Engagements (Hansard, 15 July 1998)

§ Q1. Mr. Phil Woolas (Oldham, East and Saddleworth)
If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 15 July.

§ The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair)
This morning, I had the pleasure, together with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, to visit Hawley infants and nursery school in Camden, which, along with schools throughout the country, will benefit from the reforms and spending announced yesterday. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have meetings with ministerial colleagues later in the day.

§ Mr. Woolas
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the £19 billion extra for education and the £21 billion 402 extra for health are much more than the previous Government were prepared to spend and significantly more than the infinitely elastic 1p on income tax from the Liberal Democrats? Is he aware that my constituents want the extra money to be translated into real hospital beds and real classrooms as soon as possible?

§ The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is right. That is precisely what will happen. The spending increases announced yesterday—the £19 billion for education and the £21 billion for health—will ensure that we have the public services that we need. By tying the money to reform and modernisation, we shall ensure that it is spent well and wisely and goes to the front line of services. The shadow Chancellor decided to oppose our plans. The Conservatives will go into the next general election saying that, whereas we are providing more for schools and hospitals, they would provide less. That is their choice and they will live with it.

§ Mr. William Hague (Richmond, Yorks)
Does the Prime Minister recognise that having vowed to cut welfare bills, he has comprehensively failed to do so? Will he confirm that the social security budget will rise by more than £27 billion over the next three years? Will he explain why he did not talk about that in answer to the previous question and why the Chancellor did not even mention it yesterday?

§ The Prime Minister
I am very happy to talk about that. The £27 billion that the right hon. Gentleman refers to will be spent on the whole social security budget. The vast bulk of it will be spent on pensions, child benefit and disabilities. Through the new deal, we are cutting spending on social and economic failure, as we promised. Perhaps he will tell us which of those items—pensions, child benefit or disabilities—he would like to cut.

§ Mr. Hague
It is the Prime Minister who said: New Labour is about cutting welfare bills". It is no good two years later asking other people how to do it. When he said that, people thought that he knew how to do it. The rate of growth of welfare spending will increase—£5 billion next year, £8 billion the year after and £14 billion the year after that. Those are the Chancellor's figures. Will the Prime Minister now admit that he has failed and that far and away the biggest increase in yesterday's announcement—bigger than education, bigger than health—was in welfare and social security spending?

§ The Prime Minister
I do not think that we quite had an answer to that point on pensions, did we?
I should point out that the social security budget is rising less under this Government than it did under the right hon. Gentleman's. More than that, we promised that we would cut the bills of economic and social welfare. That is what the new deal does. That is why young people are getting jobs that they did not get under the Tories. That is the why the long-term unemployed are off benefit and into work, which did not happen under the Tories. That is why, for the first time in years, the number of lone parents on income support has fallen below 1 million, and is due to fall by another 40,000 next year. All those things reduce the bills of failure. That is our policy—opposed by 403 the right hon. Gentleman. He opposes not merely raising pensions, child benefit and disability payments, but measures that cut the bills of economic and social failure.

§ Mr. Hague
If the Prime Minister is doing so well at cutting those bills, why are they going up faster than any other Government bills? Will he confirm that the £27 billion increase in the social security budget does not even include the working families tax credit—contrary to the impression that he has been giving in radio interviews this morning—and that, when that and all other social security expenditure under different headings are added together, the total rise in welfare spending in the next three years will be more than £37 billion, which is almost as much as the increases in education and health spending put together? Is he proud of producing that?

§ The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman is on a listening tour, so let him listen. As I have just told him, the vast bulk of the rise in social security spending is on pensions, child benefit and disability payments. Which of those does he oppose? [Interruption.] Let us have some silence; let us ask which. We do not have an answer. He is just like his shadow Chancellor, who is touring television studios saying that he is against all the spending that we announced yesterday, but every time that he is asked about a specific, such as education or health, he says that he is in favour of it. The Leader of the Opposition does not know where he stands on spending or social security. He is all right dancing around the Dispatch Box with sixth form debating society phrases about lobbyists, but when it comes to the hard business of politics and government, he does not have a clue.

§ Mr. Hague
We always know that, when the Prime Minister gets on to the sixth form debating society, he does not know how to answer the question. Why can we not have a specific answer from the man who is meant to give specific answers, who said: New Labour is about cutting welfare bills", and now presides over an enormous increase in welfare bills? If he is so proud of those spending figures, why is the Chancellor trying to hide so many of them? Why do all the figures for the working families tax credit appear in the Chancellor's document under "accounting adjustments"? Why do we have a £14 billion increase in "accounting adjustments"—the fourth largest increase of any Government programme? No doubt the Paymaster General would have put it down as "directors' fees".
This year's failure on welfare is being paid for by last year's tax increases—by home owners, pension fund holders, car owners and businesses. This is from the Government who said that there would be no tax increases at all. Were not people deceived at the election, just like those who thought that the Prime Minister was serious about welfare reform?

§ The Prime Minister
Let me try to explain it to the right hon. Gentleman again. At the election, we said that we would cut the bills of social and economic failure. That is what the new deal does. The right hon. Gentleman opposes the new deal. The rest of the increases in welfare spending are on pensions, child benefit and disabilities—all spending of which he now says he is in favour. Welfare spending under this Government is rising less in real terms than it did under his Government, precisely because 404 we are cutting the bills of failure, as we promised. The truth is that he does not know where he stands on that, as he does not know where he stands on every other serious spending issue.

§ Mr. Hague
The truth is that the Prime Minister does not know the figures. According to the figures released by the Library this morning, the rise in welfare spending for the two years' spending that the Government inherited from us is 0 per cent., whereas the average rise for the three years that they have just planned for will be 3.5 per cent. a year in real terms. How can the Government say that their policies succeed in reducing welfare bills? That is what the Prime Minister promised to do before the election, and that is what he is failing to do. He said that it was all about tough choices, and he has failed to make those choices. He said it was about cutting the bills, and the bills are going up. He talked about open government, and he has finished up with £14 billion of "accounting adjustments". When will he do as he promised and come forward with welfare reform that actually reduces the welfare bill?

§ The Prime Minister
The welfare reform that reduces the welfare bills is tackling social and economic failure. That is why we are committed to the new deal, which is opposed by the right hon. Gentleman's party. That is why we are committed to the working families tax credit, which is opposed by his party. That is why we are investing money in education, which is opposed by his party. That is why we are investing money in inner cities, which is also opposed by his party. We are investing the money for the long-term health of the country, cutting the deficit that we inherited from his party, and cutting the welfare bills for social and economic failure. Our record on fiscal prudence, spending, investment and growth is better than anything that his lot ever achieved.

§ Mr. Tom Levitt (High Peak)
Is my right hon. Friend aware that, on the radio this morning, the shadow Chancellor talked about a 20 per cent. increase in spending, but then went on to say that, for every £4 spent now, £5 would be spent in future? By my reckoning, that is not a 20 per cent. increase. Does that not tell him a lot about the quality of the Opposition—

§ Madam Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman, and all Members, must ask the Prime Minister questions about things for which he has a responsibility—nothing to do with the Opposition. I have told the House on more than one occasion that questions should be framed about responsibilities that the Prime Minister carries. Can the hon. Gentleman try better?

§ Mr. Levitt
Does what the shadow Chancellor said not show the need for radical investment in education for numeracy, as we have proposed?

§ The Prime Minister
We do have an excellent adult numeracy programme. When the shadow Chancellor was on the radio this morning, he was also asked, "Mr. Maude, can you really have it both ways—asking for increased spending but opposing overall increased spending?" and he said, "Oh, of course we can." The truth of the matter is that the Opposition really do not know where they stand—but they cannot have it both ways. Yesterday, 405 they decided that they opposed the spending that we have put forward, so they will go into the next election opposing all the good things that we are doing for schools and hospitals.

§ Mr. Paddy Ashdown (Yeovil)
I am delighted that, yesterday, the Government finally opened the war chest that they have been telling us for the past year did not exist. I am even more delighted that they have decided to do as we have been telling them for the past year, and use the money for schools and hospitals. However, will the Prime Minister now confirm that that three-year spending on health and education will be both inflation proofed and recession proofed?

§ The Prime Minister
I appreciate that we are never knowingly underspent by the Liberal Democrats. If the right hon. Gentleman looks at the figures, the forecasts for growth and the economic forecasts, he will see that they are extremely careful and cautious, and have been agreed—as the Conservatives' never were—by the National Audit Office. As for inflation, the right hon. Gentleman knows about yesterday's figures. The real-terms increases we are putting into health and education over the next few years will make a significant difference to schools and hospitals. The important thing is that that is done after two years in which we tightened our belt; we had to do so to make sure that any extra investment in public services was sustainable over the long term.

§ Mr. Ashdown
I am sorry that the Prime Minister chose not to answer the question, because it is really a very simple one. We want to know what happens if the unexpected happens. We want to know the strength of the Prime Minister's will to deliver. The question is very simple. If inflation is greater than forecast, will the Chancellor find the extra money? If growth is less than forecast, will the Chancellor find the extra taxes?

§ The Prime Minister
We put forward our proposals based on the evidence we have and on our predictions, which we believe to be correct. They are cautious, and are not anything other than entirely in line with what is expected. Compared with other independent forecasts, they are positively cautious. However, it is precisely for that reason that we have built in current account surpluses for every one of the three years—some £30 billion-worth. All those things are important in making sure that we are able to meet our pledges, irrespective of the economic circumstances. We believe that those economic circumstances will be as we have set out.

§ Kate Hoey (Vauxhall)
Does the Prime Minister agree that, in spite of the terrible events in Northern Ireland in the past few days, the words of Father Forde, the local priest, at the service for the three young boys yesterday—that the shared sorrow was a "beacon of hope" for the future—reflect the decent voice of decent people in Northern Ireland? Does he further agree that we should send our congratulations to the Royal Ulster Constabulary, who have shown that they can be even-handed, and that those people who call for their disbandment are just plain wrong?

§ The Prime Minister
I am happy to agree with my hon. Friend, and I should like to pay tribute to her for the 406 work that she has done over a long period in Northern Ireland. It seems strange to say so in light of the appalling and evil tragedy of the murder of those three children, but the fact is that we will overcome those latest difficulties. The people have voted for peace in Northern Ireland in the referendum and in the Assembly elections. The overwhelming majority of people in Northern Ireland want the peace process to continue. They do not share the views of the extremists, and they have shown their will over the past few days that those extremists ought not to be able to set the agenda. In showing that they are prepared to stand up for the rule of law in respect of intimidation from any quarter, the RUC did a great service to themselves and to the peace process in Northern Ireland.

§ Q2. Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley)
The Prime Minister will probably agree that, over the past 20 years, there have been great improvements in London and the south-east. In spite of that, there are still areas of great need. For example, 19 of the 22 most needy boroughs in the country are in London. At the moment, the education authorities in London and the south-east are looking at their indicative standard spending assessments for next year. Surrey will lose £8 million, and London will lose £227 million. Can the Prime Minister explain to me and to the children of London and the south-east why that is, and if the same unfair form of allocation will continue for the funds announced yesterday?

§ The Prime Minister
I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman is, in effect, asking for extra investment in education—that is exactly what we are doing, opposed by his party. The investment will be made on a fair basis. He talks about need having grown over the past 20 years, and it has. That is why we are creating the new deal, the action on social exclusion and the investment into the inner cities which need it most. When we get that extra money into education, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will support this side of the House against his own leadership.

§ Q3. Mr. Gordon Marsden (Blackpool, South)
What further plans does my right hon. Friend have to put a strong emphasis on the attack on social exclusion through his unit at No. 10 and to promote cross-departmental co-operation? In the light of the extra £4.4 billion for regeneration that was announced yesterday in the comprehensive spending review, will he urge members of the unit to visit seaside towns, such as Blackpool, which have particular problems and where a co-ordinated approach to multiple deprivation is necessary?

§ The Prime Minister
Of course the social exclusion unit has produced two excellent reports—one on truancy, the other on rough sleepers—which have been very well received over the past few months. My hon. Friend is right to say that the additional money—the £3.6 billion of capital receipts that will help in respect of housing and the £800 million that is part of the new deal money for communities—will tackle the problems of social exclusion and deprivation. We believe that, if that investment goes into our economy, we can give opportunities to people who do not currently have them, so that they can come off benefit, get into work and make 407 a contribution to society. That is better for them and for the economy, and it will create the fairer, more decent society that Labour Members want.

§ Q4. Mr. Peter Luff (Mid-Worcestershire)
Yesterday, when the Prime Minister did his U-turn on social security spending—instead of cutting it, he increased it by £27 billion—was he not returning to the bad old Labour ways of spend, spend, spend the people's money? When the Chancellor's gamble goes wrong, as it surely will, will that not mean, once again, tax, tax, tax the people?

§ The Prime Minister
Obviously, the hon. Gentleman did not listen to a word of what I was saying—[Interruption.] I answered the question very clearly indeed. First, if the hon. Gentleman is accusing us of raising social security spending too much, that is rather curious, as we are increasing it far less than the Conservative Government did. Secondly, the vast bulk of the £27 billion, as I have said, is going on pensions, child benefit and disability benefits. [Interruption.] Which of those does the hon. Gentleman oppose? He can shout it out now, but he does not know. The Conservatives are the great don't knows. After the most important spending proposals that this country has seen for decades, they are paralysed, unable to decide whether to pander to their right wing or to get behind us and support the policies that the country wants.

§ Mr. Eddie McGrady (South Down)
I am sure that, given his personal involvement in trying to find a resolution, the Prime Minister is acutely aware of the tragedy that has taken place in Northern Ireland over the past 10 days. Does he agree that the right of a limited number of people to march on a limited stretch of road must be subjugated to the odds of death, terrorism, sectarianism, intimidation, road blocking and the destruction of business, which is what we are now seeing? Will he continue his efforts—which are greatly appreciated by the entire community in Northern Ireland—in the proximity arrangements between the contending parties? Pray God, those efforts will come to fruition, so that we in Northern Ireland can return to some sort of normality.

§ The Prime Minister
Of course there is never any excuse for violence and intimidation from any quarter. The difficulty with marches is that there are competing rights. People want to march in traditional ways, but other people who live in areas where they feel that the march is provocative do not want it to happen. My judgment—I think that it is the judgment of the majority of people in Northern Ireland—is that, with a bit of good will and dialogue, we could find a way around the problem, so that people can enjoy their right to march peacefully and unprovocatively and the dignity of local residents can be respected.
I regard what is happening as one of a series of hurdles that we need to get over to secure peace in Northern Ireland. We got over the referendum and the assembly elections and we must now get through the marching season to create the climate and atmosphere in which people can see that their differences can be easily resolved with good will and dialogue. We shall do all that we can, and I thank the hon. Gentleman and the leadership of his 408 party for the incredibly responsible way in which they have behaved over the past few days. I congratulate the First Minister, the leader of the Ulster Unionists, and his deputy, who, as two people, have shown exactly what the future of Northern Ireland could be if people wanted it.

§ Q5. Mr. Michael Fabricant (Lichfield)
Why does the Prime Minister continue to deny that he made the pledge that he would cap the taxpayer's burden, which is social security spending? Did he not make that pledge before the general election because he knew that, if he did not cut spending, the economy and all the plans that were outlined yesterday would be jeopardised? Where will the money come from?

§ The Prime Minister
Let me read our commitment to the hon. Gentleman. We said: we will increase the share of national income spent on education as we decrease it on the bills of economic and social failure. That is what the new deal is about. I did not promise to cut pensions, disability living allowance or child benefit, which are also part of the welfare and social security budget. If the hon. Gentleman is in listening mode, I will explain. Part of the budget is spending on pensions, child benefit and people with disabilities: good, we like that. The other part is spending on unemployment and people on benefit when they should be at work: bad, we want to decrease that. This part we protect, and that part we use the new deal to diminish—got it?

§ Q6. Mr. Peter L. Pike (Burnley)
My right hon. Friend will know that many single people living alone feel that they get a raw deal from the way in which water charges are currently made. The Government's review on the future of water charges is making rapid progress, and I hope that it will decide that compulsory water meters are not the solution for most of the country. Does he agree that we should ensure that single people living alone get a fairer deal, perhaps by giving them a discount similar to those applied to council tax?

§ The Prime Minister
As my hon. Friend knows, we are considering the responses to the consultation. When it is right to do so, we will state our decisions. I have no doubt that we will bear my hon. Friend's point in mind when we take the decisions.

§ Mr. Michael Colvin (Romsey)
The Prime Minister said that the spending review would enable more to go to front-line services. What about front-line soldiers? The Chancellor's statement has taken a major bite out the defence budget, worth nearly £1 billion. How much of that mouthful of money will be added back to the defence budget to enable the Secretary of State for Defence to meet his obligation and pledge to improve service people's pay and conditions of service, to fill the gap of 5,000 soldiers in the Army, to attract in the 3,300 more soldiers whom he has said that he intends to hire, and to retain those who are already serving in the armed forces?

§ The Prime Minister
I know that the hon. Gentleman has a long history of interest in these matters, but I am not taking any lessons from Conservatives on defence spending, because they cut it by 30 per cent. and cut the Territorial Army by 30 per cent. It is interesting that, the moment a Conservative Member of Parliament gets off message, he asks for more spending, not less.
409 The strategic defence review was an extraordinary exercise, undertaken with and supported by all the armed services. It does not in any way reduce our capability, but modernises it and makes it right for the 21st century. That is why it has been so widely welcomed.

§ Q7. Dr. Ian Gibson (Norwich, North)
My right hon. Friend will be aware of the recent report by the Royal College of Radiologists, which shows clearly that radiotherapy is a cost-effective treatment for the management and cure of cancers. He will also be aware that the treatment cannot be equally accessed throughout the country, which leads to waiting time and waiting list increases. Will he campaign with me for the purchase of equipment, such as linear accelerators and for trained staff to rectify that anomaly?

§ The Prime Minister
The report sets out the model for high-quality cancer services. We have already made additional resources available for such services, but the £21 billion additional spending for the national health service that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced yesterday will improve services. It is important that that money goes to front-line services, cancer services included, and the health service White Paper guarantees that everyone with suspected cancer will be able to see a specialist within two weeks of their general practitioner deciding that they need to be seen urgently and requesting 410 an appointment. That system will be in place in April 1999 for breast cancer and by April 2000 for all other cancers. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, and we have committed those additional funds to get the right type of equipment and processes into the national health service. As the money feeds through, I hope that people will see substantial improvements in the quality of their services.

§ Mr. Owen Paterson (North Shropshire)
Manufacturing is already in recession. Should the rest of the economy slow down, how will yesterday's spending commitments be paid for?

§ The Prime Minister
As I explained a moment or two ago, our forecasts are very cautious and we will be running current account surpluses, as opposed to the deficits that were run under the Conservative Government. It is true that manufacturing output has been more or less static in the past year and has slightly declined in the past two quarters, but no one in manufacturing should be in any doubt about what the consequences of Conservative economic policy would be. We saw those consequences at the end of the late 1980s and we will remind the country of what they were: 15 per cent. interest rates; manufacturing output down 7 per cent.; and the deepest recession in the country's history. That was Conservative economic policy and we are not going back to it.