| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Nuclear Deterrent
Q3. [84314] Dr. Julian Lewis (New Forest, East) (Con): Whether his commitment to retain the nuclear deterrent applies beyond the lifespan of the current Trident submarine fleet.
The Prime Minister: We made it clear in our 2005 manifesto that we are committed to retaining the independent nuclear deterrent, and that means for the life of the current system. As I have said previously, decisions on the period beyond that will be taken later this year.
Dr. Lewis: The whole House will note that the Prime Minister was a lot less definite than the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who talked about retaining the nuclear deterrent not just for this Parliament but long into the future. If the decision is taken to replace the Trident submarine fleet, will any successor fleet be funded from the current defence budget, or will extra funds be allocated from outside that budget?
The Prime Minister: Any decision on funding has to await later negotiation. Most people understand that a decision on the independent nuclear deterrent is very much sui generis. The reasons why we want to retain the deterrent are set out in our manifesto, and I entirely agree with what the Chancellor said.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North) (Lab): Will the Prime Minister assure the House that the Government are committed to the terms of the 1970 non-proliferation treaty, which requires the five declared nuclear weapons states to engage in a process of long-term disarmament? Does he accept that rearmament by any of the five reduces any moral clout we might have in encouraging other states not to develop their own nuclear weapons, which makes the world a more dangerous place?
The Prime Minister: Actually, we have made considerable reductions both in systems and, I think, in the number of warheads. Of course it is true, if we can negotiate the right terms, that we want progressively over time to see a reduction in nuclear capability worldwide, but that has to be done by negotiation.
Engagements
Q4.[84315] Steve Webb (Northavon) (LD): Very sick babies are being shunted around the country because of a lack of intensive care capacity. Yet when I asked the Department of Health about the issue six weeks ago, it said it did not collect the information centrally. Will the Prime Minister get the Department of Health to take an interest in what is going on in the health service, and will he have this urgent problem sorted out quickly?
The Prime Minister: Of course, the Department is deeply concerned about issues to do with neonatal networks and units right around the country. It is fair to say that, over the past few years alone, there has been an increase in funding in the region of £70 million for such units. It is important to recognise that we are training far more staff, but there is also greater demand. I am pleased to say that the mortality rate has declined substantially, but we are of course looking at what more we can do in relation to staff and resources.
Mr. David Hamilton (Midlothian) (Lab): Yesterday, the Select Committee on Defence took evidence from the Secretary of State for Defence, in which he made it quite clear that the widest possible consultation would take place on the nuclear deterrent. Surely, irrespective of one’s point of view, it is right that the power to make the ultimate determination should come back to the House. Surely that is how things should be done, and a vote should be taken here.
The Prime Minister: As I have said before, when we publish the decision taken by the Government, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence will announce the exact form of making sure that we consult the House. I point out that we have given votes on very sensitive issues before, and that is a strong possibility on this issue.
Q5. [84316] Mr. Richard Benyon (Newbury) (Con): May I press the Prime Minister? Why is he so determined to avoid a vote in the House on the renewal of our nuclear deterrent? He may not have the support of the hon. Members for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) or for Pendle (Mr. Prentice), but he will certainly have support on the Opposition side of the House if he puts it to a vote.
The Prime Minister: Thank you very much for that. No doubt it was kindly meant, but I refer to what I said a moment or two ago: on these sensitive issues we have often given votes—before the Iraq war, we were one of the first Governments to give people a vote before this country took the decision to go to war. We are not at all averse to votes of this House on extremely sensitive issues, and I have no doubt that there will be the fullest debate.
Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab): Will the Prime Minister explain why he takes such different positions on education in this part of the United Kingdom and education in Northern Ireland? Why did he support his Back Benchers going through the Lobby to keep selection in England, unless parents decide against, yet force through in two and a half hours a complete change to the system in Northern Ireland? Why does he have such different standards for education in Northern Ireland?
The Prime Minister: There is, of course, I hope, a way that that can be resolved by people in Northern Ireland, which is for the devolved institutions to get back up and running. I hope that they are successful in that.
Q6.[84317] Mr. Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and West Devon) (Con): Earlier this year, Appledore shipyard in my constituency won a tender competition for a Scottish fisheries protection vessel. Last month, that tender process was cancelled in highly questionable circumstances. Hundreds of jobs are directly and indirectly at stake. What has the Prime Minister to say to my constituents who ask why their Member of Parliament is unable to hold the decision maker to account in this or any other House? Does he feel that it is more important that Labour Members for Scottish constituencies do not feel like second-class MPs than that 85,000 people in Torridge should feel second-class—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister: In relation to the particular decision, of course these are always very difficult decisions. It is true that, in this instance, it was taken by the Scottish Executive. It is also true that people are perfectly free to raise it. The hon. and learned Gentleman will know that we are trying to make the right decisions in relation to procurement within very strict budgetary terms. I am sure that no one wants to make sure that the people in his constituency are out of work, but those decisions have been taken by the appropriate authority.
Q7.[84318] Jim Dobbin (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab/Co-op): Speaking as a Scot with a north-west of England constituency, is the Prime Minister aware of early-day motion 2519, which refers to hon. Members’ voting rights? That early-day motion argues that to ban Members of Parliament from Scotland from voting on English matters could lead to a constitutional crisis or to the break-up of the United Kingdom. It also supports every Member in the House accepting and getting access to the voting systems—the democratic systems—in the House. Does the Prime Minister agree with that and will he sign the early-day motion?
The Prime Minister: The important thing is to stress that England is of course the majority country within the United Kingdom. We vote through the money here in the House, of course. Under the constitutional settlement, the vast majority of the MPs who do that are English. I think that devolution is a sensible way of keeping the United Kingdom together, but it would be a very, very grave mistake indeed to end up with two classes of MP in the House.
Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con): May I compliment you, Mr. Speaker, on your visual acuity in spotting me between the two tallest Members of Parliament? It strikes me that if the head of a school, a charity, a public body or a council were to announce their retirement but refuse to set a date, they would be rightly considered both arrogant and self-centred. Why should we consider the Prime Minister any differently?
The Prime Minister: Because there was an election last year that we won and he lost.
Q8. [84319] Mr. Bob Laxton (Derby, North) (Lab): This weekend at the G8 summit in St. Petersburg, discussions will take place on energy, education and infectious diseases. Will the Prime Minister tell the House his objectives for the summit and how he sees those objectives building on the commitments that were given at Gleneagles a year ago?
The
Prime Minister: In particular in relation to the G8, it is
important that we recommit to the objectives in helping in Africa.
There will be a particular focus on education at the G8. In relation to
climate change and energy, although the summit will focus particularly
on energy security, none the less, again I think that it is important
that we focus on climate change as well. One of the single most
important issues that will run throughout the summit, even if not
formally, will be the World Trade Organisation talks, which at the
moment
are stalled. That is extremely important in my view. This weekend may be
one of the last opportunities we have got to restart those talks
productively and get the right agreement between Brazil, India and the
developing countries on the one hand, and America, Europe and Japan on
the other.
Mr. Andrew Robathan (Blaby) (Con): In 1997, the Prime Minister wrote of the ministerial code:
“In issuing this Code, I should like to reaffirm my strong personal commitment to restoring the bond of trust between the British people and their Government...I will expect all Ministers to work within the letter and spirit of the Code.”
Last week, he told the Liaison Committee:
“If there is reason to believe someone has broken the Code, I will take action”.
Well, there is the valuable transport union flat that the Deputy Prime Minister occupied as Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, there is the behaviour with a junior female office subordinate, which would have led to the sacking of a civil servant, and now there is Philip Anschutz’s hospitality. When will the Prime Minister live up to his fine words and call in Sir John Bourn to investigate these allegations of breaches of the ministerial code?
The Prime Minister: I have nothing to say to the hon. Gentleman other than the fact that we have got one of the largest regeneration projects that will happen in London, which will bring somewhere in the region of 10,000 affordable homes, 20,000 jobs —[ Interruption. ]
Mr. Speaker: Order. A question has been put to the Prime Minister. I do not want hon. Members shouting at him while he answers.
The Prime Minister: I was pointing out— [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order.
The
Prime Minister: I was just pointing out that as a result
of the regeneration, there will be somewhere in
the region of 10,000 affordable homes, more than 20,000 jobs and
£5 billion of private sector investment. It is entirely right
that we support such huge regeneration coming to this country, but I
know that none of those issues concerns the hon.
Gentleman.
Q9.[84320] Dan Norris (Wansdyke) (Lab): Is that well-known medical term to be frazzled the result of hugging a hoodie and making policy on the hoof?
The Prime Minister: I can only say to my hon. Friend that when we actually analyse the policy statements of Conservative Members, especially on something like yesterday’s energy review, it is the case, as I said earlier, that whatever points the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) makes, when it comes to long-term decisions that affect the future of this country, it is this Labour side, not the Conservatives, that has the answers.
Q10. [84321] Mark Hunter (Cheadle) (LD): Given all the extra money that the Prime Minister likes to remind us that his Government have put into the national health service, can he explain why my constituents and those of many other hon. Members are having to wait up to two years for an appointment for a hearing aid? Does he agree that such a situation is completely unacceptable? Will he say what action he will be taking to support the campaign of the Royal National Institute for Deaf People to bring that waiting list down?
The Prime Minister: We are working with organisations for the deaf precisely to do that. When the hon. Gentleman refers rightly to the large sums of investment that have gone into the health service, but points out some of the problems that we have still got to overcome, I hope that he accepts how much improvement there has been in the national health service over the past eight or nine years as a result of the investment that has gone in. In his area, for example, there are 11,500 more nurses and 1,000 more consultants, and waiting times have come down dramatically for in-patients and out-patients. That is a result of the investment and reform that this Government have carried out. Yes, we have still got a lot to do, but a lot has been done.
Points of Order
12.31 pm
Anne Main (St. Albans) (Con): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Last week, I raised a point of order about the lack of answers to my specific questions with regard to establishing the facts about whether or not released foreign nationals who were convicted of serious sexual offences were placed on the sex offenders register. The Leader of the House has said about questions:
“the House will know that it is also important that they are answered accurately and comprehensively.”—[ Official Report, 14 June 2006; Vol. 447, c. 772.]
It is with regret that I have to inform you, Mr. Speaker, that I have waited two months for a detailed specific answer. I was told by the Home Office that I was given only a generic answer to a very specific point and simply directed to read a statement that was sent to the Home Affairs Committee, although that statement made absolutely no reference whatsoever to my specific inquiries.
I cannot accept that there is no answer to the question. Surely the Secretary of State is responsible to the House for ensuring the delivery of information on this very specific question. I thus seek your guidance on the matter, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving me notice of her point of order. I do not comment on the content of ministerial replies, but I can understand the frustration that she feels. The Table Office is well aware of the issue and is ready to assist the hon. Lady with follow-up questions.
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd (Meirionnydd Nant Conwy) (PC): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will have heard that an important speech was made earlier today by the Minister for Policing, Security and Community Safety about the amalgamation of police forces. The matter has concerned many hon. Members for several months. Should not that all-important statement—it was a policy U-turn—have been made in this place so that it could be have been examined by all Members of Parliament?
Mr. Speaker: The Home Secretary is in the Chamber, so perhaps he will be able to clarify matters.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (John Reid): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. If the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) had been following the debates in the House closely enough, he would have seen that that had been announced in the House, not least on 19 June when I made it absolutely plain that although the mergers and the coming together for protective services of police forces was to be maintained as the destination, I had changed the position on enforced mergers, not force mergers. In other words, I was no longer proceeding with a situation in which we would be laying orders against the wishes of the forces involved. That is what has changed, not our desire to bring together police forces in new configurations.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Let me reply to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd). I am sure that we will come back to this matter. Although we have heard from the Home Secretary, there is nothing to prevent the hon. Gentleman from seeking an Adjournment debate so that the Home Secretary or an appropriate Minister could come to the House. I would advise him to do that.
Mr. Douglas Hogg (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will remember the practice of the House. When a Minister rises on a point of order to make a contribution to the point of order, it is within the discretion of the Chair to treat that as a statement, and at that point hon. Members are entitled to ask questions of the Minister who has intervened.
Mr. Speaker: I think that we will leave it at that for the moment.
Mr. Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I listened carefully to the answer that you gave to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Anne Main). You will know that I raised that matter in the House on 14 June, at the conclusion of Prime Minister’s questions—I had tabled a named day question on 29 April on the specific issue of foreign prisoner releases from Her Majesty’s prison in Peterborough. I was reassured by the Leader of the House on that occasion that the matter would be looked into. Thirteen weeks later, I have still not received a substantive answer to my question. That is unacceptable. Putting a generic statement in the House of Commons Library is unacceptable, too.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman was present in the Chamber when I advised the hon. Member for St. Albans (Anne Main) to go to the Table Office, which will help. I shall go no further than that. The hon. Gentleman should go to the Table Office as well.
Sir Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield) (Con): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have sought to be extremely helpful to the House. Would it be possible during this point of order to ask the Home Secretary whether he intends to make any announcement about other enforced mergers, particularly Cheshire and Merseyside, which has been so strongly opposed? If he makes a statement on one, it would help the House if he included all the mergers that are so strongly opposed.
Mr. Speaker: No, I shall not do that. The House knows that I have, unusually, put aside the business of the House to allow the debate under Standing Order No. 24 to proceed, and I do not wish to intervene any further. These matters can be pursued with the Home Secretary on other occasions.
Mr.
Shailesh Vara (North-West Cambridgeshire) (Con): On a
point of order, Mr. Speaker. I listened carefully to the response that
you gave to my hon.
Friend the Member for St. Albans (Anne Main). I note that you say that
further questions should be asked of relevant Ministers. However, if
the Minister were to answer the question in the first place, would
there not be a saving for the taxpayer on further questions needing to
be asked? You will agree, I think, that each question costs a
substantial amount of money. Is there not a case for Ministers to
answer questions properly in the first
place?
Mr. Speaker: There certainly is a case. That would have saved a lot of bother, and the Speaker would not have to answer point of order, would he?
Mr. Gordon Prentice (Pendle) (Lab): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not want to detain the House unnecessarily, but Lancashire and Cumbria was not a forced merger. It was a voluntary measure, which has been stopped—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We are now entering into a debate, and we have the main business of the House to deal with.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |