§ Q1. Miss WiddecombeIf he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 21 January.
§ The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair)This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. 1005 In between, as I think the House will shortly learn from the media, I took an interesting and detailed call from a hoax caller at Capital Radio, who managed to persuade the No. 10 switchboard that he was the Leader of the Opposition.
§ Miss WiddecombeInstead of wasting his time on hoax calls, will the Prime Minister take time out of his not particularly exacting day to survey the various fiascos and broken promises that have characterised the first few months of his Administration? When he considers the affluence test, the lone parents rebellion, the individual savings accounts fiasco and the odd rebuke of the Paymaster General, does he take personal responsibility for those fiascos and the Ministers presiding over them, or does he put it all down to the psychological flaws of the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
§ The Prime MinisterI thought that there was something of the night about that question. I shall tell the right hon. Lady what I take personal responsibility for: the extra money that we have put into schools and hospitals—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—cutting VAT on fuel—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—the welfare-to-work programme of £3.5 billion—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—and sorting out the budget deficit and inflation left us by the Government of which she was a member.
§ Mr. Bill O'BrienWill my right hon. Friend accept from me and from other hon. Members congratulations on his determination—and that of our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and other members of the Northern Ireland team—to continue with the way forward in Northern Ireland? Will he assure me, the House and the United Kingdom that there will be no deviation from the programme that he has set to try to bring peace to the island of Ireland?
§ The Prime MinisterYes is the answer to that. We will not be deflected in any way by the murders and killings that have happened over the past few days from seeking a proper peaceful and long-term settlement for Northern Ireland. One of the best reasons for not being so deflected is that that is precisely what the killers want. It would be the ultimate surrender of the democrats to the men of violence if we ended up being deflected in any way by what they have done from searching for a decent peaceful solution in Northern Ireland.
§ Mr. HagueHas the Prime Minister received any hoax calls from a man claiming to be Chancellor of the Exchequer and wanting a friendly chat? While he is answering that question, will he describe what the Secretary of State for Social Security meant by affluence testing?
§ The Prime MinisterAs my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State herself has made clear, it is important that we try to target benefits on those who need them most.
§ Mr. HagueIt is a pretty straightforward question. All we want to know is what the Secretary of State for Social Security meant by affluence testing. Millions of people have read her comments, and millions of people 1006 take her seriously—God help them—so millions of people want to know what the phrase means. Does it mean means testing, or does it mean something else?
§ The Prime MinisterI have just explained what it means. It means getting help to those who need it most. We have inherited a situation in which, as even the Conservative party now accepts, the welfare state is not working, spending is up and poverty is up. We shall sort out, yet again, the mess that we inherited.
§ Mr. HagueWe want welfare reform. As I have told the Prime Minister, we shall support it if it is according to certain principles. What we want to know is when the Government will decide where they are going on welfare reform. The Secretary of State for Social Security talks about affluence testing, an unnamed Minister briefs the Sunday papers that the Prime Minister has ruled that out and the Deputy Prime Minister is put in charge of the committee on welfare reform because the Prime Minister thinks that the Chancellor has lost his marbles and cannot be in charge of it. Now, the Prime Minister cannot define affluence testing. What is affluence testing, and is it an option?
§ The Prime MinisterWelfare reform is already going on; £3.5 billion is being spent on the welfare-to-work programme, yet the right hon. Gentleman has nothing to say about that. Welfare reform is going on at the moment in relation to student finance. What has he got to say about that? Nothing. The truth is that he has a few sixth form debating points, but nothing serious to say about anything.
§ Mr. HagueIn a Government in which Ministers do not know where they are going on that subject, the Prime Minister really is the first among equals now. When will Ministers realise that when they run such stories people take them seriously? They are in government now; they are not playing fantasy think tank any more. When Ministers play silly games—promoting one scheme and knocking down another Minister's scheme—families are left not knowing where they stand, people with pension entitlements are uncertain of where they stand and disabled people are left feeling betrayed. It is not a case of sixth form debating points; people are worried about what the Government propose and they want to know—they want to be told—where the Government stand. When will the Prime Minister publish the Green Paper that was promised before Christmas?
§ The Prime MinisterI had better and shorter questions from the hoax caller. It is utterly absurd to talk about betrayal of the disabled. As a matter of fact, the Government have put £200 million more than the previous Government into helping disabled people off benefit and into work. It was the Conservative Government who cut £2 billion from the bill for the disabled—and who was the Minister who introduced the regulations? The present Leader of the Opposition. As for his saying that it is time that we realised that we are in government, all I can say, after that question, is thank heavens we are.
§ Mr. HagueIt is not unreasonable to ask when the Green Paper will be published—the Green Paper that it was said would be published before Christmas. This Government 1007 have put a tax on people's pension funds, are putting a tax on people's savings, are introducing huge rises in council tax and have presided over five mortgage rate rises; and now they want to tell people that they will test them on how affluent they are. Does the Prime Minister accept that it is not unreasonable to ask when the proposals will be published, and when the Green Paper will be produced?
§ The Prime Ministerrose—
§ Madam SpeakerOrder. May we have a little quiet?
§ The Prime MinisterLast week, the right hon. Gentleman was trying to tell me that he supported our welfare reforms.
First, let me say that the mortgage rises have had to be made because of the inflation that we inherited from the Government of which the right hon. Gentleman was a member. Having been advised by the Bank of England to put up interest rates, they failed to do so.
Yes, we have cured the budget deficit. We have done it without raising income tax rates at all, and at the same time we have managed to put more money into schools and hospitals—as we said we would. That is the difference between a Government who keep their promises and the last Government, who broke them.
§ Barbara FollettMy right hon. Friend and I may differ in our hopes for the outcome of the Stevenage v Newcastle match this Sunday, but will he join me in welcoming the report produced this morning by the numeracy task force? [Interruption.] Through its emphasis—[Interruption.]
§ Madam SpeakerOrder. Just a moment. The hon. Lady will be heard in the House. Just keep quiet and listen to the questions.
§ Barbara FollettThank you, Madam Speaker.
Through its emphasis on mental arithmetic, daily maths lessons and whole-class teaching, the report will ensure that we reach our national target of three quarters of 11-year-olds in the standard set for their age.
§ The Prime MinisterYes. It is extremely important for us to raise standards of literacy and numeracy among 11-year-olds. At present, about half do not reach the required standards. We have introduced a programme that focuses particular help on ensuring that that is done. If it is done in the way we believe it can be done, over the next few years there will be a significant rise in the number of 11-year-olds who attain the required standards. If they attain those standards, when they enter secondary schooling they will be far better able to cope than they are now.
§ Mr. AshdownIs the Prime Minister aware that what he calls a patriotic alliance across parties on Europe in the national interest already exists? It consists of the Confederation of British Industry, the Trades Union Congress, the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer and his Conservative friends, and the Liberal Democrats, and it believes—as it appears the Government do not—that we 1008 ought not to rule out the possibility of a referendum on a single currency in this Parliament if that is in the nation's interest. Will the Prime Minister join us?
§ The Prime MinisterI have made clear the reason for the Government's position. We believe that, because of the economic conditions that exist and, in particular, the fact that currently there is not convergence between Britain and the main European economies, it would not be wise for us to be in the first wave of European monetary union, but the principles that we have set out are very clear, they are right, I believe that they are supported by the vast majority of people in the country and I think that there is widespread support for them across the political spectrum.
§ Mr. AshdownI ask the Prime Minister to answer the question, which is whether he rules out a referendum on a single currency during this Parliament. Either that can be done in the national interest or it can be done according to the electoral timetable, but it cannot be done on the basis of both.
I do not, of course, expect the Prime Minister to agree with the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer but, even given the tensions between them, I do expect him to agree with the present Chancellor—and he has said that nothing should be ruled out in this Parliament. Does the Prime Minister agree?
§ The Prime MinisterAs I was explaining to the right hon. Gentleman, it was for reasons of the national interest that we made our decision in relation to monetary union and it is because it was in the national interest that we reached that view.
§ Mr. LeslieDoes my right hon. Friend agree that anyone who is truly serious about welfare reform will welcome the Government's moves to introduce a national minimum wage, which would target help on those who are in work but on the lowest incomes and give them the protection that they really need?
§ The Prime MinisterMy hon. Friend is right. A national minimum wage both helps people on very low pay and means that the taxpayer does not end up subsidising them to such a vast extent as happened under the previous Government. Some £3 billion a year or more goes towards subsidising low pay. A minimum wage is part of any decent civilised society and it exists in countries with lower unemployment rates than Britain—notably the United States and Japan. I very much hope that, as the Conservatives appear to be changing their minds about many things, they will change their minds about this as well.
§ Q2. Sir Geoffrey Johnson SmithIs the Prime Minister aware that it is difficult for people to have any confidence in the Government's handling of pensions, especially in view of what he has said today and of the swingeing pension tax that has been imposed, which affects not only thousands of individuals throughout the country but local authorities? East Sussex faces a bill of £800,000 to £1 million. Will he make a commitment to the House that those who qualify for pensions in the future will not have their pension reduced or withdrawn? The best way to encourage people to take out a second-tier pension is to give that firm commitment today.
§ The Prime MinisterOur proposals on pensions will help people. For example, the stakeholder pension 1009 proposed by the Department of Social Security will help many people gain access to second pensions that they cannot get at the moment. It is precisely to encourage people to take out pensions that are properly regulated and secured—as they were not under the previous Government—that we have introduced our proposals. I do not believe that the proposals will have an adverse effect on pensions.
§ Mr. Peter BradleyIs my right hon. Friend aware of Conservative Members' failure to take the opportunity in an Adjournment debate this morning to condemn the wrongdoing perpetrated in Westminster by Shirley Porter? Is he aware that, in the House on 9 May 1996, the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), and the then Secretary of State for the Environment, the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), pledged that once the matter had been through the courts and those involved had been found guilty they would unreservedly condemn the malefactors? Will my right hon. Friend condemn the malpractice and invite those right hon. Members' successors—the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler)—to do the same?
§ The Prime MinisterAn undertaking was given that if the findings were adverse there would be condemnation. We have never heard a word from the Conservative party, but then we never do on any such issues.
§ Q3. Mr. SwayneWho is affluent? How does the Prime Minister intend to encourage affluence at the same time as testing for it—or is that just another hoax call?
§ The Prime MinisterThe best way to encourage people to be aspirational and to do better is to have a steady, stable economy, which we are running; to put investment into schools, which we are doing; and to play our full part in European affairs, which we are also doing. What a contrast that is with the rabble who used to be in government and whom the hon. Gentleman now supports.
§ Dr. StarkeyOn a recent visit to Woodhill prison in my constituency, I was dismayed to discover that more than one in three prisoners had literacy problems and even more had numeracy problems. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that underlines the importance of the numeracy task force recommendations to which he has already alluded and that additional measures need to be taken for older children and young adults who have been failed by the education system?
§ The Prime MinisterThere is certainly a link between educational underachievement and later delinquency and crime. Indeed, reports and studies, especially in the United States, have shown the connection between good nursery education and law-abiding citizenship later in life. That is precisely one of the reasons we are making such an investment in education and why we are running the literacy and numeracy summer schools that have already had a dramatic impact in helping some children. That provision is to be increased dramatically next year. If we 1010 get to the stage at which people are reaching their full potential, we will have a far better chance of creating the decent society that we want.
§ Q4. Mr. GarnierWill the Prime Minister give me a figure for the level of disposable income that he and the Secretary of State for Social Security have agreed constitutes affluence?
§ The Prime MinisterNo. As the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, we are conducting a welfare review and when the proposals of that review are available they will be discussed and consulted on. The principle is to get money to those who need it most and ensure that we reform our welfare system so that we avoid what exists at the moment: spending is going up massively, but so is poverty. If we can avoid that, it will be well worth doing, but the details of the proposals will be disclosed after the review has been conducted.
§ Q5. Mr. WinnickIs my right hon. Friend aware that I received a telephone call today—it was certainly not a hoax—from the Leader of the Opposition's office telling me about my supplementary question and asking if I would like to go to a meeting at 12.15 pm? Since the Leader of the Opposition clearly wants my advice, would it be in line with Government policy if I told him, now or at any time in the future, that the £1 million given to the Tory party by a drug dealer should be donated to a charity immediately and that the stolen £350,000 from Asil Nadir—
§ Madam SpeakerOrder. The first part of the hon. Gentleman's question was amusing to the whole House, but the Prime Minister has no responsibility for the funding of the Conservative party.
§ Mr. WinnickI asked whether it is Government policy that the Leader of the Opposition should return the money. May I ask the Leader of the Opposition—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] May I ask the Prime Minister whether he agrees that it is essential that all donations above a certain figure—£5,000 should be the minimum—should be identified and that the law should be changed as quickly as possible so that drug money and stolen money may not be received by any party in the House of Commons?
§ The Prime MinisterI am sorry that my hon. Friend was mistaken for a Conservative by the Leader of the Opposition's office. One would think that they have so few they know who they are. The Neill committee will investigate those matters and consider what recommendations it should make. I do not have responsibility for the £1 million, but I should have thought that it should be returned. In any event, I notice that the Conservative party has still not published its accounts, despite having promised to do so six months ago.
§ Q6. Mr. GreenwayDuring Welsh questions, the Secretary of State for Wales told the House that, in his view, agriculture is facing its biggest crisis this century. The 650,000 people who signed the petition about the crisis in farming, which was delivered to 10 Downing street yesterday, clearly agree. Does the Prime Minister agree and, if so, what does he intend to do about it?
§ The Prime MinisterI certainly agree that there is a serious situation for farmers at present, which is why the 1011 Government, before Christmas, gave several million pounds in help to them—[HON. MEMBERS: "Several?"] Actually, it was more than £80 million, which is a considerable sum. One of the biggest problems that the farmers face is not being able to export their beef, and the fault for that lies with the previous Government who gave us BSE. I understand the difficulties and we are discussing them with farmers. We will continue to do what we can, but there are no easy options and certainly no inexpensive options. This Government must consider the full range of demands that are made on us.
§ Dr. LadymanDoes the Prime Minister share my concern that Saddam Hussein almost certainly now has substantial stockpiles of nerve gas and may even have the capacity to construct an atomic weapon? How can we establish an effective system of inspection that can reassure all of us that such weapons are not in his possession?
§ The Prime MinisterMy hon. Friend raises the very reason why it is important that the inspectors can do their work. This is not merely some machismo battle between the United Nations, or the United States and Britain, and Saddam Hussein. The inspectors are there precisely because the capability of weapons of mass destruction was being developed by Saddam Hussein; he may still be developing it and it must be stopped. The UN resolutions are clear: Saddam Hussein should be allowing the inspectors in. It is not for him to dictate the terms of the inspection. The inspection must be carried out as the inspectors want so that Saddam Hussein is prevented from developing weapons of mass destruction and the world is made safer. That is an important objective for the whole of the world community to attain.
§ Q7. Mr. St. AubynGiven that hon. Members have the right to know whether the senior tax collector in this country is under investigation by special officers of the Inland Revenue, will the Prime Minister tell the House now whether the Paymaster General is currently the subject of an investigation by the Inland Revenue's special compliance office?
§ The Prime MinisterThat is just a crude attempt to smear. Conservative Members know perfectly well that neither the Inland Revenue nor any other regulatory body can comment on investigations, whether or not they are being carried out. The Conservatives alleged that my hon. Friend the Paymaster General had avoided UK tax. He has avoided none. They then alleged that he broke House of Commons rules. He has not. They are continuing to do that because they know the previous Government's reputation and are determined to say that all politicians are the same. They are not.