor (Rochford and Southend, East) (Con): What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of financial audit of EU aid; and if he will make a statement. [164506]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. Gareth Thomas): Since the late 1990s, we have supported a series of reforms of EU aid programmes, which have helped to improve the effectiveness of financial audit arrangements for EU aid. They have included the establishment of a Europe aid office with an external audit unit, the establishment of an anti-fraud office, and the revision of the European Commission's financial management handbook. Further reforms are under way, such as the modernisation of accounting systems including computer systems. They should be completed by the end of next year.
Sir Teddy Taylor : As graft and corruption appear to be very much part of the EU aid programme, and as very few people ever seem to be brought to justice, will the Secretary of State and his Department take a special interest in the appalling situation in Paraguay? The EU provided aid for the digging of some water wells, but they were not dug, and the two managers ran away with £1.5 million. Will the Secretary of State report to us if they are found and brought to justice?
Mr. Thomas: The hon. Gentleman is right to raise that appalling example of apparent fraud in Paraguay, but I am sure that he will be reassured to hear that it is an isolated example. He will also be pleased to learn that the two co-directors of the project were dismissed immediately, and that supervision of the project is now under the direct management of the EC's delegation in
Paraguay. The Commission's anti-fraud unit is conducting an investigation that will seek to recoup the missing funds to which he referred.PRIME MINISTER
The Prime Minister was asked—
Engagements
Q1. [164516] Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con): If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 31 March.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): Before announcing my engagements, I would like to begin by paying tribute to the police and security services for carrying out successfully a large-scale operation yesterday, resulting in arrests. As we have said, the UK and its interests abroad remain a terrorist target, and the Government and the services will continue to do all that we can to fight terrorism in every way.
I would also like to welcome specifically the letter that has been sent from the Muslim Council of Britain to every mosque in the country, condemning terrorism and making it clear that such activity has nothing to do with the true message of Islam. The threat from terrorism affects every family in this country, Muslim and non-Muslim alike, and it is right that we all work together to defeat that threat, and do not allow the extremists to divide us.
This morning I had meetings with my ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I will have further such meetings later today.
Tony Baldry : The Prime Minister should know that children's services in the Horton general hospital in Banbury are being threatened with downgrading, and that mental health care services in Banbury are threatened with closure by the strategic health authority. In Bicester, there will not now be the new and enlarged community hospital that Ministers promised us from the Dispatch Box, and the future of the existing hospital is in jeopardy. In addition, the Oxford Radcliffe Hospitals NHS Trust tells us that it is likely to be some £40 million overdrawn next year. Will the Prime Minister take time out of his schedule to visit my constituency and discover what is actually happening in the NHS?
The Prime Minister: I will obviously look carefully into what the hon. Gentleman has said, but in his area, as in other areas, there has been a huge additional investment into the national health service. That is why we have cardiac deaths in this country down by more than 20 per cent., why we have cancer deaths in this country down by more than 10 per cent., why every single national waiting time and waiting list indicator is in better shape than in 1997, and why we have the largest hospital building programme that this country has seen since the beginning of the NHS.
I will certainly look carefully into what the hon. Gentleman says, but surely the answer must be to continue the investment that we are putting into the
national health service, not to transfer it out of the health service and into the private sector, which is the policy of the Conservative party.Q2. [164517] Jim Dobbin (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab/Co-op): Many disabled children have to travel long distances to attend a school with proper wheelchair access. That is discriminatory, and it leads to an extended school day and excessive fatigue for those young children. They also lose out on local friendships. Does the Prime Minister agree that all schools in England and Wales—indeed, throughout the United Kingdom—should provide disabled access so that those disabled kids can attend schools in their own neighbourhood? That would also ensure that they and their parents could play a more inclusive part in the local community, and it would save local authorities a tremendous amount of money over a number of years.
The Prime Minister: I agree in principle with what my hon. Friend says. He will know that we are trying to start such a programme, and at the moment, each local education authority is committed to ensuring that two existing schools in each local area are fully accessible. Of course, all the new schools are fully accessible. We are now committing, I think, about £100 million a year to that programme of schools access. My hon. Friend's point is absolutely right. It is important that our schools be fully accessible, and the building schools for the future programme, a huge capital investment over the next few years, should allow us to make faster progress.
Mr. Michael Howard (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con): May I begin by joining the Prime Minister in paying tribute to the great professionalism of our security services and the police, who appear to have thwarted what might have been a terrible attack on London? That is yet another warning, if one is needed, that we can never relax our guard. May I also join the Prime Minister in welcoming the letter from Iqbal Sacranie, the secretary-general of the Muslim Council?
- During the last month, the Government have imposed an emergency stop on immigration from Bulgaria and Romania. They have launched an in-house investigation and had to extend its remit twice. They have suspended two whistleblowers, one of whom is the British consul in Bucharest, and they have had to set up a special hotline for all other whistleblowers who want to alert the public to what is going on. Is it any wonder that everyone thinks the Government's immigration policy is in chaos?
The Prime Minister: The allegations that are now being looked into by Mr. Sutton, these most recent allegations, are a different aspect but relate to the same people who were covered in the earlier investigation. It is important, obviously, that he look at both, and at all the issues concerned, including any decisions or involvement by Ministers. He will report back and then we will publish his report.
Mr. Howard: If the Prime Minister were serious about getting to the bottom of what has happened, would he not have an independent inquiry? Does he not see that having an inquiry carried out by an official in the
immigration department who reports to the Immigration Minister is not likely to inspire confidence in what is happening in our immigration system?
- Let us take one aspect of this shambles. Sixteen months ago Sir John Ramsden, the head of the Foreign Office's central Europe department, wrote to the Home Office telling it that immigration procedures from Bulgaria and Romania had
16 months ago! Why was no effective action taken until yesterday?
"developed into an organised scam that completely undermines our Entry Control procedures"—
The Prime Minister: These are precisely the issues that will be covered by Ken Sutton's inquiry. I am sorry that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should cast aspersions on Ken Sutton's ability to do this. It allows us to do this quickly, it allows us to get to the truth of what has happened, and it allows us to take any action that is necessary.
I would however like to set this matter in context, because I think that is important. It is important to recognise that, according to the labour force survey, of the 1 million people who are working in this country, both self-employed and employed, who are migrants from abroad—of the top 10 categories of those people, none is from Romania or Bulgaria. The vast majority of people who are migrants here are from countries such as the United States, South Africa, France and Germany and the largest proportion by a long way are from the Republic of Ireland.
I simply say that to set this in context. A specific allegation has been made in respect of people from Romania and Bulgaria; that has to be looked into, and thoroughly. It will be, and then we will report back, and until that time we should await the judgment of Mr. Sutton.
Mr. Howard: If the Prime Minister cannot tell us of a single action that his Government took after the receipt of that letter from Sir John Ramsden, let me see if I can help him, because there was one thing that they did, after they had received the letter from Sir John. The very same month they received that letter, they relaxed the immigration procedures even further. That is what they did. If everything was under control, why does not the Prime Minister explain to us why it was necessary yesterday for the Government, in panic, to put an emergency stop to all immigration from Bulgaria and Romania?
The Prime Minister: I did not say to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that no action had been taken; I simply said that all these issues should be covered by Mr. Sutton. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has called for an inquiry; he does not like the nature of the inquiry, but he agrees with me that there should obviously be an inquiry into these issues. It is surely sensible therefore not to speculate on what has happened but to allow Mr. Sutton to conduct the inquiry properly.
Of course action has been taken. For example, just a short time ago, there were people arrested in respect of people smuggling specifically from Romania. There is also an operation that has been in place for a couple of
years, one part of which is specifically referable to Romania and Bulgaria. That is Operation Reflex, which has actually uncovered many smuggling gangs and brought people to prosecution. However, all these things should be looked at and then a full report should be given to the House and to the country so that people know the full extent and scale of the problem and of the action that has been taken. That, in my view, is the sensible way to proceed, and if the right hon. and learned Gentleman truly wants a proper inquiry, he should surely not prejudge it.
Mr. Howard: I am not asking for any speculation: I am just asking for some straight answers to some straight questions. They are questions that the Prime Minister could and should have asked of Ministers. He does not need an inquiry. We know that that letter was sent and he should have found out what action was taken.
- Let us take another example. James Cameron, our consul in Bucharest, wrote to the Home Office 17 months ago. He said:
Why was nothing done about that letter from the British consul?
"The applicants rarely know what is in their business plan, cannot speak English, and have absolutely no knowledge or experience of the type of skills needed for their respective businesses. We have to date a one-legged roof tiler . . . and a number of builders and electricians who know nothing about bricks, mortar or electrical details . . . Unfortunately against our strongest recommendations these applications continue to be approved."
The Prime Minister: The right hon. and learned Gentleman now says that he does not think that an inquiry is necessary. I thought that the purpose of his original question to me was to say that it was. We have asked Ken Sutton to undertake this inquiry because the same people were the subject of the original inquiry. This is to do specifically with applications from Romania and Bulgaria, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman will know the sheer scale of the problem of entry visa clearance. For example, some 300,000 people a year are refused entry visa clearance into the UK and some 50,000 are turned away at port.
Mr. Cameron has made a specific set of allegations that have to be investigated in detail and we then have to set out clearly what was done, what action was taken and whether that action fell short of what should have been done. That is precisely what Mr. Sutton will do. I would have thought that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would have the good grace to wait until Mr. Sutton has reported before making allegations about Ministers or others.
Mr. Howard: The Prime Minister has to learn that he cannot avoid giving straight answers at the Dispatch Box by setting up an in-house inquiry every time something inconvenient to him is raised in the House. Three times officials have tried to raise concerns with Ministers about the chaos in our immigration system, and on each occasion nothing was done. Is that why the Home Secretary describes the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration as "first rate"? Why is it that in this
Government civil servants who tell the truth are suspended, but Ministers who fail in their Departments are kept in place?
The Prime Minister: The civil servants who have been suspended were suspended by their line managers in the civil service. Those decisions—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. Let the Prime Minister reply. It does no good to shout anyone down in this House.
The Prime Minister: As I said, Ministers do not take the decisions to suspend civil servants: they are taken by the line management in the civil service. In respect of the matters of immigration, asylum and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration, let me point out that asylum applications are now running at half what they were 18 months ago and the majority of decisions are taken within two months. Let me contrast that with the position when the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who should know a little about such matters, was Home Secretary. When he was Home Secretary, asylum applications rose by almost 50 per cent. and it took an average of 18 months to take a decision. He is therefore well aware that there will be problems with the immigration system from time to time, and we have to deal with those problems. But I would hope that he would agree with me that those problems should be set in context and that we should always be careful about the language and approach we use when talking about immigration.
Mr. Howard: And we should get the facts right. When I was Home Secretary, asylum applications were reduced by 40 per cent. The Prime Minister says that they have halved—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. I say to the Government side that there will be no shouting—[Interruption.] Order.
Mr. Howard: We reduced the figures from 40,000 in 1995 to 29,000 in 1996. The Prime Minister says that the figures have halved since the high watermark of asylum applications under his Government, but despite being halved, they are still almost double what they were in 1996. Now we know how they have been cut. They have been cut by telling officials to wave through other applications on the basis of forged documents. Anyone can reduce the numbers if people are told to wave through other applications on the basis of forged and fraudulent documents. On Monday, the Home Secretary said that this was all about naked politics. Yesterday, he said that it was all very serious and profound and that he was going to suspend all applications from Bulgaria and Romania. Is it not the case that the Home Secretary has lost control of his Department, that the Immigration Minister is clearly not up to her job, and that the Government's immigration system is an utter and complete shambles?
The Prime Minister: First, I thought that the right hon. and learned Gentleman became Home Secretary in 1993, not 1995.
The Prime Minister: Let us get that straight—I seem to remember, because I was shadowing the right hon.
and learned Gentleman at the time. Secondly, it did indeed take an average of 18 months to take a decision. Let me read out what he said at the time when probed on that. He said:
- "It is absurd to suggest . . . that the problem of bogus asylum seekers is caused by the Government or by delays."—[Official Report, 20 April 1995; Vol. 258, c. 329.]
Let me repeat what I told the right hon. and learned Gentleman a moment or two ago. It is important to deal with this. There has been a serious allegation of fraud in relation to the two countries. We will investigate it properly, as we should, and report back. The issue should be handled with care for very obvious reasons, as everyone in the House knows. I am not sure that today he has quite fulfilled that.
Mr. Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab): I commend my right hon. Friend for the amount of aid that is given to Palestine—the UK is the largest single donor to the Palestinian Authority throughout the world—to achieve a two-state solution. Does he agree that the construction of the barrier and Israeli settlement activity are increasingly seen to be jeopardising the two-state solution? The barrier, settlement, construction and road building are effectively carving up the west bank into isolated cantons, which undermines the viability of a Palestinian state.
The Prime Minister: Some of those concerns have been raised by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. The most important thing is that if we could get an offer from Israel to make a substantial disengagement from Palestinian Authority territory and put in place at the same time a robust plan for the Palestinian Authority's security, there would be just a chance—even with all the serious events of the past few weeks—that we could get the middle east peace process back up and running.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the enormous amount of work that he has done in the whole of his community, in particular in the Muslim community. I know he will agree that Palestine is an issue of serious concern for that community. There could be nothing better to improve relations than real action on the middle east peace process. That has to be done, however, on the basis that we reject terrorism in all its forms.
Mr. Charles Kennedy (Ross, Skye and Inverness, West) (LD): It is correct to concur with the salutes that the Prime Minister paid to the professionalism of our police and intelligence and security services, and also to express gratitude for the initiative taken by the Muslim Council of Britain.
- Turning to today's parliamentary business, the Prime Minister is aware that the last time we debated tuition fees, many of his Back Benchers were willing to support him in the anticipation that changes would be made to the Bill before it was discussed again. What significant concessions have the Government made during the Bill's progress?
The Prime Minister: There have been changes to all the packages, not merely since the Bill was published, but before that as well. They allow us to give a very substantial package of support for the poorest students, equivalent to the amount of the highest tuition fees. As a letter from the universities pointed out today—supported by the overwhelming majority of universities—that is absolutely vital for the poorest students, as well as middle-class students, to gain access to universities.
Mr. Kennedy: As members of the Committee will concur, the Government gave no significant concessions during the Bill's progress. How can the Prime Minister justify legislation that will undoubtedly deter poorer students from becoming university graduates because of the debt involved, which breaches trust with the public, given his earlier manifesto commitment, and which does not adequately tackle the fundamental financing difficulties of the universities themselves? He has been open enough to acknowledge that there is an alternative, which we have proposed, by which the top 1 per cent. of taxpayers pay a bit more, and as a result, we do not have tuition fees or top-up fees, variable or not. Surely that is a fairer approach.
The Prime Minister: On whether our proposals are good for poorer students, rather than the right hon. Gentleman or I being the arbiter of that, we should listen to the chairman of Campaigning for Mainstream Universities. Its universities educate the largest number of students in the UK and the majority of students from poor backgrounds. It says:
- "The loss of the Bill would deny universities the urgently-needed funding to provide quality education and would cruelly remove the promised improvements in financial support for the poorest students."
At least the right hon. Gentleman has an alternative funding mechanism, unlike the Conservatives, but the problem, as I have tried to explain—I will not go over that again—[Hon. Members: "Please don't."] My correspondence with him on that topic is about as intense as any I have had since I was a very young man. The fact is that the Liberal Democrat financial commitments go far beyond the commitments he keeps giving me.
The Prime Minister: They do, I am afraid. The idea that the Liberal Democrats could fund their
commitments out of top-rate taxpayers is simply wrong. As I have said to the right hon. Gentleman before, even if we could get additional sums of money from general taxpayers or top-rate taxpayers, I honestly believe that in education we would surely have to give some priority to educating the under-fives and those people who need adult skills in the work force, many of whom currently have to pay. All we are saying is that a small proportion of the overall investment in university education should be repaid by graduates, according to their ability to pay. I think that that is a fair system which most people will support.
Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab): The Prime Minister will know that the north-west has some of the lowest turnouts at elections in the country. With that in mind, can he find any justification whatsoever for six unelected Tories blocking the chance for millions of people in the north-west to have a postal vote this summer? Does he agree that the case for reform of the House of Lords is now urgent?
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is extraordinary that the other place should overrule this place on an issue to do with elections and ballots. I hope, even at this stage, that it will realise that that would be wholly wrong and completely inconsistent with the proper conventions of the House.
Q3. [164518] Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome) (LD): I join the Prime Minister in thanking and congratulating the police and the security services on thwarting, apparently, a major atrocity. However, many people are understandably concerned, after the tragedy in Madrid, about travelling and their safety on the railways and the underground. Yet we are still no nearer to rectifying the difficulties with the communications of the police. The British Transport police complain that they have too few trained staff to give adequate anti-terrorist cover, and future funding of the BTP is in jeopardy because of the intransigence of a couple of railway companies. Can it be right that the safety of passengers from terrorist threats relies on the profit margins of train companies?
The Prime Minister: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that that is not so. We meet any demands or requests that are made for help in relation to terrorism. That is a huge priority for our country and we must make sure that we meet it. In respect of all these different issues, we are doing our very best to protect this country against any terrorist attack. As recent events have shown, not only in Spain but in respect of threats in Germany, France and virtually every major country in the world, these people will come after us in whatever way they can. We must take every measure to protect ourselves against that. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that resource will not be a constraint in doing so.
Mr. Gerry Steinberg (City of Durham) (Lab): I have two questions and I do not know which one to ask, really.
- Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that if the policies of the Government at the time had been similar to the policies of the present Opposition, neither the Leader of the Opposition nor I would be in the House today?
The Prime Minister: I think I will take the other one.
I am sure that that applies to the vast majority of Members, in one way or another, over the generations.
Q4. [164519] Sir Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield) (Con): May I announce a vested interest in putting my question to the Prime Minister? I am an honorary vice-president of the Royal College of Midwives. The right hon. Gentleman will know that the Health Committee, way back in 1992, produced a ground-breaking report on maternity services, which highlighted the vital role of midwives in maternity services. In 2001, his Government indicated that they wanted to increase the number of midwives by about 10,000. In seven years of Labour Government the numbers have increased by only 392. Will the right hon. Gentleman please give me a really good birthday present today by guaranteeing that the Government will seek to increase the numbers of midwives quickly towards that additional 10,000?
The Prime Minister: I can do something towards the hon. Gentleman's birthday present. I am told that there are nearly 900 more midwives since 1997. No doubt we can dispute these figures.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government are implementing a range of measures to recruit more midwives. These include improving pay and conditions and also—this is vital—encouraging the NHS to become a better, more flexible and more diverse employer, increasing training, investing in child care and attracting back returners. We are running both national and international recruiting campaigns. The target of 10,000 was obviously ambitious but we are stepping up action. At the recent midwifery conference on 16 March, the Department of Health, in association with the Royal College of Midwives, announced a six-point recruitment and retention plan. I know that that will have the hon. Gentleman's full support. It has our full support. Let us hope that it produces the results.
Q5. [164520] Mr. Eric Martlew (Carlisle) (Lab): My right hon. Friend will be aware that I have introduced a private Member's Bill that will make it compulsory for child cyclists to wear helmets. Is he aware that, in a recent opinion poll, more than 80 per cent. of those polled agreed with the aims of my Bill? Is he also aware that my Bill is supported by 200 hon. Members on both sides of the House, including some Ministers? So will the Government give serious consideration to supporting my Bill?
The Prime Minister: We will give serious consideration to it. The issue that my hon. Friend raises is a high priority for hon. Members and the Government. As he will know, for children, our target is to reduce deaths and serious injuries by 50 per cent. by 2010. By 2002, we had already reduced deaths and serious injuries by 33 per cent.—so a large number of children have been saved from death or serious injury. Sometimes when we are talking about speed humps, speed limits, speed cameras and so on, we forget that, although those things can be aggravating for the motorist from time to time, sometimes they have a real point in relation to protecting our young people and, indeed, others. So we will certainly give careful consideration to his Bill, and if we can support it, I am sure that we will.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |