Engagements (Hansard, 28 June 2000)

§ Ql. [126723] Mr. James Clappison (Hertsmere)
If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 28 June.

§ 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 will have further such meetings later today.

§ Mr. Clappison
Does the Prime Minister have a view as to why crime is now rising for the first time in six years? Could it have anything to do with the fact that police numbers are going down?

§ The Prime Minister
Of course, crime doubled under the Government of which the hon. Gentleman was so proud. It is correct that in the last few years of the previous Government, and in the first few years of this Government, police numbers have been falling. However, as a result of the extra money that we are able to put in, which the hon. Gentleman's party would cut, by the end of the year police numbers will be rising again.

§ Q2. Dr. Ian Gibson (Norwich, North)
The recent announcement of two new medical schools, one in Norwich at the university of East Anglia, and the Peninsula medical school in Cornwall and Devon, should be hailed as a great success for our national health service. At the same time, the prospect of the human genome research in rolling out an understanding of the genetics of cancer means that we shall move things forward on that scientific front. Will my right hon. Friend play a major role in the development of our national cancer plan, and will he ensure that we consider, as the Select Committee on Science and Technology is doing, a national cancer institute, and perhaps 12 Royal Marsdens? Certainly, the postcode lottery for treatment with drugs and therapies must disappear.

§ The Prime Minister
The recent scientific discovery in relation to the human genome is immensely important not just for science but for this country, as we have played a leading part in developing it. I am delighted to say that the establishment of the new medical school at the university of East Anglia, which I know that my hon. Friend campaigned for and supported, will mean that we shall get the first brand-new medical schools in this country for 25 years. We are also increasing the number of medical school places by at least 1,000—the biggest increase in a generation—and, as a result of the additional spending in the national health service, we shall be able to make the investment not merely in bricks and mortar, and in nurses and doctors, but in medical schools as well. 898 What the country should know is that all that spending would be cut by the Conservatives, because of their risky tax policy.

§ Mr. William Hague (Richmond, Yorks)
After three years of the mounting stealth taxes with which the Government have clobbered the hard-working people of this country, will the Prime Minister now tell the House what the price of a litre of petrol was when he took office, and what it has increased to today?

§ The Prime Minister
First, I think that people remember the 22 tax rises under the Conservative Government, including the doubling of VAT after they said that they would not do that. As for petrol, yes it is true that petrol prices have gone up, and it is true that, in the first two years of the present Government, they went up substantially as a result of increases in fuel duty. However, it is right to point out that of the rise in the last year—a rise of about 18p a litre—only 2p has been due to fuel duty. Sixteen pence—in other words, the vast bulk of it—has been due to the rise in oil prices, and that is affecting not just this country but countries right round the world.

§ Mr. Hague
Millions of people are paying the right hon. Gentleman's stealth taxes every day, and he is so out of touch that he does not know how much they are paying. The price of fuel has gone up 44 per cent. at the pump since he took office, and 34 per cent. of that is due to increases in taxation. It has gone up from 59p a litre to 85p a litre. When the Chancellor said in his Budget speech that he was indexing pensions and petrol by inflation, did the Prime Minister realise then what no pensioner could have known—that the inflation figure that he used for petrol was three times higher than the figure he used for pensions?

§ The Prime Minister
No. As I said in the House last week, the formula used for pension rises is exactly the same as the formula that has been used for the past 12 years. Yes, it is true that this year it has meant a small pension rise. Last year it meant a larger rise, as it will next year. The formula is the same as that used by the Conservative Government of which the right hon. Gentleman was a member.

§ Mr. Hague
Since the Prime Minister took office, pensions have been indexed by 8 per cent. and petrol by 34 per cent., so trying to make out that somehow that has been of advantage to pensioners is an utterly laughable proposition. Will he now confirm that when the Chancellor said that pensions would go up by inflation, he meant 1.1 per cent., and when he said that petrol would do the same, he meant 3.4 per cent., because he changed the method of calculating the petrol increase from that used by the previous Government? Will the right hon. Gentleman now confirm that when Ministers told the House on 6 April that they had not changed the methodology, they were not telling us the correct story?

§ The Prime Minister
That is wrong, for the reason that I have just given. Precisely the same formula is used for pensions as was used under the previous Government. As a result of the fuel duty escalator in the first two years of this Government, fuel duties went up, as was the case 899 under the previous Government, of which the right hon. Gentleman was a member. There is a choice, it is true. We decided that we had to erase the deficit that we inherited—£28 billion in borrowing and a doubled national debt. As a result, we have interest rates that average 6 per cent.—under the previous Government, they averaged 10 per cent.—and we can now make the extra investment in schools and hospitals. Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that he would not have taken those measures on petrol, and would therefore have cut the money spent on schools and hospitals?

§ Mr. Hague
If the right hon. Gentleman wants me to give him a Budget, he can hand over as First Lord of the Treasury any day. I am asking him a question to which he has not given an adequate answer, as everyone who is watching knows. It turns out to be the case that the switch to a forecast figure for petrol duties was introduced by this Chancellor. It is no good the Prime Minister talking about the escalator, because petrol duties have gone up twice as much in the past three years as in the previous three years. When he abandoned the escalator, he got into a lift instead. For people who have saved up for their cars, people in rural areas who need a car, and people who are old or disabled and need a car to get about, is it not bad enough that he fleeces them at every opportunity, without using every opportunity to cover it up as well?

§ The Prime Minister
Of course, the fuel duty escalator was introduced by the previous Government. It is correct that we kept it. Petrol prices have gone up significantly, and of course that is difficult for people in rural areas and those who go long distances by car. However, it is worth pointing out that, although it is correct to say that it may cost more than £50 to fill up the average 1600 cc motor car in England, it is also correct to say that it costs more than £40 to do so in France and Germany, and that France has motorway tolls and vastly higher income taxes. I accept that we had to put petrol duty up, but there was a choice: either we could cut the deficit and make the investment in public services, or we could decide not to take those measures. I do not believe that we would have 1 million extra jobs in the economy or interest rates at 6 per cent. if we had not taken those measures. If the right hon. Gentleman is telling us that he would cut fuel duty, that means that he would also cut the money that we are putting into schools, hospitals and transport.

§ Mr. Hague
This Government cannot even tell the truth about the duty on a litre of petrol. They are so busy with trivia such as banning musical chairs, bailing out the dome, telling the royal family to move house and counting the number of fat people on television, that they have forgotten what really matters to people in this country. Is the time not coming when the people who cannot now afford to run a car will take their revenge on the people who cannot manage to run a Government?

§ The Prime Minister
Let us see who managed the economy best. The party now in government has created 1 million extra jobs, got interest rates of 6 per cent., managed to halve the deficit that we inherited—in fact, get rid of it—and taken a million children out of poverty. 900 Was it our party or the right hon. Gentleman's party which, in government, doubled the national debt, had interest rates—[Interruption.]

§ Madam Speaker
Order. Stop it.

§ The Prime Minister
It is the comparison that Conservative Members do not like.
Which party had interest rates averaging 10 or 11 per cent., took unemployment figures over 3 million, had manufacturing output cut by 7 per cent., devalued the national health service and our schools, and doubled crime and poverty? [HON. MEMBERS: "Go on."] Yes, I could go on for a long time, as there is a sad story to tell. There will be a choice, and on the day that there is, people will compare the record of this Government with that of the Government of which the right hon. Gentleman was a member—and they will know that the Tories are worse and more extreme than ever.

§ Q3. Mr. Anthony D. Wright (Great Yarmouth)
I am sure that the Prime Minister will join me in welcoming the 18 per cent. drop in unemployment in my Great Yarmouth constituency. The statistic for the young unemployed is even more impressive, with a drop of more than 50 per cent. in the past three years. Despite that good news, however, Yarmouth's unemployment rate is one of the highest in the country. Indeed, it is three times the East Anglian average. Will the Prime Minister outline to my constituents what the Government intend to do to build on the good news that we have had over the past three years and ensure that sustainable jobs are created in areas such as Great Yarmouth?

§ The Prime Minister
Of course I am delighted that 1,000 people have started on the new deal programme in my hon. Friend's constituency, and nearly 500 of them have gained jobs. [Interruption.] For those Conservative Members who are shouting, I shall repeat that they would abolish the new deal. People who have got jobs under this Government know that they would have those jobs taken away by a Conservative Government. Moreover, my hon. Friend's constituents, whose mortgage rates have come down from the appalling levels of the early 1990s under the Conservatives, know that under the Conservative boom and bust policy, they would go back up again.

§ Mr. Charles Kennedy (Ross, Skye and Inverness, West)
Can the Prime Minister confirm that health action zone funding will be maintained in 2000–01 at the levels originally set and announced by the Government?

§ The Prime Minister
The health plans will be set out by myself; I am covering the July plan in a few weeks' time. We shall set out the details of our spending proposals. Health action zones are immensely important and do a very good job in many local areas, and obviously we want to continue them.

§ Mr. Kennedy
I think that the whole House would want to continue them—[Interruption.] I was just trying to be inclusive. If the position is as optimistic as the Prime Minister says, why, in a letter that came into the public 901 domain today, did the Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton) state: I appreciate the programme funding— for 2000–01— is less than previously indicated? The accompanying notes from civil servants state: We … will, in effect, be announcing cuts to anticipated Health Action Zone Budgets this year. They go on to say in ministerial advice: This will not be received as good news and we do not recommend a press notice. Why do the Government continue to announce funding that does not exist? Will the Prime Minister not admit that this is another attempt at the triumph of spin over substance?

§ The Prime Minister
That is absurd. The Government have announced new money for the national health service, and it is already going into the service. When we came to office, health authorities had huge deficits, which, as a result of the new money, are largely being cleared. There are already 7,500 new nurses, and there are thousands more to come. There are also extra doctors, accident and emergency departments are being renovated, and extra spending has been announced not only for this year but for future years.
As for the right hon. Gentleman's point about health action zones, I shall look into that for him, but I think that he will find that, when taken with the money given to health authorities in those areas, the funding has gone up, not down. I shall set it all out for him in a letter.