總理的提問2015年7月1日 (Prime Minister's Questions: 1 July 2015)

Subtitles section Play video

>>Mr Speaker: Order! Questions to the Prime Minister! Angela Crawley!
>>Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP): If he will list his official engagements
for Wednesday 1 July 2015
>>The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron): I am sure the whole House will wish to join
me in congratulating the England women's football team on reaching the semi-finals
of the world cup in Canada and wishing them well for their match against Japan this evening.
This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others and, in addition to
my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
>>Angela Crawley: The Prime Minister's plans for English votes for English laws will reduce
my rights and the rights of other Scottish MPs in this House—[Interruption.]
>>Mr Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady must and will be heard.
>>Angela Crawley: The Prime Minister's plans for English votes for English laws will reduce
my rights and the rights of other Scottish MPs in the House of Commons, but the real
issue is my ability to protect the interests of my constituents. Will the Prime Minister
guarantee today that, under his plans, a Bill that has a direct or indirect effect on Scotland's
budget will not be certifiable as England-only?
>>The Prime Minister: First, let me welcome the hon. Lady to her place. We will publish
our proposals shortly and Parliament will have plenty of time to consider and vote on
them, but let me be very clear: we are not creating a system of two tiers for MPs. All
MPs will still vote on all Bills, but what we are saying is that laws which apply only
in England should pass only if they are supported by a majority of English MPs. That seems to
me—in a devolved system where Members of the Scottish Parliament can determine their
own future on health, housing and an increasing number of subjects—to provide fairness across
our United Kingdom. >>Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness)
(Con): Yesterday the National Audit Office called for the introduction of a fairer schools
funding formula so that it is
“related more closely to their”—
that is, pupils'—
“needs and less affected by where they live.”
Can the Prime Minister confirm from the Dispatch Box that the additional and very welcome £390
million awarded last year as a first step towards a fairer funding system will be incorporated
into the baseline for future years?
>>The Prime Minister: I can say that we will implement the pledges in our manifesto on
this issue because we need to make funding fairer across the country. If we look at the
figures today, it is clearly unfair that a school in one part of the country can receive
over 50% more funding than an identical school in another part of the country. We have already
made some progress on this, but I want us to go further.
>>Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab): I join the Prime Minister in his congratulations
to England's women's football team. With only a fraction of the resources that the
men get, they are showing the men how it is done.
Sadly, we now know that 22 British citizens have been confirmed dead in the Tunisia attack.
Our thoughts are with the bereaved and injured, and the help they and their families will
need. The bereaved and those who have experienced life-changing injuries and trauma will need
long-term practical and emotional support. The experience after 7/7 was that to really
help those affected families, there needs to be co-ordination across Departments and
agencies, so will the Prime Minister establish a dedicated taskforce reporting to a Minister
to support those who have suffered in that terrible attack?
>>The Prime Minister: Yes, I can give the right hon. and learned Lady that assurance.
Let me update the House, because I am sad to say that the confirmed number of British
citizens killed in this appalling attack is now 27 and, as we have said, we expect it
to rise still further. Today we are repatriating eight bodies from Tunisia on an RAF C-17 plane.
The plane is now in the air and will land at RAF Brize Norton this afternoon. Every
family of a victim now has a dedicated Foreign Office liaison officer, but—I can confirm
what she asked—I have asked the Cabinet Secretary for advice on creating a ministerial
committee to ensure that work is properly co-ordinated right across Government to provide
all the support that the victims of this appalling attack deserve and to ensure that, as a nation,
we mark and commemorate this event appropriately.
>>Ms Harman: That is a really important step that the Prime Minister has taken. We fully
support it and thank those who will be working in that respect. Reports over the past few
days have suggested that it was not just a lone gunman who perpetrated the attack, but
an organised cell. Following the Home Secretary's visit to Tunisia and the deployment of 50
police officers, will he update the House on the progress being made to help identify
the perpetrators and bring them to justice?
>>The Prime Minister: On that specific issue, there is still a lot of work to be done to
identify all the circumstances of this appalling attack and the support that the gunman received.
As we get that information and confirm it, I will ensure that the House is regularly
updated. I can confirm that the discussions between my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary
and the Tunisians went ahead and were successful. As I have said previously, that is looking
at everything, from the protective security in hotels and resorts to intelligence co-operation
at the highest levels between Britain and Tunisia, so that we can help with its capacity
to combat such appalling events. It will need a lot of long-term work between our two countries,
but the French, the Germans and the Americans are also willing to help, and we need to co-ordinate
between ourselves how best to support that country on its road to democracy.
>>Ms Harman: The Prime Minister has rightly said that this was an attack on our values
and everything we stand for, and there is radicalisation in this country, too. Last
November the Intelligence and Security Committee said that the Prevent programme had not been
given sufficient priority and that counter-radicalisation programmes are not working. Today a new statutory
duty to challenge radicalisation comes into effect. Will there be sufficient training
and support for those covered by the duty, and will he look again at the concern that
the Prevent programme has not focused sufficiently on engaging with the communities?
>>The Prime Minister: The right hon. and learned Lady raises very important issues. Let me
answer them as directly as I can. First, we have now put more money and resources into
the Prevent programme. Secondly, on her point about the statutory duty on public sector
bodies, I think that is very important, because we are saying to schools, universities, local
authorities and others that they have a duty to deal with radicalisation and to confront
extremism, because this effort is not just for the police and security services, or indeed
just for the Government, it is an effort for us all. On her specific question, which goes
back to whether it was right to split the Prevent work into work that is done to deal
with extremism under the aegis of the Home Office and the programmes to encourage integration,
which should be done by the Department for Communities and Local Government, I maintain
that that was the right decision. It followed a review in 2011 by Alex Carlile, who found
that
“there have been cases where groups whom we would now consider to support an extremist
ideology have received funding.”
As we discussing in the House on Monday, it is very important that that does not happen.
Yes we should work with community groups, but not those that encourage an extremist
narrative.
>>Ms Harman: It is important that the Prime Minister does not just defend the decisions
he has made, but continues to reflect on this and really tries to make absolutely sure that
he gets it right. If he does that and gets the right outcomes, we will strongly support
him on that.
Let me turn to another issue. With all-party support, the Prime Minister commissioned the
Davies report to look at the question of airport capacity. Now that the commission has recommended
a third runway at Heathrow, does he agree with us that, subject to key environmental
tests being met, there should be no further delay and that it should go ahead? Will he
now take that forward?
>>The Prime Minister: First, let us all thank Howard Davies and the team for the very thorough
piece of work they have done. I think that there is a lot of common ground across almost
all parts of the House that there is the need for additional airport capacity in the south-east
of England, not least to maintain this country's competitiveness, but it is important that
we now study this very detailed report. I am very clear about the legal position; if
we say anything now before studying the report, we could actually endanger whatever decision
is made. The guarantee that I can give the right hon. and learned Lady is that a decision
will be made by the end of the year.
>>Ms Harman: The Prime Minister says there is common ground, and there is common ground
across the House; the worry is the lack of common ground on his side of the House. He
gives the impression that there is going to be a proper process, but something very is
different coming out of No. 10, because it is briefing that it is not going to happen.
It looks like the Prime Minister has been overruled by the hon. Member for Uxbridge
and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson); he should tell him that he is not the leader of the
Tory party yet. Will the Prime Minister stand up for Britain's interests or will he just
be bullied by Boris?
>>The Prime Minister: I would have thought that with all her years of experience, the
right hon. and learned Lady would know not to believe everything that she reads in her
morning newspapers. It would probably be good for her blood pressure, as well as for mine,
if she did not. Let me give the mildest warnings about jumping to a conclusion before seeing
the results, because we had a classic example of that last week when the shadow Health Secretary
warned the Government that the poverty figures would make us all hang our heads in shame.
That was of course before the poverty figures were published, showing that relative poverty
was at its lowest level since the 1980s.
>>Ms Harman: The Prime Minister seems to be keen to get off the issue of airports. It
seems like he is in a holding pattern above Heathrow and Boris will not let him land.
Our economic infrastructure is essential for future jobs, for growth, and for our productivity,
but this week the Government have pulled the plug on electrification of the railways and
seriously undermined the renewable energy sector, and now they are backing off over
airports and risking losing the opportunity for Britain to be at the heart of the global
economy. If the Prime Minister makes a swift decision on the Davies Report, we will support
him and there will be a majority in the House, so will he put Britain's national interest
first?
>>The Prime Minister: It is an interesting day when the leader of the Conservative party
wants to talk about child poverty and the Leader of the Opposition wants to talk about
an airport report that none of us has yet had time to read. I seem to remember that
the last leader of the Labour party—although we have been churning through a few recently—had
a totally different position on airports to the one that the right hon. and learned Lady
is now putting forward. What I can say to her is that we will all read this report and
a decision will be made by the end of the year.
>>Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con): My constituents in rural North Dorset look increasingly to
superfast broadband to help in education, agriculture and business. Will the Prime Minister
commit the Government to do all that they can, with sufficient energy and resources,
to ensure that the 5% black hole is filled as quickly as possible?
The Prime Minister: First, let me welcome my hon. Friend to his place. Before coming
here, he was a very successful district councillor in an area I am familiar with, where he helped
to achieve the second lowest council tax in the country. I am sure that he will bring
that sense of good housekeeping to this place. He is absolutely right to raise the issue
of superfast broadband and how we fill in the last 5% to 10% of homes, particularly
in rural areas. We are providing extra funding and we are looking at all the different sorts
of technology that can help to deliver this.
>>Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP): I associate myself and the Scottish National party with
all the tributes and condolences to the families and friends of everybody caught up in the
tragedy in Tunisia.
Because of the way the United Kingdom is structured, decisions on health, education and much English
legislation have an impact on the Scottish budget. Will the Prime Minister confirm that
he plans to exclude Scottish MPs from parts of the democratic process at Westminster that
will have an impact on Scotland?
>>The Prime Minister: The point I would make to the hon. Gentleman is that English MPs
are entirely excluded from any discussion of Scottish health, Scottish housing or Scottish
education. What we are proposing is actually a very measured and sensible step which says
that when there is a Bill that only affects, for instance, England, the Committee stage
should be composed of English MPs, but then the whole House will vote on Report and, indeed,
on Third Reading. What this will introduce, as it were, is a system for making sure that
the wishes of English MPs cannot be overruled. That, I think, is only fair in a system where
the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Parliament and, indeed, the Northern Irish Parliament
have increased powers.
>>Angus Robertson: On overruling MPs, it is very interesting that 58 of 59 Scottish MPs
have voted for the Scottish Bill to be strengthened, but they have been outvoted by English MPs.
Not content with outvoting Scottish MPs elected on a mandate to strengthen the Scotland Bill,
the Prime Minister is now going to introduce second-class status for MPs elected from Scotland
on issues that can have an impact on the Scottish budget. He is even planning to make the membership
of the Scottish Affairs Committee a minority pursuit for Scottish MPs. Is that what the
Prime Minister means when he says he has a respect agenda?
>>The Prime Minister: I shall tell the hon. Gentleman what I mean by a respect agenda:
every single thing Lord Smith represented in terms of welfare has gone into the Bill.
Is it not interesting that the hon. Gentleman objects to a vote in the UK Parliament on
a UK issue, which is what has happened? Let me tell him again: instead of endlessly talking
about the process, is it not time that the SNP started to talk about how they are going
to use these powers? Why do they not tell us? Which welfare benefits do they want to
put up? Which taxes do they want to increase? Why do they not start to tell us? I have been
following the debate very closely and have noticed that none of Scotland's 59 MPs is
arguing that the state pension should be devolved. In other words, the principle of pooling and
sharing our resources and risks across the United Kingdom, which I believe in as leader
of the United Kingdom, is apparently shared by the Scottish National party.
>>Mrs Anne-Marie Trevelyan (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (Con): My constituent Paul Short from Wooler
showed great courage during the Tunisian massacre last week by helping to save the life of an
injured victim with first aid skills he had learned as a member of the Territorial Army.
Will the Prime Minister set out how the new measures in the extremism Bill will tackle
extremists and stand up for our values of democracy, equality, free speech and respect
for minorities?
>>The Prime Minister: First of all, let me take this opportunity to praise my hon. Friend's
constituent and the skills that were used on that dreadful day in Tunisia. The Bill
will reinforce the work we have already done to increase funding for counter-terrorism
and counter-terrorism policing; make sure there is a duty on public authorities to combat
radicalisation; and go after the fact that there are groups and individuals who are very
clever at endorsing extremism but then stopping one step short of actually condoning terrorism.
That is what the new banning orders we are looking at aim to achieve, because we are
clear that people who support the extremist narrative have no place in our public debate.
>>Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP): Given regional wage profiles, many families in the north
of Ireland will identify with the concerns raised today by the four children's commissioners
about tax credits. Further to heeding those wider warnings, will the Prime Minister have
the Chancellor take particular care to ensure that no supposedly more targeted changes to
child benefit or tax credits will end up being misdirected against natural, everyday, cross-border
working families in my constituency and its hinterland?
>>The Prime Minister: When we talk about cross-border working families, it is still the case that
welfare arrangements in the United Kingdom are far more generous than what is available
in the Republic of Ireland. Our view is clear: the right answer is to create jobs, cut taxes,
raise living standards and reduce welfare. I want an economy that has high pay, low taxes
and low welfare, instead of low pay, high taxes and high welfare.
Let me share with the House one important statistic. Under the last Labour Government—[Interruption.]
I know that Labour Members do not want to talk about the last Labour Government. [Interruption.]
Well, under the last Government, inequality and child poverty fell. Now for the history
lesson: let us go back to the last Labour Government. Under Labour, the number of working-age
people in in-work poverty rose by about 20%. That was at the same time as welfare spending
on people in work went up from £6 billion to £28 billion. What that shows is that the
Labour model of taking money off people in tax and recycling it back to them in tax credits
has not worked. It is time for a new approach of creating jobs, cutting taxes and having
businesses that are creating the livelihoods we need.
>>Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con): Having led a campaign and authored
a letter signed by over 120 Members of Parliament from across the House to the Prime Minister
and to the BBC against calling the so-called Islamic State “ISIL” or “ISIS”, I
thank the Prime Minister for not calling it “Islamic State”, but an issue remains
with calling it “ISIL”. Will the Prime Minister lead the way by officially calling
it “Daesh”, as do France, Turkey and other countries in the middle east, which is acceptable
to Muslims in this country and around the world?
>>The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend, who has spoken about this a lot, makes a very
strong point. The argument I would make is that “Islamic State” is inappropriate,
because it is neither Islamic in the true meaning of the word nor, indeed, is it a state;
it is a bunch of terrorist thugs. I am happy for people to use “Daesh”. I think ISIL
is an alternative because it does not confer such authority. I am pleased that the BBC
seems to have moved its position, because until yesterday it was calling it “Islamic
State”. It looks like it is going to change its approach, and I really welcome that.
>>Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP): Given the vital importance of Parliament and Members
from both sides of the House and from all parts of the United Kingdom being able to
hold the Government of the day to account properly and effectively, will the Prime Minister
confirm whether he intends to try to reduce the size of the next House of Commons to 600
Members?
The Prime Minister: I am committed to what is in the Conservative manifesto, which is
to complete the work that should have been done in the last Parliament so that we have
equal-sized constituencies in a smaller House of Commons and cut the cost of politics.
>>Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con): Owing to ongoing issues with the Post
Office's Horizon software accounting system, I believe that many honest, decent, hard-working
sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses have lost their reputations, their livelihoods,
their savings and, in the worst cases, their liberty. This is a national disgrace. Will
my right hon.Friend consider the requests from Members across the House for a judicial
inquiry into this matter and bring it to a conclusion?
>>The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend has done a real service in campaigning tirelessly on
this issue, and I know that he has led a debate in the House on it as well. The Post Office's
answer is to say that it set up an independent inquiry which has not found evidence of wrongdoing,
but, clearly, that has not satisfied many Members on both sides of the House who have
seen individual constituency cases and want better answers.
What I think needs to happen next is for the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation
and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman), to convene a
meeting involving Members of the House, the Post Office and representatives of sub-postmasters
to discuss their concerns and see what should happen next. I would hope that it would not
be necessary to have a full independent judicial inquiry to get to the bottom of this issue,
but get to the bottom of it we must.
>>Mr Speaker: Question 5 is a closed question.
>>Mr Graham Allen (Nottingham North) (Lab): Number 5, Mr Speaker
>>Prime Minister I regularly reflect on Prime Minister's Question time with Cabinet
colleagues and others. For all its faults, and there are many, I would say that it has
two important points: it puts the Prime Minister on the spot to the public, but it also puts
the Government on the spot to the Prime Minister—needing to know issues right across every Department
before coming to the House at 12 o'clock on a Wednesday is an important mechanism of
accountability.
>>Mr Allen: Given that Parliament may be moving out of this place in 2020, will the Prime
Minister take that opportunity to share the joys of Prime Minister's questions, which
he has just outlined, and this federal Parliament by convening it in each of the nations of
the United Kingdom and thereby symbolise his Government's and this Parliament's commitment
both to the Union and to devolution?
>>The Prime Minister: As I said in an earlier answer, I am committed to trying to cut the
cost of politics, and I am not sure that that would help. It is important that we take our
politics and issues to all the different regions of the country, and that is something the
Government are very committed to do, not least with our regional economic plans for every
region of our country. As for the future of this House of Commons and where we stand and
where we debate, that is a matter for the House of Commons, but I have to say that I
have a slight emotional attachment to this place—the place at this Dispatch Box specifically.
>>Richard Benyon (Newbury) (Con): The brass fittings on that Dispatch Box are worn paper
thin by the sweat from the palms of Prime Ministers and Ministers down the ages. That
is a visual example of parliamentary accountability. Although our constituents rightly feel that,
at times, this session is a little absurd, does my right hon. Friend agree that it would
be a great pity if senior members of the Executive were not held to account in that way?
>>The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. I remember taking some constituents
on a tour when I first became a Member of Parliament and hearing for the first time
something I had not known—namely, that after this Chamber was bombed some of Winston Churchill's
most important speeches and parliamentary occasions took place in the other place rather
than here. I do not want to start a complete fight between both Houses, so I think I will
leave it at that.
>>Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP): The Prime Minister has been asked repeatedly about
his plans to exclude Scottish MPs from decisions that will directly and indirectly impact on
Scotland's budget and my constituents in Airdrie and Shotts. Will he finally tell the
House and the people of Scotland whether it is right to create a second-class status for
Scottish MPs through the back door, or is he content to press ahead with plans that
will bring about the break-up of Britain?
>>The Prime Minister: I am quite baffled. I thought the whole point of the SNP is that
SNP Members want to exclude themselves from the UK Parliament forever. I thought that
was the whole point. What we are putting in place is a fair and balanced system that is
fair to all parts of our United Kingdom. Long may it stay together.
>>Edward Argar (Charnwood) (Con): Over the past five years, increasing numbers of people
in the east midlands and the UK have decided to take the courageous and important step
to set up their own businesses and become self-employed. What steps will the Prime Minister
and the Government take in future further to support those entrepreneurs in my constituency
and beyond who represent and personify aspiration and hard work?
>>The Prime Minister: Let me welcome my hon. Friend to his place. I agree with him that
people taking that step to become self-employed and start their own business has been a very
big part of the jobs and enterprise revolution in our country over the past five years. Things
such as start-up loans have made a real difference, which is why we are increasing them in this
Parliament, but when we look at helping self-employed people, it is important to look at all the
aspects of being self-employed—how people interact with pensions, benefits, maternity
leave, public authorities and social housing rules. That is why I am asking Julie Deane,
the founder of the fantastic Cambridge Satchel Company and a model for how self-employed
people can achieve great things, to lead a review for the Government. Let us look at
all the ways in which we can help self-employed people to get going.
>>Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab): Given the Prime Minister's commitment to
localism, will he stand by and respect the decision made by Lancashire County Council
this week to reject fracking, yes or no?
>>The Prime Minister: Those decisions must be made by local authorities in the proper
way, under the planning regime we have. Personally, I hope that, over time, unconventional gas
sites will go ahead, whether in Lancashire or elsewhere, because I want our country to
exploit all the natural resources we have. I want us to keep energy bills down and I
want us to be part of that revolution, which can create thousands of jobs. I also want
to ensure that we can exploit our own gas reserves rather than ship gas from the other
side of the world, which has a higher carbon footprint. We should do that, but if the Labour
party wants to paint itself into a background of not wanting any unconventional gas at all,
it should say so.
>>Alok Sharma (Reading West) (Con): Labour-controlled Reading Borough Council recently received
a damning report from Ofsted for not doing enough to help struggling schools under its
control. Will the Prime Minister tell us what the Government intend to do to ensure that
systemically failing local education authorities such as Reading do not continue to ruin the
life chances of our young people?
>>The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise that. Frankly, one extra term
in a failing school is too long for our children. In the past, Governments and LEAs have been
too tolerant in allowing schools to continue to fail year after year, so this Government
have set a very testing regime for failing schools and for those that are inadequate.
As my right hon. Friend the Education Secretary set out this week, we will do similar things
to schools that we would define as coasting and that could be doing better. We can now
see the model of academy chains taking over a failing school, changing some of the leadership
and putting in place the things that are necessary. We can see radical increases in the results,
which is what we want. We will today talk about how we tackle poverty in the long term.
Tackling sink schools and educational underachievement is vital to the life chances of our children.
>>Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP): After four opportunities, the Prime Minister still has
not answered the question regarding the impact of English votes for English laws. May I strongly
urge him to finally reassure the people of my constituency that their elected MP will
not be given minority status in matters affecting the Scottish budget and, consequently, the
lives of the citizens of Dundee? Moreover, last night 58 out of 59 Scottish MPs—
>>Mr Speaker: Order. We are very grateful. We have got the gist of it.
>>The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman has had a very clear answer. It may be that the
Scottish National party does not like the answer, but the proposals we discussed at
great length in the last Parliament for solving this issue will now be introduced. The absolutely
key point is that if, in some future Parliament, there is disagreement between English MPs
who want one thing and the House of Commons as a whole which wants another, there would
have to be a way of resolving the deadlock. This is effectively a block for English MPs.
It is not the ability to legislate willy-nilly. He would know that if he read the manifesto.
>>Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con): Does the Prime Minister feel comfortable
with the fact that the Conservative Government have implemented a spending target for foreign
aid, but will not commit to a target of a minimum of 2% of GDP for defence? Does he
realise that this is damaging the relationship with our key strategic ally, the United States,
and risking our credibility with our NATO allies?
>>The Prime Minister: What I would say to my hon. Friend, who I know cares deeply about
this issue and has in his constituency some of the most important defence manufacturers
in our country, is that we have in every year met that 2% target. Many countries in the
European Union do not even meet 1% for defence investment. The commitment we have made already
is to invest £160 billion across 10 years into our equipment programme, with real-terms
increases every year. That is why we can say the aircraft carriers, the C-17s and the new
aeroplanes will all be coming forward. We will obviously make final spending decisions
in the spending review this autumn.
>>Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab): For a man who seemingly is never away from Europe,
why is it that he has never taken the opportunity, when he has been there, to put in a claim
for state aid to save British miners' jobs? He is the man who, during the election campaign,
masqueraded as the workers' champion but he has not got the guts to help those miners.
He took £700 million out of the mineworkers' pension scheme and he has not given a penny
back. No wonder they call him “dodgy Dave”. The man that went to Eton: educated beyond
his intelligence. [Interruption.]
>>The Prime Minister: It is very good to see the Labour party in full voice cheering on
Jurassic Park. I would stick to the movie.
There is a serious point here. The Government have offered £20 million to the owners of
Hatfield colliery to keep it going. We have been prepared to put forward money. Unlike
the previous Government, we have been prepared to make ministerial directions, because we
have some courage when it comes to these things.
>>Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con): There is a very strong sense that the Airports Commission
began life three years or so ago with a conclusion and then spent £20 million backing up that
conclusion. The Prime Minister is going to have to make a decision on the back of those
recommendations shortly, but what assurances can he give the million or so Londoners who
stand to be affected by Heathrow expansion that he will engage with the real arguments
in a way that Sir Howard Davies has not?
>>The Prime Minister: Let me pay tribute to my hon. Friend for how strongly he campaigns
on this issue. I know how strongly he cares about it and how strongly his constituents
feel about it. The promise I can give him is that this very thorough report, which landed
on my desk yesterday afternoon, will be studied properly. This really does matter. If you
make some precipitate decision or rule out one particular option, you will actually make
the decision you would like to make impossible to achieve because of judicial review. We
may not like that in this House, but those are the facts and those are the ones we need
to operate on.
>>Mr Speaker: Last but not least, I call Clive Lewis.
>>Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab): Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Norfolk and Suffolk NHS
Mental Health Trust, which serves my constituency, is refusing to publish the so-called Alexander
report on its operation. The report, which I have seen, raises serious questions about
patient safety and care owing to cuts to services. Does the Prime Minister agree with me that
the duty of candour should apply to NHS management as it does to NHS front-line staff? If so,
will he join me in the call for the report's publication?
>>The Prime Minister: First, let me welcome the hon. Gentleman to the House. I make no
apology for the Care Quality Commission's rigorous inspection regime, which is identifying
areas that need improvement. I would argue that the two things we need here are to uncover
bad practice and turn it round, and then to back it up with the resources the NHS needs,
including those recommended by the Stevens plan. As things stand, only this party is
backing the extra £8 billion into the NHS—and not the Labour party.