Parliamentary and Political Service Honours Committee

Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton Excerpts

Thursday 17th May 2012 Written Statements

[The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)]

The previous Government had a policy of not recommending honours for political service, although some individuals were honoured for services to Parliament. The Government believe that there are many people in politics who demonstrate selfless commitment for the good of the nation and that it is right to recognise the best of them.

A new honours committee—the Parliamentary and Political Service Honours Committee—is therefore being established. It will consider candidates for honours from the Westminster Parliament and the devolved legislatures; the staffs of those bodies and the bodies which report directly to them (for example, the National Audit Office and the ombudsmen); and, voluntary workers and staff of the political parties.

Lord Spicer is the chairman of the new committee. The official members are the three Commons Chief Whips of the major parties. There are also to be at least four independent members: currently these are Baroness Hayman, Lord Butler of Brockwell, Dame Mary Keegan and Peter Riddell.

The membership has been chosen to include a balance of party members and those who do not have known party allegiances but have a good awareness of Parliament and the bodies which report to it. Because of time constraints, it has not been possible to select these independent members by the normal process of open advertising and written application in line with Nolan procedures. The intention is that when further appointments are to be made, they will be carried out using the normal processes for selecting honours committee members.

The new committee has been established for the birthday 2012 honours round and has the support of the three main parties. As with all the specialist honours committees, its recommendations are subject to the agreement of the main honours committee, chaired by the head of the civil service.

Debate on the Address

Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton Excerpts

Wednesday 9th May 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)]

Let me begin, as the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) did, by paying tribute to those servicemen who have tragically lost their lives in Afghanistan: Guardsman Michael Roland of 1st Battalion the Grenadier Guards, and Corporal Andrew Roberts and Private Ratu Silibaravi of 23 Pioneer Regiment, the Royal Logistic Corps. They acted heroically and died serving their country, and we must always honour their memory.

We have just finished the longest Session of Parliament for more than 100 years, and I am proud to say that in that Session we brought down the deficit, capped welfare, scrapped ID cards, introduced free schools, accelerated academies, brought in the pupil premium, binned the jobs tax, raised the personal allowance and froze the council tax. That was just the start of clearing up the mess left by the Labour party and demonstrating that this will be a Government on the side of people who work hard and do the right thing.

Let me say something that I hope will unite hon. Members on both sides of the House. The last Session of Parliament also made an impact not just at home but around the world. We fed more than 2.5 million people facing famine and starvation, we supported over 5.5 million children to go to school in the poorest countries of our world and we immunised a child against diseases every 2.5 seconds of the last parliamentary Session. And, yes, it was in the last Session that Parliament stood up to Colonel Gaddafi, backed the action that stopped him slaughtering his own people and showed once again that when it comes to the cause of democracy, all sides of this Parliament can unite in defence of freedom.

As the Leader of the Opposition said, during the last parliamentary Session we also lost two much-respected and hard-working Members of the House. David Cairns gave up his first vocation as a Catholic priest for his second, which was to serve his constituents and sit on these Benches. He was an exceptionally kind man whose quick wit enlivened our debates, and I know that he is widely missed. Alan Keen served in this House for almost two decades and made many firm friendships on all sides of the House. He was passionate about the way in which sport can change young people’s lives, and his leadership of the all-party parliamentary football group is remembered with much affection. I am sure that he will be looking down at the incredible months of sport that lie ahead over the next few months. Both Members represented the very best of this House.

I also think that the Leader of the Opposition was right to pay tribute in his remarks to Her Majesty the Queen. It is one of the greatest privileges of this job to see Her Majesty every week to discuss what has happened here and across the world. In terms of service and dedication to our nation, she quite simply has no equal.

Let me turn now to the proposer of the Gracious Speech. When the Chief Whip phoned me and told me his suggestion for the role, it came as a bit of a shock. It was a slightly bad line, and I thought that he had said, “I’ve asked Nadine to do it.” Although I am always ready to take it on the chin, there was a slight sense of relief when he explained that he was talking about my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi) rather than my hon. and close Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Nadine Dorries).

In the past, there has been a tradition that the proposer should be a shy and retiring type—the type who keeps their head down, gets on with the job and loathes the limelight. I am pleased to say that, on this occasion, that tradition has been well and truly broken. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon told us, he has a remarkable story. In the 1970s, his family fled Iraq and the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, arriving at Heathrow with literally only the bags they carried and the clothes on their backs. But they picked themselves up and made an incredible future in this country. My hon. Friend put himself through university, built a business from scratch and in just one generation has made it here to Parliament. There is such a thing as the British dream, and he embodies it.

My hon. Friend’s name has, at times, caused confusion. As a new Member of Parliament, he was invited to a dinner in honour of a delegation from Iraq, and was seated next to my predecessor but one in Witney, the former Foreign Secretary Douglas Hurd. During the main course, Lord Hurd turned to him and asked, “So, Mr Zahawi, what do you do?” My hon. Friend replied, “I’m a Member of Parliament,” to which Lord Hurd inquired, “And which constituency in Iraq do you represent?” Not surprisingly, my hon. Friend replied, “Stratford-on-Avon.” His speech was in the finest traditions of the House—witty, wise, entertaining and erudite. I praise him for what he said.

Let me turn to the seconder of the Gracious Speech. Again, when I was told the name, I was not too sure. The first things I heard were “Scottish MP” and “Gordon”—I see some nervous looks on the Opposition Front Bench, too. I refer to one of the House’s most distinguished Members, the right hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) who, as a Liberal Democrat, takes very seriously the motto inspired by his namesake Robert the Bruce: “If at first you don’t succeed, try, try and try again”—although as he told us in his case he has tried and succeeded in no fewer than seven general elections. He lives in a charming constituency dotted with the finest whisky distilleries. I want to be absolutely clear that when he was shadow Treasury spokesman and frequently advocated extraordinary cuts in whisky duty at each and every Budget, he was speaking wholly in the national interest.

From my researches, I can tell the Whips something else, which I hope they realise: my right hon. Friend does not always respond well when people do him a favour. He asked—and the request was granted—the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Mr Kennedy) to be best man at his wedding in 1998, and a year later he stood against him for leadership of the Liberal Democrat party. As the Leader of the Opposition can testify, things can get worse—you could, of course, be brothers. My right hon. Friend has been forthright in his views: he has been a powerful voice for the disabled and a passionate advocate of foreign aid. I hear absolutely what he says about a Bill for 0.7% of GDP on aid, but what I would say is that what matters most of all is that we reach the target in terms of the money spent.

Both speeches were in the very best traditions of this House, and I pay tribute to the people who gave them.

The Gracious Speech sets out our foreign policy priorities, and the first of these is, of course, Afghanistan. Let me be clear: our troops will no longer be in a combat role beyond the end of 2014. That is our deadline and I will not waver from it.

[Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister generously rolled out the red carpet for Mr Jaroslaw Kaczynski, the candidate of his sister party in Poland who was badly defeated. In February, the Prime Minister endorsed Mr Sarkozy, who was defeated on Sunday. Will the Prime Minister, from this Dispatch Box, endorse Governor Mitt Romney—and thus ensure that the curse of Cameron gets President Obama re-elected?

[The Prime Minister]

If the right hon. Gentleman is not careful, I might endorse him. When the Conservatives take Rotherham, modernisation will be complete.

Let me tell the House that by the middle of next year British forces will have shifted their focus from combat to support in all three of the districts of Helmand for which we are responsible: Lashkar Gah, Nad Ali and Nahri Sarraj. So the Afghans will have lead responsibility for security a full year before our troops leave their combat role. When we came to that country, there was no one to hand over to—no proper army, no proper police force. Today we have built up the Afghan national security forces and we are on track and on target for them to take over full security responsibility.

From the outset, our approach has been hard-headed and strategic, overseen in detail by the new National Security Council I established on my first day in office. The role of that council is to ask which areas of the world pose the greatest threat to Britain. Just last week, we were advised that the most immediate international terrorist threat to our country now comes not from Afghanistan, but from Yemen—and that is clearly confirmed by the news from the US yesterday.

[Andrew Selous]

Does the Prime Minister agree that, given the details of the Yemen plane bomb plot, we need to expand the range of measures available to us to combat terrorism, while also protecting our historic freedoms?

[The Prime Minister]

I do agree with my hon. Friend about that. Perhaps we will come on to discuss what is difficult and contentious legislation on data communications; I know this will be debated and there will be draft clauses. The point I make to the House is that what we are trying to do here is not to look at the content of people’s telephone calls, but to update the necessary measures for finding out who called whom and when, because it is that information that has solved almost every serious crime and certainly almost every serious terrorist offence.

I say to people, let us of course look at the detail, let us of course consult, but I do not want to be the Prime Minister standing at this Dispatch Box saying “I could have done more to prevent terrorist acts, but we did not have the courage to take difficult steps”. Imagine, for a minute, what would have happened if, when mobile phones came along, the House had simply said “No, we will stick to data communications on fixed-line phones; we will not touch mobile phones”. If we had done that, there would be many, many unsolved cases in comparison with what we have experienced.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

Will the Prime Minister give way?

[The Prime Minister]

I am happy to give way to my right hon. Friend. [Interruption.]

[Keith Vaz]

I am most grateful to the Prime Minister for giving way, and I am glad that he has kept the focus on Yemen. In the context of what has happened this week, will he confirm that both London and Washington will be supporting the new Government of Yemen? The front line against terrorism is not our country, but Sana’a and Aden, and without that practical support we cannot defeat al-Qaeda in the Arabian peninsula.

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman is entirely right, and we are supporting the new Government in Yemen. We are helping them with their transition, we are helping to build up the Yemeni security forces, and we are supporting the development of more effective state institutions. That is absolutely vital work. We will also remain focused on the challenges in Iran and Syria. These are the critical months during which the world must deal with the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran. While we take nothing off the table, we have specifically said to Israel, both publicly and privately, that the option of further pressure and further sanctions on the regime is the right way forward. We have led the imposition of an EU oil embargo, which many believed would not be possible, and we are ready to negotiate in good faith.

I know that everyone in the House is appalled by the violence that is taking place in Syria and frustrated that we cannot do more to stop it, but I believe that the Annan plan of getting more observers in to stop the killing is the right answer. Today there are just 60 observers in a country more than 70,000 square miles in size. We are working with our allies, including the Turks and the Arab League, to get hundreds more into that country to stop the bloodshed.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

The Prime Minister talks of threats to our national security. In that context, can he explain why, given the urgency of the climate crisis that faces us, the Queen’s Speech contains nothing to deal with it except provision for a green investment bank that will still not be able to borrow, and a Bill that is likely to lock us into high-cost, high-carbon gas production? Is it because he does not want to show climate leadership, or because he has been overruled by his Chancellor?

[The Prime Minister]

I am a bit disappointed by what the hon. Lady has said, because the green investment bank has £3 billion to spend on green investments. This is the sort of proposal that has been included in Labour manifestos, Conservative manifestos and Liberal Democrat manifestos for years. Now we are delivering it on the ground, and that will make a difference.

We should always, in this country, stand on the side of freedom, and we should remember that it is 30 years since our taskforce landed on the Falkland Islands to defend the islanders’ right to remain British. I am sure that the House will join me in paying tribute to the 255 British servicemen who gave their lives in the defence of freedom. Three decades have not dimmed our memories of their bravery, nor have they dimmed this country’s resolve. Make no mistake: for as long as the people of the Falkland Islands wish to remain British, that is exactly how it will be.

Let me say exactly what this Queen’s Speech is about. It is about a Government making the tough, long-term decisions to restore our country to strength—dealing with the deficit, rebalancing the economy, and building a society that rewards people who work hard and do the right thing.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister will be aware that the Minister for Immigration said last week, in the wake of the election results, that the Government must start to demonstrate more competence. Was the Prime Minister disappointed to discover yesterday that the Deputy Prime Minister does not understand the difference between the debt and the deficit?

[The Prime Minister]

What the Deputy Prime Minister said yesterday, and what I said yesterday, is that we inherited a deficit that was bigger than the deficits of Greece, Spain or Portugal. What we have had to do is deal with that deficit, deal with the debt, and get our country moving again. We are recovering from the mess that the hon. Gentleman’s party left.

We are reforming welfare so that it pays to have a job, but we want to do more to reward responsibility. We are lifting 2 million people out of tax, but we want to go further to help Britain’s strivers. We have introduced free schools and created more than 1,000 academies, but we want to do more to spread opportunity. That is what this Queen’s Speech is about.

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

I am sure that the Prime Minister listened as carefully as I did to the speech of the Leader of the Opposition. Did he detect anything resembling a solution to the problems that the country faces?

[The Prime Minister]

I listened very carefully. There was almost nothing in terms of a costed, credible alternative. The Opposition have now had two years to work out what their alternative is, and we heard absolutely nothing apart from a string of press releases put together, which we have all read over the last few weeks.

[Mr Dave Watts (St Helens North) (Lab)]

Can the Prime Minister explain to the nation why he is pursuing economic policies that have led to a double-dip recession and have frozen every inch of growth out of the economy?

[The Prime Minister]

As I have said, we have been dealing with an economy that had the biggest boom and bust in our banks, the biggest deficit in Europe and the longest and deepest recession in anyone’s memory. What we have to do is get our economy to rebalance, and I will explain exactly how the Queen’s Speech is going to help, because it is a Queen’s Speech for the doers, the strivers and those who work hard and play by the rules.

On cutting the Budget deficit, all across Europe the countries being hit are the ones that do not have proper plans in place. In the last Session, we cut the nation’s overdraft—the gap between what we receive in tax and what we spend—by £30 billion. With this Queen’s Speech we continue that work with, for instance, the vital public service pensions Bill. Not only does that offer guaranteed pensions that are still more generous than those in the private sector, but it saves tens of billions of pounds over the coming decades. Through this Queen’s Speech we are also making sure the UK is taken out of the eurozone bail-out fund. We are not in the euro, we are not joining the euro, so we should not be bailing out the euro.

The reason why we are doing these things on the deficit is simple: we want to keep interest rates down for hard-working families up and down the country. Let us be clear: higher interest rates would mean higher mortgages, lower employment and more of people’s money, which they have worked so hard to get, wasted by being spent on interest on our national debt. Two years ago, Britain had exactly the same interest rates as Spain; today, its interest rates were touching 6% and ours were below 2%. That is because we have a credible plan to get the country out of the mess it was left in by the last Government.

[Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)]

I am very appreciative of the Prime Minister’s words today. On the issue of Lords reform, the Government have made long and strenuous efforts, including through a draft Bill, a White Paper and a Joint Committee. Does the Prime Minister share my view that since a consensus has not proved to be available, Lords reform cannot be a priority now, and does he also share my view that any measures presented to this House should be put to the people in a referendum?

[The Prime Minister]

First, let me make this point, answering also the Leader of the Opposition: reforming the House of Lords is not the most important priority for the Government—that is dealing with the deficit, getting our economy moving, increasing the level of responsibility in our society and getting on the side of hard-working people. Those are the things that matter the most, but I think it is perfectly possible for Parliament to do more than two things at the same time. At the last election, all political parties put forward in their manifestos proposals for a partly, or mainly, elected House of Lords, but let me say this: this is only going to proceed if the political parties will agree to work together and take a responsible attitude towards this reform. I think it is possible, and it would be a good reform if we could achieve it; it would be better if we had a smaller House of Lords and if it had an elected element. So I ask people to work together across party lines to try to make that happen.

[Sir Stuart Bell (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister referred to the deficit in Europe, and he will recall that he declined to sign the fiscal compact entered into by 25 of the 27 EU member states. I presume he will go to the conference on 23 May with his fellow leaders in Europe, who will begin working on a growth compact. Will he be prepared to sign that?

[The Prime Minister]

I want to work with everyone in Europe to try to deliver better policies for growth. That is why we have been saying, “Let’s complete the single market in energy; let’s finish the single market in services; let’s complete the single market in digital.” Those are the things we are putting on the table. Britain is not in the euro, so we are not bound by the terms of the fiscal pact; I have made that very clear.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[The Prime Minister]

I will give way in a moment, but I want to make one point about the Leader of the Opposition’s response. They have had two years to work out what their answer is. What is their answer to too much borrowing, too much spending and too much debt? Their answer is more borrowing, more spending and more debt. Because the right hon. Gentleman did not mention his alternative Queen’s Speech, let me go straight to its centrepiece. The centrepiece of the alternative Queen’s Speech is, I believe, a bonus tax to pay for a jobs fund. Never mind that the last Chancellor in the Labour Government said that a bonus tax would not work; let us look at the detail. The deputy leader of the Labour party was asked in a big set-piece interview how much money that would raise, and this was her response:

“I haven’t got quite the, er, er, I know that we have worked out that figure. I’ll have to get back to you on that.”

She went on to say:

“I haven’t got that actual figure to hand but I can absolutely assure you that Ed Balls has”.

Ah—[Interruption.] The plot thickens. The shadow Chancellor was interviewed this weekend—I know, I need to get out more—and he said that he was sorry, but

“I have not costed the whole programme”.

So there we have it. We have a deputy leader who does not have a clue and a shadow Chancellor who does not have the figures, and I can tell the House why: they have spent their bonus tax 10 times over. They have used it to reverse the VAT increase, to reverse the child benefit change, to reverse the tax credits change, to boost the regional growth fund, to boost capital spending and even to turn empty shops into community centres. They have no idea whatsoever about how to deal with this deficit. They give in to every single interest group—it is the bank tax that likes to say yes from the Front Benchers who cannot say no.

[Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)]

May I take the Prime Minister back to what he said about reform of the House of Lords? As someone who spent four years working very co-operatively with his colleagues and the Liberal Democrats to find a solution, I say to him that it is palpable that each party is divided on the issue and work between the Front Benchers will not resolve it. It is right in principle that the British people should decide, and that would also avoid a train wreck in the business of this House. Will the Prime Minister look carefully and positively at the idea of having a pre-legislative referendum on reform of the Lords?

[The Prime Minister]

I very much respect the work—often painstaking, careful and difficult—that the right hon. Gentleman did in a range of different roles to try to move House of Lords reform on. He is absolutely right that all parties are divided on this matter—we should be frank about that—so we will only achieve reform if people work together. I do not believe that a pre-legislative referendum is a good move. On the whole, that is a weapon that has been used by slightly unsavoury regimes over the years. On the question of a referendum more generally, I will merely say that every political party went into the election with a pledge to reform the House of Lords so I do not personally see a referendum as having much to recommend it. The House of Commons can discuss this matter and the House of Commons must decide. If we are going to achieve reform, we will have to work together across the parties to try to deliver what I think will be progress for our constitution—a reformed and smaller House of Lords.

[Mr Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister might be aware that I was one of those who, since last July, served on the Joint Committee that considered the future of the House of Lords. We were not given any indication of the Government’s thinking on funding or costing. Can he tell us today what costing has taken place on the proposal in the Queen’s Speech and will he share that with the House?

[The Prime Minister]

Certainly, the cost of a stand-alone referendum would be significant and it is worth taking that into account.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the Prime Minister take it from me, after a lot of canvassing last week, that many people in this country are astounded that in the Queen’s Speech there is nothing about youth unemployment or providing jobs, no higher education Bill and nothing to address the large number of unemployed graduates we now have in this country?

[The Prime Minister]

The youth contract, which is going to do enormous amounts on youth unemployment, started last month. We achieved 450,000 apprenticeships last year. The Work programme is well under way now, helping half a million people, and it is the biggest back-to-work programme in this country since the 1930s.

Let me explain that there are a number of important measures in this Queen’s Speech to promote growth and jobs. As well as the Work programme and the youth contract, we have the national loan guarantee scheme, with £20 billion to get cheaper loans flowing to small businesses. The most important work of the Government is implementing all those schemes and programmes, but we must do more to rebalance our economy. It is clear what went wrong. The public sector grew too large, our economy became unbalanced between north and south and we ended up too dependent on financial services. So we know what we need to do as a country. We must revive the private sector, spread growth and jobs across the country and make sure that financial services truly serve the economy—not the other way around.

To expand the private sector we need to cut the burdens on business and make it easier for employers to take people on. That is in our enterprise Bill. To make the most of growth in the energy sector, including gas, nuclear and renewables, we need to reform the energy market, and that is what the energy Bill will do. To make the most of green investment, we need to legislate properly for the green investment bank, with £3 billion of money in its coffers. That will be done through the measures announced in the Queen’s Speech as well.

Another key issue is the need to clean up the financial system, and I have to say to the shadow Chancellor, who sat and did nothing while the financial sector melted down, that he ought to focus on this part of the Queen’s Speech. As the Governor of the Bank of England said last week, there are three vital steps to take, and we will be taking all of them: proper regulation at last by the Bank of England, the banks being made to hold enough capital to keep them safe, and a regime that means that if they do fail they can fail without the taxpayer picking up the bill. Those are all things that the shadow Chancellor never did when he was the City Minister.

[Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

The right hon. Gentleman talks about supporting small and medium-sized businesses, but the loan guarantee scheme is a very small drop in the ocean, because the banks simply will not lend to small businesses in my constituency. If they will not lend at the current percentages, they will not lend at lower percentages. That is the problem. When will he wake up to the fact that Operation Merlin did not wave a magic wand and did not work?

[The Prime Minister]

I make two points to the hon. Lady. First, she may not believe that the national loan guarantee scheme is big enough, but it is £20 billion of lending. That is far bigger than anything contemplated by the previous Government. Secondly, the Merlin agreement did secure additional lending to big and small businesses; lending went up. As ever, the shadow Chancellor is wrong.

As well as introducing vital measures such as banking reform and the Financial Services Bill, the Government’s mission is to help families who work hard and do the right thing. We have cut fuel duty and frozen council tax and we are lifting 2 million people out of tax. In the coming months people will see more. There will be a benefit cap so that people cannot get more on benefits than the average family earns; there will be higher tax thresholds so that hard-working families keep more of their money; and our pensions Bill, announced in the Queen’s Speech, is set to deliver a £140 basic state pension that will massively reduce means-testing and reward those who work hard and save hard all their lives.

[Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con)]

Was the Prime Minister as disappointed as I was that the Leader of the Opposition again refused to support the benefits cap, which is already at a level above the average wage of people in Great Yarmouth who work hard? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government will continue to make sure that it will always pay to work?

[The Prime Minister]

I have to say that this was about the only interesting point in the Leader of the Opposition’s speech. When he is asked very clearly whether he supports a benefit cap and whether he thinks it is right that people can get more than £26,000 a year on benefits, his answer is that it is just fine—carry on claiming. That is Labour’s message to the hard-working people of this country.

As the Leader of the Opposition covered so little of the detail, for the benefit of the House I want to run through some of the Bills in the Queen’s Speech and the steps we are taking. One thing we are doing is helping the most vulnerable of all in our society—children who do not have a family, who are stuck in the care system and who, in too many cases, have been left there for too long. That is why we are legislating on adoption, as set out in this Gracious Speech. We are going to publish detailed information on how councils perform, setting clear time limits for cases to get through the courts and making it illegal to turn down an adoptive family on the basis of race. We say it is time to end the patronising, politically correct prejudice that says that black parents cannot bring up white children and that white parents cannot bring up black children. It is time to make the system colour blind.

[Mr Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

Given the recent scandals that have engulfed the Government, why is a lobbying Bill not included in the Queen’s Speech?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman’s party had 13 years to produce a register of lobbyists. We have now published our proposals for a register of lobbyists and we will legislate for a register of lobbyists. [Interruption.] I hate to add to hon. Members’ misery, but we have a Queen’s Speech for the 2012-13 Session that is packed with great Bills and we will have one for the 2013-14 Session that is packed with great Bills. We will also have one for the 2014-15 Session that is packed with great Bills, and when we have beaten the rabble in opposition at the next election, we will have another one all over again.

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

Another group of vulnerable people are the 800,000 who struggle without care and the millions of over-burdened carers. They will be disappointed if not angry that there is no Bill in this Session, as promised, to legislate for a new financial framework, so they will have to struggle on. What does the Prime Minister say to those vulnerable people?

[The Prime Minister]

It is vital that we take action on social care. That is why there are proposals for a draft Bill in the Queen’s Speech. It is something that has been getting worse for decade. The previous Government had 13 years to deal with the issue and they did absolutely nothing. Within two years, we are producing proposals and a draft Bill, and taking action.

[Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is essential that we have all-party support for this critically important issue? It is essential to have a draft Bill so that we do the hard work in this Parliament to make sure that we can legislate for carers in our country.

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. Genuinely to crack the issue, which has dogged Governments for decades, we will need cross-party working to deliver the social care changes we need.

Let me turn to some of the crime measures, as they are extremely important. The police do a fantastic job, and we should pay tribute to their work, but we need to accept that there are some crimes that our existing police forces cannot deal with on their own: the cyber-attacks that threaten our national security, the organised gangs supplying drugs to children on the streets and the massive industry of human trafficking. Today, we have seen the horrific case in Rochdale of children being groomed for sex—modern-day slavery in our own country. That is why we need a national crime agency—a British FBI, if you like—and with this Queen’s Speech we will deliver it.

I want to see tough community sentences that are a real punishment, and we shall be legislating for them as well. Without such measures, we will never convince the police, the courts or the public that these sentences are proper alternatives to prison.

[Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister has mentioned a couple of doubles today. He quite rightly referred to the mover and the seconder of the speech; there was also the double-dip recession.

In 1970, Lynn Anderson sang about promises in a rose garden:

“Smile for a while and let’s be jolly

Love shouldn’t be so melancholy

Come along and share the good times while we can.”

Given that the Prime Minister and his Deputy made promises of transparency in the rose garden, does he now regret not releasing the risk register for the NHS?

[The Prime Minister]

In terms of the money we spend and the decisions we make, this Government have been the most transparent in our country for the last 50 years. That is what matters.

[Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)]

On behalf of my constituents Gary and Natasha Groves, whose daughter Lillian was killed outside her home by a driver who was under the influence of drugs, I thank the Prime Minister for meeting them at No. 10, listening to what they had to say and including in the Queen’s Speech measures to tackle the menace of drug driving. Will he join me in paying tribute to Gary and Natasha for responding to a personal tragedy by trying to make it less likely that other people endure the terrible loss they suffered?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is entirely right to raise the case again. I pay tribute to his work. We will be legislating properly for drug-related driving. It is right that it is put on to the statute book in the same way as drink driving, and it would not be happening were it not for the very strong campaign he has fought.

The context for the Queen’s Speech is a world that is becoming ever more competitive. The countries that succeed will be those that know they have to deal with debts and deficit, and that in a competitive world they have to have competitive tax rates and the best climate for business investment. They have to back entrepreneurs. They need light regulation and lean government. They need to reform every part of government, from schools to the planning system, so that they get on the side of wealth creation, job creation and a growing economy. That is what we are doing.

This is a Government who confront the long-term challenges we face, and that is what our country needs—a Government who roll up their sleeves to deal with the deficit, not an Opposition who think they can borrow their way out of debt. We are a coalition Government determined to unleash the private sector, spread growth around our country and sort out our financial services, not a Labour one who bloated the public sector and sat back while an unregulated banking sector brought our country to its knees. This is a Government who are backing hard-working people, not an Opposition who say they are on their side but refuse to make work pay, refuse to cap welfare and want to heap debts on to our children. This is a Government taking the tough decisions to help families who work hard and do the right thing. We are acting for the long term and governing in the national interest. This is a Queen’s Speech to rebuild Britain, and I commend it to the House.

Ministerial Code (Culture Secretary)

Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton Excerpts

Monday 30th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Prime Minister if he will refer the conduct of the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport, in respect of his dealings with News Corporation, to the independent adviser on ministerial interests.

[The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)]

I answered questions on this issue at Prime Minister’s Questions last Wednesday, and the Culture Secretary made a full statement, but let me set out the position again.

I set up the Leveson inquiry last summer to investigate the culture, ethics and practices of the media, and the relations between the media and the police and the media and politicians. It is a full, judge-led inquiry, with evidence given under oath and full access to papers and records. No Government before have ever taken such comprehensive action. It is this Government who are putting these issues properly on the table and getting them dealt with.

Let me deal with the three issues raised in the question: the conduct of the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport, the nature of the inquiry that is needed to get to the bottom of these issues, and the wider issues surrounding the relationship between politicians and the media.

First, let me deal with the issue of the Culture Secretary. As was made clear in his statement last Wednesday, in every respect with regard to the News Corporation bid, the Culture Secretary asked for independent advice and acted on it. He was not required to ask for or to follow such advice, but he did so. He acted fairly and impartially, and in line with the advice of his permanent secretary. Indeed, as he said in his statement to the House on Wednesday, he acted against the interests of News Corporation on four key decisions: on being minded to refer the bid to the Competition Commission, on refusing to accept News Corporation’s undertakings without taking advice first from the OFT and Ofcom, on extending the consultation, and on going back to Ofcom for further advice about the impact of phone hacking. I have seen no evidence to suggest that, in handling this issue, the Secretary of State acted at any stage in a way that was contrary to the ministerial code.

As for the Secretary of State’s responsibilities towards his Department, let me say this. The permanent secretary to the Department approved the approach that his department took to the quasi-judicial process, which included a small number of people acting as contact points with News Corporation, as is required and normal in such a process. The permanent secretary has stated that he was “aware” and “content” for contact to be made between the Culture Secretary’s special adviser and News Corporation. However, it is quite clear that that contact became improper and inappropriate, and went beyond the requirements set out by the Secretary of State or the permanent secretary. That is why the special adviser resigned, and he was right to do so.

There are correct procedures to follow in this regard, and they need to be followed scrupulously. That is why last week I asked the Cabinet Secretary, Sir Jeremy Heywood, and the head of the civil service, Sir Bob Kerslake, to write to all Departments clarifying the rigorous procedures that they should have in place for handling cases of this nature.

That leads to the second issue: the nature of the inquiry, or inquiries, best suited to getting to the bottom of this issue. I consulted the Cabinet Secretary, and decided that it was right to allow Lord Justice Leveson to conduct his inquiry and not to commission a parallel process to establish the facts. Let me repeat that what we have is a judge-led inquiry, witnesses required to give evidence under oath, full access to papers and records, and cross-examination by barristers, all live on television. There is nothing this tough or this rigorous that the civil service or the independent adviser could provide. Of course, it is not for Lord Justice Leveson to determine whether a Minister has broken the ministerial code. That is an issue for me, and I will deal with it properly. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Members are getting over-excited; they must not shout at the Prime Minister. They want to hear what the Prime Minister has to say, as do I, and it must be heard with courtesy.

[The Prime Minister]

I will not wait until the end of the Leveson inquiry to take action if action is needed. If new evidence emerges from the Leveson inquiry that the ministerial code has been broken, I will either seek the advice of Sir Alex Allan or take action directly, but the key point is this: in order to do this, it is neither necessary nor right to have a parallel investigation that could duplicate, cut across or possibly pre-empt what Lord Justice Leveson is doing. Lord Justice Leveson offered his own view on Wednesday, when he said that

“although I have seen requests for other inquiries and investigations…it seems to me that the better course is to allow this Inquiry to proceed.”

I agree with him entirely.

Let me briefly turn to the bigger picture. I am, and always will be, a fierce defender of the freedom of the press in this country—it is one of the central pillars of our democracy—but the relationship between politicians and the media has been too close for decades. The Leveson inquiry, which this Government have set up, gives Parliament and politicians of all parties the opportunity to get this right for the future. Already we have introduced transparency about the meetings we have with the media. Everyone can see which proprietors or editors I meet, whether publicly or privately.

Like other party leaders in our country for decades, I have tried to convince media outlets to support the policies of my party and, now, my Government, but let me be clear: there was not—there never has been—any grand bargain between the Conservative party and Rupert or James Murdoch. Indeed, look for one moment at the number of meetings Tony Blair and Gordon Brown had with Rupert Murdoch when they were Prime Minister: Blair seven; Brown 13; me four. The idea that there was some agreement that, in return for their support, we would somehow allow this merger to go through is simply not true. I have to say that if that was the case, while I respect him deeply, what on earth was I doing making the right hon. Member for Twickenham (Vince Cable) the Business Secretary responsible for this? [Interruption.] The proprietors of News Corporation have denied under oath at the Leveson inquiry—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Members must calm down. There will be a good opportunity for questioning, but let’s hear the Prime Minister’s statement.

[The Prime Minister]

The proprietors of News Corporation have denied under oath at the Leveson inquiry any type of deal, and I will do the same.

Let me make this last point: unlike the Labour party, we were not trying to convince a centre-right proprietor of a set of newspapers with solidly centre-right views to change the position of a lifetime. We were arguing a simple proposition: that the last Government were irresponsible, exhausted, bad for our country and ought to go.

While I have said that the relationship between politicians and the media has been too close, I note that none of the Members on the Labour Benches have disclosed any of the meetings they had with News International or other newspaper executives while in office. While the country wants to hear about jobs, investment, living standards and the great challenges we face, like debt, they just play one-sided party politics. Instead of endlessly trying to use the Leveson inquiry for party political purposes, is it not time they were honest about what they did in government and faced up to the real mess they left this country in?

[Edward Miliband]

The reason why it was essential for the Prime Minister to come to the House today is that the Culture Secretary is in clear breach of the ministerial code—and the Prime Minister stands by and does nothing. He asks why this matters. It matters because we need a Government who stand up for families, not the rich and powerful. He is failing that test. Playing for time, he says we should wait for the Leveson inquiry, but Lord Justice Leveson could not be clearer. This is what his spokesperson said: “the simple fact is” that Lord Justice Leveson

“is not the arbiter of the ministerial code, whatever anybody else is saying. There is somebody else who has that role…Alex Allan”.

Lord Justice Leveson is doing his job; it’s time the Prime Minister did his.

Can the Prime Minister confirm that there are no fewer than three breaches of the ministerial code by the Culture Secretary? First, in the House on 3 March the Culture Secretary told the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) that

“all the exchanges between my Department and News Corporation”—[Official Report, 3 March 2011; Vol. 524, c. 526]

—were being published. But he has now admitted that he knew, when he gave that answer, that there were exchanges that he himself had authorised between his special adviser and News Corporation. Yet none of those exchanges was disclosed, and we have 163 pages to prove it. The Prime Minister does not need to wait for the Leveson inquiry. Will he confirm to the House that this was a breach of paragraph 1.2 c of the code, which says that Ministers must provide full and accurate information to Parliament?

Secondly, on 25 January the Culture Secretary gave a statement to the House. We now know that two days before that statement, News Corporation was given confidential inside information—and this when the Culture Secretary had a constitutional duty to act in a quasi-judicial manner. The Prime Minister does not need to wait for the Leveson inquiry; will he confirm that that breaches paragraph 1 of the code, which requires the Minister to act with the “highest standards of propriety”, and paragraph 9.1, which says that Parliament must be told first?

Finally, the Culture Secretary would have us believe that his special adviser was on a freelance mission—six months of daily e-mails, texts, leaks and the leaking of confidential information about what opposing parties were saying. On one of the biggest media bids for decades, is the Prime Minister really reduced to the News of the World defence—one rogue individual acting alone? If the Culture Secretary really was that clueless about the biggest issue facing his Department, he should be sacked anyway.

The central question that the Prime Minister must answer, in view of three clear breaches of the ministerial code, is: why will he not refer the matter to the man whose responsibility it is—Sir Alex Allan? The Prime Minister is defending the indefensible, and he knows it. He is protecting the Culture Secretary’s job while up and down the country hundreds of thousands are losing theirs. We all know why the special adviser had to go to protect the Culture Secretary; the Culture Secretary has to stay to protect the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has shown today that he is incapable of doing his duty—too close to a powerful few, and out of touch with everyone else.

[The Prime Minister]

Weak and wrong—that is what we heard. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Members on both sides need to calm down. The Prime Minister wishes to be heard. I wish to hear him, and I hope the House does.

[The Prime Minister]

First of all, 15 years of secret meetings, pyjama parties, christenings and all the rest of it—and not one word of apology. Let me answer, very directly, the three points that the right hon. Gentleman made. First, he spoke about the response to my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry). If the right hon. Gentleman had done his research, he would have seen that the Secretary of State set out in full the proper answer to the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) in September 2011. If you are going to make these accusations, get your facts right before you come here.

On the second issue, the right hon. Gentleman raised specifically the information provided to News Corporation, and was completely wrong. On that, the special adviser has said:

“While it was part of my role to keep News Corporation informed throughout the BskyB bid process the content and extent of my contact was done without authorisation from the Secretary of State.”

So the second accusation is completely wrong.

The third accusation is also about the special adviser and the ministerial code. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State took responsibility. He came to the House, explained what had happened and gave a full account of himself. While we are on the subject of Ministers taking responsibility for their special advisers, can anyone remember a Minister taking responsibility for Charlie Whelan? Can we remember anyone taking responsibility for Damian McBride? What a lot of self-serving double standards we have had from the Labour party.

Let me just make two further points. The right hon. Gentleman says that this is an issue of judgment about what steps to take. Let us examine, briefly, what the judgment of the deputy leader of the Labour party was. She was asked very specifically, “You called for the Secretary of State’s resignation within 23 minutes of the evidence being provided to the Leveson inquiry. Did you read that evidence?” She said, “No, I didn’t need to.” She was asked, “Why didn’t you need to?” She said, “Because I heard the evidence of James Murdoch.” So that is it: he is Labour’s arbiter of standards and the ministerial code. What complete nonsense.

I am not belittling this issue. It is a serious issue, but it is not as serious as the eurozone, the jobs, investment and debt that we have to deal with. It is time we focused on that. Let me just say this to the right hon. Gentleman: endlessly questioning the integrity of someone when you do not have the evidence is bad judgment, rotten politics and plain wrong. We have learnt something about the Labour leader today and I think it is something he will regret.

[Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)]

I hope that the Prime Minister accepts that for more than 25 years every Liberal Democrat leader and colleague in both Houses has sought to break the insidious relationship between Labour and Tory Governments and the media. We therefore welcome the Leveson inquiry, which is doing an excellent job. If the Prime Minister accepts that that gives confidence to the public, will he also accept that referring this matter next month to the independent adviser will also give confidence to the public and that possibly, in the future, that should be done independently and not at the discretion of the Prime Minister of the day?

[The Prime Minister]

First, I very much agree with what my right hon. Friend says about the opportunity provided for the Leveson inquiry. I think we should be frank: the relationships between the media and the police, and between the media and politicians, and some of the ethics and problems in the media, have not been dealt with properly under Governments both Labour and Conservative, and this gives us an opportunity to deal with the matter. On the specific issue of the Secretary of State, what is more robust than a judge-led inquiry, with Ministers under oath—holding the Bible, speaking under oath and answering questions? That is the point on which we have heard absolutely no answer from the Labour party.

[Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)]

On Wednesday, the Secretary of State told this House that the permanent secretary had “agreed”, “authorised” and “approved” the role of Adam Smith. On Thursday, the permanent secretary refused 10 times to confirm to my Committee that that was the case. On Friday, he then wrote to me stating merely that he was “aware and content” with Adam Smith’s role. Either the Secretary of State failed to provide full and accurate information to Parliament or he failed to require his civil servant to provide full and accurate information to a Select Committee of Parliament. Both are breaches of the ministerial code—[Interruption.]

[Margaret Hodge]

Both are breaches of the ministerial code, both ride roughshod over the rights of Parliament and surely both need to be properly investigated by the independent adviser.

[The Prime Minister]

I did watch some of the permanent secretary’s appearance in front of the right hon. Lady’s Committee, when he thought he was going to be discussing the Olympic Games. What he said, over and over again, was that he backed what his Secretary of State had said at this Dispatch Box. When asked to clarify it, he made it absolutely clear that he agreed the arrangements within the Department, as I said in my statement, and he was aware of and content with the role of the special adviser. I know that the right hon. Lady sometimes allows her Committee to drift into these areas, but I am afraid that she is completely wrong.

[Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend accept that there is an urgent need to restore public confidence in the process that led to decisions in this matter and that to achieve that an inquiry needs to be held, in the open, in which witnesses give evidence in public, subject to cross-examination and under oath? Will he confirm that if at the end of that process there remain questions to be answered, he will refer the matter to the ministerial adviser—or it might be appropriate that it be looked into by a Select Committee of this House?

[The Prime Minister]

I can absolutely give my hon. Friend that assurance. I agree with him. Having seen some of the Leveson inquiry on television, I know that it is immensely powerful that people are questioned under oath, that all the documentation is carefully gone through and that questions on that documentation are properly followed up. As I say, that is far more robust than anything the independent adviser or the civil service could provide. As my hon. Friend says, I am not waiting for Leveson to complete his investigations. If at any stage information comes out that shows that anyone has breached the ministerial code, of course I will act. That is the right approach and I think people should respect the integrity of the fact-finding mission in which Leveson is engaged. It does not remove from me the necessity to police the ministerial code; that is my job and I will fulfil it properly.

[Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)]

One of the clear duties on any Secretary of State, for which they in turn are responsible to the Prime Minister and not to Lord Leveson, concerns the conduct of their special advisers. Given what the Prime Minister knows already about the palpable dereliction of duty by the Secretary of State in supervising that adviser, does he not believe that there are matters under the ministerial code that now merit investigation by the independent adviser? No one understands why he is seeking to shelter behind the smokescreen of Lord Leveson’s inquiry when the duty to have this investigation is on him.

[The Prime Minister]

I respect hugely the right hon. Gentleman and his experience in government and I think he would know that I consulted the Cabinet Secretary, asking the question, “What is the right process to follow to ensure we get to the truth and we deal with this issue?” The right process to follow is to allow Lord Leveson to find the facts of the case and if at any stage there is a question of the ministerial code being broken I can act. The ministerial code in respect of special advisers is absolutely clear: Ministers are responsible and they have to take responsibility, and that is what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State did when he came to the House.

[Mr Peter Lilley (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)]

Given that the role of the adviser on the ministerial code is purely to advise the Prime Minister on whether a Minister’s actions are in breach of that code, and not to investigate or establish the facts of those actions, is it not sensible to allow the Leveson inquiry to establish the facts and, in the unlikely event—in my view—that it discovers that there is a prima facie case to answer, then to refer it to the independent adviser on the ministerial code?

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. Friend is entirely right. It is worth examining for a second what would happen if the independent adviser was commissioned to set off down a process of factual discovery. He would have to look at all the information that is about to be provided and is being provided to the Leveson inquiry, which would literally duplicate the findings of fact and would literally be prejudging what the judge himself will be judging.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister has just claimed again that in relation to the BSkyB bid, the Government sought independent advice and followed it “at every stage”. Will he confirm that on 31 December 2010, Ofcom advised the Government to refer the bid to the Competition Commission and that the Government did not do that, so what he has just said to this House—they both said it last week—is simply not true?

[The Prime Minister]

I have to say to the right hon. Gentleman that he ought to know that we were acting in accordance with a law passed by his Government, the Enterprise Act 2002. That Act requires consideration of the company’s representations in terms of reference to the Competition Commission. If that is not taken into account, the matter could be subject to a judicial review. What I said, and what the Secretary of State said, which is that each stage he took independent advice and followed that advice, is correct.

[Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)]

All sensible people will welcome the Prime Minister’s approach to this very serious matter, but does he agree that it would be quite wrong to rush to judgment and that he has a duty to follow a just and exhaustive process?

[The Prime Minister]

I do think this is right. Perhaps we can recognise, if we go back over 10 or 20 years in politics, that it is frankly the easiest thing in the world for a Prime Minister to stand at this Dispatch Box and say to a member of the Cabinet, “Oh, it’s all getting a bit difficult—off you go.” I think it is important to get to the facts—to get to the truth. That is what I believe in doing. It is called natural justice, and we should have some more of it.

[Mr Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister is well aware that for many years now, the machinery has been in place for investigations of breaches of the codes of conduct for Ministers and for Members of the House of Commons. Why does the Prime Minister not implement that, as opposed to going to a third party?

[The Prime Minister]

Again, I say, “Can you think of a process that is more robust than a Minister having to provide, under oath, information to an inquiry, and answering questions under oath, knowing all the time that if anything in that information in any way breaches the ministerial code, it can trigger another judgment?” That is what is happening. That is what I agreed with the Cabinet Secretary, a civil servant of impeccable standing, and I am absolutely convinced that it is the right approach.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

This morning, I checked with my office in Wellingborough to see whether there were lots of complaints about the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, and Mrs Bone said that there were hundreds and hundreds. They all wanted to know why Harry is not to become the England football team manager. There was not a single complaint about the Secretary of State. The message that Mrs Bone wanted to give was “Let the Prime Minister get on with running the country and solving the economic crisis.”

[The Prime Minister]

As ever, Mrs Bone is spot on, and I am sure that there are many like her, round the country, saying to us, “This is important—don’t belittle the issue—but there are many more important issues about jobs, living standards, and dealing with the debt that you should be getting on with.”

[Frank Dobson (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)]

Does the Prime Minister not accept that all his problems spring from his original misjudgment? Having taken responsibility for the News Corp bid for BSkyB away from the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills because he had expressed antipathy towards News Corporation, it was stupid of the Prime Minister to hand that responsibility over to the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport, who was already on record as being in favour of the bid.

[The Prime Minister]

I am afraid that I do not accept that at all. To be fair to my right hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Vince Cable), it was not just antipathy; he was recorded saying that he wanted to destroy the business. He could not carry on running that part of his Department. I sought advice from the Cabinet Secretary, and the Cabinet Secretary sought legal advice from the Cabinet Office. The view came back that it was appropriate to ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport to fulfil that role.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Can the Prime Minister reassure the House that we are getting maximum value for money, in these cash-strapped times, from the office of the independent adviser?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, I can.

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

I was at the meeting of the Public Accounts Committee at which, according to the Prime Minister’s statement, the permanent secretary said that he approved the approach taken by the Department in relation to using Adam Smith as a conduit. That is not what the permanent secretary said. He said:

“The Secretary of State made a full statement to Parliament…and he has made it clear that he is providing full written evidence and looking forward to providing oral evidence to the Leveson inquiry.”

Given that the terms of reference of the Leveson inquiry make no reference at all to the accountability of Ministers to Parliament, how can Leveson deal with the concerns that have been expressed?

[The Prime Minister]

Let me be absolutely clear about what the permanent secretary has done and approved. He approved the approach taken by the Department to the quasi-judicial process relating to the BSkyB bid. This included a small number of people—including Adam Smith, the special adviser—acting as a contact point with News Corporation. It is normal—indeed, required—in such a process to have contacts, and the permanent secretary has made it clear that he was aware and content for Adam Smith to be one of those points of contact. You can keep digging into this area, but I am afraid that it is not getting anywhere.

[David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)]

Will the Prime Minister tell us whether he, like previous Prime Ministers, has ever phoned the Murdoch empire to offer his services as a godfather, or perhaps offer No. 10 for a pyjama party? If not, does he think that what we are seeing is a call for openness, or more naked opportunism than one would find on page 3?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend puts it well. The point is this: I am perfectly prepared to admit that the relationship between politicians and media proprietors got too close. What is interesting about the Labour party is that it has not revealed any of the meetings that it had while it was in government, whereas we have been completely transparent.

[Mr Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister has insisted on the Leveson process to decide the fate of the Secretary of State, and he will be judged by that. May I ask that he assist the inquiry by providing the Leveson team with the private texts and e-mails of Treasury special advisers to Mr Frederic Michel and Graham McWilliam of BSkyB?

[The Prime Minister]

The point about the Leveson inquiry is that it is a judge-led inquiry. He is able to ask for any papers or material that he wants and this Government will provide it.

[Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the principles of fair play and natural justice dictate that accusations made about the Secretary of State at Leveson should be determined only after the Secretary of State has had the opportunity to give his side of the story at Leveson? Does he also agree that the motivation for this urgent question today has more to do with the failure of the Opposition to engage on the issues before the people of London and the people of Britain at the ballot box on Thursday?

[The Prime Minister]

The motivation is probably that the Opposition would rather do anything than get out and campaign for Ken Livingstone. I am willing to keep them here as long as they like. They must answer for their own motivation, but that is my guess.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

The one fact that the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State cannot get away from is the fact that James Murdoch knew precisely, word for word, what the Secretary of State was going to say before he said it, before the House knew on three occasions and before commercial operators in opposition to Murdoch knew it. Is that not a clear example of collusion between the Government and of a shabby deal between the Prime Minister and the Murdochs?

[The Prime Minister]

While we are on the subject of people who say things before they should, I would have thought that when the hon. Gentleman stands up in the House, he should make an apology. He stood up last week and claimed a whole series of facts about meetings that I had had with Rupert Murdoch based on privileged access that he had had—and he is not denying it—to this inquiry, and the facts turned out to be wrong. A man of honour would stand up and apologise.

[Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)]

The press have a proud and historic role in British politics and it is right that political parties communicate their policy to the nation, but does my right hon. Friend agree that that is in stark contrast to a political party that thinks that national politics should be directed by the highest union bidder?

[Mr David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)]

Can my right hon. Friend provide any information about the last time a proposed takeover bid was given the same level of scrutiny and independent advice as the BSkyB bid has been given?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is entirely right. The scrutiny that that was given, the process, the transparency—that was a proper process. As my right hon. Friend the Culture Secretary has explained, on four occasions he took steps that were not welcomed by News Corporation, but in everything he did, he was open, transparent and taking independent advice.

[Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)]

Why is the Culture Secretary getting better employment rights than the rest of the workers in Britain? Is it possibly because the Prime Minister knows that as long as the Culture Secretary is in the firing line, it prevents the bullets from hitting him, the Prime Minister?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman has the right at any time to take his pension, and I advise him to do so.

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

I welcome the open and thorough process that Lord Justice Leveson will be engaged in. I also welcome a Prime Minister who will be personally responsible for ensuring that his Government adhere to the ministerial code of conduct. Will he also make the decision that his Ministers cannot make, and require Lord Justice Leveson to report on his inquiry directly to him?

[The Prime Minister]

The point about the Leveson inquiry is that its report will clearly be a major political, media and regulatory event. He is effectively reporting not only to all in the Government, but to everyone in Parliament, in politics and in public life who care about this issue. I do think—I do hope—that all parties will be able to engage in this, because we have an opportunity to deal with issues of press regulation and relations between politicians and the media that have not been right in our country but that, frankly, we will only get right if we work on a cross-party basis.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

As the only defence that the Secretary of State has is based on the fiction that the only way Ministers communicate with their special advisers is by e-mail, why has the Prime Minister forgotten the lesson of the David Mellor scandal, which is that a resignation delayed is a disgrace multiplied?

[The Prime Minister]

If the hon. Gentleman is really concerned, as I am, about making sure that all the information about this is properly looked into, what is preferable: a civil service-run process where you can look at papers and ask questions, or a judge-led inquiry with Ministers answering questions under oath where all the documents have to be revealed and the whole thing is pursued properly by a team of barristers who are expert at finding out the facts? This is why I do not really understand where the Opposition are coming from. If they want full factual disclosure before making a judgment about whether any ministerial codes were broken, this must be the most robust process.

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

In a previous scandal affecting Damian McBride, a very respected Member of this House, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson), suggested that the then Prime Minister could not take responsibility for every single initiative or text from advisers in No. 10. Will my right hon. Friend say why he thinks the situation is any different now?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point. Taking responsibility for a special adviser means coming to this House and explaining what has happened. In this case the special adviser resigned immediately and gave his reasons for resigning, so on that basis I am very confident that my right hon. Friend has not broken the ministerial code.

[Mr Gerry Sutcliffe (Bradford South) (Lab)]

The permanent secretary will not be giving evidence to the Leveson inquiry, so when will parliamentarians have the opportunity to question him on the role he played? This is a very important issue, and DCMS has been used to these issues before, so when will parliamentarians have the opportunity to know exactly what the permanent secretary’s advice was and when it was given, and is the Prime Minister not shocked that the key person was the special adviser?

[The Prime Minister]

Let me answer all those questions. First of all, it is up to Lord Justice Leveson whom he calls to his inquiry. He has full access; he can call any civil servant, any politician—anyone he wants. That is the first point. The second point is this: in this House, our Select Committee, excellently chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale), is able to call, whenever it likes, whatever civil servants it likes and to ask those questions. On the issue about the way the Department ran the quasi-judicial process, yes that is why the Cabinet Secretary, Sir Jeremy Heywood, has written to all Departments to make sure that rigorous processes are followed in all quasi-judicial cases.

[Mr Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that a company that automatically sacked the director because one of his subordinates had got something wrong would never achieve anything worth while?

[The Prime Minister]

I have to say, on the argument made by the Labour party, that if its Ministers had resigned every time one of their special advisers had got something wrong, we would have had a new Government virtually every week.

[Mr Michael Meacher (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab)]

Is it not obvious that the real reason the Prime Minister is so reluctant to refer this matter to the independent adviser on the ministerial code is that, if the Secretary of State were forced to resign as a result, the Prime Minister would find himself on the front line and having to answer for every future revelation about the covert links between the Murdoch empire and the Conservative party? In those circumstances, is it not inappropriate that the Prime Minister, who has a vested interest, should take this decision, rather than Parliament, based on a substantive motion and a vote in the House?

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman could find any sort of complicated, circuitous explanation he wants, but he could always go for the simple one, which is that, having consulted the Cabinet Secretary and listened to the views of others, the best way to find out the facts is to allow Leveson to run its course. That does not in any way excuse me from exercising my duties under the ministerial code. That is the answer. Sometimes the simple explanation is actually the right one.

[Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, if any major business were bidding for a large UK company, it would be perfectly normal for that business to have dialogue with the Department involved?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is right. It is important that that dialogue is carried out appropriately. In this case the special adviser did not act appropriately or properly, and that is why he resigned, but I do believe that it raises some wider issues, and that is why I asked Sir Jeremy Heywood to write to all Departments to make sure that in any quasi-judicial matters we get it right.

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

People in Wales will compare the privileged access that Mr Murdoch and his friends had to the Culture Secretary with the cavalier way in which the right hon. Gentleman treated campaigners for public sector television in Wales. That is a small matter in the grand scheme of things, but is it not just another example of his double dealing and double standards?

[The Prime Minister]

I do not accept that, because I think that we have done right by S4C and that broadcasting in Wales is a great success. Let me just make this point, which perhaps will get some all-party agreement. All media companies have their great causes and lobbies, and I would say, after seven years of being leader of the Conservative party, that one gets as much pressure from the BBC, from regional newspapers and from other papers about things that they are concerned about. It is worth putting that on the record.

[Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con)]

Having had a statement less than one week ago, and with the facts having remained unchanged since then, does the Prime Minister agree that, rather than listening to flip-flopping from the Leader of the Opposition, we should remember that just a week ago he himself said, quite rightly, that we should let Leveson do its job?

[The Prime Minister]

That is exactly what the right hon. Gentleman said. Let me just remind him. He said:

“I think…it’s right that the Leveson Inquiry takes its course.”

That is what he said—just a week ago. The trouble is that he was bounced by the deputy leader of the Labour party, who thought that this issue would get a good headline, 23 minutes after the evidence had come out, and because he has no judgment he backed it.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

Can I push the Prime Minister on something that really concerns me: the role of the special adviser? Any of us who knows about the role of the special adviser knows that they are not one of many officials, but people who work intimately and closely with their Minister. I do not believe for one moment that the Prime Minister does not know that that special adviser must have known everything that was going on, and have told his Minister on an hour-by-hour and a day-by-day basis.

[The Prime Minister]

All that information is going to be provided to the Leveson inquiry. My right hon. Friend the Culture Secretary has been very clear about the role he played and the role his special adviser played. The special adviser has been very clear about the role he played and the fact that he went way beyond anything that he was authorised to do, but the difference between the process we are about to go through and a normal Cabinet Secretary or independent adviser process, is that people are going to be answering questions under oath—questioned by a barrister, in a court. That is pretty powerful.

[Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)]

Does the Prime Minister agree that, even if the matter should have been referred to the independent adviser, they would almost certainly be heavily guided by the Secretary of State’s evidence in front of the Leveson inquiry anyway, given that it provides for the highest level of public scrutiny possible?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. We could not even guarantee that the independent adviser would be quicker, but as I tried to explain earlier there would be a danger of a duplicative fact-finding process that would cut across what Lord Justice Leveson is doing. But let me repeat again: I am not in any way denying that I am responsible for the ministerial code. If breaches occur, I must act, or ask the advice of Alex Allan in order to do so. I could not be clearer about it.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister told Andrew Marr yesterday that he did discuss the BSkyB bid with James Murdoch at the Rebekah Brooks dinner. I wonder why, since there is nothing to hide, the Prime Minister felt unable to admit that last July, when it was put to him eight times by Members of this House.

[The Prime Minister]

What I have always said is that I have not had any inappropriate conversation about this issue—and, indeed, I have not. But clearly it is very important, in the context of this inquiry, to recall everything possible, and what I recall is that, because of the frankly rather embarrassing situation that we were in, whereby a Minister had said that he was trying to “destroy” a media company, it was perfectly appropriate for me to say that that was not correct or appropriate and that these things would be dealt with properly in future. That is a thoroughly responsible and sensible thing to say.

[Louise Mensch (Corby) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend share my mystification as to how the Leader of the Opposition can deduce that there has been a breach of the ministerial code without seeing the texts and e-mails that passed between the Culture Secretary and Adam Smith, which are to come out in the Leveson inquiry?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend absolutely puts her finger on it. The fact is that the Leader of the Opposition does not want to wait for the evidence and does not want to wait for the information; he saw a passing bandwagon and jumped on board it. That is what happened.

[Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)]

Is the Prime Minister seriously disputing the fact that the Culture Secretary said that he would publish

“all the documents relating to all the meetings…all the exchanges between my department and News Corporation”?—[Official Report, 3 March 2011; Vol. 524, c. 526.]

Is he disputing the fact that 163 pages of e-mails were published last week? Does he see no problem in that omission whatsoever?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

The point I made is that my right hon. Friend dealt with that in the statement that he made on Wednesday, because his answer was subsequently given to the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) to explain the situation, as is absolutely correct.

[Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)]

Will the Prime Minister confirm that a civil service-led inquiry would have absolutely no power to summon a Minister under oath and that nor would it be held in public? Does he therefore agree that at this stage following the Leveson route is the best way of giving the Secretary of State his opportunity to clear the record and to find the truth?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is right. I do not want in any way to belittle what the Cabinet Secretary, a former civil servant or Sir Alex Allan are capable of in terms of proper inquiries, because this has happened in the past; it happened with my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox). It so happens that the process that we are currently engaged in—the Leveson inquiry—is many times more robust in getting to the facts of the case. Once we have the facts, and if they throw up any extra information, the situation in terms of the ministerial code has not changed.

[Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)]

Does the Prime Minister agree that if market-sensitive information was passed to News International in advance of an announcement being made, that would not only be a breach of the code but illegal?

[The Prime Minister]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that a very serious accusation has been made about what the special adviser did and the information that has been passed, and that does need to be properly investigated.

[Sajid Javid (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

Charlie Whelan and Damian McBride were both special advisers to the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), and both resigned in disgrace. Can the Prime Minister tell the House whether a ministerial inquiry was held at the time or, indeed, whether the matter was looked at by a judge-led public inquiry?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. There have been occasions when special advisers have misbehaved and the Minister involved, far from taking responsibility, as my right hon. Friend the Culture Secretary has done in coming straight to the House, has just tried to shrug it off.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

Is not the core of the matter this: did the Secretary of State know what e-mails were being sent out and what was being leaked by a special adviser on this issue? If he did not know, how could it be argued that he was in control of his Department? Surely, therefore, this is a matter for the ministerial code and not for Leveson.

[The Prime Minister]

I agree with the first half of what the hon. Gentleman said, which is that it is important that we establish the full facts of the case. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been absolutely clear, and so has the special adviser. The difference between this case and other cases where Ministers are involved in these sorts of accusations is that this is going to be examined by a judge in a court.

[George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)]

As long ago as 2006, the Information Commissioner revealed that newspapers were driving an

“illegal market in personal information”,

and yet there was no judicial inquiry and the former Prime Minister, Tony Blair, did not dare criticise what he called the “feral beast” of the media until days before he left office. Now that we have the Leveson inquiry, does the Prime Minister agree that Ministers in the last Government should be given the opportunity to explain why they did so little in response to that report?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point. Frankly, it is, yes, a point for the last Government, but it is also a point for the last Opposition. These were powerful reports by the Information Commissioner, but the problem is that our political system did not react properly to them. That is one of the reasons it is so important to have the Leveson inquiry and to try to get to a situation where we have an appropriate regulatory system, so that when problems are thrown up, as they were by Richard Thomas in those reports, they are properly dealt with.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

If it is the Prime Minister’s case that Adam Smith, who was appointed by the Secretary of State, exceeded his authority in his dealings with News Corp, will he explain what benefits Smith, rather than the Secretary of State, expected to get from pleasing the Murdochs?

[The Prime Minister]

Adam Smith, the special adviser, has made his role absolutely clear. He said:

“While it was part of my role to keep News Corporation informed throughout the BSkyB process, the content and extent of my contact was done without authorisation from the Secretary of State.”

That is what he said and the hon. Gentleman should listen.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

Does the Prime Minister recall the words of his noble predecessor, Baroness Thatcher, who said that advisers advise and Ministers decide? Does not a judicious Prime Minister consider things thoughtfully and carefully before making up his mind, and would not only a socialist Yahoo make up his mind in 23 minutes?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is quite right. It is the easiest thing in the world to react to any Opposition leader or politician calling for a scalp or asking for a resignation, but one has to take the time and get the issue right. That is exactly what is being done in this case, and people will just have to be patient while the full facts are looked at.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

As a former competition Minister who dealt with some quasi-judicial matters, I do not understand why a special adviser was involved in any case, since they are appointed purely to carry out political work on behalf of a Minister. Has the Prime Minister got to the bottom of whose idea it was that the special adviser should be involved? The House has still not been told.

[The Prime Minister]

Let me try to explain. A range of people were authorised to have contact with News Corporation. Clearly, if a company is involved in a transaction, it has to have some contact with the Department about process and the rest of it. The authorisation was given—it was agreed by the permanent secretary—so I think that the hon. Gentleman is barking up the wrong tree.

[Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)]

Fred Michel said:

“Throughout the bid process, I met senior teams from all political parties on a regular basis to update them, ask their advice or share views on the situation.”

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in the interests of transparency, all parties should publish all correspondence between their representatives at those discussions at News Corporation?

[The Prime Minister]

That is very good idea. To be fair, Fred Michel even met the Liberal Democrats, so we all need to be transparent about this.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

Military Medals Review

Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton Excerpts

Monday 30th April 2012 Written Statements

[The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)]

This Government are fully committed to recognising all that our armed forces do to keep us safe. That is why this Government have enshrined the military covenant in law. Today, I am pleased to update the House on the fresh review of the rules and principles governing the award of military campaign medals that Lord Astor announced in the House last October (26 October 2011, Official Report, column 856).

The review will make recommendations where appropriate for any change.

I have appointed Sir John Holmes to carry out this review to ensure that it is fully independent. Sir John is currently director at the Ditchley Foundation, and formerly served as the UN’s Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator and as Her Majesty’s ambassador in Paris and Lisbon.

I have asked Sir John Holmes to report on his review by the summer.

A copy of the terms of reference has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

Official Histories: Special Operations Executive in Italy

Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton Excerpts

Monday 23rd April 2012 Written Statements

[The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)]

I have appointed Dr Roderick Bailey, Research Associate at the Imperial War Museum, to complete the writing of Special Operations Executive (SOE) in Italy 1940-43.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton Excerpts

Wednesday 21st March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)]

Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 21 March.

[The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)]

This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, and in addition to my duties in this House I shall have further such meetings later today.

[Mark Menzies]

Small business is concerned that Britain suffers from a sicknote culture. Does the Prime Minister agree that an example should be set from the very top, and that those who throw sickies and then swan off to a football match in a Rolls-Royce are setting a very bad example indeed?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. We do have a problem of a sicknote culture, and I have to report that the problem can sometimes go to the very top. The Leader of the Opposition was meant to be addressing a health rally, called a sickie, and three hours later was at a Hull football match. As well as his knowing the miracle cure, I think there is an important question—what was it that first attracted him to the multi-millionaire owner of the Hull football club?

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

Following the Prime Minister’s recent trip to Washington, we now know that the timetable for the withdrawal of British and other international combat forces in Afghanistan will be reviewed at the NATO summit in Chicago in May. He has previously set out a timetable that would see combat operations for British troops cease by the end of 2014. Given the recent statements by the US Defence Secretary and the French President about an accelerated timetable for their troops, can the Prime Minister confirm the British Government’s position going into that summit?

[The Prime Minister]

First, let me take this opportunity on behalf of the whole House once again to pay tribute to the magnificent work that our armed forces do in Afghanistan. We had another reminder yesterday of the very high price that we have paid.

On the programme of withdrawal, what I have said absolutely stands, which is that we will not be in a combat role in Afghanistan after 2014, nor will we have anything like the number of troops that we have now. We will be performing a training task, particularly helping with the officer training academy. Between now and 2014, it is important that we have a sensible profile for the reduction in troop numbers, which should be largely based on the conditions in the three parts of Helmand province that we are still responsible for and the transition that takes place.

What I discussed with President Obama in America was that in 2013, if there are opportunities to change the nature of the mission and be more in a support rather than in a direct combat role, that is something that I think everyone will want to see. We can make further progress on that issue at the Chicago summit and make announcements later in the year about that.

[Edward Miliband]

I thank the Prime Minister for that answer, and I know he will keep the House informed of any change in the British position, and indeed of the precise timetable and any evolution of it.

I am sure the Prime Minister will agree that in the wake of the tragic killing of Afghan civilians last week, which we all abhor, we must carry on with our mission. President Karzai has recommended that international troops should be confined to their main bases. Notwithstanding the tragedy of the incident that occurred, does the Prime Minister agree that while international troops are there, they must be able to perform their role of protecting the Afghan population? Can he tell us what discussions he has had with President Karzai and his representatives about the impact that any change in that role will have on security in Helmand, were that to happen?

[The Prime Minister]

Obviously our teams are in permanent contact about Afghanistan, and I speak to President Karzai regularly. Obviously what happened in Afghanistan, with the dreadful shootings that the rogue American soldier carried out, was a dreadful event, which must be properly prosecuted and dealt with for what it was: a mass murder. I know that President Obama takes that view very strongly.

In terms of making sure that we work with the Afghans, as I have said, the key is ensuring that we transition in the three parts of Helmand for which we are responsible, that we hand over to Afghan troops, and that they are in the lead as soon as they are capable of fulfilling that task. I do not have any concerns at the moment about the role of British troops—they are able to carry out the tasks that they are allotted. We are making good progress in the three parts of Helmand. We will be in permanent touch with the Afghans about that transition, but transition is a process and, as the Chancellor will explain in a moment or two, we should try to make the most of the transition that will take place.

[Edward Miliband]

I know that the Prime Minister agrees with me that dialogue with President Karzai and his representatives on the issue is very important, particularly in the light of the comments that were made. A few days ago, the Taliban decided to suspend preliminary talks with the United States. Will the Prime Minister give the House his assessment of the significance of that? Does he agree that we owe it to our troops serving in Afghanistan to be much more urgently focused on the task of securing a lasting political settlement? How do the British Government plan to play their role in getting the political process restarted?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that question. It is vital that we get this right. Since we took office—to be fair to the previous Government, they took this view as well—the British position has always been that we need a political settlement to ensure the best possible outcome for the people of Afghanistan. Britain has been pushing for political reconciliation and reintegration, and I had very productive talks with President Obama last week because the American view is now the same; they want to support that political process. Of course, the Taliban said what they said last week. I would make this point: we are committed to handing over to the Afghan Government, the Afghan military and the Afghan police—and the numbers of Afghan military and police are on track—at the end of 2014. We believe that that can happen even without a political settlement, with a satisfactory outcome for the United Kingdom, but clearly it would be better for everyone concerned if it was accompanied by a political settlement. The work for that, including setting up a Taliban political office in Qatar, is progressing well, and I believe that it is in everyone’s interest that we keep pushing that agenda. However, the Taliban should be in no doubt: there are opportunities for a political settlement if they give up violence, renounce al-Qaeda and want to play a part in the future politics of Afghanistan, but if they do not take those steps, we will continue to defeat them on the battlefield every time they raise their head.

[Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)]

Q2. I know that the Prime Minister will agree that the Association of Air Ambulances is a fantastic charity, which enjoys support across the House. However, a typical air ambulance branch needs to raise about £5 million a year, yet can claim gift aid often on only about 5% of that. Will he support my efforts to make it easier for charities to get the gift aid that they are due?

[The Prime Minister]

First, I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the air ambulance service, which does an amazing job in responding to emergencies, and saves many, many lives. We are providing £3 billion a year in tax reliefs for charities, of which gift aid makes up around £1 billion. We are increasing the amount on which charities are allowed to claim gift aid without the need for a declaration. That takes it up to £5,000, and I think that that will be a significant help to great charities such as the one my hon. Friend mentioned.

[Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)]

When the disability Minister came to Wales last week, she said that it was for others to consider whether Remploy’s budgets should be devolved to Wales. I think, when she said “others”, she meant you, Prime Minister. The Welsh Government have already said that they are committed to supporting the Remploy workers in Wales. Will the Prime Minister therefore devolve the Remploy budgets for the Welsh factories for the next three years to ensure that all the factories that can have a future do have a future?

[The Prime Minister]

I will look carefully at the right hon. Lady’s proposal, because I know it is put forward in a constructive spirit. However, whether the decision is reserved or devolved, it does not mean that we do not have to take difficult decisions. The fact is that we asked the chief executive of Disability Rights UK to look at the issue, and the outcome she proposed is supported by Mencap, Mind, Disability Wales, Sense for Deafblind People and the Centre for Mental Health. The point is this: Government funding allows for half a billion pounds over five years for Remploy, but even that is not enough to keep those factories open, because although access to work awards are around £2,900 per disabled person, the cost of each job in Remploy is around £25,000 per person. Therefore, if the aim of policy is to use the money that we have to support disabled people into work, the right hon. Lady will understand why the review came to the decision that it did.

[Gavin Williamson (South Staffordshire) (Con)]

3. The last few weeks have seen the start of the £350 million construction of Jaguar Land Rover’s new engine plant in my constituency. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is a sign of growing confidence and belief in British manufacturing, which is in stark contrast to the destruction wrought on it by the last Labour Government?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. The Jaguar Land Rover news is excellent news for the west midlands and for British manufacturing and British car making. The good news is that what is happening in the car industry is not confined to Jaguar Land Rover: Nissan, Honda and Toyota are all expanding across our country. That is very good news for British manufacturing.

[Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)]

On the bus to the Commons today I foolishly revealed to a fellow passenger that I was a Member of Parliament. After some light-hearted and customary abuse, our conversation turned to life, the universe and commuting. Can the Prime Minister tell me and the man on the Peckham omnibus this: if that journey cost me 90p under Ken, how much did the same journey cost me today under Boris?

[The Prime Minister]

The point I would make is that Ken twice promised to freeze fares and twice did not deliver, but the difference between Boris and Ken is that Boris pays his taxes and Ken does not.

[Jane Ellison (Battersea) (Con)]

On that very subject, I look forward in the Budget later to measures on tax avoidance, but does the Prime Minister agree that people seeking high office in public life should set a better example?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. I note that Ken Livingstone has said that if he is elected Mayor of London, he will fully pay his taxes. It is not for me to hand out political advice, but my advice would be to pay them before the campaign gets going.

[John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

5. Does the Prime Minister recognise that the introduction of regional pay would set hospital against hospital, and school against school, as the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills has helpfully pointed out, and yet it would almost certainly push up the overall cost of public sector pay? Can the Prime Minister give us a guarantee or a promise today that introducing regional pay will bring down the overall bill?

[The Prime Minister]

The last Government introduced local pay into the Court Service. The idea of local pay for some public services is not an alien concept, but a perfectly sensible thing to look at. Labour Front Benchers suggested in the debate on benefits that we look at local levels of benefits, so surely the hon. Gentleman should be in favour rather than against.

[Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)]

14. I am sure the Prime Minister will join me in praising the work of the search and rescue helicopter service around our country, but does he share my concern that the loss of the Portland search and rescue helicopter in 2017 will threaten the lives of my constituents and damage the integrity of the search and rescue service on the south coast?

[The Prime Minister]

I totally agree with my hon. Friend that a reliable search and rescue service is vital. We have looked at keeping the Sea King helicopters, which is one of the things he suggested, but they would not be able to provide a service as good or as capable as a modern fleet of helicopters. That is why we are planning the changes. We believe that it should provide faster flying times and a more reliable service.

[Edward Miliband]

Following last year’s riots, the Prime Minister came to the House and said that

“we will help you repair the damage, get your businesses back up and running and support your communities.”—[Official Report, 11 August 2011; Vol. 531, c. 1053.]

Last week, a report by the Metropolitan police revealed that of the claims made by the uninsured under the Riot (Damages) Act 1886, only about half had been settled since last August. Does the Prime Minister agree that this is simply not good enough?

[The Prime Minister]

I agree. There have been problems under the Riot (Damages) Act, which is specifically why we also introduced a number of extra funds run by the Department for Communities and Local Government. Those funds have paid out faster. It is right, in a way, to have the Riot (Damages) Act, although it is quite out of date. However, it takes time to make the payments, and I will certainly do what I can to chase them up.

[Edward Miliband]

We are eight months on from the riots. The Deputy Prime Minister hosted a reception—[Interruption.] Government Members should listen to this very important issue about the riots. At a reception last week organised by the Deputy Prime Minister, he and I met Amrit Khurmy, the owner of Ealing Green supermarket, which was razed to the ground during the violence on 8 August. She is still waiting to receive any compensation. Does the Prime Minister agree that, eight months on, that is just not right? Does he further agree that ultimately it is the Government’s responsibility to ensure that she gets the compensation that she deserves?

[The Prime Minister]

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, and I will look into that specific case. As I said, one reason I introduced funds alongside the Riot (Damages) Act was to get that money out to local authorities faster. If he likes, I will put in the Library of the House of Commons a set of information about what those funds did and where we have got to with that Act. I will also look into the individual case that he mentioned.

[Edward Miliband]

We are talking about people who have not been helped by the money provided to local authorities and cannot get help. Three things need to happen to make good on this. First, as matter of urgency, there needs to be proper information on the payments made under the Riot (Damages) Act—[Interruption.] Government Members say, “There is information”. There is information from the Metropolitan police, but the reality is that the information available about what is happening around the country is very patchy. So first we need proper information. Secondly, I ask the Prime Minister to nominate a Home Office Minister with the job of ensuring that these claims are paid. Thirdly, will he promise to return to the House with a clear indication of when 100% of legitimate claims will be properly settled?

[The Prime Minister]

I am certainly happy to return to the House, as I said, putting an answer in the House of Commons Library about all this information. On the individual case that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, I understand that it was a multiple claim because it was a shop with a number of flats above it, but I accept that eight months is too long. So we will make progress on that case. The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice is taking the lead on this matter, but I have also held follow-up meetings myself with DCLG and the Home Office to ensure that the money is paid out.

[Guto Bebb (Aberconwy) (Con)]

Q15. The Prime Minister might be aware that the St Dunstan’s charity, which provides support for injured servicemen, has recently changed its name to Blind Veterans UK. To raise awareness of this name change, will he join me in visiting its new residential centre in Llandudno to see at first hand the wonderful work it does in supporting our veterans?

[The Prime Minister]

I always enjoy my visits to Llandudno, and perhaps I will be able to schedule one before long. I would like to put on the record my thanks for the tireless and highly professional way in which the charity assists service personnel who have tragically lost their sight. My hon. Friend pays it a great compliment and does his duty by explaining the change in its name, so that people know what it is and can give it money. As a country and a Government, we have a huge debt to pay to former service personnel. They have done extraordinary things on behalf of their country, and we need to look after them through their lives. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor will make some announcements about that in his Budget.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

Q6. The Prime Minister said last year that under his Government unemployment would fall year on year, but here we are with unemployment at a 17-year high. In my constituency, 55.4 people are chasing every job vacancy. The regional growth fund has supported only four businesses. Why should the 515 workers in Rio Tinto Alcan, the disabled workers at Remploy and many others set to lose their jobs believe a single word that he or the Chancellor say?

[The Prime Minister]

First, on the specific case of the Rio Tinto plant, I know how important that is. We are working with Northumbria county council and the company to do what we can to help get those people work, although I understand that Rio Tinto is still in negotiations with a potential purchaser of that plant. What I would say to the hon. Gentleman about employment and unemployment is this. Clearly we need more jobs in our economy, but since the election we have had more than 600,000 new jobs in the private sector. The level of employment in the country is up by around 250,000 and there are fewer people on out-of-work benefits now than there were at the time of the election. In terms of what is happening in the north-east, we should also celebrate the good news—the fact that Nissan is creating 2,000 jobs; the fact that Hitachi is building a new plant in County Durham; the fact that Newcastle airport is expanding; the fact that Greggs is putting more money into the north-east. We should be talking up the north-east instead of talking it down.

[Mr Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD)]

The running aground of a cargo vessel on a small island in the Minch showed the need for the emergency coastguard tug that was recently withdrawn from service. Will the Prime Minister please look into this as a matter of urgency, with a view to getting a replacement tug in place before a worse incident happens?

[The Prime Minister]

I know this issue is being looked into at the moment, so I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman and give him the details. He represents island communities that can be extremely cut off, particularly during the winter months. He needs to know that those services are there, and I will write to him about that.

[Mr Graham Allen (Nottingham North) (Lab)]

Q7. Further to his letter to the hon. Member for Nottingham North of 15 August 2011, when he expects the civil service to issue the full tender document required to set up an early intervention foundation.

[The Prime Minister]

First, let me pay tribute to the work the hon. Gentleman does in this area. Early intervention is absolutely central to what this Government are looking to achieve. That is how we are going to improve the life chances of the least well-off in our country, and genuinely lift young people and children out of poverty. We will base funding decisions on what comes out of the first two years, but as he will know, the early intervention grant, which is a crucial piece of Government funding and policy, is going to rise next year.

[Mr Allen]

May I thank the Prime Minister and the leaders of all parties in the Chamber for their continuing support for early intervention? Early intervention not only helps babies, children and young people to develop the social and emotional capability to make the best of themselves, but saves the country billions of pounds in the long run. Will the Prime Minister and the Chancellor take this as the first representation not for today’s Budget, but for next year’s Budget? Will he consider theming next year’s Budget around early intervention, bringing forward proposals for tax changes to stimulate the social finance market, which we heard about in earlier questions, and move 1% only of departmental budgets from late intervention to early intervention?

[The Prime Minister]

In terms of Budget submissions, that was definitely an example of early intervention. I praise the hon. Gentleman for the work that he has done. As he knows, we will be setting up the early intervention foundation, which will be funded to make the arguments that he has put very effectively, whichever side of the Chamber he has been sitting on, for very many years. I will certainly discuss this issue with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. What we are trying to do is look at all the mechanisms we have, whether it is backing nursery education, introducing a pupil premium, making sure the early intervention grant is going up or actually putting the money in early to try to change people’s life chances before it is too late.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

Q8. Is the Prime Minister aware that Harlow has the highest business growth in the whole of the United Kingdom, thanks to a Conservative council that is open for business and a Conservative-led Government who have invested in an enterprise zone, increased apprentices and cut taxes? Will the Prime Minister come to Harlow so we can show Britain how to lead the economic recovery?

[The Prime Minister]

Although I am in danger of being accused of watching too much television, I think we could summarise my hon. Friend’s question by saying, “The only way is Essex”. I know he speaks up for his county; what I would say is that I congratulate Harlow on its fantastic achievement. The Government want to play their part, not least with the enterprise zone in west Essex, which covers Harlow and which we hope will create 5,000 new jobs.

[Mrs Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)]

Q9. In North Tyneside more than 7,000 hard-working families depend on working tax credits to make ends meet, yet fewer than 200 people have to pay top-rate tax. Which of those groups does the Prime Minister think needs the most support in the Chancellor’s Budget?

[The Prime Minister]

What I can tell the hon. Lady is that we increased the child tax credit by £255 last year, which was the biggest increase in its history, and that it will go up by another £135 this year. In terms of the very richest in our country, let me reassure her that, after this Budget, they will be paying more in tax.

[Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)]

Q10. Does the Prime Minister agree that, as well as the Liberal Democrat priority to lift the tax threshold to £10,000, one of the best ways of helping—[Interruption.]

[Simon Hughes]

Does the Prime Minister agree that one of the best ways of helping families on low and medium incomes is to build more affordable housing throughout the country? Given that Labour’s legacy in London was to have 350,000 families on the waiting list, will he assure us that there will be more affordable housing in London and across the country?

[The Prime Minister]

We do want to get our housing markets started again, including for affordable housing. That is why, with the higher right-to-buy discounts, that money is going to go back into building affordable homes. At the same time, we are doing more to kick-start those places that have planning permission but cannot get under way because of problems with bank and other finance. That is why we are putting extra money into those schemes, to make sure that that building takes place this year or next year.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

The Information Commissioner has confirmed that some of the information used by the Consulting Association to blacklist trade unionists could only have come from the police or the Security Service. When 3,000 people, mostly celebrities, had their telephones hacked, the Government set up an inquiry under Leveson. When 3,200 trade unionists have been blacklisted, and many have lost their livelihoods, the Home Secretary simply suggests that they go to the Independent Police Complaints Commission. Why is there one route to justice for celebrities, and another for working people?

[The Prime Minister]

There is one law that has to cover everybody in this land, and if there is any accusation of wrongdoing, that is something that the police, who are completely independent of the Government, can investigate. That is what should happen. I say that on the hon. Gentleman’s behalf, but he could do something on everyone else’s behalf. He runs the Right to Work campaign, which is stopping young people getting work experience places. If he cares about opportunities for young people, he will give up that left-wing organisation.

[Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)]

Q11. My county of Herefordshire has below-average household income, but public funding for schools and health care in Herefordshire has been among the lowest in the country for a long time. Does my right hon. Friend share my view that that is unfair, and will he personally support measures to change the funding formulas, to get a fair deal for my county and for other similarly affected rural areas?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend will know that we are looking at the funding formula for schools. We want to try to make it simpler, so that people can see what the criteria are and why their area receives the money that it does. At the same time, we are introducing the pupil premium, which will mean that parts of the country such as his, where there are quite high levels of deprivation in parts, will get specific funding for those children who are on free school meals. That should help the funding of those schools that need the money the most.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

Will the Prime Minister do the honourable thing and publish the risk register, including the action that is needed to mitigate the risks that the Health and Social Care Bill still poses to patients?

[The Prime Minister]

What I would say is that, as far as I can see, we have actually voted in this House of Commons twice on the same issue—thank you, Mr Speaker—and on both occasions, there was a significant majority in favour of the Government’s position. I would also add that the last Government had many, many opportunities to publish risk registers, and they did not do it.

[Mr Speaker]

I always appreciate the Prime Minister’s gratitude.

[Nick Boles (Grantham and Stamford) (Con)]

Q12. For 10 years or more, leading Conservatives such as Lord Saatchi and Lord Tebbit have argued for working people and pensioners on low incomes to be taken out of income tax altogether. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is a thoroughly Conservative idea whose time has well and truly arrived?

[The Prime Minister]

What I would say to my hon. Friend is that, almost uniquely, I am not going to prejudge what is in the Chancellor’s Budget. However, I think that we can say that it is—if you like, Mr Speaker—a kaleidoscope Budget.

[Hon. Members]

More!

[Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Q13. The Prime Minister may recall that at the time of the strategic defence and security review, he described it as a mistake and an error to use the short take-off vertical landing variant of the Joint Strike Fighter. As the Ministry of Defence is about to perform a U-turn on the decision to rescind the original decision, does he now accept and understand that the real mistake and error has been a defence review that has been inadequate and is fast unravelling?

[The Prime Minister]

The real mistake and error was inheriting a £38 billion black hole in the defence budget. To pay tribute to my right hon. Friend, what he wants as Defence Secretary is to be the first—in a generation, frankly—to announce a balanced and funded budget for defence, for this year and for many years to come. That is what we are discussing. We will look at all the evidence and all the costings. As the hon. Gentleman will know, costings change in defence, but I make this pledge: if costs and facts change, we—unlike previous Governments—will not just plough on regardless and make the wrong decisions for political reasons.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I should inform the House that the Bill on today’s Order Paper is not being presented.

Review Body on Senior Salaries (34th Report)

Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton Excerpts

Tuesday 13th March 2012 Written Statements

[The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)]

The 34th report of the Review Body on Senior Salaries (SSRB) is being published today. This makes recommendations about the pay of the Senior Civil Service (SCS), Senior Military Personnel, the Judiciary and Very Senior NHS Managers. Copies have been laid in the Vote Office, the Printed Paper Office and the Libraries of both Houses. I am grateful to the chairman and members of the review body for their work.

In the June 2010 Budget, the Government announced a two-year pay freeze from 2011-12 for public sector workforces, except for those earning a full-time equivalent salary of £21,000 or less, where the Government would seek increases of at least £250 per year. This policy is helping us to protect jobs and the quality of public services as we look to restore the public finances to a sustainable position.

At the same time, we are mindful of the need to ensure that we are capable of recruiting, retaining and motivating public sector workers with the skills that are needed. It is on this basis that the Government will carefully consider the post pay freeze principles set out by the review body and any wider recommendations made by them in relation to recruitment, retention and other aspects of the affected workforces.

Senior Civil Service

The Government will consider the post pay freeze principles and any wider recommendations set out by the review body in relation to the SCS.

Senior Military Personnel

The Government will consider the post pay freeze principles set out by the review body in relation to the senior military personnel.

Judiciary

The Government note the review body’s comments about judicial remuneration and thanks it for its ongoing work in this area.

The Government continue to consider the recommendations that the review body made last year following its most recent major review of the judicial salaries structure, and in the context of the announcement in the autumn statement in November 2011, that public sector pay awards will average 1% for the two years following the implementation of the current two-year pay freeze. As such, the Government will respond to the major review recommendations as a whole, rather than individually, when able to do so. It would not be right to implement new judicial pay increases during a period of pay freeze.

Very Senior NHS Managers

The Government will consider the post pay freeze principles set out by the review body in relation to very senior NHS managers.

Other Review Body reports for 2012-13

My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Justice, Health and Defence are making statements today on the reports of the Prison Service Pay Review Body, the Doctors’ and Dentists’ Review Body, the NHS Pay Review Body and the Armed Forces’ Pay Review Body in respect of pay for the relevant workforces for 2012-13. The Government’s response to those reports is consistent with the need for senior staff in the public sector to show leadership in the exercise of pay restraint

Diamond Jubilee

Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton Excerpts

Wednesday 7th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)]

I beg to move,

That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty on the occasion of the Sixtieth Anniversary of Her Accession to the Throne.

That the said Address be presented to Her Majesty by the whole House.

On her first address to the nation as Queen, Her Majesty pledged that throughout all her life, and with all her heart, she would strive to be worthy of the people’s trust: this she has achieved beyond question. The nation holds her in its heart, not just as the figurehead of an institution but as an individual who has served this country with unerring grace, dignity and decency.

The reign of Queen Elizabeth has been one of unparalleled change, from rationing through to the jet age, to the space age, to the digital age. At her first investiture as Queen, the very first decoration she presented was a Victoria Cross for heroism in the Korean war. Since then, members of the armed forces—her armed forces—have been in action all over the world, from Aden to the Falklands, the Gulf, Iraq and Afghanistan. Around the world, dictatorships have died and democracies have been born, and across the old British empire a vibrant Commonwealth of nations has expanded and flourished.

Throughout this extraordinary change, the longest-lived monarch in our history has remained resolutely unchanged in her commitment and studious in her duties. It does not matter whether it is something we suspect she enjoys, such as the highland games at Braemar, or things we suspect she might be less keen on, such as spending new year’s eve in the millennium dome, she never, ever falters. She has always done her duty, and that stability is essential for our national life.

While the sands of culture shift and the tides of politics ebb and flow, Her Majesty has been a permanent anchor, bracing Britain against the storms, grounding us in certainty. Crucially, simultaneously, she has moved the monarchy forward. It has been said that the art of progress is to preserve order amid change and change amid order, and in this the Queen is unparalleled. She has never shut the door on the future; instead, she has led the way through it, ushering in the television cameras, opening up the royal collection and the palaces and hosting receptions and award ceremonies for every area of public life. It is easy now to take these things for granted, but we should remember that they were her initiatives. She was broadcasting to the nation every Christmas day 30 years before we let cameras into this House.

In doing those things, the Queen ended a 1,000 year distance that existed between British monarchs and their people. Indeed, while much of her life has been governed by tradition and protocol, the Queen has always taken a thoroughly pragmatic view of such matters. On arriving at one engagement in Scotland, she noticed that the local lord lieutenant was having considerable trouble extracting both himself and his sword from the official car in order to perform the introductions. While embarrassed civic dignitaries cleared their throats, the Queen cut straight through the seemingly insoluble ceremonial problem by walking up to the greeting line, hand outstretched, with the words, “My lord lieutenant appears to be having difficulty in getting out of the car, so I’d better introduce myself. I’m the Queen.”

That human connection is a hallmark of the Queen’s reign. Over 60 years, according to one royal biographer, she has met 4 million people in person, which is equivalent to the entire population of New Zealand. At garden parties alone, she has invited some 2 million people to tea. She is, of course, Queen of 16 countries, and has surely travelled more widely than any other Head of State in history. As she herself has been heard to say—it is a lesson, perhaps for all of us in this House—“I have to be seen to be believed.” All this has given her remarkable insight. Like her previous 11 Prime Ministers, I have been struck by Her Majesty’s perspective on world events, and like my predecessors I am truly grateful for the way she handles our national interests.

Last year’s visit to Ireland was a lesson in statecraft. It showed once again that the Queen can extend the hand of friendship like no other. She was the first monarch to visit China, the first to visit Russia and the first to pay a state visit to the Vatican, and her trip to post-apartheid South Africa was a statement that resounded across continents.

And, of course, there is the Commonwealth. It is doubtful whether that great alliance would ever have thrived without the dedication of Her Majesty. When the Queen became head of the Commonwealth in 1952, it had eight members; today it has 54. No one has done more to promote this unique family of nations spanning every continent, all the main religions and nearly a third of the world’s population. In all her realms, from Tuvalu to Barbados, from Papua New Guinea to St Vincent and the Grenadines, from Britain to Jamaica, she is loved because she is a Queen of everyone—for each of us and for all of us.

The diamond jubilee gives us the chance to show our gratitude. By the time she opens the Olympics, the Queen’s jubilee tour will have taken her and Prince Philip to every part of the United Kingdom. In June, London will see a huge pop concert, a great procession and the largest gathering on the Thames for more than three centuries: barges and cutters, narrow boats and motor boats, square riggers, naval vessels, the little ships of Dunkirk—all will be there to pay tribute to our magnificent Queen.

“Diamond” is the appropriate epithet for this jubilee. For 60 years, Her Majesty has been a point of light in our national life—brilliant, enduring and resilient. For that, she has the respect of the House and the enduring affection of all her people.

European Council

Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton Excerpts

Monday 5th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)]

With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on last week’s European Council. The Council focused on the measures needed to address the growth crisis in Europe and complete the single market. It also reached important conclusions on Somalia, Serbia and Syria. I will take each in turn.

First, on growth and jobs, this was the first European Council for some months that was not completely overshadowed by an air of crisis surrounding the eurozone. The problems in the eurozone are far from resolved and we need continued and determined action to deal with them, but the biggest challenge for Europe’s long-term future is to secure sustainable growth and jobs. Ahead of the Council, Britain, along with 11 other EU member states, set out in a letter our action plan for growth and jobs in Europe. This was an unprecedented alliance involving countries from all across Europe and representing over half the EU population and a quarter of a billion people. It included our traditional partners on this agenda in northern Europe, but it also included countries such as Poland, one of the largest in the EU, and countries such as Spain and Italy in the south of Europe which previously had not prioritised this agenda.

Over the past year we have frequently succeeded in inserting references to the single market and competitiveness into Council conclusions, and the Commission’s proposals have begun to reflect that, but what was encouraging about this Council was that an EU growth agenda, based around free trade, deregulation and completion of the single market, received stronger and broader political support from Heads of State and Government than ever before. A whole series of concrete commitments to actions and dates by which those actions need to be taken was inserted into the final communiqué. Now it is vital that these commitments are fulfilled.

The reason Britain so strongly insists on the completion of the single market is its huge potential for growth and jobs at home. The single market is the biggest marketplace in the world, with 500 million consumers. Removing barriers to trade in products has clearly had a huge impact and, with one of the largest manufacturing sectors in Europe, Britain has clearly benefited from that, but the benefit can be even greater if the single market is completed in other areas where Britain also has great strengths. The first of these is services. Full implementation of the services directive could add 2.8% to the gross domestic product of the EU within 10 years, and Britain would stand to be one of the prime beneficiaries because, from financial services to legal services to accountancy, Britain has some of the leading companies in the world.

The Council also agreed to complete the digital single market by 2015, which could boost EU GDP by as much as €110 billion every year. Again, that could particularly help Britain, with our strength in digital technology and all forms of creative content, including film, television and online media.

The Council agreed a specific deadline to complete the single market in energy by 2014. That could add 0.8% to EU GDP and create 5 million jobs. Again, many of those of jobs could be in Britain, because we are a major producer and exporter of energy, with the most liberalised market in Europe.

The Council agreed that there will be a special focus on trade—including trade deals with fast-growing parts of the world—at the next Council in June. Completing all open bilateral trade deals could add €90 billion to the EU economy, and a deal with the US would be bigger than all the others put together. Britain is one of the most open trading nations in Europe, and that is why trade deals have a particular importance for us.

On deregulation, for the first time we got a specific commitment for an analysis of the costs of regulation sector by sector, and we got a repetition of our call for a moratorium on new regulations for those businesses with fewer than 10 employees. Taken together, those measures represent a clear and specific plan for growth and jobs at EU level, and we must now ensure that Europe sticks to it.

I turn to wider international issues. On Somalia, the Council welcomed the conference held in London last month and the important conclusions that we reached, cracking down on piracy and terrorism and supporting a Somali-led process for a new representative and accountable government.

On Serbia, Britain has always been a strong supporter of European Union enlargement, from eastern Europe to the countries of the western Balkans. That policy has clearly demonstrated success in embedding support for democracy and human rights across the continent, so I was particularly pleased that the Council granted Serbia candidate status. I have no doubt that this decision would not have been possible without the courageous leadership of President Tadic. It was he who secured the arrest of Ratko Mladic, closing one of the darkest chapters in Serbian history, and it was he who took the brave decision to engage in a dialogue with the Kosovans.

It is also right to mention the leadership of the Kosovan Prime Minster, Hashim Thaci. He too has been prepared to enter into constructive dialogue with Serbia. That decision has rightly been rewarded by the European Commission, starting the process that can lead to a new contract between the European Union and Kosovo. That is the first important milestone on the long road for Kosovo itself to join the European Union.

Let me turn to the grave situation in Syria. I know that the whole House will join me in welcoming the safe return of British photographer Paul Conroy, who escaped from Baba Amr last week. I spoke to him this morning and he described vividly the barbarity that he had witnessed in the city. The history of Homs is being written in the blood of its citizens.

Britain is playing a leading role in helping to forge an international coalition to try to do three things: first, to make sure that there is humanitarian assistance for those who are suffering; secondly, to hold those responsible for that appalling slaughter to account; and, thirdly, to bring about the political transition that will put a stop to the killing. We must pursue all three at the same time.

First, on humanitarian assistance, Britain has already provided an extra £2 million to agencies operating on the ground in order to help deliver emergency medical supplies and basic food rations for more than 20,000 people. But the real problem is getting that aid into the affected areas. Now that the Syrian Government have occupied Baba Amr, they have a duty to allow humanitarian access to alleviate the suffering that they have caused. Britain will be working this week to secure a United Nations Security Council resolution that demands an end to violence and immediate humanitarian access. The longer access is denied, the more the world will believe that the Syrian regime is determined to cover up the extent of the horror that it has brought to bear on Baba Amr.

Secondly, we are working to make sure that those responsible for crimes are held to account. The European Council agreed that there must be “a day of reckoning” for those who are responsible. Britain and its European partners are working together to help to document the evidence of those atrocities so that evidence can be used at a later date. International justice has a long reach and a long memory.

Thirdly, we are working for a political transition to bring the violence to an end. The European Council was clear that President Assad should step aside for the sake of the Syrian people, and it supported the efforts of Kofi Annan to work for a peaceful process of political transition.

Syria’s tragedy is that those who are clinging to Assad for the sake of stability are in fact helping to ensure the complete opposite. Far from being a force for stability, Assad’s continued presence makes a future of all-out civil war ever more likely. What can still save Syria is for those who are still supporting and accommodating Assad's criminal clique to come to their senses and to turn their back on the regime. It is still possible that Syria’s national institutions can be saved and play their part in opening a path to an inclusive, peaceful and decent transition. We will deploy every tool we can—sanctions, aid, the pressure of diplomacy, reaching out to the opposition in Syria and beyond. We will work with anyone who is ready to build a stable, inclusive, non-sectarian, open and democratic Syria for all Syrians. That is the choice that is still open to those in authority in Syria. Now is the time for them to make that choice, before it is too late.

Finally, on Friday morning, 25 member states signed the intergovernmental agreement on the fiscal compact. This binds countries in the eurozone to a budget deficit of no more than 0.5%, and it involves countries giving up the power to write their own budgets if they go beyond it. Britain is not signing this agreement. Britain is not in the euro, Britain is not going to join the euro, so it is right that we are not involved. But it is important that we continue to ensure that vital issues such as the single market are discussed by all 27 members. That is exactly what happened at this European Council. Far from not being included in the vital discussion that affects our national interests, Britain helped to set the agenda at this Council and Britain helped to ensure its success. I commend this statement to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Miliband]

Yes, he is Elvis. I do not think that the spokesman’s comment is very reassuring.

It is a matter of record that the Prime Minister spent Thursday complaining that he felt frustrated because he did not feel that the other 25 leaders were taking enough notice of him as they prepared to sign the new treaty. However, on Friday, he claimed that in less than 24 hours, his powers of persuasion had once again triumphed:

“The communiqué has been fundamentally rewritten in line with our demands.”

After the experience of the veto, I am sure that he will forgive us all for being a little sceptical about his claims.

Let us examine the Prime Minister’s claims. He said that big strides forward were clear from the communiqué on energy, micro-enterprises, the single market and reducing trade barriers. However, will he confirm that the commitment on the energy market was in the conclusions of last February’s Council, that the commitments on the single market and trade simply echo those following the October 2011 Council, and that the supposed progress on micro-enterprises was in the conclusions of last December’s Council?

Listening to the Prime Minister, I had a sense of groundhog day. I then realised why. He sent the same letter to the European Council a year ago. Believe it or not—of course, we do believe it—he claimed the same triumph then:

“I organised a letter…making the case for action on growth, on deregulation, on completing the single market, on extending it to services… I think this has had a real impact”.

The people behind him are not looking amused. If last year’s letter had such an impact, why did he have to send it again? For the avoidance of doubt, I will place last year’s letter in the Library of the House, because it will probably be next year’s letter as well. For all the Prime Minister’s slapping himself on the back, the reality is that not one job has been created, not one family helped and not one business boosted. Why does he not learn the lesson that empty claims of a European triumph lose him credibility at home and influence abroad?

Why did the Prime Minister not press those countries with fiscal headroom at the summit to stimulate growth in Europe? Why does he not lead by example and sort out the jobs crisis here at home? He said on Friday and repeated today that there was not an air of crisis about the euro. Will he tell the House whether he thinks that a sustainable solution has been put in place for the euro area, because that is one of the most important long-term issues that we face and that the European economy faces?

The reality is that we have a Prime Minister who is isolated and without influence. He is unable to argue for jobs and growth because of his own failure at home. He achieved nothing for Britain at this summit. For all the good it has done us, he could have given the summit a miss and gone horse riding instead.

[The Prime Minister]

First, let me thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he said about Syria and answer his questions specifically. On the special envoy, we are helping Kofi Annan. Indeed, we are funding part of his mission. The right hon. Gentleman asked about sanctions. We are on round 12 of the EU sanctions against the Syrian regime. We will continue to ratchet up the pressure in every way that we can, with sanctions, asset freezes, travel bans and the like.

The right hon. Gentleman raised the issue of Russia and China. We will make it very clear, as we have already, that their veto was completely wrong. Their reputations are suffering as a result in the Arab world. I will be speaking to President Putin later today and will say that it is important that we have a unified UN Security Council resolution about humanitarian aid and access that puts a stop to the appalling killing that is taking place. I know that there is all-party support for that.

Turning to the EU Council, the right hon. Gentleman said that the communiqué did not change between the arrival of the countries at the EU Council and its conclusion on Friday. If he had done his homework properly—he was working very closely on his gags, and they are getting better—he would have noticed that there was no mention of deepening the single market in services in the original communiqué, but that we now have a clear commitment to that; that there was no mention of tackling regulated professions and properly opening up the single market, but that that is now clearly in the communiqué; and that there was no reference to deregulation, but that we now we have, for the first time, sector-by-sector analysis so that we can see the cost of regulations. When Labour used to go along to EU summit after EU summit, it never got half of that sort of thing.

On the issue of the treaty, there is one big problem in the right hon. Gentleman’s position, which is that he has got to make up his mind—would he have signed it or not? Why does he not just nod for a yes or shake for a no? I think I know the cause of the confusion. It is that there is a slight division between the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Chancellor about whether they want to join the euro. The shadow Chancellor has said that it will not happen in his lifetime, whereas the Leader of the Opposition, when asked whether he would join the euro, said that it depended on how long he was Prime Minister. I agree with the shadow Chancellor—clearly, the Leader of the Opposition should not be Prime Minister in our lifetime.

[Sir Malcolm Rifkind (Kensington) (Con)]

May I welcome the European Council’s decision to prepare further targeted sanctions against Syria? If Russia continues to refuse to accept its responsibilities, should not the Arab League and Turkey, on their own incentive but with full support from the United States and Europe, close their land borders and airspace to all exports destined for Syria? If that were combined with a United States-led naval brigade, would it not prevent further armed supplies from being delivered to the Assad regime, thereby possibly saving the lives of tens of thousands of Syrian people?

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. and learned Friend, with all his experience, makes an intriguing suggestion for further steps that the Arab League could take. Indeed, it has shown great leadership in putting pressure on Syria. However, if we want to turn the pressure up on the regime, a United Nations Security Council resolution that could be unanimously agreed and that was tough about humanitarian access and the unacceptability of what is happening should be part of the picture.

[David Miliband (South Shields) (Lab)]

May I welcome what the Prime Minister said about the developments in the western Balkans? However, I wonder whether he agrees that the most significant piece of economic news last week was the decision of the Spanish Government to amend their austerity programme in the face of stagnation and recession. The Prime Minister of Spain said he thought that when circumstances changed, policy should change. Is that not the kind of common sense that we need here?

[The Prime Minister]

I am not at all surprised by what the Spanish Prime Minister did. After all, he is stuck inside a fixed exchange rate system with no ability to have an independent monetary policy. If we had listened to the right hon. Gentleman all those years ago and joined the euro, we would be in the same boat.

[Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the responsibility for the appalling treatment being handed out to the people of Homs rests as much with those who authorise it as with those who carry it out? Is he aware that in the course of last week, Hillary Clinton said that there was a case for regarding President Assad as a war criminal? Does he agree?

[The Prime Minister]

I do agree with that. I believe that, as the Foreign Secretary has said, it is now a criminal regime. That is why it is so important that we gather the evidence of the war crimes, the human rights abuses and the dreadful things that are being done in Homs and elsewhere. As we collect that evidence, we need to be very careful to try to join all the dots, right up the chain of the command, to the people who run the regime. However long it takes, it is important that we are clear that there should be a day of reckoning when those who are responsible for crimes are made accountable for them.

[Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)]

I thank the Prime Minister for highlighting the role of Boris Tadic and of Hashim Thaci, the Prime Minister of Kosovo, in moving the western Balkans forward. I should declare an interest—I recently published a book on Kosovo, which I hope all hon. Members will read. Does the Prime Minister agree that the next step forward is for Serbia to recognise Kosovo, as 90 other UN member states have done? That decisive step would help to bring more stability, peace and co-operation and a European future to the western Balkans.

[The Prime Minister]

I know that the right hon. Gentleman has considerable expertise in this area, and I thank him for welcoming the news. We have to understand that Serbia has already taken some quite important steps forward that were difficult for it to take. I was concerned that the European Union should demonstrate its openness to the steps that President Tadic had taken, because slamming the door in his face after he had taken them could have encouraged the extremists in Serbia rather than people who want to have a peaceful European future.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

In congratulating the Prime Minister on his veto—[Interruption.] It would have been an EU treaty had the Prime Minister not exercised the veto. In congratulating the Prime Minister on his veto and on his insistence on growth, does he recognise that we are at a crossroads, with two separate European treaties—one in line with the Lisbon treaty, and the other in breach of it? With the Chancellor of Germany now insisting on a further leap towards political union, will the Prime Minister take forward his current concerns about the legal position of the non-EU treaty to the European Court?

[The Prime Minister]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s support. He is absolutely right that that treaty places no obligations on us. It is worth making the point that it does not have the force of EU law: not for us, not for the EU institutions and not for the countries that sign it. As he knows, my view is that while we have reserved our legal position on the use of the institutions because there are real concerns, the path he outlines—of a legal challenge—is a less good one than using our leverage and influence to ensure that the agreement sticks to fiscal union rather than gets into the single market. That is the right approach and the one we are pursuing.

[Tony Lloyd (Manchester Central) (Lab)]

Everybody knows that without growth, it is virtually impossible for Greece’s problems to be reconciled. The Prime Minister talks about growth—he talks, for example, about a detailed account of regulatory reform—but nothing he has said and nothing that came out of the Heads of Government meeting gave a programme for growth. Where are the drivers for that?

[The Prime Minister]

I am afraid I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. Britain has leading industries in services, energy and the digital economy. If we can complete the single market in those areas, there are real opportunities for British business. The additions to gross domestic product that we would have through completing the single market in those areas would partly mean jobs, investment and growth here in the UK. When there is no room for fiscal stimulus, as there is not in the UK because the budget deficit is so big, and when we already have a very accommodating monetary policy, the right way for growth is to look at structural reform and changes, just as we are doing through the EU.

[Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that ambitious companies looking for growth in Mid Sussex will be extremely pleased with the steps the Government took towards seeking to resolve the crisis in Europe through growth? May I suggest that he looks further back—to European Councils of the past 10 years—to see how many good ideas signed up to came to naught, and could well, with a bit of effort, have come to something good?

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. Friend is correct about this. Of course, Europe has on many previous occasions signed up to wonderful rhetoric about single markets, energy and all the rest of it. That is partly what the Lisbon agenda—not the treaty—was all about. What is different this time is that there was real pressure from the 11 countries that signed the letter with Britain to insist on actions and dates by which those actions would be taken. We must still ensure that those things are achieved. Many countries will want to hold up getting rid of regulations on services and many will want to keep some of those regulations on small businesses, but we now have a majority in the EU to try to fix those things in a way that is good for our country.

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

Does the Prime Minister believe that the European Council will ever publicly criticise China, not just for what it is doing—or not doing—in Syria, but for what it is doing to its own people, particularly in Tibet? That is being done behind closed doors, with no brave photographers and journalists able to get in. Will the European Council start taking on the might of China?

[The Prime Minister]

One advantage of having forums in which the EU meets the Chinese leadership is that the EU can speak on behalf of all members about the importance of human rights, the rule of law and some of the issues the hon. Lady raises. Sometimes that is a useful way for pressure to be brought to bear. The EU Council president and the Commission President should have no compunction in doing that.

[Jane Ellison (Battersea) (Con)]

Many UK citizens, especially in London, are world leaders in the provision of services such as legal and insurance services. What are the roadblocks to regulatory reform? I am sure that the Prime Minister will join me in echoing the words of the Mayor of London, who said that we are always happy to see more businesses come to London.

[The Prime Minister]

The roadblocks come in two forms. First, there is the fact that the services directive has not been fully implemented, and some countries have been blocking it. Those countries—Germany is among them, I think—are now undergoing infraction proceedings by the European Commission. The second part of the problem concerns the number of regulated professions in Europe that countries continue to regulate separately rather than open up to competition. Britain has a relatively good record on both the services directive and getting rid of regulated professions but we need to keep up the pressure.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Was there any discussion of the European arrest warrant? I ask because the Prime Minister will know that a lot of his Back Benchers want Britain to withdraw from it, whereas the Liberal Democrats want no change at all. If he insists on riding two horses at once, may I suggest that he campaign for reform rather than withdrawal?

[The Prime Minister]

This was a European Council devoted to discussion of the economy and foreign affairs, so there was no discussion of the European arrest warrant.

[George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)]

I welcome the consistency with which the Prime Minister has argued for the development of the single market. Does he agree that a successful single market does not require harmonised employment laws? Can anything be done at this late stage to mitigate some of the damaging effects of the agency workers directive in particular?

[The Prime Minister]

On the agency workers directive, it is difficult, because it has already effectively been implemented. However, as I and other countries said, it is no good pursuing a growth agenda in the EU if, at the same time, the Commission is still coming forward with directives that cost business and industry a huge amount of money. I mentioned the new ergonomics directive—believe it or not—which will cost business many hundreds of millions of pounds. As I said, however, with the new Prime Ministers in Italy and Spain, there is now southern support for the northern agenda of deregulation. We need to ride that horse as fast as we can.

[Sir Stuart Bell (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

Is not the great challenge facing the European democracies the need to marry deficit reduction with sustainable growth in the interests of their peoples? Will the Prime Minister confirm that the present restructuring of Greek debt is the largest of its kind in history and a testament to the eurozone’s capacity to bring stability to the euro? Building on the questions from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central (Tony Lloyd), is this sustainable growth not essential for our country as well as the eurozone?

[The Prime Minister]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman on this point: 40% of our exports go to eurozone countries and we want those countries to recover. We have to accept, however, that doing that while dealing with fiscal deficits is enormously challenging. On Greece, those of us who are sceptical about the euro and who do not want to join it must accept, whatever our views, that the Greeks have made their choice. That is the path that they want to pursue. Whatever our misgivings, we must allow them to make those decisions to make their economy more competitive within the eurozone.

[Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)]

Given that the evidence from last week’s summit is that full participation in the EU is the best news for jobs and growth in this country and for all our neighbours, will the Prime Minister tell us the best estimate of the number of extra jobs that completion of the digital services and energy single markets will achieve by the end of this Parliament? Will he also reassure the House that we will lead the way in dealing with tax fraud and tax evasion at the next European summit in June?

[The Prime Minister]

We believe in dealing with tax fraud and tax evasion. That is vital. On the jobs effect of completing the energy and digital services single markets, I have given the GDP figures for how much it would add to the EU, but if the right hon. Gentleman would like, I could perhaps look at how many jobs that could convert into. It is worth noting, however, that the Commission’s forecast for growth this year is that Britain will grow faster than France, the EU and the euro area. Furthermore, according to International Monetary Fund figures, we will grow faster than France, Germany, Italy, Spain, the EU and the euro area this year and next year.

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

The conclusions from the summit were clear:

“Innovation and research are at the heart of the Europe 2020 strategy.”

They are also vital for growth at home. The conclusions also referred to intellectual property, research and development, and patent protection. Can the Prime Minister give us an assurance that concrete progress was made towards a unitary patent protection scheme, as agreed by the Competitiveness Ministers last June, and also update us on the parallel process for the unified patent court?

[The Prime Minister]

There has been quite a breakthrough on the unified patent process, because the EU has been discussing this for, I think, around three decades. There is now an agreement among those countries that want to go ahead and have a unified patent process, so that is a success. There is not yet agreement about where the court should be. We strongly believe it ought to be in London, because London is the centre of international litigation and finance, but the French believe it should be in Paris and the Germans believe it should be in Munich, and there is what is known as a negotiation under way.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

We are very lucky to have a British bulldog of a Prime Minister fighting for our interests in Europe, and of course, the Prime Minister is nearly always right on most things. [Hon. Members: “But…”] No, not “but”. Earlier he quite rightly said that Spain could not grow without devaluing its currency. I know that he cannot tell us what he says in private, but can we assume that the advice in private is significantly different from what he can say in public?

[The Prime Minister]

I did not quite say what my hon. Friend said. Spain is forecast to have a decline in its GDP this year. It has tough targets for its fiscal deficits, which it is trying to reduce, and at the same time its Government, like all others in Europe, want to get back to a position of growth. The point I would make is that I have always believed that it is better as a country to have both fiscal and monetary levers at our disposal, so that we have the most flexible way to respond to economic circumstances. In Britain, we are able to have tough measures to reduce our fiscal deficits, but at the same time, because we have an independent monetary policy, set by the Bank of England, we are not constrained by being members of a currency bloc. That is why I oppose Britain joining the euro—ever.

[Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister takes great pride in having achieved a deeper and greater commitment to completing the single market and deregulation. Last Friday the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon) said that some EU financial services proposals

“verge on the discriminatory, verge on protectionism”.

Has the Prime Minister made any progress on doing something about that?

[The Prime Minister]

We are making quite good progress on the financial services dossiers. We are having to deal with them one by one. There are some cases where we are actually arguing that countries ought to be able to regulate even further than the EU is allowing—for instance, in building up capital in our banks. However, there are some difficult financial services directives, which we have to deal with one by one, to make sure that they are proportionate and not threatening to our financial services industry, which, as I say, is not just an asset for Britain, but an asset for the whole of Europe.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend elaborate on what he means by “reserving our position” in relation to the fiscal compact? Does it indicate that Her Majesty’s Government doubt the lawfulness of the compact under EU law and are considering a legal challenge at some future date?

[The Prime Minister]

Let me try to shed some more light on that. The position is this. I think there are some major legal question marks over what the 25 EU members have signed up to. However, the best thing for Britain to do, instead of going for an outright legal challenge—which might be partly successful—is to say, “We have our misgivings and concerns. We’ve reserved our position, but we won’t challenge, so long as you are sticking to the elements of fiscal union and not the single market.” I have given this considerable thought and I think that that is the right way forward, not least because there are some things being done in the agreement that the EU treaties give permission for, because they allow member states, as my hon. Friend will know—he is a great expert on this—to do things together under some circumstances. Therefore, the legality is not completely black and white. That is why I think it is in Britain’s interest to use our leverage to make sure that those involved stick to the fiscal union and do not get involved in the single market.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

There are newspaper reports that the Prime Minister is one of a group of four Conservative EU leaders who are proposing to ostracise François Hollande, who is soon to be the socialist President of France. Given that Monsieur Hollande is more of a Euro-realist than President Sarkozy, would it not be sensible to work positively with him, instead of against him?

[The Prime Minister]

I can confirm that I am not part of any secret pact. I basically take a pretty straightforward approach, which is that it is not normal practice to see candidates in the middle of an election. I have made exceptions on occasion, but I am not going to make an exception in this case.

[Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) (Con)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on pursuing a growth and deregulation agenda at the EU Council. Did he have an opportunity over the weekend to see the reports in the newspapers here about proposed changes to the working time directive that would allow employees to add sick leave and paternity and maternity leave to their end-of-year holiday entitlement? Does he agree that such proposals run entirely counter to his agenda? Will he confirm that the Business Secretary would have his full support if he were to oppose them here in the United Kingdom?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. We have a blocking minority on extending the working time directive and we need to ensure that we keep that together. In my view, however, this is the sort of area that the European Union should not have got into in the first place.

[Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the Prime Minister confirm that the UK will not be represented at meetings of the 25 countries?

[The Prime Minister]

We are not signatories to the agreement, so we will not be represented at the meetings. What was interesting about Friday was that, although they signed an agreement, there was only one meeting, which was a meeting of the 27 that discussed, funnily enough—[Interruption.] I was in the room at the time—[Hon. Members: “Ooh!”] We discussed not only the single market but single currency issues.

[Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con)]

I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. Among the dubious legal matters contained in the fiscal compact, which is not an EU treaty, are the provisions relating to what is described as “reverse qualified majority voting”, which sounds bad and is even worse than it sounds. Will he be extremely vigilant and ensure that this coercive and profoundly undemocratic practice is not extended into the EU proper?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. This treaty does not have the force of EU law, either on us, on the institutions or on those that have signed it. I am sure that he could give us a very straightforward explanation of reverse qualified majority voting, but I can tell the House that it is basically a way to impose the will of a group of countries on to others, and I do not think that it is the way forward. But we still have not heard from the Opposition whether they would sign this treaty or not—[Interruption.] Well, would you sign it? Nod for yes; shake for no. Yes or no? It is one way or the other. Even Wallace and Gromit could do this! What is so difficult? Why don’t we ask the Leader of the Opposition’s brother? Maybe he could tell us. This is farcical. This thing now exists, and everyone else has signed it, so would you sign it or not? Utterly, utterly feeble.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister’s officials were reported to have told the Press Association during the summit that he was frustrated at being ignored. Despite jockeying for position, why does he think that his European colleagues might want to ignore his advice on how to grow their economies?

[The Prime Minister]

I think that one might have been better if it had stayed in the stalls; it was never going to make it out on to the course. I was frustrated that the original draft of the communiqué did not have the actions and the dates that the 12 countries that signed the letter authored by Britain had asked for. I was frustrated because, if half the population of Europe, in countries as diverse as Spain, Italy, Poland and Britain, all ask for actions to be taken, they should be taken. But the good thing is that, at the end of this European Council, all the key issues that we asked for in the letter—which is in the Library of the House of Commons—are now in the Council conclusions. If the hon. Gentleman has plenty of time, he can slip on his nosebag and have a good look.

[Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

Will the Prime Minister confirm that, at this meeting and other European meetings, political leaders need to have a clear idea of what is in their national interests, that decisions often have to be taken in the middle of the night on whether to participate in treaties, and that we cannot dither for weeks afterwards about whether to sign them?

[The Prime Minister]

Fortunately, at this European Council, the dinner only went on until about 11 o’clock at night, so it was not the middle of the night. However, my hon. Friend is right. There is now nowhere for opposition parties anywhere in Europe to hide. This thing exists, and the Opposition need to work out whether they would sign it or not. They cannot tell us that. Even though they say that they want to be at the heart of Europe and complain that we have put ourselves on the sidelines, they cannot answer that question. Would they sign it: yes or no?

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

The Prime Minister has mentioned a special focus on trade deals with fast-growing parts of the world. Will that focus take account of human rights experiences in those parts of the world, and how will he ensure that this push does not compound the frustration of poor developing countries that are waiting for trade justice?

[The Prime Minister]

On trade justice with the poorest countries in the world, the EU has quite a good record on giving those countries duty-free access to our markets under the “Everything but Arms” agreements. Where we should make more progress is, for example, on the free trade agreement with Korea, which is worth up to £0.5 billion to the British economy. There are opportunities for many more free trade agreements, which include all sorts of different stipulations but could make us more prosperous here at home, too.

[Nicky Morgan (Loughborough) (Con)]

Does the Prime Minister agree that the lack of support shown by the Leader of the Opposition and Labour Members for the measures on growth taken at the EU Council show a real lack of respect and support for the manufacturing and small business sector both in my constituency and in those of all other Members?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. To be fair to the last Government, they spent quite a lot of time trying to push issues like the energy single market and the digital single market, so one would have thought that there would be some sort of welcome for the progress that has been made. Instead, we got absolutely nothing from the Opposition and a complete silence on whether they would have signed up to what they think was the important bit of the European Council—the signing of the treaty. If they think it is so important, they should be able to say whether they would have signed it.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

While condemning totally and without reservation what has happened in Syria—the President should certainly be condemned as a war criminal and be brought to justice in due course—should there not be some hesitation about the sort of people we support, bearing in mind the wrecking of wartime graves over the weekend by armed militia in Libya, which was a despicable act, damaging the graves of those who fought and sacrificed their lives in the fight against Nazism?

[The Prime Minister]

I agree that what happened in Libya with the desecration of those graves is completely unacceptable. To be fair to the interim Libyan Government, they condemned it absolutely, clearly and frankly in terms when it happened several days ago. We now need to make sure that those graves are fully restored and that the Libyan Government properly help in doing that. The interim Libyan Prime Minister is going to be in Britain this week, and he will meet my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. I hope that I will see him, too. We will make it clear in terms how important it is to put those graves right. On Syria, there are all sorts of questions about who is involved in the Syrian opposition. We have to ask careful questions, but we should be clear that the people of Syria would best be served by a transition away from this dreadful President.

[Joseph Johnson (Orpington) (Con)]

The Commission estimates that concluding all trade deals currently on the table would add about €60 billion to European gross domestic product. Did the Council show appreciation of the urgency of getting on with this important task?

[The Prime Minister]

There is a sense of urgency, which is why the June Council will be dedicated to this issue. There are obviously some different views within the European Council and there are the familiar cries about not going ahead unless there is full reciprocity. I believe that Britain, as an open trading nation, should be in the vanguard of arguing for these deals, because we have a lot to gain from them.

[Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)]

It was obviously right for the Council to concentrate as a priority on the bloodshed and murderous actions of the Assad regime in Syria, but does not the example of what happened in Libya at the weekend emphasise why we should not lose focus on what is happening elsewhere in the middle east and north Africa? In view of some of the reverses that have taken place, will the Prime Minister give us an update on what the European Union is doing to support moves towards democracy and human rights in those countries?

[The Prime Minister]

What the European Union has been doing—I think it is right—is to rewrite its neighbourhood agreements and neighbourhood partnerships to make them more conditional on political reform and economic progress. I am still optimistic about what is happening across the middle east. For all the difficulties there are in Libya, at least that country has the prospect and the chance to make peaceful progress. We see that happening in Morocco, but what is happening in Egypt is clearly far more challenging. Europe has a real influence to bring to bear here, but we should be clear that our money and our help has some strings attached in terms of political and economic reform.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

I thank the Prime Minister for his statement and warmly congratulate him on not signing the fiscal compact agreement. Article 16 of the agreement provides that within five years at most, a further attempt will be made to bring the agreement into the legal framework of the European Union. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will remain as Prime Minister throughout that period, so can he reassure me and the House that if such an attempt is made, he will exercise his veto once more?

[The Prime Minister]

I certainly agree with that, but let me make this point to the hon. Gentleman. Those who say that the veto did not achieve anything must ask themselves why other European countries are so keen to try to fold this agreement back into the treaty. That is important.

We made our position very clear. We made it clear that we would not allow a EU treaty to go ahead unless it contained proper safeguards for the single market, for financial services and in relation to other issues, and nothing has changed in that respect.

[Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)]

Last week it was revealed that youth unemployment in the EU had risen to 5.5 million—an increase of 269,000 in the last year. One in two young people in Spain and Greece does not have a job. Where is the plan that has arisen from this summit to deal with youth unemployment? Is it not the case that without such a plan, there will be no return to growth and no resolution of Europe’s debt crisis?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The levels of youth unemployment in many countries in Europe are completely unacceptable. There is a wide spread of practice—from countries such as Holland and Germany with very low rates to countries such as Spain and Greece with very high rates. Britain needs to do better, and that is why we are investing about £1 billion in measures such as the youth contract.

This morning I was at a meeting with employees of Tesco, which has announced the creation of an extra 20,000 jobs in the next two years, including 10,000 apprenticeships. It is absolutely committed to the work experience scheme. I must say this to Opposition Members: one of their number is chairing the Right to Work campaign, which is basically a bunch of Trots trying to destroy the scheme, and they have got to get serious about it.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)]

The failure of the Assad regime to allow humanitarian assistance into Syria is utterly despicable. What does my right hon. Friend think are the chances of the Russians and Chinese abstaining on the relevant United Nations resolution?

[The Prime Minister]

I think that we must work not just to get them to abstain, but to try to get them to support a resolution that is about humanitarian access and is clear about the unacceptability of what is happening. I know that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has had a long telephone conversation with Foreign Minister Lavrov, and I hope to speak to President Putin later today. Although we are not going to agree with Russia on all that needs to happen in Syria, I hope that we can agree about the bottom-line things that absolutely do need to happen.

[James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)]

I welcome the Prime Minister’s emphasis on the importance of creating a digital single market. Does he agree that a vibrant digital single market is vital to the future competitiveness of the European Union?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend has made an important point. I believe that, for instance, not all the 27 members of the European Union have licensed iTunes in their countries. Given that Britain has a leading role in music, film, television and the creative industries, completing the digital market is as important to us as completing the single market in cars is to Germany. It is absolutely vital to us, and people should not think that it is a small issue, because it is a big one.

[Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)]

The Assad regime is committing crimes against humanity in Syria. Are there any further practical measures that Britain and the EU can take against both China and Russia to help to stop them colluding with this mass murder, or should individual consumers be making choices in boycotting goods from China until they do?

[The Prime Minister]

I think that there is evidence that both China and Russia feel the pressure that their previous veto has brought about. The Arab League is absolutely unified in the view that what is happening in Syria is completely unacceptable, and I think that Arab League countries saying that to China and Russia will have an influence, as well as our saying it. I think that there is a lot of diplomatic pressure to be brought to bear, and I hope that in the coming days we can really make that happen.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

Did the European Council discuss the points made by the Saudi Foreign Minister, who said that Saudi Arabia would not take part in any action unless it led to

“the quick protection of… Syrians”,

and that focusing on humanitarian aid was “not enough” while the killings were going on?

[The Prime Minister]

Clearly humanitarian aid on its own is not enough: it is not good enough if all we do is feed and clothe people while the slaughter continues. That is why, as I have said, we must also focus on the other bits of pressure that we can bring to bear, such as the sanctions—that is the diplomatic pressure—and also gathering the evidence of what is happening. We should not underestimate that. Britain has, I think, sent some people to the Turkish border, and we are co-ordinating with others so that we can take the testimony and receive the evidence of the terrible things that have happened. It is all those things combined.

Of course it would be good if there were more that we could do. We have to recognise the difficulties of the situation, and some of the ways in which it differs from the Libyan situation. However, there is more that we can do than just provide humanitarian aid.

[Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)]

What practical steps can be taken to ensure that the humanitarian aid to Syria reaches the people who so desperately need it?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is right: that is the key question. If the Syrian authorities will not allow that aid to get to areas such as the Baba Amr district of Homs, it will not reach the people who need it. While we are doing what we can to provide the resources and work with the expert agencies, we need the Syrian authorities to allow that aid to get through. That is why the United Nations Security Council is particularly important.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

May I, too, congratulate the Prime Minister on his statement? I am especially pleased with the measures in paragraphs 15 and 19 of the Council conclusions on the completion of the digital single market, the energy market and the services directive. Can the Prime Minister tell us a little more about how he was able to move Europe in the direction of growth by getting the measures in the conclusions renegotiated?

[The Prime Minister]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Most of the measures in paragraph 15 were not in the original draft of the communiqué. What was decisive was that it was not just the usual suspects, such as the Swedes, the Danes, the Dutch and the British, coming forward with the agenda; we also had support from the Italian and Spanish Prime Ministers, who have not always championed this agenda, but who now see that it is vital for European growth.

[Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)]

Consistency delivers results, so whereas Opposition Members have been criticising the Prime Minister for being consistent in pushing for a digital single market, I congratulate him because, apart from silicon valley, the UK is uniquely placed to take advantage of that. More specifically, did he get a chance to discuss with his colleagues why it costs so much more to start a company in Europe than in America, Canada or India?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. The truth is that if we want to get anywhere in Europe, we have to be a bit of a bore about things and keep going back to them again and again and again. Countries across Europe need to look at all the steps we have put in the way of people starting up businesses. There is the venture capital issue, for instance: for every dollar raised in Europe for venture capital, $5 are raised in America. That is yet another area in which Europe needs to do better.

[Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)]

The Opposition have—entirely co-incidentally, I am sure—tabled a motion for debate in a few minutes’ time on the low carbon economy. Does the Prime Minister agree that the completion of the single energy market—which he has championed and which will create 5 million jobs across the continent—will go a long way towards addressing the concerns in that regard?

[The Prime Minister]

I think it will: I think completing the energy single market is good for jobs and good for growth. It is just disappointing that the Opposition have tabled motions on low carbon, and then they reduce carbon even further by sitting in their offices.

[Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)]

I welcome the announcement on micro-exemptions, but will this focus on the existing stock of rules and regulations or just the flow of new ones?

[The Prime Minister]

The moratorium does what it says on the tin: it is intended to stop the further flow of regulations. I hope the sector-by-sector analysis will start to look at the stock of regulations. Part of the problem with the way the EU works is that when the Environment Ministers all get together they think about the environment but not about the costs, and when the Social Affairs Ministers get to together they think about social affairs but not about the costs. We have to get all these groups of Ministers to focus on the cost to business of what they agree to, and this is an early start down that path.

[Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)]

The entire House will welcome the Government’s prompt action on humanitarian aid, but will my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister make sure that those perpetrating the atrocities in Syria will be held to account by the international community?

[The Prime Minister]

That is essential. Syria is not a signatory to the International Criminal Court, but that does not mean that we should not collect the evidence and hold these people to account for their crimes, and Britain and others are doing that work right now.

[Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)]

What measures were agreed by the Council to make progress towards the completion of the single market? I am thinking in particular about the digital services and energy sectors, as businesses in Yorkshire—my area—will be well placed to take advantage of opportunities that may arise in them.

[The Prime Minister]

The key point was that in paragraph 15 we are setting dates for the completion of these markets, which I hope gives my hon. Friend’s businesses and constituents confidence. But what we have to do now is make sure that individual steps are taken to make that happen and that where countries are holding things up, we support the Commission in making sure that infraction proceedings are taken against them.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

The British Chambers of Commerce has calculated that the cost of EU regulations to British business is a whopping £7.5 billion each and every year, and the figure is growing. What measures were discussed to turn back that tide, especially for small and medium-sized enterprises?

[The Prime Minister]

The two elements of the moratorium are to try to stop things getting worse for the smallest businesses, and the sector-by-sector analysis, so that we can start to build a picture of exactly what is costing business and how much and then try to put the pressure on to have the regulations reduced.

[Mr Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the new coalition he has built for deregulation and growth in the single market. Is it not time that Mr Van Rompuy and the Commission remembered who they are meant to be working for?

[The Prime Minister]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s question. It was an interesting Council in that regard, because a number of countries, Britain included, were not happy with the original communiqué. So even before the opening session—when we hear from the President of the Parliament—was over, a number of countries had intervened to say that the letter we had written and the measures we wanted were not properly reflected in the communiqué. That had quite an impact on the Council and the Commission recognising that they needed to take these into account.

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s clear statement on deepening the single market in services, a cause he continuously champions. When does he think we will see UK companies bidding for continental rail franchises, as Dutch and German railways bid for franchises here?

[The Prime Minister]

Of course that should happen now under the procurement directives that have already been signed. We need to do two things, the first of which is to make sure that those are properly enforced by the European Commission. Domestically, we ought to learn the lessons of great businesses that actually work with their customers and their suppliers on a long-term basis so that they know what is coming up next.

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the Prime Minister and colleagues for their succinctness, which enabled 44 Back Benchers to question the Prime Minister in 41 minutes of exclusively Back-Bench time.

Points of Order

Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton Excerpts

Wednesday 29th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Further to the Prime Minister’s statement that I am sponsored by the union Unite—I am grateful that he has waited to hear this—can you advise me on how this untruth can be corrected, as I am not sponsored by Unite, and on what opportunity the Prime Minister will be given to correct the record?

[The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I believe that I was reading something from the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, which is that Bolton West constituency Labour party received £1,250 from Unite in 2010 and that the hon. Lady registered a donation of £2,250 from Unite in 2010 in the register. Of course, if I have in any way got that wrong, I will come back to the House at the earliest opportunity.

[Mr Speaker]

I am most grateful to the hon. Lady for her point of order, to the Prime Minister for his response to it and for this opportunity to set out the position. Let me say this for the benefit of the hon. Lady and the House: whether or not she is sponsored by Unite, and I emphasis whether or not she is—I am happy to accept that she is not if that is the factual position, because I do not know—[Interruption.] I do not need any help from a junior Government Whip—he would not know where to start—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) says that he is a senior Government Whip—[Interruption.] I do not think that the Speaker has ever greatly cared about the level of seniority of Whips as far as that goes.

Whether or not the hon. Lady is sponsored by Unite, I emphasise that there is nothing wrong constitutionally in our arrangements with being sponsored by a trade union, so it is not an accusation. The matter is not—[Interruption.] Order. The hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) is a man of magnificent qualities, but he is in no position to advise the Chair on what is or is not allowed. This is not—I repeat “not” for the benefit of the hon. Gentleman—a point of order for the Chair. That, as I often say, is the beginning and the end of the matter. The hon. Lady has put her concerns on the record.