Engagements (Hansard, 28 April 2004)

HC Deb 28 April 2004 vol 420 cc877-84 877

§ Q1. Julie Morgan (Cardiff, North) (Lab)
If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 28 April.

§ 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 will have further such meetings later today.

§ Julie Morgan
My right hon. Friend is aware of the plight of the Allied Steel and Wire workers who stand to lose up to 90 per cent. of their pension entitlement, although many of them have paid money in for up to 40 years. He is aware of their campaign for justice and of the campaign in this House that is led by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan). What can he tell me that I can go back and tell my constituents who paid into that fund? What hope can I give them?

§ The Prime Minister
As I hope that my hon. Friend accepts, we entirely sympathise with the position of the Allied Steel and Wire workers, as well as that of other workers who paid money into a scheme, then found in the end that it yielded them absolutely no benefit. We have the pension protection fund precisely to protect us against such situations in future. In respect of those who have already lost money, we are considering the situation to see exactly what the cost implications of helping them would be, and I hope that I can come back to her and to other hon. Members as soon as possible.

§ Mr. Michael Howard (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
This week, 52 former senior British diplomats wrote to the Prime Minister about Iraq and the middle east. One of the points that they made was that there was no effective plan for the post-Saddam settlement. Does the Prime Minister think that there is anything in that?

§ The Prime Minister
I believe that we carried out all proper planning for what happened after the toppling of Saddam. Many of the things that people anticipated 878 would happen, such as the humanitarian crisis, did not happen. It is true that there is action by former regime elements and by terrorists, some of whom are outside terrorists who have come to Iraq, but it is also true that the vast majority of Iraqi people stand with the coalition in ensuring that Iraq can complete a proper, peaceful transition to democracy.
I would also point out that I thought that the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his party supported us in the action on Iraq.

§ Mr. Howard
Yes, we did; and I agree with the Prime Minister's observations about what the majority of the people of Iraq want. But if he thinks that that somehow disqualifies me from asking perfectly legitimate and relevant questions about what is happening in Iraq now, he grossly misunderstands the nature of our parliamentary democracy.
Let me put to the Prime Minister again some of my questions that he did not answer last week. What say, if any, do the Government think that the Iraqi authorities should have on the deployment of coalition troops after 30 June? Do the Government think—[Interruption.] I am asking about the Government's views on this. Do the Government think that the Iraqi authorities should have the right to decide what happens to any insurgents captured by coalition forces? Can the Prime Minister bring this House up to date on any plans that he may have to send more British troops to Iraq? Have the Americans asked us for more troops? Will more be sent?

§ The Prime Minister
On the question of whether we need more British troops: as I said yesterday, we keep that under constant review depending on the situation in Iraq.

§ In respect of any arrangements that there will be between the new transitional Iraqi Government and the coalition forces, we will discuss that with them at the appropriate time. The situation at the moment, however, is that we have a relationship between the Iraqi governing council and the coalition forces under which we now operate.

§ Let me say to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that I do not in any shape or form say that he should not ask questions about what is happening. I do say that, at a time when coalition forces, including British forces, are engaged in trying to defeat these former regime elements and terrorists, and at a time when reconstruction in Iraq is going ahead subject to this appalling attack by terrorists on coalition forces, I would have hoped that he would support those forces and everyone in Iraq—[Interruption.]

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The House must calm down.

§ The Prime Minister
I would have hoped that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would give us 100 per cent. support for the action that is being taken to defeat these terrorists, unless he is suggesting some alternative strategy which we have not yet heard—[Interruption.]

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I do not want the Deputy Chief Whip shouting. I say that to him because he is nearest me. I call Mr. Hume.

879

§ Mr. John Hume (Foyle) (SDLP)
Following the death of Pat Finucane and the enormous suffering of his family, and given their consistent requests for a public inquiry into his death, does the Prime Minister agree that the time has now come for such an inquiry?

§ The Prime Minister
As we have made clear before, we have announced inquiries into certain of these cases. We stand by the commitments that we gave at Weston Park. There are inquiries proceeding now because of the prosecution in respect of Finucane. We believe it important that that be taken through its proper process, but as I have said to the hon. Gentleman before, we stand by what we said in respect of Weston Park and we will hold to that.

§ Mr. Charles Kennedy (Ross, Skye and Inverness, West) (LD)
Last week at Question Time, the Prime Minister told me that he had no plans for further British troop deployments in Iraq. Today he has acknowledged, as he did earlier this week, that the Government are keeping that situation under review. May I question him a little more closely on that? Did he discuss this specific issue directly with President Bush when he was in the United States? Have the Americans made any specific requests to the Government for more British troops to be considered for deployment, and is the Ministry of Defence working up contingency plans for such an eventuality as we speak?

§ The Prime Minister
Of course we keep under constant discussion with the Americans, who are our allies, the issue of whether we require more troops. It is not correct that specific requests have been made in respect of troops as at the present time, but of course we have to keep the situation under constant review.

§ In respect of what is happening in Fallujah now, it is important to say that the American patrol that has engaged in military action in respect of insurgents inside Fallujah was fired on by those insurgents. It is therefore perfectly right and proper that they take action against those insurgents. Tomorrow, patrols by American and Iraqi police and civil defence forces will begin inside Fallujah. The information that I have is that the vast bulk of people, even in Fallujah, want these insurgents to lay down their weapons and allow a proper process of dialogue to take place. It is of course the case that we keep the situation under constant review, as we should do, because we have made a commitment to people in Iraq that we will ensure that we create a security situation in which a proper political process can work. But at present we believe that we have sufficient troops.

§ Mr. Kennedy
I thank the Prime Minister for that detailed reply. Following what he has just said, I am sure that he will acknowledge that it is legitimate for some of us—who have shown perhaps a degree more consistency—to ask these questions. Does he agree that, in the eventuality of further British troops having to be deployed, it will be utterly legitimate for them and for the country to see that he can demonstrate his influence in Washington, particularly in regard to coming forward with a clear, coherent military and political strategy to deal with the violence in Iraq, rather than one that relies of the overwhelming use of United States military force?

880

§ The Prime Minister
With the greatest respect, we have a very clear political and military strategy. The political strategy is to ensure that there is a transition to a democratic Iraqi Government. That will begin as a process after 30 June with transfer of sovereignty to a transitional Government. Then there will be a plebiscite on the issue of an assembly that will then draw up the new constitution, which will then be put to the people of Iraq at the end of 2005. That is the political process. It is supported by the overwhelming majority of people in the international community.

§ The military strategy is equally clear. It is to ensure that we can achieve sufficient security in Iraq for that political process to work. I have always said this and I do not disrespect anyone who took a different view from me on the wisdom of the conflict in Iraq, but surely everybody can now agree that that political and military strategy is essentially right. Of course, if it is the case that American soldiers are being fired on, American soldiers are going to have to fire back and take action to ensure that these insurgents, these former regime elements and terrorists cannot disrupt the political process.

§ I should say at the moment that any action that is being taken is being taken in accordance with the agreement with this national security council established in Iraq, which includes, from the Iraqi governing council, the Iraqi defence Minister. There are Iraqi Ministers here in this country at the moment, and I think the right hon. Gentleman will find that the vast majority of them agree, and the people of Iraq agree, that we need security to be maintained so that the overwhelming desire for a democratic Iraq is achieved.

§ Laura Moffatt (Crawley) (Lab)
Will the Prime Minister congratulate Nursing Standard magazine on its year-long campaign to promote and to celebrate nurses throughout the UK? Will he tell it that the nearly 70,000 extra nurses whom we have in our health service today are a real commitment to our NHS, and that there has never been a better time to be a nurse in this country?

§ The Prime Minister
I am delighted at that, and I say to my hon. Friend that there are, of course, tens of thousands of extra nurses in the national health service. We have a situation today in this country where every single national indicator—in-patient and out-patient waiting times, waiting times to see a GP, people's treatment in respect of cancer and cardiac care—is in a far better position than in 1997. That is as a result of the investment and reform programme, which this Government will continue.

§ Q2. Dr. Vincent Cable (Twickenham) (LD)
The most recent estimate of the cost to the British taxpayer of the war and continued occupation of Iraq is about £6 billion to £7 billion. With growing debate about further troop deployment, does the Prime Minister have any plans to plug the hole in the Chancellor's budget, or does he intend, like Sir Anthony Eden, to risk a financial crisis?

§ The Prime Minister
I do not recognise the figures that the hon. Gentleman gives, or indeed the analogy, but I have to say to him that I believe that the presence of British troops in Iraq is important to secure Iraq so that, as I was saying earlier, it can become a democratic and 881 stable country. Let us be quite clear: if it does so—if we succeed in doing what we have set out to do in Iraq—the benefits will be felt not just in Iraq but throughout the middle east and throughout the world. The blow against the propaganda of the extremists and fanatics who are trying either to kill people in Iraq or to kill people here in Europe would be immense. That is why it is important that we hold firm to the course we have set out and do what we said we would do.

§ Mr. Eric Martlew (Carlisle) (Lab)
I am sure that my right hon. Friend, like me, is looking forward to the longer days and the lighter nights of summer, but is he aware that an increasing number of people dread it? That is because of the loutish behaviour, fuelled by alcohol, of many young people in our town centres and public spaces. In my own constituency, for example, under-age drinkers go into the parks and make a severe nuisance of themselves. Is it not time that the Government took action to help to solve that problem?

§ The Prime Minister
I am pleased to say that we are indeed taking action on it. Some of the measures that we are taking include the ability to use exclusion orders to ban those causing trouble from pubs, clubs and town centres. Of course, there are now the fixed-penalty notices and also the power of the police to shut down pubs and clubs where this binge drinking is happening and disorder results. These measures on antisocial behaviour are a vital part of the work that the police are now doing, which means that crime overall, since this Government came to power, has fallen, not risen.

§ Mr. Michael Howard (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
May I break with all recent precedent and ask the Prime Minister a question about his engagements? When did he decide to make yesterday's speech on immigration?

§ The Prime Minister
Extraordinary question! I actually decided to make a speech on immigration many months ago when I realised that this was an issue of huge public concern, and when I thought that it was important that, as well as announcing measures to make sure that we got proper controls on immigration, we stated that it is to the benefit of this country that controlled and selective migration should take place. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman agrees with that.

§ Mr. Howard
Everyone knows that the Prime Minister's speech yesterday was arranged hastily, at the last minute, because he was in a panic over newspaper headlines. We know this because at the end of last week he sent all Labour Members of Parliament—I hope that they have not forgotten—a list of all major Government speeches planned for this week. I have a copy of it here. For some extraordinary reason, it does not even mention the Prime Minister's keynote speech on immigration yesterday.
The reason why the timing of all this is important is that these days people are interested to know whether the Prime Minister is thinking more than one day ahead—on anything. We have been drawing attention to this problem for months. Now European Union accession is only three days away. Why have the 882 regulations, which would give effect to the measures to which he referred yesterday, still not been laid before the House?

§ The Prime Minister
They will be in place for 1 May, when the accession treaty comes into force, and the package of those measures was announced on 23 February by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. Since we are debating the record on immigration—[Interruption.]

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. Members should allow the Prime Minister to speak.

§ The Prime Minister
Since we are debating the record on immigration, we might like to point out exactly what the record of the Conservative Government was. We had an exchange on this, as people may remember, some weeks ago, when the Leader of the Opposition disputed the fact that asylum claims had risen by 50 per cent. when he was Home Secretary. I have checked the figures, and they did indeed rise by 50 per cent. What is more, the backlog had reached nearly 60,000 cases, it took 20 months to get an initial asylum decision, and when we came to office, we discovered that he was planning, as Home Secretary, to cut immigration posts by 1,200. Furthermore, we also discovered that the European accessions treaty, which allowed people free movement here after accession, was actually signed when he was Home Secretary.

§ Mr. Howard
And when I—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] Oh yes, I will deal with the Prime Minister's point. When I left office, the number of asylum seekers was falling and it was less than half the number today. The Prime Minister does not know when the regulations that would give effect to the measures to which he referred yesterday are going to be laid before the House. He could not tell us when, and he has not given us any clear explanation for this week's shambles. Let me therefore ask him about last week's shambles. Why did he begin—[Interruption.] I think that some right hon. and hon. Members on the Labour Benches will be interested in this question. [Interruption.]

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. Let the right hon. and learned Gentleman speak.

§ Mr. Howard
Why did the Prime Minister begin last week's Cabinet meeting with an apology?

§ The Prime Minister
Because, as we had to bring forward the announcement of the referendum, it was obviously important to tell people why. We will now be in a position to have a debate about the facts in respect of the European Union. Since the Leader of the Opposition raises the issue, I have been doing a little research on what his position actually is on Europe. There are now 20 Conservative Front-Bench Members who believe in the following proposition put forward by Conservatives Against a Federal Europe: Our national aim should be to seek a separate relationship with the EU…If it is not possible to attain these ends by negotiation. we must withdraw from the European Union"— 883 [Interruption.] Of course, Mr. Speaker, Conservative Members want your protection against the truth.

§ Mr. Howard
The organisation to which the Prime Minister refers has been disbanded—and there is only one party leader at the Dispatch Box who has stood on a manifesto based on taking this country out of the European Union, and it is not me.
The Prime Minister had to apologise to the Cabinet last week because he had performed the biggest U-turn of his Government, and had not even bothered to consult the Cabinet beforehand. Is it any wonder that the former Secretary of State for Health, the right hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn), the keeper of the Blairite flame—there he is!—said this yesterday? politics and trust in it is corroded when you have people who shilly shally and mess about". Is that not a perfect description of this Prime Minister? Is it not now obvious to everyone that we have a Prime Minister in panic and a Government on the run?

§ The Prime Minister
In fact CAFE's website has been suspended, showing the words "domain reserved"—and actually I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman will find that each of the Members who signed that statement still believe it. In case he wants confirmation of that, let me read out what the vice-chairman of the Conservative party whom he has appointed has said. We need a government that is going to say…we are ending the existing relationship with the European Union'. That is actually what this is about.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman talks of trust in politics. I will tell him what people will trust. They will trust an economy with the lowest interest rates, lowest unemployment and lowest inflation for decades, as opposed to someone who put unemployment up by a million. They will trust a Government who are increasing investment in health and education, as opposed to someone introducing the poll tax. And they will trust a Government who are reducing poverty, not a former member of a failed Tory Government who opposed the minimum wage.

§ Q4. Ann McKechin (Glasgow, Maryhill) (Lab)
As the Prime Minister will know, this week South Africa celebrates 10 years of freedom and democracy, as well as economic stability and growth. The countries of sub-Saharan Africa, meanwhile, continue to repay —16 million of debt a day, and one in five of their children will not survive until their fifth birthday. Does the Prime Minister agree that the new Africa Commission that he has helped to set up should decide that now is the time to cancel all the debt of the world's poorest nations?

§ The Prime Minister
I know my hon. Friend will accept that the measures that the Government have taken on debt relief for the most highly indebted countries in the world have had a huge impact on those countries and their ability to move forward. We always look to see what more we can do; but I was particularly proud to go to South Africa house yesterday and join in the celebration of 10 years of freedom, knowing that it was this party in opposition that asked for sanctions 884 against that apartheid regime when the Conservative Government opposed those sanctions, which helped to change apartheid.

§ Mrs. Patsy Calton (Cheadle) (LD)
Would the Prime Minister support a ban on smoking in enclosed public spaces?

§ The Secretary of State for Health (Dr. John Reid)
We are consulting widely.

§ The Prime Minister
As my right hon. Friend says, we are consulting widely, and we will continue to do so. Obviously we must find a balance between doing our best to ensure that people can be in a smoke-free environment if they wish and observing people's freedom to smoke. We will return to the matter when we have the results of the consultation.

§ Q5. Dan Norris (Wansdyke) (Lab)
Some 24,000 people are alive today because of new NHS drugs that prevent heart attacks, and a further million are benefiting from them in that, for example, they are not becoming disabled. Is it not an insult to NHS staff that their terrific performance is not properly measured through NHS performance and productivity targets?

§ The Prime Minister
It is of course, which is the very reason why they have to be changed. The present way of calculating productivity in schools, for example, means that, if we halve the number of teachers, we double productivity in our schools. That is patently absurd. It takes no account of school results, for example. What my hon. Friend says in respect of health is correct. It is not just a question of measuring the number of inpatient procedures carried out by consultants. It is the number of out-patient appointments, the speed with which people can see their consultant, and the speed with which we have been able to reduce cancer and cardiac deaths—20 per cent. down in respect of cardiac care. That is in part because of the expenditure of almost £1 billion a year on statins, the life-saving drugs. Those things are not currently found in the measurement of productivity. That is plainly why it is right to change it.