| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Sub-Saharan Africa
6. Andrew Selous (South-West Bedfordshire) (Con): What steps the Government are taking to encourage good governance in sub-Saharan Africa; and if he will make a statement. [220742]
The Secretary of State for International Development (Hilary Benn): As part of most of our activities in Africa, we work with Governments and civil society to tackle corruption, strengthen the means of democracy and build states that are accountable to their people. We also support the African-led peer review mechanism, which reviews country performance in governance and development. Peer reviews are already under way in Mauritius, Ghana, Kenya and Rwanda, and the first two should be completed by this summer.
Andrew Selous: Does the Secretary of State agree—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is entitled to be heard.
Andrew Selous: Does the Secretary of State agree that if we are, rightly, to make poverty history in Africa and elsewhere, good governance is indispensable; and that African leaders' side of the bargain is to push for peaceful democratic change and to say clearly that corruption and money laundering are as unacceptable in Africa as anywhere else?
Hilary Benn: I agree entirely, because corruption gets in the way of promoting economic development and investment. Recently, I was in Zambia, which is taking a strong lead in the fight against corruption. I applaud that and the British Government are supporting that lead.
Islamic Relief
7. Tony Cunningham (Workington) (Lab): If he will make a statement on his Department's work with Islamic Relief. [220743]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. Gareth Thomas):
We have worked in partnership with Islamic Relief since
9 Mar 2005 : Column 1508
1994, supporting long-term development projects as well as relief operations in several countries including Bangladesh, Afghanistan and Mali.
Tony Cunningham: I pay tribute to the Department's work with different faith groups, but what are the Government doing to help the Muslim community in Kashmir?
Mr. Thomas: I take the opportunity to pay tribute to the work of Islamic Relief in particular, and all faith groups that work in developing countries.
To answer my hon. Friend's specific question, we are funding Islamic Relief for a £1 million health programme in the Neelum valley in Pakistan, thus helping 40,000 people to get access to basic health care.
PRIME MINISTER
The Prime Minister was asked—
Engagements
Q1. [220722] Mr. Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD): If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 9 March.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues. In addition to my duties in the House, I will have further such meetings later today.
Mr. Reid: Is the Prime Minister aware that the average house price on the Isle of Mull has soared to £125,000, thus forcing many local people out of the housing market and into caravans and chalets? That is typical of many rural parts of the country. The Prime Minister could help by adopting the fully costed Liberal Democrat policy of abolishing stamp duty on houses that cost less than £150,000. Will the Prime Minister help people in rural areas such as Mull by adopting that policy?
The Prime Minister: First, of course it is true that house prices have increased in the hon. Gentleman's constituency and in constituencies throughout the country. We have an immensely strong economy under the Government, with low inflation, low mortgage rates and low unemployment. However, it is important that we continue with the investment that we are making in public services.
We have looked carefully at the Liberal Democrats' spending plans, especially their plan to get £30 billion off top-rate taxpayers by raising the top rate of tax from 40 per cent. to 50 per cent. and introducing a local income tax. However, having looked at them, we decided to reject them.
Mr. Kevin McNamara (Hull, North)
(Lab): At the weekend, my right hon. Friend welcomed statements by the leaders of Sinn Fein that they would help to bring Mr. McCartney's murderers to justice. Does he share the horror and contempt that the rest of the community in these islands feel at statements by the IRA yesterday
9 Mar 2005 : Column 1509
that it was prepared to assassinate the murderers of Mr. McCartney but not prepared to bring them to justice? When my right hon. Friend next meets the leaders of Provisional Sinn Fein or has any contact with them through No. 10, will he clearly bring it to their attention that there is nowhere in these islands where we can have parallel police forces, kangaroo courts or assassinations of people whom we do not particularly like?
The Prime Minister: I agree totally with my hon. Friend. From someone who has always been prepared to speak up for the nationalist community in Northern Ireland, his words are especially telling. I make it absolutely clear that the IRA's statement yesterday defies description. It was extraordinary and cannot be justified in any shape or form. There is no way that we can make any progress in Northern Ireland that includes Sinn Fein unless there is a complete end to violence of whatever kind.
Mr. Michael Howard (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con): Today, the House will debate the Prevention of Terrorism Bill. It is important that we all understand its scope. At the weekend, the Prime Minister said that its provisions could be used against protesters against the G8 meeting in Scotland. Did he mean that?
The Prime Minister: I have read that I am supposed to have said that, but I confess that I have absolutely no recollection of saying it. There are people who want to protest against the G8 meeting—incidentally, protests happen on a very wide range of issues, and I obviously see many of them on my travels around the place—but the control orders are specifically designed to defeat terrorism. For people who want to come and protest in this country, there is a long-standing democratic right and they are perfectly entitled to do so.
Mr. Howard: I have the newspaper report here. The Prime Minister was asked—[Interruption.]
Mr. Howard: The Prime Minister was asked—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. I want silence when the right hon. and learned Gentleman is addressing the House.
Mr. Howard: The Prime Minister was asked whether the Home Secretary would use the new anti-terror laws against G8 protesters, and he replied,
So what on earth was he on about?
The Prime Minister:
I will have to check whatever transcript there is. Let me make it absolutely clear that, of course, these terror laws are not to be used against protesters. They are to be used against people suspected of terrorism. Let us get back to the central question at the heart of the terrorism legislation. The reason that we are introducing it has nothing to do with people making protests; it is because the police and the security services are advising us that they need these control orders and, what is more, need them to be applied in circumstances
9 Mar 2005 : Column 1510
in which there is reasonable suspicion that people are engaged in planning or plotting terrorist acts. We have made a concession today on judicial scrutiny. As I said in this House, that is not the issue of principle. The issue of principle is having these control orders. I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether he will ensure that the Conservative party supports these proposals. They are right and they are necessary. This is the advice that we are being given by the security services and the police, and I believe that it would be irresponsible to flout it.
Mr. Howard: Let us see where we are on the Bill. First, the Government said that there would be no concessions at all. Then they conceded that control orders on house arrests should be made by a judge. This week, they said that they would not extend that to the other control orders. Today, they have backtracked on that, too. Given the scale of the Prime Minister's defeat in the House of Lords yesterday, will he now reconsider his position on the sunset clause, so that Parliament can have a proper opportunity to consider the best response to the terrorist threat?
The Prime Minister: No, I will not do that. It is correct. I think that I said in the House, and repeated at my monthly press conference, that judicial scrutiny was not the key point of principle. We have made a concession on that, and I hope that that will satisfy people. In the end, as I explained to the House, the question was whether we were able to ensure that the control orders could be used effectively by the police and security services. We have found a way of doing that. If necessary, the Home Secretary can apply the orders himself, in exceptional cases, otherwise, it has to go to the judge. I am afraid that we are not prepared to accept either the amendment on the sunset clause or the other amendment voted for by the House of Lords, and which the Conservatives in the House of Lords backed, to change the burden of proof. That would not be wise; it would be contrary to the strong advice given to us by our security services and our police, and I am simply not prepared to do it.
It is perfectly obvious that this country faces a terrorist threat the like of which we have not faced before. The advice that is being given to me by our security services and police is clear: we need these control orders, and we need them on the basis of reasonable suspicion of engagement in planning or plotting terrorist activity. If I were to accept the suggestions that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is making, I would be doing so in contradiction of the express advice that I have received, and I will not do it.
Mr. Howard: We all accept that there is a terrorist threat. The question is: what is the best way of dealing with it? We have just heard from the Prime Minister that what was a point of principle for him last week is no longer a point of principle for him this week. The question that I asked him was about the sunset clause, and he did not answer it. So what I want to know is: is he seriously saying that he would prefer to have no Bill at all than to have a Bill that would last for eight months so that Parliament could have a proper opportunity to consider the best response to the terrorist threat?
The Prime Minister:
First, let me correct the right hon. and learned Gentleman on one point. I thought that I
9 Mar 2005 : Column 1511
had said the opposite—that the judicial scrutiny issue was not the point of principle. The point of principle is on the control orders and the burden of proof. In my view, what is important is to have the legislation that we believe will work. I do not agree with the sunset clause, for this simple reason: it is important that we send a clear signal now that this legislation is on the statute book and will remain on the statute book. I will simply say to him that his position, as I understand it, certainly from the position of his shadow Attorney-General, is that the Conservatives want the sunset clause so that they can return to the issue later and oppose control orders in principle. In my view, that would be completely wrong and would send out absolutely the wrong signal from the House.
When the right hon. and learned Gentleman was Home Secretary, he dealt with issues such as exclusion orders under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989. We face today a terrorist threat that I would have thought is obvious to every Member of the House. The advice that we have is that we need these control orders in legislation. We can review the legislation annually, but it should not be subject to a sunset clause, as the Home Secretary has made clear. In particular, we cannot accept the burden of proof being different from that of reasonable suspicion. In the House of Lords yesterday, the Conservative Front Bench voted for a change to that burden of proof provision, too. For those reasons, we cannot accept his amendments. He will have to come to a decision, and so will the Conservative party, as to whether to accept the legislation. We have made concessions that we think are reasonable; we will not make those that are against the direct advice that we are receiving.
Mr. Howard: If the Prime Minister thinks that it is only the Conservative Front Bench in the House of Lords that is opposed to the Bill, he is living on another planet. I did take action against terrorism when I was Home Secretary, and when we brought the prevention of terrorism legislation to this House, he opposed it. He opposed it even when the terrorist bombs of the IRA were raining down on Heathrow airport. We will therefore take no lessons from him about the need to be tough on terrorism.
Is not this the position? We offered to extend the current powers of detention. The Prime Minister rejected that. We offered a sunset clause so that the legislation could be examined properly in eight months' time, and he has rejected that. Is he really saying that no Bill at all is better than a Bill for eight months? Where on earth is the logic in that?
The Prime Minister:
Where on earth is the logic in the right hon. and learned Gentleman's position, which is that we should put back in place part 4 of the previous legislation which was struck down by the House of Lords? Let me return once again to the central point: the House of Lords said that the previous legislation should not stand. It is important that we listen to that, and we have done so. That legislation expires on 14 March. We have brought forward legislation in accordance with the advice of the police and security services that it is necessary for the defeat of terrorism. We have done our level best to meet reasonable concerns. We are not going to meet the concerns that he has now put forward,
9 Mar 2005 : Column 1512
because it would be irresponsible and wrong. Yes, we must take a position and stick to it, and we are doing so. When the legislation comes back, however, he will have to decide whether he will march the Conservative party into the No Lobby to vote against legislation that our security services and police advise is necessary for the protection of the citizens of this country. I believe, even if he does not, that national security comes first.
Mr. Howard: The Government said a month ago that the existing Act
That is what the Government said about the existing powers one month ago. We have said that we will co-operate with the Government in renewing those powers. We have said that we will co-operate with the Government if there is a sunset clause in the Bill. I have come to the conclusion that this Prime Minister wants this Bill to fail. He wants to pretend that he is the only one who is tough on terrorism. Is not it a dreadful measure from a desperate Prime Minister, and should he not be thoroughly ashamed of himself?
The Prime Minister: We will have this debate here, and we will have this debate in the country, and we will see where the shame lies; but in my judgment the shame will lie with the Conservatives, who, faced with legislation to prevent terrorism—faced with legislation on which we were advised by our police and security services—are going to vote against it. If they want to vote against it, let them: we will be content ultimately to have the verdict of the country on it.
Ms Meg Munn (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab/Co-op): I recently accompanied a team of special constables in my constituency on their Friday night duties. They did an excellent job in antisocial behaviour situations, and also in supporting the general police. There is, however, a possibility of confusion between special constables, community support officers, neighbourhood wardens and street rangers. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need to adopt the approach advocated in south Yorkshire, and develop local policing teams that bring together all who are working to achieve better neighbourhoods in our communities?
The Prime Minister: Today we are announcing that we will establish community and neighbourhood policing teams across the country. We have a record number of police in the country today, and we also have community support officers. I believe that the vast majority of people now accept that those who opposed community support officers—as the Conservative party did—were wrong, and that what we need are dedicated teams combining the fully warranted officer with the community support officer and the neighbourhood warden. That will bring back visible community policing in this country, and I am sure that it will be supported by the overwhelming majority of people in this country.
Mr. Charles Kennedy (Ross, Skye and Inverness, West)
(LD): As the Prime Minister is acknowledging his
9 Mar 2005 : Column 1513
climbdown over judicial scrutiny but saying that it was never an issue of principle, may I remind him that in our discussions three weeks ago both he and the Home Secretary made it very clear to us that the issue of principle for them was that the Executive, not the judge, should make the decision? It sounded very much like a decision of principle for the Government at that point.
May I ask the Prime Minister again why he now cannot acknowledge the two outstanding issues of principle that could perhaps resolve the matter? The first is that it is the standard of proof that must be in the balance of probabilities, not just reasonable suspicion. The second is that, surely, an individual always has the right to know exactly what are the charges against him when his liberties are being withdrawn.
The Prime Minister: I am afraid that, for the reasons I gave earlier, I do not accept the change to the burden of proof: I simply do not accept it. Again, the advice we have is absolutely clear—that it would be detrimental to our capacity to have powers that fall between the ability to survey people and the ability to prove a case beyond reasonable doubt. In our view, the burden of proof is necessary as it is.
Let me repeat to the right hon. Gentleman and the House that we are debating these issues, as is often the case, in circumstances in which people are very properly concerned about civil liberties. Should any terrorist act occur, there will not be a debate about civil liberties; there will be a debate about the advice that the Government received, and about whether they followed it. I have the advice, and I intend to follow it.
Mr. Kennedy: Surely the Prime Minister should not ignore the fact that the former Lord Chancellor, the former Master of the Rolls, the former Cabinet Secretary and the former Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police do not agree with his arguments. I do not think that they can be dismissed as irresponsible voices in the land. These are people with broad-based experience. Surely it is time that the Prime Minister rediscovered his reverse gear—and is it not time that he began to put the fundamental liberties of the British people before his own political pride?
The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman asks whether I condemn the people whom he listed as irresponsible. Of course I do not: they genuinely take a different point of view. On the other hand, someone like Sir John Stevens agrees with the legislation. I am afraid that on any of these issues there will be conflicting views; the question is, what is the right thing to do?
The right hon. Gentleman talked about the civil liberties of the subject. I think that the civil liberties of the subject are extremely important, but I think that there is one basic civil liberty, which is the right to life. I think that freedom from terrorism is the most important consideration, which must be uppermost in our minds. I am very sorry that the right hon. Gentleman cannot
9 Mar 2005 : Column 1514
support us, but for those reasons we will have to present this legislation, and the House will then have to make up its mind.
Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow) (Lab): Are full texts of Law Officers' advice on matters of peace and war made available to the Cabinet as a whole, or just to the Prime Minister?
The Prime Minister: It depends on whether the Attorney-General actually attends Cabinet. In the instance that is being raised in the newspapers this morning, the Attorney-General came to Cabinet and therefore gave an oral report on his advice.
Q2. [220723] Miss Anne McIntosh (Vale of York) (Con): Does the Prime Minister recall saying in the 1997 general election campaign that we had 24 hours to save the health service? Hospital infections are spiralling out of control, and we now know that 500 people are dying each week from preventable blood clots. Do they also have the right to life?
The Prime Minister: First, let me say to the hon. Lady that I believe that any reasonable person looking at the state of the health service today would say that considerable progress has been made; every single independent report shows that. Of course there will be cases showing that there are still things to do in our health service today, but I can tell her that when people in this country see the investment going into the health service, the new hospitals being built, the extra nurses and doctors, waiting lists and waiting times coming down, and cancer and cardiac deaths declining, and then compare that with the Conservatives' proposals to take money out of the health service and to subsidise private health care—[Interruption.] Oh, yes. They propose to subsidise private health care, so that only people who can afford to pay for half their operation get that help. When people see those two choices before them, they will know that it is just as well that they voted to save the health service.
Claire Ward (Watford) (Lab): May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he can assure the people of Watford and its police service that the number of police community support officers will be increased? Although those whom we currently have in Watford town centre are very welcome, the people and residents are not seeing as much benefit as they would like, and they want the use of CSOs to be extended and the funding of current ones to continue. Can he give that assurance?
The Prime Minister: I can assure my hon. Friend that 20,000 extra community support officers will be delivered if this Government are returned to office. That, of course, is in contrast to the Conservatives, who want to freeze the Home Office budget and would end up cutting the number of police officers—as, of course, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) did. That investment in our police services, and in education and health—under this Government, at least—would continue.
Rev. Ian Paisley (North Antrim)
(DUP): Will the right hon. Gentleman take it from me that his
9 Mar 2005 : Column 1515
condemnation of, and further exhortation to, the leaders of IRA-Sinn Fein is useless in Northern Ireland's present drastic and tragic circumstances? When is he going to take action? We have a statement from the IRA that is a statement of intent to murder. Those who made that statement and who mentioned in it people who can be identified are not even going to be called in for questioning, according to the Chief Constable. Surely intent to murder is a crime under the law and should be dealt with no matter who does it—be it Sinn Feiners or anyone else.
The Prime Minister: Who is brought in and questioned and who is charged is obviously a matter for the Chief Constable; it is not a matter for me, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts that. In respect of the IRA statement, I have made my condemnation absolutely clear and I would simply say that, over the past eight years, we have made considerable progress in Northern Ireland, although we now have an impasse as a result of the IRA's refusal to give up violent activity of whatever sort. But as a result of the process itself, that is the feeling now in Northern Ireland and also in the Republic of Ireland. I think that the benefits of the process are now clear. There is a stark choice facing republicanism: either embrace the democratic and peaceful route or be excluded from the political process. I hope that they realise that and I believe that the whole of the island of Ireland now does. It is now for the republicans to take the right decision.
Mr. Mike Hall (Weaver Vale) (Lab): When I was at primary school, a boy in the year above me suddenly disappeared; his name was John Kilbride. It emerged a couple of years later that he had been snatched off Ashton market, tortured and murdered by Ian Brady and Myra Hindley. Will my right hon. Friend give me an assurance that he has no intention of giving such people the vote?
The Prime Minister: The current position in law is that convicted prisoners are not able to vote, and that will remain the position under this Government.
Q3. [220724] Ann Winterton (Congleton) (Con): Cheshire dairy farmers are becoming increasingly anxious about the rising number of bovine tuberculosis cases and their resulting added costs, especially the slaughter of prime dairy cattle. Will the Prime Minister take urgent action to implement a strategic badger cull, which has proved successful in Ireland and is supported by 350 distinguished veterinary surgeons and scientists, with the objective of ensuring that the UK has both a healthy cattle and a healthy badger population?
The Prime Minister: I understand the concerns that the hon. Lady raises. There are trials going on in Ireland, and we are studying them carefully. There will be a strategy on bovine TB and how best to deal with it. We are looking very carefully into the problem, but the question of whether culling is the right option has to be determined in the light of all the evidence and all the representations that we receive, including those of the hon. Lady, but also those that reached opposite conclusions.
Mrs. Anne Campbell (Cambridge)
(Lab): Has my right hon. Friend had time to consider the implications
9 Mar 2005 : Column 1516
of the proposals of some hon. Members that university students should live at home for the first two years of their degree course and go to university only in their final year?
The Prime Minister: I have had the opportunity to consider those proposals, which emanate from Liberal Democrat Members, and I have to say that I entirely reject them. What we now have is a proposition that allows us to have our universities properly funded and allows students to go through university without paying tuition fees at the time, backed up by a fair system of repayment. That avoids both the need to force students to live at home and the need to impose real rates of interest on student loans, which is the Conservative party policy.
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd (Meirionnydd Nant Conwy) (PC): In response to the Father of the House, the Prime Minister said that the question whether Cabinet colleagues were entitled to the full opinion of the Law Officer depended on certain circumstances. Will he now tell the House and the country why a written opinion is good enough for him, but only an oral opinion is right for the rest of the Cabinet?
The Prime Minister: Let me elaborate on what I said earlier. The Attorney-General came to the Cabinet, gave his opinion in detail and was able to answer any queries that people raised about the matter. I really do not understand what is being said by the hon. Gentleman and others. If it is being said that the legal opinion of the Attorney-General was different from the Attorney-General's statement to the House, that is patently absurd. I would also point out to the hon. Gentleman and others that, as a result of evidence that has emerged subsequent to the Iraq war, it is perfectly obvious that there were indeed multiple breaches of UN resolutions—and it was on the basis of breaches of UN resolutions that we went to war.
Jeff Ennis (Barnsley, East and Mexborough) (Lab): Does my right hon. Friend recall my Adjournment debate, entitled "Airgun Safety", of 23 June 1999? I called for tighter controls on airguns and raised the possibility of introducing a licensing system for them. In the light of the tragic death from an airgun wound of two-year-old Andrew Morton in Glasgow last week, does my right hon. Friend agree that that is a policy that we must shortly revisit?
The Prime Minister: First, let me once again express my profound condolences—I am sure that I speak for the whole House—to the family of the young person who was so tragically and wickedly killed. As the First Minister in Scotland said, now is not the moment to rush into new legislation. We must carefully consider any lessons from it, and we will do so. Obviously, if we do legislate, we must ensure that we do so in a sensible way. I know that my hon. Friend would want us to study the lessons carefully. We will do that and then publish our conclusions.
Q4. [220725] Dr. Vincent Cable (Twickenham)
(LD): Senior executives at my local hospitals tell me that, although they regret ward closures, poor hygiene and
9 Mar 2005 : Column 1517
clinical negligence, they face no penalties for those failures, but that they face the sack if they fail to reduce their financial deficits. Will the Prime Minister clarify the primary and overriding duty of the chief executive of an NHS hospital?
The Prime Minister:
It is, of course, to assist in the provision of first-class health care and, of course, to make sure that hospitals live within their budgets. However, I am delighted to say that the investment made by this Government has led to a massive increase in health service spending in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, and in constituencies up and down the country. According to the statistics that I have for health care in Twickenham, there has been a real-terms increase in investment of more than 6 per cent. As a result, Richmond and Twickenham NHS Primary Care Trust receives £176 million in funding. Moreover, there
9 Mar 2005 : Column 1518
are 2,700 more nurses and 700 more doctors, and waiting times and waiting lists have fallen. It seems to me that the health care system in his constituency is doing rather well—which is why people in the area will no doubt want to continue with a Labour Government.
Q5. [220726] Jane Griffiths (Reading, East) (Lab): Does my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister welcome, as I do, the publication of the long awaited Bill on Crossrail? Will he congratulate colleagues in the Department for Transport on agreeing to consult on safeguarding the route to Reading? Does he look forward, as I do, to Crossrail becoming reality as soon as possible, so that London and its environs have the world-class, 21st century transport system that they deserve?
The Prime Minister: Yes, I do.
9 Mar 2005 : Column 1519
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |