PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked-Engagements Q1. [147668] Mr. Huw Edwards (Monmouth): If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 7 February. The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today. I also spoke on the telephone to Mr. Sharon, the new Israeli Prime Minister, and offered our help in the difficult times that may lie ahead for the middle-east peace process. Mr. Edwards: The decision by Corus last week to shed 6,000 steel jobs will have a devastating effect in south Wales, especially at the Llanwern steelworks in my constituency, where 1,300 jobs are about to be lost. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the management of Corus, and especially its chairman Sir Brian Moffatt, have treated the work force appallingly and have not co-operated with the Government? May I urge him to put pressure on Corus to work with the Government, the work force and the National Assembly to save those jobs and secure British steel production in the future? The Prime Minister: We hope that, even at this stage, Corus will be prepared to rethink its decision. We are in close touch with the company, the work force and Members of the Welsh Assembly who have been active on the issue. The Corus work force are highly productive and highly skilled, and they deserve a decent future. I know that it is no consolation to them or to people in other parts of the country where jobs have been lost, but I was pleased at the announcement of new jobs at Bridgend earlier in the week and at Ellesmere Port. We must do everything possible to safeguard highly skilled, productive jobs in the United Kingdom. Mr. William Hague (Richmond, Yorks): The Foreign Secretary repeated this week that the Government, if re-elected, would make an assessment on joining the euro early in the next Parliament. Does "early" mean in the first two years of that Parliament? The Prime Minister: "Early in the next Parliament" means exactly what it says. It would of course be within two years. Mr. Hague: Ah, progress. The Prime Minister is more forthcoming than the Foreign Secretary, who said that early meant early, or the Trade and Industry Secretary, who under the helpful headline "Byers reopens cabinet split on single currency", reiterated his support for the single currency last night. If "early" means within two years, could it mean within months of a general election? The Prime Minister: It has been made clear already that it does not mean that. What is important when that assessment is made is that the economic tests are met. 7 Feb 2001 : Column 919

What is absurd is the right hon. Gentleman's position, which is that he will rule out the single currency in principle, but only for one Parliament. Mr. Hague: It is no good the Prime Minister trying to distract attention from his policy, which is under scrutiny this afternoon. The Government have not known what "early" means. They do not know whether it means months or years, so when he says--[Interruption.] Let us get this clear. When he says that he will make an assessment on abolishing the pound early in the next Parliament, is he ruling out that being within months of a general election? The Prime Minister: I did that about a year or 18 months ago. Of course we will not move immediately, but we will do it within a reasonable time frame. Surely the issue is what the sensible policy to have is. Is it to judge according to the economic tests or to rule the single currency out on political grounds? The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the speech by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. My right hon. Friend said that if we were to rule out the euro on political grounds, which is the right hon. Gentleman's policy, we would lose massive inward investment. [Interruption.] No, it is not waffle; it is jobs in this country. Let me tell the right hon. Gentleman--perhaps he will comment on it when he gets back up--that Nissan said in terms that if we ruled out the euro for the next Parliament on political grounds, the investment in Sunderland would not come. Mr. Hague: The Prime Minister has a cheek to lecture anyone on manufacturing jobs when 6,000 manufacturing jobs have just been lost under his Government and one third of a million have been lost in this country since he took office. Now that the Prime Minister has partly adopted the policy that he has always criticised--of ruling out joining the single currency for a certain period--because he will not make an assessment until many months after the election, and as he is so clear about the timing, will he tell us, on this central point in his coming manifesto, how the question in that referendum would be phrased? The Prime Minister: The question can be phrased at a later time, but the issue is perfectly simple: whether we join the single currency or not. The question is, what is the right policy? We have made it clear that the tests should be the economic tests that have been set out and the convergence of the economy. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can explain to the House why, if he is against the single currency as a matter of principle, he is against it only for five years. Mr. Hague: There is only--[Hon. Members: "Answer!"] I shall tell the right hon. Gentleman. There is only one honest policy: to tell the country what a future Government would do. The Prime Minister is unable and unwilling to tell us what he will do because he does not want to admit that he wants to scrap the pound after the coming election. He is not able to be more forthcoming about the timing. He is not able to say what the question will be. It would be easy to conclude that he does not know very much; actually, he does know the answer to 7 Feb 2001 : Column 920 those questions but he does not want to admit it. Why does he not have the courage to tell the country that he wants to scrap the pound after the next election? The Prime Minister: We have said that, in principle, we favour Britain joining a successful single currency; in practice, the economic tests must be met--[Hon. Members: "Answer!"] I answered the right hon. Gentleman's question when he first put it--rather to his surprise. The

final decision will be for the British people in the referendum. That is all absolutely clear. What is not clear is how one can be against it as a matter of principle, but only for five years. The real agenda was let out of the bag--rather well--by the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) in a speech yesterday. He said:

"I urge my fellow countrymen and women to agree with me that we must renegotiate this unhappy relationship"--

with the EU--

"before it is too late."

Conservative Members are nodding. I have explained our policy: to make a judgment according to the tests, and to do it in a way that allows the British people the final say in a referendum. There is no question of our renegotiating our basic terms of membership of the European Union. Given that the right hon. Member for Wokingham is again one of the party people at Conservative central office, perhaps the Leader of the Opposition would like to get up and disown him. Mr. Hague: Our policy is to be in Europe but not run by Europe--a policy supported by the vast majority of people in this country. The Prime Minister's European policy is like his Minister for Europe--not trusted by anyone, giving no straight answers, and half the Cabinet wants to get rid of it. Everyone knows that his European policy is to keep the Minister and dump the pound. Should not his policy be to dump the Minister and keep the pound? The Prime Minister: These stirring speeches in favour of the pound would be much more convincing if the right hon. Gentleman said that he was not ruling it out for just five years. That is an absurd position to be in. Of course, he did not answer the question about the right hon. Member for Wokingham, because the right hon. Gentleman was not the only one to say that. At the weekend, the Leader of the Opposition was forced to intervene with Baroness Thatcher. He was forced to stand up to her, which, for him, took a lot of courage. He slapped her down and said:

"I'm pleased to say I enjoy excellent relations with Lady Thatcher".

[Hon. Members: "Oh!"] I am sure that he does. The truth is that our policy--to judge, according to the economic tests, what is good for British jobs, British business and industry-is the right one. The final decision will be for people to make in a referendum. The real reason the right hon. Gentleman rules it out, in principle, as a matter of politics, is that he knows--as we saw a moment or two ago--that a large part of his party want out of Europe altogether. If we did leave, we would lose jobs, 7 Feb 2001 : Column 921 investment and influence. The truth of the matter is that it is not I who have to explain my policy; the right hon. Gentleman has to explain his. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I call Steve Pound-Hon. Members: Keep the pound--[Laughter.] Mr. Stephen Pound (Ealing, North): Being loved by the entire House is an experience that is completely new to me. Did the Prime Minister see the report in The Times today listing the Cardinal Wiseman high school in Greenford as one of the most improved high schools in the country, notwithstanding the fact that my wife is a governor and my daughter a pupil of that school? Will the Prime Minister pay credit to Paul Patrick and his staff at Cardinal Wiseman and agree with me that here is graphic evidence of an education system that is improving and a Government who are delivering? The Prime Minister: There is one pound that we shall definitely keep. In relation to the education system, yesterday's Ofsted report showed that nine out of 10 secondary schools are improving, that primary schools have made a huge step change and that there is improvement in the standard of teaching. Of course, it also drew attention to problems in the schools, but that is precisely why it is important that we make the extra investment. Over the next few years, massive investment will go into our primary and secondary schools and into university education. We will put that money in, and the Conservative party would take it out. Mr. Charles Kennedy (Ross, Skye and Inverness, West): On the subject of education and following on from his response to the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound), will the Prime Minister guarantee that he will not put up student tuition fees if his party wins a second term of office? The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman is referring to top-up fees, we have already made it clear that we do not favour top-up fees. Mr. Kennedy: The Prime Minister should surely recognise, because the Government's own research demonstrates, that students and potential students are being disadvantaged and put off going into the tertiary sector as a result of his policy. We have got rid of tuition fees in the Scottish context. Why does he remain wedded to that tax on learning in the rest of the United Kingdom? The Prime Minister: First, actually there have been 500,000 extra students in further and higher education since we came to office. Secondly, I urge the right hon. Gentleman to look at the following words very carefully:

"We support the Government's proposal to end maintenance grants and replace them with incomecontingent loans as the fairest way of securing a greater contribution from students."--[Official Report, 16 March 1998; Vol. 308, c. 995.]

7 Feb 2001 : Column 922

That was said, during the passage of the Teaching and Higher Education Bill, by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), the Liberal Democrat education spokesman.

Ms Dari Taylor (Stockton, South): I am sure that my right hon. Friend is more than aware of the anxieties being felt by steel communities throughout Great Britain, which of course includes Teesside. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the cancellation by Sir Brian Moffatt of a meeting with Back Benchers representing steel communities is a continued sign of his sheer indifference to the devastation that he has caused? The Prime Minister: As I said a moment or two ago, it is important that we carry on working with the company and we hope that, even at this stage, it can reconsider. I know that my hon. Friend speaks for many of her constituents when she talks of their anger, because these are well-paid, highly productive and skilled jobs, often in areas of high unemployment; but we will stand ready to help, as we have done before, in any way that we can. Q2. [147669] Mr. Phil Willis (Harrogate and Knaresborough): Is the Prime Minister proud of a record that has seen the number of vacancies in secondary schools double in his term of office? Is he proud to see secondary school class sizes at their highest for 25 years? Is he proud to see an inspector's report, published yesterday, that says that indiscipline in our schools is getting worse year by year, and that teacher recruitment over the lifetime of this Parliament is down by about 14 per cent? Is the 3.7 per cent. that the Government have given teachers adequate reward for that endeavour? The 200 million that local authorities will have to find to bridge the gap between what the Government have given and what they will have--[Interruption.] Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the Prime Minister knows what the hon. Gentleman is talking about. The Prime Minister: Let me correct the hon. Gentleman on the facts. The inspector's report actually found that nine out of 10 secondary schools were improving. It is true that he found, in a minority of schools, that there was an increase in disruptive behaviour. He then went on to say, however, that the Government were taking action to deal with that, and that that action would deal with it. We are putting in an additional 200 million to deal with some of the unruly pupils and some of the excluded pupils. In respect of class sizes, as the hon. Gentleman knows, there has been an increase of something like 0.3 of a pupil since the election. Class sizes in secondary schools have been going up for a very long period of years. However, in primary schools, class sizes have fallen as a result of the additional money that we have put in. Now, we are making a 5 billion increase in investment in education. Of course, there is always more that we can do, and we have to do more. However, given that we are spending 7 Feb 2001 : Column 923 five, six or seven times more on education than they ever asked us to spend, it really is absurd of the Liberal Democrats to accuse us of not spending enough. Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North): Is my right hon. Friend aware that many people in Israel, and obviously many outside, hold the newly elected Prime Minister of Israel to be indirectly responsible, as he knew what was going to happen, for the massacre by a Christian Lebanese faction of Palestinian men, women and children--even babes in arms--in September 1982? Does my right hon. Friend agree that what happened yesterday will make it that much more difficult to have a peace process working in Israel and for the Palestinians, and that one

of the ironies is that Sharon's victory yesterday will bring satisfaction to many terror groups in the Arab world? The Prime Minister: The fact is that Mr. Sharon has been elected Prime Minister, and it is important now that we, as a country, do everything that we can to further the peace process in the middle east. It is important for the middle east, and for the security of the whole world. Whatever differences there have been before, it is important that we work with the duly elected Prime Minister in Israel. The process is in a very fragile state indeed, and not just Britain, but the European Union and the United States of America, have to do everything that we can to put the process back on track and work with Mr. Sharon to deliver it. European Rapid Reaction Force Q3. [147670] Dr. Julian Lewis (New Forest, East): If he will make a statement on the military advantages of a European rapid reaction force outside the NATO structure. The Prime Minister: I have already made the position clear. Dr. Lewis: For the sake of those who might find that answer obscure even by the Prime Minister's standards, the question was: what are the advantages of having a European rapid reaction force outside the NATO structure? Does the Prime Minister accept that the first world war certainly, and the second world war arguably, grew out of crises that escalated out of control without the Americans being involved? Does he also accept that the great achievement of NATO was to guarantee American involvement? If he does accept that, how can he possibly justify creating such dangerous arrangements, which would pave the way for conflicts in which the Americans would not be involved on the side of the European states? The Prime Minister: Let me read what the American Secretary of State, Colin Powell, said yesterday:

"I think if we approach the European security and defence initiative . . . with an understanding that it is firmly embedded in NATO, and we're not duplicating planning capabilities, and that we're adding to the overall capacity of both NATO and the EU . . . then there's no reason to see this as destabilising NATO in any way. In fact, I think it's our common belief that it will strengthen NATO."

Colin Powell's words reflect not just American policy, but British policy. Once again, I shall state the facts for the hon. Gentleman. This is for peacekeeping and 7 Feb 2001 : Column 924 humanitarian missions. It is for circumstances where NATO is not engaged. It is perfectly sensible that Europe should have the capability, in circumstances where NATO is not engaged, to engage in those missions. Let me give a classic example from the past 10 years. In Bosnia, in the early 1990s, because there was no European defence capability and because, at that time, the Americans did not wish to be involved, literally thousands of people were slaughtered right on the doorstep of Europe, so I regard the hon. Gentleman's comparison with the first and second world wars as

absolutely fatuous. I am afraid that it is an example of how anything with the word "Europe" does something to the mentality of the Conservative party. Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North): When my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is in discussion with NATO colleagues concerning the European rapid reaction force, will he make it clear that there is no possibility whatever of this country or, I hope, any other European country signing up for, agreeing to or participating in national missile defence, because it would be a nuclear proliferation that would be a danger to the whole planet? The Prime Minister: I am afraid that it will not surprise my hon. Friend that I cannot make such a statement. As I have said in exchanges with the Leader of the Opposition, it is sensible to wait until we have a proposal, but I have no doubt at all that, as ever, we shall work closely with our American allies. Engagements Q4. [147671] Sir Robert Smith (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine): Does the Prime Minister accept that the poorest pensioners in our society today are those who are entitled to the minimum income guarantee, but who fail to claim it? The Prime Minister: Of course it is true that people who are entitled to the minimum income guarantee but who do not claim it are in poverty. We have introduced it and hundreds of thousands of people claim it. We are mounting a campaign now to increase the take-up, and those pensioners, like all the other pensioners, will get the benefit of the winter allowance of 200 and, if they are over 75, of free television licences. I say to the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues that we can always do more, but we have to do more within the resources that we have. We have many claims on those resources and, at some point, the Liberal Democrats must come to the realisation that there is a limit to the amount of money that any Government can spend. Mrs. Anne Campbell (Cambridge): Does my right hon. Friend agree that setting universities free of all Government regulation would mean lower teaching quality, spiralling student costs and top-up fees through the back door? The Prime Minister: What my hon. Friend says is absolutely right. I should perhaps educate some Conservative Members about their policy. The position that they will take at the election is to cut--[Interruption.] They shake their heads, but I have not even said what it is yet. Their spending cuts to fund their tax plans include 7 Feb 2001 : Column 925 1.3 billion taken out of public provision for universities, which will mean a rocketing tuition fee for any student. They have no way of paying for that policy and that is yet another reason why people will not vote for them at the election. Q5. [147672] Mr. Peter Bottomley (Worthing, West): I thank the Prime Minister for his letter today about the Krishna Maharaj case. Although I understand that he has necessarily reproduced much of the Florida state case, may I ask him to go forward on the point that he made about doing all that can be done?

May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that, in Germany, a similar case cost $1 million for its national to be able to get his case properly represented at federal level and state level? I am not asking the Prime Minister to say yes or no today to such an approach, but will he encourage his colleagues in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office--perhaps also the Home Office in view of Mr. Maharaj's possible repatriation-and Law Officers to meet the Bar Council human rights people and others working for Krishna Maharaj to make sure that his sentence was justified and that, if any more can properly be done, it will be considered? The Prime Minister: We will of course do anything that we can and should properly do in relation to this case. I understand that representatives of the Foreign Office will be happy to meet the hon. Gentleman, and I shall ask them to contact him to arrange the meeting. We can then take whatever meetings are appropriate from there. I also understand that representatives of the Foreign Office previously met Mr. Maharaj's lawyer, and consular officials will of course be happy to set up another meeting with his legal team. As I say, subject to what is proper, we shall do what we can in respect of this case. Mr. Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale, East): Will my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister join me in welcoming this week's opening of the second runway at Manchester airport, which is now able to handle 40 million passengers a year? Does he agree that, once the new capacity is fully utilised, it could help to reduce the increasing pressures on London's airports as well as create thousands of new jobs in my constituency and throughout the northwest? The Prime Minister: Yes, I agree. Opening the second runway is important for jobs in the area and for business, not only in the north-west but throughout the United Kingdom. I am delighted to congratulate all those who worked on the project. Q6. [147673] Mr. Martin Bell (Tatton): Does the Prime Minister accept that the task of restoring public confidence in public life is as important in this Parliament as it was in the last? In view of the widespread perception that political honours are sold to party contributors on a scale unknown since Lloyd George's time, will the right hon. Gentleman fulfil his promise to clean up politics? The Prime Minister: We accept the duty to ensure that our political life is clean, but I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's statement about political honours. Maria Eagle (Liverpool, Garston): When outlining the Government's public expenditure plans, does my right 7 Feb 2001 : Column 926 hon. Friend believe that it is essential to explain their funding to the people of the country? Does he also believe that every other party that presents plans should be able to provide similar explanations and that any party that does not is unfit to govern? The Prime Minister: I shall certainly ensure that any proposals that we make as a Government are properly costed. That is the right way to go about it. On the Conservative party, I could not put it better--[Interruption.] We have noted some sensitivity from

Conservative Members on a certain subject. Earlier this week, the Conservative health spokeswoman, the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman), said:

"A party that cannot realistically say how it intends to foot such a substantial bill is not fit to govern."-[Official Report, 5 February 2001; Vol. 362, c. 740.]

I agree. Q7. [147674] Dr. Jenny Tonge (Richmond Park): The Prime Minister knows that the inquiry into a fifth terminal at Heathrow airport ended nearly two years ago, lasted more than four years and cost approximately 12 million. When can my constituents and people throughout south-west London expect to see the inspector's report, which is public property for which they paid? When will the Government tackle the environmental damage caused by unrestricted growth of air transport? The Prime Minister: The inquiry is due to report on the latter point. It is important to realise that, although the inquiry has taken a long time--no one is surprised about that--and it will take time for us to consider the details of the report, as soon as we have done that we shall publish it and our response. Mr. Alan Simpson (Nottingham, South): Has the Prime Minister had an opportunity to read an article in today's edition of The Guardian, which questions the probity of a bookmaker who funds an election campaign for a political party while running a book on the election outcome? Does my right hon. Friend agree that, when a top politician accepts 5 million to act as a glorified bookie's runner, we need a steward's inquiry? The Prime Minister: I notice that the company took a different view from the individual about the outcome of the election. However, my hon. Friend makes a serious point. It is no wonder that the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) espouses his policy on the euro; the money that the Conservative party receives is conditional on retaining that policy. The donor sets out stipulations for future Conservative party leaders. There are 5 million reasons why it will not change its policy. Mr. Patrick McLoughlin (West Derbyshire): The Prime Minister will know about the release this morning of Stephen Downing after serving 27 years in jail. The counsel for the Crown admitted in court that the conviction was unsafe. Will the Prime Minister pay tribute to Stephen Downing's family and the editor of the Matlock Mercury, who have stood by him steadfastly throughout the campaign? There have been several delays 7 Feb 2001 : Column 927 in the case. Will the Prime Minister ensure that Departments address expeditiously any future action that they may need to take? The Prime Minister: Obviously, I have not had an opportunity to study the judgment itself, although I know of the case. I also know that the hon. Gentleman has campaigned long on this issue and has asked me about it before. I would simply say to him that of course I am happy to pay tribute both to the work of the family on behalf of Mr. Downing and to the

Matlock Mercury editor, who has championed the cause. I am only pleased that, after such a long time, this case is finally at en end. Dr. Desmond Turner (Brighton, Kemptown): Does the Prime Minister agree that the thousands of jobs lost last week in British manufacturing underline the monumental folly of any policy that would keep Britain out of the euro? The Tories may keep their pound, but how many thousands of British jobs would be lost as a result? 7 Feb 2001 : Column 928 The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to the fact that, as I said a moment ago, ruling out the euro would indeed mean an immediate loss of jobs in Britain. There is absolutely no doubt about that, which is why the decision should be taken on economic grounds. However, there is another thing that would put jobs at risk in this country-a return to Tory boom and bust. We know how that started last time: with promises of Tory tax cuts that ended up in high interest rates, tax rises and spending cuts. That is what they did before, and that is what they would do again. Q8. [147675] Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst): When will the Prime Minister end the scandal of English subsidies for Scottish benefits? The Prime Minister: I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman and I will have to disagree on that matter. At least we can agree on one thing: he has an honest policy for the euro. He wants to rule it out for ever, and that is the policy that he wants to push on his party. 7 Feb 2001 : Column 929