§ Ql. Mr. WardTo ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 8 March.
§ The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major)This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
§ Mr. WardWill my right hon. Friend ensure that the Department of Health examines carefully the Audit Commission report published today, which shows that £425 million could be saved on the national health service drugs bill if doctors reassessed their prescribing requirements?
§ The Prime MinisterWe spend something over £15 billion a year on drugs in the primary care sector, so it is in everyone's interests to have cost-effective prescribing. As the report shows, our general practitioners are among the most cost-effective prescribers in the world, although I believe that there is still room for improvement.
§ Mr. John SmithAt a time when, regrettably, there are so many innocent victims of crime, why are the Government intent on pushing through, in less than four weeks from now, a major weakening of the criminal injuries compensation scheme by substituting a crude tariff system for the proper assessment of damages suffered by victims?
Is the Prime Minister aware that a police officer who was seriously injured in a criminal attack was awarded £121,000 last year under the existing scheme, but would be entitled to only £7,500 under the new scheme? What justification can there be for that?
§ The Prime MinisterI do not have those precise figures in front of me, but we are seeking to change and make more efficient and effective the criminal injuries compensation scheme. It has met with many delays, while the amount of compensation was determined. We are seeking to produce a better, more effective and more efficient scheme that provides for speedier compensation.
§ Mr. John SmithI notice that the Prime Minister did not attempt to justify the change that will result. May I ask him directly why future loss of earnings and future costs of medical care are to be excluded completely from damages when, in the case of badly injured people, those are perhaps the most important losses? Is it not bad enough that crime has doubled under the Government without making the victims pay for it?
§ The Prime MinisterThe right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that the actions that we have taken against crime have been effective and efficient and have often been opposed by him and his party. I need no lectures from him about crime. What we are seeking to do is to make a more effective and efficient system fairer between both the recipient of assistance and the taxpayer.
§ Mr. John SmithSo that the Prime Minister understands the issue involved, may I remind him of the case of Mrs. Slater, a young wife with two children who saw her husband murdered at her front door? She was awarded £137,000 under the existing scheme. Under the Prime Minister's proposals that lady would get £17,000. Why should she lose £120,000 in a Government cost-cutting exercise? We hear constantly from the right hon. Gentleman about the victims of crime. Unless he withdraws the scheme he will be guilty of hypocritical humbug.
§ The Prime MinisterWe have one of the most generous systems of assistance in the world in terms of criminal injuries compensation, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows. We are seeking to make sure that it is more efficient and more effective and that the compensation is paid more speedily than at any stage in the past. The right hon. and learned Gentleman and his hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor were saying recently that they would enter into no more spending commitments until they knew how those commitments could be met. Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman broken his own edict yet again?
§ Q2. Mr. LuffTo ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 8 March.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. LuffDoes my right hon. Friend agree that one sure way of improving performance in our schools is to publish examination results? Is he aware that at the weekend the Labour party pledged that it would scrap such performance tables, depriving parents in Worcestershire and the rest of the country of information that they need and deserve when taking important decisions about their children's future'?
§ The Prime MinisterI have no doubt that publishing that information acts as a spur to higher standards. It also throws the spotlight on the quality of teaching in many schools. I regret very much that Labour Members wish to remove this right, that they do not trust parents with the information and therefore wish to keep them in the dark. But it is not a question just of performance tables. In the same speech, the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) promised to scrap grant-maintained schools, thereby removing from hundreds of thousands of parents the right that the Government have given them. And it is not just the Labour party: the Liberals would join in the introduction of that repressive legislation.
§ Mr. AshdownThere will be a warm welcome for the Government's decision this morning to respond to General Rose's request for reinforcements in Bosnia and, indeed, for the fact that this afternoon the United Nations has taken control of Tuzla airport. As the job in Bosnia is not to reinforce failure but to strengthen success, is it not now vital that other nations follow Britain's lead and would it not be helpful if the United States were to do so?
§ The Prime MinisterAs the right hon. Gentleman has said, we have been leading diplomatic efforts to help the United Nations to secure reinforcements. As I told the House a few days ago, we are prepared to provide more forces proportionately as part of a wider international effort. The right hon. Gentleman is right about Tuzla 147 airport: an important objective has been met. This will assist the aid operation, and we shall provide an aircraft specially to take aid into Tuzla.
§ Mr. Colin ShepherdDoes my right hon. Friend agree that the Commonwealth as a whole has a great contribution to make to the causes of peace, democracy and stability, especially in southern Africa at this very sensitive time? As we approach Commonwealth day, will my right hon. Friend reaffirm the United Kingdom's commitment to the Commonwealth?
§ The Prime MinisterI am happy to do so. At both the last two Commonwealth conferences we proposed reforms to make the Commonwealth a good deal more relevant and bring it up to date. Relationships within the Commonwealth are better than they have been for many years. As my hon. Friend referred to South Africa, let me say that many of us look forward to that country's first democratic elections which will be held in April and, I hope, to South Africa's wishing to return to the Commonwealth in due course.
§ Q4. Mr. McKelveyTo ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 8 March.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. McKelveyWill the Prime Minister explain why, in 1994, it is necessary for my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Dr. Berry) to introduce a private Member's Bill to provide basic civil rights for the disabled? Will the right hon. Gentleman seriously consider backing that humane Bill so that it may become part of the law of the land?
§ The Prime MinisterAs I have indicated on other occasions, the Government have done a great deal for disabled people—rightly so—and we certainly intend to do more. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the changes on access, on social security, on education—[ Interruption.] If Opposition Members will wait, they will get an answer. The hon. Gentleman will be aware also of the changes in relation to employment. It is a rolling programme. We share the aim of eliminating discrimination against disabled people. We have put in place a number of measures to do this. Of course we shall examine carefully the Bill of the hon. Member for Kingswood (Dr. Berry). There will be a debate on Friday, after which I hope that the Bill will go into Committee for detailed examination of its provisions, what it would achieve, what it would mean, what it would cost and those parts of it that are appropriate.
§ Mrs. GormanDoes my right hon. Friend agree with me that during the 1960s and 1970s the Labour party spent a great deal of taxpayers' money on overseas aid, but achieved very little benefit for the people of this country in return? Will he take pride in the fact that nowadays, under a Conservative Government, we make sure that the British taxpayer and work force benefit from our policy of linking trade with aid?
§ The Prime MinisterWe have a very high-quality aid programme, a small portion of which is linked, under the aid and trade provisions, with trade with appropriate countries. Aid and trade provision has existed since the late 148 1970s. It is appropriate, it works well both for the recipient countries and for British exporting prospects, and I look to see it continue.