Oral Answers to Questions
Baroness Harman Excerpts(14 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Duncan
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his suggestion—he has a strong interest in, and knowledge of, Yemen. His suggestion is constructive. There will be a further Friends of Yemen meeting in Riyadh. If we are to get anything out of that meeting, we have got to get cracking now, which means that constant purposeful engagement with our Yemeni counterparts is essential. I will certainly ask the Foreign Secretary to take up his suggestion.
Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab)
It is obviously important for us to do all we can to help to tackle poverty and instability in Yemen, but where there is instability, it is even more difficult to get aid to people who need it. The expertise of DFID officials in that regard is widely respected around the world. Will the Minister assure us that as the work of his Department is reviewed, nothing is done to undermine its ability to play its part in ensuring that aid in conflict zones really gets to those who need it?
Mr Duncan
May I say what a pleasure it is to be up against the right hon. and learned Lady once again, after a little gap? What she says is absolutely right. We are, as I said, inclined to increase our support for, and spend in, Yemen, but obviously the security situation will determine whether we can put enough boots on the ground to deliver the aid and assistance that we wish to deliver. Crucially, however, we are looking on our work there as a pioneering exercise in trying to address the challenges of a fragile state before its condition gets worse.
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend has made an extremely good point. We must do more to make it easier for small businesses to take people on. However, this morning’s figures are good news. The claimant count is down by 3,700 on the month, unemployment as defined by the International Labour Organisation is down by 9,000 on the quarter, and crucially, as my hon. Friend has said, employment is up by 167,000 on the quarter.
We are helping small businesses by cutting the small business rate of corporation tax, we have the “one in, one out” rule so that new regulations will be limited, and we have a new enterprise capital fund to provide additional equity finance. We need to do all those things, but I think we also need to do more to help small businesses to take people off the unemployment register and put them back into work.
Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab)
I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to ranger Aaron McCormick of 1st Battalion The Royal Irish Regiment, who died on Sunday. His brave service in our armed forces will be remembered, and we send our deepest condolences to his family.
I also join the Prime Minister in sending our warmest congratulations to Prince William and Kate Middleton on their engagement.
Will the Prime Minister tell the House how many fewer police officers there will be as a result of his 20% real-terms cut in the police budget?
The Prime Minister
It will be up to individual police forces—[Hon. Members: “Ah.”] This is very important. It will be up to individual police forces to try to ensure that they maximise resources in the front line. What we said in the spending review was that it was possible to retain the high level of visibility and activity of police on our streets. That is the challenge to every police force in the country, and I think that when we look across police forces and see how many officers there are in human resources and information technology and performing back-office functions, it is clear that we can succeed.
Ms Harman
Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary says that while there are, of course, efficiencies, cuts of beyond 12% will inevitably result in cuts in the number of front-line police officers, yet the Prime Minister is asking not for 12%, but for 20% cuts. As usual, he has ducked the question, and he will not admit how many front-line police he is cutting. He used to be very clear about protecting front-line services. This is what he said on 2 May:
“any cabinet minister if I win the election…who comes to me and says, ‘Here are my plans’ and they involve frontline reductions, they’ll be sent straight back to their department to go away and think again.”
So what did he say to the Home Secretary?
The Prime Minister
This question has been asked of the right hon. and learned Lady’s own former Home Secretary—now the shadow Chancellor—and this is what he said. [Hon. Members: “Answer.”] He was asked—[Interruption.]
The Prime Minister
Thank you, Mr Speaker. Andrew Neil asked the shadow Chancellor a very simple question:
“Can you guarantee if you form the next Government that police numbers won’t fall?
Alan Johnson: No.”
That is what Labour said. It can engage—[Interruption.] If the right hon. and learned Lady wants to, why do we not engage in a proper debate about how we try to make sure we maximise resources on the front line? That is what we are asking the police force to do, and that is what the Opposition should be involved in, instead of this cheap game.
Ms Harman
We were absolutely clear in our manifesto, and the former Home Secretary was absolutely clear, that we would guarantee central Government funding to protect front-line services. No wonder the Prime Minister’s Back Benchers are so silent: he is planning to cut their police forces by 20%. [Interruption.] Their constituents will be astonished to see them cheering 20% cuts in the police budget.
The Prime Minister will be aware of the report of the chief constable of Greater Manchester setting out how front-line police numbers will have to be cut. What does the Prime Minister say to the people of Greater Manchester, who will be deeply worried about the cut in police numbers?
The Prime Minister
First, let me answer the point the right hon. and learned Lady made about what Labour said after the election. The shadow Chancellor was asked about—[Interruption.] Well, the right hon. and learned Lady raised the point about what was said after the election, and the Shadow Chancellor said:
“If Labour had won the general election, the Home Office budget would have been cut and the police would have had to make savings.”
That is what it said.
The right hon. and learned Lady asks about Greater Manchester, so let me answer specifically about Greater Manchester. First, the chief constable of Greater Manchester has said that his plans are putting “the maximum resources” on front-line policing, and I am not surprised he is able to say that, because here are the figures for the employment levels in the back-office functions: human resources, 187 people for that force; fleet vehicle maintenance, 106 people; finance, 106; IT—[Interruption.] Well, Opposition Members want to know the facts about Greater Manchester police, and these are the facts about Greater Manchester police. Guess how many people are involved in IT in Greater Manchester police: 225. This is the debate we ought to be having: how do we get resources from the back office on to the front line? How do we do it when right now only 11% of police officers are on the streets at any one time? That is the mess we have inherited; that is the mess we are going to clear up.
Ms Harman
But the chief constable’s report is clear. As well as cutting important back-office staff, front-line police will have to be cut; that is what the report says. The Prime Minister says—he always says this—that all this is unavoidable because of deficit reduction. In that case, can he explain why he is spending what the Association of Police Authorities says is £100 million creating new elected police commissioners at the same time as cutting police numbers?
The Prime Minister
The police commissioners will replace the police authorities—that is the point. The key issue, which the right hon. and learned Lady has now addressed, is that we are doing this because we inherited the biggest budget deficit in the G20. It is no good Labour talking about cuts, because it was planning 20% cuts. We are just having to introduce measures to deal with the mess that Labour made, but instead of just top-down cuts, we want to work with these organisations and say, “How do we help you to maximise the impact on the front line?” That is why we are scrapping the stop form—Labour introduced that— and that will save 450,000 hours of police time. We are going to limit stop-and-search reporting, and that will save another 350,000 hours of police time. This is the nonsense, the bureaucracy and the form-filling that Labour put in place. We are freeing the police officers to get out to do the job that people want them to do.
Ms Harman
By the way, it is an extra £100 million and the Prime Minister is spending it on elected police commissioners when that extra £100 million is the equivalent of hundreds of police officers. Police numbers do matter in tackling crime—of course they do. Will he drop his proposal for elected police commissioners and give the police the resources they need to protect front-line policing?
The Prime Minister
The straight answer to that is no, I will not, and I will tell you why. It is about time we had more accountable police forces in our country. I want there to be police commissioners so that when they do a good job calling the police to account and they are fighting crime in the way that local people want, they get re-elected. If they do a bad job, they will get thrown out. We all think that democracy is a great thing in here; what about a bit of democracy in policing as well?
Ms Harman
What local people want is to see their local police on their local streets. There he is posing as the guardian of probity in public finances. It cannot be denied that he knows a thing or two about posing. Why, at the same time as he is cutting police numbers, did he choose to use public money on not only a vanity photographer, but on putting staff from Tory headquarters on to the public payroll, with taxpayers footing the bill. Why did he do that?
Oral Answers to Questions
Baroness Harman Excerpts(14 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Mitchell
As the Chairman of the Select Committee rightly says, transparency is about accountability not only to our own taxpayers in Britain, but for the people whom we are trying to help in the poor world; it is about enabling them to hold their own leaders to account. On the nature of evaluation, to which his question also referred, it is important that this should be about not only value for money and the accountancy-driven approach to that, but development expertise. As he says, a lot of development is very long-tailed, so we need to meld both those two streams of expertise together to achieve the right results.
Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for yesterday’s written statement on the UN millennium development goals summit, which highlighted the decision to record all the commitments made. Making sure that everyone can see and track the progress towards the MDGs is vital, because international effort is simply not enough right now. Those goals can be met, with the international will to do so. Following the summit, can he tell the House what further steps he and his Government colleagues will be taking to increase momentum?
Mr Mitchell
May I welcome the right hon. and learned Lady to her new position? I think I hold the record for having shadowed this portfolio for the longest time—five years—and I wish her every success in beating my record. The whole House knows of her passion for gender equality and I am sure that we will work well together on that. We put girls and women at the heart of development, and I look forward to progressing that policy with her. Frankly, we are delighted that someone so senior on the Labour Benches is now shadowing this portfolio.
As she said, the Secretary-General of the United Nations has set in train work to bring together all the commitments that were made by different countries at the summit. ECOSOC—the Economic and Social Council—which is the relevant body of the UN, will be monitoring this on an annual basis and we will ensure that other countries that have made commitments stand up for those commitments and fulfil them, just as Britain must fulfil its commitments.
Oral Answers to Questions
Baroness Harman Excerpts(14 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend has fought a long and noble campaign on this issue, and has made very strong arguments—I know how strong they are, because every time I get into a Hercules, whether in Afghanistan or elsewhere, the pilots always immediately complain about having to move from his constituency to mine. He makes a good point about economic development, and we will ensure that, if this goes ahead, we will see good, strong economic development in his constituency.
Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab)
I support what the Prime Minister has said on the fifth anniversary of the terrible 7/7 bombings. Today we remember those who were killed and injured, and their families and friends. We pay tribute to the emergency services, which responded with such care and such courage, and we stand with the Government in our determination to defeat those who would bring terror to our streets.
There has been a lot of progress on tackling domestic violence, but still every year hundreds of thousands of women are victims of it. Many of the perpetrators are sent to prison—rightly, in my view—but now the Justice Secretary has embarked on a sentencing review, and has suggested that short sentences do not work. However, often what is needed in domestic violence cases is not rehabilitation, but a clear message to the perpetrator that it must not be repeated, and a clear message to the victim that the justice system takes this seriously. That is what a short sentence can do. Will the Prime Minister confirm that the sentencing review will not stop magistrates giving short prison sentences for domestic violence?
The Prime Minister
First, I thank the right hon. and learned Lady for what she said about the anniversary and the tribute that she rightly paid to the emergency services, which played an unbelievably brilliant role on that day, and to the many people who helped them.
The right hon. and learned Lady is absolutely right to raise the issue of domestic violence. For too many years it was an issue that police forces and prosecutors did not deal with properly, and to be fair to the last Government, good progress has been made over the past decade. I agree that there are occasions when short sentences are required, and indeed the Lord Chancellor takes exactly the same view. He said in the speech—[Interruption.] It is very important to read the speech, not just the headline. He said:
“In my opinion, abolishing all short-term sentences altogether…would be a step too far. We need penalties for the anti-social…recidivist.”
We need to ensure that magistrates have that power, but the review is important to try to ensure that we get this right.
Ms Harman
I thank the Prime Minister for that reassurance. It is reassuring that the promise that the Liberal Democrats made at the election is not going to be carried forward. I notice that the Justice Secretary is not looking very cheerful; perhaps he should go down to Ronnie Scott’s to cheer himself up.
May I congratulate the Prime Minister on, instead of listening to his new partner, listening to his mother? In the election he told us that his mother was a magistrate and that she told him that magistrates needed the power of short sentences. Quite often, it is the right thing for somebody not to listen to their new partner but to listen to their mother, so I am glad that he has done that on this occasion.
I turn to something else mentioned in the election campaign. The Prime Minister said that any Minister who comes to him with cuts to front-line services
“will be sent straight back to their department to go away and think again.”
Does that apply to the Home Secretary?
The Prime Minister
First, may I say that in my experience there are very few people more cheerful than the Lord Chancellor. He is celebrating his 40th anniversary in this House, and he likes to point out that he was elected before the Chancellor of the Exchequer was born. He brings enormous experience and good humour to all our counsels.
I am delighted that the right hon. and learned Lady has brought up the issue of my mother, who served on the Newbury bench for many, many years. I have to say that one of the biggest challenges she had—[Interruption.] As well as me, one of the biggest challenges that she had, and one of the reasons why she needed to hand out so many short sentences, was badly behaved CND protestors outside Greenham Common. [Interruption.] I do not know whether the right hon. and learned Lady was there. Anyway, if she wants to have more episodes of “Listen With Mother”, I am very happy for that at any time she would like.
On the Home Office, of course we have to make savings. We have to make savings across Government. It is not going to be easy, but absolutely we must ensure that we do everything we can to protect the front line. However, I simply do not believe that when we look at the Home Office budget there are not examples of waste and inefficiency and things that we can do better. The right hon. and learned Lady went into the election calling for 20% cuts in every Department. That was her policy—a policy of 5% cuts each year. Ours is 6% cuts each year, so these are Labour cuts as well.
Ms Harman
We went into the election very clear about protecting police numbers. I am asking the Prime Minister a straightforward question, which he has so far failed to answer. At Prime Minister’s questions, he was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) this very simple, straightforward question:
“Will there be fewer police officers at the end of this Parliament”—[Official Report, 23 June 2010; Vol. 512, c. 287.]—
compared with now? He skirted around her question and did not answer it. Will he answer it now?
The Prime Minister
Of course there will be difficult decisions, but let me—[Hon. Members: “Ah!”] A simple question was put to the shadow Home Secretary before the last election. [Interruption.] Wait for it:
“Andrew Neil: Can you guarantee if you form…the next government that police numbers won’t fall?
Alan Johnson: No”.
Ms Harman
But my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson) went on to say—I think that that was selective quoting—that we would guarantee the funding that would ensure police numbers and the numbers of police community support officers. We were absolutely clear about that. The Prime Minister’s Lib Dem partners said that they would have 3,000 more police officers on the beat, while he said that he would protect front-line services. Is either of those promises going to be kept? People who are concerned about crime want to know.
The Prime Minister
There is nothing selective about the word no. That is what the shadow Home Secretary said when he was asked whether he could guarantee that there would be no cuts in police numbers. Let us remember why we are here. We have a £155 billion budget deficit. The Labour party went into the last election promising 50% cuts in capital spending and 20% cuts in departmental spending. We are clearing up the mess that Labour made. I sat at the G20 table last weekend and, looking round the table, thought, “Who’s got the biggest budget deficit? Is it Brazil? No. Is it Spain? No. Is it Argentina? No.” Labour left us in a situation where we get lectured by Argentina on the state of our budget deficit.
Ms Harman
If the right hon. Gentleman had read the Office for Budget Responsibility report, he would have seen that its forecast for Government borrowing was lower than the forecast that we made before the election—if he had read it, he would probably also have found that the Chair would not have resigned immediately after being appointed. Is it not clear that these are the Government’s crime policies—that the right hon. Gentleman is threatening to take away the police officers people want on the beat, cutting down the right of local residents to CCTV and making it harder for the police to use DNA evidence? Those are his policies. Let me ask him a straightforward question: does he think that those policies are more likely to make crime go down or go up?
The Prime Minister
The point is that under the last Government violent crime and gun crime went through the roof. The right hon. and learned Lady—[Interruption.] They almost doubled.
Mr Speaker
Order. I am very clear what is in order and what is not, and that is the end of the matter.
Ms Harman
Before the election, we were hearing all about tougher policies and more police from the Conservatives; now all that seems to have sailed off with those prison ships that the right hon. Gentleman was promising to buy. We were clear: we said when we first came into government that we would bring crime down, and we did. Will he promise that under his Government he will keep crime coming down? If he will not make that promise, it is only because he knows, as we all know, that his policies will put crime up.
The Prime Minister
Mr Speaker, I was only trying to boost sales.
I can promise the right hon. and learned Lady one thing: I will not be wandering round my constituency in a stab-proof vest. That is what it came to under the last Government. Gun crime went up, violent crime went up, reoffending of prisoners went up, every prison place cost £45,000, more than 10% of prisoners should not have been there because they are foreigners, half of them are on drugs and 40% of them commit a crime on the way out of prison. That is the record that we have inherited, and that is what we will be clearing up.
Oral Answers to Questions
Baroness Harman Excerpts(14 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for asking that question. I do not always give him answers that make him happy, but this time I can. There will be a draft motion, by December, which the House can vote on. I have always supported a predominantly elected House of Lords, and I am delighted that agreement has been reached on the coalition programme. [Interruption.] I can already hear what a challenge around the House it is going to be to achieve the consensus that we need, but I hope that after all the promises of reform, this time we can move towards a predominantly elected second Chamber.
Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab)
I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to Corporal Stephen Curley and Marine Scott Taylor from 40 Commando Royal Marines, and to Gunner Zak Cusack from the 4th Regiment Royal Artillery. As the Prime Minister said, they were brave men who died in the service of our country. We must never forget the sacrifice that they made.
I strongly support what the Prime Minister has said about the dreadful shootings in Cumbria. We offer our deepest sympathies to the families of those who have been killed and our strong support for the police, the emergency services and the local communities in Cumbria.
May I ask the Prime Minister about the Israeli interception of the Gaza flotilla? I am sure that he agrees that there has been a tragic loss of life, which has angered the Palestinians and dismayed friends of Israel, too. Can he tell the House what is the current position of the British nationals who have been detained by the Israelis? Will he tell us how the Government can contribute to international efforts to make the Israelis recognise that the blockade of Gaza is prolonging the suffering of the Palestinians and making peace in the middle east even harder to achieve? This blockade must end.
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. and learned Lady for what she said about our troops, and also for raising the issue of the events off the coast of Gaza. What has happened is completely unacceptable; we should be clear about that. We should also deplore the loss of life. Indeed, I have spoken to the Prime Minister of Turkey to extend our condolences for the Turkish citizens who have been lost. We should do everything we can to make sure this does not happen again; I stressed this point in a conversation with Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel.
In answer to the right hon. and learned Lady’s specific questions about British nationals, 42 British nationals are caught up in this. I believe that around 37 of them have had consular access and that all of them will be coming home, and we need to make sure that they are reunited with their families as fast as possible.
The right hon. and learned Lady also raised the issue of international efforts to get the blockade open. As she knows, and as the shadow Foreign Secretary will know, we should do everything we can through the United Nations, where resolution 1860 is absolutely clear about the need to end the blockade and to open up Gaza. I would say in addition that friends of Israel—and I count myself a friend of Israel—should be saying to the Israelis that the blockade actually strengthens Hamas’s grip on the economy and on Gaza, and it is in their own interests to lift it and to allow these vital supplies to get through.
Ms Harman
I thank the Prime Minister for that answer, and I know that we will be hearing more from the Foreign Secretary in a statement immediately after these questions.
Can the Prime Minister give me an answer on another important issue—one that I raised with him last Tuesday—about prosecuting rape? We know that it is often only after many rapes that a defendant is finally brought to court, and it is often only at that point that previous victims find the courage to come forward. By making rape defendants anonymous, he is going to make it harder to bring rapists to justice.
The Prime Minister
I know that the right hon. and learned Lady cares very deeply about this issue, as do I. The fact that rape convictions are so low in this country is a scandal, and we need to improve on that. That means working with the police, and also doing more to help rape victims, including backing rape crisis centres.
On the issue of anonymity, I sat on the Home Affairs Committee that examined this issue; it was of course a Committee in a previous Parliament, dominated by Labour Members, and very ably chaired by Chris Mullin. We came to the conclusion that there was a case for saying that between arrest and charge there was a case for anonymity. The coalition agreement mentions the issue of anonymity, and we will of course be bringing forward proposals, which the House can then examine and debate. I think that there is a case for this to happen, but I understand what the right hon. and learned Lady says—that it is important that the publicity around a case can help to bring forward other people who have been raped. I understand her case, but I think that this does represent a good way forward.
Ms Harman
I welcome the Prime Minister’s recognition of the first point. However, does he not also recognise that to single out rape defendants, which is what he is proposing to do, sends a very powerful message to juries in rape cases that the rape victim is not to be believed, and sends a devastating message to rape victims that, uniquely of all victims, they are not to be believed?
The Prime Minister
I do not accept that. The Home Affairs Committee looked at this very carefully and came to conclusion that in this case there was a case for extending anonymity, also because in rape cases, obviously, those who have been raped have anonymity themselves, and that was the case with this limited extension. We will be bringing forward proposals that can be debated and discussed in the House of Commons. We all want the same thing, which is to increase the number of successful rape prosecutions and to send more rapists to jail: that is what this is about.
Ms Harman
I am sorry, but I think that that is a disappointing answer, because the Prime Minister shows no understanding of the progress that has been made on prosecuting rape, and he does not realise how seriously this will turn the clock back.
May I turn to another subject that I believe the Government should reconsider—the married man’s tax allowance? It would go to only one in three married couples, and would cost half a billion pounds a year. Can the Prime Minister tell the House how that would contribute to cutting the deficit?
The Prime Minister
I am an unashamed supporter of families and marriage, and I simply do not understand why, when so many other European countries—I remember often being lectured when I was on the other side of the House about how we should follow European examples—recognise marriage in the tax system, we do not. I believe that we should bring forward proposals to recognise marriage in the tax system. Those in our happy coalition will have the right to abstain on them, I am happy to say, but I support marriage. We support so many other things in the tax system, including Christmas parties and parking bicycles at work, so why do we not recognise marriage?
The Prime Minister
If we are going to get control of public spending in the long term in this country, we should target the causes of higher spending, one of which is family breakdown. We should do far more to recognise the importance of families, commitment and marriage—and let me just say that any recognition of marriage that we put in the tax system will also be recognition of civil partnerships, because commitment is important, whether someone is straight or gay.
Ms Harman
So the Prime Minister is seriously saying that he expects us to believe that he thinks a £3 a week tax break, which will cost the Exchequer half a billion pounds a year, will keep families together. No wonder the Deputy Prime Minister is sitting so quietly by his side—because on this one, Nick agrees with me. We do not need it, it will not work, and they should drop it.
The Prime Minister
I am afraid the right hon. and learned Lady has a slightly short memory, because when she was sitting over here on the Government Benches, an enormous recognition of marriage in the tax system was introduced by the Labour Government in—wait for it—inheritance tax. [Hon. Members: “Oh!”] Yes, they massively increased the threshold for inheritance tax that can be transferred between husband and wife. If recognising marriage in the tax system is such a good thing for the better-off, why do we not do it for the less well-off? [Interruption.]