PM Blair’s Question Time
Turkey, Flu jabs, Energy Supplies, Gun Crime, Terrorism Bill, Good Friday Agreement, Israel-Palestine, Crown
Prosecution, Nuclear Power, Housing in Basingstoke, Carbon Reduction, Bullying, Amnesty
PRIME MINISTER
The Prime Minister was asked—
Engagements
Q1. [30879] David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP): If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 23 November.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): Before listing my engagements, I know that the whole House will join me in sending
our condolences to the family of Police Constable Sharon Beshenivsky, who was tragically murdered on duty last Friday.
Our thoughts and prayers are with her family at this time. I know that the whole House will also join me in sending
condolences to the family of the British soldier killed in Iraq at the weekend. He was doing a vital and heroic job in
helping that country towards democracy. Our country can be very proud of him.
This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I will have
further such meetings later today.
David Simpson: I thank the Prime Minister for listing his engagements and I concur with his sentiments and sympathy for
the two serving members who lost their lives. My right hon. and hon. Friends will also concur with that. May I leave
this thought with the Prime Minister? What would the British people and members of his party think of him if he offered
an amnesty to the murderer of the police officer? Later on today, we will debate such matters in respect of Northern
Ireland. Will the Prime Minister please comment on what I have said?
The Prime Minister: I am meeting RUC widows this afternoon, at the request of the hon. Member for North Down (Lady
Hermon). I totally understand the pain and anguish that there will be about this matter, but I also hope that the hon.
Gentleman understands that already, as a result of the Good Friday agreement, people convicted of terrorist offences
before 1998 have been released, so it is necessary to deal with those who have not been convicted but are nonetheless
suspected of such offences before 1998. That is the reason for the measure that we are introducing. As I say, I fully
understand the pain and anguish that it causes, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will also understand that it is
something that has to be dealt with.
Q2. [30880] Mr. Martin Caton (Gower) (Lab): The Prime Minister quite rightly celebrates the start of talks on Turkey’s
accession as an achievement of the UK presidency of the European Union, but next month, the fine Turkish novelist, Orhan
Pamuk, faces trial for public denigration of Turkey, simply because he talked about the killing of Armenians and Kurds
in the early part of the last century. Does my right hon. Friend agree that a prerequisite for membership of the EU
should be the protection of the right of free speech; and will he also join me in commending those people in Turkey such
as Pamuk who are campaigning for that right?
The Prime Minister: First, may I tell my hon. Friend that during our presidency of the European Union, we raised that
issue with Turkish justice and foreign Ministers? It is important, if Turkey wants to become a member of the EU, that it
abide by the criteria for membership, including the criterion on freedom of expression. I hope, however, that my hon.
Friend would also agree that Turkey has gone a considerable way down the path of reform over the past few years. I hope
that these issues will also be dealt with as part of future reforms so that Turkey can proceed to EU membership, which I
believe is in the interests of Turkey, Europe and the wider world.
Mr. Michael Howard (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con): I join the Prime Minister in expressing my condolences, and those of my
party, to the family of WPC Beshenivsky. Her loss is a tragic reminder of the risks run by our police officers on our
behalf every single time they go on duty. I join him also in expressing condolences to the family of the service man who
was lost in Iraq over the weekend. That, too, was a tragic reminder of the sacrifices made on our behalf by those who
are serving with such distinction in Iraq.
Last month, the Secretary of State for Health said:
“I am assured…that there are adequate supplies”
of flu vaccine
“available to GPs to ensure that anyone who is at risk and who therefore should have the vaccination can do
so.”—[Official Report, 17 October 2005; Vol. 437, c. 637–8.]
What went wrong?
The Prime Minister: What has happened is that an assessment was made of the number of vaccines that would be necessary.
I remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman that we ensured with the manufacturers that more than 14 million doses
would be available this year. At the end of October, however, it appeared that there would be a shortfall because more
people were demanding the vaccine. The Department of Health then ordered a further 200,000 doses.
To be fair to the Department and the others involved in the planning, I should say that if everything had gone to plan,
in the region of 2 million doses would probably not have been needed. It is correct to say that the demand for the doses
has risen considerably, obviously as a result of people’s concern. As I said, those responsible had built a very large
contingency into their plans, but it appeared at the end of October that it was not large enough, and that is why they
asked for more.
Mr. Howard: At least the Prime Minister, unlike the Secretary of State, has not blamed general practitioners. On 5
October—that is, not at the end of October—my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), the shadow
Secretary of State for Health, wrote to the Secretary of State. In his letter, he expressed concerns about the
availability of vaccines. He did not get a reply until yesterday afternoon, less than two hours before the Secretary of
State made her statement in this House. The British Medical Association also warned the right hon. Lady that it had
similar concerns. Why did she not respond to those concerns?
The Prime Minister: First, let me inform the House of what took place earlier this year in respect of the doses that
were ordered. In accordance with the normal practice that has applied since 2000–01, a meeting was held with the UK
vaccine industry group, at which the number of doses thought to be necessary for the year was worked out. This year,
about 4 million more doses were ordered than was the case, say, five years ago. As a result, there should have been
easily enough doses to cater for people over 65 and those at clinical risk. As I said a moment or two ago, the number of
doses ordered meant that there should have been a probable surplus of 2 million. That is why people thought that there
would be enough to cover any eventuality, including increased demand arising from the heightened concern about flu in
recent weeks. It was at the end of October that it appeared that that was not the case. In early November, therefore, a
further 200,000 doses were ordered. That will mean that the number of doses manufactured is somewhere in the region of
14.5 million.
Mr. Howard: The Prime Minister has referred to 14 million doses, but that is exactly the same as the number of doses
that a Health Minister, last year, told us was being made available last year. So 14 million doses last year, 14 million
this year: is it not true that the Department of Health cannot tell the difference between England and the UK? In its
letter to GPs this week, it said that there were only 11 million people in the at-risk groups, and 14 million doses of
vaccine. However, the first figure refers to England and the second to the UK as a whole. Is it any wonder that GPs and
others are in despair at the inefficiency and incompetence of the Department of Health and the Secretary of State? If
the Department can so comprehensively bungle the routine administration of the seasonal flu vaccine, what confidence can
people have in its ability to cope with a pandemic of bird flu?
The Prime Minister: As I have explained to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, over the past few years we have
increased enormously the number of doses available. It is correct that a 100 per cent. takeup among people aged over 65
and those at clinical risk would amount to 11 million doses. However, the biggest takeup that there has ever been
amounted to only 70 per cent. So even taking into account the UK-wide factor, the planners estimated earlier in the year
that there would be a surplus of 2 million doses. Last year, there were more than 1 million surplus doses that had to be
destroyed. It is sometimes difficult to plan accurately. They built in a large contingency, but it appears that that has
not been enough and therefore they have ordered more doses.
Mr. Howard: The Prime Minister has yet again compared figures for those at risk that relate to England with figures
relating to doses for the UK, as the Secretary of State did yesterday.
Now let us look at another example of incompetence. Four weeks ago, the Leader of the House, when asked if the
Government could guarantee energy supplies to business and domestic customers this winter, said, “Yes, they can”. Does
that guarantee still stand?
The Prime Minister: Of course there will be difficulties with gas prices, because of the cold winter we are likely to
have. The energy suppliers have made it clear that they are doing their level best to ensure that demand is properly
met. There is not, as far as we are aware, a problem for domestic users. There is a problem for high-level industry
users, but the only way to deal with that is to ensure that the industry can meet as much demand as possible from
abroad. On the whole, industry prices for domestic consumers in the UK are way below the European Union average. We are
not the only country with the problem, but it is not a problem that lies within the remit of Government to resolve.
Mr. Howard: Now we know that when this Government give guarantees, they last roughly four weeks. The Leader of the House
also said that Government would plan and prepare for this winter, but the Government commissioned studies on gas
supplies for large manufacturers only two weeks ago. Why has it taken until November—when winter has already arrived,
gas prices are almost five times higher than they were a month ago and manufacturers have been forced to switch from gas
to oil to generate electricity—to find out whether business can cope this winter? Should not that have been done months
ago?
The Prime Minister: I do not think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman seriously suggests that we should have a
planned economy, in which the Government buy in—[Interruption.] Perhaps that is what he is suggesting. Let me just tell
him the facts. UK energy prices—[Interruption.] Well, this is a rather strange situation. I do not know whether the
right hon. and learned Gentleman is suggesting that the Government should buy in energy from abroad. The Government work
with the industry to ensure that it can meet demand. I repeat the fact that UK prices are actually the cheapest in the
European Union and UK domestic prices are 40 per cent. below the European Union median. It is true that there will be an
extra £10 billion of investment in additional energy supply, but it is not something that Government on their own can
resolve.
Mr. Howard: If the Prime Minister thinks that gas prices for British industry are cheaper than gas prices for European
industry, he is living in a dream world. I suggest that the Government should have done what they are now doing some
months ago. The Met Office warned us months ago that we were likely to have the coldest winter for more than a decade.
The CBI and others have been warning for months of possible gas shortages. Why have the Government ignored them for so
long? Why, on flu vaccines and gas supplies, have the Government proved so thoroughly incompetent? Is it not clear that
the Government are on the skids and that the Prime Minister has lost his grip and is incapable of dealing with the
challenges that the country faces?
The Prime Minister: Even the right hon. and learned Gentleman found it a bit of a stretch to link flu jabs with gas
prices. As opposed to the situation in respect of the vaccine for flu, in which we sit down with manufacturers and help
to ensure that enough is ordered, the gas market and prices depend on demand and the amount of gas available for
electricity users and others to buy. The idea that the Government should make up the shortfall is utterly absurd.
Mr. Howard: I am not saying that.
The Prime Minister: Well, I do not know what the right hon. and learned Gentleman is suggesting, other than points that
seem absolutely absurd. We are doing our level best to make sure, for example, that we have additional infrastructure
that allows us to import more energy. That we are doing, but what we cannot do—even this Government—is affect the
current situation in the energy market, which is a product of all the reasons that we know about and which, I repeat,
Government alone cannot resolve.
Mr. Marsha Singh (Bradford, West) (Lab): May I join the Prime Minister in expressing my condolences on the murder of
Officer Beshenivsky? I also extend my sympathy to Officer Milburn and wish her a speedy recovery. What more can be done
to tackle gun crime in this country and to assist in the safety of our officers on the beat? Although Bradford is united
in its horror, shock and grief, does the Prime Minister agree that this is a time for sober reflection, not a time to
call for the routine arming of the police or for the restoration of the death penalty?
The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend says, it is important that we see, in a considered way, what more can be done. As
he knows, since January 2004 anyone convicted of possession of an illegal firearm receives a mandatory five-year minimum
sentence. Measures under the Violent Crime Reduction Bill will ban the sale, manufacture or import of realistic
imitation firearms. The new Serious Organised Crime Agency, will come into effect next April. With the agency, we are
looking at the additional measures necessary to deal with organised crime. With organised crime, as we have done with
antisocial behaviour in a completely different context, there will be a need for special and particular measures to deal
with a very brutal new type of organised criminal gang that operates not just in this country but in other countries as
well. We shall come back to the House with such proposals when we can.
Mr. Charles Kennedy (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (LD): May I associate my right hon. and hon. Friends entirely with the
expression of condolences for the families who have lost their loved ones in recent days, in such tragic circumstances,
in the service of the police and our armed forces?
May I return to the opening question from the hon. Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson)? As the Prime Minister has
acknowledged elsewhere, those of us who disagreed with him over an aspect of the Terrorism Bill—90-days imprisonment
without charge—did so as a matter of principle. Does he recognise that the Northern Ireland measures before the House
this afternoon also raise matters of proper principled judicial process? Those of us who support the Good Friday
agreement readily accept that the issue must be resolved, but if justice is to be seen to be done it is surely
imperative that those who have committed terrorist atrocities appear in court and answer for their crimes.
The Prime Minister: I think that the right hon. Gentleman knows why we have to deal with the issue. We have to deal it
with it for a very simple reason: under the provisions of the Belfast agreement—the Good Friday agreement—those
convicted of offences before that agreement, in other words, before April 1998, have been released under the prisoner
release scheme. We were always going to have to deal with the situation of those suspected of, or being pursued in
respect of, crimes committed before April 1998, and that is what we are trying to do. The proposals were published about
two and a half years ago and are a necessary part of ensuring that we follow the process through to its conclusion. I
understand the anger that they provoke; it is very natural, especially from those who suffered so much from acts of IRA
terrorism. However, I believe that they are a necessary part of securing the overall agreement.
Mr. Kennedy: Why will not the Prime Minister provide direct linkage in the legislation to the early release scheme,
which involves a proper court process? Many who, like the Alliance party and others, have worked tirelessly for
reconciliation in Northern Ireland are asking a simple question: why will not the Prime Minister put the victims of
terrorism higher up the priority list?
The Prime Minister: The special judicial tribunal has the powers of a criminal court. It is true that this is a special
procedure, because the circumstances are special. As for the right hon. Gentleman’s remark about putting the victims of
terrorism higher up the political agenda, it is precisely for that reason that, over the past eight years, I have worked
to try to make sure that the Northern Ireland peace process succeeds. If it does succeed—we have come a long way in
eight years—it is sometimes because we do things that are uncomfortable and difficult, but none the less necessary. It
is called, I am afraid, making difficult political decisions.
Sir Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab): Having just returned from the first ever Inter-Parliamentary Union
delegation to the Palestinian territories, applauding my right hon. Friend’s commitment to peace between Israel and
Palestine, and recognising the Israeli need for security, may I ask him to make representations to the Israel Government
about their building of the separation wall deep into Palestinian territory, turning old Hebron into a ghost town by
building gates and turnstiles in the streets and obstructing Palestinian movements with 600 permanent checkpoints, plus
flying checkpoints? Does he not agree that peace will not be possible if the Israelis persist in turning Palestine into
a fragmented police state?
The Prime Minister: We have continually made representations about the wall or the fence. However, we should recognise
that, in addition to trying to normalise relations between the Palestinian Authority and the Israeli Government, it is
important that all forms of support for terrorism on the Palestinian side cease as well. If the terrorism stops, we have
a better opportunity to make sure that relations between the two sides can be normalised.
Q3. [30881] Simon Hughes (North Southwark and Bermondsey) (LD): The Crown Prosecution Service in England and Wales has
made welcome progress in recent years, but I hope that the Prime Minister will agree that conviction rates of fewer than
two in three for sexual offences in a quarter of the country, fewer than two in three even for homicide offences in four
areas, including London, and about two in three for all violent crimes leave room for improvement. Will he tell the
House how he proposes to increase the success rate, so that more serious offenders are prosecuted and successfully
convicted?
The Prime Minister: The main part of what the Crown Prosecution Service is doing now is working in a far more integrated
way with the police to make sure that charges are properly brought and that therefore prosecutions can be successfully
mounted. In respect of sexual offences, although there is an increase in the number of recorded crimes, it is important
to realise that that is in part because we are asking more of the victims of sexual offences to come forward. Sometimes,
however, it is difficult to secure convictions in those types of case, but we continually look at how we can improve the
situation. Overall, the Crown Prosecution Service—as, indeed, the hon. Gentleman implied in the first part of his
question—is working a lot more effectively than a few years ago.
Mr. Michael Meacher (Oldham, West and Royton) (Lab): My right hon. Friend told the Liaison Committee yesterday that the
Government have got to take on nuclear power. Why does he believe that, when we are already comfortably meeting our
Kyoto climate change target and can clearly meet future, more exacting targets with a steady expansion of renewables,
when nuclear is more expensive than wind power, coal and gas, when it has already generated more than 10,000 tonnes of
undisposed of highly toxic nuclear waste, when it creates an obvious major terrorism—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the Prime Minister knows that the right hon. Gentleman is displeased about this matter.
The Prime Minister: Let me say to my right hon. Friend that the reason why I think that this has to go on the agenda for
discussion is very simple. It is true that we will meet our Kyoto targets—the Government have played a major part in the
action on climate change—but it is also true that by 2020, the amount of energy coming from nuclear power will decline
from just over 20 per cent. to 4 per cent. It will be difficult to try to meet all that through renewables or additional
gas. That is why we need a proper and thorough debate on the issue, and I look forward to joining that debate with my
right hon. Friend.
Future Aircraft Carriers
Q4. [30882] Dr. Julian Lewis (New Forest, East) (Con): When he expects the future aircraft carriers to be brought into
service with the Royal Navy.
The Prime Minister: We are committed to delivering this important capability in a time scale that meets the requirements
of the Royal Navy. We will set the dates when the carriers will be brought into service when we are ready to commit to
manufacture.
Dr. Lewis: If, as the Prime Minister now suggests, it is not appropriate to set target delivery or in-service dates
until the order is placed, can he tell me why his own Defence Ministers on five occasions between April 2004 and June
2005 told both Houses of Parliament that the target in-service dates would be 2012 and 2015? Why are they no longer
prepared to say that?
The Prime Minister: The reason for giving those dates was the way in which the existing carriers get phased out. Those
are possible dates, but we cannot give a firm commitment to a date until we are ready to commit to manufacture. That
simply cannot be done at the present time. As I say, it is perfectly possible that those dates will be the dates that we
choose in the end, but at this time we cannot give a firm date until the commitment to manufacture is in place.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a closed question.
Engagements
Q5. [30883] Mrs. Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con): Last week, the local inspector threw out plans for 3,000 houses in
Basingstoke because he felt that local communities could not cope with the scale of building. Is it not time for the
Government to stop dumping thousands of houses on Basingstoke and the rest of the south-east and to let local councils
plan the future of their towns and villages?
The Prime Minister: No, I do not agree with the hon. Lady. It is important to ensure that we build enough houses in this
country so that people, especially younger people, can access affordable housing. We try to do that in a planned way,
but for the Conservative party to pretend that no new houses need to be built in the south at all is absurd.
Judy Mallaber (Amber Valley) (Lab): Has my right hon. Friend seen the shocking survey from Amnesty International that
shows that a third of those questioned think that women who flirt or are drunk are partly responsible if they are raped?
Will he support Amnesty’s campaign against all forms of violence against women and assert that all such violence is
totally unacceptable and liable to prosecution?
The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that it is totally unacceptable and should be liable to
prosecution.
Q6. [30884] Mr. Simon Burns (West Chelmsford) (Con): Last night, the House debated the straightforward motion
“That this House endorses … a cross-party consensus on carbon reduction.”
Why did the Government vote against it?
The Prime Minister: Because until we work out the means of ensuring that there is carbon reduction, it is all very well
for the Conservative party to join the Liberal Democrats and insist that the Government say that we must reduce carbon
by a certain amount by a certain date—actually beyond the targets that we have already set—but they also need to be
prepared to say how to do that. The one time we put forward a specific measure, namely, the climate change industrial
levy, the Conservative party voted against it. When it has some serious propositions to make, we will listen, but while
it continues to behave as if opposition were its natural state, we will not.
Q7. [30885] Dan Norris (Wansdyke) (Lab): This Friday, as part of anti-bullying week, Lib-Dem controlled Bristol city
council will call on its teachers not to punish or blame pupils who bully other pupils. What message does the Prime
Minister have for those who adopt a no-blame approach, which, in my view, is dangerous and reckless, does nothing for
the victims and does nothing to make bullies change their behaviour?
The Prime Minister: If what my hon. Friend says is correct about the Liberal Democrats, then it is an extraordinary
thing for even them to do and I am shocked by it. [Interruption.] To describe oneself as shocked by the Liberal
Democrats is perhaps an oxymoron.
I profoundly disagree with the position taken by the council. Bullying should be punished. Children who bully must be
made to understand the harm that they have been doing. New sanctions are available. I am pleased that in the schools
White Paper we are giving teachers an unambiguous right to discipline. It is absolutely necessary, and I pay tribute to
my hon. Friend’s work on that serious problem.