§ The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair)This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. Later today, I shall have further such meetings.
§ Mr. EvansBefore Sunday's march of 250,000 people through London, will the Prime Minister come to Longridge in the Ribble Valley tomorrow night? I shall be lighting a beacon, one of thousands which will unite the whole United Kingdom and send a clear message on behalf of those who live in and love the countryside. They are fed up and have had enough of the Government's relentless attacks on them. They see their way of life being ruined and, with farming in crisis, the countryside is at risk. Will the Prime Minister tell country people how long and how loudly they need to shout before he will listen to them and give them the help that they need?
§ The Prime MinisterThere is no campaign of greater hypocrisy than the countryside campaign launched by the Conservative party. When the hon. Gentleman lights his beacon tomorrow night, perhaps he will tell people that there are 30,000 more hectares of green belt under this Government. The farming industry is receiving £85 million more of help than under the last Conservative 360 Government. The problems of farmers are immense, but their main problem is the BSE crisis created by the Conservative Government.
§ Mrs. ButlerDoes my right hon. Friend agree that a House of Lords with more than 750 hereditary peers is indefensible in a modern democracy? Does he look forward to the support of all the other parties for the short sharp Bill to end those peers' voting rights?
§ The Prime MinisterI certainly look forward to the support of the Leader of the Opposition and the Conservative party for reform of the House of Lords. It is not entirely clear what is happening on the other side of the House, but Labour Members consider it quite wrong that hereditary peers should end up deciding the laws of the land.
§ Mr. HagueWhen the Prime Minister cut lone parent benefit in December—we supported him—did he do so to save money, or because he believed in the principle that the benefits system should not discriminate against married couples?
§ The Prime MinisterWe did not believe that the system should discriminate against married couples, but we believed that putting in extra money to help lone parents to get off benefit and into work—some £300 million more than the Conservatives put in—was the right way in which to spend the public's money.
§ Mr. HagueAfter fighting so hard to bring about that cut in December, why did the Government let it be known this morning that they intend to more than compensate lone parents with hundreds of millions of pounds of extra benefit? Why is the Prime Minister now backsliding on his vow—the vow on which he has staked so much—to reduce welfare spending and tackle welfare dependency?
§ The Prime MinisterThe short answer is that we are not backsliding, and that those stories are wrong.
§ Mr. HagueIt is no good the Prime Minister telling us not to believe what we read in the press, because we have come to learn that we are far more likely to read Government announcements in the press than to hear them on the Floor of the House of Commons. It is just like last week: we all know a U-turn when we see one.
Is it not the case that, faced with Back-Bench rebels and a grass-roots revolt at Labour party roadshows where people have thrown eggs at the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Gentleman's Government have begun to lose their nerve? When the Green Paper is finally published next month, will it at least contain clear targets for the reduction in welfare spending that he has long promised?
§ The Prime MinisterI am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman formulated that question before he heard my answer, in which I said that the story was wrong. There is no U-turn; there will be no change in the regulations governing lone parent benefit. As for talking about U-turns, I think that, after his constitutional speech yesterday, the right hon. Gentleman is rather unwise to do so.
§ Mr. HagueMy speech laid out a clear set of principles—a concept unknown to the Prime Minister. 361 Let him answer my actual question: will the Green Paper, when it is published, contain clear targets for the reduction in welfare spending that he has long promised?
§ The Prime MinisterI am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman will have to wait for the Green Paper on welfare, but the Government are already carrying out substantial welfare reform—not least in the welfare-to-work programme, a £3.5 billion programme to get our young people off benefit and into work. That programme has been opposed by the right hon. Gentleman and the Conservative party, although it has been welcomed by business and young people throughout Britain.
§ Mr. HagueThe Prime Minister says that we will have to wait for the Green Paper. We have been waiting a very long time for the Green Paper, which the right hon. Gentleman said would be published around the turn of the year. We do not know around the turn of which year he meant.
The Prime Minister has promised the country that he will reduce welfare spending. Today, on the lunchtime news that he always watches, his Back-Bench rebels have welcomed the news of his U-turn. The right hon. Gentleman knows that he can have the Opposition's support on this issue; so, on this issue, why does he not stop trying to govern the Labour party, and start governing the country?
§ The Prime MinisterThat would have been a great finale if it had not been for my original answer, which was that there had been no U-turn. I am very sorry, but the only party that is serious about welfare reform is this party. The Conservative party had 18 years in which to reform welfare; instead, it left us with a situation in which poverty is up, more children are living in poverty, more pensioners are living in poverty and there are more workless households—yet spending is up. That is a record of failure that we will turn into success.
§ Ms Jenny JonesIs my right hon. Friend aware that two thirds of pensioners on income support are women who therefore live out their old age in poverty? As the previous Government did nothing to tackle that problem, can my right hon. Friend assure me that the Government's pension review will give a high priority to the needs of women?
§ The Prime MinisterWe are particularly looking at how we help low-income families and pensioners on low incomes. My hon. Friend will know that, by cutting VAT on fuel, as we promised we would do, and did, and by the additional help this year and next with pensioners' heating bills—£50 for pensioner households on income support and £20 for pensioner households that are not—we are already making sure that we put the priorities of low-income pensioners first.
§ Mr. BeithAlthough it is understandable that the Prime Minister will give a sharp response to the party that has been in charge of the countryside for the past 18 years, during which the problems have built up, does he recognise that the anxieties are serious and deep? Half the villages now have no schools; three quarters of them have no daily bus service; and services such as the health 362 service and those for the elderly are threatened by cuts which started under the previous Government but which he has continued against the background of a crisis in the countryside's basic industry.
§ The Prime MinisterLet me first say where I agree very much with the right hon. Gentleman. In relation to the countryside, issues such as health, schools, crime and transport are every bit as important to people in the countryside as many of the things that the Conservative party continually raises. Since coming to power, we have put substantial additional resources via the new deal, the release of capital receipts and extra money for schools into rural areas. It will take time to turn around the mess that we inherited from the Conservative Government. In particular, we need to make sure that we hold firm to tight public spending to get rid of the big structural budget deficit which we inherited on 1 May.
§ Mr. BeithWhy does it always seem to be the rural areas to which the message is delivered that the cuts must be impacted on them? When it comes to the signal that the Government give to people in rural areas, how is it that the powers of the Rural Development Commission were given to the regional development agencies and the Government set up a social exclusion unit and said that it would deal only with urban problems? Many country people now feel very excluded.
§ The Prime MinisterThat is simply wrong. We do not say that rural areas should be discriminated against. Indeed, that is why I say that the additional money on national health, in relation to schools and in respect of the new deal is going to rural areas as well as inner-city areas. It is essential for us to make sure that we do not lose the tight grip on public finances that is at the heart of removing the threat of boom and bust that we had so many times under the Conservatives, and to make sure that we have prudent, stable economic management for the long term. When we get the public finances sorted out, we can give to rural areas and others the help that they desperately need.
§ Mr. David TaylorIs the Prime Minister aware that a warm welcome will be given to today's consultation paper on wider access to the open countryside, especially in areas such as North-West Leicestershire, where so much is closed to us? In view of our disappointing experience over the decades in establishing voluntary agreements, would he care to comment on the need to establish a statutory right of access?
§ The Prime MinisterWe have made it clear that, if voluntary means fail, we are prepared to legislate. It is also right that, if we can, by voluntary means, establish greater access to the countryside, we can obviously have that access far more quickly and far more easily. There is no intention whatever—this again has been subject to some misconstruction—to have people roaming through land that is cultivated or developed. The vast bulk of affected land is open countryside such as moorland to which people would like greater access. If it can be done by voluntary access, so much the better: if it cannot, we stand ready to legislate.
§ Q2. Mr. WilkinsonHas the Prime Minister had time to read today's letters in The Times, particularly one five-paragraph letter from a justice of the peace, Mr. Wilding, who complains about financial constraints and reductions in qualified staff and courthouses, and another, a rather more dignified and discursive 16-paragraph letter from a learned and noble art connoisseur—the Lord Chancellor—about his state apartments? Which letter does the Prime Minister think that the British public believe better addresses the problems confronting the British legal system?
§ The Prime MinisterThat was not a very wise intervention. The House of Lords Committee that approved the matter that the hon. Gentleman mentions included Conservative peers, who fully supported it.
§ Q3. Mr. MacShaneHas my right hon. Friend seen the remarkable survey by Income Data Services of many small and big business firms which shows that they are adjusting their wages to ensure that they will not be paying below a national minimum wage? Does he agree that the survey shows, first, that the business community is joining the Government in their drive to eliminate the low pay rates inherited from the previous Government, and, secondly, how out of touch the Conservative party is as it continues to defend poverty pay for the poorest of the land—which no business man is willing to support?
§ The Prime MinisterMy hon. Friend is right: the survey is very interesting, and shows that companies are already trying to deal with the low pay of specific parts of their work force. The evidence is that companies are doing so without any ratcheting up of differentials—which was always the criticism made of a minimum wage. I believe that there is no future for Britain as a sweatshop economy, and that a minimum wage is part of any decent, civilised society. I note that the Conservative party has still not told us whether it would reverse the minimum wage legislation that we have introduced. Perhaps, at some point, Conservative Members will tell us.
§ Q4. Mr. BercowThe Prime Minister will recall saying:
I never try to tell people what to do for their own children.Does he therefore agree that, if parents vote to keep the Royal Latin grammar school, in Buckingham, their children should be able to receive a grammar school education without further disruption or uncertainty for the duration of their careers at that school?
§ The Prime MinisterI do not know about the particular circumstances of the hon. Gentleman's school, although I should be perfectly happy to write to him about it. The rules that will apply to that school are the rules that will apply to any school. The rules have been clearly stated in the Government's proposals.
§ Q5. Mr. PikeMy right hon. Friend will know that many people are worrying about the benefits review. Will he take this opportunity to assure them that they are worrying unnecessarily, and that the 364 Government's main objective in the benefits review is to tackle the failures of the current system and to ensure that we have a better and fairer system?
§ The Prime MinisterYes, that is absolutely right. As I made it clear to disabled groups when I met them, we want to ensure that those who are disabled are given the help that they obviously need. The reason for reform is perfectly simple: as I said a moment ago, spending is up, but poverty is also up. There is a consensus in the country that the welfare system is not working. We have now to proceed to the principles of reform, which will be stated in the Green Paper which will be published shortly. We shall then move to the detailed proposals, each of which will be subject to proper discussion and debate. I think that that is the way to proceed with reform.
§ Sir Teddy TaylorIs the Prime Minister aware of the problems facing Back Benchers, probably mostly Labour, in coping with representations from groups of people—such as the university students who are outside the House today, the disabled and trade unions representing national savings—who claim categorically that they were shamefully misled during the general election and have since been sold down the river? Although we fully appreciate that there can sometimes be misunderstandings and that people sometimes do not read the small print, would it not strengthen our democracy if an independent body were established—perhaps by extending the powers of the ombudsman—to look into allegations of electoral fraud? Does the Prime Minister not appreciate that—irrespective of who is the Government—if we do not something about it, our democracy will be undermined?
§ The Prime MinisterFirst, on student finance, since we said specifically, as, indeed, did the Conservatives, that we would abide by the outcome of the Dearing committee report, I think that it is the richest possible hypocrisy for the Conservative party, having supported those proposals, now to denounce them.
As for electoral fraud, a judgment will be made at the general election. A judgment was made at the last election on the party that the hon. Gentleman supported, and that judgment was pretty resounding.
§ Q6. Mr. MullinHas my right hon. Friend noticed that all opinion polls show that the overwhelming majority of country dwellers are opposed to hunting with hounds? Has he also noticed that there is a considerable overlap between the so-called countryside alliance and the bloodsports wing of the Conservative party? Is he aware that many of those who will be attending next Sunday's demonstration will be there not by free will but because they are employed by landowners and fear for their tied cottages and tenancies? Will he bear those points in mind when considering what weight to give to representations made to him by this so-called countryside alliance?
§ The Prime MinisterUnlike the Conservative party, I certainly believe that love of fox hunting is not the same as love of the countryside.
§ Q7. Mr. BradyDoes the Prime Minister recall the pre-election pledge that he gave to my 365 constituents that the future of their grammar schools would be decided by local parents? Will he take this opportunity to explain to my constituents why he is breaking that promise by allowing people living outside Altrincham and Sale to vote on the future of our schools?
§ The Prime MinisterAgain, I am not aware of the situation to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but we have not broken any such promise in relation to that situation or any other.
§ Q8. Ms KeebleIs the Prime Minister aware that most working families in my constituency live on just below average earnings? Is he also aware that the East Midlands legal services committee recently estimated that some 9,000 people in Northampton have serious debt problems? Will he set out the Government's strategy for providing support for working families so that people in my constituency can look forward to a financial future that is more secure than the time they had under the Tories?
§ The Prime MinisterWe want to ensure that we provide greater help and support for working families. Of course, that is one of the issues that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will address in the Budget. In addition, one of the greatest causes of family poverty throughout the country is the absence of work in households where there should be work. That is precisely why the welfare-to-work programme is so important. It will for the first time give hundreds of thousands of people the chance to get decent skills, a decent education or a job with a private sector employer and allow them to bring a wage into a household that is at present dependent on benefits. I am sure that that is the single best way in which we can tackle poverty in this country.
§ Q9. Mr. HayesIs the Prime Minister currently, or has he ever been, personally associated with an offshore trust?
§ The Prime MinisterNo.
§ Q10. Kate HoeyDoes the Prime Minister realise that, among the hundreds of thousands of people at the countryside march on Sunday, there will be many thousands from urban and inner-city areas who care passionately about the countryside? Does he agree that the Deputy Prime Minister's statement this week was greatly welcomed across the country by people who want to see the end of the divide between country and town? Does he share my view that, in view of the hugely divisive nature of hunting, perhaps now is the time to set up some form of independent inquiry—a kind of royal commission—to examine the issues dispassionately and without emotion, while recognising that there are hugely different views on either side of the argument and that people feel very strongly about it?
§ The Prime MinisterWe do not have plans to establish such an inquiry, although of course the debate will go on and people will make their points and raise the issues that are relevant to it. In relation to the countryside and the points that my hon. Friend raises, it is important to point 366 out that the Deputy Prime Minister's announcement means that the amount of brown-field building and green-belt land will increase. In relation to the real problems that are felt in the countryside, by farmers in particular, again, additional support is being given.
I hope that my hon. Friend would agree that it is unfortunate not only if townspeople are ever ignorant of what is happening in the countryside, but if people who live in the countryside—I speak as someone with a countryside constituency—believe that all townspeople are either ignorant of or dislike the countryside. That is not the case, and attempts to divide town and country are wrong and misguided.