| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Referendums
Q2. [103518]Dr. Julian Lewis (New Forest, East): If he will make a statement on his policy in respect of the equalisation of the total sums of public money to be spent on each side of the argument in future referendum campaigns.
The Prime Minister: The Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill received its Second Reading last week and will put into effect the Neill committee recommendations. It provides that up to £600,000 of public money should be made available by the Electoral Commission to designated umbrella organisations on each side of any referendum campaign.
Dr. Lewis: Given that the Bill allows equal sums of public money to be made available, why is the Prime Minister also putting into the Bill rules that mean that parties that favour the euro will be able to spend much more of the money that they raise than parties that are opposed to British entry into the euro? Could that be because at least 64 per cent. of the British people are opposed to the Prime Minister's policy of abolishing the pound, and he knows that he can only hope to get it through by rigging the rules in that way?
The Prime Minister: That is nonsense. The two main parties will qualify for the same limit. In any event it could not be said that the no campaign was not well funded; indeed I should have thought that the opposite could be said. The rules are very fair for the no and yes campaigns because the sum of public money given to each side will be precisely the same, and the limit is the same for the main political parties. There is parity of treatment on both sides.
Mr. Denis MacShane (Rotherham): On the equalisation of moneys for the referendum, is the Prime Minister aware that Yorkshire property developer Mr. Paul Sykes told the Yorkshire Post last year that he is prepared to spend his £235 million fortune campaigning against Europe and the euro? He is already spending £20 million putting up very flattering pictures of me with my name on in my constituency, which my constituents think I have paid for myself, so I thank him for that.
Is the Prime Minister further aware that the Tories' new isolationist, anti-European business friends are already raising millions of pounds, in addition to the fact that newspapers owned by foreign proprietors campaign day and night against Europe? Will he ensure that when a referendum happens, there is equal play for those of us
who believe that Britain's future lies in Europe and that we should not join the Tory crusade to isolate Britain from Europe?
The Prime Minister:
My hon. Friend is right, which is why, as I said to the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis), the no campaign is incredibly well funded, and it would be rather odd for anyone to claim that it would be discriminated against in funding.
Q3. [103519]Mr. Richard Spring (West Suffolk):
Is the Prime Minister aware that every independent analyst and the House of Commons Library show that the so-called £21 billion health spending increase is, in real terms, £6.3 billion? If we used the Government's double and treble counting for the Prime Minister's age, on his next birthday he would turn 93 instead of 47, and on the following birthday he would enter the "Guinness Book of Records". In view of the crisis in the health service, perhaps a bit of straight talk and simple truth on those figures is warranted for the British people.
The Prime Minister:
The £21 billion is £21 billion extra. I am sorry to have to point this out, but the one group of people who cannot complain about the amount of money going to the health service is the Conservative party. Let me educate the hon. Gentleman about his own policy. The Conservatives guarantee that they will cut taxes irrespective of the economic circumstances. There is no way that they can implement that policy while increasing spending on the health service. That is why they have never pledged to increase spending on the health service by the amount that we have pledged in this comprehensive spending review. That is no part of their guarantee. If the hon. Gentleman wants extra spending on the NHS, he should take a leaf out of others' book and start crossing the Floor.
Q4. [103520]Mr. Phil Hope (Corby):
After the years of damaging Tory failure and isolation in Europe, does the Prime Minister welcome the publication today of Neil Kinnock's programme of radical action to overhaul the European Commission? If so, will he take a lead among European Union member states to make sure that we back tough action to clean up Europe and bring the Commission into the 21st century?
The Prime Minister:
The programme will make substantial differences to the way in which the Commission is run and to its accountability, transparency and efficiency. [Hon. Members: "Oh!"] I am sorry if Conservative Members do not support that, but it is after all what both Governments--this Government and the previous Government--were calling for over many years. Now that it has been delivered, the least that we can do is to acknowledge it.
Q5. [103521]Sir Robert Smith (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine):
The Prime Minister will know that the continuing crisis in agriculture is hitting all sectors. Specifically, does he want the pig industry--both farming and processing--to survive? To that end, will he back Agriculture Ministers' efforts to remove from the pig
The Prime Minister:
I understand the difficulties of the pig industry. The problems, although very bad in some other countries, are especially bad in this country. We shall look and are looking for ways in which to reduce the cost and burden of regulation on the farming industry. However, some of the regulations have been introduced for animal welfare reasons, for example, the regulations on tethering animals, which were passed with cross-party consent in the previous Parliament, although they have been implemented universally only more recently. All those matters have to be seen against a background of real difficulties which are outside our control and have to do with loss of market share. We shall consider every means possible to help the pig industry, but most consumers would not thank us if we reduced animal welfare standards.
Q6. [103522]Mr. Tony McWalter (Hemel Hempstead):
Does my right hon. Friend share my distress at the activities of carpetbaggers who deprive building societies of funds that they might otherwise have used to provide resources for affordable housing? Does he agree that borrowing members of building societies are as important as saving members? Does he agree with the Select Committee that urged swift legislation on the matter?
The Prime Minister:
The Government recognise the variety and choice that societies bring to the savings and loans market. On entering office, we acted promptly to increase the turnout threshold on conversion votes from 20 per cent. to 50 per cent. Only a society's board can propose conversion, which requires the support of 75 per cent. of saving members on a 50 per cent. turnout, and 50 per cent. of borrowing members who vote. Those are high thresholds, which have been reinforced by our action, but it is right that they are high. The current balance is correct.
Mr. David Trimble (Upper Bann):
The Prime Minister will know that the Royal Ulster Constabulary is one of the few police forces to have had the honour of being awarded the title "Royal". What precedent is there for removing such an award, and is not its removal regarded as a sign of dishonour? Nothing the Government say or do can dishonour the RUC and the men who have served in it, but they can dishonour and are dishonouring themselves.
The Prime Minister:
There is no dishonour intended to the RUC: its officers have given their lives and shown outstanding bravery for many years. We are trying to ensure that Northern Ireland has a police service that is capable of attracting support from all sides of the community, so that it can police better. For that very reason, the Good Friday agreement provided for an independent commission, which has been headed by a former Northern Ireland Minister in the Conservative Government, to look closely into the issues. I do not want to pre-empt the statement that is to be made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, except to say that our desire in making any changes is not to devalue in any shape or form the enormous contribution made by the RUC, but to ensure that we get a police service in Northern Ireland that can attract people from all communities and enjoy the confidence of people from all communities, because we believe that that is an important part of a better future in Northern Ireland.
Q7. [103523]Fiona Mactaggart (Slough):
Is my right hon. Friend aware that the draft regulations on part-time workers published on Monday by the Department of Trade and Industry will be welcomed by the CBI, the TUC and part-time workers--in fact, everyone but the Conservatives, who do not appear to like the fact that the regulations emanate from Europe and that they give workers rights? Will he assure the House that he will consider carefully ways in which the rights to fair pay, holiday entitlement and training opportunities that are offered to part-time workers can be extended to casual workers?
The Prime Minister:
We will certainly consider the point that my hon. Friend makes about casual workers. The purpose of the new regulations is to ensure that part-time workers get a proper deal. That is part of ensuring that we have a labour market in which there are certain basic standards in place. The minimum wage is one such standard. The fact that we are introducing proper rights for part-time workers and the fact that people will have for the first time the right to paid holiday entitlement are all basic, decent rights. They are all things that the Conservatives are committed to scrapping. That shows only how entirely out of touch they are.
Madam Speaker:
Order. Time is up.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |