Previous SectionIndexHome Page

5 Mar 2003 : Column 806—continued

Parish Councillors

6. Mr. Stephen O'Brien (Eddisbury): If he will make a statement on the number of parish councillors who have stood aside because of the parish council code of conduct. [100654]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Christopher Leslie): The Standards Board for England and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister have been informed of 95 resignations by parish councillors unwilling to accept the code of conduct out of a total of more than 70,000 parish councillors across England.

Mr. O'Brien : The Minister's answer is proof, if proof were needed, of the Government's cynical contempt for the integrity and selflessness of hard-working parish councillors, often with years of non-political public service, who are the backbone of our rural communities in particular. Will the Minister now account for the Government's actions to my constituents, particularly Councillor Brian Smith of Tattenhall and district parish council, where 12 of the 15 parish councillors have resigned or are stepping down because of the monstrous code of conduct? Will the Government now revise the code, given that it is an attack on rural communities in particular and shows contempt for their approach to selfless public service?

Mr. Leslie: Only 0.1 per cent. of parish councillors cannot live with the basic concept of a register of members' interests. It is an important component of local democracy, just as it is of national democracy. Parish councils need to be seen to be objective and working in accordance with basic democratic principles. I do not believe that a register of members' interests is too much to ask.

David Taylor (North-West Leicestershire): I am a parish councillor. Does my hon. Friend agree that the standards of probity in parish councils are higher than in any other area of local government? Is it not a tad over the top that there are tighter restrictions on parish councillors, who may spend £7 per head of their

5 Mar 2003 : Column 807

population, than on Ministers, who may spend £7,000 per head? Will he admit that we could have it a little wrong?

Mr. Leslie: My hon. Friend's argument is wrong. We believe that parish councils are important and should be accorded significant respect and status. That is why we wish to extend the basic principle of a register of members' interests to parish councillors, just as one applies to all democratic layers of government in our country.

Local Government

7. Mr. Ken Purchase (Wolverhampton, North-East): What assessment he has made of the ways in which the comprehensive performance assessment will improve performance of local government. [100655]

The Minister for Local Government and the Regions (Mr. Nick Raynsford): The comprehensive performance assessment outcomes for county and single-tier authorities were published on 12 December 2002. We are currently working closely with local government to ensure that councils build on their CPA assessments to achieve real improvements in the quality of the services they deliver.

Mr. Purchase : Does my right hon. Friend understand that very few local authorities have confidence in the assessors? Does he know that one of the assessors for Wolverhampton council was a Lib Dem councillor from another authority? Can he see the irony of allowing a representative of a party constantly and consistently rejected by the voters of Wolverhampton to pass judgment on that council? Will he take steps to ensure that no such nonsense is repeated, in order that we may have greater confidence in the process?

Mr. Raynsford: The vast majority of local authorities have welcomed the CPA, especially the peer review element, which has involved other councillors and council officers from other authorities contributing towards the assessment. We see that as an important part of the process. The crucial purpose of the assessment is to improve the quality of services. I am pleased that Wolverhampton council has been speaking positively about how it can improve its services in the light of the comprehensive performance assessment.

Social Exclusion Unit

8. Mr. Gareth Thomas (Harrow, West): If he will set out the social exclusion unit's plans over the next 12 months. [100657]

The Minister for Social Exclusion and Deputy Minister for Women (Mrs. Barbara Roche): My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister today announced two major new unit projects. The unit will work across Government to look at what more needs to be done to

5 Mar 2003 : Column 808

help people in the most deprived areas move into work, and to prevent social exclusion among adults with mental health problems.

Mr. Thomas : I warmly welcome that announcement. Will my hon. Friend ask the unit to undertake further work on the institutional, financial and legal barriers that still face social entrepreneurs who want to set up social enterprises to help in the regeneration of their communities? [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House is far too noisy.

Mrs. Roche: My hon. Friend raises an important point. We should certainly examine barriers to enterprise. The House will be interested to know that the rate of business start-ups is 10 times higher in the best parts of the UK than it is in the most deprived areas. Social entrepreneurs can make a magnificent contribution to neighbourhood renewal and regeneration.

Mr. Gary Streeter (South-West Devon): Does the Minister agree that one of the greatest causes of social exclusion is the misery and poverty caused by drugs in our society? After six years of a Labour Government, why do heroin addicts in Plymouth still have to wait two years to get access to treatment?

Mrs. Roche: I would be very pleased to discuss with the hon. Gentleman any problems that he is encountering in his constituency. As I am the Minister with responsibility for homelessness policy, which can sometimes, but not always, have a connection with drugs, particularly in respect of single homelessness, I have taken a keen interest in this area. I can tell him that very good progress is being made with the work of the drug action teams, but I shall certainly consider the issues in his constituency.


The Prime Minister was asked—


Q1. [100633] Mr. Henry Bellingham (North-West Norfolk): If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 5 March.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): Earlier this morning, we concluded the Northern Ireland negotiation, which I hope will allow a final and durable settlement. I met the Russian Foreign Minister at 8.30 this morning and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I will have further such meetings later today.

Mr. Bellingham: Last Wednesday, the Prime Minister said that people should go to university on the basis of their merit. On Monday, his Minister for Lifelong Learning and Higher Education said that she would set specific targets for children from poorer backgrounds. Can he now clear up this confusion once and for all and

5 Mar 2003 : Column 809

assure pupils in my constituency that their university applications will be based on merit and transparency, and not crude social engineering?

The Prime Minister: Of course, it should be based on merit and the ability of students, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will also agree that we should do everything that we possibly can, subject to what I have just said, to widen access to our universities, because it is also important that we allow children from working class and poorer backgrounds the chance of a first class, quality university education.

Roger Casale (Wimbledon): St. Helier hospital in south-west London has leapt from a zero to a two-star rating and has just taken delivery of ultra-sound equipment for cancer care. Does my right hon. Friend agree with Merton council and local campaigner Stephen Alambritis that such improvements make a good case for keeping the hospital open? Does not the case of St. Helier show that, through reform, we can improve the health service where those reforms are backed up by investment and not undermined by the 20 per cent. cut on expenditure proposed by the Conservative party?

The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that it is important that we recognise that the extra investment going into our national health service is delivering real results for the people of this country, including, incidentally, 40,000 extra nurses since the last general election. There could be nothing more disastrous than a 20 per cent. cut across the board—the policy of the Conservative party.

Mr. Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green): Will the Prime Minister confirm that, even if Saddam Hussein destroys all his al-Samoud 2 missiles, he will still be in material breach of resolution 1441 because of his failure to disclose his chemical and biological weapons?

The Prime Minister: Yes, that is obviously right, since he has to disclose and destroy the entire chemical and biological weapons programme.

Mr. Duncan Smith: The Prime Minister confirms that Saddam Hussein is in breach of UN resolution 1441, so will he now confirm that, unless Hans Blix reports to the Security Council on Friday that Saddam Hussein has co-operated fully, including the full disclosure of his chemical and biological weapons, there will be a vote on the second resolution early next week?

The Prime Minister: The exact timing of any vote is a matter that is still under discussion, but yes of course it is the case that if Saddam Hussein fails fully to comply, there should be a vote in the United Nations. I hope very much that the United Nations supports the position that it set out in resolution 1441 last November, which called upon him to have full, unconditional and immediate compliance. It is plain at the present time that he is not in such compliance.

Mr. Duncan Smith: The fact that Saddam Hussein remains in material breach means that military action is

5 Mar 2003 : Column 810

more likely. Will the Prime Minister therefore spell out exactly what is happening in the no-fly zone? Is it not now the case that British and American planes are making pre-emptive strikes on targets that would threaten our ground forces rather than just our aircraft? Surely that represents a substantial change in existing policy. Would not the Prime Minister help his own case if he more frankly spelled out to the British people what is exactly and really going on?

The Prime Minister: No. The position on the no-fly zones remains exactly the same as that set out by the Defence Secretary earlier. Let me make a point in addition to those that I made a moment ago. Conflict could be avoided even now in one of two sets of circumstances. The first is that Saddam complies fully and unconditionally. Let us spell out what that means: accounting for the thousands of litres of anthrax, the hundreds of tonnes of precursor chemicals, the thousands of special munitions for chemical and biological warfare and the 1.5 tonnes of VX nerve agent, and giving proper access to Iraqi scientists and experts for interview. Thirty-four requests for such interviews have been refused. Of those granted, nine have been on Iraqi terms, not those that the inspectors set out. Saddam must therefore comply fully and absolutely.

The second alternative is that he leaves. Those are the only two ways of avoiding conflict, but either route could prevent it. To those who claim that we are hell bent on conflict, I say that it can be avoided if Saddam does what the United Nations and the international community demand.

Mr. Gareth Thomas (Harrow, West): While I recognise that my right hon. Friend's priorities are understandably elsewhere, may I encourage him to view enthusiastically the prospect of Government support for a British bid to host the 2012 Olympics? It would be based on, but not exclusive to, London. Apart from the obvious benefits to British sport, will he recognise the considerable benefits to British business, jobs and the acceleration of east London's regeneration?

The Prime Minister: We entirely recognise the potential benefits of the Olympics bid. The Government will make their decision shortly. It is important to acknowledge, as my hon. Friend said, that people in London are fully behind the bid.

Mr. Charles Kennedy (Ross, Skye and Inverness, West): When the Prime Minister says that he hopes that there will be a vote at the United Nations on a second resolution, is he implying that if no vote is held, Britain will still go in with the United States and military action against Iraq will follow?

The Prime Minister: No. I simply say that it depends on Saddam's compliance. If he is not complying, a resolution will undoubtedly be put to a vote.

Mr. Kennedy: Will the Prime Minister clarify his comments of last week? Can we have a guarantee that

5 Mar 2003 : Column 811

before any military action involving British troops is taken, there will be an opportunity for a debate and a definitive vote in the House?

The Prime Minister: The Foreign Secretary spelled that out clearly in the debate. He said that, subject to the caveat that we have always expressed about the security of troops, the decision should be put to the House. I accept that, but with the greatest respect to the right hon. Gentleman, it is a matter not of process or procedure, although that is important, but of whether he, as well as us, is prepared to uphold resolution 1441, which everyone said that we should uphold.

In the past few days, I have spoken to many world leaders and discussed the issue with them. Not a single leader or official of any Government disputes the fact that Saddam is not currently complying. Everyone accepts that he is not, that he is not co-operating properly and that he is a threat. Resolution 1441 stated that he had a final opportunity to disarm voluntarily and that he had to co-operate fully, unconditionally and immediately. Everybody accepts that he is not doing that. Surely the right hon. Gentleman should join me in urging people to vote for the second resolution.

Mr. Eric Joyce (Falkirk, West): The Prime Minister is aware that progress in Northern Ireland often appears to be a matter of two steps forward and one step back. After his discussions last night, what are his hopes for progress in the coming weeks?

The Prime Minister: It was a detailed and good set of discussions over two days. It is possible that we have reached the basis for the final breakthrough to resolve all the outstanding issues of the Belfast or Good Friday agreement. It has to be done on the basis of a complete cessation of all paramilitary activity and implementation of all remaining parts of the agreement by the Governments and other parties. I think that there is real hope for that breakthrough, but the discussions over the next few weeks will tell us whether that hope is well founded. I hope that it is, because I truly believe that the one thing that people in Northern Ireland know—let me spell it out again—is that there is no way in which the agreement is going to be renegotiated: it is either implemented or we do not have the peaceful future in Northern Ireland that we all want to see.

Q2. [100634] Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington): Does the Prime Minister recognise the figures of 12 per cent. and 50 per cent.? Twelve per cent. is the average council tax increase and 50 per cent. is the proportion of trusts that have either fiddled or misreported their waiting list figures. Which figure gives the Prime Minister the greater cause for concern?

The Prime Minister: First, in relation to council tax, the hon. Gentleman will know that as a result of the funding that the Government have put into councils not a single council anywhere is getting anything less than an above-inflation increase. I believe that that is the first time that that has happened.

Secondly, of course we deplore any inaccurate accounting that the Audit Commission found. However, I point out to the hon. Gentleman that the Audit Commission also found that in the case of the vast

5 Mar 2003 : Column 812

majority of trusts that were not the subject of its report the figures are plainly accurate and right. Furthermore, we have a situation whereby there is not a single waiting list national indicator, in-patient or out-patient, that is not better than it was in 1997.

Jim Sheridan (West Renfrewshire): My right hon. Friend may be aware of BT management's proposals to outsource some 700 call centre jobs to India. May I ask him to use his good offices to discourage BT and any other like-minded employer from exploiting the low-wage economies of the world, particularly at the expense of British jobs? In the name of being British and of the morality of being British, that sharp practice has to be outlawed. Will he consider introducing legislation that would do so?

The Prime Minister: I am afraid that I cannot say to my hon. Friend that it would be right to introduce legislation to outlaw it. Obviously we hope that as many jobs as possible are kept here in this country. I point out to my hon. Friend, however, that it is partly as a result of the way in which the economy has been managed and the labour market is run that we have a better position on unemployment and employment in this country than does virtually any other major country.

Q3. [100635] Mr. Richard Bacon (South Norfolk): Can the Prime Minister say what principle makes it right to have a referendum on the single European currency, but wrong to have a referendum on the European constitution, which is of even more importance for the future of this country?

The Prime Minister: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. The principle is the same as that which led, for example, to there not being a referendum on the Maastricht treaty. [Interruption.] I am sorry to bring back happy memories among Conservative Members, but that is correct. We have laid out very clearly the reason why we will have a referendum on the single currency. It is a big decision for the whole country and it is right that there should be a referendum. It is not the case that there was a referendum either on the Single European Act 1986 or on the Maastricht treaty.

Q4. [100637] Mr. Iain Luke (Dundee, East): The Prime Minister may be aware of early-day motion 770, which was signed by many Scottish Labour Members, advocating the advantages to Scottish and to UK business of an early entry into the euro zone. Given Sir Edward George's comments yesterday about it being more advantageous than it was a year ago to consider entry to the euro, will the Prime Minister give an assurance that there will be no fudging of the Chancellor's five economic tests and make a pledge to call an early referendum to take Britain into the heart of Europe and of the European monetary system?

The Prime Minister: Tempting though it is to speculate, I am afraid that I must simply repeat to my hon. Friend that the tests have to be completed by June and that those tests will of course be done on the basis of the assessment that we have already set out.

5 Mar 2003 : Column 813

Mr. Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green): Presumably the Prime Minister does not want to agree with the chairman of the Audit Commission, who said that some hospitals

The Prime Minister: Of course hospitals should not do that, but the chairman of the Audit Commission also said that he thought that the maintenance of targets was an important part of making sure that the health service operated properly.

Mr. Duncan Smith: The Prime Minister gave the same excuses 15 months ago when the National Audit Office produced the same report as the Audit Commission has today, and nothing has changed. His comments show that the culture of fiddling the figures goes right the way to the top. Today, the Audit Commission said that more than 90 per cent. of trusts gave inaccurate information on waiting lists. It said that some hospitals are

The Prime Minister: First, it should be pointed out that we actually asked for this report from the Audit Commission because of the earlier report from the National Audit Office. Secondly, it was a report on 41 out of 300 trusts. Thirdly, it is extremely important that we do have targets for the health service. Of course the right hon. Gentleman is going to say that the whole of the health service is in chaos and crisis, and not offering proper treatment. That is because it is the desire of the Conservative party to run down the national health service, because it wants to cut its funding. The truth is that the record investment in the health service is delivering real results for people. It is delivering reductions in waiting times and in waiting lists; it is delivering more doctors and nurses, and more hospitals. Actually, the vast majority of people in the national health service get a decent level of health care from it. The right hon. Gentleman's alternative, which is to push people out into the private sector, may be fine for a few at the top, but it would be disastrous for the vast majority of users of our national health service.

Mr. Duncan Smith: Instead of the Prime Minister trying to say what others might do, why does he not take responsibility for what he has failed to do? He should admit that he is raising taxes on hard-working people to fund a system that puts Government targets before patients' health, and which now has more bureaucrats than beds. Patients know that, whatever the Government say, they cannot believe a word that the Government produce. Is it not time that the Prime Minister apologised to the thousands of patients whose operations have been cancelled because of his political meddling?

5 Mar 2003 : Column 814

The Prime Minister: Let us indeed not take what I say, then, but consider, for example, what the secretary of the Society of Thoracic Surgeons said just a day or two ago about cardiac services. He said that people are now working

That is what is actually happening in our health service today. Of course it is the case that, as I said, the right hon. Gentleman needs to run down the health service. He has got to say that the extra money going into the health service is not necessary, but he should talk to people in the health service. They know that it needs the extra funding that is going into it; that is what is producing the extra nurses, and the results on cardiac surgery. When we came to office, 60 per cent. of cancer patients were seen within two weeks, but that figure is now well over 95 per cent. That is where the money is going—on better national health service care.

What the right hon. Gentleman has said yet again, in his opposition to what we are doing in April, is that the extra money that we would put into our national health service, he would take out. He would then add to that through 20 per cent. cuts across the board. [Interruption.] He and his hon. Friends can say what they like, but in the end that is the choice before the country, and I believe that this country will choose the national health service.

Andy King (Rugby and Kenilworth): I hope that, after Question Time, my right hon. Friend will accept two CDs made by constituents of mine. They want to pass on to him a message about the proposed large international airport in Rugby, and the message is clear: no airport here. Indeed, that is the message not just from Rugby, but from across the midlands. I hope that my right hon. Friend will enjoy listening to the CDs in his leisure time.

The Prime Minister: I am sure that the CDs will make a fascinating listen. I hear exactly what my hon. Friend says. He will know that the consultation period is running for consultation on airports, and we have got to take account of all the representations made. He has made his point very strongly, and we will of course listen to it.

Q5. [100638] Mr. Adrian Flook (Taunton): Will the Prime Minister confirm that he wants all hospitals to be foundation hospitals, or has he decided this week that he cannot fight a war on two fronts?

The Prime Minister: As the Secretary of State for Health has made very clear, provided that hospitals meet the criteria, we want as many foundation hospitals as possible. It is right that we have freedom for those hospitals so that they can provide a good service for national health service patients. However, it is not just reform and freedom that they need—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. There should not be so much shouting.

5 Mar 2003 : Column 815

The Prime Minister: I must point out to the hon. Gentleman that it is not just freedom and reform that the NHS needs, it is money. The difference is that the Conservative party is not prepared to support the extra investment that is an essential part of getting reform to work.

Q6. [100639] Mr. Huw Edwards (Monmouth): Does my right hon. Friend agree that fear of detection is one of the most powerful tools in the fight against crime? Will he join me in congratulating Gwent police on having one of the highest detection rates of all the police forces in England and Wales, contributing to a 17 per cent. reduction in crime? Will my right hon. Friend consider the current funding formula to ensure that Gwent police are able to have a visible police presence—not only in deprived urban communities but in rural areas such as Usk?

The Prime Minister: I am sure that Gwent will apply to—and, I hope, receive help through—the rural policing fund. My hon. Friend is right to point out that crime in his area is falling. There are also record numbers of police officers in this country today; we have more police officers than we have ever had before. That is essential in the fight against crime and it is one reason why so many police forces round the country are being successful in reducing crime.

Derek Conway (Old Bexley and Sidcup): Is the Prime Minister aware that the pensioners of Old Bexley and Sidcup face not only a decrease in their incomes but a Labour council and Labour Government imposed council tax increase of 17 per cent.? What message does the Prime Minister have for the excellent headmistress of Marlborough school—a special school in Sidcup working with children with severe and profound mental and physical handicaps—who now faces a £65,000 shortfall in her budget and a real risk of losing excellent, experienced teachers because of the Government settlement? Will he consider such problems? This is not just about facts and figures; there are real problems for children who have the greatest need in our society.

The Prime Minister: I will of course look into the situation that the hon. Gentleman has outlined. However, what he is saying, in effect, is that his school and his council need more money. It is for that very reason that we have put in such a large increase to the local authority budget; and it is for that reason that we are increasing the amount of investment in schools by a record amount. I say to the hon. Gentleman that, if the school has difficulties, it would, I think, react very adversely to a policy of having 20 per cent. cuts across the board.

Q7. [100640] Julie Morgan (Cardiff, North): Is my right hon. Friend aware that today sees the launch of the first annual report of the Children's Commissioner for Wales? The existence of the post has already made a great deal of difference to children in Wales. What plans does my right hon. Friend have to introduce a children's commissioner in England?

The Prime Minister: We are studying carefully the Welsh example and the results of having a children's

5 Mar 2003 : Column 816

commissioner there. We have always set out why we believe that the situation is different in England. We have also had the Laming report in the intervening stages and we are considering our response carefully.

Q8. [100641] Mr. David Laws (Yeovil): I want to come back to the issue of foundation hospitals. Will the Prime Minister tell us whether he agrees with the Secretary of State for Health, who said in a speech last month that he was in favour of freeing such hospitals from the constraints of central Government and capital rationing—in other words, from the controls of the Chancellor of the Exchequer? We have the benefit of having both the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Health here today, so will the Prime Minister confirm which of them he is backing in this long-running Government dispute?

The Prime Minister: As I said a moment or two ago, it is important that we get as many foundation hospitals as possible, based on the criteria that we have set out. However, just as I would say to the Conservatives that they are failing the country by failing to support extra investment, I would say to the hon. Gentleman that he and the Liberal Democrats are failing the country by failing to support the necessary reform. On this side of the House, our position is that we need investment and money in our health service.

Q9. [100642] Mr. David Stewart (Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber): My right hon. Friend will be well aware of the importance of research and development in Britain, particularly in developing industries such as aquaculture. Will the Prime Minister join me in expressing disappointment at the decision of the Sea Fish Industry Authority to close down the Ardtoe research facility in my constituency with the loss of 17 jobs? Will the Prime Minister agree to meet me and a delegation of research scientists to try to keep this vital facility open?

The Prime Minister: I am aware of the position of the Sea Fish Industry Authority and I know that Ministers from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Scottish Executive are prepared to meet my hon. Friend. If that meeting is unsatisfactory to him, I will be happy to meet him myself. We recognise the important role of aquaculture and the importance of research in the United Kingdom.

Gregory Barker (Bexhill and Battle): Now that the IMF has joined the swollen ranks of those who can see that the Chancellor is incapable of balancing the nation's books, what advice is the Prime Minister giving to his neighbour in Downing street? Should he put up taxes even further or cut public spending?

The Prime Minister: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman raised the economic record of the Government. Let me tell him what the IMF report also said. It said that

It also said that

5 Mar 2003 : Column 817

It is thanks to the Chancellor that we have the lowest inflation, lowest unemployment and lowest interest rates for years and years. We all remember the Tory days of 3 million unemployed, 10 per cent. interest rates and disaster for the British economy.

Q10. [100643] Lynne Jones (Birmingham, Selly Oak): Would at least nine affirmative votes in the Security Council for the so-called second resolution tabled by the US, UK and Spain give clear—I emphasise the word "clear"—legal authority for war against Iraq? What difference would the use of what my right hon. Friend describes as the unreasonable veto make?

The Prime Minister: First, let me assure my hon. Friend that we will always act in accordance with international law. Secondly, in relation to the resolution, we are confident of securing the votes for that resolution and we will carry on working to that end. We are doing that because we believe that it is important that the UN, having declared a position on Iraq, follows through and maintains that position. I know that my hon. Friend opposes our position on the matter, and I do not disrespect that—she is perfectly entitled to do so. However, I know that we both agree that the authority of the UN is important. If that authority is to be upheld, it is important that what we said last November is implemented. If it is not, the effect on the UN—apart from the effect on the international situation—would be disastrous.

Q11. [100644] Dr. Jenny Tonge (Richmond Park): Is the Prime Minister aware of the deteriorating situation in the occupied territories? Is he also aware that since 1980 the United States of America has vetoed 14 resolutions of the Security Council on the middle east? Does he consider those vetoes reasonable or unreasonable?

The Prime Minister: I simply point out to the hon. Lady that the UN resolutions are not just in respect of Israel, but of the Arab world and the Palestinians, too. In relation to the Palestinian territories, what is happening there is appalling, but the only way out of it that will maintain all the UN resolutions—not just those on Israel, but those on the Palestinians and the Arab world—is to get a peace process going again in the middle east. All I can say to her is that this country will play its full part in that, but in the end the only way to avoid the terrible tragedy that is happening to the Palestinians—and, indeed, to innocent Israeli civilians who are also dying—is to ensure that we get a proper peace process back on track. We will certainly do all that we can to facilitate that.

Tony Worthington (Clydebank and Milngavie): Three weeks ago in the United States the Under Secretary of Defense told the US Foreign Relations Committee how Iraq would be administered in a post-conflict situation.

5 Mar 2003 : Column 818

He said that an office of reconstruction and humanitarian assistance had been set up under General Garner. He invited contributions from UN organisations, aid agencies and coalition partners, and said that coalition officials would account to the US President through Donald Rumsfeld and General Franks. Is not it unacceptable that our aid agencies and UN organisations should respond to the US President? Is our policy that—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should know how to ask a brief question. Will the Prime Minister try to answer?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes an important point. All sorts of people may have made statements about the matter, but I shall tell my hon. Friend exactly what is happening. At present, we are in intensive discussions, with the US and others. Indeed, part of my discussions with the Russian Foreign Minister this morning was about how we make sure, if there is a conflict, that we take the greatest care of the subsequent humanitarian situation in Iraq. I have no doubt that there will have to be a substantial UN involvement. That is what we are arguing for and what we want to see. I believe that that will be the outcome. Therefore, rather than speculate about what might happen, I assure my hon. Friend that we will declare those plans to people as soon as we have them properly worked out.

Q12. [100645] Andrew Selous (South-West Bedfordshire): The Prime Minister has just told the House that everyone accepts that Iraq is a threat, but many of my constituents tell me that they are still unclear about the direct threat and risks to the UK as a result of not disarming Iraq. What would the Prime Minister say to them?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is right to ask that question, as people do ask it. I think that the threat of leaving Saddam Hussein armed with weapons of mass destruction is twofold. First, it is that he begins another conflict in his region, into which Britain as a country would inevitably be sucked, with all that that means. Alternatively—and I think that this is a powerful and developing threat that the world must face—the risk is that states such as Iraq, which are proliferating these chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction, will combine in a way that is devastating for the world with terrorists who are desperate to get their hands on those weapons to wreak maximum destruction.

The events of 11 September, of course, changed many American minds about the threat, but they should also change all our minds. Surely everyone accepts that, had the people involved been able to cause even more death and destruction, they would have done so? My worry is that, when there are nations that proliferate, trade and develop this stuff, and terrorist groups that are desperate to cause maximum destruction, the world has to stand firm. The matter has come to a point over Iraq. If we do not stand firm over Iraq now, we will never be able to deal with the next threat that encompasses us.

5 Mar 2003 : Column 819

Next Section

IndexHome Page