| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Ministerial Visits
Q8.[25391] Mr. Hesford: What plans he has to visit the Wirral, West constituency.
The Prime Minister: I have no immediate plans to visit the Wirral.
Mr. Hesford: Perhaps I could tempt my right hon. Friend to come to Wirral, West. He will be aware that my constituency has the great good fortune to have been chosen as a pathfinder area under the Government's new deal scheme. Will he join me in wishing all those who are concerned with the delivery of the scheme every success? Hundreds of youngsters in my constituency will be assisted by the scheme and given hope and opportunity where none previously existed, particularly after 18 wasted years under the Conservative party.
The Prime Minister: The pathfinder projects are going very well, and I pay tribute to the part that my hon. Friend and others have played in getting them under way in their constituencies. In Sheffield last week, I visited some people who are now going through the new deal gateway. Those young people, often for the first time in their lives, have real enthusiasm and commitment because they have the chance of a decent job or a decent skill. When we use their talent and ability, we help not only them but the entire country, which is why the programme is so important and right. It is a pity that it does not have the support of the Conservative Opposition.
Engagements
Q9.[25392] Mr. Alan Simpson: I know that the west has its own explaining to do about who armed Saddam Hussein, but I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for saying that there have to be some clear military and
political objectives to underpin any strike against Iraq. In the current situation, they could range from eliminating or deposing Saddam Hussein to destroying the military and industrial stockpiles or the biological and chemical weapons. Will my right hon. Friend tell us exactly what objectives he would sign up to in the name of this country and what calculation of civilian casualties has been made as the cost of doing so?
The Prime Minister: The objectives are absolutely clear. They are to bring Saddam Hussein back into line with UN Security Council resolutions so that we can continue to destroy the chemical, nuclear and biological weapon capability that he wants to develop.
I emphasise yet again that it is important to realise that at every stage there has been deceit and deception on the part of Saddam Hussein. I shall give the House a couple of examples. Iraq claimed that the VX nerve gas project was a failure until we discovered that it had the capability to produce it on a huge scale and that four tonnes had in fact been produced. I have already mentioned a factory that was able to produce 50,000 litres of anthrax and botulinus. Iraq claimed that it was for animal feed. It was only when one of its leading people defected to a neighbouring country that we discovered the truth and it admitted what was happening, although it had been denying it for four years. It is for those reasons that inspectors have to be allowed in.
People keep wondering whether we cannot give Saddam Hussein a way out, but all he has to do is to keep to the agreement that he originally made and let the inspectors in to do their work so they can see that what he says is happening is actually happening. It must be right to ensure he does that. We will try every diplomatic avenue to ensure that the matter is resolved. If it can be resolved peacefully, so much the better--no one wants to take military action--but resolved it must be, and resolved in compliance with the UN Security Council resolutions.
Mrs. May:
Will the Prime Minister tell us his target for building on brown-field sites? Does he think it should be increased to 60 per cent. or above? If not, why not?
The Prime Minister:
It is certainly better than 42 per cent., which was achieved by the Conservative Government. The purpose of the consultation paper is precisely to ensure that we receive the various representations. We will then, in the statement that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions will make, declare our position for the future.
We have always made it clear that we will protect the green belt. In fact, there has been an increase in the amount of green-belt land since 1 May, so we do not need any lessons from the Conservative Opposition about the protection of the green belt. Indeed, it was the first Labour Government after the war who introduced the Town and Country Planning Act 1947 which provided the first such protection, and it will be the new Labour Government who in this area, as in so many others, will clean up the mess left by the Conservatives.
Q10.[25393] Mrs. McGuire:
On the fourth day of enactment of the new legislation banning hand guns in Britain, may I thank my right hon. Friend on behalf of the
The Prime Minister:
Yes, I can give my hon. Friend that assurance--we shall keep the regime under tight scrutiny. I am delighted that, as a result of the House's vote, we managed to put through the ban on hand guns. I believe that that, in some measure, repaid our debt to the people of Dunblane.
Q11.[25394] Mr. David Atkinson:
What initiatives he is taking in the European Union to encourage action to ensure the millennium compliancy of computer systems.
The Prime Minister:
We are taking action under Britain's European Union presidency to deal with the problems of the so-called millennium bug. We are not only setting up meetings in Europe to publicise the dangers that the millennium bug poses to our companies, but ensuring at a European level that action is taken across member states to increase awareness of it.
Mr. Atkinson:
Does the Prime Minister plan to discuss with President Clinton the letter that he reportedly received from the President urging that the introduction of the single currency be delayed until after 2000 because the computer systems involved would be not only single currency non-compliant but, more crucially, millennium non-compliant, which would cause absolute chaos?
If the Prime Minister is as serious about the issue as he claims, why do his Whips continue to object to my private Member's Bill, which would do much to protect British business from the millennium bug? Will he ensure that the Bill receives its Second Reading on Friday 13 February, and will he read a copy of the Bill on Concorde tonight?
The Prime Minister:
The answer to the last point is no. We shall not ask the Whips to reconsider their opposition to The hon. Gentleman's Bill, for a very simple reason: his Bill would require companies both to check their systems and to report their proposed action in the annual report and accounts. We believe that that is an unnecessary bureaucratic requirement and that it is not a sensible way in which to proceed.
It is far better to do what we are doing. We are spending more than double the amount spent by the previous Government in relation to the millennium bug and the threat it poses. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is chairing a ministerial group to bring together work in the public and private sectors and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is monitoring progress in central Government. We are raising the issue not merely at the Group of Eight but under Britain's presidency of the European Union. As far as I am aware, President Clinton has made no request to delay the introduction of the single currency.
The millennium bug is a serious issue. It could cause problems for our companies, particularly smaller ones. It is necessary that they realise that, if they do not change their systems, they will face very great difficulties. I should have thought that both sides of the House can agree about the importance of making it clear to companies that they themselves bear the ultimate responsibility for bringing themselves into line. We shall do everything that we can as a Government to publicise this issue and to give it impetus both here and abroad.
Mr. Francis Maude (Horsham)
(by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on the resignation of the Director General of the Office of the National Lottery.
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith):
Yesterday, I met the Director General of the National Lottery, Mr. Peter Davis, to discuss the issues of confidence in the lottery arising from the Branson libel case. We agreed that the likelihood of continuing controversy surrounding the running of the national lottery would increase if he continued in his post.
To ensure that public confidence in the lottery is maintained, Mr. Davis felt it was right to tender his resignation. I accepted his resignation, and immediately asked Mr. John Stoker, the deputy director general, to assume the director general's duties while we seek to make a new appointment to replace Mr. Davis. Mr. Stoker accepted. Mr. Davis will remain in post until next Monday. I have already set in motion the procedures that will be necessary to advertise openly for a permanent successor.
I make three issues very clear. First, it was Mr. Davis's decision to tender his resignation; it was my decision whether to accept it. I agreed with Mr. Davis that this was the right thing to do in the circumstances. Secondly, I stressed yesterday when I announced Mr. Davis's resignation and repeat today that there is no question mark whatever against his integrity. Mr. Davis's readiness to put the public reputation of the lottery before his own personal position bears testimony to his sense of duty as a public servant.
Thirdly, the reasons for Mr. Davis's actions are quite clear. The success of the lottery depends on continuing public confidence in its operation and its regulation. He and I both agreed that, if he continued as regulator, the Office of the Director General would be at the centre of continuing controversy, which would undermine confidence in that office and in the lottery itself. We both agreed that it was right to act before any damage could be done.
The appointment of a new director general will provide the opportunity for a fresh start and ensure that the lottery continues to be respected and successful. Mr. Stoker's immediate priority will be to carry on the work that Mr. Davis had set in hand to ensure that Mr. Guy Snowden will no longer be involved in the management of our lottery and will not be in a position to draw any direct financial benefit from it through his involvement with GTech.
Mr. Stoker will also need to study carefully the court proceedings and evidence from the Branson case, and the implications that arise from it for the relationship between Mr. Snowden, GTech and Camelot. That is the job of the regulator. I have not interfered, and will not interfere, in it, but I will continue to take a close personal interest.
3.32 pm
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |