|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Q5.  Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow): If he will discuss with the President of the Seychelles the return of Ilois people to the land of their ancestral graves, when he next visits the Seychelles.
The Prime Minister: I know that my hon. Friend has a long association with this subject that goes back some 30 years. Indeed, he recently secured a debate on it in Westminster Hall. Unfortunately, I have no immediate plans to visit the Seychelles. However, as he knows, a team of independent consultants is currently assessing the feasibility of resettlement of the outer islands of the territory. We await its conclusions.
The Prime Minister: This is where the briefing runs out, so I shall have to get back to my hon. Friend on that. However, as he knows--probably better than I do--a High Court case is currently examining whether resettlement is possible. Two ex gratia payments of some £4 million were made to specific people for resettlement, most recently in 1982.
We are currently conducting feasibility studies on the possibility of resettlement. I am not aware of the Americans doing that, but I shall find out as a result of my hon. Friend's question and write to him.
Mr. Robathan: The Prime Minister knows that his ministerial code is his responsibility alone. It has nothing to do with the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges. Does he recall writing the foreword to the code? It stated:
Paragraph 113, which deals specifically with trade unions, states:
Care must be taken to avoid any actual or perceived conflict of interest . . .
Ministers should receive no remuneration from a union.
How does the Prime Minister reconcile that with the flat that the Deputy Prime Minister, who is responsible for transport, rents from the transport union for some £10,000 a year less than the market rate? That is a substantial benefit in kind. When will he enforce his own rules?
Q7.  Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden): Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating schools in the London borough of Merton, one of the five most improved boroughs in the country in terms of school standards? Will he congratulate in particular the children and staff of Malmesbury primary school, who have achieved an improvement of 140 per cent. in the past five years? Does he agree, however, that there is still much to be done, especially in high schools? Will he give the House a commitment that a future Labour Government will concentrate on improving standards in such schools?
We are now committed to providing, over the next few years, the largest investment that the country has ever seen. We know from the commitments given by the shadow Chancellor that the Conservative party is intent on cutting that investment in Britain's schools, and also on getting rid of the new deal for investment in our
Mr. William Hague (Richmond, Yorks): When the Foreign Office Minister responsible for Government policy on missile proliferation says that he is opposed to the development of a ballistic missile defence system, is he speaking for the Government?
The Prime Minister: We have not said that we are opposed; what we have said--[Interruption.] No. We have said that until a proper proposal is before us, we will not make a detailed comment on it. That is entirely sensible, which is why the right hon. Gentleman's intervention last week was so misjudged.
The programme to which he referred was the ballistic missile defence system.
The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament--I do not know whether the Prime Minister remembers CND, but it certainly remembers him--said:
we are currently campaigning against American plans to set up a missile defence system.
The Minister is a fully paid-up member of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.
Will the Prime Minister make it clear that, despite being responsible for this area of policy, the Minister is not speaking for the Government?
The Prime Minister: I have made the Government's position absolutely clear is. When there is a proposal from the United States for national missile defence, we will make our declaration on that proposal. We have not yet received a proposal. It is an extremely sensitive issue, for reasons that are entirely obvious--which is why the right hon. Gentleman's blundering about does no good either to us or to our relationship with the United States.
The Prime Minister: I have already said that we have not actually received a proposal on national missile defence. I personally said earlier, in exchanges not with the right hon. Gentleman but with others, that we entirely understand America's reasons for wishing to develop the system; but until there is a proposal, it would be rather foolish to say how we react to that proposal. All that the right hon. Gentleman is trying to do--joined by others on the Opposition Front Bench--is create mischief between ourselves and the United States. That is foolish and wrong, but fortunately it will get him nowhere.
Mr. Hague: For all that wriggling, it is still not clear whether the Minister speaks for the Government in the world, or for CND within the Government. The Prime Minister has not been able to clear that up. Will he accept
The Prime Minister: In other words, before we receive the request, we should respond to it. That is the right hon. Gentleman's latest foreign policy announcement. It is so ridiculous. It would be a good idea if he paid some attention to the words of President-elect Bush just a few days ago on 8 January. He said that it was an issue that had to be handled with very great care and he was listening to what people were saying. That is an intelligent response from our ally, the United States of America. That is precisely what we will do. When there is a detailed request, we will make our response to it. That is the intelligent way to proceed. An unintelligent and foolish way to proceed is to say that, whatever request may be made to us, we will accede to it before it is even made.
Mr. David Lammy (Tottenham): I am sure that my right hon. Friend shares my sorrow and would wish to send his condolences to the parents of Anna Climbie. May I seek his assurance that he will scrutinise and implement the recommendations of Lord Laming's inquiry in due course?
The Prime Minister: I think that the whole House knows that it was a needless and dreadful tragedy in wholly unimaginable circumstances. This poor little girl was murdered by people who were supposed to be caring for her, but the fact is that she was let down by the system as well. The statutory inquiry that we have announced under the chairmanship of Lord Laming will get to the bottom of what went wrong. It will make a full report to us, which we will scrutinise very carefully. I am sure that we will act on the recommendations that the inquiry makes to us. It is a terrible case. Again, I am afraid, we have to try to learn the lessons of how the system let down that poor innocent and helpless child.
Q8.  Mr. John Randall (Uxbridge): Is the Prime Minister aware that Hillingdon community health council and Harrow CHC have both formally objected to the proposed closure of the world famous Harefield hospital? Is that example of independent thinking why he wants to abolish CHCs?
The Prime Minister: No, it is not. It is correct that the health authority made some proposals on the future of Harefield hospital at the end of last year. Those proposals may be subject to referral to Ministers for a decision. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that any final decision will be made in the interests of the local community.
The Prime Minister: I can give my hon. Friend that undertaking. We will work with the Highways Agency, the north-west regional office and others to do our very best to get that private investment. It is all part of a series of proposals that will regenerate our inner cities. Again, it is an example of money that will be invested in some of the most deprived communities in the country. Again, it is an example of investment that we are putting in that would be taken out by the Conservative party.
Q10.  Mr. Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire): People laughed when I first raised the potential devastation that would result from an impact between an asteroid and the earth. There is no middle way with asteroids. In the light of that and of the Government's near-earth object task force report, which confirmed every claim that I had made about the dangers and made 14 recommendations for action, will the Prime Minister consider raising the matter, with the prospect for international co-operation, at the next G8 summit?
The Prime Minister: The report of the task force on near-earth objects and asteroids was published last September, and the Government are considering it. We shall announce our response to it shortly. The Department of Trade and Industry has established a small implementation team to oversee the preparation of that response, which I am sure will be eagerly awaited on both sides of the House.
Q11.  Mr. Ronnie Campbell (Blyth Valley): May I take my right hon. Friend back to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Prosser) on miners' compensation? I heard what my right hon. Friend said about the legal side of the matter, and we know that the process is rather cumbersome and long. Unfortunately, however, we have many old miners who were assessed at least two years ago but are dying before they see a penny of compensation. Will he intervene and see if we can create a fast-track process to get that money to those old miners and their widows?
The Prime Minister: The frustration that my hon. Friend expresses is absolutely right, and I share it. Indeed, some people in my own constituency are in exactly the same position. That is why, from last September, we introduced, as far as we were able, a fast-track scheme. The problem is that it is impossible--I assure him that I have looked into it myself on many occasions--entirely to short-circuit the point that I made earlier, which is that there has to be an individual assessment in each individual claim. There are literally more than 130,000 claims simply for respiratory illness. Some of those claims will
I know how frustrating the process is, and we are trying to speed it up as much as possible, but there is a limit legally to what we can do. I hope that my hon. Friend is able to explain that to his constituents. I understand entirely his frustration, and I share it.
Sir Patrick Cormack (South Staffordshire): If the Prime Minister is in favour of completing the various tasks that he set himself for this Parliament, why is he not in favour of fixed-term Parliaments?
Q12.  Mr. Roger Casale (Wimbledon): May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to plans for a new community hospital on the site of the Nelson hospital in my constituency, which will provide a focus for primary and secondary care and for the integration of health and social services? Such innovative projects are possible only because of the money that the Labour Government are putting into the health service. Would not hopes for the realisation of such important projects be dashed if the Conservatives were ever again to take power?
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right in the sense both that we are putting extra investment into the health service and that Conservative Members have refused to commit themselves to matching our additional funding for social services, which are a vital part of achieving improvements in the national health service. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) keeps shouting across to my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Casale) that he will be out at the next general election, but we will just see. [Interruption.]
Let us just see. When people are given the choice, let us see whether they want increased stability under Labour, or boom and bust under the Conservatives; jobs under Labour, or unemployment under them; investment in our public services, or cuts under them. I am still waiting for an answer to my question to them on the economy.
Mr. Nicholas Soames (Mid-Sussex): Will the Prime Minister clarify why he misled the audience on "Question Time" last year, when he told them that he had voted for the Foster Bill, which he had not, and that it had been lost in the House of Lords, which it had not? In view of his lamentable attendance record in the House, will he tell us how he will vote today, and why?
The Prime Minister: I have made it quite clear, and my position has not changed. I am opposed to fox hunting for the reasons that I have given on many occasions. As for what I said on "Question Time", we shall wait and see
Q15.  Mr. Bob Russell (Colchester): Does the Prime Minister agree that in this, the Year of the Volunteer, the Government should follow the excellent example of the Scottish Parliament and remove the £10 fee that volunteers for voluntary youth organisations must pay?
The Prime Minister: I suppose that that is another spending commitment on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. As a matter of fact, the Government are doing a lot for volunteering, as the hon. Gentleman knows. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced a package of measures on volunteering last week that was widely welcomed. We want to encourage people to volunteer, but Liberal Democrat Members must recognise that there comes a point when there is a limit to how much taxpayers' money one can spend. In particular, instead of telling us how much more public money they are going to spend, they must tell us how they are going to fund that public money.
Mr. Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Canning Town): The editor of the Newham Recorder, Mr. Tom Duncan, is much respected in the east end of London. In this morning's edition of the newspaper, he welcomed the launch earlier this week of the Government's neighbourhood renewal project. However, he criticised the Conservative party for its consistent failure to give leadership since the east end began to be regenerated. Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the resources allocated to the project will be adequate to see the job finished this time?
The Prime Minister: The job will, of course, take a very long time indeed, but the resources will be put into it. Those resources are going into inner cities up and down the country for the simple reason that this Government and this political party believe in prosperity being spread to every part of our country. We also believe that no one should be shut out and excluded from our society. [Interruption.] Conservative Members can shout as much as they like, but they wrote off our country's inner cities, just as they wrote off the mining communities. This Government are bringing prosperity to those areas, so that every one of our citizens gets the chance to succeed.