| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Ministerial Visits
Q8. Mr. Baker: To ask the Prime Minister when he next plans to visit the Lewes constituency. [3892]
The Prime Minister: I have no immediate plans to visit that constituency, but I shall certainly do so when I can.
Mr. Baker: I am sorry that the Prime Minister does not plan to visit Lewes, but if he were to speak to my constituents he would find that the three priorities that have been identified are the same as those in Bolsover--investment in health, investment in education and more police on the beat. Can he help to solve a problem for my constituents, who want to know why the Government are committed to cutting tax for those at the top of our society by introducing a starting rate? Would it not be fairer and
provide more than £1 billion if he increased the top-rate tax to 50p in the pound for the 1 per cent. who did well under the Tory Government? That would release £1 billion for health, education and law and order. Is it more important for the Prime Minister to featherbed the top 1 per cent. than to provide decent public services for everybody else?
The Prime Minister: First, as the hon. Gentleman knows, it is not our policy to raise the top rate of tax, but the 10p starting rate of tax would help many low-income families. Many of those low-income families often face high marginal rates of tax--sometimes 80 or 90 per cent., and sometimes even over 100 per cent. As the top marginal tax rates have come down, we believe that it is right and just to try to reduce the marginal rates of tax at the bottom end. That is the reason for that.
On funding programmes, I hope that the Liberal Democrat party will review its opposition to the windfall tax, which is entirely fair and absolutely right, and could help many young people to find the jobs and education that they need.
Engagements
Q9. Mr. Thompson: As the Prime Minister basks in his great mandate for the Labour party, has he noticed the proportionally greater mandate received by the Unionist party in Northern Ireland, where we received 13 seats out of 18 and more than 50 per cent. of the votes? It is a mandate opposed to the Anglo-Irish Agreement, opposed to the framework document and opposed to sitting down with IRA-Sinn Fein with guns on the table, under the table and outside the door. Does the Prime Minister respect that mandate, and will he acknowledge it? [3893]
The Prime Minister: Of course I acknowledge the Unionist party's mandate. After Prime Minister's questions, I shall make a statement on how we try to achieve a lasting political settlement in Northern Ireland. It is very difficult, and difficult decisions have to be taken there; but I hope that the hon. Gentleman understands that, just as I respect the good faith with which he carries out his work, we are trying in good faith to ensure that we get the lasting political settlement that we want. I hope that we can do that on a basis that is satisfactory to his position as well as to everyone else's.
Q10. Mr. Hanson: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the strong links between social disorder and vandalism, and high levels of subsequent crime in many of our neighbourhoods and estates? Does he agree that the need to tackle crime is extremely important, but that to do so we must pledge ourselves to zero tolerance of vandalism and social disorder on many of our estates? Will he give that pledge today to the House? [3894]
The Prime Minister: I can certainly give that pledge on both those elements.
First, it is essential that we provide hope and opportunity for young people who are unemployed, which is why the windfall tax and the welfare-to-work programme are so important. If we cannot achieve that aim in that way, those young people will simply be left where they are, without the hope and opportunity that they need.
Secondly, with that opportunity comes responsibility. The Crime and Disorder Bill which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is to introduce will contain measures that crack down on juvenile offending and anti-social behaviour. It is precisely the right balance of rights and duties which the overwhelming majority of people in this country want.
Q11. Mr. Rendel:
Following his answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), can the Prime Minister confirm that, if savings are made this year by one Department, they will be allocated to another Department, even if that means that the receiving Department's ceiling is thereby exceeded? [3895]
The Prime Minister:
No. As I made clear to the right hon. Member for Yeovil, the overall control total and the departmental limits will stay. As the right hon. Gentleman noted, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made it clear in Denver that if, for example, we can get social security bills down, there can be greater investment in education. We do not take a ridiculous view on the matter, but it is important to keep the limits in place because of the enormous problems that we will inherit.
Mr. Fabian Hamilton:
Is my right hon. Friend aware that the estimated annual cost of prescription fraud recently uncovered by the Department of Health amounts to more than £100 million, equivalent to 14,500 heart bypass operations or 22,000 hip replacements? Will he ensure that there is speedy action to crack down on such fraud, in particular by introducing a criminal offence of evading payment?
The Prime Minister:
I totally agree with what my hon. Friend says about prescription fraud. It is costing the national health service tens of millions of pounds every year. That is why we have taken action. The precise nature of the action and the sanctions that will be applied are being considered by my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary. If people defraud the system, they are committing a criminal offence, and the law should be properly applied. Although it is important that we make sure of the right provision in the health service, it is equally important that we bear down heavily on any attempt to defraud the system.
Q12. Mr. Lansley:
Will the Prime Minister make a decision and say now that no pensioner who currently receives free prescriptions will be asked to pay for them by his Government? [3896]
The Prime Minister:
I went through that matter last week with the Leader of the Opposition's predecessor. The review will be carried out. We are not getting into the business of ruling in or ruling out every single thing. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman wait for the outcome of the review, before attacking us. I suggest that he also bear in mind the fact that the party of charges in the health service is his party--[Interruption.] If the Opposition want a debate about it, I point out that that party removed free eye tests, put up dental charges and increased prescription charges 953 per cent. in real terms. We do not need lessons from the Conservative party.
Ms Oona King:
Is my right hon. Friend aware that my constituency of Bethnal Green and Bow suffers the worst
The Prime Minister:
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to the problems that many people face in the inner cities. That is precisely why we have introduced programmes to tackle long-term unemployment and inner-city regeneration programmes--including the release of capital receipts and other measures that will help people to find work. [Interruption.] Conservative Members may not think that this is a problem, but I assure them that it is. It should be the fundamental objective of any Government to try to alleviate poverty among the most disadvantaged in our
Q13. Dr. Tonge:
In view of recent press reports, which quote Government sources, about the inevitability of a fifth terminal at Heathrow airport and in view of the on-going public inquiry, which is costing many millions of pounds, will the Prime Minister tell us the Government's position regarding a fifth terminal? [3897]
The Prime Minister:
The position is that we have always said that we will await the outcome of the inquiry--[Interruption.] That is not just our position; it was also the position adopted by the previous Government. It is really the only sensible thing to do. If an inquiry is established to determine whether planning consent should be given, it is only sensible that one should await the outcome of that inquiry before making a decision. That is not extraordinary; it is plain common sense.
3.30 pm
The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): Madam Speaker, with permission, I shall make a statement about the Government's continuing search for peace and a political settlement in Northern Ireland.
In my speech in Belfast on 16 May, I set out the principles of the Government's approach: first, the primacy of the consent principle, to make it clear that any settlement must command the consent of both unionists and nationalists and cannot be imposed on Northern Ireland against the wishes of a majority of its people; secondly, the need for urgent progress in the talks and particularly the need for the key political issues to be addressed as soon as possible; thirdly, the absolute unacceptability of violence or the threat of violence in the democratic process; fourthly, the desirability of talks involving all the parties, including Sinn Fein, if, and only if, there is an unequivocal IRA ceasefire; and, fifthly, the need to move on rapidly without Sinn Fein if there is not.
I want, therefore, to move as rapidly as possible to an agreed political settlement. The situation in Northern Ireland means that delay is not acceptable. I also continue to believe that such a settlement must be one with which all the people of Northern Ireland can feel comfortable and to which they can give their allegiance. The outline of a settlement is clear. The key elements are devolution in Northern Ireland, including an Assembly elected and operating on a widely acceptable basis; and sensible cross-border arrangements between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic.
I believe that there is a wide measure of agreement on those two elements, although there may be disagreement about the details. New arrangements will also be needed between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland, including formal constitutional acceptance on both sides of the principle of consent and a new, more broadly based Anglo-Irish Agreement. They represent the three strands of the negotiations.
Terrorism continues to haunt Northern Ireland. We were reminded of that again this morning, when only prompt RUC action averted another serious attack. Ten days ago, we saw the despicable murders by the IRA of RUC Constables John Graham and David Johnston. Five more young children are without fathers. The whole House will join me in condemning that pointless and cowardly crime. Those responsible deserve our contempt in a measure equal to the sympathy that we feel for the constables' families and colleagues. We shall do everything in our power to bring those responsible to justice.
However, this was worse than just another terrorist crime. The location and the timing of the murders, which occurred close to one of the most sensitive areas for marches, can be seen only as deliberately provocative. However, it was even worse than that--and I shall explain why. I announced in my Belfast speech that officials could meet Sinn Fein to ensure that there was no misunderstanding of our position and to hear Sinn Fein's response to my statement that the settlement train was leaving, with or without it. That initiative was widely welcomed, and two meetings were held.
Following the second meeting, in order to make our position absolutely clear and to remove any shred of justification for claiming that it was not, I authorised the
sending of an aide-memoire to Sinn Fein putting in writing the Government's position on the points where Sinn Fein had sought clarification. The aide-memoire was passed to Sinn Fein on Friday evening, 13 June, three days before the Lurgan murders. I have placed a copy in the Library.
The aide-memoire set out clearly and concisely the Government's position on confidence-building measures, decommissioning and how long we thought that the talks should last. It also repeated that Sinn Fein's entry into talks required an unequivocal ceasefire, and that a period of time would be needed to ensure that that was genuine and that words and deeds matched. In order to put at rest fears that the Government might seek to spin out that process, it added that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland would come to a political judgment about Sinn Fein's qualification for entry in some six weeks.
Assuming that words and deeds were consistent with a genuine and unequivocal ceasefire, Sinn Fein would at that point be invited to join a plenary session of the talks. It would then need to make clear, as the other participants have done, its absolute commitment to the Mitchell principles. The aide-memoire represented a reasonable approach, which had the full support of the American and Irish Governments, although the text was entirely our own.
Then came the appalling murders in Lurgan. They caused revulsion and outrage not only in this country but across the world. That was clear to me in the United States, where President Clinton condemned the cold-blooded killings in exactly the same terms as I did. It was clear, too, in my discussions with the outgoing Taoiseach, Mr. Bruton.
The credibility gap that the IRA and Sinn Fein have to bridge is wider than ever after Lurgan. Whatever Sinn Fein now says or does, I am determined to move on. It is essential to make political progress rapidly. The preparation for substantive talks must quicken.
Last autumn, we--that is, the previous Government--and the Irish Government, building on discussions in the talks, began to develop a comprehensive set of proposals for the handling of decommissioning. Final agreement was reached on them earlier this week. The two Governments have today given those proposals to the independent chairman of the talks, Senator George Mitchell, for circulation to the parties involved in the talks, and will be commending those proposals to the other participants as a basis for agreement on this important and complex subject. Again, a copy has been put in the Library.
Briefly, we propose the establishment of an independent commission to make proposals for decommissioning and to monitor its implementation, and a committee of the plenary to deal with these issues, with a sub-committee specifically on decommissioning.
The two Governments are fully committed to the approach to decommissioning that is set out in the report of the international body. That recommended
Under our proposals, a plenary meeting should be convened every two months to enable all participants to review progress across the entire spectrum of the negotiations, including decommissioning, and to consider whether the necessary confidence is being maintained. All participants, including Sinn Fein, if it is there, will, of course, have already committed themselves to the Mitchell principles. They include not only the total disarmament of all paramilitary organisations and the renunciation of force, or the threat of force, but action to prevent so-called punishment killings and beatings.
A second sub-committee will deal with other confidence-building measures that are set out in the Mitchell report. There can be no question of trading guns for political concessions in all this. There will need to be genuine progress in both decommissioning and the political negotiations if the process is to be successful. All the parties in the talks will have to face their responsibilities.
If the proposals provide a basis for agreement, important preparatory work can take place over the summer. It will be crucial to put the machinery in place as soon as possible, in particular the independent commission. I appeal to all the parties to look at the proposals in a constructive spirit. I really do not believe that there is another way forward.
Agreement would at last clear the way for substantive talks to start in earnest. I want them to begin as quickly as possible. I am also determined that, so far as we can influence the process, the talks will move as fast as possible. I can announce for the first time a clear timetable. The substantive talks should start in early September at the latest. In my view, they should conclude by next May at the latest, when the legislative basis for the talks expires. That is an ambitious target, but I have no doubt that it is achievable if all concerned put their minds to it.
As I said at the beginning of my statement, there is broad agreement on the key elements of a settlement: devolved and fair government in Northern Ireland, sensible and significant north-south arrangements, and a revamped relationship between the two Governments. The outlines of a settlement are reasonably clear, even if many of the details will be fiercely fought over. Let us now get down to the substance without further ado or prevarication.
Let me also repeat, in case anyone still has a doubt, that any agreement will be put to a referendum of all the people of Northern Ireland, as well as to Parliament. So the triple lock is secure.
There is no time to waste. The situation on the ground in Northern Ireland is fragile. Everyone is conscious of the dangers of the forthcoming marching season, and no one wants to see a repetition of last year's dreadful events. On that, too, the Government are determined to act. As the North report said, the best way to balance the conflict of rights and responsibilities involved in disputed marches is through local accommodation.
The Government are absolutely committed to doing everything they can to encourage a local accommodation at Drumcree, as elsewhere, to take account of the legitimate concerns of all sides. Accordingly, the Secretary of State is today issuing invitations to discussions with the Orange order and the Garvaghy road residents at Hillsborough castle on Friday. Nobody will
be forced to talk face to face to those with whom they do not wish to talk, but my right hon. Friend will make a further determined effort to make progress. I appeal to all concerned to accept that invitation to talks. Accommodation need not be a dirty word where human lives may be at stake.
This morning I met the 12-year-old girl, Margaret Gibney, who wrote to me and to other public figures, urging us to commit ourselves to bringing about peace in Northern Ireland. I owe it to her, and this House and all who have influence and authority owe it to her, to put a stop to the killing and to put in place a lasting political settlement. She has enjoyed one year of peace in the whole of her life. When her children are born, I want every year of their lives to be a year of peace.
"an approach under which some decommissioning would take place during the negotiations."
The report foresaw mutual progress on decommissioning and substantive political issues leading to a progressive pattern of mounting trust and confidence. That is what the two Governments want to see.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |