Engagements (Hansard, 8 November 2000)

§ Q1. Mr. Bob Blizzard (Waveney)
If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 8 November.

§ The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair)
This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

§ Mr. Blizzard
Is not the real problem with fuel prices revealed by looking at the fuel used by fishing boats? There is no duty at all on marine diesel, yet prices have trebled because of the high international price of crude oil. The trawlermen of Lowestoft cannot make a living with such high prices. They understand that the problem is not of the Government's making, but can a way forward be found so that the fishing industry can survive the high prices and the fish for our national dish can still be caught by British fishermen?

§ The Prime Minister
It is the rise in world oil prices that has caused most difficulty, but the industry is currently experiencing extensive and difficult restructuring. However, I am pleased to be able to tell my hon. Friend that the fisheries departments of England and the devolved Administrations will make some £60 million available during the next few years to help the fishing industry to adapt to the difficult times in which it now exists.

§ Mr. William Hague (Richmond, Yorks)
For great numbers of people today their main concern is the flooding of their homes, which has caused genuine misery and distress. I know that the Prime Minister will want to join me in expressing sympathy to all those affected in recent days and, once again, profound gratitude for the magnificent response of the emergency services.
306 In examining what more can be done in future by any Government, does the Prime Minister agree that all parties should look again at the verdict of the Select Committee on Agriculture that the current responsibilities for tackling flooding may be too fragmented and that there is a lack of clarity as to which body is ultimately in charge?

§ The Prime Minister
Of course I join in the thanks to the emergency services, which, as ever, have performed magnificently in extremely difficult circumstances, and of course we will consider the Agriculture Committee's suggestion. I think that the Environment Agency is due to report back on that very issue.
I am afraid that it looks very much as if (the problem will not go away during the next few years. The floods have been the worst for 50 years and, in some cases, for 100 years. We must put in the short-term measures necessary—flood defences and so on—and then we must take, on an international level, some of the difficult decisions, perhaps ducked for too long, about some of the issues of climate change.

§ Mr. Hague
I thank the Prime Minister for that reply. He will know that the independent review team set up after the 1998 floods described weaknesses in the planning and delivery of flood defence and warning policies—[Interruption.] Hon. Members may not think this is important, but to thousands of people in north Yorkshire who have had to leave their homes it is very important, despite everything else that is happening in the world today.
The independent review team also said that, under successive Administrations, the Environment Agency did not achieve its own performance targets. In the light of that, would it not be sensible, across parties, to review the powers and effectiveness of the Environment Agency in dealing with flood planning and warnings?

§ The Prime Minister
It was precisely as a result of the lessons learned in 1998 that the new emergency warning system was introduced; and that worked well in this instance. We have also spent more money on flood defences than ever before—up by about 50 per cent. during the past 10 years or so. Of course, we shall consider what else we can do, and we are prepared to consider any suggestions.
I am glad, too, that the right hon. Gentleman sees that this is a matter for cross-party co-operation. Everyone wants to ensure that we have the proper flood defences in place. For those people affected at the moment, the situation is desperate, and we must do everything possible to help them. However, we must look not merely at the short—term measures that are necessary to protect Britain against floods, but, at an international level, at what we can do to try to reduce the incidence of such freak climate changes that are happening not just in Britain but throughout Europe and the rest of the world.

§ Mr. Clive Efford (Eltham)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the road has not been built that can accommodate all the bandwagons on which the Leader of the Opposition has jumped recently? My constituents have approached me to say that the self-appointed leaders of the road fuel lobby do not represent their views on 307 investment in public services, or the need to improve education, to tackle the environment and improve the quality of the air that they are forced to breathe. If those self-appointed leaders are intent on mocking the memory of the Jarrow hunger marchers, perhaps my right hon. Friend would like to pull them over to the side of the motorway and keep them there until they feel the pangs of hunger in their bellies, and know what it is to struggle. Perhaps they will then go home and respect the need to run the country by law and democracy.

§ The Prime Minister
Whatever people's grievances about the cost of fuel, I hope that we can agree on two matters. First, those grievances should be pursued lawfully and properly, without trying to disrupt the country's food supplies or bring the motorways or any other aspect of the country to a halt. Secondly, anything that we do to try to address those grievances cannot be at the expense of economic stability, investment in our public services or any other action that we want to take for other people who need our help, notably pensioners.

§ Mr. Charles Kennedy (Ross, Skye and Inverness, West)
To return to flooding, does the Prime Minister believe that an explanation is owed to those whose homes and businesses have been flooded of the fact that, five months ago, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food received a report which stated that there was an urgent case for fresh investment in flood prevention measures? Why has it taken five months and the latest catastrophe before extra funds have been forthcoming?

§ The Prime Minister
It has not taken five months, because we have been increasing the amount of money for flood defences. The Deputy Prime Minister tells me that, in some respects, we are putting in more money than the report requested. As a result of the announcements that were made a few days ago, the Bellwin scheme will be paid at 100 per cent. That will provide significant help to people. An extra £51 million has also been announced. Before then, not only as a result of the report but because of circumstances that existed a couple of years ago, we increased investment in flood defences.

§ Mr. Kennedy
The House has already welcomed the additional money, but will the Prime Minister confirm two points? First, will he confirm that the additional sums will be spread over the next four years, and that the headline figure does not apply to the current financial year? Secondly, does he acknowledge, in the light of the advice that the Government received five months ago, that if they had acted earlier and with greater alacrity, some of the worst effects could have been avoided?

§ The Prime Minister
That is very unfair. It would be unfortunate if the bandwagon tendency had been transferred.
We have put in the extra money. It will be spread over four years, as the Deputy Prime Minister announced, but there is a limit to what we can do in the short term. We have put in additional sums of money in the past few years. Indeed, it is fair to say that even under the previous Government, additional sums were put in after the floods in the late 1980s. We must continue to make that 308 investment. However, even with the best investment and safeguards, there will be an increasing problem unless we also deal with some of the longer-term issues.

§ Maria Eagle (Liverpool, Garston)
Does my right hon. Friend welcome, as I do, the publication of Mr. Justice Colman's report on the reopened inquiry into the sinking of the MV Derbyshire? The report exonerates the master and crew of any blame for the sinking. Will he join me in congratulating the families of the 44 people who died? Those families fought a 20-year campaign to get at the truth of what happened. Will he also join me in congratulating the Deputy Prime Minister, whose determination to reopen the inquiry has been so fully vindicated today?

§ The Prime Minister
I am happy to offer my congratulations on the campaign and pay tribute to the families of those who lost their lives. As my hon. Friend said, that campaign stretches over 20 years. We studied the matter very carefully on coming to office and, indeed, before that—my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has had a long-standing commitment to this issue. We established the inquiry and we shall now study the results. I am pleased that, after two decades of trying, we are finally getting closer to the truth of what happened. We are now able to study the results of that report and take appropriate action.

§ Q2. Mr. Andrew George (St. Ives)
The Prime Minister has rightly given power to places that people identify with, but when will he complete that unfinished business? Will he make sure that Assemblies in future reflect regions that people identify with, have a clear popular mandate and are fully democratic?

§ The Prime Minister
We have always said that that has to be driven by local people themselves—they have got to want such Assemblies to be established. In the meantime, of course, we have made considerable progress in decentralising government, in particular with the establishment of the regional development agencies. For example, the South West of England regional development agency, as the hon. Gentleman knows, played a key role in securing objective 1 status for Cornwall, which will be worth more than £300 million over the next seven years. Seven thousand five hundred new job opportunities have been created or safeguarded through the RDA and there have been 37 inward investment projects, which have attracted a capital investment of more than £100 million. Those are considerable achievements on which to build for the future.

§ Q3. Angela Smith (Basildon)
In the context of the national debate on public services, I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the actions of Essex county council. Is he aware that, just like the Tory Opposition in the House, Essex Tories promised to tax less and to deliver more? Yesterday, however, they announced education spending cuts of three quarters of a million pounds, including more than a third of a million from under-fives education. Does that not just go to prove that people who vote Tory are jeopardising their children's education?

§ The Prime Minister
I suppose that at least we could accuse the Tories of consistency. What they are doing at 309 a local level they are committed to doing at a national level. To anybody who doubted what we were saying about the £16 billion worth of cuts, let me inform the House of what the shadow Chancellor said just a few weeks ago: We have committed ourselves at the moment to matching them on health. The interviewer asked, "And education?" The reply was: No we haven't made that commitment. It is perfectly obvious that the investment that has reduced class sizes for five, six and seven-year-olds, the investment in school buildings and the investment that has given us the best test results for 11-year-olds this country has ever seen would all be taken away by the Conservatives, were they returned to power.

§ Q4. Mr. Michael Jack (Fylde)
The Prime Minister will be aware that, after voting Labour, people in Preston are experiencing the highest council tax in Lancashire. What steps will he take to deal with the situation, at a time when members of his party in Preston are still busy fighting each other about who will speak for Labour in the by-election?

§ The Prime Minister
The level of the tax, of course, is a matter for the local council. Let me just say—[Interruption] Well, it is. Let me just point out that, actually, the rises in—[Interruption.]

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. Hon. Members should quieten down.

§ The Prime Minister
Let me just point out to hon. Members that the council tax rises in the last three years of the Government whom they supported were more than double the rate of inflation.

§ Q5. Mr. Andrew Love (Edmonton)
What efforts is my right hon. Friend making to assist homeless families, especially in Greater London, in recognition of how adversely they were affected by Tory Governments and their failed housing policies?

§ The Prime Minister
We are taking measures, particularly in relation to the homeless, that have, for example, reduced the number of rough sleepers by a third in the past couple of years. We will also, by 2003, put an extra £1.6 billion worth of investment into housing. The most important thing that we can do for housing is to keep interest rates and mortgages low. Let me remind the House that in the 18 years of Conservative government, interest rates averaged 10 per cent. Under this Government, they have averaged 6 per cent. That is a saving of well over £1,000 a year to the average mortgage payer.

§ Mr. William Hague (Richmond, Yorks)
Will the Prime Minister tell the House what is now the total cost to the public of the millennium dome?

§ The Prime Minister
The figures have been set out many times before and there has been £660 million of lottery grant—[Interruption.] Well, because the right hon. Gentleman has been going around the country attacking the funding of the dome, saying what a terrible idea it was 310 and that he would never have thought of it, let me refresh his memory about the Cabinet Committee GEN 36, which was established in February 1996 by the then Prime Minister to consider all aspects of the dome, including funding, financial management, who should be appointed, where the dome should be sited and how it was to be designed. I shall read out the membership of that sub-group. It was chaired by the then Deputy Prime Minister, with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and—guess who else?—the right hon. Gentleman, who was then Secretary of State for Wales. I will accept criticism of the dome from members of the public, but not from the right hon. Gentleman.

§ Mr. Hague
So the Prime Minister does not know how much he has squandered on the dome as a result of his mismanagement and cronyism. If he wants to quote what was said about the dome in the past, we should look at his speech in the royal festival hall, "Why the dome is good for Britain". The Prime Minister said: It is costing just £400 million … It will turn in a profit for Britain. Last December, the Prime Minister said: Like anything new in Britain, the Dome has to see off … those … who are made uneasy by success. Since then, because of the Prime Minister's plans—not the plans of any previous Administration—the Prime Minister put in £50 million when the dome started, £60 million in February, £29 million in May, £43 million in August and £47 million in September. Will the Prime Minister tell the country how much in total has now been taken out of the public pocket because of that monument of ministerial mismanagement?

§ The Prime Minister
Let me run through what was in that Committee's remit—

Hon. Members
How much?

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I cannot tolerate hon. Gentlemen shouting, "How much?" The Prime Minister will answer the question in his own way.

§ The Prime Minister
The decisions to build the dome and to choose the Greenwich site were taken by that Committee. The appointment of senior managers was decided by it, as was the lottery money and financing that the right hon. Gentleman now complains about. It took the decision to split jobs between two Ministers and, we have discovered, it gave the visitor number projections. The only difference between the robbers who were caught at the dome yesterday and the right hon. Gentleman is the fact that the Tories are never caught at the scene of the crime.

Hon. Members
More.

§ Mr. Hague
It defies credulity—[Horn. MEMBERS: "More."] Oh, there is plenty more. It defies credulity that the Prime Minister now thinks that it is all to do with the previous Administration. There was an attempt to drive a bulldozer into the dome yesterday, but the biggest robbery is the fact that the Government did not drive a bulldozer into it two months ago. Visitor number figures were reviewed by the Deputy Prime Minister and his colleagues and were confirmed. They were not set in place by the 311 previous Government. How can the Prime Minister claim that the planning was due to the previous Administration, when he said: These plans require a leap of faith …? He went on to say that they were the most exciting thing happening in the world in the year 2000. How can he blame the previous Government, when he said: The Dome itself will last for decades to come after the year 2000. It will become an international landmark …? How can he blame it on the previous Administration when he said: And believe me— which always arouses our suspicions— it will be the envy of the world …? If the National Audit Office report to be published tomorrow seriously criticises the Government and the Ministry for their mishandling of the dome, will the Minister with responsibility for the dome take that responsibility and resign?

§ The Prime Minister
Let us see what the report actually says. I should point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the visitor number estimates were first done by his Government and his Committee. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!] Yes, it is true that they were reviewed by us, so let us share a bit of the responsibility. As for his comments about the dome, it is correct that those visitor numbers were out, although more than 5 million people will go to the dome this year; but on the other side of the balance sheet, the total value of the north Greenwich peninsular is liable to be about £1 billion. All that is true. However, I will not accept criticism from the right hon. Gentleman. When I was doing his job, I was visited by the Cabinet Minister then in charge of this project who was chairing the Committee that the right hon. Gentleman was on. He asked us for our support, and told us that if we did not give that support thousands of jobs would be at risk and a great international event would not be staged in this country. I am prepared to accept, and have accepted, criticism from the public, but I am not prepared to accept criticism from the person who sat on that Committee, took those decisions and, now that a little bandwagon has gone out, has decided to motor it off.

§ Mr. Hague
The Prime Minister once boasted that the dome would be the first paragraph of the next Labour election manifesto. Had he proposed to start his election manifesto by saying that his party shared this responsibility with the Conservative party? Was that what he had in mind? Now he wants to share the responsibility. Has not the whole saga shown that Ministers cannot be trusted with the public's money? Is it not true that this story of hype, emptiness, cronyism, lack of delivery and rash promises is not the first paragraph of Labour's manifesto but the last word about this Government?

§ The Prime Minister
Even though the right hon. Gentleman decided the financing and the management of the dome, he now tells us that it was the wrong thing to do. Two things come out of this exchange. First, he wants to deny the part that he personally played in bringing about the dome. Secondly, his opportunism does not end there. I am amazed that today of all days the right hon.
312 Gentleman has not come to the Dispatch Box and asked us about the economy. He has been going round the country telling us that it is in crisis as a result of our mismanagement. Why has he chosen to go on the issue of the dome? Because he knows that when it comes to the economy he has nothing to say.

§ Q6. Gillian Merron (Lincoln)
Has the Prime Minister seen the survey in Saga Magazine, which shows that seven out of 10 people have given a big thumbs down to the Opposition's plans to axe winter fuel payments and free television licences for the over-75s? The survey shows that pensioners want to keep those vital payments as well as have an increase in the basic state pension—a fact that the Tories have singularly failed to grasp.

§ The Prime Minister
That is right. The Conservatives would take away the winter fuel allowance of £150 and the free television licences. The thing about both those sums of money that have been given to pensioners is that they are not affected by tax or benefit. It is crucially important that pensioners are allowed to receive those benefits. Once again, the Conservative party shows how it would let down the pensioners of this country.
I should also say that we will be putting more money into pensions overall in this Parliament than we would have done had we relinked the basic state pensions with earnings. That is because we on this side of the House care about all pensioners, not just a few.

§ Sir Teddy Taylor (Rochford and Southend, East)
In view of increasing public concern about the concentration of power in Europe, is it really true that the Prime Minister is planning to surrender the veto in substantial new policy spheres? Would it not be better for Europe and for Britain if we asked the European Union to use its current powers more sensibly, rather than passed over more power from a democratic Parliament to a non-elected body?

§ The Prime Minister
No; as I have made very clear, we will not surrender the veto at all on tax and treaty change issues or on a range of other issues. However, there are issues on which we would be prepared to examine qualified majority voting, when it is in our interests to do so.
Conservative Members now take the position that they will not have any extension of qualified majority voting at all. However, of the two largest extensions of qualified majority voting—far larger than anything that we have either done or proposed to do in government—the first was made by Margaret Thatcher, when she was Prime Minister, in 1986, and the second by my immediate predecessor as Prime Minister, in the Maastricht treaty.

§ Mr. William Cash (Stone)
They got it wrong.

§ The Prime Minister
That is not what Conservative Members said at the time.
At the time, qualified majority voting was important. If we did not have qualified majority voting in relation to some agriculture issues or in respect of completion of the single market, for example, we could not properly protect British business interests. We should therefore judge it on a case-by-case basis. We should keep the veto when it is 313 essential in our national interest to do so. We should also, however, engage constructively in the rest of the debate and get the best deal for Britain.

§ Q7. Mr. Ben Chapman (Wirral, South)
My right hon. Friend will be aware that, on many occasions and over a long time, the issue of compensation for former prisoners of war in the far east has been raised. I am pleased, and indeed proud, that it is this Government who have made the decision to award that compensation. However, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is a matter not only of financial settlement, but of this generation recognising the sacrifice and suffering incurred, on its behalf, by an earlier generation?

§ The Prime Minister
The financial gratuity can never, of course, compensate properly for the pain and suffering that people went through: more than 12,000 people died as far east prisoners of war or as civilians. Yesterday, I met some of those who survived, and some of the widows of those who were killed in those camps, and one simply cannot fail to be struck by their courage, fortitude and commitment. I am pleased that we were able to make this payment to them. I think that it is long overdue, and that it goes some way to recognising the sacrifice that they made in the interests of this country.

§ Mr. Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham)
Does the Prime Minister share my concern about the news overnight that the motor company Daewoo has gone bankrupt, and the impact that that will have on the Daewoo European Technical Centre in my constituency in Worthing and the 700 jobs that it provides? Will he and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry bring every pressure to bear on the Korean authorities, particularly the receiver, to ensure that new owners can be arranged as soon as possible, to maintain that centre of excellence in my constituency as a viable and intact business that has a great bearing on our whole economy and not only on that of the south coast?

§ The Prime Minister
I can certainly assure the hon. Gentleman that we will do everything we can; indeed, our ambassador in Korea is already in touch with the Korean authorities. It is an extremely difficult situation, and I 314 understand the concern and anxiety that his constituents must have. We will do all we possibly can. The centre is highly renowned and very much valued indeed. I am sure that, if we can, we will secure a future for it. However, it is something that will have to be discussed in detail in the coming days and weeks.

§ Q8. Mr. Geraint Davies (Croydon, Central)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that, on the economy, the real choice facing the British people is not between those who claim to spend more and those who claim to tax less, but between the 1 million new jobs created by the Labour party—thereby allowing more spending and lower tax, as people do not draw the dole when they are working—and Tory boom and bust, in which there are millions of people on the dole, bankruptcies, repossessions and, consequently, higher taxes and service cuts?

§ The Prime Minister
Two very obvious things will happen with the Conservatives, the first of which is the £60 billion of spending cuts. It is increasingly clear that those spending cuts will fall on schools, hospitals, transport, police and so on. Additionally, the policy that they are now pursuing is an absolute replica of boom and bust—which is exactly what would happen. We must avoid the danger of replicating those policies of the late 1980s and early 1990s.
To show you, Mr. Speaker, that the Opposition do not even know in which direction they need to drive their bandwagons, how about this speech from the shadow Chief Secretary this morning? Once they have decided that we might be helping people in the pre-Budget report, the shadow Chief Secretary goes on the radio and says: If the Chancellor gives a large amount away, either in tax reductions or in spending increases, the fact is you'll just have a huge hit on interest rates from the Bank of England. The interviewer said: So we could expect prudence? The shadow Chief Secretary said: We certainly ought to demand prudence. The Opposition have been going around telling us to do all these things; now they come along today and ask for prudence. Well, I hope they cheer when they get it.