Engagements (Hansard, 7 July 1999)

§ Q3. Mr. Paul Marsden (Shrewsbury and Atcham)
If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 7 July.

§ The Prime Minister
This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

§ Mr. Marsden
I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that the health White Paper, which was launched yesterday and aims to save 300,000 lives over the next 10 years, will benefit everyone, particularly people on low incomes and those from socially disadvantaged backgrounds—the same people whom the Tories wrote off when they were in office through their two-tier national health service?

§ The Prime Minister
We have targets to reduce the death rates from cancer and heart disease. We shall put £60 million directly into services for the three most common cancers and a further £150 million into providing state-of-the-art equipment for cancer treatment. There will be an extra 400 cancer specialists and increased spending on cancer drugs. All that will, of course, take time, but we will end up with a vastly improved service for people suffering from that disease.

§ Mr. William Hague (Richmond, Yorks)
Why did the right hon. Gentleman not mention that the waiting list to 1024 see a consultant has doubled since he became Prime Minister? Will he keep on blaming other people or will he and his Ministers take responsibility for that miserable failure?

§ The Prime Minister
Waiting lists are down as a result of the Government's policies and we are putting an extra £21 billion into the health service—opposed by the Conservative party.

§ Mr. Hague
It is a good job that there is not a waiting list for a straight answer, or we would be here for a very long time indeed. The number of consultants is down; the number of complaints is up; the waiting list to get on the waiting list has been doubled; junior doctors have been betrayed; the head of the MBA said in his speech on Monday—[Interruption.] The head of the—[Interruption.]

§ Madam Speaker
Order.

§ Mr. Hague
The head of the BMA said in his speech on Monday—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hurray!"] I am glad that everybody is listening; listen to the next bit as well. The head of the British Medical Association congratulated the Prime Minister on the fact that Morale has never been so low". Will he give the House the figure for the number of people waiting to see a consultant?

§ The Prime Minister
The waiting lists are 62,000 below the level that we inherited. The present figure is just over 1 million. [HON. MEMBERS: "Give the figures."] I am giving the figures. Average waiting times are now shorter. As for junior doctors' hours, when we came to office, 6,500 junior doctors were working for more than 56 hours a week—an unacceptable figure. Now the figure is 4,800. However, we will continue to bring the figures down. I am pleased to say that only one junior doctor in six works now for more than 56 hours a week, which means that five sixths work for less than that; nevertheless, we will continue to reduce the hours. There are now 2,200 more doctors in the national health service, and, over the next few years, we will introduce 7,000 more.

§ Mr. Hague
The Prime Minister should be concerned that his officials did not even bother to put the answer to the question in his folder. The answer is this: 456,000 people are waiting to see a consultant. That is 200,000 more since he took charge.
Is not the emerging story of this Government, on this as on so many other things, one of simple incompetence? We have half a million people waiting to see a consultant, half a million people waiting for a passport, and half a billion pounds lost on the sale of the gold reserves. The Prime Minister's problem is that he has a Cabinet full of incompetents, but he can only have one candidate for the post of mayor of London. When will he get rid of those people, and secure people who will actually deliver for the Government?

§ The Prime Minister
As I have said, the right hon. Gentleman's figures for the waiting lists are wrong. Waiting lists have fallen by 62,000 from the level that we inherited.
1025 The BMA made three criticisms. Let me deal with each in turn. First, the BMA disagreed with the way in which the primary care groups had been set up—but, last year, they voted by three to one to support the reforms. Secondly, the BMA opposed the private finance initiative contracts for the new hospitals. I am proud that we are building those new hospitals, which will deliver better health care for people. Thirdly, the BMA opposed NHS Direct and the new walk-in centres. Those centres, and NHS Direct, are giving ordinary people better access to the health service than they have ever had.
I understand the BMA's concerns, and we are prepared to talk to its members about them, but change is necessary for the improvement of the health service. We shall have 7,000 more doctors, 15,000 more nurses, 31 new hospitals and £21 billion more investment. That is a record of which we can be proud.

§ Q4. Mr. Jonathan Shaw (Chatham and Aylesford)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if we are to protect the countryside and rejuvenate our inner cities—as suggested in the Rogers report, "Towards an urban renaissance"—we must deal with a massive anomaly? A builder can construct a new house on a green-field site and be zero-rated for VAT, while renovation of an empty property in an inner city is charged at the full rate of 17.5 per cent. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that the Government will take the matter seriously, and will act at the earliest opportunity?

§ The Prime Minister
Of course we will take my hon. Friend's points seriously. As he knows, the problem of reducing the rate to zero has been caused by a European regulation. [Interruption.] It was signed by the last Government, I might add.
We are, however, taking two other steps that I consider important. We have refocused the single regeneration budget, and we are putting some £900 million extra into inner-city areas, where we can develop more brown-field sites. Moreover, we have upped the target for brown-field sites to 60 per cent. I believe that those measures will make a difference over time. However, I understand the point that my hon. Friend makes, and I recognise the anomaly to which he has drawn attention.

§ Mr. A. J. Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed)
When the Prime Minister talks of obstructiveness and resistance to change in the public sector, are doctors one of the groups that he has in mind?

§ The Prime Minister
No, I am not attacking doctors, but let us take the example of the PFI, which they have attacked. We are going to deliver the largest hospital-building programme that the health service has ever seen. We will deliver it on cost and on time. I think that experience shows that such developments, delivered through the private finance initiative, are better for the patient, and therefore better for the health service as a whole. I am not attacking doctors, or any other group of workers; I am saying that we need change in our public services—and this Government, who are putting more money into the public services than has ever been put into them before, are entitled to demand real change in return.

§ Mr. Beith
Does the Prime Minister not understand that doctors are concerned about future funding for patient 1026 care, as they worry about the much higher long-term costs of paying for hospitals through the private finance initiative? Over time, it costs more to do it that way. Does he understand that junior doctors are similarly concerned about their position? If the scars on the Prime Minister's back were real ones—if he had to go to casualty—would he really want to be treated by a doctor who had been on duty for 34 hours?

§ The Prime Minister
That is precisely why we are reducing the hours that junior doctors work. We have significantly reduced those hours, but we have to reduce them more. However, we cannot go all the way now, because it takes considerable time to train a doctor—in some specialisms, it takes 10 or 15 years. We are putting in extra investment—which, after all, is the largest three-year additional investment that the health service has ever had. As I said, we are getting in extra doctors and nurses, but that takes time.
I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman's point on the PFI. If he would go and talk to the people at the PFI site that I visited today at Greenwich, they would tell them that, because of the PFI, the contract will be completed on time and will not have a cost overrun. They would also tell him that care and maintenance are part of the contract, and that the fact that care and maintenance are not done properly in the public sector is one big reason why we do not have the health service that we need.

§ Mr. Eddie McGrady (South Down)
I should like, first, to place on record the sincere appreciation of my party and the people whom I represent for the superhuman effort that the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State, the Taoiseach and his Ministers made last week to deliver peace and government in Northern Ireland. I should like also to apologise to the Prime Manor and the House for being absent on Monday and unable to play a supportive role. I hasten to add that my absence was due entirely to aircraft failure.
Does the Prime Minister agree that the way forward document, which he and the Taoiseach produced, at this juncture, shows the best possible way forward for the future of Northern Ireland and for implementing all aspects of the agreement, not only decommissioning—which we all want, desire and need—but the devolved institutions, and other instruments of government, that would have been in place last September, had the spirit of the agreement been fulfilled? It is also the best possible way of ensuring that the process that has been endorsed by the people of Northern Ireland is brought to a successful conclusion, and to test the sincerity of those with arms on whether they will really decommission. The document shows the only way that we can test that.

§ The Prime Minister
It is important that people should understand that this is the only chance—the only way forward—for Northern Ireland. The agreement allows us to get both devolution of power, which people want, and the decommissioning of paramilitary weapons—not only republican paramilitary weapons, but all paramilitary weapons. As we have said, we shall listen profoundly—we must do; it is our duty—to concerns raised by any group in respect of it. I do believe that it offers the best way forward, and I urge people—all parties—to accept it as such.

§ Mr. Nick St. Aubyn (Guildford)
At the end of March 1998, no junior doctor at the Royal Surrey hospital worked beyond the 56-hour limit set by the previous Government. Now, over half the junior doctors at our hospital are working beyond that limit. Does the Prime Minister agree with his Health Secretary that care for the old and the sick in places such as Guildford simply does not matter to the Government?

§ The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend never said anything of the sort. I do not know the circumstances of that particular hospital, but I shall look into them. However, as I said, the overall national figures show a reduction in the number of doctors working more than 56 hours a week.
The one group of people from whom we shall take no lessons on the health service is the Conservative party. We are making up for 18 years of failure by the Conservative Government. Yes, it will take time to get the hospitals built and the technology in, and to get more doctors and nurses into the health service, but we shall get there because, unlike the Conservative party, we believe in the health service.

§ Miss Melanie Johnson (Welwyn Hatfield)
As a former inspector for the Office for Standards in Education, I welcome today's Ofsted report on improving standards in our primary schools. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the work of good teachers and the Government's introduction of the national literacy and numeracy hours have brought about the improvements that are benefiting our children?

§ The Prime Minister
We were very pleased by the Ofsted results, and I believe that even more dramatic change will come over the next few years, partly because of the literacy and numeracy hours and partly because, although under the previous Government's plans spending was cut by £80 per pupil for the past three years, it will rise over the next three years by £200 per pupil. In addition, class sizes are falling for primary school children, and substantial capital investment will mean new buildings and new computer systems in schools. All that will transform the educational standards of our country.

§ Q6. Mr. Christopher Gill (Ludlow)
Is it fair that some abattoirs in Britain are charged more than £50 an hour for veterinary supervision while others are charged less than £30? Does the Prime Minister recognise the vital role of small abattoirs, and that damage would be done to the rural economy if they were forced to close? Will he intervene personally to ensure that small abattoirs are not driven out of business by wholly disproportionate and unaffordable Government-imposed meat inspection charges?

§ The Prime Minister
I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. Charging requirements were introduced in 1995, and they have caused a lot of concern to smaller abattoirs, although I understand that not all small abattoirs pay higher charges than larger ones because inspection charges reflect the cost of providing the service to each premises. However, we are reviewing the charges to ensure that they are fair and sustainable, 1028 and the results of that review will be announced in due course. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's comments will be taken into account.

§ Q7. Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe (Bradford, South)
I recently met representatives of the large Serbian community in my constituency who were angered and upset by the tarnishing of the proud name of Serbia. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, rather than wasting money on an inquiry into the Kosovo conflict, the Government should spend more money and more time on support for the growing opposition in Serbia? Would that not prove that the conflict was conducted not against the Serbian people but against Milosevic and his actions?

§ The Prime Minister
I cannot emphasise too strongly that the conflict was not aimed against the Serbian people, whose second world war heroism we remember well. I hope that people in Serbia recognise that a democratic Serbia, rid of Milosevic, would have a bright future, and that it could be part of the new Balkans that we want. The whole region is less stable while Milosevic remains, and it is in the interests of the Serbian people and the whole region that he should be removed.

§ Mr. William Hague (Richmond, Yorks)
Does the Prime Minister personally guarantee that no grammar school will close under the Government?

§ The Prime Minister
It is not for me to guarantee that. As a result of our proposals, the power to decide lies in the hands of parents.

§ Mr. Hague
It is a pity that it is not for the Prime Minister to guarantee that. Two years ago, during the Wirral, South by-election, he wrote a letter to parents, saying: Let me put the record straight. A Labour Government will not close your grammar schools. That is my personal guarantee. Now, however, campaigns to close grammar schools are run by Labour party activists, and he is the leader of the Labour party. Has the warranty expired on his guarantee, or just on what is left of his principles? My personal guarantee is that I will campaign against his party to save the grammar schools. Will he join me?

§ The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman is talking complete nonsense, because the Labour Government are not closing grammar schools. At present, the power to close a grammar school lies with the local education authority. The decision then goes to the Secretary of State. Our legislation takes it out of the hands of the local education authority and puts it in the hands of the parents. The party that closed more grammar schools in Britain than any other was the Conservative party.

§ Mr. Hague
Even if the Prime Minister is not motivated by conviction to help the grammar schools, one would think that he would at least be motivated by shame, because, when the Labour party made that election promise, it lied to people. Is it not time that, instead of hypocrisy, the Prime Minister called off members of the Labour party from destroying some of the best schools in the country, or is it that even he now has no respect for the promises that he made?

§ The Prime Minister
I repeat to the right hon. Gentleman that, as he knows perfectly well, the Labour 1029 Government have not closed a single grammar school. We have no power to close grammar schools. As I explained a moment ago, the power used to vest in local education authorities; it now vests in parents. It is a decision to be made by parents. So far, they have not chosen to close any grammar school so, I suggest that, rather than raising scare stories, the right hon. Gentleman concentrates on the difference between the Government's education achievements and those of our predecessors. This Government are putting money into all our schools, because we want not just some, but all, our children to get a decent education. As I pointed out a moment ago, the previous Government, of which the right hon. Gentleman was a Cabinet Minister, capped spending per pupil by £80 for all school children. We are raising it by £200 per pupil. That is the difference between a Conservative Government for the few and a Labour Government for the many.

§ Mr. Mohammad Sarwar (Glasgow, Govan)
Is my right hon. Friend aware that 1,200 jobs at Kvaerner in Govan are under serious threat? The people of Scotland, my constituents and the work force at Govan shipyard are looking to the Government to do everything in their power to save those jobs. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that the Government will provide all the necessary support to the work force, who are campaigning with passion, dignity and self-respect to secure those jobs?

§ The Prime Minister
They certainly are campaigning with passion and dignity. As my hon. Friend knows, we have set up a task force specifically to try to secure the future of the Kvaerner yard. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is to meet the shop stewards and the task force this afternoon to see how we can plot a way forward for the shipyard. Everyone knows that those skills are valuable to Scotland and to the United Kingdom and we shall do all that we can to keep them.

§ Mrs. Caroline Spelman (Meriden)
Does the Prime Minister agree with Birmingham's chief education officer, Professor Tim Brighouse, that his Government's abolition of the assisted places scheme has widened social divisions in education?

§ The Prime Minister
No. If he said that, I comprehensively disagree with him. As a result of abolishing the assisted places scheme and putting the money into reducing class sizes in primary schools, by September there will be about 240,000 fewer five, six and seven-year-olds in classes of over 30 pupils. I believe that that it is important not that we subsidise some children to get a good education, but that we provide a good education for all our children.

§ Mr. Bob Laxton (Derby, North)
I welcome my right on. Friend's announcement this morning of £650 million-worth of private finance initiative investment and contracts in the national health service. In my constituency and in Derby, South and Derby city, the £177 million-worth of investment that will bring together acute services, possibly on one site, will enhance and improve health care in southern Derbyshire. In addition—[Interruption.]

§ Madam Speaker
Order. The House is getting very impatient because the hon. Gentleman is not putting 1030 a question. This is the first time that he has had the opportunity to put a question to the Prime Minister, and the House should be tolerant—but do put your question now, Mr. Laxton.

§ Mr. Laxton
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Does my right hon. Friend agree, that for the very first time in the city of Derby, a community hospital will be created on an existing site and that it is a much-needed—and will be a much-valued—facility?

§ The Prime Minister
I agree. My hon. Friend is entirely right. Not only will there be a community hospital, but, as a result of the contract that has been announced today, all the acute services for the people of Derby will be on one site, so people will not have to go to different places to get acute service care. Our experience with the private finance initiative is that it delivers the contracts on cost and on time. The previous Government promised all the hospitals, but never started or delivered them.

§ Q9. Mr. Archie Norman (Tunbridge Wells)
Is the Prime Minister aware that, despite all the hype that we have heard about hospital PFIs, the people of west Kent and East Sussex are in despair over the failure to reinvest in one of the most decrepit acute hospital facilities in the country? What hope can he offer them? Why has every one of the major investments in the NHS announced in the past 24 months been in a Labour-held constituency?

§ The Prime Minister
Well, there are rather a lot of Labour-held constituencies. The hon. Gentleman talks about the decrepit hospital in his constituency. Does he really believe that it has become decrepit in two years? The problems in the health service are of long standing. We are making a start on putting them right. We are getting new hospitals built, and new doctors and nurses, but it will take time. I say to his constituents what I would say to anybody in the country: if they want the health service rebuilt, they should look not to the people who ran it down for 18 years, but to the Government, who believe in it.

§ Mrs. Christine Butler (Castle Point)
Will my right hon. Friend congratulate nursery teachers, teachers and head teachers in my constituency on the enormous work that they have put into early-years development and numeracy and literacy hours in the primary sector? By this September, there will be fewer than 30 pupils in all classes of five, six and seven-year-olds, and there is enormous expansion in early-years education throughout my constituency. Does he look forward to the next Ofsted report, which will mark even greater strides forward in raising standards in basic skills in the primary sector?

§ The Prime Minister
When we came to office, half a million five, six and seven-year-olds were in classes with more than 30 pupils, education funding was being cut and almost half our 11-year-olds were leaving primary school without proper literacy and numeracy skills. We are getting class sizes down and improving literacy and numeracy, which will mean a better-educated and more prosperous country for the future.

§ Q10. Mr. Michael Jack (Fylde)
Britain's dairy farmers are in crisis, owing to the Government's failure 1031 to assist them over matters connected with the reform of the common agricultural policy, bovine tuberculosis and the lowest milk prices in Europe. When members of Milk Marque want to tackle that problem by investing in more dairy production capacity, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry appears to rule out farmers doing something to help themselves. Will the Prime Minister ask the Secretary of State to reconsider the matter and ensure that our dairy farmers can invest in themselves?

§ The Prime Minister
Obviously, the Secretary of State has to take into account the recommendations of the 1032 Monopolies and Mergers Commission, and the right hon. Gentleman would expect that. I understand his claim that we should put Government money into the dairy sector. [Interruption.] I am sorry, but dairy farmers will invest in the sector only on the basis that they have set out, which is contrary to the MMC report. If the Government failed to take account of the MMC report and ignored it, many consumers would rightly be angry with us. We will listen to the concerns of the dairy industry, but we also have to act on the recommendations of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. We would be wrong to ignore them.