Engagements (Hansard, 9 February 2000)

§ Q1. Mrs. Linda Gilroy (Plymouth, Sutton)
If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 9 February.

§ The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair)
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.

§ Mrs. Gilroy
Does the Prime Minister recollect that many of the hundreds of public servants whom he met in 240 Plymouth last week made it plain that they want more funding for public services? Would a binding policy on tax take for the whole of a Parliament lead to savage cuts in public services? Is that why at least one senior Tory Member has described that policy as mad?

§ The Prime Minister
Of course that tax guarantee would mean cuts in basic public services, health and schools—[Interruption.] There is nothing quite so ludicrous as the push-me-pull-you double act between the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Chancellor over the past few days. This morning, the shadow Chief Secretary told us unequivocally that they would—

§ Mr. Stephen Day (Cheadle)
It has nothing to do with you.

§ The Prime Minister
The shadow Chief Secretary said that the tax guarantee stood. That does have something to do with the person sitting opposite me. When he gets up, will he tell us whether the tax guarantee stands? Yes, or no?

§ Mr. William Hague (Richmond, Yorks)
The tax guarantee stands, and it will continue to stand. As the Prime Minister has had a straight answer from me, can we have some straight answers from him? That would be a novelty.
When archbishops, cardinals, the Chief Rabbi, the Muslim Council, Conservative Members of Parliament, many Labour Members, the chief inspector of schools, former Labour Cabinet Ministers, a majority of the Prime Minister's reformed House of Lords and the vast majority of mainstream opinion in the United Kingdom believe that the Government are wrong to abolish section 28, will the right hon. Gentleman listen to them and drop the whole idea?

§ The Prime Minister
No, I will not, for the reason I shall give in a moment. First, however, let me point out that the previous Government decided in 1994 guidance that section 28 did not apply to schools. The idea that has been put about in parts of the press that repeal is about gay sex lessons in schools and all the rest of it is nonsense.
Section 28 is being repealed because of the information given to us and the pleas made to us by such organisations as the National Children's Bureau, the National Association of Head Teachers, the British Medical Association and the Royal College of Nurses. It has nothing whatever to do with some of the nonsense that we have heard over the past few days. It is intended to ensure that teachers and others are able properly to give children information that they need. Although the right hon. Gentleman may wish to exploit the issue for the Conservative party's purposes, I believe that our country is more tolerant than he gives it credit for.

§ Mr. Hague
We all believe in a tolerant society. Many of those organisations to which the Prime Minister referred have talked about bullying in schools. However, his own chief inspector of schools said: My own experience is that there is no evidence that section 28 has had a negative effect on teachers' ability to deal with bullying. No head teacher has raised it with me in all the school visits I have made. 241 If section 28 does not prevent teachers from acting, will the Prime Minister answer a question that many people want to ask him? What is it that he wants to see taught in classrooms that cannot be taught now?

§ The Prime Minister
It is nothing to do with teaching children in classrooms; it is to do with answering their questions. I heard what the chief inspector of schools said, but the evidence presented to us by organisations representing children and representing teachers is that, in some cases, the section did make a difference. We have, therefore, decided to replace it with proper guidance for schools.
There are two different types of concern over this matter. There are those expressed by churches and others—in the House of Lords and elsewhere. We shall listen to those concerns; indeed, we have already done so. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education has indicated that he will introduce guidance that will address those sensible, legitimate concerns.
Another aspect of the opposition has to do with exploiting anti-gay feelings. Let us be quite open about that. Those are the opponents I intend to take on.

§ Mr. Hague
In all the nonsense that the right hon. Gentleman has come out with over the past three years, he has never beaten that. If he wants to listen to people, he would drop the idea. The debate has become more than a debate about a clause in a local government Bill; it is about tolerance being a two-way thing in this country. It is about whether millions of parents have the right to determine what their children are taught, and about whether the mainstream majority has the right to have its views and values respected, or whether taxpayers' money can be commandeered by a Government who have no respect for that. Does the right hon. Gentleman not understand that the debate is, indeed, about tolerance? It is about the tolerance demanded by the mainstream majority that its views and values be respected.

§ The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman may fool some of those sitting on the Opposition Benches with those remarks, but he will not fool many people. As I have just pointed out, since 1994—when he was a member of the then Conservative Government—section 28 does not apply to schools. In relation to sex education, parents are already perfectly entitled—and will remain entitled—to withdraw their children from any of those lessons. Furthermore, teachers and governors will decide what is taught in their individual schools.
All that is clear, although one will not read it in some of the press comment. It has been made clear many times over the past few days. What is also clear, however, is that part of the explanation why this matter is being whipped up has nothing to do with tolerance, or with teaching children properly in schools; it is to exploit the issue for the political reasons that I have given. If the right hon. Gentleman will not listen to me, I would have hoped that he would listen to some of the more tolerant voices—even in his own party.

§ Q2. Mr. Nigel Griffiths (Edinburgh, South)
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the working families tax credit benefits 1.5 million families by an average of £24 a week? Does he agree that, when the 242 Tories have mastered that simple arithmetic, he can tell Archie to tell Michael to tell William, and that we shall see another U-turn?

§ The Prime Minister
If anything indicated the extraordinary weakness of the Leader of the Opposition's position, it is that the shadow Chancellor announces their policies on such issues at Question Time. Let us hear some more answers from them. Are they against £100 for the pensioners? Are they against the new deal for the unemployed? Are they against child benefit increases, free eye tests for pensioners or extra money for rural bus services?
Today, the Opposition have recommitted themselves to the tax guarantee; they will be impaled on it at the next election.

§ Mr. Charles Kennedy (Ross, Skye and Inverness, West)
Has the Prime Minister had a chance to read the Liberal Democrat early-day motion? [Interruption.]

§ Madam Speaker
Order. Mr. Kennedy, please proceed.

§ Mr. Kennedy
The spontaneous reaction from those on the Labour Benches confirms that at least 85 Members in the parliamentary Labour party have read the motion—because they signed it. We are very grateful for their support. It describes the 75p uprating for pensioners as inadequate. Will the Prime Minister therefore take this opportunity to tell 85 of his right hon. and hon. Friends why they are wrong and why 75p is adequate?

§ The Prime Minister
It is not the case that all that pensioners are getting from the Government is a 73p increase. The £100 is an increase that pensioners are getting; the minimum income guarantee helps many of them; and pensioners over the age of 75 will get free television licences from autumn 2000. There are also, of course, free eye tests, the national concessionary bus fares scheme and the many other things that we have done for pensioners in this country.
We have already exposed the Conservatives' tax guarantee. I think that it is about time that we heard from the Liberal Democrats what their tax guarantee is, although the only guarantee that they seem to be making in respect of people's taxes is that they will go up.

§ Mr. Kennedy
On the issue of guarantees and of pensioners, will the Prime Minister acknowledge, as he did on his visit to the south-west last week, that many pensioners are concerned about the issue that I raised with him last week—the future of the rural post offices? He will recall that he said to me then that subsidy was no way forward for guaranteeing the future of threatened post offices. Yet, 24 hours later, he told the editor of the Western Daily Press: look, you may need a subsidy to allow this rural post office to function". It is reasonable to ask what the policy of the Prime Minister is. Is it Wednesday's policy or is it Thursday's policy?

§ The Prime Minister
It is the same; I did not say that. I said that it would be wrong to stop the switch-over from paying benefits in cash to paying them into a bank account. 243 It would be absolutely absurd to have the technology to do that, to have invested in it and then to waste that technology. In respect of the rural post offices, I also put forward a number of things that will help them to deal with the new situation. If the Liberal Democrats are really saying that even if we have the technology to pay money direct into people's bank accounts, we should not do so, I disagree with them.
On pensioners, I am delighted that the authoritative source of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security is sitting to the left of me. He tells me that, in the Liberal Democrats' manifesto—a nod or a shake of the head will do—they committed themselves only to uprating the pension in line with prices, not earnings.

§ Maria Eagle (Liverpool, Garston)
While considering the future direction of Government health policy, has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to read a recent edition of the magazine Public Finance, in which an adviser to the Conservative's Front-Bench health team says that in the end we may have an NHS only for the poor, a service for the people who earn less than a certain amount." Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that his Government will rebuild and modernise the NHS while maintaining it as a universal service free at the point of use whereas the Conservative party would privatise it and force people to pay for private medical insurance?

§ The Prime Minister
We will not privatise the health service; we will rebuild it. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the remarks of the Conservatives' adviser. It all stems from the tax guarantee; they cannot make it work unless there are big cuts in health service provision. However, it is not just their adviser who has expressed such a view. Their health service spokesman, when describing their policy, said within the past few days: So people would look to the NHS to provide them with service when they had serious life-threatening conditions, and would look to their private insurance to help them with those things where the NHS had to ask them to wait". This is their Trojan-horse policy, and it is our job to make sure the country knows it.

§ Q3. Sir Archie Hamilton (Epsom and Ewell)
As it was only the strong-arm tactics of the Prime Minister that delivered the job of the First Secretary of the Welsh Assembly, will the Prime Minister now tell him and members of the Welsh Labour party to abide by the decision of the vote of no confidence, whatever the outcome might be?

§ The Prime Minister
There is a no confidence motion in the Welsh Assembly, but I believe that the Welsh First Secretary is doing an excellent job and so does the Labour party. Let us be clear what the issue is. What we have in the no confidence motion is the nationalists and the Tories joining together.
The leader of the Tory party in Wales is saying that he wants an immediate extra £180 million from the Treasury over and above the Barnett formula. That brings me back to the tax guarantee. When will the Conservatives say whether they want the tax guarantee or the £180 million 244 of extra spending? Their man has not resigned. Which is it—the tax guarantee or the spending? We need an answer.

§ Q4. Mr. Martyn Jones (Clwyd, South)
Is the Prime Minister aware that Carlsberg-Tetley proposes to close the Wrexham Lager Beer Company, which is just outside my constituency? The company was established in 1882 and is the oldest lager brewery in Britain, not much younger than Carlsberg itself. Given that Carlsberg makes great play of its history, does my right hon. Friend agree that if it goes ahead with the closure and does not enter into negotiations with the local council to continue brewing on the site, Carlsberg risks being considered by the people of Wrexham to be probably the worst lager in the world?

§ The Prime Minister
Of course I am aware of the distress that those job losses may cause, but I know that my hon. Friend is working with others to try to put together a package for his constituents, and I very much hope that it is successful.

§ Q5. Mr. Peter Viggers (Gosport)
Is the Prime Minister personally aware of the depth of the crisis in the defence medical services caused by the closure of the only military hospital, at Haslar in my constituency? Is he aware that, following a massive, vigorous local campaign, the hospital is now to be kept open by the national health service? Will he take the advice of almost all those who have specialist knowledge and retain Haslar as a centre for defence medicine?

§ The Prime Minister
I would have hoped that the hon. Gentleman would congratulate us on the work that we have done on the matter. We are now considering how to make the appropriate provision of critical care services, and we are spending an extra £140 million over the next five years to help to rebuild the defence medical services. Again, it all comes back to money. People in the hon. Gentleman's constituency have been asking us to spend more money on the health service; we are, but we cannot do that and have a tax guarantee at the same time.

§ Q6. Dan Norris (Wansdyke)
Last Friday, somebody whom I was at school with, who is currently a nurse, was savagely attacked at a Bristol hospital. She is currently critical and unconscious. The day before, a Kent GP was stabbed in the back at his surgery. Other professions—particularly social workers, but also teachers and those who drive buses and taxis—also face dangers in working with the public. What role do the Government have to play in promoting information, training, safeguards and guidelines on how people who work with the public can best ensure their own safety, especially if by the very nature of their job they have to work face to face with the public?

§ The Prime Minister
That is indeed a serious problem, which is why last October the Government launched a series of initiatives called the NHS zero tolerance zone. We are investing money in accident and emergency departments and modernisation work specifically for improvements to security and safety for hospital staff and patients. We hope that the additional investment will make a difference. We are also establishing a task force 245 to take forward a programme of work designed to reduce violence against social care workers. This is a serious problem, and our sympathy and our hearts go out to the individual who was attacked last week.

§ Q7. Mr. Peter Luff (Mid-Worcestershire)
The Prime Minister was quick to remove the Whip from the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sarwar), when he was the subject of a police investigation. Why has he not acted with the same speed and decisiveness in the case of the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson)?

§ The Prime Minister
Let us wait and see what the investigation reveals. As with many of the investigations into my right hon. Friend, it was instigated on the basis of allegations made by Conservative Members of Parliament.

§ Q8. Mr. David Borrow (South Ribble)
I am sure that my right hon. Friend saw the Low Pay Commission report this weekend, which demonstrates that there has been no loss of jobs with the introduction of the minimum wage. Will my right hon. Friend welcome the conversion of the Conservative party to support for the minimum wage? Will he also congratulate my constituent, Erica Ledbetter, from Leyland, who won a tribunal case on the minimum wage without being represented by a lawyer or a trade union? Does my right hon. Friend recognise, however, that many of the people who are most vulnerable in respect of the minimum wage need better advice to enable them to take their case to an industrial tribunal?

§ The Prime Minister
Of course, the Conservatives detest the minimum wage, but they lack the courage of their conviction to get rid of it. A few months ago, the shadow Chancellor called it "an immoral policy", but now they have had to accept it. It is an important reform which we have introduced, and it symbolises a different approach to people in the workplace. We believe that employers can treat their workers fairly and get the best out of them by doing so. That is Labour's way, which the Conservatives now have to accept.

§ Mr. William Hague (Richmond, Yorks)
Will the Prime Minister comment on the fact that within moments of his expressing full confidence in the First Secretary in Wales five or 10 minutes ago, news came through to the House that the First Secretary had resigned, before the vote of confidence had taken place? [Interruption.] Will the Prime Minister confirm that that has happened, and if it has, will he confirm also that the next big test of devolution will be the choice of a new First Secretary without any interference whatever from the Prime Minister?

§ The Prime Minister
The one thing of which we can be sure—[Interruption.]—is that that will not be a Tory.

§ Madam Speaker
Order. I have had enough of hon. Members calling out from sedentary positions.

§ The Prime Minister
The no confidence motion was not just accepted by the nationalists, but backed by the Conservatives. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will 246 explain why his leader in Wales is saying that he has a commitment from the Conservative party to fund £180 million above the Treasury block grant. If that is true, how does he intend funding it?

§ Mr. Hague
All I want to know is whether the First Secretary in Wales has resigned and, if so, why he did so before the vote of confidence, and whether the Prime Minister will undertake not to interfere in any way in the choice of a new First Secretary.

§ The Prime Minister
The decision is for people in Wales. [Interruption.] What we need to know is why the nationalists and the Tories are in bed with one another—the two wreckers of devolution—one group that wants to separate Wales from the United Kingdom, and the other that supports centralisation. After all the fun and games down at the Assembly are over, the right hon. Gentleman must explain why the Tories are supporting the nationalists' demand for an extra £200 million of public spending.

§ Mr. Hague
It is no good the Prime Minister dismissing as fun and games serious proceedings in an Assembly which he created and which he campaigned for, about a First Secretary whom he imposed on the Welsh Labour party in the Welsh Assembly. Not only has the Prime Minister forgotten why he imposed the First Secretary—he does not even know whether the First Secretary is in office at this moment. Is the First Secretary still in office? If he is not, will the Prime Minister undertake not to interfere in the election of a successor?

§ The Prime Minister
The decision is for people in Wales. The fun and games to which I refer is the fact that the Tories and the nationalists are in an alliance together. [Interruption.] Yes, they are in alliance together. Once the fun and games have ended, the right hon. Gentleman will have to explain—

§ Madam Speaker
Order. Some hon. Members seem to be having apoplexy. The House must come to order. I want to hear what is being said.

§ The Prime Minister
The nationalists and the Tories are now joined together in a demand for extra public spending. That is the truth, which Opposition Members want to shout down. The Conservative party demands that we spend an extra £200 million in Wales. Why does not the right hon. Gentleman explain how he can demand £200 million more, while maintaining a tax guarantee?

§ Q9. Mr. Jim Dobbin (Heywood and Middleton)
Has my right hon. Friend read early-day motion 336 tabled by Tory Members, who want the Government to extend private health insurance? Given that two thirds of day beds are taken by people who are over 65, and that the cost of a hip operation can be as much as £7,800, does he agree that anyone who believes that private health insurance can fund the national health service in this country is simply not living in the real world?

§ The Prime Minister
The Conservative policy, accurately described as a Trojan horse, will mean that people who are over 60 will have to take out private medical 247 insurance at a cost to many of them of £60 to £80 a week. [Interruption.] Conservative Members can shout as much as they like, but many people will not be able to afford that sort of private medical insurance. It is wrong to expect them to do so. Furthermore, the Conservative policy of giving tax breaks on private medical insurance will mean a deadweight cost that would wipe out the entire nurses' pay claim for next year just for those who already have private medical insurance. People know that that will happen if they vote Tory at the next election.

§ Q10. Mr. Richard Page (South-West Hertfordshire)
A year or so ago, I invited the Prime Minister to visit my constituency to explain the soaring waiting lists in hospitals, but he refused. He solved that problem by having a waiting list for a waiting list. I again invite him to my constituency to visit the governors of some successful former grant-maintained schools, whose budgets are being cut. Can he advise them whether they should sack teachers, or put a levy on parents? After all, I remind the Prime Minister of the importance of education, education, education.

§ The Prime Minister
That is why we are putting the largest investment ever in education this year and in the next two years. Again, Conservative Members are asking for more money. It is time that they made up their minds about what they want. They ask for more public spending in Wales, on the health service and on schools. In the past week, their defence spokesman asked for more defence money; their agriculture spokesman asked for more agriculture money; and the local government spokesman wants more for local government. The Leader of the Opposition and all Conservative Members will have to decide whether their policy is for a tax guarantee, or a cuts in public services guarantee.

§ Mr. Chris Pond (Gravesham)
Given the rather childlike behaviour we have witnessed in the Chamber, I ask my right hon. Friend about his commitment to halve child poverty in 10 years and to eliminate it in two decades. Given that 4 million of our children were in poverty when he took over, he has set quite a challenge. Is he confident that the Government can fulfil that commitment?

§ The Prime Minister
I believe that we can fulfil it, partly because of the measures on child benefit, the new deal, which puts young people back in work, and the working families tax credit, which will lift approximately 800,000 children out of poverty. We can already be proud of our record in our first term. The country will be reminded time and again that our measures, such as child benefit, the £100 for pensioners, the new deal and the working families tax credit are opposed and would be taken away by the Conservative party.

§ Q11. Mr. Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley)
I want to ask a simple question. Will the Prime Minister guarantee that neither he nor Millbank will interfere with the selection of the new Labour leader of the National Assembly for Wales?

§ The Prime Minister
Given the state of the Conservative party, they can leave my party to me. Whatever happens in Wales, questions about public spending have to be answered. The entire case of the nationalists, supported by the Tories, that they cannot afford objective 1 spending is false. Everybody knows that it is false, and that Conservatives and nationalists cannot possibly afford the extra £200 million that they demand. Whatever happens in the next few days, people in Wales would do better to stick to a Labour party that can deliver extra spending rather than a Tory party that would cut it.

§ Mrs. Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside)
How does the Prime Minister intend to increase and publicise the Government's considerable successes in regeneration and employment in inner-city areas such as Liverpool?

§ The Prime Minister
Long-term youth unemployment has halved under this Government and some 200,000 young people are back in work. Those young people had no hope and opportunity of a job before. They now have a job. Everyone should remember that these policies are fair, but they also improve the state of the economy. As a result of the changes that have been made, we are cutting the costs of economic and social failure from the level we inherited from the Conservatives by £3 billion a year. That is then money we can spend on schools and hospitals. That is the Labour way, not the Tory way of cuts and social exclusion.