§ Q1. Mr. ArcherTo ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 December.
§ The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major)This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, including one with the Prime Minister of New Zealand. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
§ Mr. ArcherHas the right hon. Gentleman found time to consider which of the policies in which he participated over the past 11 years he now regrets and proposes to change? If the answer is that the Major revolution amounts to no more than requiring back-seat drivers to belt up, what benefits have the public received in exchange for the expensive telephone bills incurred by Government Departments in the course of the past month's plotting?
§ The Prime MinisterI can tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman one thing. There is one back-seat injunction that I shall not follow—I shall not turn left.
§ Q2. Mr. PaiceTo ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 December.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. PaiceHas my right hon. Friend seen this morning's press tribute to his and my county of Cambridgeshire for the way it has given as much management control to schools as if those schools had adopted grant-maintained status? Will he compare that with the proposal to introduce new, politically appointed bureaucracies, which may aim high but will inevitably lower standards to that of the lowest standard achievable, as one would expect of Labour party policies?
§ The Prime MinisterI am grateful to my hon. Friend for that information. I saw this morning's papers and I know that Cambridgeshire county council has been innovative in education for a long time. I am delighted to see what it is now doing. I agree that expensive bureaucratic control of education will only withdraw resources from the classroom, whereas our policy is to ensure that resources remain in the classroom.
§ Mr. KinnockThe right hon. Gentleman has been good enough to refer to the personal debt of gratitude that he owes to the national health service. Does he think that it would be right to discharge that debt by getting rid of hospital opt-out?
§ The Prime MinisterSelf-government within the NHS will improve management. That is why so many hospitals are seeking to opt out. In the past 10 years, more resources have been added to the NHS than anyone could have imagined. There is no doubt that in future the NHS will be at the centre of our concerns.
§ Mr. KinnockIt is clear that the Prime Minister intends to make no change for the better in the NHS. Is he not 170 aware that whenever a ballot has been held, consultants, hospital doctors, nurses, general practitioners and the general public have all voted by huge majorities against opting out? Does he realise that opt-out will intensify the crisis in the NHS? As the NHS has never done anything but good by him, why is he doing it so much harm?
§ Mr. KinnockIf the right hon. Gentleman believes that to be the case, should not he make a start by trying to convince his constituents about the Hinchingbrooke hospital in his constituency, where waiting lists have doubled in the past two years? The local press has referred to a wall of opposition against opting out. Will the right hon. Gentleman support his constituents?
§ The Prime MinisterUnlike some Opposition Members, I unfailingly use the NHS. Its future is entirely secure, with increased funding, as it has been for the past 10 years.
§ The Prime MinisterSelf-government is being proposed by the consultants and the staff at the Hinchingbrooke hospital, which holds the enormous affection of people in the area. I can tell the right hon. Gentleman something else about that hospital it was not available under the Labour Government—it was this Government who provided it.
§ Mr. HigginsI congratulate my right hon. Friend on becoming Prime Minister and also on the speech that he made earlier today, which I thought embodied the spirit of the late lain Macleod. In that context, and in that spirit, may I ask him to give urgent consideration to two particular injustices—first, the position of those haemophiliacs suffering from AIDS as a result of blood products provided by the national health service and, secondly, the position of those who suffered as a result of being exposed to radiation from the atomic tests carried out immediately after world war 2? I do not expect him to give an answer off the top of his head—that would be unfashionable—but would he give those matters urgent consideration?
§ The Prime MinisterAs my right hon. Friend knows, I like to consider matters before reaching a conclusion. However, I shall certainly accept his injunction and do so.
§ Mr. AshdownWhen the Prime Minister gave his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment what we now understand to be carte blanche for a fundamental review of the poll tax, did he rule out the option of abolishing it?
§ The Prime MinisterMy right hon. Friend and I will be discussing later today the precise remit for consideration.
§ Mr. NichollsHas my right hon. Friend had the opportunity to consider the latest computer analysis from the Institute of Directors on the top-performing companies in Europe? Has he noted that there are more United Kingdom companies than German or French companies in the top 100 and does not that say far more about the underlying strength of the British economy than the economic illiteracy that we hear from the Leader of the Opposition?
§ The Prime MinisterMy hon. Friend is right. There is absolutely no doubt about the revolution in the prospects for this country over the past decade.