Parliamentary Assembly of the OSCE (UK Delegation)

Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton Excerpts

Wednesday 10th November 2010 Written Statements

[The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)]

The United Kingdom delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe is a follows:

Peter Bottomley MP (Leader)

United Kingdom-France Summit

Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd November 2010 Written Statements

[The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)]

I am today issuing a declaration with President Sarkozy that proposes further co-operation in defence and security.

Underpinning this co-operation will be two treaties.

First we shall sign a defence and security co-operation treaty to develop co-operation between our armed forces to make our forces more interoperable, to maximise our capabilities, and to obtain greater value for money from our investment in defence.

Second we shall collaborate in the technology associated with nuclear stockpile stewardship in support of our respective independent nuclear deterrent capabilities, in full compliance with our international obligations.

In both cases this represents an intensification of our already strong relationship, not a reduction in national sovereignty.

I am placing a copy of the declaration in the Libraries of both Houses.

The treaties will be laid before Parliament in the usual way.

European Council

Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton Excerpts

Monday 1st November 2010 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)]

With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a statement.

Clearly the whole country has been focused this weekend on the terrorist threat, and the Home Secretary will make a full statement after this. However, I want to put on record my thanks, and the thanks of everyone in this House, to all those involved in the international police and intelligence operation, whose efforts clearly prevented the terrorists from killing and maiming many innocent people, whether here or elsewhere in the world. The fact that the device was being carried from Yemen to the United Arab Emirates, Germany and Britain, en route to America, shows the interest of the whole world in coming together to deal with this. While we are rightly engaged in Afghanistan to deny the terrorists there, the threat from the Arabian peninsula, and from Yemen in particular, has grown. So as well as the immediate steps, which the Home Secretary will outline, it is clear that we must take every possible step to work with our partners in the Arab world to cut out the terrorist cancer that lurks in the Arabian peninsula.

Let me turn to last week’s European Council. The Council’s main business was going to be economic governance in the light of the serious problems that the eurozone has faced. However, I was clear that we could not talk about the need for fiscal rigour in the EU’s member states without also talking about the need for fiscal rigour in the EU budget, both next year and for the future, so we ensured that the EU budget was also on the agenda. Let me go through both issues. First, on the budget for 2011, from the outset in May, we wanted a freeze. We pressed for a freeze, and in July we voted for a freeze, seeking to block the 2.9% proposed by the presidency. Finland, Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands, the Czech Republic and Austria all voted with us. Unfortunately, we were just short of the numbers needed for a blocking minority, so in August the Council agreed a 2.9% increase.

Then in October, the matter went to the European Parliament, which voted for around a 6% increase. That was the frankly outrageous proposal with which we were confronted at this European Council. Now, normally what happens in these situations is that you take the position of the EU Council and that of the EU Parliament, and there is a negotiation that ends up splitting the difference. Indeed, that is precisely what happened last year. So before the Council started, we began building an alliance to take a different approach and to insist on the 2.9%. I made phone calls to my counterparts in Sweden, France and Germany, among others, and then continued to press the case during the Council. Twelve other Heads of State took that approach, and we issued a joint letter that makes it clear that a 6% increase is

“especially unacceptable at a time when we are having to take difficult decisions at national level to control public expenditure”.

Furthermore, the joint letter goes on to say that

“we are clear that we cannot accept any more than”

the 2.9% increase being proposed by the Council.

Let me explain what this means. Either the Council and the Parliament now have to agree to the 2.9%, or there will be deadlock, in which case the EU will have to live on a repeat of last year's budget settlement handed out in twelfths over the next 12 months, an outcome that we would be perfectly content with. Next, and more importantly, Britain secured a significant breakthrough on a fundamental principle for the longer term. As well as the individual budget negotiations for 2011, 2012 and 2013, there is also a big negotiation about to happen for the future funding of the EU over the period between 2014 and 2020. We clearly want to do all we can to make the negotiations go the right way, and what we agreed at the Council was, I think, a big step forward. The European Commission was wholly opposed to it, but the Council agreed that

“at the same time as fiscal discipline is reinforced in the European Union, it is essential that the European Union budget and the forthcoming multi-annual Financial Framework reflect the consolidation efforts being made by Member States to bring deficit and debt onto a more sustainable path.”

So from now on, the EU budget must reflect what we are doing in our own countries, and it is quite apparent that almost every country in Europe, like us, is seeing very tough spending settlements.

This new principle applies to the 2012 and 2013 budgets, and to the crucial 2014 to 2020 EU spending framework. Just as countries have had to change their financial plans because of the crisis, so the EU must change its financial plans too. Mr Speaker, if you look at the published conclusions and language on the budget, they formed a prominent part even though it was not originally on the agenda. I think this is an important step forward.

In my discussions with Chancellor Merkel at the weekend, we agreed to take forward some joint work to bring some transparency to the EU budget––salaries, allowances, grants. This work has just not been done properly in the past, and it is about time that citizens of the EU knew what the EU spends its money on. That is the spotlight that needs to be shone, and that is what we propose to do.

On economic governance, there are basically two issues. First, there is Herman Van Rompuy’s report from the taskforce on economic governance. This was set up after the sovereign debt crisis, and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and the Treasury have been fully involved. Secondly, there is the additional proposal made by the Germans, and in principle agreed by the Council, for a limited treaty amendment focusing on putting the EU’s temporary bail-out mechanism on to a permanent basis. Let me take each in turn. In Van Rompuy's report, there are some sensible proposals. For example, the eurozone clearly needs reinforced fiscal discipline to ensure its stability, and the crisis has shown that in a global economy early warning is clearly needed about imbalances between different countries.

Let me be clear on one point about which there has been some debate: the question of surveillance. All member states, including the UK, have participated in surveillance for more than a decade. This is not a new framework. The report is clear, and the current framework remains broadly valid, but needs to be applied in a better and more consistent way. The report proposes new sanctions, but we have ensured that no sanctions, either existing or new, will apply to the UK. The report could not be clearer. It says that

“strengthened enforcement measures need to be implemented for all EU Member States, except the UK as a consequence of Protocol 15 of the Treaty”.

That is our opt-out. It kept us out of the single currency; it kept us out of sanctions under the Maastricht treaty; and we have ensured that it keeps us out of any sanctions in the future.

In addition to the issue of sanctions, a number of other concerns have been raised. Let me try to address each of them head on. First, will we have to present our budget to Europe before this House? No. Secondly, will we have to give Europe access to information for budgetary surveillance that is not similarly shared with organisations such as the International Monetary Fund or is publicly available on the internet? Again, the answer is no. Thirdly, will powers over our budget be transferred from Westminster to Brussels? Again, no.

I turn to the proposal mentioned in the Council’s conclusions for limited treaty amendment. We have established that any possible future treaty change, should it occur, would not affect the UK, and I would not agree to it if it did. The proposal to put the temporary bail-out mechanism on a permanent footing is important for the eurozone, and eurozone stability is important for the UK. Nearly half our trade is with the eurozone, and London is Europe’s international financial centre.

Let me be clear. Throughout this process, I have been focused on our national interest, and it is in our national interest that the eurozone should sort itself out. It is in our national interest that Europe should avoid being paralysed by another debt crisis, as it was with Greece in May, and it is absolutely in our national interest that Britain should not be drawn into having to help with any future bail-out. That is what we have secured.

Let me turn briefly to the other business of the Council. On the G20, the Council discussed its priorities for the upcoming summit in Seoul. Again, our interests are clear. As an open trading nation, we want progress on Doha. This has been going for nearly a decade, and 2011 should be the year when we try to achieve a deal. We believe that the world has suffered from economic imbalances, so we want countries with fiscal deficits to deal with them, and countries with trade surpluses to look at structural and currency reforms. We recognise the importance of strengthening global financial stability, and that is why we support the recent Basel agreement on stronger banking regulations. We also want global institutions to be reformed to reflect the growth of emerging powers, so we will see through the work that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has led on the reform of IMF votes and board seats. Finally, on Cancun, we are committed to making progress towards a legally binding United Nations agreement.

I believe that this Council demonstrates that it is perfectly possible to deliver for our national interest while protecting our national sovereignty. Tomorrow, the British and French Governments will sign new defence and security co-operation treaties, which will be laid before Parliament in the usual way. This follows the same principle: partnership, yes; giving away sovereignty, no. At this Council, Britain helped Europe to take the first vital steps towards bringing its finances under control. We prevented a crazy 6% rise in the EU budget next year, we ensured that the budget would reflect domestic spending cuts in all future years, and we protected the UK taxpayer from having to bail out eurozone countries that get themselves into trouble. There is a long way to go, but we have made a strong start. I commend this statement to the House.

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

May I thank the Prime Minister for his statement? I also thank him for the briefing statement that he gave me on Saturday on the developments following the discovery of explosive materials, including those at East Midlands airport. I join him in thanking the security services, the police and others for the work that they do to protect innocent people here and abroad. I also want to assure him that he has the full support of the Opposition in his efforts to tackle terrorism and keep the nation safe.

On Europe, Labour Members think that it is in the national interest for Britain to be strongly engaged in Europe on issues from terrorism to climate change, and from the global economy to human trafficking. We all know that the Prime Minister is in a slightly tricky predicament on Europe. He has his old friends and his new friends on the Front Bench. I want to tell him very sincerely that we are here to help him. We know that he held some pretty strong views on Europe in the past, but we are willing to ignore his previous convictions, just as long as he is as well.

Let me start with the Council’s conclusions on economic governance. We welcome any sensible proposals for greater co-operation to ensure economic stability across Europe. In principle, we also welcome the idea of putting in place clear arrangements for providing help to eurozone countries that get into trouble, rather than relying on an ad hoc approach. The Prime Minister is also right to say that eurozone countries should take financial responsibility when those circumstances arise. He was right to say in his statement that these new arrangements would not apply to Britain, but they might affect Britain. We have an interest in stability in the eurozone but also in supporting growth in what is our largest export market. Can he therefore assure the House that, as well as protecting Britain from those provisions, he will engage in discussions to ensure that the right balance is struck between the need for stability and the need for growth in the eurozone?

In the context of these reforms, I do not think the Prime Minister made it clear in his statement whether, if proposals are made for treaty change as a result of the amendments, he is prepared to accept the changes without a referendum. He used to imply that if treaty change were ever back on the table, he would have a referendum, but he seems to have abandoned that position. Will he confirm that that is the case?

The Prime Minister also used to imply that he would use the opportunity of treaty change to bring back the British opt-out on employment and social legislation. I think that is a pledge he made for this Parliament. Labour Members do not believe that this is a necessary or sensible course of action. He was silent on this issue during his statement. Can we therefore assume that his previous red lines on this issue were not raised by him at any time in these negotiations, and can he confirm that he does not intend to raise these red lines—or what were his red lines—in the coming months in the context of any possible treaty changes that might take place? Again, we will support him if he takes the right course.

Secondly, on the G20 summit in Seoul, which will discuss the prospects for the world economy, the Prime Minister will know that an increase in trade accounts for almost half of the growth forecast that the Office for Budget Responsibility predicts for the United Kingdom next year. Can I ask what discussions were had at the European Council about the uncertainty in the world economy and how Europe plans to do its bit to ensure that economic demand is sustained?

Thirdly, on the Cancun conference on climate change, I have to say—I think the Prime Minister will agree—that the prospects do not look bright for completing the unfinished work of Copenhagen. May I urge him on to show greater leadership on this issue—[Interruption.] Leadership, which is not just about some huskies, but is real leadership on this issue. Can he say what he will be doing personally to advance a deal on finance, which is a crucial precondition of progress and a key objective of the Cancun summit?

Let me turn next to the EU budget. The Prime Minister has offered what we might call an interesting version of events. He confirmed that, in August, the 2.9% increase was put forward by the Council of Ministers and 20 countries voted for that—Britain was not one of them; it voted against that. The Prime Minister tells us in his statement today that “before the Council started, we began building an alliance to take a different approach”—different from the Parliament—“and insist on 2.9%”. The question I ask the right hon. Gentleman is when he took that view. On 20 October, he told this House:

“We have called for a cash freeze in the size of the EU budget for 2011 and we are working hard to make this case across Europe.”—[Official Report, 20 October 2010; Vol. 516, c. 938.]

He was not saying that 2.9% had been agreed and that he had lowered his sights; he was telling us that he was still working for a freeze. Three days later he repeated this to the Daily Mail—a reliable source:

“We need to start working on trying to keep next year's budget down. It should be a freeze or a cut.”

That was his position at that time. So I have a simple question: when did the Prime Minister change his position on this issue? He certainly did not tell the House; he certainly did not tell the Daily Mail—and one would have thought that he would have kept it informed. As far as we can gather, it was sleeves rolled up, full steam ahead and when it came to 2.9%, it was “fight them on the beaches”. Now the Prime Minister has said that he changed his position.

Now, the Prime Minister has agreed to 2.9%. What does he say about something he originally voted against? One would have thought that he might be slightly sheepish about this—but not a bit of it! He actually says that he has “succeeded quite spectacularly”. If that is his view of spectacular success, I would hate to see what happens when things go wrong in his negotiations in Brussels.

What about the letter that the Prime Minster brandished as having been signed by 13 member states, supporting 2.9%? I do not think that is a spectacular success. Twenty countries were supporting 2.9% in August, so this is seven fewer countries than were originally supporting that increase. The only big difference is that Britain, which used to be against the 2.9% increase, is now for it. Let me say to the Prime Minister, in words that my grandmother might have used, that I admire his chutzpah on this issue. Is not the truth about it that he wished he could come back and say, “No, no, no,” but in his case, it is a bit more like, “No, maybe, oh, go on then, have your 2.9% after all”?

What is the deeper truth about the Prime Minister’s position? I have to say that I am disappointed in him, because he has fallen back into his old ways. It is more ludicrous grandstanding on Europe, which ends up proving futile and fooling no one. The Prime Minister said that he would provide for a referendum on Lisbon if there was an opportunity; he has abandoned that position. He said that he would repatriate powers; he has abandoned that position. He said that he would obtain a freeze in the EU budget; he has abandoned that position.

The Prime Minister has obviously not learned the lesson, because he left the summit bragging again, saying that he was a Euroscpetic. When will he recognise that anti-European bluster and PR are no substitute for a decent, engaged European policy? He should be leading the way on climate change, signing the directive on human trafficking, and working with European Governments to sustain demand in the global economy. The Prime Minister may have abandoned some of his previous convictions, but his rehabilitation on Europe has a long way to go.

[The Prime Minister]

If mine was chutzpah, that was brass neck.

The right hon. Gentleman asked how I was getting on with my new friends and my old friends. Let me put it in a way that he may understand: we are just one big happy family. It is brotherly love on this side of the House; it really is. The problem is that we are living with the decision of the right hon. Gentleman’s old friend, Tony Blair, who gave away £8 billion of rebate and received nothing in return.

The right hon. Gentleman asked whether we would ensure stability in the eurozone. Of course we want to do that, as I said in my statement. He said that this did not affect Britain in terms of the treaty change, and he was quite right about that. He asked whether this should lead to a referendum. The point is that we are not passing any powers from Britain to Brussels: this limited treaty change does not affect the United Kingdom. However, I cannot take a lecture on referendums from someone who could have provided a referendum on the Lisbon treaty, but failed to do so.

The right hon. Gentleman asked what we were getting in return. We are getting progress on the budget, which we never saw in a month of Sundays under a Labour Government. Let me say something about the issue of the budget, and the points that he made. Let us contrast the position now with what happened last year under a Labour Government. Last year under a Labour Government—[Interruption.] It is very instructive to look at what happened last year and what happened this year.

Last year the European Council voted for a 3.8% increase. The Labour Government supported it. The European Parliament proposed a 9.8% increase. The Council then agreed a 6% increase, and the Labour Government supported it. That is the difference between last year and this year. Last year we had a feeble Government who would not stand up for Britain; this time we have a Government who will.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Peter Tapsell (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)]

As it appears that the treaties of the European Union can be changed on the insistence of a German Chancellor, is it possible to give a British Prime Minister the same opportunities, thus enabling him to give his country the pledge of the referendum that was promised to them? Is that so, or not?

[The Prime Minister]

If there were any prospect of a passage of power from Britain to Brussels, we should have a referendum. That is not just my word: we are going to legislate to put it into place. But the question that we must answer here—this goes directly to what my right hon. Friend has said—is, “What is it in Britain’s national interest to try to insist on at this time?” In my view it is the budget, and the amount of money that goes from Britain to Brussels, into which we should be putting our efforts. That is what I did, and that is what I am going to go on doing.

[Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)]

May I welcome the Prime Minister to the club of Euro-pragmatism? He has said nothing today with which I can greatly disagree. Will he answer two questions, however? First, will he confirm that if the final budget deal is above 2.9%, Britain will not seek to veto it? Secondly, will the proposed treaty change happen under the so-called passerelle clause of the Lisbon treaty?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his endorsement—wherever they come from, they are always welcome. The point about the budget approach is that 13 countries have put their signature to a letter saying they will not accept anything over 2.9%. They will, I believe, all stick to their word, and we will insist on this so that we either get 2.9%, agreed between Parliament and the Council, or we get deadlock, in which case the budget is frozen at last year’s level.

The final decisions on the proposed treaty change will be taken at the December summit. That is likely to be under the simplified revision procedure so there is not a parliamentary convention. The key point here is to be absolutely clear that this is going to be a few lines that are about putting in place what is a temporary bail-out mechanism and making it a permanent bail-out mechanism. The key point for the House to hold on to is that this does not affect the UK, except inasmuch as we want the eurozone to sort itself out.

[Mr Charles Kennedy (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (LD)]

Given today’s lunchtime praise of the Prime Minister by Miles Templeman of the Institute of Directors, and in particular his observation that the Prime Minister’s greater European sensitivity, which the IOD welcomed, must be down to the presence of Liberal Democrats in his coalition Government, may I assure the Prime Minister, speaking as one long-standing pro-European now to another, that as long as he maintains such constructive engagement he will deserve, and I am sure will receive, solid support?

[The Prime Minister]

Said without a hint of mischief. I believe the national interest right now is all about—[Interruption.] I heard that, I say to whoever said the G word. The national interest is about restricting our contributions to the EU. We are making difficult decisions here, and that is what we should be pushing for in Europe. What was encouraging about this European Council was what a strong alliance we could build with others at the same time as protecting ourselves by preventing any of this treaty change from having an effect on the UK.

[Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)]

The Prime Minister says that from now on the EU budget must reflect what we are doing in our own countries, so can he give us a cast-iron guarantee that in 2012, 2013 and thereafter there will be cuts to the EU budget, or can he use more reassuring words?

[The Prime Minister]

What I can say to the right hon. Gentleman is that, for the first time, the European Council’s conclusions set out the new principle that increases or changes to the EU budget should reflect what we are doing in our nation states. That has never been put in place before, which is why the Commission opposed it so much. The principle is that what is happening across Europe must be reflected in the EU budget; that is the key. I will be pressing for the best possible outcome in 2012 and 2013, and as Britain is a net contributor the best possible outcome for us is that we do not make these increases in our net contribution.

[Sir Malcolm Rifkind (Kensington) (Con)]

Does the Prime Minister agree that the experience of the Labour Government in respect of the European budget was a failure to reconcile net income with gross habits, and will he also confirm that his success in putting together this blocking coalition will save the British taxpayer half a billion pounds?

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right. Every percentage increase we save is equivalent to well over £100 million. The failure there has been—for a long time, frankly—over this issue is twofold: a failure to take the budget issue seriously enough and, secondly, a failure to have transparency and therefore to have the information about the EU budget out there so that citizens in Europe can really complain about the inflated salaries and allowances. Let me give just one example: civil servants who have been in Brussels for 30 years are still paid generous expatriate allowances. That is the sort of excess that we have got to deal with.

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

The Prime Minister seems to have great faith in protocol 15. I also noted that he did not really answer the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane), and I am beginning to wonder something: has the Prime Minister ever actually read the Lisbon treaty from page one to page—to the end. If so, when?

[The Prime Minister]

One of the many contributions to public life that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) made after making that remark is that all future Front Benchers, probably on either side of the House, will carefully read every treaty and get to the end.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

Given that response, will the Prime Minister confirm that the presidency conclusions, to which he has referred, do in fact endorse the EU taskforce report, which clearly states that there will be “a new legal framework” for further surveillance and powers for economic governance, which cover both the eurozone and the EU, including us, and, moreover, that any EU treaty imposes legal rights and obligations on all the member states? Why, therefore, did my right hon. Friend reckon that, together, these do not affect the UK, that

“it isn’t going to make any difference to us”

and that, on that basis, there would be, as he put it, no referendum?

[The Prime Minister]

This is a very serious point and we probably require a longer exchange than is possible from the Dispatch Box. I say to my hon. Friend, who follows this very closely, that we have to differentiate between two important things—the first is the Van Rompuy report and the second is the very limited treaty change that is being proposed by the Germans and now, in principle, endorsed by the Council—because the treaty change is really focused simply on the issue of putting a temporary bail-out mechanism on to a permanent basis.

On the Van Rompuy report, the paragraph to which my hon. Friend refers is paragraph 34, which talks about “macro-economic surveillance”—something that has happened for more than 10 years in the European Union. It is defined in paragraph 35, and paragraph 39 is very clear that the sanctions it talks about refer only to euro area members. I would also draw his attention to paragraph 4, which states that all of this is looked at

“within the existing legal framework of the European Union.”

That is important. The other paragraph that I think is vitally important is paragraph 18, which says—I quoted it earlier—that

“strengthened enforcement measures need to be implemented for all EU Member States, except the UK as a consequence of Protocol 15 of the Treaty”.

That is what gives us the protection. We read these things very carefully.

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)]

May I congratulate the Prime Minister on his consistency? In 2005, he won the leadership of his party by being the most Eurosceptic candidate; in 2007, he made a very clear commitment to hold a referendum on the Lisbon treaty; and now he has capitulated on his previous position of a freeze. Can I take it that public sector workers facing a freeze will now get a 2.9% increase?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman, who is very experienced in this House, has clearly not met my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary. I am sure that I can arrange for them to spend some quality time together.

[Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con)]

I congratulate the Prime Minister on playing a very difficult hand at the summit. Does he agree that seeing off the European Parliament’s budget, securing our opt-out on economic governance and ensuring that future budgets will reflect a nation’s spending cuts all adds up to a good day’s work?

[The Prime Minister]

May I thank my hon. Friend? I do think this principle that what happens in terms of the EU budget should reflect what happens to member states’ budgets is an important principle. Of course, as we speak today, it is just words in a conclusions text, but many of the things that my hon. Friends and I have worried about over the years have been words in a conclusions text—a little opening that people who want more and more of the European Union push their force through. We have now got a wedge, if you like, that we can push on at all subsequent negotiations: that the European Council has accepted that what is good for nation states is good for the European Union’s budget.

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

What discussions did the Prime Minister have with the Council on convergence funding and what are the implications of the budgetary settlement on that funding?

[The Prime Minister]

We did not have detailed conversations about the elements of the budget. Clearly those countries that are net recipients were opposed to what I was proposing, and obviously the tighter the budget, the less money there is for the things within that budget, but within the budget we should always fight for a good deal and we should also make sure that depressed parts of the UK get access to that money. But when you look at what the European Parliament was putting forward for its 6%, you find that it included, for instance, a massive amount more for dairy farming, so it was not actually connected to getting the European economy moving.

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

What sort of world are MEPs living in? At a time when everybody else is tightening their belts, these people are awarding themselves ever more generous allowances and salaries, despite the fact that most people do not even know who they are. Will my right hon. Friend suggest to his friends on the Council that we export IPSA the—Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority—to the European Parliament?

[The Prime Minister]

That is an idea of pure genius. I am not sure that even the brilliant simultaneous translation that is available would really enable me to explain IPSA in all its complexities. There is a serious point, however, and this is where transparency matters. I remember, when the whole problem of allowances, pay, pensions and everything broke in this place, looking again at the European Parliament’s rules. They are not transparent enough and we need to sort that out. As I say, when it comes to the European budget, transparency, which is going to be a great weapon in local government and central Government, can be such a weapon in Europe, too.

[Tony Lloyd (Manchester Central) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister, of course, will not have been able to see the faces of his colleagues behind him when he made his statement. In terms of the big happy family that he commands, does he think that he still has the support of the majority of Conservative MPs?

[Hon. Members]

Hear, hear!

[The Prime Minister]

rose—

[Sir Alan Haselhurst (Saffron Walden) (Con)]

Instead of the passing satisfaction that might be gained from a “toys out of pram” approach, is not my right hon. Friend’s achievement the fact that we have a first pragmatic step towards getting a grip on the EU budget, and will other steps follow?

[The Prime Minister]

It is important that we build alliances for what we are trying to achieve. I would say to all my right hon. and hon. Friends that there are many things that we do not like about the European Union’s development and many things that we would like to change. We must pick our battles and our fights. The important battle to have is the one over the budget and it is important to try to build alliances for that. There is strong support from other countries—not just the donor countries but those that are making difficult decisions at home and recognise that it is simply insupportable to see one budget going up and up when they are having to cut things back in their domestic economies.

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

At what we now know as the Prime Minister’s “delicious” press conference, he questioned the number of BBC correspondents sent over to report on his triumph. Who did he want to send home the most—Nick Robinson or Michael Crick?

[The Prime Minister]

I probably should not have used the word “delicious”. I was just making the point, as we were talking about cuts, that the BBC seemed to be extremely well represented. I do not think that Nick Robinson was there, but it is always a joy to see Michael Crick.

[Mr James Arbuthnot (North East Hampshire) (Con)]

On the defence relationship with France to which my right hon. Friend referred, is he aware that I have forgiven the French for taking off the head of my great-great-great-great grandfather at Trafalgar? Does he agree that the treaty that he will be signing tomorrow with President Sarkozy needs to contain real concrete arrangements to improve defence co-operation between our two countries?

[The Prime Minister]

I am extremely glad that my right hon. Friend has forgiven the French, as I think he is joining me for lunch with President Sarkozy tomorrow—it might have been a little bit frosty. This is important, because Britain and France share a real interest. We have similarly sized and structured armed forces, we both have a nuclear deterrent and we both want to enhance our sovereign capability while being more efficient at the same time. This treaty will set out that in many areas—such as the A400M, the future strategic tanker aircraft, the issue of carriers and more besides—we can work together and enhance our capabilities while saving money at the same time.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

Local democracy in this country is facing 28% cuts over the next four years. That would be a good starting point, I think, as a target for the EU budget. What level does the Prime Minister think that the EU budget should be set at, ideally?

[The Prime Minister]

Obviously, we had to do the best we could with the 2011 budget. We now have the issues of 2012 and 2013 before we go into the 2014-2020 perspective. Many countries will be arguing for increases—the recipient countries will fight very hard for them and the European Commission, which always wants to see greater competences and more powers, will fight for them. Those of us who are doing the paying will have to unite and fight very hard. The better we can do in 2012 and 2013, the lower the baseline we will work off for the 2014-2020 perspective. That is where we will be pushing extremely hard.

[Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) (Con)]

It is some 16 years since the European Court of Auditors last signed off the accounts. In welcoming our right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Thatcher’s return to home and health this afternoon, may I invite the Prime Minister to consult her regarding what instrument he could use in place of the handbag to sort out this mess?

[The Prime Minister]

I am sure that the whole House will welcome Baroness Thatcher’s better health and return from hospital. The deal she achieved at Fontainebleau all those years ago has saved this country £88 billion and it will be extremely important to defend that abatement as we go into the 2014-2020 negotiation. I am sure that she will be looking carefully to make sure that her legacy is assured.

[Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)]

After such a miserable failure on the budget freeze, did the Prime Minister console himself by thanking the Italians for building British ships such as the Queen Elizabeth or by congratulating the Germans on winning a contract to occupy the channel tunnel? How much time did he spend hawking around Royal Mail to his new European pals?

[The Prime Minister]

The answer is no, I did not do any of that. I am not quite sure what point the hon. Gentleman is making. Trade between European countries is extremely worth while: just as we sell important goods and services to Germany and France, so they sell to us. I would have thought that even he and the dinosaurs opposite would think that was a good thing.

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

I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. Given that the proposed treaty change apparently will not affect the UK in any way, should we not simply leave it to the countries in the eurozone, which will be affected, to sign any new treaty? Should we not keep out of it?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes a fair point, but I think the best option for the UK, because this is a very limited treaty change about making this temporary mechanism permanent and because it is in Britain’s interests, as we do not want a eurozone that goes kaput and we do not want to have to join in bail-outs—that is what this is about—it is better that it takes place through existing operations. Also, as I said in the statement, we have to bear in mind the role of London and Britain as a key financial centre. That will be strengthened by what is being done rather than by any alternative.

[Mr Ian Davidson (Glasgow South West) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Prime Minister’s visit to Brussels cost British taxpayers £450 million or so. Where is that money coming from, and would it not have been better spent on avoiding some of the cuts in services for ordinary hard-working families that his Government are putting through?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

If we had taken the approach of the previous Government, we would have just said, “Never mind the increase suggested by the Council or the increase suggested by the Parliament, let’s just let them come to some sort of deal and Britain will cough up,” but we said, “No, let’s restrict this to the very minimum it could be.” That is not an approach that the previous Government took, but I am proud to say it is one that we took.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

As one pro-European who has concerns about the European Union to another, may I ask the Prime Minister whether the real problem with the budget is the £17.5 billion extra that we are going to pay over the next four years because that lot opposite gave up Mrs Thatcher’s rebate?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In the negotiations in 2005, we were told repeatedly in the House by Tony Blair, standing here at the Dispatch Box, that he would consider giving up the rebate only if he got a proper deal on common agricultural policy reform. Do hon. Members remember that? In the end, all we got was a review of the CAP. That teaches us the very important lesson that we have to halt it.

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

Did the Prime Minister get a chance to discuss with any of the leaders privately or publicly the ludicrous European Union embassies being set up all over the world at huge expense? Does he realise that the public do not want that, but want well-staffed British embassies? Can we do anything about it, and is there any chance of a referendum in the next five years on whether we stay in or go out?

[The Prime Minister]

I do not believe in an in-out referendum, for many reasons. I think we are better off in the European Union—we have to fight our corner very hard—but I would grant a referendum if there were any proposed transfer of powers from Westminster to Brussels. On the European External Action Service, the hon. Lady knows that we opposed the Lisbon treaty, that we thought the creation of the EEAS was a mistake and that we have pushed as hard as we can within Europe to keep its costs under control. There is an argument that because of the combination of the previous High Representative and Foreign Minister roles, the posts and the budget should cost less, and we push that case as hard as we can.

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

As another of the Prime Minister’s new friends, may I remind him that in 2010 family life takes many different forms in this country? May I also commend his pragmatism in relation to defence co-operation with the French, which he no doubt discussed with President Sarkozy over the weekend? If it is successful in conventional co-operation, what are the prospects for similar co-operation in nuclear matters?

[The Prime Minister]

I think there are prospects for our working together in this area, not least the French investment in civil nuclear power that is going to take place in the UK. There are opportunities, which we will be talking about tomorrow. In terms of the broader family, I do not quite know what my right hon. and learned Friend would be—a wise uncle, I suppose, to give me good advice. I seriously believe that the link-up with the French over defence is in the long-term interests of both our countries. To those who worry that this might in some way lead to European armies, I say that is not the point. The point is to enhance sovereign capability by two like-minded countries being able to work together.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

Following on from the Prime Minister’s answer to his hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) in which he explained very carefully why he fully understands and justifies the use of the Lisbon treaty for modifications, can he explain to us exactly what type of modifications or changes he would want to have a referendum on? Exactly what transfers of power would he want to put to the country in a referendum?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Lady asks a reasonable question. The Bill that we will be looking at will say that there should be a referendum on any transfer of power—a proper transfer of competence. As a general principle, the House should not give away powers it has without asking the people who put us here first. That is the principle that we should adopt. I do not want us to give any further powers from Britain to Brussels, so I am not proposing that we should. Further to answer the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), I am not anticipating us having a referendum, because I do not want to see that transfer of powers. What is being proposed by the Germans and will be finally agreed at the December Council, yes, is a transfer of powers for countries in the eurozone. It definitely means that as well as having the euro, they will have more co-ordination of their economic policy, and punishments if they do not do certain things. That, to me, is perfectly logical if they are in the euro. It was one of the reasons why I did not want to join the euro in the first place and why, as long as I am Prime Minister, we will not do so.

[Mr Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)]

Does the Prime Minister accept that it is welcome, if unusual, to see so many Heads of State supporting a British Prime Minister on an issue on which the European Parliament takes a different view? Does he agree that perhaps there is a role for national Parliaments, which, right across Europe, are facing difficult economic decisions, to support these Heads of State, including, of course, the Prime Minister, because it is right—

[Mr Heald]

—the Head of Government, I said. It is right that the EU’s budget should reflect the means of the countries that are in the EU.

[The Prime Minister]

I hope the former Europe Minister, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), will stay calm. My hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Mr Heald) makes a good point. Part of the problem in the past has been that other member states have not been as focused on the budget and the impact on their own publics as they are now. They are focused on it now because they all have to make difficult decisions. When we sit round the European Council table, we are often discussing what we are having to do with public sector pay, pensions or other difficult decisions, so there is a common interest which the Parliaments of Europe can help remind their Governments about.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

It is clear that a number of member states are unlikely to be able to sustain their membership of the euro for the long term. They are already suffering serious internal economic damage, some requiring external fiscal transfers, and other countries may be in the same position in the not-too-distant future. Was there any talk, privately or otherwise, of the possibility of member states leaving the euro, so making it work better?

[The Prime Minister]

I do not believe that will happen, but what was interesting about this European Council is that there is quite an existential debate taking place within the eurozone about what it means to be a member of the euro. There is a very strong push by the Germans, who obviously feel that they have had to bail out the Greeks, that they have to have tighter rules for members of the eurozone, and there are very great worries on the part of some countries about the sanctions that could be applied to them. This is a debate that was inevitable when there is one currency and many countries and they are having to give up some of their sovereignty to make that single currency work. It is perfectly logical for eurozone members. It reinforces in my mind that they are right to do that, but we are right not to be part of it.

[Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con)]

May I say to the Prime Minister how refreshing it was, after 13 years of inactivity and disinterest in this area, to see a British Prime Minister fighting for a reduction in the size of the EU budget and for better value for money for British taxpayers? Can he confirm that he now has two potential vetoes—first, on the limited treaty change on economic governance, and, secondly, on the EU budget for the next period, 2014 to 2020—and that they can be used independently of each other?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is entirely right. Britain does have leverage, influence and an impact in these negotiations. The question that we have to answer is, what can we achieve that is most in the national interest. I do not want to make promises that I cannot keep or to set goals that are impossible, but action on the budget and the future financing is where we should exert our influence.

When it comes to treaty change, there would be a stronger argument for pursuing treaty changes of our own if what was now being suggested were a wider treaty change. It is not; it is a relatively limited change that makes the temporary mechanism permanent. We will see the full details of it in December, and we will be able to be involved in its negotiation, as my hon. Friend says.

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

Has the Prime Minister made any calculation of how many new teachers, nurses or police officers could have been employed with the 2.9% increase that he has conceded to the EU?

[The Prime Minister]

I have to say to the hon. Lady that one constructive thing that she and other Opposition Members could do is to talk to their Members of the European Parliament. They had the chance to vote for a freeze in the budget, and they did not do that. So, it is all very well hon. Members standing up and saying how much more Britain is going to have to pay, but their MEPs are doing nothing to help in that argument.

[Mr Aidan Burley (Cannock Chase) (Con)]

Has the Prime Minister had the chance to discuss security co-operation with the German Chancellor in the light of the increased bomb threats?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes. I did have that conversation, because the German Chancellor stayed at Chequers over the weekend, and we discussed a range of those issues. Obviously the aeroplane in question, having left Yemen, had landed in Germany and then in Britain before it was due to go on to the United States. That reminds us of how interconnected we are, so the British and the Germans, quite close together, made the announcement about not receiving packages and parcels from Yemen. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will be giving further details in a moment or two, when she makes her statement.

[Chris Bryant]

Let me get this right. The Prime Minister failed to put together a blocking minority in July, and he did not even manage to get the Polish on board, despite the fact that the Polish Foreign Secretary was in the Bullingdon club with him at Oxford. He failed to put together a blocking minority, he let the matter go through in August, he tried again at the beginning of last week, he failed—and then he proclaims himself the great saviour of this country. How can it possibly be a success until he comes back to this country with a guarantee from the French that they intend to cut the common agricultural policy?

[The Prime Minister]

The difference between the hon. Gentleman and me is that when we were both at Oxford he was a member of the Conservative association and I was not.

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

The Prime Minister quite rightly says that London is the financial heart of Europe. The chief executive of the London stock exchange, a Frenchman, has warned of the harm that European legislation can do to the vital alternative investment market. Can the Prime Minister reassure the House that that will not happen?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point, and it goes to the heart of the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) made. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, I and others negotiate in Europe, I am extremely conscious of the fact that some of the directives coming out of the European Commission on alternative investments, such as the Larosière proposals on finance, have the potential to do great damage to the UK, and we do have to make sure that we use our negotiating muscle on the things that make the most difference to us. That is very important. Rather than focusing on things that might sound good from this Dispatch Box, let us focus on the things that make a difference to the great businesses of our country.

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

In the light of the estimated 20,000 job losses among police officers in this country, how many officers does the Prime Minister think could be employed by the 2.9% increase that he has conceded?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

I have a message for the Whips: you need to hand out more than one question; it is always better if there is a choice. But I think that I answered it earlier.

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

I congratulate the Prime Minister on once again showing real leadership in Europe. Drawing on the comments made by the Leader of the Opposition a moment ago, we all want to be fully involved at the heart of Europe and in partnership with it, but that does not mean that we have to roll over and have our bellies tickled every time a proposal comes forward.

[The Prime Minister]

I am on only my third European Council, and they are rather more frequent than they used to be, but I do not think it is impossible to combine a strong defence of the national interest with building alliances. Everyone round that European Council table recognises that we actually do all have interests that we have to try to protect on our own as well as making sure that we are making the right decisions for the 27.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

Given that negotiations on the budget are continuing with the European Parliament, will the Prime Minister give us one of his famous cast-iron guarantees that his Government will not accept an increase above 2.9%?

[The Prime Minister]

The point I can make is that 13 Heads of Government or Heads of State signed a letter saying they would not accept more than 2.9%, so it is not just my word but the word of all those leaders who have said that this should not be accepted. That is the best thing that we could do, and it gives a real chance of either achieving 2.9% or, possibly even better, a deadlock which would mean a freeze for next year.

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

Given the extent of belt tightening in this country, does my right hon. Friend believe that now is the right time to get the EU’s accounts fully and independently audited in order to reduce waste and fraud, and will he push for that?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. The first thing we are going to do is the initiative on transparency and openness to try to draw greater attention to what the European Union spends its money on. We will find that some of the spending—spending on science projects and the like—may be worth while, but I am convinced that there is a lot of waste that could be cut out if we had the transparency that we are applying to our own budget back here in the UK.

[Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con)]

May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on clearly standing up for Britain’s interests? On the parts of the Van Rompuy report that set in place new mechanisms that clearly concern the United Kingdom, even though it is a non-eurozone member, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the inevitable pattern of EU history whereby any grant of power is followed by demands for more and more power, as surely as night follows day?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. I can tell him that the Chancellor and I, in undertaking these negotiations, are acutely conscious that you have to watch the language that is being proposed by others in the European Council and keep asking whether it is setting some future trap for the UK Government. I have to say that I think the language in the Van Rompuy report about its not affecting Britain in terms of sanctions is extremely clear.

There is one other point I would make, which is about the opt-out that was negotiated from the Maastricht treaty. That opt-out has worked well. Yes, there is surveillance in terms of economic policy—that has happened for 10 years—but frankly, it has not forced us into doing anything we did not want to do. Just as that opt-out has held good, we have now renewed and refreshed it for this fresh group of challenges that have come towards us.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

May I congratulate my right hon. old Friend on his excellent statement—[Interruption] Well, having some friends, that is—and ask him if he is aware of any member of the British delegation to the European Parliament who voted for the higher budget increase, and if so, will he name and shame them?

[The Prime Minister]

What I can say is that when there was a motion in the European Parliament to support a freeze, 12 out of 13—I think it was—Labour MEPs voted against that, so they had the opportunity to stand up for what some of their colleagues have stood up for today, and they failed to do it.

[Mr Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)]

In the light of my right hon. Friend’s opening remarks and his comments on his bilateral with the German Chancellor, does he agree that Britain is very well placed to lead the transition in Europe towards the era of information-age terrorism, especially as we have GCHQ, and as his new National Security Council has made such a strong commitment to more spending against cyber warfare?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. Prime Ministers and Ministers often praise the security services, and it is good to put on the record the very hard work that people at GCHQ in Cheltenham do; they are among the best in the world at what they do. That gives us an opportunity to combat this new threat of cyber terror and cyber attacks that affects not just our defences but many, many businesses in our country. There is a chance to have some real leadership in this respect, and other countries, including France and Germany, are coming to us wanting to work with us in combating cyber threats because of the investment we are managing to put in.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

The cost of the new European diplomatic corps will eat up on its own the entire net contribution from this country, both this year and going forward. What did my right hon. Friend say to Baroness Ashton about the ballooning costs of that organisation, and what was her response?

[The Prime Minister]

I know that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has had this conversation, and I have discussed the issue as well. While we opposed the European External Action Service—we did not want it to be created in the first place—the Lisbon treaty, sadly, is now a fact we have to live with. But because what were two roles are combined into the role that Baroness Ashton fills, there should be opportunities for some cost savings. Actually, the European Parliament has offices around the world, and we think there is a real opportunity to rationalise that and ensure that it keeps its cost under control.

Ministers: Overseas Travel, Hospitality, Gifts and Official External Meetings

Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton Excerpts

Thursday 28th October 2010 Written Statements

[The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)]

The Government are today publishing details of ministerial overseas travel; hospitality received; gifts given and received over £140; and official meetings with external organisations during the period 13 May to 31 July 2010. This information is being published on departmental websites and will be updated and published on a quarterly basis on departmental websites.

I am also placing in the Libraries of both Houses: details of former Ministers’ overseas travel costing over £500 during 2009-10; details of gifts given and received by former Ministers over £140 during 2009-10; and the annual list of those who received official hospitality at Chequers during 2009-10.

Special Advisers

Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton Excerpts

Thursday 28th October 2010 Written Statements

[The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)]

Listed below are the names of the special advisers in post at 28 October 2010, including each special adviser’s pay band, and actual salary where this is £58,200 or higher, together with details of the special advisers’ pay ranges for 2010-11.

The estimated paybill for the period 12 May 2010 to 31 March 2011 remains at £4.9 million.

The paybill cost, including severance, for the period 1 April 2010 to 12 May 2010, totalled £2.1 million, of which £1.8 million was severance.

In future, this list of special advisers will be updated on a quarterly basis, and published on the No 10 website.

For the first time, departments are also publishing today, on their websites, details of gifts and hospitality received by their special advisers during the period 13 May to 31 July.

This information will be updated and published on departmental websites on a quarterly basis.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton Excerpts

Wednesday 20th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)]

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

[Mr Bone]

During this Parliament, our contributions to the European Union will increase by £17.5 billion, so yesterday’s cuts to the defence budget will not go to reduce the deficit, but to subsidise our European partners. This is obscene. What would the Prime Minister like to say to the European Union?

[The Prime Minister]

First, the point is that the previous Government gave away some £8 billion of rebate and got nothing in return. I am clear that we will not accept any increases in the EU budget in the next seven-year financial perspective. We have called for a cash freeze in the size of the EU budget for 2011 and we are working hard to make this case across Europe. Just yesterday, I spoke to the new Dutch Prime Minister as he is another ally in trying to ensure that, as we make difficult decisions at home, we do not spend extra money on the EU budget.

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

I want to start by asking the Prime Minister about something that the Justice Secretary said. Unfortunately, he has become part of the “squeezed middle” due to the logjam on the Tory Front Bench. Three weeks ago, the Justice Secretary—a former Chancellor—said:

“I do not rule out the risk of a double-dip recession”.

On the same day, the Prime Minister said that the UK economy was out of the danger zone. Which of them is right?

[The Prime Minister]

First, let me compliment the Justice Secretary because he has something that I am not sure the Leader of the Opposition has yet acquired, which is bottom.

If the Leader of the Opposition read out the full quotation from the Lord Chancellor he would find that it referred to western Europe as a whole. That is the point. Perhaps he would like to read out the whole quote now.

[Edward Miliband]

The—[Interruption.] Let me be very clear about this. The Justice Secretary said:

“I do not rule out the risk of a double-dip recession”

because of global fear and crisis. He was talking about the United Kingdom. It is a very simple question for the Prime Minister. Who is right? Is it the Justice Secretary when he does not rule out the risk of a double-dip recession? Or is the Prime Minister saying that the Justice Secretary has put his foot—or his Hush Puppy—in it? Is he saying that the Justice Secretary was wrong to say that there was a risk of double-dip recession in the UK?

[The Prime Minister]

Of course, the Leader of the Opposition must ask the questions and I must answer them, but he must—if I may say so—ask a complete question which should include the complete quotation. Have another go.

[Edward Miliband]

rose—[Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Miliband]

Look, the Prime Minister knows as well as I do that there are risks in the global economy, including to the United Kingdom. The Chief Secretary revealed yesterday that half a million jobs will be lost as the result of the Chancellor’s announcements today. What people who are in fear of losing their jobs will want to know is what the consequences of the spending review will be for them. They will think that this spending review will be a failure if it leads to rising unemployment next year. Will the Prime Minister say that he agrees with them that the spending review will be a failure if unemployment were to rise next year—yes or no?

[The Prime Minister]

That is a much better question; I think we are making some progress. The whole point of the Government’s approach is to take the British economy out of the danger zone, which is where it was left by the last Government. This is very important: the choice that we were left with when we came into power was to accept what the last Government had set out, but this is what was said about that. The Governor of the Bank of England said that it was “not a credible plan”, the CBI said that it was not a “credible path”, the OECD said that it was a “weak fiscal position”, and the IMF said that it was not good enough. We had a choice: should we keep what we were left with or should we take bold action to get Britain out of the danger zone? That is what we have done. That is what today is all about, and it is time that the right hon. Gentleman asked something relevant to that.

[Edward Miliband]

The Prime Minister began by saying that it was a good question, then he said that it was irrelevant. Which is it? Let me give him another—[Interruption.] I know that he is getting advice from the Chancellor; he can answer the questions himself. Let me try the Prime Minister on another question, because he did not answer that one.

The Energy Secretary, who does not seem to be around—[Hon. Members: “He is here!”] Oh, he is there. Excellent. I am glad that he is here. The Energy Secretary says that the Government should not be “lashed to the mast” of the Government’s tax and spending numbers were economic circumstances to change. Does the Prime Minister agree? In particular, if at the end of November the Office for Budget Responsibility were to forecast a rise in unemployment next year, does the Prime Minister think that the tax and spending judgments of the Government should change? Yes or no?

[The Prime Minister]

First, to respond to what the right hon. Gentleman said about me and the Chancellor, I know that it is a novel concept, but in this Government the Prime Minister and the Chancellor speak to each other.

On unemployment, the independent Office for Budget Responsibility—which we have established and which is fully independent—is forecasting that unemployment will fall next year, the year after and the year after that. It is forecasting that employment—[Interruption.] One question at a time, please. The right hon. Gentleman is very eager. The Office for Budget Responsibility also forecasts that employment will rise next year, the year after and the year after that. That is the independent forecast, and one of the reasons for that is that we have taken the economy out of the danger zone. He asks about the Energy Secretary, but what is interesting about this Government is that two parties have come together in the national interest to sort out the economic mess that was left by the other. That is what has happened, and that is why there is real unity in this Government in dealing with the mess that we inherited.

[Edward Miliband]

Let me give the Prime Minister another chance, because the truth is that the global economic outlook is uncertain, as the former Chancellor admits—the Prime Minister does not really want to admit it—and it could affect the UK. The question that people will be asking as they watch these exchanges is this: if things change, and if unemployment were to rise next year, will the Government revise their tax and spending plans? It is a simple question; the Prime Minister can just say yes or no.

[The Prime Minister]

Where the right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right is that we live in a dangerous world economy, and the outlook for the world economy is choppy and difficult. That is what the Justice Secretary was talking about and what the Chancellor has been talking about. The question for the Government is this: in an uncertain world economy, are we taking the British economy out of the danger zone? Are we doing the right thing to protect the long-term interests of people’s jobs and livelihoods? That is what we are doing. What the right hon. Gentleman is doing is thoroughly irresponsible, and I think he probably knows it.

[Edward Miliband]

This is very interesting, because the Prime Minister used to say that he was a different type of Conservative, but I have given him the chance to say that he will change his plans if unemployment rises, and he has ducked the chance to do so. We all remember the catchphrases: “If it isn’t hurting, it isn’t working”; “Unemployment is a price worth paying.” He sounds exactly like that. What we have is a Prime Minister lashed to the mast of the tax and spending plans. Should he not admit it? He is taking the biggest gamble in a generation—with growth, with people’s jobs and with people’s livelihoods.

[The Prime Minister]

We all remember some catch phrases: “No more boom and bust”—remember that one?—and “Prudence with a purpose”, which left us with the biggest budget deficit in the G20. We remember that, and who was the economic adviser at the Treasury at the time? He is sitting right there—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The Prime Minister must be heard.

[The Prime Minister]

Let me give the right hon. Gentleman one simple piece of advice that I learned sitting in his seat for five years: if you have not got a plan, you cannot attack a plan. He has not got a plan, so he has got nothing to say—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Order. Be quiet now! I call Nicky Morgan.

[Nicky Morgan (Loughborough) (Con)]

Charnwood borough council has completed the online publication, three months early, of all its expenses over £500. In the light of today’s announcements, is it not right that taxpayers want to know exactly how much is spent in their name and what the money is spent on?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and one of the ways that we will try to save money while not losing too many jobs in the public sector is by making sure that we are more efficient. One of the best tools for efficiency is transparency: putting online what is spent and how it is spent, and what people’s salaries are can help to drive down costs in a way that makes public services better while saving money at the same time.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

Q2. Many of my constituents fear for their jobs. Will the Prime Minister reassure them by explaining how cutting science funding is part of a strategy for growth? Germany is increasing its science funding by 7%. On jobs, is the Prime Minister’s message to Newcastle: “Auf wiedersehen, pet”?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Lady makes a very good point, which is that, in making spending reductions—whoever had won the last election would have had to make spending reductions—it is vitally important that we try to protect economic growth. The last Government were committed to 20% departmental spending reductions, and I can say—without, I hope, pre-empting all of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s statement—that I hope she and the whole House will find that we have struggled hard but we have been able to freeze the science budget in cash terms, which is a good outcome for science.

[Mr Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)]

Will the Prime Minister join me in paying tribute to the work of Save the Children and other charities that deal with development work in some of the most difficult places in the world? Does he share my delight in today’s news of the release of Frans Barnard in Somalia?

[The Prime Minister]

I do, and I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this case. We have been in close contact with Save the Children over the kidnap of Frans Barnard, who is doing vitally important work on its behalf in Somalia, and we are delighted by the news that he has been freed by his kidnappers. Let me praise the professionalism of Save the Children and thank the Somali clan members who were involved in his release. I am sure that it will be good for him to be back with his family after what must have been a very frightening and difficult few days.

[Sandra Osborne (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Lab)]

Q3. On the day when more than 2,000 supporters of Christian Aid, including some from my own constituency, have come to Parliament in support of a cross-party consensus on protecting the aid budget, does the Prime Minister agree that we should be leading a global crackdown on the tax-dodging that costs poor countries more each year than they actually receive in aid?

[The Prime Minister]

I do; on a day when I am sure that there will not be cross-party agreement on everything that is discussed, we should just take one moment to celebrate the fact that this country, almost alone among other countries, is going to meet the United Nations target of 0.7% of gross national income for overseas aid by 2013. We have made difficult choices under this Government in order to deliver that, and to keep our international promise to some of the poorest people in the world. Every party in the House can be proud of the role that it will play in ensuring that Britain stands up for aid in our modern world, and we can put pressure on other countries to do the same thing.

[Jessica Lee (Erewash) (Con)]

Will the Prime Minister join me in backing the supporters of Ilkeston Town football club in my constituency who are working hard to put together a bid to save the club? If they are successful, it will be the first supporter-owned football club under the new coalition Government, and a real asset to us in Erewash.

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. Many hon. Members will have football clubs in their constituencies that sometimes struggle financially, and seeing one owned by its supporters is a very positive move. I hope she will not mind if I spend more of my time on another football bid, which is the very important bid to make sure that England hosts the World cup in 2018.

[Lindsay Roy (Glenrothes) (Lab)]

Q4. I have already briefed the Prime Minister on the likely impact of the interim cap on migrant workers on a leading-edge company in my constituency. The one graduate sponsorship licence issued has suddenly been withdrawn. Can the Prime Minister assure me that he will review this case urgently, as this expert is pivotal to growth and jobs in our community?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his question. I will arrange for the Minister for Immigration to look urgently at this case. The point is that we have consulted business and other interested parties on how the limit should work. We have also asked the Migration Advisory Committee to consult on what the actual limit should be. The consultations are closed and we will announce the findings in due course. The reason for an interim cap is that it was important to have a temporary limit to ensure that there was no closing-down sale, as it were, before the final limit was introduced. I will make sure that the Minister for Immigration gets in touch with the hon. Gentleman about this case.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Q5. May I ask my right hon. Friend a question of which I have given him prior notice? Will he tell the House why he believes that the first-past-the-post system for election is far fairer than the alternative vote system?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend tempts me into answers that will not delight everyone on this side of the House. I am clear that I have always supported the first-past-the-post system. I like to have the individual link between constituency and MP. In some cases, the alternative vote would have led to even more disproportional outcomes in national elections. Let me thank my hon. Friends who I know have misgivings about this referendum for allowing the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill to go through. I think we should make this argument in the country rather than try to wreck the Bill in the House.

[Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)]

Q6. Now that the final day of the Chancellor’s judgment has arrived, can the Prime Minister assure me by confirming that the decision taken on the 50,000 savers of the Presbyterian Mutual Society will be both fair and equitable? Will he assure us that no sleight of hand will be used in delivering the full financial package promised by the previous Administration to the Northern Ireland Executive?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. Having already announced one of the Chancellor’s nuggets from his speech, it would be testing our friendship if I announced another. I gave my word about finding a settlement for the PMS. I know how important this is in Northern Ireland. I know that people lost money and that there was frustration that Ministers would stand at the Dispatch Box and say that no one had lost money during the financial crash—they did in the PMS. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be satisfied by what the Chancellor has to say in a moment.

[Dan Byles (North Warwickshire) (Con)]

Last week, I joined a parliamentary delegation to China, where I was able to pick up a copy of Chairman Mao’s “Little Red Book”. Is the Prime Minister interested to learn that Chairman Mao said:

“Thrift should be the guiding principle in our government expenditure.”?

If Mao Tse-tung supports coalition policy, does that not mean that the Labour party is in a minority of one?

[The Prime Minister]

I am glad that my hon. Friend has been travelling and seeing the world. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I want to hear the Prime Minister’s views about Chairman Mao.

[The Prime Minister]

I am glad that my hon. Friend is travelling the world and learning so much. We learned a few weeks ago that even Cuba is making reductions in public spending, so I think this puts the modern Labour party somewhere between China and Cuba—but I am not quite sure where.

[Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)]

Q7. Following a meeting with the Northern Ireland human rights commissioners yesterday, it is clear that this Government intend to breach the spirit and the letter of the Good Friday and the St Andrews agreements by refusing to bring in a Human Rights Act specifically for Northern Ireland, as recommended by the commission and supported recently by more than 80% of the Protestant and Catholic communities. How can the Prime Minister possibly excuse this betrayal of the people of Northern Ireland?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I will look at that carefully; I know that it has been discussed. It is a difficult issue and there are some problems that we need to resolve, but I will look at it and write to the hon. Gentleman.

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

Does the Prime Minister agree that it is completely unacceptable that the European Union is expanding its bureaucracy while here in the UK we are cutting ours?

[The Prime Minister]

I agree with my hon. Friend. This is a point that I have made at the European Council in the past and that I will make again at the next one. There are allies for these views in Europe. I talked about the Dutch Prime Minister; the Germans are also unwilling to see increases in the budget in future. We need to work with these allies to try to explain that it is just unacceptable. When we are making difficult decisions at home, Europe should be doing the same with its own budget.

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

Q8. Is it wise and right that Ministers invest in offshore tax havens?

[The Prime Minister]

I think that that issue was fully raised by Channel 4, and fully answered by the Government. Everyone should obey the law; everyone should pay their taxes.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Q9. Despite the Prime Minister’s earlier answers, can I tell him that at a time when we are cutting budgets in this country, it is absolutely unacceptable that the Government rubber-stamped an increase in the budget of the European Union? Given that he pledged at the general election that only two budgets would be ring-fenced—those for the health service and overseas aid—will the Government go to the European Union and say that we are not only talking about freezing the budget, but want it to take the pain and cut its budget?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes a fair point, but the fact is that we opposed the increase in the budget that he voted against the other night, and will go on opposing increases in the budget. The key is the next financial perspective: that is the best way in which to control the budget. We need to build allies for that, we need to build our argument for that, and we need to make sure that Europe starts to live within its means.

[Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)]

Q10. The North East chamber of commerce has reported that 17,000 construction jobs are at risk as a direct result of proposed cuts in local councils. For some of us in the House, unemployment is not just a subject for theoretical discussion. Some of us have lived through and experienced the real desolation that unemployment means. Will the Prime Minister now tell us clearly whether he believes today what he believed in 1992—that unemployment is a price worth paying?

[The Prime Minister]

I do not take that view at all. I take the view that we must do everything we can to get our people into good and well-paid jobs. I have to say, however, that if we do not tackle the deficit, every job in the country will be under threat. That is the point. We are not doing this because we want to; there is no ideological zeal in doing this. We are doing this because we have to.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the British Chambers of Commerce. What the British Chambers of Commerce said at the time of the Budget was that this

“will have positive effects on business and investor confidence”

and

“will be welcomed by companies the length and breadth of the country—and across the globe.”

That is what the chambers of commerce think. They think that we are right to take this action, and they think that the Labour party is wrong.

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

Q11. Does my right hon. Friend agree that you do not need a basic economics primer to know that when there is a £44 billion black hole in the public finances, you should not propose additional commitments of £10 billion in speeches made outside the House around the country?

[The Prime Minister]

And in speeches after which they will not answer any questions, which is a novel approach.

My hon. Friend is right. We have a problem with the deficit in this country, and we have got to deal with it. We have set out the ways in which we are going to do that, and we have set out a plan. The Opposition do not have a plan, and you cannot attack a plan unless you have one yourself. If all you can do is come up with extra taxes for extra spending, you are completely irrelevant to the debate in the country today about how we pay down our debts. That is the question, and we have the answer.

[Mrs Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)]

Q12. Given the Prime Minister’s repeated assurances that the north-east has nothing to fear from him, his Government, and public sector job cuts because he believes that the private sector will thrive in the vacuum, can he name just three businesses in the north-east that he believes will be expanding their work forces in the next 12 months?

[The Prime Minister]

This week 38 businesses wrote to the papers backing the action. Those businesses were spread right across the country, but let me give the hon. Lady some satisfaction in terms of the north-east. I believe that the north-east has a great future in renewable energy, and she is about to hear that we are protecting capital spending so that the carbon capture and storage projects will go ahead and the investment in wind power will go ahead. As for the green investment bank, which lots of people have talked about, we will be putting proper money into it so that it can invest in the north-east and elsewhere in the country.

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

Q13. Can my right hon. Friend reassure my constituents who rely on the excellent hospitals in Grantham and Stamford that he has rejected the advice of the shadow Chancellor, and will protect spending on our NHS?

[The Prime Minister]

I can absolutely give that guarantee. That is something on which we fought the election, something that is in the coalition agreement, and something that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will be delivering.

We will have to make difficult decisions, including difficult decisions about the NHS, but what I can say is that we will fulfil our promise that national health spending will not be cut in real terms under this Government. That is a big contrast with what we hear from the Labour party, which has said in terms—particularly the shadow Chancellor—that protecting the national health service is wrong. We do not agree: we think that it is right.

[Mr Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

When the Prime Minister accused Labour Members of scaremongering during the general election for highlighting the Conservative threat to take security of tenure from council tenants and impose massive rent increases on them, was he goading us to use unparliamentary language or was he simply being economical with the truth?

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman will hear in a minute what our plans are for bold housing reform that will lead to more social homes being built, but it does not actually involve changes to tenure. I do think that we have to look at new ways to get houses built. The fact is that under the last Government we had housing targets and vast amounts of investment in social housing, but house building was lower in every year of the last Government than it was under the previous Conservative Government. That is a common story: vast amounts of money spent, with very poor results.

[Annette Brooke (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

Q14. Last week, a special day was allocated to raising awareness of secondary breast cancer. There is an urgent need to collect good data on people living with secondary breast cancer in order to improve the outcomes for people living with that incurable disease. Would the Prime Minister be prepared to meet a delegation from the all-party group on breast cancer and a few people from the relevant charities?

[The Prime Minister]

I will be very happy to do that, and the hon. Lady is right to raise this issue. We do have a good record on cancer in this country, but it needs to be a lot better if we are to get it up to the best level in Europe. Part of that is about early diagnosis, which I have spoken about and on which I know the Health Secretary is taking action. However, as she says, all of us will have met in our own constituencies people with secondary breast cancer and we need to give the issue more attention. I will be happy to have the meeting she suggests.

[Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)]

Q15. Four years ago, Gary Dunne, from my constituency, was murdered in Spain. His parents, Lesley and Steve, have fought a long and ultimately successful campaign to have his body returned for burial in this country. Would the Prime Minister agree to meet Mr and Mrs Dunne to discuss proposals for changes in the law, so that no other family has to go through the ordeal that they went through?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman raises a very important case. Anyone who has lost a relative who has died overseas knows the enormous worry about how to deal with these issues and how to get things sorted out. On behalf of the whole Government and the House, I send my condolences to Mr and Mrs Dunne. I know that they have dealt with this case with great dignity and courage. I hope that the fact that they have now been able to bury their son in the UK will help them to start to come to terms with their terrible loss. I am very happy to meet them and try to work out what we can do to deal with sad situations such as this. There is a problem when different countries have different rules, particularly where the death has occurred some time before, but we should try to work it through and I am happy to meet them.

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

Does the Prime Minister agree that, if graduates are to be asked to make a greater contribution to the cost of their education, in order to be fair those with the greatest ability to pay should make the greatest contribution?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, I completely agree. In the end, I think that almost everyone in this House wants the same thing: we want well-funded universities; we want universities that are able to exercise some independence; we want a growing higher education sector; we want people from low-income backgrounds to be able to go to the best universities in the country; and we want a proper element of progressivity. That is what Lord Browne proposes, and we are going to amend that to make it even more progressive. In particular, I think that moving the salary before you start to pay back from £15,000, which we had for many years, to £21,000 is a really big step forward. I hope that we can get all-party agreement for what would be a good and proper reform of higher education for the long term in our country.

[Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)]

I am sorry for not giving the prior notice to the Prime Minister, but I am confident that, given his reassurance on the NHS, he will be able to answer my question this afternoon. Does he agree with me and the Secretary of State for Health that it makes no sense to close Ealing hospital’s accident and emergency department, given that 100,000 patients use this service each year? Will the Prime Minister also take this opportunity to end rumours of coalition plans to close the entire Ealing hospital?

[The Prime Minister]

I will have to get back to the hon. Gentleman on the detail of his question, but we believe that those top-down reorganisations that took place in the NHS, in which many accident and emergency units were closed without taking into account what local people wanted, were wrong. The whole point of the reform of the NHS is to put power in the hands of patients and doctors, so decisions about hospitals will be made on the basis of what local people want and not on the whim of Ministers.

[Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)]

Many of my constituents are gravely concerned that when young people are found guilty of serious crimes and offences and get off with a caution no action is taken against their parents. Will the Prime Minister agree to consider that matter and perhaps to have words with the Justice Secretary about what could be done?

[The Prime Minister]

I am very happy to look into that issue. As we seek efficiencies and savings in the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice, we are going to have to be reformers. We are going to have to be more thoughtful and creative about how we have a criminal justice system that carries out punishment in which the public are confident, but that is not so wasteful of public money as what we have now. It is a challenge for us and it is a challenge that we will have to rise and meet.

[Jim Sheridan (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)]

It looks as if there is a possible end to the current industrial dispute at British Airways. Will the Prime Minister join me in sending a clear message to senior management at British Airways that should the cabin crew decide to return to normal working, there should be no harassment, no bullying and, most importantly, no recriminations?

[The Prime Minister]

I think the most important thing is that this strike ends—that this action ends—and that British Airways gets back to working properly. The fact is that there is a hugely competitive airlines sector out there and those of us who love our national carrier and want it to be a success want to see people go back to work and work out how to make it compete with others that are striving ahead in the world. That is what we need, and the last Government did not really say that.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

Strategic Defence and Security Review

Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton Excerpts

Tuesday 19th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)]

With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the strategic defence and security review. There are four things that I would like to say up front. First, this is not simply a cost-saving exercise to get to grips with the biggest budget deficit in post-war history. It is about taking the right decisions to protect our national security in the years ahead, but let me say this: the two are not separate. Our national security depends on our economic strength, and vice versa.

As our national security is a priority, defence and security budgets will contribute to deficit reduction on a lower scale than most other Departments. Over four years, the defence budget will rise in cash terms, and fall by only 8% in real terms. It will meet the NATO 2% of gross domestic product target for defence spending throughout the next four years. But this Government have inherited a £38-billion black hole in our future defence plans. That is bigger than the entire annual defence budget of £33 billion. Sorting this out is vital not just for tackling the deficit, but for protecting our national security.

Secondly, this review is about how we project power and influence in a rapidly changing world. We are the sixth largest economy in the world. Even after this review, we expect to continue with the fourth largest military budget in the world. We have a unique network of alliances and relationships—with the United States, as a member of the EU and NATO, and as a permanent member of the UN Security Council. We have one of the biggest aid programmes in the world, one of the biggest networks of embassies, a time zone that allows us to trade with Asia in the morning and the Americas in the afternoon, and a language that is spoken across the globe. Our national interest requires our full and active engagement in world affairs. It requires our economy to compete with the strongest and the best, and it requires, too, that we stand up for the values that we believe in. Britain has traditionally punched above its weight in the world, and we should have no less ambition for our country in the decades to come, but we need to be more thoughtful, more strategic and more co-ordinated in the way we advance our interests and protect our national security. That is what this review sets out to achieve.

Thirdly, I want to be clear: there is no cut whatsoever in the support for our forces in Afghanistan. The funding for our operations in Afghanistan comes not from the budget of the Ministry of Defence, but instead from the Treasury special reserve, so changes to the Ministry of Defence that result from today’s review will not affect this funding.

Furthermore, every time the chiefs of staff have advised me that a particular change might have implications for our operations in Afghanistan, either now or in the years to come, I have heeded that advice. In fact, we have been and will be providing more for our brave forces in Afghanistan: more equipment to counter the threat from improvised explosive devices; more protected vehicles, such as the Warthog heavy protection vehicle, which will be out there by the end of the year; more surveillance capability, including unmanned aircraft systems; and, crucially, at last, the right level of helicopter capability.

Fourthly, the review has been very different from those that went before it. It has considered all elements of national security, home and abroad, not just defence on its own. It has been led from the top with all the relevant people around the table and, crucially, it will be repeated every five years. The review sets out a step change in the way we protect this country’s security interests. We will move from a Ministry of Defence that is too big, too inefficient and too over-spent to a Department that is smaller, smarter, and more responsible in its spending; from a strategy that is over-reliant on military intervention to a higher priority for conflict prevention; from concentrating on conventional threats to having a new focus on unconventional threats; and from armed forces that are overstretched and under-equipped and that have been deployed too often without appropriate planning to the most professional and most flexible modem forces in the world, fully equipped for the challenges of the future.

I want to take each of those in turn—

[Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)]

What about the cuts?

[The Prime Minister]

I shall give the hon. Gentleman all the figures he requires.

First, even though the Ministry of Defence will get real growth in its budget next year, the Department will face some significant challenges, so the MOD will cut its estate, dispose of unnecessary assets, renegotiate contracts with industry and cut its management overheads, including reducing civilian numbers in the MOD by 25,000 by 2015. We will also adjust and simplify civilian and military allowances. The new higher operational allowance stays, but there will be difficult decisions, although these will be made easier by the return of the Army from Germany. Taken together, all those changes in the MOD will save £4.7 billion over the spending review period.

Getting to grips with procurement is vital. The Nimrod programme, for example, has cost the British taxpayer more than £3 billion; the number of aircraft to be procured has fallen from 21 to nine; the cost per aircraft has increased by more than 200%; and it is more than eight years late. Today, we are announcing its cancellation.

Secondly, from military intervention to conflict prevention, Iraq and Afghanistan have shown the immense financial and human costs of large scale military interventions, and although we must retain the ability to undertake such operations, we must get better at treating the causes of instability, not just dealing with the consequences. When we fail to prevent conflict and have to resort to military intervention, the costs are always far higher. We will expand our capability to deploy military and civilian teams to support stabilisation efforts and build capacity in other states and we will double our investment in aid for fragile and unstable countries so that by 2015 just under a third of the budget of the Department for International Development will be spent on conflict prevention.

Thirdly, we need to focus more of our resources not on the conventional threats of the past but on the unconventional threats of the future. So, over the next four years we will invest more than £500 million of new money in a national cyber-security programme. That will significantly enhance our ability to detect and defend against cyber attacks and it will fix shortfalls in the critical cyber infrastructure on which the whole country now depends. We will continue to prioritise tackling the terrorist threat both from al-Qaeda and its affiliates and from dissident republicans in Northern Ireland. Although efficiencies will need to be made, we are giving priority to continuing investment in our world-class intelligence agencies and we will sharpen our readiness to act on civil emergencies, energy security, organised crime, counter-proliferation and border security.

Fourthly, and crucially, we need to move from armed forces that are over-stretched and under-equipped to the most modern and professional flexible forces in the world. We inherited an Army with scores of tanks in Germany, but that was until recently forced to face the deadly threat of improvised explosive devices in Afghanistan with Land Rovers designed for Northern Ireland. We have a Royal Air Force hampered in its efforts to support our forces overseas by an ageing strategic airlift fleet and we have a Royal Navy locked into a cycle of ever smaller numbers of ever more expensive ships. We cannot go on like this.

The White Paper we have published today sets out a clear vision for the future structure of our armed forces. The precise budgets beyond 2015 will be agreed in future spending reviews. My own strong view is that this structure will require year-on-year real-terms growth in the defence budget in the years beyond 2015. Between now and then the Government are committed to the vision of 2020 set out in the review and we will make decisions accordingly. We are also absolutely determined that the Ministry of Defence will become much more commercially hard-headed in future and will adopt a much more aggressive drive for efficiencies.

The transition from the mess we inherited to that coherent future will be a difficult process, especially in the current economic conditions, but we are determined to take the necessary steps. Our ground forces will continue to have a vital operational role, so we will retain a large, well-equipped Army, numbering around 95,500 by 2015—7,000 fewer than today. We will continue to be one of very few countries able to deploy a self-sustaining, properly equipped, brigade-sized force anywhere around the world and to sustain it indefinitely if needs be. We will also be able to put 30,000 into the field for a major, one-off operation.

In terms of the return from Germany, half our personnel should be back by 2015 and the remainder by 2020. Tank and heavy artillery numbers will be reduced by about 40%, but the introduction of 12 new heavy lift Chinook helicopters, new protected mobility vehicles and enhanced communications equipment will make the Army more mobile, more flexible and better equipped to face future threats than ever before.

We will also review the structure of our reserve forces to ensure that we make the most efficient use of their skills, experience and outstanding capabilities. That review will be chaired by the vice-chief of the defence staff, General Houghton, and my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr Brazier), who has served for many years in the reserves, will act as his very able deputy.

The Royal Navy will be similarly equipped to meet the challenges of the 21st century. We are procuring a fleet of the most capable nuclear powered hunter-killer Astute class submarines anywhere in the world. Able to operate in secret across the world’s oceans, those submarines will also feed vital strategic intelligence back to the UK. We will complete the production of six Type 45 destroyers —one of the most effective multi-role destroyers in the world. We will also start a new programme to develop less expensive, more flexible, modern frigates. Total naval manpower will reduce to around 30,000 by 2015—that is a reduction of 5,000—and by 2020 the total number of frigates and destroyers will reduce from 23 to 19. However, the fleet as a whole will be better able to take on today’s tasks—from tackling drug trafficking and piracy to counter-terrorism.

The Royal Air Force will also need to take some tough measures in the coming years to ensure a strong future. We have decided to retire the Harrier, which has served this country so well for 40 years. It is a remarkably flexible aircraft, but the military advice is clear: we should sustain the Tornado fleet as that aircraft is more capable and better able to sustain operations in Afghanistan. RAF manpower will also reduce to around 33,000 by 2015—again, that is a reduction of 5,000. Inevitably, that will mean changes in the way in which some RAF bases are used, but some are likely to be required by the Army as forces return from Germany. We owe it to communities up and down the country who have supported our armed forces for many years to engage with them before final decisions are taken.

By the 2020s, the Royal Air Force will be based around a fleet of two of the most capable fighter jets anywhere in the world—a modernised Typhoon fleet, fully capable of air-to-air and air-to-ground missions, and the joint strike fighter, the world’s most advanced multi-role combat jet. The fleet will be complemented by a growing number of unmanned aerial vehicles and the A400M transport aircraft together with the existing fleet of C-17 aircraft and the future strategic tanker aircraft. This will allow us to fly our forces wherever they are needed in the world.

As we focus our resources on the most likely threats to our security, so we will remain vigilant against all possible threats and we should retain the capability to react to the unexpected. As we cut back on tanks and heavy artillery, we will retain the ability to regenerate those capabilities if need be; and while in the short term the ability to deploy air power from the sea is unlikely to be essential, over the longer term we cannot assume that bases for land-based aircraft will always be available when and where we need them, so we will ensure the UK has carrier strike capability for the future. This is another area where I believe the last Government got it badly wrong. There is only one thing worse than spending money you don’t have, and that is buying the wrong things with it—and doing so in the wrong way. The carriers they ordered were unable to work effectively with our key defence partners, the United States or France. They had failed to plan so carriers and planes would arrive at the same time. They ordered the more expensive and less capable version of the joint strike fighter to fly off the carriers. And they signed contracts, so we were left in a situation where even cancelling the second carrier would actually cost more than to build it. [Interruption.] I have this in written confirmation from BAE Systems.

That is the legacy we inherited—an appalling legacy the British people have every right to be angry about, but I say to them today: we will act in the national interest. We would not have started from here, but the right decisions are now being made in the right way and for the right reasons.

It will take time to rectify these mistakes, but this is how we intend to do so. We will build both carriers, but hold one in extended readiness. We will fit the “cats and traps”—the catapults and arrester gear—to the operational carrier. This will allow our allies to operate from our operational carrier, and it will allow us to buy the carrier version of the joint strike fighter, which is more capable, less expensive, has a longer range and carries more weapons. We will also aim to bring the planes and the carriers in at the same time.

Finally, we cannot dismiss the possibility that a major direct nuclear threat to the UK might re-emerge, so we will retain and renew the ultimate insurance policy—our independent nuclear deterrent, which guards our country round the clock every day of the year. We have completed a value for money review of our future deterrent plans, and as a result we can do the following. We can extend the life of the Vanguard class so that the first replacement submarine is not required until 2028; we can reduce the number of operational launch tubes on those new submarines from 12 to eight; we can reduce the number of warheads on our submarines at sea from 48 to 40; and we can reduce our stockpile of operational warheads from fewer than 160 to fewer than 120.

The next phase of the programme to renew our deterrent, the so-called “initial gate,” will start by the end of this year. But as a result of the changes to the programme, the decision to start construction of the new submarines need not now be taken until around 2016. We will save around £1.2 billion and defer a further £2 billion of spending from the next 10 years. So, yes, we will save money, but we will retain and renew a credible, continuous and effective minimum nuclear deterrent that will stand constant guard over our nation’s security.

Finally, the immense contribution of our highly professional special forces is necessarily largely unreported, but their immense capability is recognised across the world. We are significantly increasing our investment in our special forces to ensure they remain at the leading edge of operational capability, prepared to meet current and future threats, and maintaining their unique and specialist role. This enhanced capability will allow them to remain at “extremely high readiness” for emergency operations.

We were left a budget £38 billion overspent, armed forces at war, overstretched, under-equipped and ill prepared for the challenges of the future, and the biggest budget deficit in post-war history. I believe we have begun to deal with all these things, sorting out the legacy and fitting Britain’s defences for the future. I commend this statement to the House.

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

May I start by joining the Prime Minister in paying tribute to the men and women of our armed forces? I also want to pay tribute to their families, who sustain their loved ones as they prepare for, serve on and recover from operational service. They are the best of Britain, and we should recognise that in the House here today. We must ensure that their interests are protected in all the decisions we make.

I thank the Prime Minister for advance notice of his statement—in today’s papers, yesterday’s papers, Sunday’s papers, Saturday’s papers and Friday’s papers. It almost did not matter that I got his statement at 3.15 pm because I had read so much of it in the newspapers, but, as someone who takes Parliament seriously, I have to say to the Prime Minister that the process of announcement of the review has been a complete shambles. I genuinely hope he will learn the lessons from it.

On issues of defence and national security, we will always seek to be constructive. I believe the Prime Minister approaches the challenge of national defence, as all Governments have done, with the right intentions, and it does neither our politics nor our armed services any good to imply anything different. That is the approach I shall follow today.

The cuts announced today clearly represent a significant reduction in our defence spending, but what matters in our defence spending is what the money does for our defence and security needs. That is what I want to focus on today. First, I remind the Prime Minister of the concern expressed by the Defence Secretary in the letter to him. He said that

“this process is looking less and less defensible as a proper SDSR”.

The Prime Minister will know that the concern that the Defence Secretary expressed was expressed not just by the Defence Secretary, but by the Chair of the Select Committee, by many Members of the House and by many independent observers.

Is it not instructive that the strategic defence review of 1998 took 15 months to complete and involved much greater consultation and in-depth study? May I ask the Prime Minister to respond to the widespread perception that the review has been driven only by short-term considerations? Does he think, on reflection, that it would have been better to have had a longer-term strategic defence review, continuing after the spending review?

Secondly, may I ask the Prime Minister about the most immediate and pressing issue of Afghanistan? I reiterate that we support the mission in Afghanistan and will work in a bipartisan way with him to stabilise the country and bring our troops home safely. I was reassured by what he said in his statement about Afghanistan, but may I ask him for some further assurances that he has been told by the Chief of the Defence Staff that no decision announced today will in any way undermine or disadvantage our military operations in Afghanistan?

I welcome what today’s statement said about delivering new equipment, but may I raise with the Prime Minister the issue of extra helicopters? People will remember that he made much of the issue of helicopters in the previous Parliament. The order, as I understand it, was for 22 extra helicopters, but the document produced today states on page 25 that “12 new Chinook helicopters” will be ordered. I simply ask the Prime Minister to explain the discrepancy between the 22 helicopters that I believe he wanted in the previous Parliament, and the 12 that have been ordered.

Thirdly, I am sure the Prime Minister would agree that a key part of preparing for the challenge of the future is the targeting of limited national resources on the most pressing threats. He mentioned terrorism in his statement, and the national security strategy identified terrorism as a tier 1 threat. Given that today’s announcement forms only a partial response to yesterday’s national security strategy, can he assure the House that nothing announced tomorrow in the changes to the Home Office budget will in any way undermine or weaken our ability to counter terrorism in all its forms?

Fourthly, on the issue of preparing our armed forces for future challenges, we agree that savings can be made on the legacy cold war capability, such as in the number of Challenger tanks and in heavy artillery. However, I seek reassurance from the Prime Minister that he is content that the decisions made today do not in any way compromise our ability to support current operations and defend our interests round the world. In particular, what does the capability gap arising from the scrapping of our Harriers and the withdrawal of Ark Royal mean for our force projection, which was made much of in the national security strategy document yesterday? What does it mean for our ability to defend our overseas territories? In that context, will he also reassure the House that the best strategic decision for the next decade really is for Britain to have aircraft carriers without aircraft, which is the decision he announced today?

May I also ask the Prime Minister about two things that he did not mention in his statement? Will he confirm what he did not tell the House but what I think is set out on page 19 of the review—that he is today announcing a one-third reduction in the number of troops that Britain can deploy on both short-term and enduring bases? Will he also take the opportunity to respond to the huge disappointment that there will be in south Wales, following the decision announced in a written ministerial statement this morning to terminate the defence training college at St Athan, which he personally promised would go ahead?

Fifthly, there will be concerns that the review has failed to address strategically the important questions about the future of our nuclear deterrent. All parts of the House support the retention of the nuclear deterrent, alongside progress in multilateral disarmament talks, but can I say—[Interruption.]

[Edward Miliband]

There will be concern that the Prime Minister has announced a whole range of decisions on Trident, despite telling us for months that it was not part of the strategic defence review. He made much of the issue of the procurement budget, but will he confirm that by choosing to delay Trident, he is creating a large unfunded spending commitment in the next Parliament—precisely the problem he told us he wants to get away from in procurement.

We will help the Prime Minister and his Government as they seek to do what is best for our country’s security, but many people will believe that this review is a profound missed opportunity. It is a spending review dressed up as a defence review; it has been chaotically conducted and hastily prepared; and it is simply not credible as a strategic blueprint for our future defence needs.

The Opposition will support him where we can, but we will also give his strategy serious scrutiny, and where necessary and appropriate we will subject it to the principled and responsible opposition it deserves.

[The Prime Minister]

I welcome what the right hon. Gentleman said about our armed forces. Anyone who does my job or that of Defence Secretary knows that we have in our armed forces the bravest of the brave, some of the most professional and dedicated people, and everyone in this House looks up to them and is proud of them.

I welcome the fact that the right hon. Gentleman is here at all, because of course today is the day of the TUC rally that he promised to attend. I am very glad that he got his priorities right, and I am sure that all the trade unionists who voted for him will fully understand.

The right hon. Gentleman complained that I had not got him the statement early enough, but I got the document to him two hours ago, which I do not remember his predecessor being very quick to do, but there we are. I might be being unfair.

I thought that the right hon. Gentleman should have started his statement with one word—“sorry”: sorry for the £38 billion of overspend in the MOD; sorry for the fact that the previous Government left more civil servants than we had sailors or airmen; sorry for the £2.3 billion that they spent on refurbishing the Ministry of Defence; and sorry for the completely unsustainable promises that they made.

The right hon. Gentleman asked a series of questions, and I shall try to answer every single one. He compared this review with the 1998 review, but one crucial difference is that the 1998 review did not include the funding to go with the promises that were made. Yes, we have made tough decisions in this review, but the funding is there to meet the promises that have been made.

The right hon. Gentleman said that the review was all about short-term considerations, but I have to say that we have made some long-term decisions: to invest £650 million in cyber at a time when one is making cuts is a long-term decision; to sort out the future of the carriers is a long-term decision; and scrapping many tanks and heavy artillery involves difficult but long-term decisions. On his idea that we should take longer over it, I have to tell him that these decisions do not get any easier by just putting them off. We have had a proper process—a national security process. I note that during his leadership election, he said:

“I think there is a strong case for carrying out our own Strategic Defence Review so that we can give appropriate scrutiny to the Government’s plan”.

I have not seen that review; perhaps it will emerge eventually.

On the right hon. Gentleman’s question about no decision doing damage to what we are doing in Afghanistan, I made it clear in my statement, and I make it clear again to him now, that that has been absolutely uppermost in my mind.

The reason I kept talking about helicopters in the last Parliament is that every time I went to Afghanistan, that is what the troops on the ground were worried about. Now, talking to our troops on the ground—I did a video conference call with the commander of our forces in Helmand only a few days ago—one finds that that is not their concern; they now have the helicopters they need. Let me answer specifically the point about the Chinook order. There was no order for Chinook helicopters—it was this Government who have had to fund that. The number of Chinooks is going from 46 to 60, and we will also be refurbishing the Puma helicopters to add to capacity.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about the Home Office budget; he will have to wait until tomorrow for that. However, I would stress again that this decision—this document—was brought about by the Home Secretary, the Foreign Secretary, the International Development Secretary and the Business Secretary sitting round as a National Security Council making the right decisions. On his question about being able to produce 30,000 forces in theatre, that was in my statement.

Let me address very directly the issue of the capability gap, because this has been the most difficult decision for the Government to take. There is no gap in our flexible posture. With our air-to-air refuelling and our fast jet capability, we have the ability to deploy force around the world, but I accept that there is going to be a gap in carrier strike. The alternative would be to keep the Harriers but not to keep the Tornados. I think that that would be the wrong decision. The Harriers, in any event, would have to be in Afghanistan, not on an aircraft carrier. The Harrier, while a brilliant aircraft, is not as capable as the Tornado. There are fewer Harriers than Tornados, so there would be a question as to whether they could sustain the action in Afghanistan. The premise underlying the question is not right. The current carriers are not equivalent to the future carriers that we are building. I have to say to hon. Gentlemen who may think, “Well, why not try to keep all of them—the Tornados, Harriers and Typhoons—and develop the joint strike fighter?”, that that would be prohibitively expensive. As I say, it is the sort of decision that was taken in the last Parliament just to push these things off into the future. We have to make the tough decisions now to line up our forces for the future.

The right hon. Gentleman’s last question was on Trident. I have been saving that up for the end because I was so excited by his questions. We held a value-for-money review on Trident because we really wanted to find out what money we could save, and we are saving money, including £700 million in this Parliament—that is money available to invest in other things, and it does nothing to risk our Trident replacement. I believe that Trident is vital to our nation’s security and, having looked at all the evidence, that a proper full replacement of Trident is the right option for the future. These are responsible decisions, well made. I have to say to the right hon. Gentleman, who is now running away from the Trident replacement that he supported, that that would be a profound mistake for this country.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Sir Peter Tapsell (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)]

Does the Prime Minister understand that many will view with great concern the decision to postpone the vital decisions on the future of the Trident nuclear deterrent until 2016—after the general election, when, for all we know, Lib Dem Ministers may still be there in Cabinet and, having been lifelong opponents of the nuclear deterrent, will continue to try to veto it, so that this decision looks like a subordination of the national interest to the political expediency of keeping the coalition going?

[The Prime Minister]

I really can reassure my—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. First, it is courteous to listen to the Prime Minister, and secondly, I want to hear his answer.

[The Prime Minister]

I really can reassure my hon. Friend. I am a very strong supporter of replacing Trident. We have sought the best military advice on what is right for its replacement, and the fact is that because we have been operating the Vanguard submarines for many years, we know what their life can be. We know that it is absolutely right to go through the initial gate this year—we are spending some £700 million in this Parliament on Trident’s replacement—but to go through the final gate of actually commissioning the building in 2016. We are on track to replace Trident and have a full-service nuclear deterrent. It is the right decision, and it saves money at the same time. That is what we should do.

[Mr Bob Ainsworth (Coventry North East) (Lab)]

Is not the Prime Minister doing precisely what he criticises with regard to Trident? He is putting off the decision and delaying the expenditure, thereby increasing it. He has also cancelled the Nimrod aircraft, rendering our nuclear deterrent less than invulnerable. How is that sensible, never mind strategic?

[The Prime Minister]

Let me first answer the right hon. Gentleman’s last question. What we are proposing would mean no reduction in continuous at-sea deterrence, which is vital. We set out that we were committed to Trident’s replacement but wanted a value-for-money review, and we asked the Ministry of Defence to go through all the possibilities and look to see how we could extend the life of the existing submarines, work on Trident’s replacement and ensure that we had continuous at-sea deterrence all the way through. Those are the sorts of questions, frankly, that the last Government should have asked. It would be irresponsible not to do so if we want to have a full-service nuclear deterrent but want value for money. That is the sort of thing that the last Government should have been asking about.

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

May I offer the Prime Minister some comfort in relation to Trident and say that I welcome the proposals, particularly as they are consistent with the Liberal Democrat position and also make an important contribution to multilateral nuclear disarmament? Will he confirm that between now and 2016, he will continue to pursue opportunities for multilateral nuclear disarmament, and also investigate the possibilities for greater military co-operation, including nuclear co-operation, with the French?

[The Prime Minister]

Of course we will continue to look at our responsibilities on nuclear disarmament, which we believe can be done on a multilateral basis, and of course we should be looking at co-operation with the French. Let me say to anyone who fears that that is a cloak for a European army that it is completely the opposite. Britain and France have very shared assets and very shared interests in developing our Army and Air Force and working out where we can work together to increase our sovereign capability. I will be having a defence summit with President Sarkozy before Christmas, at which I think we can take some very exciting steps forward.

The one place where I would probably part company with the right hon. and learned Gentleman is that although I know the Liberal Democrats are absolutely entitled to use the time between now and 2016 to look at alternatives, from looking at those alternatives I do not think that any of them would give us the assurance of having a full-service nuclear deterrent with the Trident submarine and missile system. I do not think the alternatives come up to scratch in anything like the ways some of their proponents propose, but under our coalition agreement he is free to continue to look at that. The programme for replacing Trident is on track and going ahead.

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Prime Minister has announced cuts and deferred defence decisions today, and tomorrow the Chancellor will announce cuts to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the BBC World Service, yet the national security strategy states:

“The National Security Council has reached a clear conclusion that Britain’s national interest requires us to reject any notion of the shrinkage of our influence.”

Given that statement, is it not true that the national security strategy is not worth the paper it is written on?

[The Prime Minister]

May I suggest to the hon. Gentleman a novel idea? Why do we not start looking at what we get out of public spending rather than what we put in? He will see in the strategy that we are actually ensuring that we get the things we need for our Army, Navy and Air Force. We are going to get greater efficiencies, even in vital bodies such as the intelligence services—that is what we have to do at a time when we have such large deficits and debts—but he can see the priority that this Government give to defence and national security in the decisions that we have taken.

[Sir Malcolm Rifkind (Kensington) (Con)]

With such a thankless task because of the economic background, may I commend the Prime Minister and his colleagues for ensuring that even though reductions in defence capability are inescapable at the moment, we will be able to reverse many of them if our economy improves and resources increase? May I also suggest that the whole House ought to welcome the prospect of saving £700 million on Trident without interfering with continuous at-sea deterrence? Is he satisfied that the technical evidence that he has been given supports that conclusion?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his question. As a lifelong supporter of Britain’s independent nuclear deterrent and someone who wants us to have a full service replacement, I wanted to make absolutely sure that we would have continuous at-sea deterrence and that there would be no break between the Vanguard submarines and what will follow. I am satisfied from all the evidence I have seen that that is what we will get. The reason that we have been able to do that is that the Vanguard submarines have been operating for longer. We now know about their life extension and what is possible. It is possible to continue with the independent nuclear deterrent and its replacement without a break in capability.

[Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)]

Thoughts must go to servicemen and servicewomen in communities around the country. Many will be worried about their futures following the Prime Minister’s statement, including thousands at RAF Lossiemouth and RAF Kinloss in Moray. Does he understand that if both those bases close, it will mean a 25% cut in the uniform service posts in Scotland as a whole? Given that it will cost more to close RAF Lossiemouth than to maintain it as a Tornado base, will he or the Defence Secretary meet me to discuss its future?

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary will be happy to meet the hon. Gentleman. Clearly, RAF Kinloss will not be required by the RAF following the decisions that we have taken, but we are not announcing base closures today because more armed service personnel will come home from Germany than will lose their positions following my announcements. There is therefore an opportunity to use RAF bases for other military purposes. I hate to make too much of a political point, but one wonders how many bases and how much capability there would be if there were an independent Scotland.

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

That is outrageous!

[Mr James Arbuthnot (North East Hampshire) (Con)]

The Defence Select Committee will wish to give the review very close scrutiny. It seems to take a real gamble with the short term in order to provide security and stability in the longer term, but how will my right hon. Friend answer those who say, as they will, “If we can get away with no fast jet aircraft carriers for 10 years, why do we need them at all?” Will he defend the Defence budget against such an attack?

[The Prime Minister]

That is absolutely the crucial question and the one that I personally spent the most time on. In many ways, the politically easy answer would be to keep Harriers in service and thereby pretend that there would be no real carrier-strike gap between the carriers we have now and those we will have in future, but militarily, that would be the wrong thing to do. Our greatest priority today is making sure that we have what we need in Afghanistan. In Afghanistan, the Harrier did great work, but the Tornado is more capable and carries a bigger payload, which is vital. Retiring the Harrier and keeping the Tornado is the right decision.

On our ability to project power around the world, as I said in answer to the Leader of the Opposition, we have air-to-air refuelling, the friendly bases, our allies and overfly rights. It is not easy to see in the short term the need for that sort of carrier strike, but we cannot rule it out for the longer term. I think that a good decision plus a carrier strike gap is better than a bad decision with what we might pretend is no gap. Actually, there is a big difference between our current carriers with the Harriers on board and the Queen Elizabeth-class carriers that we will have in future, with the joint strike fighter, which has a far larger range.

It is difficult, but, having heard all the arguments, I am convinced. I came at the problem as a politician quite tempted by the easy political answer, but the right military answer is the right thing to do for our country.

[Mr Nicholas Brown (Newcastle upon Tyne East) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister will know that the country’s only remaining factory for the manufacture of battle tanks and heavy fighting vehicles is located in Newcastle upon Tyne. Is the factory of strategic importance to the United Kingdom—being the only one we have—and will he say what implications today’s announcement has for the factory?

[The Prime Minister]

Clearly—and everyone will accept this—we need to get away from the sort of cold war tactics of having massed tank regiments in Germany, as we have had in the past. The statement as a whole is extremely positive for Britain’s industrial base, in terms of things such as the joint strike fighter, in which we have a huge participation; the A400M, which we will be building; and the shipbuilding that will continue on the Clyde. Obviously, we need to retain key sovereign capabilities and we have to ask in each case what is strictly necessary. Clearly, we will retain a number of tanks and we need them to be properly serviced and workable, because we cannot predict all future conflicts—and it would be a mistake for a document such as this to try to do so.

[Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)]

May I welcome this review, and especially the careful analysis that has gone into it and the conclusions that have been reached? Does the Prime Minister agree that this is just the starting point for a fundamental transformation of defence in this country so that in 10 years’ time we will have a defence posture and capability capable of securing the way ahead for Great Britain?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is right. The whole point about this review is that it has a vision for what our forces should look like in 2020—10 years’ time rather than just five years’ time. Because the Ministry of Defence and the service chiefs can now see their budgets for the whole of the spending review period, they can make proper plans and try to drive some efficiencies through the MOD so that they get even more for the money that they have. We must have reviews every five years. The problem has been that we had a review in 1998, which was not properly funded, and then a sort of scissors crisis, in which the commitments went in one direction and the ability to fund them went in another direction. To stop that happening in future, we need regular defence reviews and that is what we are committed to having.

[Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)]

We have now seen some of the biggest cuts ever in defence, as we saw when the Conservatives were last in power. The so-called party of defence is no longer the party of defence. The Prime Minister has already said that we should be out of Afghanistan in five years, no matter what. Do the assumptions he has made assume that that is still the case and that the capability will therefore reduce over those five years?

[The Prime Minister]

Along with our NATO partners, we believe that there is a clear programme of training up the Afghan national army, police and security forces so that they should be in the lead by 2014. That is our aim, and in addition I have said that by 2015 we should not be in a major combat role or there in major numbers. By then we will have been in Helmand province for longer than the entire second world war. We will have played our part, and I am confident that we are making good progress so that the 2014 calendar to which NATO is committed will go ahead. I do not accept that taking long-term, difficult decisions about the defence of our country makes us somehow anti-defence—the opposite is true. I am passionate about our armed forces, what they represent in our country and what they do on our behalf, but we do not serve them by putting off decisions for the future, making all sorts of airy-fairy promises and then not funding them.

[Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)]

It was sad to hear this morning that the appointment of Metrix as the preferred bidder for the St Athan project had been terminated, although we can understand the reasons. It is a disappointment for the armed forces who need those facilities, as well as for Wales and the Welsh economy. The statement also says that

“work on the alternative options will begin as soon as possible”.

Can the Prime Minister give us an assurance that the St Athan site will remain prominent among those options?

[The Prime Minister]

I absolutely can give my hon. Friend that assurance. The current programme and PFI for St Athan is not affordable, but this is not the end of the road for training at St Athan. Training, including fire training, takes place there now, and everybody knows that the MOD and our armed forces need to train together and in fewer places—and St Athan is perfectly placed to bid for that training. There will now be intense discussions between the MOD and others to try to bring that about.

[Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab)]

For obvious reasons, the Prime Minister was not able to list in his statement all the vessels that will potentially be scrapped. Those vessels may include HMS Chatham, HMS Cornwall and HMS Ocean, but those are all due for refit in Devonport. Without that work, 300 jobs will be at risk and the skills base will also be at risk, because there is an 18-month trough in the period in which those vessels will be refitted. What discussions did he have on the issue of the skills base with the defence industries before this announcement?

[The Prime Minister]

I know the hon. Lady has a very strong constituency interest in this matter, and perhaps I can get back to her in greater detail on the refit programme. I can tell her that HMS Ocean will be going into refit. Clearly, as we have explained, the number of frigates and destroyers combined will be coming down to 19. The decision on the future of HMS Ocean and HMS Illustrious will have to be taken on the basis of what is the best platform for the use of helicopters. The best thing is for us, as we go through the details, to tell her more about what I think will be fundamentally good news for both Plymouth and Portsmouth, because we want to keep both naval bases—and keep them busy. The communities there are hugely supportive of our armed forces and give them tremendous backing. I have never believed that it is right to put all our defence eggs into a very small number of bases, as it were, so Portsmouth, Plymouth and Faslane will of course all go ahead.

[Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

I commend my right hon. Friend’s determination to adopt a more thoughtful and strategic approach. Has he had a chance to read the Public Administration Committee’s report “Who does UK National Strategy?”, in which the outgoing Chief of the Defence Staff commented that the UK had

“lost an institutionalised capacity for, and culture of, strategic thought”?

Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need a more co-ordinated approach to strategic thinking across Whitehall, and will he adopt the report’s recommendations?

[The Prime Minister]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. That was one of the reasons why yesterday we published the national security strategy separately—so that people could see that the defence review flows from strategic thinking about Britain’s place in the world, about the threats we face and about how we can bring all of the Government together to try to deal with that. The National Security Council and the national security adviser, Peter Ricketts—I pay tribute to him and his team for their work—are working well at bringing the Government together to interrogate the experts and really think about what our strategy should be and what that means for the decisions we have to take. That is much better than a two-way battle between the Ministry of Defence and the Treasury.

[John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Prime Minister says that savings can be made in this Parliament by delaying Trident, but can he say what the increased cost overall to the deterrent programme will be of this delay and how this needless risk and uncertainty are showing leadership in the long-term interests of the country?

[The Prime Minister]

I know that the hon. Gentleman has a strong constituency interest in this matter. I can tell him that overall the cost will be lower—this was a value-for-money exercise. We are driving costs out of the programme, and overall we believe that it will be less expensive. Further good news is that the Astute class submarines are going ahead. Obviously he will have a tortured time ahead as he considers the fact that this Prime Minister and Government support the Trident replacement when his own party is going a bit soft on it.

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

My right hon. Friend has it in his power to secure the future of the nuclear deterrent until 2055 by holding the vital vote and making the main gate contract decisions in this Parliament, not the next one. He could do that at no extra cost, even if he wishes to delay the introduction of the system. Will he explain his reason for delaying this vital vote into the next Parliament, other than to make our ultimate deterrent a political gambling chip to satisfy the Liberal Democrats?

[The Prime Minister]

I worked with my hon. Friend for many, many years, and I know that he takes an extremely close and professional interest in this matter. I remember he did it when there was not a single supporter of nuclear deterrence on the Labour Benches. He did a great service to the country. However, I would make two points to him: first, the military advice is that we need to go through the main gate in 2016, not earlier. I would also like to make another, slightly more frivolous point: I am not as lacking in confidence as he is that there will be plenty of supporters of Britain’s strong and independent nuclear deterrent in the next Parliament.

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

Given that the Prime Minister, in his previous answer, cast doubt on the Labour party’s commitment to Trident, and given that we know that his coalition partners are against it, may I return to the question he was just asked? Why is he afraid to put this to a vote before 2015?

[The Prime Minister]

I really think that I have answered the question. The military advice is that 2016 is when we need to go through the main gate. We are going through the initial gate this year. We now have the Backbench Business Committee, so if anybody wants to hold a vote in this Parliament, they can do so, to check that we are going through the initial gate, which we are steaming through this year. I question the Opposition’s position, because the leader of the party said throughout the leadership election:

“I have been clear…I believe the right approach is to include the decision about the replacement of Trident in the…defence review”.

He is therefore not automatically committed to the full replacement of Trident, so perhaps the hon. Lady ought to have a word with him and put him right on that.

[Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)]

I welcome the decision that we will build the new carriers. Can the Prime Minister confirm that Portsmouth will be their home and that the Navy can meet its commitments with a surface fleet of 19?

[The Prime Minister]

I can say yes to both those questions, particularly the second, which is: do we have the naval assets to meet the tasks of tackling piracy, combating drug running, maintaining patrols and suchlike? Yes, we do have that capability, and it is extremely important that that should be on the record.

[Mr Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)]

The Prime Minister announced a reduction of 7,000 to the Army. Will he give the House an assurance that this will not include front-line infantry units such as the Royal Irish Regiment, which is currently deployed in Afghanistan? Secondly, I welcome the establishment of the review of the reserve forces and the appointment of our hon. Friend the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr Brazier). Will the Prime Minister give an assurance that the review will seek to expand the role of the reserve forces in support of our regular forces? Finally, will he ensure that the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the special forces deployed there receive the support that they need to deal with the threat from dissident republicans?

[The Prime Minister]

That was very ingenious: the right hon. Gentleman managed to get round your restriction on questions, Mr Speaker, and I think managed to get in at least three. As for regiments, I can confirm that no infantry regiments will be abolished or scrapped as a result of the review. The reduction in the Army numbers will be achieved by reducing the number of headquarters, particularly the divisional and regional headquarters. There may be some impact on logistics and artillery, but no infantry battalions will be altered.

On the reserves, I was personally keen that we should look widely at what other countries are doing on the balance between regular and reserve forces, and ensure that our reserve forces are properly equipped for the sort of modern wars that we have to fight and the modern services that they have to undertake. I do not think that we have done that work yet, which is why I have taken it out of the defence review and said that we should have a proper, separate look.

On Northern Ireland, I can give the right hon. Gentleman the assurance that the last Government gave a number of commitments on the devolution of policing and justice, and the funding that this required, and we will continue with those. We have had a discussion in the National Security Council about these issues and how we best tackle the threat from dissident republicans. I can give the right hon. Gentleman my word that we will continue to give the issue our highest attention, and he will have noticed in the national security strategy that we have put it down as one of the highest priorities for our country, which is right.

[Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con)]

I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement that there will be no shrinkage in Britain’s role on the world stage. The Royal Navy has fulfilled a number of deployments around the globe for many decades. Can he reassure me that with the reduction in the number of frigates, there will be no reduction in the number of the Royal Navy’s commitments?

[The Prime Minister]

The Royal Navy has said that it is able to undertake its task with this lay down of frigates and destroyers. We obviously have the new Type 45 destroyers coming into service, which are costing something like £1 billion each, and we will have the less expensive, more flexible future frigates coming forward as well. I genuinely mean this point about no strategic shrinkage. We are having to take some difficult decisions, but when we think about how much time we spend in this House talking about natural disasters the world over, and about our role in trying to tackle them, one argument that we need to develop is about how the money that we spend through our aid budget plays a key role in ensuring that there is no strategic shrinkage.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

The nuclear non-proliferation treaty commits this country to long-term nuclear disarmament and to take steps to achieve that. The Prime Minister has just announced the replacement of the Trident nuclear system at some point in the future. Is this not illegal under the terms of that treaty, and how much money will it cost us to develop another generation of weapons of mass destruction, when what we need is peace and a nuclear-free world?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

Our proposals are within the spirit and the letter of the non-proliferation treaty. Also, I did not necessarily come to the House today to try to make the hon. Gentleman happy, but I did announce that we would be reducing the number of warheads on each submarine from 48 to 40, and our operationally available warheads from fewer than 160 to no more than 120, which is all contained on page 38 of this excellent document today, which I commend to him.

[Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

The communities of Wootton Bassett and Calne, as well as that of Lyneham itself, will deeply regret the loss of the RAF from my constituency to that of the Prime Minister. Will he accept that those communities are absolutely ready to accept soldiers into the vacated base, and that the base itself, which will be vacant by the end of next year and is close to Salisbury plain, is ideally suited to brigades returning from Germany?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend has stood up for Lyneham with vigour and tenacity for many years, and I commend him for that. This is a good opportunity to put on record the respect that everyone in this House and in the country has for the people of Wootton Bassett for what they have done. I am in the embarrassing position of having in my constituency the premier RAF base, Brize Norton, which, I am afraid, does not particularly suffer from the announcements made today. My hon. Friend has made a good suggestion for the future of Lyneham, and I am sure that he can pursue it with the Ministry of Defence.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

There are human costs attached to the 42,000 job losses across the Ministry of Defence and the military that have been announced today. Can we have an assurance that those people who are losing their jobs in the Ministry, the civil service, the military and the defence industry will be given help and support to relocate, and that their housing needs will be addressed, given the housing cuts that have been announced in the past few days? Can we have an assurance that the people who have served and offered their lives for this country are not going to be discarded?

[The Prime Minister]

I can absolutely give the hon. Lady that assurance. We want to ensure that as many of the job losses as possible are found through voluntary redundancy and retirement, rather than through making people redundant. I can also confirm what has been said before, which is that we will obviously not be making anyone redundant who is in Afghanistan or whose units are in Afghanistan. That will not be happening; that is extremely important.

In terms of the industrial base, of course there will be impacts—for instance, with the decision on Nimrod—but if we look across British industry as a whole, and at the decisions on shipbuilding, on the A400M and on the joint strike fighter among many others, we can see that there is a strong future for defence manufacturing in our country.

Let me just put on record how much we should value the MOD’s civilians and how hard they work, because I know that they sometimes feel undervalued. I was at the Permanent Joint Headquarters today and saw many civilians working alongside their military counterparts to co-ordinate our efforts in Afghanistan; they were doing a fantastic job. It is right that we reduce the number of civilians in the MOD—it has got too big—but we need to ensure that we do it in as sensitive a way as possible.

[Mr Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for the honour that he has done me in putting me on to the commission. I also find it deeply humbling that five parliamentary colleagues have been among the 27,000 men and women who have served in Afghanistan and Iraq as reservists over the past eight years. I welcome this wide-ranging study, and my right hon. Friend made it clear that it goes across all three services and will look at the balance between regulars and reserves. Has he thought about who else he might put on to the commission?

[The Prime Minister]

First, I thank my hon. Friend for taking part in this. I want the vice-chief of the defence staff, General Nick Houghton, to lead it, and I think that my hon. Friend should be the deputy. General Lamb, who has served our country outstandingly in Iraq and Afghanistan and was taken on personally by the Americans in Afghanistan because of the great work he has done, has also agreed to serve. My Parliamentary Private Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Mr Swayne) is one of the many people in the House who has served in the reserve forces, but I am afraid that he will not be free to do this. I once suffered a capability gap when he went to Iraq during the last Parliament in the rather hard-to-explain role of liaising with the Italian forces—something I know everyone thinks he is uniquely qualified to do.

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

Given that a nuclear attack on the UK by another state was judged by yesterday’s national security strategy to be of “low likelihood” and in the light of the formal exclusion of Trident from the strategic defence and security review, will the Prime Minister use the delay in the Trident main gate decision to allow a full public review of the necessity of nuclear weapons?

[The Prime Minister]

I think that there will be a continuing debate in this country about nuclear deterrence. I have been through the arguments in my own mind a thousand times, and I always come up with the same answer, which is that, in an uncertain, unsafe and dangerous world, with countries like Iran trying to get a nuclear weapon, it would be a profound mistake for Britain to discard her nuclear weapon. But this debate can always take place in this House. I think that my party has a very settled view on it, and the White Paper safeguards that, but it is for others to make up their own minds.

[Mark Lancaster (Milton Keynes North) (Con)]

I remind the House of my interest. Will the Government match their commitment to conflict prevention with an expansion of the stabilisation unit and greater use of our specialist reserves in a military stabilisation and support group?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend, who has served in Afghanistan and has expertise in bomb disposal—we should give him credit for that—makes a good point. The whole point of taking the reserves out of the review and of having a separate, longer and more thoughtful look is precisely to answer the sort of question that he puts. When it comes to what is called “hot stabilisation”, I think it is right to try to develop units where we bring the military and civilians together. Then, in that vital golden hour when we have gone into a community, we can start to get things done so that the population is on our side rather than against us. If we are to have more of what have been called “wars among the people”, we must make sure that we are properly equipped to deal with them.

[Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)]

I have always supported the case for greater conflict prevention, but conflict prevention needs to be understood and practised by the military themselves. How will the Prime Minister guarantee the continuing and proper focus of the Department for International Development on women, children and achieving the millennium development goals if a third of its budget should be reallocated to conflict prevention, which is something quite different?

[The Prime Minister]

I would say that conflict affects women and children and that broken states have the worst records on poverty and development. Far be it from me to recommend a reading list to the right hon. Lady, but Paul Collier’s work on the bottom billion and broken states backs up the case for how we should use our DFID budget—yes, for meeting the millennium development goals; yes, for vaccination and malaria reduction and all those extremely worthwhile things; but I think we are mad if we do not put money into mending broken states, where so many of the problems of poverty arise.

[Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)]

At Warton and Samlesbury, we have a world-class work force building world-class aircraft, but I need the Government to commit and get behind BAE Systems to ensure that those aircraft succeed in a highly competitive world market.

[The Prime Minister]

I strongly support our defence industrial base, which is one of our great industries and a great export earner for our country. We should support it. However, when we were looking at how to make this very difficult budgetary situation work, I checked the figures and found that between 2011 and 2015, we will be spending £17 billion with BAE Systems. We are an enormous customer for it. Just as it behoves us as a Government to spend responsibly and think of our industrial base, so it must ensure that we get value for money for the very many millions we spend.

[Alun Michael (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

I find it passing strange that the Prime Minister made no reference in his statement to the defence training academy at St Athan and then failed to answer a direct and simple question from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. Has the Prime Minister not been told that the academy is cost effective, delivers savings and will improve the quality of training for our armed services? He talks about professionalism and flexibility, so how does it make sense to axe it?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

This is what the defence review was all about—asking some of these difficult questions. The conclusion on St Athan was that the current private finance initiative is not right and is not working. That is why, although we recognise St Athan as a great base for training—important training takes place there now and much training can take place there in the future—we need another look at ensuring that it is right and provides value for money at the same time. That is what is going to happen, and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman, as a former Secretary of State and former First Minister, will want to get involved in that.

[Gordon Birtwistle (Burnley) (LD)]

I welcome the Prime Minister’s commitment to fast jets. Will he confirm that the final tranche of the Eurofighter will be placed?

[The Prime Minister]

We are supporting and, of course, upgrading Eurofighter because it is important that it has a ground attack capability. What this document sets out is the total force of Typhoon and joint strike fighter that we anticipate having as part of our 2024 structures.

[Mr Ronnie Campbell (Blyth Valley) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister may not be aware that my son is serving in 40 Commando Royal Marines, and has just returned from duty. He tells me that when he asked the RAF for a helicopter to take his men into the field, he was told, “We do not fly in the day because we are being shot at.” Will the Prime Minister have the matter investigated?

[The Prime Minister]

Certainly. I do not think that it would be right to exchange operational points across the Floor of the House of Commons, but I shall be happy to look into the case that the hon. Gentleman has raised.

[Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)]

I thank the Prime Minister for his commitment to the aircraft carriers—I am very grateful for that—but is he in a position to confirm that Plymouth Devonport in my constituency will continue to play a major role in the defence of our country, and will remain a premier naval port?

[The Prime Minister]

I can absolutely confirm that. The decisions that we make through this process will clearly have impacts on Portsmouth and on Plymouth Devonport, and we shall have to work through those because of the different lay-down of ships and forces. However, I can confirm my belief that fundamentally, for the long term, this is good news for both Plymouth and Portsmouth.

[Mr Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

Thousands of aerospace workers across Lancashire, including hundreds in my constituency who work at BAE Warton and Samlesbury, will want to know the practical implications of these warm words about a Typhoon fleet, the joint strike fighter and a growing fleet of unmanned air vehicles. Incidentally, all those were previously Labour Government policy. As the Prime Minister has already given us an ambiguous answer on the issue of Eurofighter Typhoon, will he now give us a more substantive answer on whether he will support research and development and investment in Taranis?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

Of course all those things, and many others were Labour policy. That is the problem. There was no prioritisation, and no sign of how any of it was to be paid for. It is the easiest thing in the world to rack up a defence budget that is £38 billion overspent, but it is a difficult thing to come in and work out what is to be kept and what cannot be kept, and that is what we have had to do.

As was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames), this is, in some ways, the start of a process. The document makes clear how many fast jets we expect to have in 2020. We now have to make decisions between the joint strike fighter and the final tranche of Typhoon. There is extra money for unmanned aerial vehicles, and I think that anyone who has been to Afghanistan and seen the incredible work that is being done there knows that that is a capability in which we should be investing. Let me repeat, however, that it cannot be invested in unless difficult decisions are made elsewhere. We have done that, and the Labour Government did not.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Rory Stewart (Penrith and The Border) (Con)]

One of the fundamental problems of the last eight to 10 years has been the split between foreign policy and defence. Will the Prime Minister please tell us what steps are being taken to ensure that not just the National Security Council, but the Joint Intelligence Committee and the Foreign Office, really drive us to have the right resources and the right priorities?

[The Prime Minister]

I am going to sound a bit like a stuck record on the National Security Council, but it really has struck me over the last few months that when it comes to issues such as how we respond to the Pakistan floods, what we do to help Haiti, how we go through the defence review and what is the future of our development programme, the fact that the Foreign Secretary, the Secretary of State for International Development, the Business Secretary and the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs are all sitting around the table discussing the issues means that decisions are not being made in silos. Much of what the Ministry of Defence does has a huge impact on our foreign policy. Our fleet of frigates is hugely influential in building relationships the world over. I think that the fact that we are all working together much more positively than has been the case in the past solves the problem to which my hon. Friend has alluded.

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

Can the Prime Minister tell us whether Rosyth dockyard’s frigate refit orders between now and 2013 will go ahead? If I understand the document correctly, he has put back the Queen Elizabeth’s entry date, and we note that there is no entry date for the Prince of Wales. What does that mean for the work force at Rosyth and elsewhere? Will we simply see a continuation of the policies of the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind), and the destruction of the Scottish shipbuilding industry?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

Given that the Government are going ahead with building both carriers, I think that that is not exactly gratitude.

The Queen Elizabeth is not being “put back” in terms of its manufacture. Once it has been manufactured, we will fit the “cats and traps”—the catapults and arrester gear—to the operational carrier, so that it can then work with the carrier version of the joint strike fighter, which is a better aircraft than the one that the last Government ordered. That will make it fully interoperable with our closest allies, the Americans and the French. So there is not a delay in the production of the carriers, as the hon. Gentleman says. Some extra equipment needs to be added.

[Mr Gary Streeter (South West Devon) (Con)]

The Prime Minister will be aware that his words of support for Plymouth naval base will be extremely well received in the west country this evening, but can he say a few more words about the Royal Marines? Does he agree that they will have a glorious future in serving our country and its defence as well as a glorious past?

[The Prime Minister]

I can absolutely give my hon. Friend that assurance. The Royal Marines have done fantastic work for our country over recent years, not least in Afghanistan. I know how loved they are, not just in the south-west but across the country. There will not be a reduction in their capabilities but clearly, just as with the Army, there will be some regard to ensuring that there are not issues of top-heaviness, if I can put it that way. The Royal Marines are here to stay. They do a fantastic job and will go on doing so—so much so that I have actually employed one as a private secretary.

[Eric Joyce (Falkirk) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister has mentioned a reduction in service numbers. Can he give us his assurance that that will not involve the use of manning control points as a cheap alternative to proper redundancy payments?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes.

[Mr Robert Walter (North Dorset) (Con)]

The national security strategy yesterday and the Prime Minister today both emphasised cyber-threats and communication. The Prime Minister will be aware that there is tri-service training in communication and information systems at the defence college at Blandford in my constituency. The 3,000 people who depend on that for their jobs will welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement this morning on the Metrix decision, but can the Prime Minister assure me that defence training decisions will be focused on centres of excellence such as Blandford, and not on political considerations?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, all these decisions should be based on proper military logic—what is right for the armed forces—and that is what we want to do.

[Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

May I ask the Prime Minister about the important issue of the defence training college at St Athan? As he knows, there will be profound disappointment in both the military and south Wales generally at the cancellation or postponement—I cannot tell from the statement which it is. He has referred several times today to the PFI deal as somehow not being right. What is wrong with it exactly, because we understood it to be providing good value for money?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

The contract is not working. The work for which contracts have already been met will continue to completion, but new contracts will not be started. Turning to the future, we continue to believe that technical training co-located on as few sites as possible is the best solution for our armed forces. St Athan was previously chosen as the best location at which to co-locate that training, and it was chosen for very good reasons. Those good reasons remain. That is why I have said that this is not the end of the road for St Athan, and we can work hard to try to find a good solution for the future.

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I have noted time and again in the past that brave new talk of co-operation with the French has dribbled into the sands partly because of British Aerospace’s understandable preference for commercial relationships in the United States. Will the Prime Minister explain how he will drive this process forward personally with President Sarkozy, because we are the only two nations in Europe that can propel our power, and we will either swim together or sink separately?

[The Prime Minister]

I am delighted that someone with such impeccable Eurosceptic credentials shares my view that this is a really worthwhile thing for our country to do. Let me explain what has changed: first, President Sarkozy is extremely keen on this defence relationship; secondly, he has put France straight into the heart of NATO; and thirdly, we both face the same pressures. We both have full-service armed forces: we both have very effective navies and air forces, and troops that really can make an impact on the ground. We both want to maintain and enhance those capabilities and I believe that, together, there is a huge number of things we can do. I am working on a programme with President Sarkozy—I have already discussed it with him—in advance of our summit that will take place soon, and I hope my hon. Friend will be pleased with the results that I think we will be able to deliver.

[Mr Michael McCann (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (Lab)]

Can the Prime Minister confirm that the 2010 GDP pledge does not include the cost of Afghanistan?

[The Prime Minister]

On the NATO figures, what I can confirm is that in terms of the NATO definition of what 2% should include, we are comfortably ahead of that 2%. Obviously, it does include current military operations and other military expenditure. It is all set out. If the hon. Gentleman likes, I can give him all the figures I have seen, because there are quite a lot of competing figures for who spends what. Fundamentally however, in terms of GDP we are the third highest in NATO. The Americans are first; the Greeks are second, for some historical reasons that I am sure the hon. Gentleman will understand; and the UK is third, ahead of France and the others.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

May I welcome the Prime Minister’s considered statement and, in particular, his important reference to cyber-security? Does he agree that if cyber-security is to be effective, there needs to be a real working partnership with the private sector, particularly as regards critical national infrastructure?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is not about some great big Government organisation spending lots of money on cyber; there has to be engagement with private sector organisations that have the expertise. As hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House will know, when the Government come up with a new programme and some new spending, everyone suddenly becomes in favour of extra cyber-things. We have to make sure that the money is well spent and well targeted, and that we use experience from the private sector.

[Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

Perhaps the Prime Minister would listen to me. Will he answer a simple question? He refers to more flexible, modern frigates being less expensive. I know that he would not want to put our sailors at any risk, and that those ships will therefore have the same, if not better, defensive capabilities. Will he describe what this modern, cheaper frigate looks like?

[The Prime Minister]

They should have a range of capabilities. The point that I would make to the hon. Gentleman is that the Type 45 destroyers, which are extremely capable, are costing £1 billion each. When one looks at the tasks that we want our Royal Navy to perform in the future, which include combating piracy and drug running, and undertaking other patrol duties, there is a case for saying that the future frigate programme should be less expensive and more flexible. That is what the commissioning process will try to deliver.

[Dan Byles (North Warwickshire) (Con)]

As a former soldier, may I thank the Prime Minister for the close personal interest that he has taken in making sure that the review came out in the way that it did? Does he agree that it will only be possible to rebalance our force structures within this sort of spending envelope if we get to grips with the disastrous procurement process that we inherited, and will he confirm—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. One question is quite enough.

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right: procurement is extremely difficult, but we have absolutely got to do better. One of the decisions that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has made is to get Peter Levene back into the Ministry of Defence to look at some of those issues. It is vital that we try to improve on the record that we have inherited.

[Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

Two years ago, when jobs were threatened at the QinetiQ Hebrides range—that is where Type 45s, among other defence assets, exercise—the current Defence Secretary and Armed Forces Minister joined me and the Hebrides range taskforce in forcing the then Labour Government into a U-turn. Will the Prime Minister join them in their support of the Hebrides range by valuing its work?

[The Prime Minister]

We have not made decisions about that yet, but what I can say is that the hon. Gentleman can see the overall lay-down that we have set out, in terms of the Type 45s, the frigates that we will retain and the future frigate programme.

[Mr Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)]

I welcome the statement, but does the Prime Minister agree that one of the problems with delaying decisions over the years is that one ends up with a military strategy that does not meet modern threats? Does he agree that, for the future, it is vital to have a flexible, adaptive strategy that means that we are up to date with modern technologies, whether they are action in cyberspace, unmanned aerial vehicles, or other technologies?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is right. One of the reasons for having more regular defence reviews is so that we force ourselves to ask these difficult questions more often. Where one can sometimes bring forward a programme that has been delayed, one should. That is what we are doing with the A400M because, frankly, we need to replace the ageing transport fleet, and the sooner we do it, the better.

[Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)]

In his statement, the Prime Minister made quite clear his support for Eurofighter Typhoon and the joint strike fighter. Can he tell the House how many fighters of the tranche 3B type he will be ordering, and whether he will be ordering the joint strike fighter for the new aircraft carriers?

[The Prime Minister]

We aim to have 110 Typhoons by 2020—the figures are all set out in the document—but clearly the balance between the two is something that we have to make decisions about. I think that one can see the general thrust, which is that we will be based around two fast jet types, the Typhoon and the joint strike fighter. I am sure that that is the right strategy.

[Claire Perry (Devizes) (Con)]

My constituency of Devizes is home to more than 10,000 soldiers, plus a huge number of families and MOD civil servants, many of whom will welcome some of the uncertainty that has been removed by the Prime Minister’s statement today but who will have great concerns about the detail underlying it—about the boarding school allowances, the Army recovery centre at Tidworth and so on. When will they finally get information about what will stay and what will be cut?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. We have not yet announced the full range of allowance changes. This is important—we are seeking some savings, and I do not hide from hon. Members the fact that this will involve some difficult decisions. There is one bit of reassurance—the Army is coming back from Germany, which involves 20,000 troops. I think that we spend something like £250 million a year on allowances for those troops in Germany. Obviously, having them back at home will change the cost structure and enable us to change some of the allowances, but we will be making further announcements.

[Mr Ian Davidson (Glasgow South West) (Lab/Co-op)]

May I unequivocally welcome the announcement on the aircraft carriers? It took long enough. However, may I clarify whether the provision of the catapults and the rest of the gear will delay in any way the production of the carriers and have any job implications and whether it is intended that the Type 26 work will proceed to the already announced timetable?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

The answer to the second half of the hon. Gentleman’s question is yes. On the carriers, it will not delay their manufacture and production. What it means is that as the first is produced, the most logical step would be to fit the “cat and trap” to that carrier, which will therefore come fully into service when the carrier version of the joint strike fighter arrives at the same time. We will have solved one of the inherited problems of bringing the two things together. Clearly, an alternative would be to fit the “cat and trap” to the second carrier, but the most logical way ahead is the one that I have set out.

[Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)]

My constituents and I—and, it seems, many other Members in the Chamber—are naturally disappointed that the Metrix proposal for St Athan will not go ahead. Will the Prime Minister confirm that St Athan remains central to defence training and will he make available some of his officials to provide a detailed breakdown of why Metrix was not suitable?

[The Prime Minister]

I am very happy to do that. I know how strongly people feel about this in south Wales and I know how important this decision is, so I am happy to make officials and Ministers available to meet my hon. Friend to explain the thinking. As I have said, this is not the end of the road for St Athan. There are many opportunities to concentrate training at that excellent resource and so, I think, he can continue to fight hard for his constituents.

[Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)]

Lord Robertson’s strategic defence review was so well regarded internationally that he was made Secretary-General of NATO and his thinking shaped NATO’s strategy for a decade. Next month, the Prime Minister goes to the NATO summit in Lisbon to agree the new strategic concept. All four of his priorities are already in the concept. What is new enough and strategic enough for this defence review to shape NATO’s policy over the next decade?

[The Prime Minister]

There are a number of things that are new. The emphasis on a national security strategy in the round is new. The emphasis on cyber is new. The fact that we have prioritised national security tasks is quite high risk, frankly. If things happen that are in priority two or three, people will clearly be able to say that that should have been priority one. We have taken some risks with this process. I would also say that the force structure and the equipment going with the forces—making them more adaptable and flexible—is something, too. I expect other NATO countries will have to go through this process of making changes to their defence posture at the same time as trying to deal with their deficits.

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

Despite the futility of the Afghanistan war, our troops deserve the greatest support. In part, they have suffered from a lack of equipment and numbers. Can the Prime Minister guarantee that this review will not only ensure that there are no cuts in support but that there is increased support, should our troops require it in the future?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, absolutely. As I say, Afghanistan is funded through the Treasury reserve but we cannot entirely insulate what happens in funding for Afghanistan from decisions made elsewhere in the defence budget. As I said in my statement—I wanted to get this in—any time the chiefs of staff said that a decision could impact on Afghanistan either now or in the future, such as the decision on whether to go ahead with the Puma refit, I took the decision that we should go ahead with it to ensure that there is no danger of any shortfalls in equipment. That should be our first concern. They are on the line for us every day, and I never forget that.

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

May I say how much I agree with the Prime Minister, particularly on the occasions at the conference in Manchester on which he said that he was committed to the defence training academy, and with his hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns), who said it had to be won because it was the right military thing to do? However, I am still not clear, and perhaps the Prime Minister could answer me on this point. Is there are future for the defence training academy at St Athan, whether it is run by Metrix or anybody else?

[The Prime Minister]

Fundamentally, yes, there is a future for defence training at St Athan, as I have said. We need to make sure that more is done on a tri-service basis and that more is concentrated in fewer places. St Athan is uniquely well qualified for that but the current private finance initiative was not working—the MOD could not get it to work in the way that it wanted—so we have to start again. This is not the end of the road.

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

Cyber-security is a relatively new threat. Are we lagging behind other countries?

[The Prime Minister]

With the announcements that we have made in the national security strategy and today, I do not think that we will be lagging behind. We have considerable expertise both in our private sector and with GCHQ, and this is an opportunity to build some competitive advantage.

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

This is financial, not strategic. The defence academy in south Wales has been cancelled, the Royal Navy will be without carriers for the first time since world war two—[Interruption.] There will be an eight-year gap. Does this herald the end of “Britannia rules the waves” and the start of “Cameron waves the rules”?

[The Prime Minister]

I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman’s break from Parliament did not do anything for his temper or his nature. He is completely wrong. We have to get these decisions right for the long term and, as I have tried to explain, a politically easier decision would have been a militarily wrong decision. That is a good way to start.

[Matthew Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)]

Last week, the Public Accounts Committee heard from Sir Bill Jeffrey, who said that the lack of a strategic review over the last couple of years had made the situation in the defence budget more difficult. I welcome the Prime Minister’s assurance that there will be a strategic defence review every five years, but what can he do to entrench that and to ensure that the shambolic position of there having been no review for 12 years never happens again?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

I hope that it can become accepted between all parties in the House that we have five-yearly reviews. There is a provision for similar reviews in America. Given all the things that have happened since 1998—Bosnia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Sierra Leone and 9/11—I think that future generations will find it very hard to understand why there has been no defence review.

[Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)]

Earlier, the Prime Minister sounded the death knell for Kinloss as an RAF station, but he did not respond to the question about Lossiemouth. Will he tell the House and the people of Scotland, all of whom are interested in this, what the future is for Lossiemouth and for RAF recruitment in Scotland?

[The Prime Minister]

I said that we are going to look at all the bases and see clearly what impact there is on Kinloss and Lossiemouth from the announcements about what the RAF’s lay-down is going to be. Clearly, there will be opportunities as British forces come home from Germany, so we will look at all bases and see what can be done. As I said in the statement, it is important that we consult all the communities who have given so much support to our forces over many years and that we do not rush these things.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

National Security Strategy

Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton Excerpts

Monday 18th October 2010 Written Statements

[The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)]

I am today publishing Britain’s National Security Strategy, “A Strong Britain in an Age of Uncertainty” (Cm 7953). Together with the strategic defence and security review, which will be published tomorrow, it sets out our strategic choices on how to ensure the security of our country. Both will be covered in my oral statement to Parliament tomorrow.

The United Kingdom faces a complex array of threats from a myriad of sources. The national security strategy describes the strategic context within which these threats arise, and how they may develop in the future. It describes Britain’s place in the world, as an open, outward-facing nation whose political, economic and cultural authority far exceeds our size. Our national interest requires our continued full and active engagement in world affairs, promoting our security, our prosperity and our values.

Our objectives are ensuring a secure and resilient United Kingdom, and shaping a stable world. In pursuit of those goals, our highest priorities are tackling terrorism, cyber security, international military crises and natural disasters such as floods and pandemics. We will draw together and use all the instruments of national power to tackle these risks, including the armed forces, diplomats, intelligence and development professionals, the police, the private sector and the British people themselves.

The national security strategy, together with the measures in the strategic defence and security review, will enable us to protect our security and advance our interests in the world.

Copies of the national security strategy have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses .

European Council (16 September 2010)

Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton Excerpts

Monday 11th October 2010 Written Statements

[The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)]

I attended the European Council meeting on 16 September, with the Foreign Secretary.

The focus of the Council discussion was how to strengthen the EU’s relationships with emerging powers, notably in advance of the EU-China and EU-India summits on 6 October and 10 December respectively.

The Foreign Secretary and I had three clear objectives for the Council.

The first objective was that the Council recognise that trade should be at the heart of the European Union’s engagement with strategic partners. The Council conclusions contain strong language on this.

The second objective was to secure the EU-Korea free trade agreement. This was signed at the EU-South Korea summit on 6 October and will now be put to the European Parliament. It will enter into force on 1 July 2011.

The third objective was to ensure that the European Council conclusions made a clear statement of European support for Pakistan in response to the devastating floods that the country has suffered.

Leaders agreed a declaration on Pakistan which commits the EU to providing humanitarian aid, development assistance and new trade concessions to Pakistan. On trade, the declaration confirms that the EU will grant exclusively to Pakistan the immediate reduction of duties on key imports to the EU. Furthermore, the declaration confirms the EU’s commitment to Pakistan’s eligibility for a package of trade concessions that the Commission estimates to be worth over €1 billion annually known as GSP+.

On 7 October the Commission adopted a significant package of trade measures for Pakistan which suspends tariffs on a further 27% of Pakistani imports into the EU. It is estimated to be worth each year around €100 million in additional trade and €80 million in tariff savings. This will be put to the Council later this month.

The Council also approved a declaration on the middle east peace process. This strongly welcomes the launch of direct negotiations, calls for an extension of the settlements moratorium and offers support for the US-led efforts.

President Van Rompuy gave a progress report on the work of his taskforce on economic governance ahead of wider discussion at the European Council on 28 and 29 October.

Copies of the Council conclusions have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton Excerpts

Wednesday 15th September 2010 Commons Chamber

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

Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 15 September.

[The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)]

I am sure that the House will wish to join me in paying tribute to Kingsman Darren Deady from 2nd Battalion the Duke of Lancaster’s Regiment who died on Friday after being injured in Helmand province on 23 August. We are for ever indebted to him for the sacrifice that he has made. We send our sincere condolences to his family, friends and comrades who all miss him very much. He will not be forgotten.

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

[Julian Smith]

May I add my sympathies to those of the Prime Minister?

At a time when we need to maximise growth and restore our public finances, is it not the height of irresponsibility that the unions are planning to go on strike, and should not former Ministers be ashamed of themselves for encouraging it?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. Everyone in the country—the trade unions included—knows that we have to cut public spending, that we have to get the deficit down and that we have to keep interest rates down. It is the height of irresponsibility for shadow Ministers to troop off to the TUC and tell it that it is all right to go on strike. They should be ashamed of themselves.

[Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab)]

May I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to Kingsman Darren Deady from 2nd Battalion the Duke of Lancaster’s Regiment? We honour his bravery and we think of his family and friends as they mourn their loss. May I give my condolences to the Prime Minister and his family on the loss of his father? The words he used to express his love for his father touched everyone. Today, as we welcome the Prime Minister back to his place, I also congratulate him and Mrs Cameron on the birth of their new baby.

Let me ask about an issue that is of great concern on both sides of the House—the trafficking of women and girls for sex. This week, a gang was convicted here in London of bringing girls as young as 13 to this country to be sold for sex. The work of the police and prosecutors has protected young women from that gang, but this evil trade is growing. All parties in the House are united in their abhorrence of it. Will the Prime Minister update us on the work that is being undertaken to stop it?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the right hon. and learned Lady not only for what she said about the serviceman whom we lost in Afghanistan but for her very kind words about my father and our new daughter. I am very grateful for what was said last week by the shadow Lord Chancellor and for the letters that I have received from Members right across the House. It is very touching and heart-warming that people think about one at times like these, so I thank them for that.

Let me take this opportunity to say something about the right hon. and learned Lady, as I think this will be the last time that we face each other across the Dispatch Box. She is the third Labour leader with whom I have had to do battle—she is by far the most popular—and she has used these opportunities to push issues that she cares about deeply such as the one she raises today. She has been a thorough credit as the stand-in leader of the Labour party and I thank her for what she has done.

The issue of the trafficking of women and girls is an extremely important, sensitive and difficult one. I have been to see some of the exhibitions that have been run, including the one by Emma Thompson, about how bad the problem is. We are committed to working across the Government to do everything we can to help the police, to help at our borders and to make sure that we have in place all the laws and systems to bring this evil trade to an end. It is something that, tragically, has grown over recent years. We often talk about how we have ended slavery in our world, but we have not; it is still with us and this is the worst manifestation of it.

[Ms Harman]

I thank the Prime Minister for his complimentary words—it is just as well that I am not wearing a hoodie.

I welcome what the right hon. Gentleman says about human trafficking, and I am grateful to him and the Deputy Prime Minister for working with us on it when they were in opposition. Will the Prime Minister help to build on that work by agreeing that the United Kingdom will opt in to the new European directive on trafficking in human beings, which the Commission proposed in March?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the right hon. and learned Lady for raising that point. We are looking carefully at the issue. From looking at the directive so far, we have discovered that it does not go any further than the law that we have already passed. We have put everything that is in the directive in place. I am happy to go away and look again but, of course, as we do when thinking about all the things that we have to consider opting in to, we have to ask ourselves not only what is in this directive and whether we are already doing it—the answer in this case is yes—but what might be the consequences for our security and borders, and our ability to take decisions in the House. That is the consideration that we have to make, and I give absolutely no apology for saying that this Government will look at these things very carefully before signing them.

[Ms Harman]

But the difficulty is that the Government have already indicated that they will opt out of the directive. If we are already complying with it in this country’s laws and practices, as well as working internationally, we should be proud of that and step forward to sign the directive. Will the Prime Minister reconsider?

[The Prime Minister]

I have already answered that, but let me make some additional points: first, the directive itself is still being finalised; and, secondly, there are opportunities at any stage to opt in to something of which we approve. However, the key point is that we must examine the directive and then ask whether opting in would add anything to what we already do in this vital area—[Hon. Members: “Yes.”] Hon. Members say yes, but the fact is that we do all the things that are in the directive today, so we then have to ask whether opting in would in any way endanger our borders and immigration system. That is a question that a responsible Government ought to ask, and it is a question that this Government will ask.

[Ms Harman]

The right hon. Gentleman is hanging back on this—he should step forward and sign the directive. The point is that trafficking is an international crime. The traffickers work across borders, so we have to work across borders to stop them. Will he reconsider and opt into the directive?

[The Prime Minister]

I have answered the question. The fact is that we have to work internationally. We are working internationally as well as making sure that we have what we need at our borders and in our police service here in the UK. We are also looking at something that the previous Government did not put in place: a proper border police force, which would make a real difference to securing our borders. However, as I said, when looking at such directives, it is right to ask not just whether we are already doing the things that are in them, but what might be the other consequences of signing up. That is a sensible thing to do; the previous Government signed far too many things without ever thinking about what the consequences would be.

[Ms Harman]

I am disappointed by the Prime Minister’s answer. I know that some in his party are irrationally hostile to Europe, but he should not let them stand in the way of stopping human trafficking.

I have one last question before I go. When the Conservatives were in opposition, they regularly complained that we had Prime Minister’s questions only once a week. Now that the right hon. Gentleman knows just how enjoyable the experience is, does he plan to bring it back to twice a week?

[The Prime Minister]

It is one of the few things that Tony Blair did of which I thoroughly approve. Quite seriously, having worked for Leaders of the Opposition and Prime Ministers who did Prime Minister’s questions, I think that a half-hour session once a week is good not only so that Parliament can grill the Prime Minister, but so that the Prime Minister can grill everyone in his or her office to find out everything that is going on in government. That is the right way to do these things.

I know that we are not saying goodbye to the right hon. and learned Lady—it is only au revoir—and that she will be the deputy leader under whichever leader the Labour party elects. I note that she can spend some time over the coming days contemplating what to do with the four votes that I think she has in the election, because she is of course a member of a trade union, a Member of Parliament, a member of the Labour party and a member of the Fabian Society. Her position can be combined with her husband’s, whom I believe has another three votes—democracy is a beautiful thing!

[Mr Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the saddest legacies the Government inherited is the fact that one child in five grows up in a household in which nobody is in work? Does he agree that it is not just an economic but a moral imperative that we should, to coin a phrase, move from a handout to a hand up?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is entirely right. If we want to tackle poverty, we must go to the causes of poverty. The chief cause of poverty is people being out of work generation after generation and, as he says, young people growing up in homes where nobody works, where there is no role model to follow. That is why we are pursuing the welfare reform agenda so vigorously, because we want to help people to get out of unemployment and into work. We want it to be worth while for everybody to work or to work more than they do now. That is what our welfare reforms, so scandalously neglected by the previous Government, have set out to achieve.

[Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)]

Q2. The proposed £400 million Mersey Gateway project, which will create up to 4,000 new jobs in the area, is under threat because of the spending review, despite the fact that it is strongly supported by business and by all local authorities across Cheshire and Merseyside, including the Chancellor’s local authority. How will cutting projects such as the Mersey Gateway help economic growth in the north-west?

[The Prime Minister]

We are not making any further cuts in capital spending. The hon. Gentleman ought to ask the question of those on his own Front Bench. The Labour party went into the last election with a 50% cut in capital spending in its figures, and did not tell us one single project that would be cut. We have said that that is far enough; we should go no further. We will be protecting capital spending to help to boost the recovery in our country.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

Q3. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, in his excellent speech on parliamentary reform, promised far more free votes in the Committee stage of major Bills. Can he confirm that this bold and courageous policy will apply to the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill?

[The Prime Minister]

We have already taken some big steps to pass power from the Executive to Parliament—[Interruption.] Someone shouts “Rubbish.” We established the Backbench Business Committee. The Opposition had 13 years; they never did that. We gave the House of Commons control over electing Select Committee Chairmen. The Opposition had 13 years to do that. It never happened. We will be giving Select Committees further powers over selecting and looking at appointments in the public sector, and I am the first Prime Minister in British history to give up the right to call a general election. As for major parts of legislation set out in our coalition agreement, I regret to inform my hon. Friend that I will be hoping for all my colleagues to support them with head, heart and soul, if I may put it that way, but should there be greater opportunities for free votes, yes, there should be. I remember the previous Government, even on topics such as embryo research and experimentation, whipping their Members, particularly in the House of Lords. That was quite wrong and it will not happen under this Government.

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

Q4. Given the strategic defence importance of the aircraft carriers, on which work has already started, will the Prime Minister undertake to meet urgently with me, other parliamentary colleagues and workplace representatives so that they can put to him their concerns about reports that the aircraft carriers will be cancelled, before it is too late?

[The Prime Minister]

I am sure my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary and his Ministers are happy to meet anyone who wants to discuss the state of the defence budget and the appalling legacy that we have been left. Of all the budgets that I have looked at, that is the one where we were left the biggest mess—£38 billion over-committed, and decisions taken that made very little sense at all. But the hon. Gentleman will be seeing a strategic defence review in which we properly review how we can make sure that we have forces that are right for our country, right for our interests and ensure that we protect our interests around the world.—[Interruption.]

[Claire Perry (Devizes) (Con)]

I am afraid I have no props.—[Laughter.]

With only five years to go to achieve the millennium development goals, which are still way off track, what will the Prime Minister do to ensure that those critical promises are kept?

[The Prime Minister]

My apologies for missing the joke. Next time I will look more carefully. I did not know that we were allowed props, Mr Speaker, but obviously you take a more relaxed view of these things.

My hon. Friend raises a very important point and the conference—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I may take a relaxed view about some things, but not about excessive noise. The Prime Minister must be heard.

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend raises a very important point about the millennium development goals, set in 2000 and meant to be completed by 2015, and there is a vital conference, which the Deputy Prime Minister will be attending next week, on that specific issue. This country—this applies to parties on both sides—can hold its head up high, given that we are going to hit the 0.7% target of gross national income going to aid. That means that we will be playing our part in making sure that those vital MDGs are met. It is important, although spending decisions are going to be difficult, that we hold our head up high not only overseas but at home and say, “This is right, to help the poorest in our world, even when we have difficult budget decisions at home.”

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

Q5. May I join the Prime Minister in sending my condolences to the family of Kingsman Darren Deady, who was a constituent of mine and sadly lost his life last Friday, having been injured in Afghanistan three weeks ago? His senior officer said that Kingsman Deady “was a superb soldier—trusted, respected and an example to others.”He will be sadly missed. Bolton Community and Voluntary Services has already lost £89,000 of grants this year for small voluntary groups—groups often working with the most vulnerable. Many organisations are on the brink of closure because of those cuts. If the Prime Minister believes in the big society, what will he do to save those groups?

[The Prime Minister]

What I would say to the hon. Lady’s local council is what I would say to every council in the country, which is that we all know—and Opposition Members know—that we have to make spending reductions. The Opposition were committed to £44 billion of spending reductions at the last election, and we should say to every single council in the country, “When it comes to looking at and trimming your budgets, don’t do the easy thing, which is to cut money to the voluntary bodies and organisations working in our communities. Look at your core costs. Look at how you can do more for less. Look at the value for money you get from working with the voluntary sector.” The hon. Lady should take that message to her local authority. That is the message that I would take to her local authority, and everyone should try to work in that direction.

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

Q6. Has the Prime Minister received any representations from Fidel Castro on deficit reduction? Is there any possibility of arranging a trade union conference pass for Mr Castro so that he might be able to enlighten the trade unions on cutting the size of the state?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. This week it was revealed that even Communist Cuba has got with the programme that we need to cut budget deficits and get spending under control. So we have Comrade Castro on the same planet as the rest of us; we just have to get the Labour party and the trade unions on that planet at the same time.

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

Q7. Burma and Iran were signatories to the universal declaration on human rights, but there are some men and women who cannot exercise those rights. In particular, Sakineh Ashtiani awaits death by stoning, and Aung San Suu Kyi has been imprisoned because she won an election. Will the Prime Minister make urgent and renewed representations to the Governments of Burma and Iran in order to free those brave and courageous women?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right to raise that issue, and I shall do precisely as she says and continue to make those representations. It is important that we make them not just to those Governments, but to Governments who sometimes take a slightly different view. When I was in India I raised the issue of Burma with the Indian Government, because I think it is important that we talk to the neighbouring states of those countries and make sure that they are campaigning in the same way.

The human rights record in Iran is absolutely appalling. The person to whom the hon. Lady refers is being treated in a completely inhuman and despicable fashion, and we should be absolutely clear that the situation in Burma is an affront to humanity. Aung San Suu Kyi’s continued detention is an outrage. She has spent 14 of the past 20 years under house arrest, and her example is deeply inspiring. All of us like to think that we give up something for democracy and politics; we do not. Compared with those people, we do nothing. They are an inspiration right across the world, and we should stand with them.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

Like the last Government, we have promised to act on the litter that defaces our towns and countryside. Unlike the last Government, will we take some real practical action, such as starting a bottle deposit and refund scheme, which a Campaign to Protect Rural England report launched today shows will protect the environment and save local authorities millions of pounds?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes a very interesting suggestion. Bill Bryson has made this suggestion to me as well because of the success that schemes like this have had in other countries. I will certainly ask his right hon. Friend the Energy and Climate Change Secretary to look at this issue and see if we can take it forward.

[Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

Q8. Back in June, Andrew Cook boasted that he was the largest donor to the Conservative party in Yorkshire, yet it turns out that his registered main residence is on the island of Guernsey. Can the Prime Minister assure the House that when he accepted free plane flights from Andrew Cook, he did so having satisfied himself that such a donation was both legally and morally acceptable?

[The Prime Minister]

Obviously it is up to every party leader to make sure that when they accept a donation they make proper checks and do so in the proper way. All the donations that the Conservative party has received are properly set out with the Electoral Commission and other bodies, and we do everything we can to make sure they are accurate; I hope that the Labour party does the same thing.

[Mark Lancaster (Milton Keynes North) (Con)]

Q9. Two weeks ago, Bola Ejifunmilayo and her three year old daughter Fiyin burned to death in an unregistered house in multiple occupancy. Often poorly converted, with enormous fire risks, the majority of HMOs in Milton Keynes and elsewhere remain unregistered. What more can the Government do to end this plight and hopefully prevent another tragedy?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes an important point about an absolutely tragic case. As he knows, local authorities are responsible for licensing houses in multiple occupation, and they have the power to prosecute landlords who fail to apply for a licence—and they should do so. There have been too many cases like this. The law is there; it should be used. Our whole approach is to give local authorities the power they need, and the discretion they need, to take action for the good of their communities; that is the change we want to bring.

[Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab)]

Q10. Building work is already under way on a new campus for Skelmersdale and Ormskirk college in my constituency, so it was a real shock to find that £4 million committed to the project will now not be available because of the Government’s decision to stop the budgets of the regional development agency with immediate effect. Will the Prime Minister please meet me and those at the college to try to find a way through? The building is already going up, and this would be a real embodiment of a hand up to the young people of Skelmersdale and the start of the regeneration of Skelmersdale.

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right to raise this specific case, and I will go away and look at it. In the Budget, while we did make difficult decisions, and some spending reductions were made, we actually put some money back into college building projects because so many schemes had suffered from the overspending and lack of control over the past couple of years. I will certainly look at her case and see whether a Minister can meet her to see what progress can be made.

[Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con)]

In Great Yarmouth, one of our Labour legacies is that we still have one of the more deprived wards in the country. Will the Prime Minister outline the plans he has to deal with one of the legacies he has inherited, which is the shocking breach in the achievement levels of deprived schoolchildren?

[The Prime Minister]

There are many things we need to do to tackle deprivation. We have spoken today about the importance of tackling long-term unemployment and joblessness that goes back through generations. Clearly, one of the other things is making sure that children from less well-off backgrounds are getting access to the best schools available. My right hon. Friend the Education Secretary has announced this week how we are going to try to help children on free school meals to get access to the very best schools in our country, and we want to expand the number of good schools by allowing academies and free schools to go forward. I hope that Labour Members will back those plans. The problem we have is that there are not enough good school places. It does not matter how many different schemes are devised for lotteries or anything else for getting kids into good schools, we need more good school places, not least in Great Yarmouth.

[Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)]

Q11. Talking of schools, on 2 September the Department for Education sneaked out the equalities impact assessment associated with the Building Schools for the Future decision. That assessment showed that the scrapping of that policy had a disproportionate impact on poorer children in our society. Can the Prime Minister explain what is progressive about that?

[The Prime Minister]

One person’s announcement is another person’s sneaking out; I do not quite understand that. Let me tell the person who was largely responsible for designing Building Schools for the Future what a completely shambolic and disastrous programme it was. It took three years and £250 million before a single brick was laid; well, maybe we should assess that. The other thing that we could perhaps assess—it is worth reminding people of this—is the bureaucracy of Building Schools for the Future. There were nine meta-stages to putting in a bid. Each of the nine stages had further sub-stages. This is what a local authority had to do—[Interruption.] Well, the hon. Gentleman was responsible for the programme; I am sure this will be a trip down memory lane for him. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The Prime Minister will be heard.

[The Prime Minister]

Thank you very much.

Local authorities that wanted to get involved needed a partnership for schools director, a director of education project adviser, a 4Ps adviser, an enabler from the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment—[Interruption.] I am sorry the list is so long, but it goes on and on. [Hon. Members: “Answer the question!”] The answer is that it was a disastrous programme, completely overspent and totally out of control. The last Government had announced 50% cuts and had not told us where a penny was coming from, and the hon. Gentleman is largely responsible for it.

[Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)]

Could the Prime Minister confirm that the Minister for Immigration will in the next few days come up with a solution for the English language schools in the UK, so that the good schools can move forward productively while bogus colleges and bogus students are dealt with?

[The Prime Minister]

I know that my hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration is working extremely hard on that issue. We all want the same thing, which is to ensure that Britain benefits as a provider of great education courses, universities and colleges that can attract talented people from around the world. But at the same time, we all know that there have been too many bogus colleges and too many bogus students coming here not really to study but to work or for other reasons, and we have to crack down on that. That is what my hon. Friend the Immigration Minister is trying to do, and I am sure he will be in contact with my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd) to ensure that that is the outcome of the policy.

[Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)]

Q12. I want to help the Prime Minister to reconsider the fact that we are not signing up to the directive on human trafficking, which, as he may understand, I know a little about. As a consequence, we rely on sections 57 and 59 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. That means that we cannot, for example, pursue or have any jurisdiction over someone who is normally a resident of the UK but is not a UK national, who is involved in human trafficking. More importantly, we cannot have jurisdiction when a UK resident in another EU country is trafficked by a non—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I think we have got the drift of it.

[The Prime Minister]

I will obviously listen very carefully to what the hon. Gentleman says, and perhaps he would like to set out in detail why he thinks this is so important. The point is that the UK’s victim care arrangements are already in line with internationally agreed standards, as set out in the Council of Europe convention on trafficking. The UK already does what is required by the proposed directive on assisting victims, so the proposed directive would not improve the provision of victim care. Those are the facts, and Opposition Members need to engage with that point.

[Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)]

If the Prime Minister were invited to lecture at Harvard university, like the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), on what subject would he care to speak?

[The Prime Minister]

I hope that my days on the international lecture circuit are some way in the future.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

Q13. What is the Prime Minister doing to protect manufacturing in the west midlands, and in Coventry in particular? Equally, what is he doing to protect the research and development that a lot of manufacturing companies rely on?

[The Prime Minister]

The most important thing that we can do is make Britain a great place to do business, to set up a business and to manufacture. That is why we showed in the Budget that we are going to cut corporation tax to one of the lowest levels in the developed world, why we are cutting national insurance for every new business that sets up, and why we are dealing with the appalling economic inheritance that we were left by the Labour party so that this economy can grow, have low interest rates and get moving to provide good jobs for all our people. That is what this Government are all about, and that is what we are fixing.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

Q14. Is the Prime Minister aware that the last Government took £30 million a year out of our social housing budget to give to their friends elsewhere? Because of that under-investment, one in 10 people in my constituency are on the council housing waiting list. Does he agree that social housing money raised in Harlow should be spent in Harlow, and that Harlow housing money should be for Harlow people?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes a very powerful point, which is that in our relations with local government, at a difficult time in terms of budgets, we should be giving it money and taking away the ring-fencing and complications and all the different grants. We should say, “There’s the money. You’re democratically elected, you decide how that money is spent.” That is what people are going to see from this Government, and I think it will be welcomed by local government up and down the country.

[Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)]

Before the election, the Prime Minister said:

“If I am Prime Minister a Conservative and Unionist Government will work with”

the Northern Ireland

“Executive to ensure a just and fair resolution of the PMS”—

the Presbyterian Mutual Society—and continued:

“you’ve done the right thing and you deserve for that to be recognised and rewarded.”

How soon will that pledge be honoured?

[The Prime Minister]

I am determined that we will honour that pledge. This is important. I know how angry people in Northern Ireland are when they hear British politicians say, “Of course, nobody lost any savings in the crash.” People did lose money, including in Northern Ireland, and they are right to be upset and angry.

A working group is trying to go through those issues and to find an answer. My right hon. Friend the Northern Ireland Secretary is involved in that, and the Chancellor is engaged in the issue. It is not easy, but we are determined to find a solution so that we can give satisfaction to people who lost money in Northern Ireland and who currently feel that they have been let down.