Engagements (Hansard, 1 April 1998)

§ Q1. Mr. Flight
If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 1 April.

§ The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair)
This morning, I launched the Labour party's campaign for a yes vote in the coming referendum. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall this evening host a dinner for the Taoiseach to discuss the talks process and renew our determination to bring it to a successful conclusion.

§ Mr. Flight
Who requested that the Prime Minister make his call to the Prime Minister of Italy on Wednesday 18 March?

§ The Prime Minister
As I have said consistently, I am not going to disclose details of my conversations with the Italian Prime Minister or anyone else. As my press spokesman has pointed out, the call was made by the Italian Prime Minister to me.

§ Dr. Gibson
Is my right hon. Friend aware that they will be celebrating in the highways and byways of Norfolk tonight? Not only have we seen the demise of the East Anglian mafia, some of whom were more Bugsy Malone than Al Capone, but there has been clarification on the admissions policies for four-year-olds: they will all have the opportunity to go to a nursery, playgroup or school. Does my right hon. Friend welcome the renaissance of education after the death of the nursery voucher?

§ The Prime Minister
The nursery voucher was a disastrous idea introduced by the previous Government. We have removed it. We are ensuring nursery education for all four-year-olds. We shall then be well on the way 1251 to getting nursery education for three-year-olds as well. That is a Labour Government delivering on their election promises.

§ Mr. Hague
When the Chancellor said yesterday that uncertainty over the single currency was contributing to the strength of the pound, what exactly did he mean?

§ The Prime Minister
Exactly as he explained. Of course, before the single currency is introduced, there will be a lot of uncertainty about whether it will work.

§ Mr. Hague
Is not the uncertainty of which the Chancellor spoke the danger of a weak and fudged single currency—a danger that the Prime Minister refused to recognise last week? Is that not contributing to driving up the value of the pound? Manufacturing is on the brink of a recession. As the current president of the European Union, the Prime Minister is one of the few people in a position to do something about the issue. When does he propose to make up his mind and take action to save British jobs and British businesses by taking a stand against a weak and fudged single currency?

§ The Prime Minister
First, may I point out that we have made it clear all along that the criteria should be adhered to? There are many reasons for the current strength of the pound. No Government actions that the right hon. Gentleman has suggested would have any consequence, other than probably an adverse consequence, on the position of the pound. The position that he is advancing is confused and economically illiterate.

§ Mr. Hague
How can the Prime Minister simultaneously say that the criteria must be adhered to, while looking at a range of criteria that are not adhered to, and say that this issue is not being fudged? Fudging of the criteria is contributing directly to the high exchange rate, damaging our exporting industries. Why does the Prime Minister not use his influence with the Italian Prime Minister? He uses it for everything else, and can probably even remember the telephone number if he thinks hard enough. Why does the Prime Minister not act in the interests of British jobs and businesses and of the whole of Europe and be clear about the fact that the single currency is being fudged and he should do something about it?

§ The Prime Minister
Let me point out to the right hon. Gentleman that there could be nothing more disastrous than the course that I assume that he is advocating, which is for Britain to stand up now and say that it would oppose a whole series of countries going into the single currency. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] That is what the Opposition are saying. First, actually, Britain is not in fact in a position to veto that, since the matter is decided by qualified majority voting. Secondly, it would cause complete mayhem were we to advocate it. Thirdly, it would be utterly pointless. In other words, it would be a combination of all those things that once characterised Conservative Government foreign policy.

§ Mr. Kaufman
With regard to the snide asides in the Leader of the Opposition's supplementary question and in the question of the hon. Member for Arundel and South 1252 Downs (Mr. Flight), taking into account this over-the-top, hyped attack on the Prime Minister's press secretary— [Interruption.]

§ Madam Speaker
Order. I want to hear the question.

§ Mr. Kaufman
In responding to such attacks, will my right hon. Friend take into account the fact that Conservative Members above the Gangway are the party of Sir Bernard Ingham, who misused a letter from Law Officers against the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), who described a member of the Cabinet as a semi-detached member of the Cabinet", and who was described by John Biffen as the sewer rather than the sewage"? That being so, will my right hon. Friend treat with the contempt that it deserves this pathetic apology for an Opposition, who do not deal with crime, jobs, welfare and all the issues about which people care?

§ The Prime Minister
Yes, I certainly will. There is one reason why the Opposition attack the press spokesman: he does an effective job of attacking the Conservative party. In all the Prime Minister's Question Times, the Leader of the Opposition has not once raised health, education or crime—not once. That is an example of a poor Opposition.

§ Mr. Ashdown
Surely the real issue is not who said what, when and to whom, but whether the Prime Minister understands why there is so much widespread concern about the seemingly unstoppable growth in media power and political influence of Mr. Rupert Murdoch.

§ The Prime Minister
Of course I understand the concerns that people have. The only issue is whether BSkyB is treated differently from any other media company or significant British company. The answer to that is no.

§ Mr. Ashdown
The Prime Minister's case seems to be that Mr. Rupert Murdoch is just an ordinary business man, who can be treated like every other ordinary business man. If the Prime Minister believes that, he is just about the only person left in Britain who does. The reality is that one cannot treat somebody who owns a media outlet in the same way as one treats somebody who owns a beans factory. The Prime Minister must realise—I do not understand why he does not—that we must do something about media ownership. The only way of doing so is to amend the Competition Bill, which is to come back before the House in the next few weeks. Will he now see that that is done?

§ The Prime Minister
I do understand why it is different, which is why the Competition Bill includes specific new powers to deal with a range of competition issues, including predatory pricing—the issue that has been raised.
As for newspaper proprietors, I meet all of them regularly; I know all of them. I regard that as a sensible part of being the leader of a major political party. As a matter of fact, I have no illusions about any of them.
1253 They are all highly able, highly ruthless and dedicated to the success of their businesses, as I am dedicated to the success of mine.

§ Mr. Caplin
As it is 1 April, has my right hon. Friend had the same problems that I have had in distinguishing fact from fiction today? I am thinking of two stories in particular—one about the Liberal Democrats' numeracy courses and the other about a Tory truce on Europe, both of which appear to be wrong—while, for the Government, 1 April is a date on which we can put new money into health and education. Will my right hon. Friend comment on that?

§ The Prime Minister
I am delighted that the Secretary of State for Health has announced today that the pledge given last November, that there would be no 18-month waiters on the waiting list, has been delivered by the Government, as we said it would be.

§ Q2. Mr. Prior
The Prime Minister will know that many disabled people throughout the country, and their carers and relatives, are concerned about the benefit review that the Government are undertaking. Will he rule out today the possibility of taxing disability living allowance?

§ The Prime Minister
As my right hon. Friend the Minister for Welfare Reform said when he announced our proposals to the House last week, we have no proposals to tax that benefit. Obviously, all taxation matters are matters for the Chancellor, but there are no such proposals in the Green Paper. I think that disability groups have welcomed the Green Paper, because they know that reform is necessary. They know, for example, that it is right to make changes to incapacity benefit and disability living allowance to make the gateways fairer, clearer and better, as well as trying to get more help to those who are severely disabled. They also welcome the fact that we shall consult them on how to proceed. That is the right way to make radical reforms, while reassuring people who need reassurance.

§ Q3. Mr. Crausby
Has my right hon. Friend heard the rumour that the Conservatives may abandon their opposition to the national minimum wage, despite the fact that they kept the House up about it all night a few weeks ago? Does he not welcome their grudging conversion to one of Labour's big ideas?

§ Madam Speaker
Order. I remind Back Benchers that they should ask about Government policy at Question Time. The Prime Minister is responsible for Government policy, not for the activities of the Opposition. Mr. Quentin Davies.

§ Mr. Quentin Davies
When and where did the Prime Minister last meet Mr. Rupert Murdoch?

§ The Prime Minister
As I said earlier, I meet newspaper proprietors, all of them, regularly, and I shall carry on doing so—as, I have no doubt, every serious political leader does.

§ Q4. Mr. Skinner
May I congratulate— [Laughter.] April fools!
1254 When does the Prime Minister expect to conclude the talks with the Confederation of British Industry about the vexed problem of trade union recognition rights and voting by a simple majority? Is he aware that, the way that they are going on, they will probably take longer than the Northern Ireland peace agreement? Does he accept that, when the political history of this century is written, the workers' struggles will spring from every page, whereas the CBI and the media moguls will finish up with a footnote in the appendix?

§ The Prime Minister
I have to say that that is not quite the new Labour authorised version.
Obviously, we are in a process of consultation, because the issue is important. In the manifesto we stated that trade union recognition would be given if a majority of the relevant work force wanted it. We said that in government we would consult and negotiate on what that meant, and that is precisely what we have done. It is important to strike the right balance between the right of an individual to be part of a union and to be represented by it, if that is what the individual wishes, and the need of an employer to run an effective business, and that is precisely what we will do. The introduction of the minimum wage now has considerable business support, and I want the other part of our fairness at work agenda to be implemented in the same way.

§ Mr. Randall
I understand that the Prime Minister has been busy launching Panel 2000, which is about rebranding the UK. What contribution does he think that the Foreign Secretary has made to promoting our image abroad?

§ The Prime Minister
The Foreign Secretary has done an immense amount for British business abroad. It is only a pity that, when he does so, he is attacked and undermined by Opposition Members. I believe that the Foreign Secretary's job is not only to promote business, but to stand up and do what is right—that is what he has done.

§ Q5. Mr. McNulty
My right hon. Friend will be aware that last night, thanks to the hereditary peers, the Government suffered their 18th defeat in the House of Lords. There is growing impatience among Labour Members about when we will reform the House of Lords and get rid of these historical throw-backs and hill-billy inbreds. Can my right hon. Friend ascertain whether the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) shares our view on the House of Lords, or whether—on this, as on every other issue—he is still thinking about it?

§ The Prime Minister
We will of course proceed as soon as we can in reforming the House of Lords. It would be easier if we knew that we had the Opposition's support in doing so, but, as on so many other policies, their position remains completely shrouded in mystery. We keep saying to them that, if they will agree with us, we can remove the hereditary peers as quickly as possible, but they simply will not state what their position is.

§ Mr. Hague
Has the Prime Minister seen the figures that were produced by the House of Commons Library showing that, over the 18 years of Conservative 1255 Government, national health service spending rose by 3 per cent. a year, and that next year it will rise by 2.2 per cent? Are those figures correct?

§ The Prime Minister
I am delighted that my earlier remarks have had such a swift effect on the right hon. Gentleman. The figures indeed show that to be the case over the 18 years, but in the two years before the election—during which he was a member of the Government—national health spending rose in real terms by less than 2 per cent. This Government have significantly improved on that.

§ Mr. Hague
The truth, then, is that this Government are not matching the previous Government's performance in increasing NHS spending. All that the Prime Minister has done is to do what all Governments have done—take money from the contingency reserve for the health budget, except that he has not been as generous as previous Governments. Will he acknowledge that, under his spending plans, the increase in spending is now less than it was under Conservative Governments over those 18 years?

§ The Prime Minister
No, I certainly will not agree with that, as it is plainly wrong. First, we are putting far more money into the NHS—now, more than £1.7 billion—than was proposed in the Conservative spending plans that were published before the election. Secondly, even this year, we are spending far more— more than £300 million—than the Conservatives were due to spend, and that money does not come from the contingency reserve. The right hon. Gentleman is wrong on every count.

§ Mr. Hague
The Prime Minister's answer bore so little resemblance to the truth that he could probably get a job in his own press office before long. He promised the British people so much on health: he promised to reduce waiting lists, but they are now bigger; he promised to increase spending on the NHS, but the Government have cut growth in spending; and he promised to keep open specific hospitals, but the Secretary of State for Health has been busy closing them. Is that not a step-by-step betrayal of the NHS?

§ The Prime Minister
What a cheek, honestly. We are spending more money—[Interruption.]—far more money, than the Conservatives would have spent, according to their spending plans published before the general election. Waiting lists were going up for two years while the right hon. Gentleman sat in the Cabinet doing nothing about it, and they will come down under Labour, as we promised. The British people know perfectly well that the Conservative party in government did everything that it could to undermine the national health service. The Labour Government not only are spending more money but have got rid of the internal market and will put the national health service back on its feet, as we promised.

§ Mr. Shaw
Today marks a new beginning for the Medway towns: 250,000 people in the largest conurbation in the south-east will have a new unitary authority, dedicated to better education and economic regeneration. 1256 Will my right hon. Friend join me in wishing that council success, on behalf of the people of Chatham, Rochester and Gillingham?

§ The Prime Minister
Yes, I have no doubt that the new plans will do an awful lot for the people in my hon. Friend's area, not only in education but in economic development.

§ Q6. Mr. Andrew George
Will the Prime Minister confirm the front-page report in today's The Times about an extra £3 billion for the national health service? Is so, will he ensure that the Secretary of State for Health intervenes to halt the closure of four Cornish hospitals, with the loss of up to 100 beds and the sacking of 300 nurses?

§ The Prime Minister
Obviously, I cannot confirm reports of spending figures that are matters for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. I repeat: we are putting into the national health service far more money than not only the Conservatives but the Liberal Democrats were prepared to put into it.
The decision on the particular hospitals lies with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, but it is fair to point out that the chief executive of the local health authority has said that the changes are being made not for cash reasons but for reasons of internal reform. That said, my right hon. Friend will consider in detail the points that are being made, and he will announce his decision in the normal way.

§ Q7. Angela Smith
Jobs paying £1.75 an hour have recently been advertised in my constituency. Research has shown that subsidies for such poor employers cost the taxpayer up to £7,000 a year. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Conservative opposition to a minimum wage is wrong morally and economically and that his policies have the support of the vast majority of people?

§ The Prime Minister
One reason for a minimum wage is to reduce the benefit bill, running at £3 billion or more a year, which goes on subsidising low pay. Another reason is that it is better for employers to compete on the basis of skills and productivity, not lower pay. It is morally right that there is a threshold beneath which wages do not fall. I very much hope that, despite anything that the Conservatives have said in the past, they will join us in supporting a policy that is both economically and morally right.