Engagements

HC Deb 29 November 2000 vol 357 cc953-64

Q1. Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley)

If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 29 November.

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 be having further meetings later today.

Ann Clwyd

Will my right hon. Friend consider the case of Ernie Obern, an 85-year-old ex-miner in my constituency? He has 90 per cent. dust in his lungs, he is on oxygen permanently, and he is bedridden. He is very ill at this moment. He has just received a letter from his solicitor telling him that it will be not months but years before he receives his full compensation.

May I ask my right hon. Friend to ensure that the elderly, the sick and widows are a top priority? May I also ask him personally to take the question of compensation by the scruff of the neck, and deliver justice to the miners?

The Prime Minister

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to speak of her frustration on behalf of her constituent. Indeed, I have many constituents in the same position.

We are now processing claims at a rate of hundreds per week. Last week alone, £1 million was paid in compensation every day. The money is being ring-fenced, and the money is there. The difficulty is that, as a result of litigation, we must ensure in respect of each case that it has been certified as proper to pay the money. I assure my hon. Friend, however, that I share her frustration. We are doing all that we can to speed up the payments: this is, I am afraid, a legacy that we inherited, and we are determined to put it right.

Mr. William Hague (Richmond, Yorks)

It is widely accepted that up to 15,000 care home beds were closed in the year to April. What is the Prime Minister's assessment of the number of beds that will be lost in the current year?

The Prime Minister

It is correct that 15,000 were lost; however, the net figure is 5,000, because many more were put on. It is also the case that some 20,000 were added as a result of packages for home care. As a matter of fact, as a result of the additional money put in by the health service plan, we do indeed aim to expand the beds to which the right hon. Gentleman referred as well.

Mr. Hague

Is not the truth that that will be a sticking plaster on the gaping wound that the Government have created? The Prime Minister's statistics suggest that he is not aware of what is happening around the country. This week, Cornwall reports that 400 beds have been lost since April this year; Kent reports 500, Surrey 500 and Hampshire 400. In some cases, the figures constitute 10 per cent. of total capacity in the counties involved.

Is the Prime Minister aware that that lies behind the increased number of blocked beds and the tens of thousands of cancelled operations that we have seen so far this year? Does he accept that the care homes sector blames those problems on a Government who have failed to listen to its concerns?

The Prime Minister

Let me remind the right hon. Gentleman that when he was in office 60,000 beds were cut in the national health service. Indeed—I speak from memory—when he was Secretary of State for Wales, 1,200 beds were cut under his stewardship. But, as ever, the right hon. Gentleman did not listen to my original reply. I accepted that there was a 5,000 net loss in respect of the beds to which he referred; however, because of the extra home care and health packages, 20,000 have been put on elsewhere. As for the areas that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, yes, it is correct that in certain parts of the country there is real pressure on residential care. As a result of the national health service plan, however—the plan that the right hon. Gentleman opposed—we are getting the extra investment in the health service to deal with that.

Mr. Hague

We are clearly not getting the extra investment. If the Prime Minister wants to talk about what happened in Wales, when I was Secretary of State for Wales—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Well, the Prime Minister was speaking from memory. I am speaking from the facts, which are more reliable than his memory. When I was Secretary of State for Wales, the total waiting list fell by 6,000. Since he has been Prime Minister, it has risen by 72,000 in Wales. Those are the facts, but is not the truth about care homes that the Government have failed to listen to the representations of the care homes themselves? From Norwich, they say: I am concerned that my home will close if the regulations are brought in. From Coventry, they say that the regulations mean that they have to turn their "business into an hotel." From Kent, they say:

We wish to draw to your attention the potential catastrophe if the Government's proposals are implemented. Is it not a sign of an arrogant failure to listen that leads to a miserable failure to deliver?

The Prime Minister

Just to correct the right hon. Gentleman, when he was Secretary of State for Wales, in-patient waiting lists rose; he cut the number of nurses, he cut the number of doctors and he cut the number of beds. However, in respect of the regulations regarding these homes, as that is where his bandwagon is now parked, the regulations are introduced for a specific purpose. For years, the House debated the problems of abuse in those homes. The regulations are introduced to correct that. They are surely right.

Of course, we will listen to representations made, but the regulations have not even come into effect yet—they do not come into effect until 2002—so they are not the reason for the recent difficulties. The reason has been under-investment in the health service over a long period of time. The difference between me and the right hon. Gentleman is that our proposals are to increase investment and, as a result of the commitment by his shadow Chancellor, his proposals are to cut it.

Mr. Speaker

I call Harriet Harman.

Hon. Members

More, more.

Mr. Speaker

Order. I have called Harriet Harman.

Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham)

Is the Prime Minister aware that the family and the whole of Peckham are devastated by the appalling murder of Damilola Taylor? Will the Prime Minister tell the people of Peckham that he shares their grief, anger and steely determination that the hard work that they have put in over the past few years to improve their neighbourhood must not be abandoned, but must continue?

The Prime Minister

My right hon. Friend has spoken, rightly, on behalf of her constituents. There is shock and outrage not just in the House and in her constituency, but right across the country at the appalling and brutal murder of Damilola. As his brother said yesterday, we must do everything we possibly can to bring the killers to justice. There are other issues raised, which my right hon. Friend mentioned, but I think that today is the right day to express our outrage and our profound sympathy for the family.

Mr. Charles Kennedy (Ross, Skye and Inverness, West)

Can I associate myself entirely with the sentiments that have been so properly and well expressed?

In terms of our national transportation policy, if that is not a contradiction in terms, we have chaos on the railways, gridlock on the roads and parliamentary revolts over air traffic control. If the Prime Minister wins a second term, will the Deputy Prime Minister still be in charge of all those things?

The Prime Minister

Thanks to the Deputy Prime Minister and the 10-year transport plan, we will put more money into our public transport system than has been put into our country's infrastructure since the 19th century. May I remind the right hon. Gentleman, too, that that plan—£180 billion worth—is more than he ever promised at the last election? As ever, no matter what he promised, when we exceed it, he tells us that it is not enough.

Mr. Kennedy

I am sure that the whole country will be greatly encouraged by the fact that the Deputy Prime Minister may still be in charge of all those things if there is a second term, but is not the point to be made that the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions is too monolithic and too big for any one politician to be in control of it, particularly someone as big as the Deputy Prime Minister? Should we not have a specific Transport Secretary at Cabinet level to get transport in this country back on track?

The Prime Minister

I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman. However, in respect of the railways, yes, of course there is a serious situation at the moment. We know what has caused it, following the Hatfield crash. As I emphasised at my meeting yesterday with the executives of Railtrack, those who represent passengers, the train operating companies and the Strategic Rail Authority, it is important that we inject some common sense back into the system. Today's meeting of the Railtrack board is important for that very reason. If it is the case—as it is—that people have to go on to the roads because there is not proper rail provision, that would be a risk. We have expressly asked people to take that into account.

Let us, however, be in no doubt that, over a long period, the problem with the British transport system has been under-investment. If we do not face up to the need to put in that investment and sustain it year on year on year, we will always complain about the problem, but never solve it.

Mr. Phil Woolas (Oldham, East and Saddleworth)

Following the question from the leader of the Liberal Democrats, does the Prime Minister agree that—in the light of the announcement two weeks ago of a 100 per cent. increase in the highways maintenance budget and the forthcoming announcements on local transport plans to make real the —180-billion plan—soon, in my constituency of Oldham, East and Saddleworth, the potholes will be filled and the Liberal Democrats will have nothing to do?

The Prime Minister

It is of course the case that the investment is not only in the railways but in the road infrastructure, too. However, it is important to put that investment in context. We said that we had to take measures to stabilise the economy and reduce national debt; we have done that. We said that education would be our first priority; we have put the extra resources in education. The national health service plan followed, and then the transport plan. That money is going in and it will yield results, but that takes time. However, I totally understand the frustration particularly of people travelling on the railways. I can tell my hon. Friend that that investment is being made in his constituency, that it is being replicated in constituencies right across the country, and that it will make a difference.

Q2. Mr. Simon Burns (West Chelmsford)

Will the Prime Minister please tell me why, three and a half years after he came to power, hospital waiting lists in mid-Essex are 1,100 higher and rising?

The Prime Minister

I do not know about the particular position in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, although I will look into it—[Interruption.] I will look into it because I often find that the figures given to me by Conservative Members do not always entirely accord with the truth. However, whatever the situation may be in Essex, in respect of waiting lists nationally we have met our waiting list pledge on in-patient lists. It is correct that out-patient lists—which increased for years under the previous Conservative Government whom he supported—increased in the first two years, but they are now down from their peak and continue to fall.

Q3. Mr. Eric Martlew (Carlisle)

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a large body of public opinion that maintains that the privatisation of Railtrack should be reversed? Who does he think is to blame for the fact that Railtrack is having a nervous breakdown? Was it caused by 20 years of neglect and gross under-investment by the previous Conservative Government? Is it a result of the fact that, on privatisation, thousands of professional railway personnel were sacked to increase profitability? Or is it a result of the fact that Railtrack ignored safety to increase profits? Will he also tell us what we will do to put right the railway network?

The Prime Minister

We inherited two problems. The first was fragmentation of the railways under the previous Conservative Government's privatisation proposals, and the second was chronic under-investment. Both those problems have to be tackled. The first is best tackled through the Strategic Rail Authority, which is now in place and working, and the second by our investment proposals.

Again, we have the clearest possible choice between the two political parties. Labour Members are committed to our transport investment proposals, whereas Conservative Members— thanks to the shadow Chancellor, if indeed he is still the shadow Chancellor—have made it absolutely clear that they would could cut the investment that we want to make in the transport system. There could not be anything worse for the future of the railways than that.

Q4. Mrs. Marion Roe (Broxbourne)

Will the Prime Minister retract the comments which he made last month to the Royal College of Surgeons blaming general practitioners for abusing the admissions procedure? Is he aware that the chairman of the Royal College of General Practitioners has said that the Prime Minister's remarks, coming at a time of low morale and change, have served only to heighten the feeling that primary care is insufficiently valued by him and the Government?

The Prime Minister

First, I did not blame doctors. I said that it was important, as we are doing, to get some sort of system in place that allows these decisions to be taken on a rational basis. The British Medical Association is fully in favour of such protocols.

Secondly, I met many representatives of the health service this morning. They accept that there is still a long way to go, but they support the national health service plan and the extra investment going into the NHS. I can assure the hon. Lady that the one group of people that the country does not trust with the NHS is the party that she represents.

Q5. Mr. Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale, East)

Is my right hon. Friend aware that on Saturday supporters of Jubilee 2000 will gather for a final rally to celebrate their coalition's considerable achievements, and to make clear their determination to press for debt cancellation? Will he take this opportunity to send a strong message of support to these campaigners? Will he ensure that his Government continue to place the highest priority on international development and the search for deeper and wider debt relief for the poorest countries of the world?

The Prime Minister

As a result of the work done by my right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for International Development, there are about 20 of the poorest countries in the world that by the end of the year will have had their debt cancellation put in place. That will make a difference of billions of dollars to those countries. It will allow them to spend that money on rebuilding their economies rather than paying interest on debt. It is part of a programme that the Government have been spearheading over the past three and a half years, not only nationally but internationally. One of the Government's proudest achievements is the rise in the proportion of national income that is going on overseas aid and development, and the difference that that is making to some of the poorest countries and to people who find themselves in the most difficult situations throughout the world.

Mr. William Hague (Richmond, Yorks)

Two weeks ago, the Prime Minister told the House at Prime Minister's Question Time that he was consulting over the abolition of community health councils. Will he now admit that all the time he was saying that he supported the work of the councils and that he wanted to consult on their future, that was totally untrue and he is now abolishing them?

The Prime Minister

We are indeed consulting upon them. We put forward proposals in the national health service action plan, and we shall continue consulting on them. I am aware of the strong feelings on both sides of the House, and we shall listen to those.

Mr. Hague

Every time the right hon. Gentleman is asked about the matter, he says that he is consulting. However, when he told my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) that two weeks ago, he had to write to him afterwards to say: I thought it would be helpful if I clarified the nature of my answer. That means that the civil servants told him that he had not told the truth. He added: Our proposals mean that Community Health Councils are to be abolished. That means that everything he said was rubbish. The letter continues: This better describes the consultation I alluded to. The right hon. Gentleman hoped that my hon. Friend was reassured. Is it not absolutely clear that the consultation is about things that the right hon. Gentleman wants to put in place of community health councils and that there is to be no consultation, there has been no consultation and there will be no consultation about the abolition of community health councils, which the Government now intend to proceed with?

The Prime Minister

No. They are described as proposals because that is what they are. Yes, of course, that is what the Government consider to be the best way forward. We now, however, as will be familiar to people, consult on the proposals, and we shall listen to the representations that are made. There was a debate about this in the House yesterday. Of course the matter will be debated, and we shall listen to the representations made. That is the purpose of the NHS plan.

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will now explain whether, contrary to what he said back in July, he now supports the NHS plan and the extra investment going into the health service.

Mr. Hague

We support the Prime Minister trying to give an answer to some questions. He should read his letter, which states that Community Health Councils are to be abolished … and replaced with an entirely new system. That is the Government's policy.

Is it not the case that the community health councils tell the truth about his broken promises, and that that is why he wants them to go? The casualty watch report from community health councils says it all in the past couple of months. It refers to the the 69 year old lady who waited on a trolley in East Surrey Hospital for … 30 hours; the woman waited 35 hours in a chair before being seen. This is three and a half years after the right hon. Gentleman has been in charge of the health service. The British people have had to wait more than three years to get a straight answer from him. Is he not abolishing community health councils because he wants to gag all those who expose the fact that he is all mouth and no delivery?

The Prime Minister

Let me give the right hon. Gentleman some of the facts about the national health service and the money that is going into it. [Interruption.] Opposition Members do not like to hear this, because it is true. There are 10,000 extra nurses since we took office. Every accident and emergency department—including the one in the right hon. Gentleman's constituency—has been modernised as a result of our investment. Extra money is going into primary care, medical training places and every part of the national health service.

I suggest that the Leader of the Opposition listen to the words of Norman Lamont from just two days ago. When asked about the Conservative party, he said:

The economy is not a very good issue for them because the … economy has gone pretty well. I don't believe the health service is a brilliant issue for the Conservative Party, the public will never perceive the health service as being the strong electoral card of the Conservative Party. That is absolutely right. Why is it right? It is because we are committed to increasing investment in our public services, and the right hon. Gentleman is committed to cutting it. It is investment that our schools, hospitals, transport and police need, not the cuts that he will be standing on at the next election.

Q6. Mr. Tom Levitt (High Peak)

In the past three and a half years, the Government have done much to build on the relatively weak foundations of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. I commend my right hon. Friend on his personal commitment in that respect, but is he aware that there remains a gaping hole in the disability legislation? The disability rights taskforce has identified problems with the rights of disabled children in education and of children with special educational needs. Will my right hon. Friend give a commitment that he will address those problems as soon as possible in the next legislative programme?

The Prime Minister

Yes; I am delighted to say that we will introduce the Special Educational Needs Bill in the next Session to improve the standard of education for all children with special educational needs. That will build on the introduction of the Disability Rights Commission, and it shows our intention to ensure that all children, whatever their background, get the chance to fulfil their potential in life.

Mr. David Trimble (Upper Bann)

I am sure that the Prime Minister will agree that questions to do with holding ministerial office or sitting in a legislative assembly are constitutional issues. Given that the Belfast agreement dealt comprehensively with the constitutional issues relating to the British isles as a whole, why are the Government pursuing legislation that would enable a person to be a Minister in one country and also sit in another country's Parliament or assembly where there is a clear conflict of interest?

The question of such proposals was never raised during the Belfast agreement negotiations. The other parties to those negotiations were never consulted before the legislation was introduced. The legislation is designed to benefit one party in particular. Will the Prime Minister take advantage of the opportunity that the other place has given him to reconsider this constitutional monstrosity?

The Prime Minister

I am afraid that I do not accept that the legislation is a constitutional monstrosity. It gives people in Northern Ireland the same rights as those enjoyed by people in Commonwealth countries. I do not think that that is the wrong thing to do. I think that it is the right thing to do. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman and I disagree on this matter, but we do.

Q7. Miss Anne Begg (Aberdeen, South)

I am sure that my right hon. Friend was very pleased with the results of the three by-elections last week, and especially with the double victory in Glasgow, Anniesland. That was a great tribute to the memory of Donald Dewar, my predecessor in Aberdeen, South.

My right hon. Friend may not be aware that the leader of the Scottish National party had said that Labour might be in a for a shock in Anniesland. He was right: we were shocked at just how badly the SNP did. Does my right hon. Friend agree with the electorate of Anniesland that the place for Scotland is to be part of the United Kingdom?

The Prime Minister

It is increasingly clear that devolution has strengthened the United Kingdom. The performance—or lack of performance—of the Scottish National party is an indication of that. I think that many people in my hon. Friend's constituency and in Scotland recognise that in introducing a stable economy—which has given people lower mortgages—and in getting 1 million extra jobs in the economy, as well as measures such as the working families tax credit, the new deal and providing extra money for pensioners, we are delivering on our promises to the people of Scotland and, indeed, the people of the United Kingdom.

Q8. Mr. James Gray (North Wiltshire)

On Monday this week, six children from Colerne primary school in my constituency delivered a petition to the Prime Minister, signed by every head teacher of every school in Wiltshire, calling for fair funding for Wiltshire. Is the Prime Minister aware that his Government spend £1,000 less per pupil in Wiltshire than, for example, here in London? What is his response to their petition?

The Prime Minister

The allocations between various districts are, of course, a long-standing grievance. We have been looking at this, as did the previous Government. However, I hope that the hon. Gentleman had the honesty to tell the children and those who gathered the petition that his party's proposals are to cut the extra education investment. [Interruption.] Conservative Members can shout and bawl as much as they like, but the fact is that we put forward plans for increased investment in schools. That money is going into schools, and the commitment by the shadow Chancellor is not to match that investment. It is no good Conservative Members shaking their heads—they should now understand that that is their policy, and they will have to defend it at the next election.

Q9. Mr. Hilary Benn (Leeds, Central)

Is my right hon. Friend aware that more than 6,000 people in this country are waiting for a kidney transplant because there is a desperate shortage of organs for donation? Does he therefore welcome the announcement by the Goldfish credit card company that it will issue its customers who want to be organ donors with a credit card bearing the organ donor symbol so that it can be carried with them at all times? Will he give his personal encouragement to other banks and building societies to follow this example so that we can increase the number of organ donors?

The Prime Minister

Yes, it is an excellent initiative. There is a real shortage of donors, and attaching the symbol to credit cards is an excellent way of increasing the numbers available. I fully support the initiative being taken by the company to which my hon. Friend refers, and I hope that it is taken up by others.

Sir Michael Spicer (West Worcestershire)

Why have productivity rates fallen so sharply since the right hon. Gentleman took office?

The Prime Minister

I am sorry to have to tell the hon. Gentleman, but productivity is rising. From memory, the latest figures show that productivity has risen by something like 3.4 per cent. in the past year. What is more, it is rising by more than 4 per cent. in manufacturing. So I am sorry to tell the hon. Gentleman, but the premise of his question is wrong.

Q10. Mr. David Kidney (Stafford)

Does my right hon. Friend recollect that a new NHS Direct call centre has just started work at Stafford hospital, creating 100 new jobs in Stafford and serving more than 3 million residents of the west midlands? Is it not by modernisations such as NHS Direct that Labour is saving the national health service?

The Prime Minister

It is all part of the investment into the national health service plan. My hon. Friend may be interested to know that the representatives of the health service whom I spoke to today, thought in particular that where NHS Direct worked with out-of-hours services by local general practitioners and with the local accident and emergency department, there was a significant reduction in the pressure on the accident and emergency department. That shows once more the need not just for investment but for a change in the way in which the health service works.

Mrs. Ray Michie (Argyll and Bute)

I make no apology for returning to the question of the Chinook helicopter that crashed on the Mull of Kintyre in my constituency. Is the Prime Minister really aware of how deeply troubled so many people are that the two dead pilots should have been condemned by an unjust verdict of gross negligence, when in fact, the cause of the crash could not be determined? Will the Prime Minister please give the matter his personal attention, as he promised to do before, so that this tragedy can finally be laid to rest?

The Prime Minister

I am certainly aware of the strength of feeling on this issue. The last time the hon. Lady raised it with me I got back in touch with her and told her what I believed was the up-to-date position. I cannot, off the top of my head, offer any more details or information now, but again, I will go back and look at it and let her know the up-to-date position.

The issue has obviously been looked at and pored over for a very long time. I am aware of the strength of feeling because I receive direct representations about it, quite apart from what the hon. Lady says. I will be in touch with her again, but I cannot add anything today to what I said to her before.

Q11. Dr. Phyllis Starkey (Milton Keynes, South-West)

In the light of the recent report by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mary Robinson, on human rights abuses in the occupied territories in Israel, will the Prime Minister add his efforts to those of the Foreign Secretary in seeking assurances from the Israeli Government that they will not use arms or equipment bought from this country against civilians in the occupied territories?

The Prime Minister

I certainly can assure my hon. Friend that we are engaged in doing what we can to help in this situation. Throughout, we have emphasised that two things must be put in place: first, the restoration of security—that applies not simply in respect of the Israeli forces, but also in respect of people from the Palestinian authority; and secondly, to ensure that, once some calm has been restored, a proper peace process is put back on track again. That is the only way to resolve the matter.

I know that there are strong feelings on all sides. I have taken the view throughout that our best way to influence the situation is by patient and quiet diplomacy. As my hon. Friend rightly says, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has both visited the region and been in touch with the Foreign Ministers of many other countries. We are doing everything we can to try to put the situation right. I hope that we can do so, because the consequences of failure are grim—not just for Israel, the Palestinians and the middle east but for the world.