User:Bodnotbod/PMQs10042002

The idea of this is to try and analyse the British Prime Minister's Questions and draw attention to any logical fallacies.

This is a subject I'm going to be training myself in as I go along so any help is most welcome - though I'd prefer it if contributions were made on the Talk page rather than here.

Only hostile questions are used to avoid all that emotive guff Labour backbenchers come out with to flatter their idol.

At the moment I have merely copied the Hansard text to this page, and I'll start work on it soon. Atleast, that's the plan.

'10th April 2002'

Mr. Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green): In the future, if left unchecked, Iraq will be able to deploy its weapons of mass destruction against targets in western Europe, including the United Kingdom. As the last head of the United Nations inspectors makes clear, development of those weapons continues unchecked. Given that, will the Prime Minister confirm reports that he told President Bush over the weekend that if military action is needed against Saddam Hussein, the British Government will support and, if necessary, contribute to it?

The Prime Minister: The time for military action has not yet arisen. However, there is no doubt at all that the development of weapons of mass destruction by Saddam Hussein poses a severe threat not just to the region, but to the wider world. I draw the House's attention to the fact that, in my first statement to the House a few days after 11 September, I made it clear that the issue of weapons of mass destruction had to be, and should be, dealt with. How we deal with it will be a matter for deliberation and consultation in the normal way. After11 September, we proceeded in a calm and sensible way, and we shall do so again, but we must confront the issue of weapons of mass destruction.

Mr. Duncan Smith: Not only is Iraq developing weapons of mass destruction, but it has also become apparent that it is a major sponsor of terrorism in the

10 Apr 2002 : Column 12

middle east, bankrolling many of the families of suicide bombers and providing terrorists with bomb-making equipment. In the United States, the Prime Minister spoke about a "regime change" in Iraq. Given his reported comments, will he confirm that getting rid of Saddam Hussein may now be an objective of the Government?

The Prime Minister: As I said in Texas, there is no doubt at all that the region would be a better place without Saddam Hussein. It is worth pointing out that the Iraqi people themselves would rejoice most at Saddam Hussein leaving office. We should never forget that that regime has a particular record: the Iran-Iraq war in which1 million people lost their lives; the annexation of Kuwait, which precipitated the Gulf war; and perhaps the most appalling act of all, the use of chemical weapons on the Kurdish people. There is no doubt whatever that the world would be a better place without Saddam. However, the method of achieving that is, as I said, open to consultation and deliberation. When the judgments are made, I have no doubt at all that this House—indeed, the whole country—will want to debate the issue thoroughly.

Mr. Duncan Smith: Does the Prime Minister believe that countering the growing threat from Saddam Hussein is about protecting lives in Britain and the lives of British forces abroad, and not just about supporting our allies? In the USA, the Prime Minister described those who refuse to accept the need to act as "utterly naive". Does he believe that they misunderstand the nature of the threat, or that they will simply refuse to accept any evidence that they are given?

The Prime Minister: I do not think that I should comment on other people's motives in relation to this matter, however kind it is of the right hon. Gentleman to offer me that opportunity—I am sure he wants to be helpful. The key issue is that this is not something that has suddenly arisen, and it is important that the House understand that. Before 11 September, a whole series of negotiations took place about potential new United Nations Security Council resolutions to put in place a better sanctions regime, and about how we try to ensure that weapons inspectors get back inside Iraq. The reason why the UN Security Council resolutions that were originally proposed and passed demand that weapons inspections take place in Iraq is precisely that the threat of weapons of mass destruction is real and present.

The issue is quite clear. As I said in my speech in Texas, Saddam Hussein has a very clear message from the international community: the weapons inspectors should go back in—anyone, any place, any time. That is the message that we must give him. Simply turning our backs on the issue of weapons of mass destruction is not an option. That is why I think it so important that we stand with the United States in saying that this issue is one that has to be, and will be, confronted. We will do so in a sensible and measured way, but we cannot allow a state of this nature to develop those weapons without let or hindrance.

--

Mr. Charles Kennedy (Ross, Skye and Inverness, West): It is reported today that 3,000 post office branches in urban areas are scheduled to close. Does the Prime Minister support that?

The Prime Minister: No, it is not correct that 3,000 offices are scheduled to close. What is correct, however, is that there needs to be a major programme of change within the Post Office, which we are prepared to support with several hundred million pounds. The reason for that is perfectly simple: the current situation is not sustainable, unless we were to spend very large sums of public money in doing so. If that is the Liberal Democrats' position, perhaps they should say so.

Mr. Kennedy: The House will notice that the Prime Minister cannot side-step the facts. Since he took office, 1,500 post office branches in rural areas have already closed. Double that number are to close in urban areas, yet Labour's last election manifesto described those facilities as "an invaluable resource". By definition, how can they be an invaluable resource if 4,500 of them are to shut?

The Prime Minister: The reason why the change in the Post Office has to come about is precisely that it is not possible, unless we are to spend very large sums of money, to say that no post office will ever close. In fact, under the restructuring proposals, 95 per cent. of people will still live within a mile of a post office in urban areas, and as a result of the restructuring package, we will of course give the best protection possible to rural post offices. [Interruption.] I know that the Liberal Democrats always like to propose a problem but never a solution, but the fact is that, in the end, the only solution is to restructure. Even that will cost somewhere in the region of £270 million. If we were to go further by guaranteeing that no post office would ever close, no matter what its circumstances, the bill would run to hundreds of millions of pounds more. I am afraid that we simply cannot do that.

--

Mr. Peter Kilfoyle (Liverpool, Walton): Given the Prime Minister's reported comment that those who take a different view from his on events in the middle east are utterly naive, may I ask him whether it is naive to be dismayed at the succour that has been given to Sharon by the mixed messages that have come from the American and British Administrations? Is it naive to be aware of the bellicosity of elements in the American Administration,

10 Apr 2002 : Column 14

based on ideology; or is it naive to believe in the centrality of the United Nations in resolving the problems of the middle east?

The Prime Minister: I have not described anyone who takes a different view from mine on Iraq as utterly naive. I said that it would be utterly naive to say that weapons of mass destruction were not an issue, and I am sure that my hon. Friend would not say that either. The issue is how we deal with that—I said what I said on Iraq a moment or two ago—but in relation to the middle east, it is not correct to say that there have been mixed messages. We are absolutely clear that we condemn entirely those things that are happening in the middle east at the moment, which is why Israel should withdraw from the occupied territories and do so now, as the American President has said; but we also—I hope that my hon. Friend would do so too—condemn without reservation the terrorist attacks on Israeli citizens: both must be condemned.

This is a difficult situation not because the messages are mixed, but because I am afraid there has to be a message of restraint and an end to violence for both sides. The only way in my judgment that we will get a resolution to this issue is not if we take sides on it, but if we actually make sure that, in a sensible way, we say to both sides that the Israelis have to withdraw from the occupied territories and cease the reprisals, and the Palestinians have to take action against those people engaged in terrorist attacks.

--

Q3. [44178]Dr. Vincent Cable (Twickenham): The Prime Minister may recall that a month ago I asked him about delays in cancer treatment. He reassured me that the Government were investing more. Is he aware of the anger and frustration felt by many cancer patients and clinicians because a high percentage of those specifically earmarked funds has been siphoned off, owing to NHS bureaucracy, and to financing low-priority activity such as reducing the debts of hospital trusts? What guarantees can he give that money specifically pledged by the Government to their top health priority is spent for the designated purpose?

The Prime Minister: We do need to make sure that money allocated to cancer treatment is spent on that. All I would say to the hon. Gentleman—to put what he has just said in a balanced perspective—is that the report that drew attention to the problem also said in specific terms that cancer services in this country were improving. More than 90 per cent. of people who are referred to a consultant are now referred within two weeks; the figure was just over 60 per cent. when we came to office.

We are investing a massive amount in cancer services, but the hon. Gentleman is right: more still needs to be done. I therefore hope that next week's Budget will give us an opportunity to make a sustained investment in cancer care—but also in other vital parts of the health service—over a considerable period. I hope the hon. Gentleman and his party will support us in that.

--

Mr. Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green): Perhaps the Prime Minister would like to agree with this one. Commander Ward, the decorated squadron commander from the Falklands—a war whose 20th anniversary we now mark—said that the Prime Minister's decision to withdraw Sea Harriers would lead to the

"loss of many lives and ships".

Does the Prime Minister agree with that?

The Prime Minister: No. We are satisfied that the decisions we have made through the strategic defence review allow us to defend our country properly, and I pay tribute to the superb work done by our armed forces around the world.

Mr. Duncan Smith: The Prime Minister should know that in the strategic defence review it was proposed to phase out both the Sea Harrier and the GR7, but not before 2010, when a replacement aircraft was supposed to be available. He must also know that the aircraft that the Government are now talking about putting on the carriers—the GR7—is slower, has no air-to-air radar, and is not designed for air defence at all.

The Prime Minister may recall that Sandy Woodward, commander of the Falklands taskforce, said his decision meant that the fleet would now have to rely on United States carrier support if it ever carried out operations. In the light of that, will he not reconsider the rather stupid decision to withdraw Sea Harriers?

The Prime Minister: First, let me point out that the right hon. Gentleman is complaining about the amount that we are spending on defence. All these decisions are, in the end, about the resources available. I think people in the armed forces remember that when his party was in power it slashed defence spending. The first real-terms increase took place under this Government, when we came to office. As regards the right hon. Gentleman's specific point, I do not accept that the efficiency of our armed forces is being undermined by that.

Mr. Duncan Smith: The Prime Minister cannot go back to the pre-1997 Government, given that his own strategic defence review, on which he bases his evidence, makes it absolutely clear that that aircraft would stay in service until a replacement had been found. The Prime Minister's previous Chief of the Defence Staff, General Guthrie, recently said that

"the Defence programme was underfunded before September 11th."

10 Apr 2002 : Column 17

The Territorial Army has been cut, the Navy is short of ships and the Royal Air Force is short of pilots, yet the Prime Minister constantly increases our commitments. Surely the resolve to stand up to would-be aggressors becomes worthless if we lack the ability to do so.

The Prime Minister: I do not accept that our armed forces are at all in the state that the right hon. Gentleman describes. On underfunding, I was making exactly that point a moment or so ago. When his party was in office—[Interruption.] For 10 years, the Conservative party cut defence spending. Under this Government, the armed forces have had the first real-terms increase in defence spending for years. If Conservative Members are demanding that even more money be spent on defence, I hope that they will support the decisions that are announced in the Budget next week.

--