| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
The Prime Minister: Foreign nationals living in the UK who pose a threat to this country should indeed be removed.
Dr. Lewis: I entirely agree with the Prime Minister, but does he accept that no society can be safe if its laws fail to recognise that people forfeit some of their own rights when they pose a threat to, or infringe, the rights of others? Is not that failure precisely why he had to abandon the pledge that he gave the House on 3 May that foreign prisoners—criminals—would be deported automatically on release, and is it not why he is helpless to deport foreign terrorist sympathisers?
The Prime Minister: No, although there is a particular problem, which I will come to in a moment. We have many people—I think almost 40—who are foreign nationals who are accused of terrorist offences or of plotting or inciting terrorism and their cases are going through the court. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that we have got to make sure that those court cases are successful. But under the Human Rights Act 1998, we have the power expressly to override legislation if we wish to do so. What I said last year, and repeat now, is that we are prepared to do so if necessary.
If I may say so, our view is somewhat better than the one expressed by the Leader of the Opposition. He said that we should replace the Human Rights Act with a Bill of Rights. He also went on to say that that should not be subject to the Parliament Act, and therefore would be entrenched, which, in fact, would make it even harder to do what the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) wants. The Leader of the Opposition also said that the reason why we needed that was something called the Singh case. I can point out that the case was decided in August 2000. The right hon. Gentleman said that it had been decided under the guidance of the Human Rights Act, but that Act came into force in October 2000. So we have—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the Prime Minister has made the point.
Engagements
Q5. [80671] Mrs. Joan Humble (Blackpool, North and Fleetwood) (Lab): Is the Prime Minister aware that domestic burglary has gone down by 21 per cent. in my constituency? Car theft had gone down by 23 per cent. between 2003 and 2004-05. However, in spite of extra police officers in Lancashire, extra police support staff, the new police community support officers, community wardens and special constables, many people still think that crime is going up. Will the Prime Minister reassure my constituents that they are less likely to be a victim of crime now than they would have been at any time in the past 25 years?
The
Prime Minister: What my hon. Friend says is absolutely
true. Incidentally, I would like to pay tribute to the Lancashire
police force, which is a groundbreaking force that does a superb job.
She is absolutely right that there have been big falls in both car
crime and burglary, and the antisocial behaviour legislation is also of
enormous help here. I know that she will realise that we need to do
more, which is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is
examining various issues to do with the Home Office. The Violent Crime
Reduction Bill will play a part in this as well. My hon. Friend is
right that we need to keep on ensuring not only that the laws are
fit for what we need, but that we get the community
policing out on the street that her constituents and others
want.
Mr. John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con): In 1997, when the Prime Minister was still the future, he pledged to cut early-years class sizes to below 30. In the same year, and in every year since, he has promised to tackle school truancy. However, parliamentary answers that I have received show that those early-years class sizes have doubled since 2002 and that truancy has risen by 200,000 over the same period. Has the Prime Minister changed his mind about those priorities, or just broken his promises?
The Prime Minister: As far as I am aware, the infant class pledge has been met. If the hon. Gentleman goes into virtually any primary school in the country, he will see the effect not merely of the investment in bricks and mortar, but of something like 80,000 extra classroom assistants. In so far as we have been able to cut infant class sizes, we have done so, of course, because of the extra investment in our public services that he voted against in the past.
Q6. [80672] Lynne Jones (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab): Since my right hon. Friend became Prime Minister, hospital waiting lists and waiting times have dropped dramatically. Unfortunately, the reverse is the case for housing waiting lists. Before my right hon. Friend leaves office, will he ensure that the necessary investment is committed so that his legacy will also be one of falling housing waiting lists?
The Prime Minister: I thank my hon. Friend very much indeed for the first part of her question, which I regard as progress of a sort. However, she is absolutely right that we need to do more on housing, particularly social housing. That is why we are investing literally hundreds of millions of pounds over the coming years to ensure that we have better social housing and to increase the provision of houses as well—
Mr. Ken Purchase (Wolverhampton, North-East) (Lab/Co-op): Not social housing: council housing.
The Prime Minister: Whether it is provided by councils or others, it is important that we get the maximum investment in housing. Of course we only manage to achieve investment when we have a strong economy with the money therefore to invest.
Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan) (SNP): Will the Prime Minister set out a clear timetable for the removal from the statute book of the Act of Settlement, which introduces clear discrimination against millions of our fellow citizens? Would a Government set on a course of repeal not be demonstrating leadership, authority and direction?
The Prime Minister: No, I am afraid that I cannot give the hon. Gentleman that assurance, but since we are on the subject of legislation I can tell him what I would not agree to do, and that is to introduce the Bill that he wants—an independence Bill for Scotland. That would be an absolute and total disaster for the people of Scotland.
Q7. [80673] Margaret Moran (Luton, South) (Lab): Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of my official engagements yesterday was the opening of the 11th children’s centre in my constituency, at a school, Dallow junior, which has received over £2 million of additional investment for new facilities? Will he join me in congratulating the staff involved in that achievement, and does he agree that it is another example of this Government tackling child poverty, which doubled under the Conservative party?
The Prime Minister: I can assure my hon. Friend that it is our intention to keep up the investment in children’s centres. Sure Start, too, is an immensely important programme that has not only allowed hundreds of thousands of people to get access to facilities that help their children but also benefited many parents enormously. In addition, we are trying to support people through the work-life balance, the children’s tax credit, and increases in maternity leave and maternity pay. All that adds up to a package that results not in simply talking about helping families but in supporting them in realistic and practical ways throughout the country.
James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend, East) (Con): What part of the question “Will there be a vote on Trident?” does the Prime Minister not understand?
The Prime Minister: I understand it, and I refer the hon. Gentleman to what my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said last Thursday—that remains the position.
Q8. [80674] Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab): I report with great sadness to the Prime Minister that, following the local elections and a bit of bed-hopping by the Liberal Democrats, Newcastle-under-Lyme is being temporarily led by the Conservatives. In the past 20-plus years Newcastle has been well served by Labour leaders—Mike Brereton, Eddie Boden and David Leech—and I wonder whether, in this novel situation, the Prime Minister can help me out. By which yardsticks would he judge this new, Tory/Liberal Democrat alliance in my area, however temporary it may be?
The Prime Minister: The most important thing is that the programmes of renewal and inner-city regeneration that were funded by the Government are maintained by the council, and I know that my hon. Friend will be holding it strictly to account.
Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD): I am sure that the Prime Minister will join me in congratulating Cheltenham and Tewkesbury primary care trust on never having had a financial deficit and on living within its means. Can he therefore explain to the professionals, patients and people of Cheltenham why we are being rewarded with the closure of our 10-year-old purpose-built maternity ward, the closure of our rehabilitation hospital, cuts in health promotion, cuts in community nursing, cuts in health visiting, cuts in access to acute care and the non-implementation of new NICE-prescribed drugs such as Herceptin?
The Prime Minister: I do not know the particular circumstances of the hon. Gentleman’s constituency and what has happened with the primary care trust there, although I am sure that if we were to go into it we would also find that waiting times and waiting lists for patients had fallen substantially and that there were additional numbers of people being treated far faster for cancer and cardiac care. I am afraid that it is a necessary part of the financial management in the health service that no matter how much money is put in, there will have to be proper accountability to make sure that that money is spent well. I am very happy to look into the points that the hon. Gentleman raises.
Q10. [80676] Mr. Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con): I gave notice to the Prime Minister’s office that I was going to raise the case of the late Lieutenant William Norbury MC and his widow Gillian, and the battle to win her the war disability pension to which she is entitled. Yesterday, at a veterans reception in Downing street, the Prime Minister was challenged to resolve the issue by Mrs. Norbury’s splendid champion, John Nunneley. In Mr. Nunneley’s own words, he appealed to the Prime Minister to act as Mrs. Norbury’s “court of last resort”. Is the Prime Minister now able to deliver his judgment in this case?
The
Prime Minister: No, I am not able to do that right now. I
met Mr. Nunneley yesterday and he gave
me a letter explaining the situation. I thank the hon. Gentleman for
notice of the question. It is a complex case because Lieutenant Norbury
was a member of the King’s African Rifles, which is a colonial
force raised in Kenya, and responsibility for his war pension was taken
over by the Kenyan Government when that country gained its independence
in the early 1960s. Ministers and officials have met Mrs.
Norbury’s representatives on a number of occasions, and the
Ministry of Defence is now examining a number of possible schemes to
consider whether Mrs. Norbury will be eligible under any of them. So
the MOD is looking into it, and I hope that I will be able to get back
to Mr. Nunneley or Mrs. Norbury in due
course.
Linda Gilroy (Plymouth, Sutton) (Lab/Co-op): Will the Prime Minister congratulate Plymouth city council on returning to Labour control last Thursday after a successful by-election? Will he take an interest, too, in the challenge that we face of providing enough affordable housing to rent and buy, as we need some flexibility to play our part as one of the country’s key growth areas?
The Prime Minister: I certainly congratulate the council and its Labour leadership on the superb work that they are doing, not least in relation to schools, antisocial behaviour and regeneration. The by-election last week set a very good example.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |