| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
3 Feb 2003 : Column 17—continued
Music Scholarship
24. Michael Fabricant (Lichfield): How much the Church Commissioners have provided for the promotion of the scholarship of music in churches and cathedrals in the last five years. [94814]
Second Church Estates Commissioner (Mr. Stuart Bell): The Commissioners have made grants, under section 23 of the Cathedrals Measure 1999, for stipends and administrative costs. These may be used, for example, to pay an organist's wage, but the commissioners do not hold detail on how they are spent.
Michael Fabricant : The English choral tradition is admired throughout the world for its scholarship and its performances. It is unique; it does not exist in continental Europe or north America. However, it will die unless additional funding is found. Without such funding the likes of William Walton and Benjamin Britten would never have learned their skills in the English writing of music. What further steps can the
hon. Gentleman and the commissioners take to ensure that this great and noble tradition does not end in this century?
Mr. Bell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his reference to the musical works of our churches. He will be aware that 42 cathedrals and 16,000 parish churches belong to the Church of England. The majority of them put on regular musical and dramatic events. At one and the same time, such events enhance the churches' community focus and, as he has said, extend their outreach and generate vital revenue towards the running and repair costs of the buildings.
On the point about additional funding, the Church Commissioners and the wider Church welcome the Government's tabling of an amendment that will obviate the need for cathedrals and church halls to pay licensing fees.
Historic Churches Preservation Trust
25. Mr. Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale, West): If he will make a statement on the effect of changes in the landfill tax credits regime on funding for the Historic Churches Preservation Trust. [94815]
Second Church Estates Commissioner (Mr. Stuart Bell): The trust does not receive any money from the landfill tax credits scheme. However, an estimated £1 million from the scheme goes toward the repair of churches that qualify through their geographical proximity to landfill sites, and another estimated £1 million is administered by county historic church trusts. If this money were to be removed, it seems clear that the number of claims upon the funds of the Historic Churches Preservation Trust would increase.
Mr. Brady : What representations have the Church Commissioners made to the Government with regard to the potential £2 million loss? Has the hon. Gentleman been given any assurances that it can be defrayed or met by other funds?
Mr. Bell: Discussions with the Government are ongoing and, when I have any positive response to give, I will be glad to give it to the hon. Gentleman.
Sir Patrick Cormack (South Staffordshire): As a trustee of the Historical Churches Preservation Trust, may I urge the hon. Gentleman to treat the matter as one of real urgency? If the £2 million is lost, the trust will not be able to make it up in its entirety. It is therefore crucial that the money remain.
Mr. Bell: I am aware that the hon. Gentleman is a trustee and a very vocal supporter of the trust's work. I am also well aware of the role played by the trust in preserving the nation's churches. I understand that it gave financial help amounting to £1.5 million to 326 churches in 2001. That effort is greatly appreciated.
Licensing Bill
26. Andrew Selous (South-West Bedfordshire): What recent representations he has received from clergy concerning the Licensing Bill as it relates to church premises. [94816]
Second Church Estates Commissioner (Mr. Stuart Bell): I have received no direct representations on the Licensing Bill, but the hon. Gentleman will have heard that the Church of England has warmly welcomed the Government's tabled amendment to the Bill that ensures that places of worship will be exempt from the requirements for public entertainment licensing. At the same time, the Government propose to exempt churches and village halls from the need to pay licensing fees.
Andrew Selous : I thank the hon. Gentleman for that answer, but can he assure the House that he will keep a very careful watch on this issue so that churches such as All Saints in Leighton Buzzard in my constituency, which regularly use concerts as a means of fund raising to preserve their fabric, do not have future cause to worry?
Mr. Bell: I have heard the hon. Gentleman's point. He will be pleased to learn that the Bishop of London, who took up this cause in the other place, was heard by the Government. They have tabled an amendment and we
welcome that. The Church also welcomes it, but we will follow the amendment through all its Committee proceedings and on to the Floor of the House.Church Repairs (VAT)
27. Miss Anne McIntosh (Vale of York): What recent representations he has received on the impact of VAT on church repairs. [94817]
Second Church Estates Commissioner (Mr. Stuart Bell): The Churches main committee and the Church of England's VAT group, having worked tremendously hard on the matter, continue to press for change with other Government Departments and with colleagues in Europe as the European Commission reviews the sixth VAT directive.
Miss McIntosh : The hon. Gentleman will be aware of my ongoing campaign in that regard. In the interim, until VAT is reduced, will he bring the regrettable administration in applying for grants to make up for the shortfall in VAT reduction to the attention of the Chancellor?
Mr. Bell: The Church appreciates the gesture made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in giving a derogation from payment of the full VAT on church repairs. He listened receptively to the concept that that should be continued in the next Budget. We appreciate his continued efforts on behalf of the Church until the sixth directive is properly revised.
Iraq
3.30 pm
The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): May I first tell the House that I have sent messages of condolence to President Bush and Prime Minister Sharon following the break-up of the Columbia space shuttle on Saturday? This was a tragedy not just for the seven astronauts and their families, but for their countries and all who value space exploration. I am sure that the whole House would want to join me in expressing our sadness and our sympathy.
With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement on my visit to Washington.
In addition to Iraq, which I shall come to in a moment, President Bush and I discussed the middle east peace process, Afghanistan and global poverty and development. On the first, we agreed on the vital necessity of making progress based on the twin-state solution: Israel confident of its own security and a Palestinian state that is viable. I am convinced there is now a real wish across the world to push this process forward and I hope that we can take further steps on this issue soon. I believe it is of fundamental importance, not just to peace in the middle east, but to peace throughout the world.
But the immediate focus of the visit was Iraq. Over the past week, in addition to meeting President Bush, I have seen Prime Minister Aznar, President Mbeki, Prime Minister Berlusconi and Prince Saud. Today, I have spoken to President Chirac. After this statement, I will be speaking to President Putin, and I have also spoken to the Prime Ministers of Turkey, Canada, Greece, Poland, Portugal and Australia. I shall meet President Chirac tomorrow. In addition, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is in regular contact with his opposite numbers from countries on the UN Security Council, in the European Union and in the middle east, and will be in New York for UN meetings later this week.
We are entering the final phase of a 12-year history of the disarmament of Iraq. The duty on Saddam to destroy all his weapons of mass destruction was a central part of the ceasefire agreement at the end of the Gulf war in 1991. In a series of 17 resolutions since then, the UN Security Council has put Saddam under 27 separate and categorical obligations to give full, final and complete declarations on its weapons programmes; to give inspectors unconditional and unrestricted access; to cease the concealment of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction; and to co-operate fully with the inspectors in the disarmament of all Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Saddam has consistently flouted these obligations. That is why a sanctions regime has been in place for years against Iraq which, because of the way in which Saddam has applied it, has caused wholly unnecessary suffering for the Iraqi people.
Last November, the UN Security Council concluded unanimously that Iraq was still, and I quote, "in material breach of UN resolutions." Saddam was given "a final opportunity" to comply with his disarmament obligations. Resolution 1441 imposed on Saddam a duty to give
- "a currently accurate, full and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems";
- "immediate, unimpeded, unrestricted and private access"
- "in the mode or location"
Eight weeks have now passed since Saddam was given his final chance. Six hundred weeks have passed since he was given his first chance. The evidence of co-operation withheld is unmistakable. Saddam has still not answered the questions concerning thousands of missing munitions and tons of chemical and biological agents unaccounted for. Rocket warheads with chemical weapons capacity have been found by the inspectors: they should have been declared. Classified documents of relevance to Iraq's past nuclear programme have been discovered in a scientist's private house: they should have been handed over. Of the first 11 documents specifically requested by the inspectors, only three have been produced. Not a single interviewee has come to an appointment with the inspectors without their so-called official minders.
As the report we published at the weekend makes clear, and which I placed in the Library of the House, there is a huge infrastructure of deception and concealment designed to prevent the inspectors from doing their job. US Secretary of State Colin Powell will report further to the UN on this on Wednesday. As Dr. Blix, the UN Chief Inspector, reported last week:
- "Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance—not even today—of the disarmament which was demanded of it."
The situation therefore could not be clearer. There is a duty on Saddam to co-operate fully. At present, he is not co-operating fully. Failure to do so is a material breach of resolution 1441. Should Dr. Blix continue to report Iraqi non-co-operation, a second resolution should be passed confirming such a material breach. President Bush and I agreed that we should seek maximum support for such a resolution, provided, as ever, that seeking such a resolution is a way of resolving the issue, not delaying or avoiding dealing with it at all. I continue to believe that the United Nations is the right way to proceed. There is integrity in the process set out in resolution 1441 and we should follow it.
We of course discussed the fact that weapons of mass destruction are not the only threat the world faces, and Iraq is not the only country posing a risk in respect of weapons of mass destruction. Over the past few weeks, we have seen powerful evidence of the continuing terrorist threat: the suspected ricin plot in London and Manchester; al-Qaeda experiments in Afghanistan to develop chemical, biological and radiological weapons; the arrests of those linked to al-Qaeda in Spain and France; and further arrests just a few days ago in Italy.
What is more, many of these arrests show the terrorist groups actively seeking to use chemical or biological means to cause as much death and injury and suffering as they can. We know too from 11 September that these terrorists have no demands that could ever be negotiated upon, no constraint in terms of finance and numbers to carry out terrorist acts, and no compunction in taking human life.At the same time, we know that Iraq is not alone in developing weapons of mass destruction; there are unstable, fiercely repressive states either proliferating or trying to acquire WMD, like North Korea. I repeat my warning: unless we take a decisive stand now as an international community, it is only a matter of time before these threats come together. That means pursuing international terrorism across the world in all its forms. It means confronting nations defying the world over weapons of mass destruction. That is why a signal of weakness over Iraq is not only wrong in its own terms. Show weakness now and no one will ever believe us when we try to show strength in future. All our history, especially British history, points to this lesson. No one wants conflict. Even now, war could be avoided if Saddam did what he is supposed to do. But if, having made a demand backed up by a threat of force, we fail to enforce that demand, the result will not be peace or security. It will simply be returning to confront the issue again at a later time, with the world less stable, the will of the international community less certain, and those repressive states or terrorist groups that would destroy our way of life emboldened and undeterred.
Even now, I hope that conflict with Iraq can be avoided. Even now, I hope that Saddam can come to his senses, co-operate fully and disarm peacefully, as the UN has demanded. But if he does not—if he rejects the peaceful route—he must be disarmed by force. If we have to go down that route, we shall do all we can to minimise the risks to the people of Iraq, and we give an absolute undertaking to protect Iraq's territorial integrity. Our quarrel has never been with the Iraqi people, but with Saddam.
Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and the threats that they pose to the world must be confronted. In doing so, this country and our armed forces will be helping the long-term peace and security of Britain and the world.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |