| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Anthrax
Q4. [36923] Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow): What were the sources of information received by Her Majesty's Government on 5 March on the threats by Iraq to smuggle anthrax into the United Kingdom.
The Deputy Prime Minister: As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said in a reply to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) on 24 March 1998 at column 179, it is not the Government's policy to disclose sources of specific information. Any report is carefully assessed in the context of the full picture of all available information.
Mr. Dalyell: Bluntly, the source was Mossad, was it not?
The Deputy Prime Minister: Bluntly, the House would not expect me to go into detail about our intelligence or its sources. That, as I am sure my hon. Friend will recognise, would damage our national interest and place our sources at risk. I am sure that my hon. Friend will appreciate that that is the policy pursued by all Governments.
Engagements
Q5. [36924] Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham): Given the right hon. Gentleman's admission that a minimum wage will destroy jobs and the Trades Union Congress forecast of 200,000 job losses in manufacturing industry, how does he reconcile the rhetoric of welfare to work with the reality that the Government are set to deliver work to welfare on an horrific scale?
The Deputy Prime Minister: It is amazing that the hon. Gentleman talks about small numbers of manufacturing jobs, important though they are, when the Conservative Government were responsible for the loss of 2 million jobs in the manufacturing sector, which we have to deal with.
Under the wages councils legislation, before the previous Administration abolished wages councils, I was one of those who received the minimum wage when working as a commis chef in hotels. So that Conservative Members do not misunderstand, I should explain that a commis chef is a trainee chef and has no political significance whatever, although I am not sure that that is what the hotel manager thought. We should remember that what we are doing about fair employment rights will be welcomed by millions of workers.
The advice that the hon. Gentleman has been given to ask that question is probably as inaccurate as that which he gave Jonathan Aitken when he was his adviser. He expressed himself in the exaggerated language that he used as chairman of the Federation of Conservative Students before it was disbanded by Norman Tebbit for being too right-wing.
Mr. Kelvin Hopkins (Luton, North):
How can I follow that?
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the channel tunnel could and should carry much more freight traffic? If so, will the Government consider every practical means of increasing such traffic through the tunnel?
The Deputy Prime Minister:
Yes, I certainly believe that. I see a great future for freight, especially through the channel tunnel to Europe. In the past six months, I have been actively involved in renegotiating the channel tunnel agreement--it is not very good; it was negotiated by the previous Administration. We shall make announcements about those matters shortly, in the White Paper and on the channel tunnel rail link, as I promised the House.
Mr. Michael Fabricant (Lichfield):
Further to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) and the Deputy Prime Minister's answer on manufacturing, has the right hon. Gentleman read the rather alarming report published by the Engineering Employers Federation on manufacturing in the west midlands? Will he join me and his hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Purchase), the parliamentary private secretary to the Foreign Secretary, in saying that interest rates must be reduced to preserve manufacturing? The only way to reduce interest rates is by ending the political situation whereby the Bank of England is a halfway house: it is neither independent, nor fully controlled by the Government, as interest rates and the inflation rate have been set for purely political ends.
The Deputy Prime Minister:
The previous Administration's record on manufacturing leaves a lot to be desired.
As to interest rates and the independence of the Government, I recall when interest rates doubled in a night under a previous Chancellor of the Exchequer, as the Conservative Government desperately tried to stave off exit from the exchange rate mechanism. We are more concerned with the long-term running of our economy than with the short-term boom and bust that we got for 18 years under the Tory party. That argument was well tested in the election; the hon. Gentleman had a majority of 238, with a notional 10 per cent. swing to Labour. It may be a case of "hair today, gone tomorrow".
Mr. Malcolm Wicks (Croydon, North):
With the Greater London referendum fast approaching, will my right hon. Friend do his utmost to ensure a massive yes vote in London--yes for a mayor and yes for an authority? Does he agree that it was typical and historically appropriate that Tory hereditary peers voted against the Greater London Authority (Referendum) Bill, and therefore snubbed the idea of democracy for Londoners?
The Deputy Prime Minister:
I strongly support returning choice to Londoners so that they can decide on their own government. Under the last Administration, they had no choice. The last Administration abolished the local government--the Greater London council--with no consultation whatever.
My hon. Friend's point is entirely valid. It is a bit of a cheek for Tory backwoodsmen in the House of Lords to vote against giving the people of London a right to vote on the issue. I believe that, on 7 May, the people will vote for an elected mayor and an elected local government. That is the choice that we are giving them--a radical choice. I look forward to a resounding yes on 7 May, and another U-turn from the Tory party as it begins to support us.
Q7. [36926] Dr. Julian Lewis (New Forest, East):
If he will make a statement on the Government's policy towards nuclear deterrence.
The Deputy Prime Minister:
As the hon. Gentleman is so familiar with Labour party documents owing to his past experience, let me refer him to page 38 of Labour's manifesto, which sets out our policy on the issue. We put that manifesto to the British people on 1 May. It gave us the largest parliamentary majority of the century--and, I assume, the fewest Tory Members elected to any Parliament in the same period.
Dr. Lewis:
I realise that, in view of his own deplorable past support for the campaign for unilateral nuclear disarmament, the Deputy Prime Minister finds it difficult to say that he approves of nuclear deterrence. I have no doubt that he will follow the precedent set by his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) by emulating the evasive and slippery techniques of his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, and referring to my political activities in the Labour party in the 1970s.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister simply answer one question? If, now that the danger of Russian nuclear aggression has receded, the Government appreciate nuclear deterrence, do they admit that they were wrong to call for unilateral nuclear disarmament at the height of the threat from the Soviet Union at the time of the cold war, when the Deputy Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister all supported the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament?
The Deputy Prime Minister:
That was an interesting question, but it was not truthful and not worth answering.
Mr. Harry Cohen (Leyton and Wanstead):
As my right hon. Friend will know, last year in Helsinki
The Deputy Prime Minister:
As my hon. Friend knows, we are re-examining those very matters in our strategic defence review. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has answered questions, and a statement will be made to the House at the appropriate time. It will be made by my right hon. Friend, as I am sure the House would expect.
Q8. [36927] Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark, North and Bermondsey):
The Audit Commission report published last month confirms that my borough of Southwark--the second most deprived borough in the country, where Labour has run education since the war--is at the bottom of the secondary school attainment tables, although it spends far more than the most deprived borough in the country. Today's Treasury figures show that, in the past year and the coming year, the Government will have spent less of our national wealth on education than the Tories. Is it not clear that, at local level, Labour does not deliver value for money, and at national level it simply does not deliver the money?
The Deputy Prime Minister:
I am afraid that, yet again, that is not consistent with the truth. I see that the hon. Gentleman is holding up a copy of a national newspaper; I hope he will forgive me if I say that it does not necessarily contain the truth.
I note that, when commenting on the amount of resources given to education and health, Liberal Democrats constantly call for an extra £1.1 billion in the first two years. We have given more than £2 billion to health and almost £850 million to education. That is more than was ever promised by the Liberal Democrats, and it is certainly more than was envisaged in the previous Administration's expenditure programme. It is still too early to make a proper judgment on the balance of resources as between all expenditure. It is over the period of five years that the electorate will make that decision, and I have no doubt that it will return us with a resounding yes.
Mr. Chris Pond (Gravesham):
In this 50th anniversary year of the national health service, which was established by a Labour Government against Tory opposition, will my right hon. Friend take every opportunity to remind the British public that another great British institution, the national minimum wage, will be introduced by a Labour Government and that it is still opposed, as we have heard today, by the Tories?
The Deputy Prime Minister:
It is worth repeating the history which shows that the Tories bitterly opposed the establishment of a national health service. In their last years in office they claimed that it was one of their ideas, although few of them use it. I shall leave that aside.
Q9. [36928] Dr. Vincent Cable (Twickenham):
With the formation of the Euro X committee by European Union countries that will form the first wave of EMU to co-ordinate economic policy in the EU, could the Deputy Prime Minister explain precisely the areas of economic policy making from which British Ministers will be excluded in this phase?
The Deputy Prime Minister:
It is clear, and I think that the Prime Minister has made it clear from time to time, as has the Chancellor, that there are no areas of economic decision making from which the Government will be excluded in the EU.
Q10. [36929] Mr. Bill Rammell (Harlow):
Will the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that the Government's commitment to education as our number one political priority is a commitment that we expect all local education authorities to adhere to and respect? By contrast to such a commitment, may I tell him that the new Conservative administration on Essex county council in this its first year is scandalously planning to spend £3.5 million below the Government's SSA for education? That means that the successful music schools in my constituency face cuts of 70 per cent. Does that not demonstrate that, where and when the Tory party gets its hands on political power, whether at national or local level, it always cuts education because the Tories simply do not believe that it is important?
The Deputy Prime Minister:
We should put on record the fact that our local authority settlement was about £835 million for education. Every pound was funded in full by the Government, so there was no necessity to cut any services to provide extra for education. Spending caps were designed to allow local authorities to put all the money that was given to them into education. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment wrote to all local authorities making it clear that he expected them to do precisely that. Essex received £497 million, which is £27 million more than in 1997-98. That is an increase of almost 6 per cent.
Most authorities have followed the Government's lead, but authorities that do not will be held accountable by their electorates. It is quite clear that Essex gave education a low priority, despite what we hear from Conservative Front-Bench spokesmen, and it has chosen to deny the
people what we intended them to have--more money for education. Our No. 1 priority is education, education, education.
Q11. [36930] Mr. Oliver Heald (North-East Hertfordshire):
Can the Deputy Prime Minister tell us the answer to this: will he act now to save the green belt in Hertfordshire, as requested by Hertfordshire county council last week?
The Deputy Prime Minister:
Of course, I have to wait for the judgment or the statement by Hertfordshire. [Hon. Members: "Oh.] I do not think that the House would expect me to comment without having seen what the local authority has to say about the matter. We have made it absolutely clear--[Interruption.] I am sorry, but an announcement by a Tory Member is not necessarily the view of the Hertfordshire local authority. It would be proper for me to receive a proper communication. I assume that even the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) would not disagree with that.
When I receive it, I will give it the proper consideration that is involved in these matters, but I have to say that the Opposition have had a very elastic policy as to what the proportion of building should be on brown-field and green-field sites: it has varied, basically, from 50 per cent, to 60 per cent., to 66 per cent., to 73 per cent--and I think it has now fallen back to 66 per cent. I await the next announcement.
Q12. [36931] Mr. Bill Michie (Sheffield, Heeley):
On the day that this House adjourns for the easter break, should we not remember the millions of workers in this country who do not have statutory holiday entitlement? Does my right hon. Friend therefore welcome, as I do, today's announcement by the Government to start consultation on the European workplace directive in order that many workers in this country will for the first time have the right to paid holidays?
The Deputy Prime Minister:
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is exactly what we will do and it is another manifesto election pledge that we will carry out. To be fair, good employers give their workers decent holidays, and better companies sometimes do better than that. These regulations will be an important step to turning bad employers into better ones and to giving working people the decent terms and conditions that we all deserve. All that some Tories want to do, apparently, is block us in government achieving those objectives. We await the debates and discussions that will take place in the House, but it is interesting to note that the Tories would fight an election on the rallying cry, "Vote Tory and we will take your holiday rights away."
Q13. [36932] Mr. Gary Streeter (South-West Devon):
Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree with last week's remarks by the Foreign Secretary that, although 20 years ago Britain was stuck in decline, today, she is dynamic, self-confident and outward-looking? To what does he attribute that remarkable transformation over the past two decades?
The Deputy Prime Minister:
It shows the real effect of a new Labour Government.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |