The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: NHS

  • PMQT – 6 February 1997

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 6th February 1997.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Dr. Lynne Jones: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 6 February.

    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

    Dr. Jones: The Prime Minister will know, because I gave him advance notification of this question, that, last year, the Secretary of State for Health visited my constituency to open the new £7.5 million trauma and burns unit at Selly Oak hospital. People were relieved because they thought that, at last, the future of the hospital was secure, but now there is again talk of its closure. Does the Prime Minister agree that it would be barmy to close those brand-new facilities and those in the sister Queen Elizabeth hospital? Does he realise that local people do not trust his Government on health–especially when they know that the Secretary of State for Health does not rely on the NHS and takes out private health insurance?

    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving me notice, an hour or so ago, that she proposed to ask that question and I have made some inquiries in the interim. I understand that the health authority is examining how best to deliver patient services. That is part of a process that, as the hon. Lady will concede, is in the interests of the health service in her region and has already resulted in improved care, more in-patients, more out-patients and more day care.

    On the specific point, I understand that the trust has taken no such decisions and that local media items have been misleading. If, at any stage in the future, substantial plans for change were to be made, they would at that stage have to be subject to full public consultation.

    Mr. Deva: Does my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the inspired decision to give passports to 5,000 stateless south Asians in Hong Kong? Does he recognise that those families are major wealth creators in Hong Kong and that, as British passport holders, they will enable Britain to become not only the enterprise centre of Europe, but the enterprise centre of the whole world?

    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend knows, I made it clear when I went to Hong Kong last year that I wanted the ethnic minorities to be assured about their future. I am aware of the widespread concern that there has been in both Houses, as well as in Hong Kong, about their nationality status. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has therefore decided that they can register as British citizens, with a right to abode here after 30 June. I have no doubt that the overwhelming majority–perhaps even all–will continue to reside in Hong Kong, where they will continue to have a right of abode, but they were potentially stateless and they now have a nationality.

    Mr. Blair: Can the Prime Minister confirm that, since he became Prime Minister, he has doubled the national debt?

    The Prime Minister: I can also confirm to the right hon. Gentleman that there is not a single economy in Europe that can match our performance. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to see debt rise further, and to see the British economy fail rather than succeed, he should follow the policies of the social model to which he is committed in Europe, with the results that we have seen in Europe.

    Mr. Blair: Perhaps for once we can get a straight answer to a straight question. We now pay out on interest payments on debt every year more than we spend on law and order and transport put together. Can the Prime Minister just answer that simple question? Can he confirm that, since he became Prime Minister–he is the only Prime Minister since the war of which this can be said–he has doubled the national debt? Yes or no?

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman spent the whole of the recession encouraging us to spend money to assist people in need. [Interruption.] He invites us to do one thing one day and something quite different the other. He says different things abroad and at home. At least on this occasion he seems to be seeking to quote me, not President Clinton.

    Mr. Blair: Perhaps I can quote the right hon. Gentleman again. Does he not recall saying that he would be the Prime Minister who would balance the budget? Does he not recognise–[Hon. Members: “Oh.”]

    They complain about us. We have been trying to save the Government money over the past few weeks while he and his rag-bag of outgoing Ministers have been spraying around the post-dated cheques like there was no tomorrow. [Interruption.] Is that not true? Record borrowing, record tax increases and still they cannot run decent public services. Is that not typical of the Tories–unfair and incompetent in equal measure?

    The Prime Minister: I suppose there was never a chance that the right hon. Gentleman was going to debate the real issues of today, on which the shadow Chancellor has landed him in such trouble. I will tell him about the–[Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. I really am getting very weary of barracking from a sedentary position, particularly from Front-Bench Members.

    Mr. Skinner: That puts me in the clear.

    The Prime Minister: I can for once agree with the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner): he is not barracking from the Front Bench, and I doubt that he ever will be.

    The comparisons I can safely offer the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) are comparisons between this country’s performance on unemployment and that of every other country in Europe; this country’s performance on the recovery and that of every other country in Europe; this country’s performance on exports and that of other countries; and this country’s performance on manufacturing exports and that of other countries. The right hon. Gentleman should acknowledge just for once the success of British industry, the British economy and the British nation, instead of trying to do it damage.

    Mrs. Roe: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the fact that Britain is attracting more investment from throughout the world than any other European country? Is it not the case, however, that the social chapter would destroy jobs and drive out investment? What advice will he give to business leaders who have been invited to shell out £7,500 to attend a fund-raising banquet hosted by the Leader of the Opposition?

    The Prime Minister: Seven thousand, five hundred pounds for a meal with the Leader of the Opposition? The Leader of the Opposition seems deeply engaged in conversation. He is perhaps persuading the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) to cough up and come to the luncheon.

    Mr. Ashdown: I was interested to hear the Prime Minister admit in his previous answer that the ethnic minorities in Hong Kong were potentially going to be left stateless, as he specifically denied that in answer to a question that I asked him along those lines three months ago. [Hon. Members: “Oh.”] Yes, he did.

    On the issue of public service pay, is it not now perfectly clear that the Government are trying to take fair pay for our nurses and teachers and turn it into yet another exercise in political point scoring for the general election? Are we expected seriously to believe that a Government who can find £1 billion to pay their own private consultants and advertisers cannot fund a modest pay rise for teachers that is perfectly affordable and a pay rise for nurses that has already been budgeted for?

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman will have to wait a few minutes for the decisions on public sector pay, which will be fair to the public sector and fair to the taxpayer. If he says that that is entirely affordable, why is he promising to put up tax by a penny in the pound to pay for the teachers? Why is he planning to do that? The right hon. Gentleman does not know what the decisions are, does not understand the issues and yet again asks questions based on utter nonsense.

    Sir Mark Lennox-Boyd: Will my right hon. Friend spare a moment to compare the position of a manufacturer in my constituency with that of his German competitor, who happens to be a friend? The German manufacturer in Bavaria is required to give each employee, every year, 29 days holiday, and an additional 13 days holiday for the religious holidays, which is more than eight weeks holiday in the year. Furthermore, it is sometimes the habit for people to arm themselves with a medical certificate and spend three weeks at Baden Baden.

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend points to the different costs of the social model in Europe and the impact that that has had on unemployment.

    Mr. Mackinlay: The Germans are very successful.

    The Prime Minister: There is an increase of half a million in German unemployment. I doubt whether those half a million Germans consider that very successful. Business costs across Europe are costing jobs. For every £100 spent on wages in Britain, there is an extra £15 for non-wage costs. In Germany that figure is £31, in France £41 and in Italy £44. The hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) may shake his head, but those are the facts of the matter. That is why business men across Europe–including, for example, the head of the German firm BASF–have said in the past few days:

    “Britain is the best place in Europe to invest.”

     

    Q2. Mr. Cummings: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 6 February.

    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Cummings: Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating the doctors and nursing staff at St. Benedict’s hospice in Sunderland on their pioneering integrated assessment of palliative care, which has been acclaimed internationally? While recognising the importance of the voluntary and charitable sectors in supporting hospices, what steps is he taking to ensure a national policy on hospice care?

    The Prime Minister: I do not know the particular details of St. Benedict’s. From what the hon. Gentleman says, its staff have clearly done an outstanding job. If that is true, I am happy to add my congratulations to them and to the hospice movement as a whole. I have had the opportunity of knowing personally of the remarkable work done by the hospice movement, which is truly astonishing. It has the Government’s support and will continue to have it.

    Mr. Sweeney: Will my right hon. Friend find time between now and 1 May to visit the Vale of Glamorgan–a particularly interesting constituency–in order to see for himself the benefits of low taxes, low inflation, the absence of the social chapter, and deregulation in attracting inward investment to south Wales?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend offers me an extremely enticing invitation, which I shall carefully consider. Were I to take the opportunity of visiting every part of the United Kingdom that had had substantial inward investment, it would probably take me until 1 May next year, because of the Government’s remarkable success in encouraging inward investment, as a result of the policies that we have followed over recent years.

     

    Q3. Mr. Kevin Hughes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 6 February.

    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Hughes: Will the Prime Minister try to answer the question that he failed to answer on Tuesday? Can he give a categorical assurance that the Wirral, South by-election will take place on 27 February–yes or no?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman knows that I have called the Wirral, South by-election, and whatever ingenious ways he tries to produce to entice me to tell him the date of the general election, he will have to wait. The election in Wirral is proceeding.

     

    Q4. Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 6 February.

    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the rise of nearly half a million in German unemployment in January is graphic proof that, as he said in Brussels this week, one signature on the European social chapter is half a million British signatures on the dole? Is not the British approach to competitiveness under the Government working, while the European social chapter, so advocated and loved by the Labour party, is not?

    The Prime Minister: It is undeniable that the social model has contributed substantially to unemployment across Europe. The average level of unemployment in Europe is 3.5 per cent. above the rate here. My estimate of an extra half a million unemployed, were we to go down that route is, if anything, an under-estimate and not an over-estimate. A moment ago, I quoted the German head of BASF. I could of course have quoted the head of the Dutch business association who said:

    “The British way is best.”

    He went on:

    “There is absolutely no need for a Europe wide set of rules.”

  • PMQT – 30 January 1997

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 30th January 1997.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Sutcliffe: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 30 January.

    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

    Mr. Sutcliffe: Is the Prime Minister aware of reports today that the national health service is in near-collapse in the north-west of England, with bed shortages and people waiting on trolleys? It is in crisis in Bradford as well, with 289 operations cancelled in the past quarter. A much-needed accident and emergency unit, which we were promised, has not been delivered after many years and we have the outrage of two new mixed-sex wards, which the Prime Minister said would not happen. Is not the truth that there are two health services, just as there are two Tory parties–a real health service which is near collapse and a fantasy health service which the Prime Minister talks about in the press?

    Mr. Skinner: Tell us about fantasy land.

    The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman waits, he will hear what I have to say.

    The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe) referred to the north-west. He might have begun by acknowledging the brand new £2.9 million extension to the accident and emergency department at the Royal Liverpool hospital, which opened a year or so ago and makes it one of the finest accident and emergency hospitals in the country. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Bradford, South shakes his head. He does not think that it is one of the finest; I do.

    The demand for the national health service is rising and so is the capacity to meet that demand, which is why more patients are being treated. Every health authority has made its plans for dealing with the growth in demand this year, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already made additional sums available to deal with that demand.

    Mr. Hayes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the people of Gibraltar are fiercely proud of being British and do not want to be a province of Spain? Will my right hon. Friend continue vigorously to support the people of Gibraltar to ensure that they have the same freedom of movement and voting that is taken for granted in the rest of Europe?

    The Prime Minister: Britain stands by its commitment to the people of Gibraltar, which was enshrined in the 1969 constitution. We will not be entering into arrangements under which the people of Gibraltar would pass under the sovereignty of another state against their freely and democratically expressed wishes. The Spanish Foreign Minister raised that matter informally with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State, as indeed he had done on a previous occasion. My right hon. and learned Friend rejected the idea, because such a proposal did not and would not have the consent of the people of Gibraltar.

    Mr. Blair: A few weeks ago, the Prime Minister said that it was essential in the national interest that our options remained open on a single currency and that he expected Conservative candidates to stand on that national manifesto. Is that still his expectation of Conservative candidates?

    The Prime Minister: I think that, before taking me to task on this, the right hon. Gentleman should perhaps talk to the scores of his own Members of Parliament that the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) said would oppose his stance. As the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney said:

    “I think it almost an obligation to be honest with my own electorate.”

    But the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) would not understand that. He entered the House on an election address that demanded Britain’s withdrawal from the Community, even though he said later:

    “I wasn’t actually opposed to membership of the E.C. . . . I said within the closed doors of the Labour party that I disagreed with that policy.”

    Behind closed doors he says one thing, in public another: not the politics of conviction, but convenience, saying anything to get a vote–and that is what he advocates to his candidates.

    Mr. Blair: The Labour party put its manifesto to its membership and got 95 per cent. support–I doubt that the Prime Minister could put his manifesto to his Cabinet and get 95 per cent. support. After all, I was only asking him to agree with what he himself said a few weeks ago. If he cannot say that he now expects Conservative candidates to do that, has he still the vestige of authority and courage left to stand at that Dispatch Box and say now that at least he strongly urges and seeks to persuade Conservative candidates to stand on his and the Government’s position?

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is just being plain silly. Is he telling the House that the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney, the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) are actually going to support his policy on Europe at the general election? He raises it on this day of all days–the first two Labour questioners on the Order Paper are among the 50 who say that we should not join a single currency. The right hon. Gentleman may ask his candidates to fib to the electorate–our candidates will set out their views, we will follow the policy that the Government have set out and people know our policy. What he is trying to do is to censor and smother what his party stands for.

    Mr. Blair: I asked the Prime Minister two questions. I said, as he himself said a few weeks ago, “Does he expect them to stand on the same manifesto?” I answer, “Yes.” I then asked him, “Will he at least seek to persuade people to stand on the same manifesto?” I answer, “Yes.” He is so weak and powerless, he cannot even say. He cannot even get to that–[Interruption.] Is it not extraordinary–[Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. The House must come to order.

    Mr. Blair: Is it not extraordinary that the Prime Minister of our country cannot even urge his party to support his own position? Weak, weak, weak, weak. I tell him that his weakness and his failure of leadership are the reason his Government are the incompetent mess they are.

    The Prime Minister: Whenever the right hon. Gentleman gets abusive, we know that he is losing. If he is concerned about strength, will he today sack the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), who yesterday contradicted what he said about tax? Will he today sack the Deputy Chief Whip of the Labour party, who yesterday contradicted what was said about tax? All the right hon. Gentleman does is heckle and waft his arms around in a hopeless gesture. Yes or no–will he sack them or not? It is his policy, they are members of his shadow Cabinet, and they have denied his policy.

    We have set out consistently what our policy is. I have said that it is important to keep the options–all the options–open. The right hon. Gentleman sniggers–I am quoting his words, not mine. He has followed in grandmother’s footsteps in following policy after policy of ours. He says that we should keep the options open. We keep the options open, but his policy apparently means something quite different, because he dare not admit what his policy is.

    Hon. Members: Withdraw.

    Mr. Ashby: Has my right hon. Friend seen the statement–[Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. [An hon. Member: “He was shouting abuse at the Prime Minister.”] Order. If anyone has been abusive, they will indicate it to me. [Interruption.] Order. I think that a lot of hon. Members are suffering from pre-election tension. Let us get on with Question Time. There are hon. Members I want to call.

    Mr. Ashby: My right hon. Friend has undoubtedly seen the statement by the chairman of Toyota. Does my right hon. Friend agree that Toyota came to this country because my right hon. Friend’s policies provided the most favourable climate for companies such as Toyota to have a gateway into Europe? Does the chairman’s statement not show that it is important that we should maintain that gateway–important that we should maintain our foot in Europe, so that we get increased investment?

    The Prime Minister: We intend to maintain our voice in Europe–there should be absolutely no doubt about that–but we do not intend to follow slavishly whatever happens to be the favoured policy of some European Governments at any particular moment. We shall not follow policies that would be damaging to British interests. We shall not sign social chapters. [Interruption.] The deputy leader of the Labour party is scoffing, as usual. I tell him: one signature on the social chapter will mean half a million signatures on the dole.

    Mr. Ashdown: The Prime Minister has pursued a conscientious and honourable policy in pursuing a path to peace in Northern Ireland and we have been unwavering in support of that. Does he realise that he will lose that, and much else besides, if he fails to apply rigorously, in full and now, the recommendations of the North report, which he brought into being, and jeopardises peace on the streets of Northern Ireland next summer for continuing Unionist support and a few more days in power?

    The Prime Minister: In a few minutes, the right hon. Gentleman will hear a statement by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on the North report. However, in view of what he just said, I invite him to read the North report, and perhaps especially paragraph 1.49, which says:

    “We are well aware that it is for the Government to take a view on how far it wishes to adopt our recommendations”.

    It goes on to say:

    “No doubt there will be a period of consultation, and there may be some question as to how far new structures and procedures can be put in place in time for the 1997 ‘marching season’.”

    Some can be put in place, as my right hon. and learned Friend will tell the House, but the matter is more complex than the right hon. Gentleman intimated. I suggest that he wait to listen to the detailed statement by my right hon. and learned Friend.

    Mr. Peter Bottomley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one should not unfairly–or even fairly–always go back to what people put in their election addresses in the 1980s, but one might want to look at what they put in their election addresses at the last general election and then wonder how many of those policies they have reversed in the past five years?

    The Prime Minister: I think it is possible–[Interruption.] I am prepared to offer a prize to anyone who can find five policies on which the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) has been consistent.

    Mr. Hume: Is the Prime Minister aware that today is the 25th anniversary of one of the worst atrocities in the past 25 years in Northern Ireland, when the security forces shot dead 14 people on the streets of my city? Does he agree that the more than 3,000 people who have died in the past 25 years have all suffered atrocity, and that their families have suffered trauma because of such tragedies?

    Given that that was the only atrocity that was carried out by the security forces with the ratification of Government, and given that the Prime Minister has told me in writing that those who were killed on Bloody Sunday should be regarded as innocent of any allegation that they were shot while handling firearms or explosives, can he please tell me why they were shot? If he does not know, does he not think that the matter requires public investigation?

    The Prime Minister: I understand how the hon. Gentleman feels about the matter. Everybody knows his record in Northern Ireland over the years, and I pay due tribute to it.

    The hon. Gentleman spoke of ratification by Government. I think that he might wish to reconsider what he said about that. The events of 25 years ago constituted a terrible tragedy. I concede that to the hon. Gentleman. I believe that everyone is determined that the lessons of that day are never forgotten. That, too, I share with the hon. Gentleman.

    The actions at the time were fully investigated by the Widgery committee. I know of no reason at present to reopen that inquiry. If anyone has fresh, relevant evidence, of course it should be sent to the proper authorities. The important point is that everyone acknowledges the tragedy of what happened a quarter of a century ago today. The Government, with the hon. Gentleman’s help and, I concede, with the help of the leader of the Liberal party, the leader of the Labour party and many others, have been trying to reach a situation in Northern Ireland where there never, ever again need be any prospect of such an event recurring. That is what I passionately want. I do not believe that anyone doubts that. Without fresh evidence, I see no advantage in raking over old problems. If there were fresh evidence, of course we would examine it.

  • PMQT – 21 January 1997

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 21st January 1997.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mrs. Anne Campbell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 21 January.

    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): 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.

    Mrs. Campbell: In April last year, the Health Secretary promised to deliver a proper level of paediatric intensive bed space. Will the Prime Minister explain to the House why, despite that promise, 15 critically ill children have been turned away from Addenbrooke’s hospital in Cambridge in the past few months? Can he not keep any of his promises?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Lady should check that her facts are accurate before she mistakenly sets out such policies. Every child needing a paediatric intensive care bed this winter has been found one. The bogus figures that the Labour party has produced can self-evidently be seen as bogus. Perhaps the hon. Lady would care to hear what Dr. David Hallworth, chairman of the independent Paediatric Intensive Care Society, said. He called Labour’s claims “pretty meaningless”, and very wisely added that this issue should not be

    “subject to party political point scoring.”

    Sir Terence Higgins: Does the Prime Minister agree that the electorate are not naive? They know that a promise not to increase rates of income tax is not the same as a promise not to increase personal taxation. If one says that one wants a starting rate of 10p, that is utterly meaningless if one does not also say at what level it will start and how wide the band will be. Will my right hon. Friend comment on the Government’s record on such matters?

    The Prime Minister: One simply needs to look at which was the last party to put up the basic rate of tax; and one recalls that it was the Labour party. One should look at which party has never supported a single Conservative tax cut and has done nothing to get the basic rate down to 23p–I think that Labour Members know that it is their party–at which party has supported absolutely no measures to control expenditure–the Labour party has supported none–and at which party has made £30 billion-worth of promises that it has not yet disclaimed, but that it must disclaim if it is to stand up its ludicrous claim that it will not increase taxes.

    Mr. Blair: The Conservative party’s 22 tax rises since the last election must have slipped the Prime Minister’s mind for a moment.

    May I return the Prime Minister to the point about intensive care beds for children? Does he accept that the figures given by hospitals of the number of children turned away–eventually found a bed in other hospitals, but turned away–are correct? If they are correct, how does that square with the Health Secretary’s promise that the whole matter would be dealt with, and that there would be no repetition of that practice, given what happened last year?

    The Prime Minister: I said a moment ago that the report produced by the Labour party was alarmist nonsense. I repeat that point. Every child needing a paediatric intensive care bed this winter has been found one–

    Mrs. Ann Taylor: Not to the parents.

    The Prime Minister: Of course not to the parents–but, unless the hon. Lady will persuade the shadow Chancellor to provide more resources for health, I suggest that she and the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) should not criticise a service that is treating more people, and treating them better. Just occasionally, it would be wise of them to praise the health service for the way in which it deals with the growing demands of health care, rather than always criticising it.

    Mr. Blair: We do praise the national health service. We built the national health service. What we condemn is the Government’s record on the national health service.

    May I put this to the Prime Minister? Of course it is the case that children are eventually found another bed–that was the case even in the tragic instance of Nicholas Geldard, which gave rise to this whole problem–but the Secretary of State for Health claimed that the business of having to go from hospital to hospital would stop. May I give the Prime Minister an instance from Bristol children’s hospital? Since January this year–even this year–15 children, just at that hospital, have been turned away because of a shortage of beds. Does the Prime Minister accept–[Interruption.] Hon. Members may shout, but does the Prime Minister accept that we are talking not just about intensive care beds for children? Has he seen the report prepared on community care for the mentally ill, and what today’s newspapers say about problems for doctors’ practices? Can he not accept that there is a crisis in some parts of the national health service, and that it is not good enough for him and other Ministers just to conceal the true state of affairs this side of a general election?

    The Prime Minister: If there is a crisis, and the right hon. Gentleman is concerned about the language of priorities, why does he not match our pledge on spending in the national health service? If there is a crisis, why are more people being treated in the national health service than ever before? If there is a crisis, why have we met the charge set out by the shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), on whether our reforms are working–that is, whether more people are being treated?

    There are more intensive beds; there are more treatments; there are better treatments; there are speedier treatments. Unless the right hon. Member for Sedgefield is going to follow the lead that we have set in providing resources for the health service over the past 18 years, and committing ourselves to do so in the future, he is doing nothing more than seeking to make political capital out of a service that is dealing with a growing demand with great skill.

    Mr. Blair: May I put it to the Prime Minister that, over the past few years–since he has been in charge of the national health service–the service has been given 20,000 more managers but has 50,000 fewer nurses? Is it not the case that the national health service would be better if it were run as a proper co-operative service again, rather than hospital against hospital and doctor against doctor? The only party that will rebuild Britain’s national health service is the party that created it.

    The Prime Minister: It is perfectly true that the Labour party established the national health service, and I offer it full credit for its role in following up the Beveridge report instituted earlier by an all-party Government; but it is the Conservative party that has built up the health service. We have been in power for two thirds of the period that has elapsed since then, and we have built up the health service from its beginnings into a service that is now recognised as the best in the world.

    The figures that the right hon. Gentleman quotes on managers are wrong. The impression that he consistently gives of the health service runs it down. It would be very refreshing if, just for once, Labour Members acknowledged that we have on our hands the most successful national health service in the world, which provides more and better treatments than ever before. The reality is that the people of this nation who use the health service understand that, even if the Labour party, using it as a political football, does not.

    Mr. Rathbone: During the course of today, when the Prime Minister looked back on his trip to the far east, did he remember seeing there a beautiful and very rare flower called the rafflesia amoldia, which is parasitic in nature, is without a stem or roots and which with its vines embraces any handy, strong tree? If he did, did he draw any conclusions from seeing it?

    The Prime Minister: I saw no such flowers on that occasion.

    Mr. Ashdown: Will the Prime Minister accept that, in last night’s vote, the Government won no part of informed opinion, including that in his own party, in support of their proposals for bugging people and their homes through the Police Bill? Surely he cannot accuse four past Home Secretaries, including a Conservative one, one past Conservative Attorney-General, the present Lord Chief Justice and many Law Lords of failing to back the police because they insist that those wide-ranging powers ought to be subject to prior judicial authority. We all understand that the Home Secretary must take time to digest that vote, but will the Prime Minister at least assure us that, rather than riding roughshod over that opinion, he will listen and respond to it? Will he note that, if he wishes to do so on a cross-party basis, we stand ready to participate?

    The Prime Minister: The whole House, including I assume the right hon. Gentleman, knows that intensive surveillance has been going on under successive Governments under the mantra of guidelines for about 30 years: there is nothing new about it. The purpose of the Bill was to put it on a statutory footing: that was what my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary was seeking to do, and he proposed that it should be put under independent review. The amendments tabled by the Labour and Liberal parties in the Lords contradict one another. They are unsatisfactory and will need to be changed. Of course my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will reflect upon the view that was expressed in another place, but the right hon. Gentleman has to realise that intensive surveillance can be used only in investigating serious crime and where there is no other way of obtaining the intelligence. That is an important principle, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not wish to move away from that principle.

    Sir Patrick Cormack: Will my right hon. Friend remind those who listened with incredulity to the yesterday’s speech by the shadow Chancellor that, although imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, it is no substitute for the original?

    The Prime Minister: I suppose that every Conservative Member regards imitation as the sincerest form of flattery, but the reality is that, whatever the best intentions of the shadow Chancellor, the sheer nature of the Labour party is such that he certainly could not deliver that which he has promised. He knows that, I think the electorate know that, and the faces behind him portray that very clearly.

     

    Q2. Mr. Donohoe: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 21 January.

    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Donohoe: Since 1989, some 25 per cent. of beds have been lost to the national health service in Scotland. Today, the senior Duke, the Duke of Hamilton, who happens to be the brother of the Minister who has responsibility for health in Scotland, told the people of Scotland that the Tories cannot be trusted with health. Does the Prime Minister agree?

    The Prime Minister: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could explain, after yet another attempt to denigrate the health service by the Labour party, why more people are being treated in the health service in Scotland and elsewhere. Can the hon. Gentleman explain that, or is he playing “follow my leader” by trying to use Britain’s national health service as a party political football for the Labour party?

    Mr. John Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend ask to see a report of the incident overnight at Full Sutton prison? When he does, does he expect to find that the progress that has been made in the Prison Service in recent years will be reflected by the fact that the disturbance was quelled quickly by the excellent work of the Prison Service and prison officers, to whom praise is due? Will he note that Full Sutton is a modern prison with no overcrowding, but that it holds some of the most violent prisoners in the country? It is their behaviour that was the cause of the riot.

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes his point with great clarity and I need not add to it. I agree with him. I shall be seeing the report of what happened last night and I am delighted that it was handled so swiftly and efficiently.

     

    Q3. Mr. Clelland: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 21 January.

    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Clelland: Will the Prime Minister accept some facts about the national health service? The Royal Victoria infirmary in Newcastle has turned away 23 children in need of intensive care beds in the past three months, including a 20-month-old baby who had to be taken 120 miles north to Edinburgh. If we add to that the case of my elderly constituent who, tragically, died after being driven 40 miles south to Hartlepool because there were no beds available in Gateshead, surely even the Prime Minister can see why the Tories are no longer trusted with the national health service.

    The Prime Minister: Of course I cannot respond immediately to the individual cases that the hon. Gentleman raised–if he had wished me to do so, he would doubtless have given me notice of them–since literally hundreds of thousands of people are treated in the national health service every day. The hon. Gentleman gave some facts about the health service; perhaps I can give him some. We now spend £724 for every man, woman and child in the country compared with £444 in 1979. [Interruption.] It is nice to see that the mouth of the Humber has returned from Hong Kong.

    The hon. Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland) will also know that, each and every year since 1979, there has been a significant real-terms increase in resources in the health service. More people are being treated and there are more doctors, more nurses and better and wider treatments. That is a success story and, try as it might, the Labour party–the Labour party is certainly very trying–will not be able to damn the success of the national health service.

  • PMQT – 14 January 1997

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 14th January 1997. Michael Heseltine responded on behalf of John Major.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Ainger: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 January.

    The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Michael Heseltine): I have been asked to reply.

    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is returning from an official visit to India, Pakistan and Bangladesh.

    Mr. Ainger: Has the Deputy Prime Minister seen the results of a survey conducted by the Health Visitors Association showing that 2 million British children are malnourished, that one third of health visitors are dealing with childhood tuberculosis and that rickets has returned to plague hundreds of British children? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with the association that those appalling effects on health are a direct result of family poverty and deprivation, and does he agree with me that any Government who are able to recreate the social conditions of the 19th century at the end of the 20th do not deserve to serve into the 21st?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: The last occasion on which we saw some of the social conditions of the 19th century was in 1979, when the winter of discontent characterised the activities of the last Labour Government. The survey to which the hon. Gentleman refers has been drawn to my attention and I reject its findings.

    Mr. Richards: Has my right hon. Friend seen today’s edition of the Western Mail? Its front page states that the water and electricity giant Hyder is to move into the gas supply market, which would reduce prices by some £40 a year for the consumer. Does he agree that, if there were a windfall tax, Welsh consumers would be robbed of price cuts, and Labour’s policies would yet again end in tears?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point to the dangers of imposing a windfall tax on the people of Wales. He would, however, also be right to point to the dangers for a large number of people–pensioners and employees–who would suffer from the punitive effects of such a tax; although it must be said that, according to recent evidence, no such tax could be effectively levied. That leaves the question, “Where is the money coming from to fund Labour’s extravagant expenditure plans?”

    Mrs. Ann Taylor: Does the Prime Minister accept the verdict of the British Medical Association that the health service is facing its worst crisis for 10 years?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: It is difficult for the hon. Lady to suggest, when we have just announced £1.6 billion extra expenditure, that there is a crisis in the health service. The fact is that 25,000 patients a day are being treated in the health service. Nothing does more damage to the morale of those who work in it, and provide excellent service, than the endless sniping of the Labour party, which is obviously oblivious to the fact that for most of its life the health service has been safe in the hands of Tory Governments.

    Mrs. Taylor: Does the Deputy Prime Minister not realise that the picture that he paints bears little resemblance to the everyday experiences of ordinary families in Britain? His complacency is an insult to the families of women in Leeds and London who died in the past few days because intensive care beds were not available. Can he not understand that his failure to give a serious answer to serious questions proves beyond doubt that the health service is not safe in Tory hands?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: As we are spending £724 for every man, woman and child in Britain, perhaps the hon. Lady will explain how things were better when it was only £444 in 1978-79, but there is a serious point behind what the hon. Lady raises: the need to provide intensive care beds. That is why, in December, we set up a national register for intensive care beds so that, by a single call, doctors can find out where they are–[Interruption.] I would have thought that the Labour party would be interested in the health service. As the Labour party and the whole House will know, the demand for hospital beds can literally double in a day and if the Labour party is suggesting that, in every hospital, we should keep beds empty all the time for fear that there may be an emergency, it is important that it should say that so that we can understand the lost opportunities for a large number of patients who rely on those beds.

    Mrs. Taylor: Surely everyone in Britain has the right to expect the national health service to be able to provide emergency, life-saving treatment when it is necessary. Is not the problem with what the Deputy Prime Minister says about figures and money the basic fact that the Government have created 20,000 more administrators and lost 50,000 nurses? If the right hon. Gentleman will not accept the expert opinion of the British Medical Association, and if he wants a second opinion on the state of the health service, why not consult the people who really matter–the electorate–and the sooner the better?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: If the hon. Lady were a little more realistic with the figures that she quoted, she would have to point out that there are now 55,000 more qualified nurses and midwives than there were when the Labour party was last responsible for the health service and that waiting times are down. About 200,000 people were waiting more than 12 months in 1990–80,000 of them were doing so for more than two years–but today around 15,000 patients are waiting more than 12 months and only a couple of dozen are waiting more than 18 months.

    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Would my right hon. Friend have been prepared to answer questions from the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) if his friends had not been so terrified of what he might say that they bundled him off to Hong Kong?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman was courteous enough to ring me to explain that he could not be in the House this afternoon. I am not exactly sure why, but, given what the Leader of the Labour party said on Sunday, it occurs to me that the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) may have gone looking for a job.

     

    Q2. Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 January.

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply.

    I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Jones: Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware of the low morale in the teaching profession as a result of changes in the rules on the early retirement scheme and of the poor settlement that local authorities had in Wales this year? Is he aware, for example, that hundreds of teachers in Wales are applying for early retirement and that 1,000 others face redundancy as a result of local authority cuts? Are those the education policies that the Government will be pursuing in Wales in election year? If so, they are in for a rough ride. The right hon. Gentleman can restore morale by extending the consultation period on the teachers’ pension plan and by giving local education authorities more money so that they can at least maintain existing services.

    The Deputy Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has made it absolutely plain why she is changing the rules of the early retirement programme. I do not know which world the hon. Gentleman is living in, but he must be aware that the Government have provided an extra £875 million for schools, colleges and universities next year. How he can talk about a crisis, I fail to understand.

    Mr. Dunn: Is my right hon. Friend aware that local government in Manchester, Liverpool, Lambeth and Islington is inefficient and incompetent and that those authorities are run by the people who wish to run the country? Run the country? The Labour party could not run a bath.

    The Deputy Prime Minister: Every time Labour spokesmen tell us what they would like to do to improve education standards I wonder why they do not talk to Labour councillors who run local education authorities and tell them to improve the appalling record over which they preside.

     

    Q3. Mr. Hoyle: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 January.

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply.

    I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Hoyle: Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware that on 6 March 1996 the Secretary of State for Health gave an assurance that he would keep a close eye on intensive care capacity? Despite that assurance, a lack of intensive care beds in Warrington hospital means that operations are being cancelled and patients are being transferred to hospitals as far away as Leeds. That is happening not just in Warrington but throughout the north-west. Because of the Government’s folly, the number of bureaucrats has increased threefold at the expense of beds for patients. What does the Deputy Prime Minister, the most important person in the country at the moment, intend to do about that?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I share the hon. Gentleman’s concern about the provision of emergency beds. Health service administrators, who, as I said, cope with 25,000 patients a day, do a remarkable job in extraordinarily difficult and unpredictable circumstances. If one asks our hospital administrators to keep beds empty in anticipation of emergency admissions, one must explain to those who do not get the advantages of those beds why they are empty. Labour would be the first to complain if it could show that beds were empty because we had said that we had to keep them empty in case of emergency admissions.

    Mr. Marlow: The Government have obviously been studying the so-called windfall tax. I wonder how it would work if a company, having been floated, was then taken over–

    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must put a question on a matter for which the Government have responsibility. If he does that, I will listen to him. If he does not, I shall call another hon. Member. Questions must be on Government accountability.

    Mr. Marlow: If my right hon. Friend were looking for advice on how to run our schools, would he take it from a party that has been running local education authorities that have produced the most appalling results in the country?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point to the difference between the rhetoric and the performance of Labour local education authorities. I have no doubt that there is a chilling relationship between their incompetence in education management and the incompetence that has led to the production of an unworkable scheme called the windfall tax.

     

    Q4. Mr. Cummings: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 January.

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply.

    I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Cummings: I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for that answer. Is he aware of a recent case in which a seriously ill child of 20 months was driven from Sunderland to Edinburgh–120 miles–because of a lack of intensive care beds in Sunderland district general hospital’s paediatric unit? Will he assure my constituents, who use Sunderland district general hospital, that such incidents will not occur again, and will he ask his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health to make a statement on the great distress in the health service?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I am not familiar with the individual constituency case to which the hon. Gentleman draws attention. I share the concern that he quite rightly feels on behalf of his constituent. However, I have answered the specific question, and I will ensure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health is aware of the problems.

    Mr. Fabricant: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some of my poorer constituents in Lichfield can send their children to private schools because of the assisted places scheme? Will he please confirm that the Government have no plans to abolish the scheme, because without it those parents could not afford to send their children to private schools?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I can assure my hon. Friend that we will not only maintain but expand the assisted places scheme. We believe in diversity of choice in education and in widening opportunities, which is why we have introduced legislation with precisely that purpose in mind. As I understand it, to exercise choice in the Labour party, one must either be the leader of that party or the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman).

    Mr. Beith: Does the Deputy Prime Minister realise the seriousness of the crisis in the health service and the depth of concern among all who work in it and all who depend on it? Will he take positive action by using his authority to end ward closures, while an evaluation is conducted of how much reserve capacity the health service needs? Everyone in the service agrees that it must have some reserve capacity.

    The Deputy Prime Minister: Substantial capacity is available to deal with emergency cases; otherwise the very difficult cases–such as that to which the hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Cummings) drew attention–would be much more numerous. The House should salute the energy and devotion of those who work in the health service, who cope with those cases, day and night, with immense skill, care and attention.

  • PMQT – 17 December 1996

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 17th December 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mrs. Fyfe: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 17 December.

    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): 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.

    Mrs. Fyfe: Has the Prime Minister seen today that another London hospital has shut its doors to emergency patients? At the Victoria geriatric unit in Glasgow, a notice asks staff to think cost-effectively and limit incontinence wipes to two per person. Does the Prime Minister still maintain that the NHS is safe in Tory hands?

    The Prime Minister: Not only is the NHS safe, it is improving its service day by day. What the hon. Lady missed out of her litany were the 70 or so improvements in primary health care announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health. The hon. Lady knows that not only is the health service improving, but resources for the health service are improving both globally and per patient.

     

    Q2. Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 17 December.

    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend recall reports from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development some years ago, when inflation was 27 per cent., there was disaster everywhere and the International Monetary Fund had to be called in? Will he contrast those reports with the latest OECD report, which says that this country is set for record economic expansion and more growth than for 30 years, which will benefit the health service and everyone else? Would not all that be put at risk by uncosted Labour promises if the Labour party was ever elected to office–which it will not be?

    The Prime Minister: A few weeks ago, the shadow Chancellor dismissed the economic improvements in this country as propaganda. The OECD report published today shows how inaccurate he is. It says that prospects for achieving sustained output, growth and low inflation are the best for 30 years. The OECD now expects the UK’s growth rate next year–and the year after next–to be the highest in the group of industrial nations, easily outstripping Japan, Germany, France and the United States. It also forecasts falling unemployment on the back of that. There is no doubt that it is a glowing report. It is the best OECD report that this country has received for very many years, and it shows the best economic prospects that we have had for very many years.

    Mr. Blair: Will the Prime Minister now tell us specifically by what date the European beef ban will be lifted?

    The Prime Minister: I note, first, that the right hon. Gentleman does not deny the OECD report and does not wish to comment on it.

    The right hon. Gentleman knows that the beef ban will be lifted by our European partners and that I cannot tell him precisely what date that will be. We have taken measures for the ban to be lifted, and I shall seek the lifting of the ban progressively as soon as possible. We are now in the process of discussing a certified herd scheme that would cover the whole of the United Kingdom and from which we hope to see a progressive lifting of the ban.

    Mr. Blair: If the Prime Minister wants to ask me questions, I shall be happy to swap roles whenever he wishes to call the general election.

    The Prime Minister’s answer on beef is extraordinary. Does he not recall that, after the Florence summit, he came to the Dispatch Box and said that he had a firm agreement that, if we did certain things, the ban would be lifted, and that the timetable was in our hands, not Europe’s? [Hon. Members: “He did not say that.”] He certainly did say that. He said that, at the end of November, the ban would be lifted on scientific evidence. Is it not clear that he had no such agreement; that there was no guarantee that the ban would be lifted; that the timetable is in the hands of the veterinary committee; that he cannot give us a date; and that the lifting of the ban was not proceeded with on scientific evidence? Can the Prime Minister tell us the date by which the ban will be lifted, if the Florence agreement holds?

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is misleading the House.

    Madam Speaker: Order. I am sure that the Prime Minister does not mean the words that he has just said. I must ask him to withdraw them. No hon. Member misleads the House.

    The Prime Minister: No doubt innocently, the right hon. Gentleman has misunderstood the situation on beef–and not for the first time. The conditions that are necessary for the scientific committee to consider lifting the beef ban depend on actions that we take. That is correct. Among those actions is the selective cull. That is correct. As I reminded the right hon. Gentleman yet again yesterday–not for the first time–the selective cull was delayed because of the extra evidence on maternal transmission and because the over-30-months scheme was larger than anybody had supposed. The position now–

    Dr. Strang: Who are you kidding?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is the Opposition’s agriculture spokesman and he is supposed to know. If he does not know, I understand why the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) does not know. We now know who is providing the information that the right hon. Gentleman misunderstands. We are now seeking to obtain progressive lifting by means of the certified herd scheme, as we have set out, on more than one occasion, to the right hon. Gentleman.

    Mr. Blair: So the Prime Minister cannot give us a date for lifting the ban. [Interruption.] The Government gave us a date before, they did not honour it and they cannot give us a new one. I have just checked in Hansard, and the Prime Minister specifically said that the date for lifting the ban was in the hands of the British Government. If that is correct, why can he now not give us a date? The answer is that it is not in his hands. [Interruption.] Conservative Members may shout, but the truth is that BSE is a symbol of the Government–they are incompetent, incapable and can never be trusted.

    The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman reads what I said a few moments ago, he will understand why his third question is absurd, as was his prepared sound bite. It is no good his trying to fix facts. He cannot fix polls, as we have seen, and he should not try to fix facts.

    Mr. David Atkinson: Does my right hon. Friend recall the question that I put to him almost exactly a year ago about the failure of most computer systems in this country and throughout the world to recognise the year 2000, which will have enormously damaging consequences, not least for British business? Does he accept that, one year on, widespread ignorance of and inaction in response to the problem remain? Will he now give serious consideration to my ten-minute Bill, the Companies (Millennium Computer Compliance) Bill, which would do much to ensure that the computer systems of British businesses will be safe in three years’ time?

    The Prime Minister: I shall undertake to ensure that my hon. Friend’s ten minute Bill is examined carefully by my right hon. Friends. The underlying problem to which my hon. Friend refers is very serious, and we do not intend to leave it without action.

    Mr. Ashdown: The Prime Minister can huff and puff as much as he likes, but speak to any farmer in this country and they will say that the BSE fiasco tells us all we need to know about this Government: they dither at home, posture abroad, surrender at the end and blame it all on Europe. Does the Prime Minister realise that the anti-European opinion in his Cabinet, on his Back Benches and overwhelmingly among his candidates throughout the country means that, far from fighting for Britain in Europe in 1997, the Conservatives will become Britain’s out-of-Europe party in 1997?

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman has a long tradition of being very supportive of the European Union. After all, some time ago he said:

    “We want Ministers to make decisions in public and without single nation vetoes”.

    The right hon. Gentleman would surrender that. He has also said that he does

    “not believe in the sovereignty of Parliament”

    as far as the European Union is concerned. The hon. Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey) has written to my right hon. Friend the Minister Without Portfolio claiming that his party does not want a united states of Europe. I find that very odd, as the same hon. Gentleman said some time ago:

    “our”–

    that is, Liberal–

    “ideas on Europe are totally illiberal . . . we want to create a bureaucratic and centralist nightmare”.

    Not only are the Liberals unable to agree among themselves, they cannot even agree with themselves.

    Sir Roger Sims: Is not today’s White Paper, to which my right hon. Friend referred earlier, to be welcomed, as it both extends the facilities available to patients and increases the involvement in primary care of health care professionals such as nurses and pharmacists? Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that additional resources will be given to the national health service to develop the White Paper proposals?

    The Prime Minister: We have set out a commitment for additional resources over and above inflation for the national health service throughout the next Parliament–a commitment that we have honoured during the past 17 years and which other parties seem unable to match. My hon. Friend is right about the importance of primary care services. The proposals announced today by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health will lead to better general practitioner premises, a wider range of services available closer to home, better training for GPs and other staff, expansion of nurse prescribing, more funds for research into primary health, and much else besides. It is a very significant advance in the march towards far better primary health care.

     

    Official Visits

    Q3. Mr. Hinchliffe: To ask the Prime Minister when he intends to pay an official visit to Wakefield.

    The Prime Minister: I have no plans to do so.

    Mr. Hinchliffe: Has the Prime Minister had the opportunity to study the correspondence that I sent him last week concerning my constituent, Mr. Wayne Hood of Wakefield, who was recently sent to prison for four years for the attempted murder of his former foster parent who seriously sexually abused him over a seven-year period during his childhood and adolescence? Bearing in mind the fact that the foster parent has been gaoled for seven years for those serious offences against Mr. Hood and other children in his care, will the Prime Minister support the call for a review of Mr. Hood’s sentence? While I do not condone Mr. Hood’s actions, has he not been treated very harshly by the courts in view of his background and circumstances?

    The Prime Minister: I have seen the correspondence that the hon. Gentleman sent to me, and I am grateful to him for giving me notice of his question. I am aware of the hon. Gentleman’s deep interest and concern about this case. I made inquiries, and I understand that an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal has been lodged. The hon. Gentleman will know that, in those circumstances, it is not appropriate for me to say anything further now. I believe that that is the correct way to pursue the matter. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to discuss it with me privately, I will be happy to see him.

    Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the people of Wakefield would not want us to leave this year without congratulating Damon Hill on winning the sports personality of the year award? Would not they be amazed to know that he achieved that without an audience participation unit?

    The Prime Minister: I should like to congratulate Damon Hill on his success. The whole country took a great deal of pleasure in his many wins throughout the year. He is a very deserving winner of that poll. In the spirit of amity at Christmas, I shall not respond to the latter part of my hon. Friend’s question.

  • PMQT – 3 December 1996

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 3rd December 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Butler: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 3 December.

    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): 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.

    Mr. Butler: What advice can my right hon. Friend give to the many constituents of mine and of other hon. Members who are excellently served by innovative and increasingly comprehensive GP fundholders, in the light of Labour’s repeated pledge to destroy such practices?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right about the helpful changes that have been made to the health service over recent years. More than 4 million extra patients have been treated since 1979–a million since the reforms began. There is no doubt that the reforms, including GP fundholding, have been an enormous success. I very much regret that the Labour party cannot accept what is successful and, instead, threaten it.

    Mr. Blair: Will the Prime Minister say clearly, without any qualification, that his statement of 3 April on behalf of the Government that at the next election he will not rule out the option of joining a single currency in the next Parliament, remains unequivocally the position of the Government?

    The Prime Minister: That remains unequivocally the position of the Government.

    Mr. Blair: It is right to give the Prime Minister credit for such a clear reply. Let us see whether we can get another little clear reply. Can he tidy up one small loose end? Does he agree with the Deputy Prime Minister’s statement on the radio at lunchtime, when he said of that position:

    “We are not going to change our position in the election campaign or in this Parliament”?

    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend said that; that is our position.

    Sir Michael Spicer: The assurances gained by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in Brussels yesterday are to be warmly welcomed. Does my right hon. Friend think that it is now important that those assurances are written into the treaty of Rome, given the experiences that we have had with the European Court of Justice and the way in which it has interpreted the treaty of Rome? Will he press for such amendments at the Dublin summit?

    The Prime Minister: As my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor said to the House the other day, the elements of the stability pact would not affect the United Kingdom unless we were part of stage 3 of economic and monetary union. As my right hon. and learned Friend will tell the House in his statement shortly, our position is legally protected under the treaty, but we intend to ensure that the detailed regulations leave no room for ambiguity.

    Mr. Ashdown: Ordinary people in Britain will pay more tax under the Conservatives at the next election than they paid under the Conservatives at the last election. The Treasury figures show that, the Treasury’s Red Book confirms it and Treasury Ministers admit it. Why is the Prime Minister the only person left in Britain denying it?

    The Prime Minister: I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman is misleading the House and I shall explain gently to him how. If one earns more, one pays more tax. That is certainly true but, as my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary made clear, if we had not changed direct taxes at all since before the election, a family on average earnings would have paid more next year under the old regime than they will as a result of our tax cuts. The increase in taxation is a result of increased earnings. Unless the right hon. Gentleman would like marginal earnings to be untaxed, that is inevitable.

    Mr. Sumberg: Has my right hon. Friend had the opportunity to read the bulletin of the Bury and Bolton chamber of commerce, which reports a dramatic upturn in business confidence and business activity in my constituency? As it is the chamber’s Christmas lunch on Friday, which I shall attend, will my right hon. Friend send my constituents a message of congratulations on that achievement and his best wishes for a new year of greater prosperity under a new Conservative Government?

    The Prime Minister: The strict answer to the first point about whether I have read the bulletin is no, I have not, but it clearly provides comforting reading. There is no doubt that the economy is improving, unemployment is falling, growth is continuing and manufacturing is doing extremely well in Bury and Bolton, and across the country. That is the result of the policies that we have been following, and we shall continue to follow them.

     

    Q2. Ms Walley: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 3 December.

    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the reply I gave some moments ago.

    Ms Walley: Given that the Government have now been forced to admit, contrary to what the Prime Minister said to the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), that the Budget was a tax-raising Budget, and given that changes to direct tax mean that income taxes have gone up, will he now take down his untrue posters that falsely claim that honest John has given lower income tax?

    The Prime Minister: All I can say to the hon. Lady is that she should read the answer I gave to the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) and she will find that the premise of her question is wrong.

    Dr. Twinn: Will my right hon. Friend support an inquiry into economic incompetence in local government and will he start that inquiry with the London borough of Enfield, which in this year alone has failed to spend £5 million on housing maintenance and £1 million of single regeneration budget money, due to be spent on industrial renewal in my constituency? Is that not another example of new Labour, new incompetence?

    The Prime Minister: There are many examples of that and it might be difficult to inquire into all of them. In view of my hon. Friend’s remarks, I shall draw the situation to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

     

    Q3. Mr. Betts: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 3 December.

    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Betts: I refer the Prime Minister to the comment of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on Sunday–that direct taxes have risen during this Parliament–and to his own comment a few moments ago that direct taxes have risen only because earnings have risen. Will the Prime Minister accept the figures produced independently by the House of Commons Library, which show that, during the course of this Parliament, families on average earnings will not only pay more in direct taxes absolutely, by more than £2 a week, but–as a proportion of their earnings–their direct taxes will rise from 20.2 per cent. to 20.7 per cent? Will he now accept that the Chief Secretary was right to make those comments on Sunday, and will he withdraw his statement that the Government have kept direct taxes down, as it is simply not true?

    The Prime Minister: People who are receiving larger incomes and are moving up the tax bands of course distort the figures. The reality is that people will be £1,100 better off next year, allowing for tax and inflation, than they were before the last election. The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends do not like that and, under Labour, no one would be richer but everyone would still have to pay more tax, as is inevitably the case under a Labour Government. Everyone knows that there would be higher tax rates under Labour, and I do not know how the hon. Gentleman has the effrontery to pretend otherwise.

     

    Q4. Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 3 December.

    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Marshall: As First Lord of the Treasury, my right hon. Friend is responsible for providing much of the finance for local government. Is he aware that many local authorities with high council taxes give poor services to their constituents? Does he agree that those who cannot run Islington or Hackney are incapable of running the country?

    The Prime Minister: New Labour hopes to produce a revolution in government, but I am astonished that it has utterly failed to do so in the element of local government that it already controls. There are a large number of examples of inefficiency that one could give, including a council that has not collected 20 per cent. of its council tax, is owed £16 million in arrears, has a debt of more than £800 million, pays interest of £91 million, has the sixth-highest council tax in the country and has the worst education results. That council should be well known to the Leader of the Opposition–it is his council in Islington.

     

    Q5. Mr. O’Hara: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 3 December.

    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. O’Hara: The Prime Minister boasts about 25 tax cuts. Will he confirm that, to qualify for them, a taxpayer must–among other things–be a small company, drive a vintage car and be dead?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is very amusing, but wrong.

     

    Q6. Mr. Matthew Banks: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 3 December.

    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Banks: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has cut some 25 taxes in the previous two Budgets, and that, since the last general election, the average family now have some £1,100 more to spend? Do not such facts show the contrast between the Conservative and Labour parties?

    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. The reality is that the basic rate of income tax is at its lowest level for 60 years. [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) will remove himself for the remainder of this day’s sitting–I will have order in this Chamber–I am cautioning the hon. Gentleman. I will have no more of that in the Chamber.

    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Banks) intimated, we now have the lowest basic rate of income tax for 60 years and people’s living standards are rising. There is no doubt that Labour’s appetite for European-style regulation would provide European-level taxes.

     

    Q7. Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 3 December.

    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Mackinlay: Can we cut out all the claptrap? The top 10 per cent. of earners in this country have done very well, and people earning more than £64,000 are not paying higher taxes under the Tory Government. But the poor people–the most disadvantaged in our society– have seen their incomes fall and their tax demands go up. Is that fair? Should not the broadest backs bear the heaviest burden?

    The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman wants to cut out claptrap, he should remain seated in future. The reality is that, as they were at between 83p and 98p when the Conservative Government came to power, it is hardly surprising if those upper rates of taxation have fallen. At the moment, one in four taxpayers–28 per cent., to be precise–now pay tax at only 20p in the pound and we seek to bring more people within that rate, so that the basic rate becomes 20p in the pound. That is a fair tax system, and we are delivering it.

    Dr. Spink: On a day when the Palace is graced with the presence of the forces’ sweetheart, Dame Vera Lynn, will my right hon. Friend send a message of good will to everyone in the British armed services who will be serving abroad over Christmas, and will he pay tribute to our armed services, which are the most professional in the world?

    The Prime Minister: I am happy to pay tribute to our armed forces, both abroad and at home, and I am delighted to see that, on this issue at least, I have the whole-hearted support of those on the Opposition Front Bench.

  • PMQT – 19 November 1996

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 19th November 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mrs. Ann Winterton: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 November.

    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): 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.

    Mrs. Winterton: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the low level of unemployment in my constituency, Congleton, which has fallen by a further 7.5 per cent. over the past year, would immediately be put in jeopardy if the minimum wage, the 48-hour working week and the social chapter were implemented?

    The Prime Minister: I am delighted to hear of the fall in unemployment in my hon. Friend’s constituency, and I am delighted that that fall is mirrored in the constituencies of hon. Members right across the House. It is certainly the case that, were extra impositions such as those mentioned by my hon. Friend to be placed on employers, they would stop the fall in unemployment and send it returning upwards. That is not what we want, which is why we shall not accept the social chapter or such impositions.

    Mr. Blair: Why has the Prime Minister not yet made good the promise given two years ago to eliminate mixed-sex wards in our hospitals?

    The Prime Minister: We are seeking to make progress as soon as we can on every aspect of improvement in the health service. We have given priority to other matters. That has brought the waiting list down, widened the number of operations that have been offered and improved the quality of care. As we can, we shall move on the other issue.

    Mr. Blair: My point is that the Government made a specific promise two years ago that that issue would be a priority. Is not what is needed a proper programme that is led and co-ordinated by Government with the health authorities and national health service trusts, and the setting of a specified timetable to eliminate those wards, which cause enormous indignity, and distress people? The Government would thereby keep the promise that was made two years ago.

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman seems to be advocating–I agree with him–a properly managed examination of what could be done to improve the service across the health service. I agree with that. It is one of the reasons why we have focused on management. Management has been concentrating on getting more people treated. More people have been treated, and management will continue to move to improve that, and to improve the quality, dignity and privacy of service, as we announced.

    Mr. Blair: I find it extraordinary that the Government are spending £1.5 billion more on administration–

    Mr. Devlin: He is out of order: he must ask a question.

    Madam Speaker: Order. I need no lessons from the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin).

    Mr. Blair: Might I point out to the Prime Minister that there are 20,000 more senior managers and that £1.5 billion extra is spent on administration? Is it beyond the collective wit of the Government and the health administrators to deal with that problem? It is a question not just of money, but of political will. My point is very simple: did not the Prime Minister promise two years ago to deal with the problem? Why has he not delivered? If he does not deliver on that promise, why should anyone believe his promises about the national health service?

    The Prime Minister: If I had said at the last election that we would treat as many new patients as we are now, the right hon. Gentleman would not have believed me. If I had said at the last election that we would deliver extra resources, he would not have believed me. He and his colleagues claimed that we would privatise the health service. We said that we would not, and we have not. I hope that he accepts that that is the case now, and that it will not occur in the future. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that fact.

     

    Q2. Mr. Riddick: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 November.

    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Riddick: Is my right hon. Friend aware that unemployment in my constituency has fallen by 640– 22 per cent.–since the beginning of the year? Is not a reason for that good news the fact that the United Kingdom has a stable industrial climate with few strikes, except in the public sector? Is it not true that only a Conservative Government can be relied upon to do anything about that problem because the Labour party, with its strong links to the unions, is still the strikers’ friend? [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. The House must come to order.

    The Prime Minister: There seems to be some support on the Opposition Benches for Labour’s support of the strikes–I hope that everyone noticed it.

    I have no doubt that one of the reasons why we are attracting more foreign investment than any other country is our success in restoring industrial stability in the private sector. The number of strikes today is one twenty-fifth of the level that it was when we came to government in 1979. I believe that people deserve the same protection against strikes in the public sector that they increasingly enjoy elsewhere. If Opposition Members do not agree, I suggest that they ask businesses whose post was not delivered and travellers who could not get to work because of strikes in those sectors.

    Mr. Hume: Given the Government’s praiseworthy efforts to promote agreement among the political parties in Northern Ireland, will the Prime Minister explain why the Minister responsible for education in Northern Ireland, the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), proposes to reduce the number of education boards–which are the most highly respected cross-community bodies in Northern Ireland–from five to three? During the consultation process, every Member of Parliament from Northern Ireland, the leaders of all political parties, all Church leaders and all local authorities disagreed with the right hon. Gentleman. Why are the Government ignoring the unanimous wish of the people of Northern Ireland in relation to education?

    The Prime Minister: I do not believe that that is the position with my right hon. Friend, but I shall examine the details of the hon. Gentleman’s claims and then write to him. I would be very surprised if my right hon. Friend did not have an extremely good reason for any decision he may have taken.

    Mr. Beggs: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

    Madam Speaker: Points of order come after questions, private notice questions and statements.

    Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the average household electricity bill in the eastern area is £272, while in France it is £366 and in Germany it is £394? Does that not demonstrate the success of electricity privatisation? Is not a sign of its success the fact that the Opposition wish to impose a windfall profits tax on the industry and put it at risk?

    The Prime Minister: The comparative prices that my hon. Friend quotes are a striking tribute to the success of privatisation over the past 18 years. I am delighted to see them. I very much hope that we shall keep those prices down. My hon. Friend is entirely right: a windfall tax would force prices up for consumers, and at an unknown amount, because we do not yet know precisely who will be subject to the windfall tax or what the levy would be on companies and thence on consumers.

     

    Q3. Ms Roseanna Cunningham: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 November.

    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

    Ms Cunningham: With regard to yesterday’s meeting in Brussels, and the beef ban, is the Prime Minister aware that the National Farmers Union for Scotland is openly accusing the Government of straightforward prevarication in their refusal to proceed with the selective cattle cull, and that that gives rise to a very real apprehension that the Government are simply trying to stoke anti-European feeling in advance of an election and, indeed, to sacrifice the farmers? Why does he continue to set his face against a phased lifting of the ban, which would be of immediate benefit to Scotland and Northern Ireland?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Lady is perhaps not aware of all the things that are going on in Brussels and the discussions that we are having, or she certainly would not have asked her question in that fashion.

    Mr. Waterson: Can my right hon. Friend give some reassurance to pensioners in my constituency who are worried that the so-called flexible decade of retirement will mean massive increases in public spending and taxes or a severe cut in the state retirement pension?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right to say that the plans proposed by the Opposition, in which a flexible decade of retirement would enable some people to retire early, would mean a massive increase in public expenditure, which they have said that they would not provide, or a significant cut in the basic rate of pension. I suggest that they come clean on precisely what they propose.

     

    Q4. Mr. Mullin: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 November.

    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Mullin: Is it still the Prime Minister’s position that there is a moral case for cutting taxation? If so, can he explain the moral case for promising to cut taxation before an election and for increasing it as soon as the election is over?

    The Prime Minister: Yes, I do believe in cutting taxation, and I look forward to the hon. Gentleman’s support when it is appropriate to cut taxation again in the future. The hon. Gentleman seems to think that by cutting taxation we are giving money back to people. I would say that by cutting taxation we are taking less of people’s own money.

     

    Q5. Mr. Atkins: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 November.

    The Prime Minister: I refer my right hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Atkins: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the independent auditor’s report, published yesterday, of the criminal and corrupt activities of Labour councillors on Labour-controlled Preston borough council who have lost or mislaid millions of pounds of Preston taxpayers’ money in recent years? Does he agree that that is the real example of sleaze and corruption in public life which should be rooted out? Is not that further example of Labour mismanagement of local authorities damning proof of what will happen if Labour ever controls our country?

    The Prime Minister: I do not think that the character of any party becomes clear until it is in power. [Interruption.] Those are not my words; they are the words of the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair). In local government, Labour is in power, and in power it has a habit of pouring taxpayers’ money down the drain and running up debts. Right across the country, where there are Labour councils one can see that “If you vote red, you live in the red.”

     

    Q6. Ms Hodge: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 November.

    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the reply that I gave some moments ago. [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. The House must come to order. It is difficult to hear.

    Ms Hodge: Will the Prime Minister think again about his crass and insensitive reply to the question put to him by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair)? Does he appreciate that the issue of mixed-sex wards is of particular importance to women? Does he know that 50 per cent. of women who are admitted to psychiatric hospitals have a history of sexual abuse? Will he give us a date when he will meet the promise that he gave two years ago? If not, how can we believe that the NHS is safe in the Government’s hands?

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) and the hon. Lady spend Question Time after Question Time painting a picture of the NHS that does not exist for those who use it. During our 18 years in office, we have continually put more resources into the NHS, widened the services available to it, ensured that more operations are carried out and cut waiting times. That is a record that no previous Government have been able to match. If the hon. Lady remembers, it was under the previous Labour Government that waiting lists went up, hospitals were closed and the NHS practically came to a full stop.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on the Health Service – 13 November 1996

    Below are extracts of Mr Major’s comments on the health service, made during an interview held in London on Wednesday 13th November 1996.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked what plans he had for the Health Service].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    This is a strategy paper to look at the Health Service, not just tomorrow, not the day-to-day decisions on takes, but to actually look at the strategy for the Health Service 5 years, 10 years, 15 years ahead. And there are areas in it where we will now consult further on management training, on the use of new information technology, that is an area of particular interest and other areas as well. But what it seeks to do is to re-state the commitment to the Health Service, make the point that the resources are going to continue to be available, as necessary, and make the point also that the resources that are needed are affordable within a growing economy. The Health Service is going to develop, we wish it to develop well.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if there would be privatisation].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There is no question of privatisation in the Health Service, there never has been. If we were going to privatise the Health Service we would have done it in the last 17 years, we patently aren’t. The Health Service is going to have private capital coming into it in addition to the public commitment, that has been happening for years with things like the Private Finance Initiative. But the National Health Service is the National Health Service and it is not going to be privatised.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he agreed with Labour’s view that large sums of money was wasted on administration in the Health Service].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    They do talk such nonsense, don’t they? If they are really concerned about 100 million pounds, why did they oppose the abolition of the regional health authorities, which you might well say were administrators, and would save 100 million pounds? We have proposals to save three times that amount at the moment actually going through the National Health Service.

    Here we have a service that spends 35 billion pounds a year. It is necessary to make sure that the resources are directed to the right sort of area, that is what it is about.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked why the highest paid staff in the National Health Service were administrators and not doctors].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I doubt as much as you though Adam, so things are not too bad. I very much doubt that that stands up to careful examination. If you look at what is actually happening in the Health Service you are seeing a growing demand and a growing supply of health care. Now what is absolutely essential in a service of that size is that we direct the resources to where the medical need is. That can’t be done without adequate and secure management and that is what the proper management techniques are about. And I think if you look at them, if you take primary health for example, look at the fund-holders, there is an example of giving proper local management down to doctors. I think in a few months about 58 per cent of the public will be actually covered by general practitioners who are fund-holders. Now that was wildly attacked by the Labour Party some years ago, until very recently in fact, as being a waste of money and the wrong way ahead. As usual, they were wrong, we were right and they are now having to come off their policy because it is producing a better Health Service for people at the most direct level in primary health care.

  • PMQT – 7 November 1996

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 7th November 1996. Michael Heseltine responded on behalf of John Major.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Garnier: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 November.

    The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Michael Heseltine): I have been asked to reply.

    This morning, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. My right hon. Friend has now departed for Bordeaux to attend the Anglo-French summit.

    Mr. Garnier: May I commiserate with my right hon. Friend on the damage recently caused to his property by a gang of criminal thugs, which included two Labour councillors? Will he take this opportunity to contrast the Government’s record on law and order with the pathetic performance of the smarmy army on the Opposition Benches? That smarmy army has not even criticised, let alone disciplined, those two Labour councillors.

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend. I must say that, when I looked out of my window, it seemed like old times–the winter of discontent, with the Labour party on the streets; the mobs of the 1980s, with the Labour party on the streets; and then, in the 1990s, Labour councillors on people’s private property, causing damage and disruption: and the characteristic of all three? Not a word of protest from the parliamentary Labour party. Labour Members talk about being tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime, but they do not even have the energy to walk through the Lobbies when we are fighting crime.

    Mr. Prescott: Can the Deputy Prime Minister tell the House why, 50 years ago this week, the Tories voted against the creation of the national health service?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman will know that, after 50 years, the health service has been administered and supported by Tory Governments for longer than by Labour Governments. Because of that, we have made it one of the best health services in the world.

    Mr. Prescott: Does the Deputy Prime Minister not understand–[Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order.

    Mr. Prescott: Does the Deputy Prime Minister not understand that the people simply do not believe the Tories on health? Does he not remember that, before the last election, the Prime Minister promised to cut taxes year on year? They went up year on year. Now the same Prime Minister is promising to increase health spending year on year. Is that not like the tax promise? Should not all Tory pre-election promises carry a Government health warning?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman will know that, under this Government, health expenditure has gone up every year. If he really cares about the health service, why will he not, on behalf of his party, now give a commitment to match our pledge to increase, year on year, real-terms expenditure on the health service?

    Mr. Prescott: The Deputy Prime Minister fails to understand that our national health service, set up by a Labour Government 50 years ago, was the greatest peacetime achievement of any Government this century. Is not the simple truth this: the British people know that the only way to safeguard our health service for the next 50 years is to elect a Labour Government, and the sooner the better?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: The British people know that the Labour party will not give the pledge that the Conservatives have already given. After all, we hear all about windfall taxes. If they are so profitable and so available, why cannot windfall taxes finance the health service? The reason is, of course, that there is not an easy killing of a windfall tax any more than there is a genuine commitment from Labour to the health service.

    Mr. Pickles: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in a seminar in my constituency, the chief economist for the National Westminster bank predicted that small businesses would be particularly vulnerable to a minimum wage? He warned that a minimum wage would cost thousands of jobs in Essex. Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the Government will never introduce a minimum wage?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: Any fool knows that a minimum wage costs jobs. After all, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), the shadow leader of the Labour party, has already said so.

    Mr. Prescott: Don’t get too excited.

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I am always excited by the right hon. Gentleman. The whole House is excited by him. He is an exciting person. Never has someone been so wrong, so often, on so many subjects.

     

    Q2. Mr. Gunnell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 November.

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply.

    I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago, before my observations about the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East.

    Mr. Gunnell: Will the Deputy Prime Minister join me in welcoming the support given by players of Leeds United, of Leeds rugby league club and of Yorkshire county cricket club to the urgent appeal for funds by Leeds general infirmary for essential equipment, which, it says, it cannot afford because of the national health service funding level? Is it not an absolute scandal that, after 17 years of this Government, that hospital, having closed 40 beds only last month, is forced to beg to survive?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I would overwhelmingly support anyone who sought to raise funds for charitable purposes for the health service. One of the most exciting additional supports to health funding in Britain has come from the idea of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to ensure that part of lottery proceeds go to charities in Britain. [Interruption.] I am sorry that Opposition Members are prepared to sneer at charitable giving in Britain. I realise that they would rather tax people into a position where charity was compulsory, as opposed to relying on people’s natural instinct to give, but I cannot believe that the purpose of such a generous decision by the various players to whom the hon. Gentleman has referred is designed to turn the health service into a party political matter.

     

    Q3. Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 November.

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply.

    I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Bruce: Will my right hon. Friend have a chance to speak to the Prime Minister while he is in France preparing for the summit and get him to bring back a few souvenirs for Opposition Members? I have in mind in particular some recent issues of Le Figaro newspaper, which extolled the virtues of what had happened to French companies that had come to the United Kingdom to invest in British firms, highlighting particularly the low cost base here and the stable, growing economy.

    The Deputy Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right to draw to the attention of the House the remarkable article in Le Figaro. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister drew my attention to it earlier today. The House will be pleased to know that copies of the article are on their way to this country. For the benefit of many Labour Members, translations will be freely available.

     

    Q4. Mr. Bayley: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 November.

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply.

    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Bayley: Will the right hon. Gentleman remind the House of the new rules that were introduced to curb the abuse by former Conservative Ministers such as Peter Walker and Norman Tebbit, who left the Government and moved to the boardrooms of companies that they privatised while in office? Does he agree that it is an absolute disgrace that the Minister who privatised London’s buses–the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris)–has moved from his boudoir at the Department of Transport to the profitable and sweet embrace of Capital City Bus?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: The House will want to take that question extremely seriously because a most serious allegation has been made against my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris). My hon. Friend has not accepted any job with Capital City Bus or any other company. He has consulted the advisory committee on business appointments and, of course, he will follow any advice that that committee gives.

    I want to stand back from the regrettable nature of the question asked by the hon. Member for York (Mr. Bayley) and say that the only reason why no Labour ex-Ministers are in a similar position is that there have been no Labour ex-Ministers in recent memory. However, when there were Labour ex-Ministers, what was Lord Marsh doing–[Hon. Members: “He was a Tory.”] When he was at the Dispatch Box, he was a Labour Minister. He only became a Tory when he realised that we were right and he was wrong. What have Labour Members to say about Edmund Dell, who became head of Guinness? What do they have to say about Lord Varley, the former Energy Secretary? What about Lord Barnett, who is on the boards of a raft of different companies? It is one rule for them and one rule for everybody else–hypocrisy from start to finish.

     

    Q5. Mr. Jessel: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 November.

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply.

    I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Jessel: As next year will be the 50th anniversary of the independence of India, and as relations between India and Britain have never been better, do the Government intend to supplement the Queen’s visit to India, the visit of our Prime Minister to India as guest of honour on Republic Day and my right hon. Friend’s visit to India to launch the Indo-British partnership initiative, with events in this country to mark the jubilee? Will he bear in mind that a large proportion of Indian people who are resident in Britain are natural supporters of the enterprise economy?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: My hon. Friend has left out of his list the distinguished role that he has played for 25 years as an officer and chairman of the all-party Indo-British group. He will be pleased to know that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has invited my noble Friend Lord Cranborne to chair the group to determine how we can progress with such an important anniversary.

    Mr. Janner: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Government have rejected the recommendation of the Employment Committee that, in the unemployment statistics, the Government should include details of the 12 categories excluded from those figures? In those circumstances, does he recognise that the true number of unemployed is not just over 2 million, but nearer 4 million, and that the Government’s present figures are a complete sham and a fiddle?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I seem to remember the hon. and learned Gentleman producing reports saying that 100,000 jobs would go in the aftermath of the closure of the mines. Unemployment has fallen every month since.

     

    Q6. Mr. Lidington: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 November.

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply.

    I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Lidington: Has my right hon. Friend seen recent reports that about 40 per cent. of those leaving the jobless register are now setting up as self-employed to provide work not only for themselves but for other people? Does he agree that that augurs well for the present and future competitiveness of the country, enabling us to look forward to levels of unemployment continuing to fall in my constituency and throughout the nation?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is, of course, right. We have the highest proportion of our population at work of any major European country. The forecasts are that our position will continue to improve. I am delighted to recognise the announcement this morning by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment of a significant extension of project work to concentrate particularly on those who have been unemployed for more than two years.

     

    Q7. Mr. Michael: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 November.

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply.

    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Michael: Has the Deputy Prime Minister seen advertisements for articles such as the Vindicator knife and the Rambo short sword? Does he agree that it would be a good idea to make it illegal to advertise or offer for sale such weapons in a manner that appears to condone or encourage violence?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: As the whole House knows, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is in discussions with Labour and Liberal Democrat Members, but those discussions have not led to a simplistic definition that would have enabled the law to be changed. In other words, my right hon. and learned Friend was correct to say that this is a complex matter to which a satisfactory legal outcome has not so far been found. The whole House will be glad of my right hon. and learned Friend’s announcement yesterday about strengthening police powers of stop and search, particularly of those people who are likely to be carrying knives.

  • PMQT – 5 November 1996

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 5th November 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Ms Primarolo: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 5 November.

    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet, and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

    Ms Primarolo: Is the Prime Minister aware that, according to his own Government’s statistics, the average family living in council housing has been £3 a week worse off since the last election? Is not the main reason for that the fact that the Government have increased taxes 22 times since the election, and put VAT on fuel?

    The Prime Minister: If the hon. Lady is worried about the net cash position of council tenants, she might look to see who runs the highest tax rates across the country. The highest band D tax rates are imposed by Labour councils: Coventry, Salford, Hartlepool, Manchester, Islington, Redcar, Hackney–I will not continue the list; the hon. Lady knows them. If it is a Labour council, the council tax is high.

    Sir Fergus Montgomery: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government are doing everything in their power to help with the rebuilding of Manchester city centre following the terrible damage inflicted by the IRA bomb, while using some of the existing initiatives to help to regenerate our inner cities?

    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend knows, following the bombing in June last year, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister said that a task force would be set up to oversee the city’s recovery. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt), the sponsor Minister for Manchester, announced in Manchester today that EDAW had won a competition to redesign the city centre. That is an important step forward in the redesigning of Manchester, and, I hope, towards a greatly improved future Manchester city centre. Money has already been allocated from European funds, and it is quite possible that, if appropriate application is made, further funds will come forward.

    Mr. Blair: Will the Prime Minister admit what he denied just two weeks ago: that, with casualty departments closing and waiting lists up in many parts of the country–and with some hospital trusts technically bankrupt–the national health service is indeed in a state of crisis?

    The Prime Minister: No, I do not accept that. Nor do I accept most of the misleading statistics that, the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends have used in recent weeks. If the right hon. Gentleman was so concerned about funding, perhaps some time ago he might have matched our pledge to increase funding in real terms each year.

    Mr. Blair: Perhaps the Prime Minister will now accept what his own Government’s statistics show: that, although they have spent an extra £1.5 billion on the national health service, it has gone into bureaucracy and administration rather than proper patient care. That is why there are 20,000 more senior managers and 50,000 fewer nurses since the Tory internal market reforms.

    I ask the Prime Minister to talk to people who use the national health service and who know when they go to a casualty department that something is seriously wrong; who know, when their appointments are cancelled and they are told that they are better off going privately, that something is wrong. Why does he not talk to women who had children in the national health service a few years ago and have had children recently and know the difference in the standard of facilities? Would it not be better for him to admit the existence of this problem and try to solve it rather than deny what everyone knows: that something is seriously wrong in the national health service?

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman talks about management and bureaucracy in the health service. Perhaps he can explain to the country why he opposed the abolition of a whole tier of bureaucracy–regional health authorities–saving £100 million a year? The right hon. Gentleman’s party opposed that. If he thinks that a £43 billion service does not need proper management, perhaps he might remember what the Socialist Health Association said:

    “The NHS was traditionally under-managed and the party”–

    Labour–

    “should avoid bureaucrat bashing.”

    The right hon. Gentleman knows that it needs to be properly managed, that it is now being properly managed and that, as a result, money is being allocated to where it should go. He knows that waiting lists are falling, that the number of operations being performed is increasing, that a wider range of treatments is being produced and that the national health service is something that this country should be proud of, not something to be used as a political football by the right hon. Gentleman whenever that is appropriate.

    Mr. Blair: I do not think that the Prime Minister–[Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. If any of the Whips have anything to say, let them come to the Front Bench and say it.

    Mr. Blair: I do not think that the Prime Minister understands. This country is very proud of the national health service, but it is not proud of what the Government have done to the national health service. Is not the fear that any extra resources that are put forward now are just sticking plaster to see the Tories through to the election? Why will not the Prime Minister admit what the country knows: that there will be a crisis every year in the national health service while this Government remain in office?

    The Prime Minister: I seem to recall that it was a Labour Government who closed hospitals, cut nurses’ pay and genuinely created a crisis in the health service. The right hon. Gentleman would be well advised to give up these kindergarten soundbites and concentrate on reality. NHS spending will be more than £34 billion this year–more than £720 for every man, every woman and every child. That is an increase over and above inflation of about three quarters since 1979. There were over 9 million episodes of hospital care in 1995-96–25,000 every day, up 46 per cent. in 10 years.

    As the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) said, the acid test is whether more people are being treated. They are, and they are being treated better and offered a wider range of services. The right hon. Gentleman knows that but he will not admit it: he is more concerned with his politics than with the reality of improving treatment.

    Sir Jim Spicer: Has my right hon. Friend had the opportunity to see the statement made last week by the railway franchising director in which he states in clear and unequivocal terms that, over the next few years, taxpayers will be saved more than £2 billion as a result of privatisation? If we add to that better punctuality, service and customer care, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is time that the Opposition prophets of doom and gloom recanted and accepted reality–that privatisation is good for the railways and good for the taxpayer?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is quite right. Not long ago, the Opposition were trying all sorts of scares about privatisation–safety on the railways, services being cut–all of which have been shown to be utterly and comprehensively wrong. The reality is that new rolling stock is being introduced, the service is being improved, there is more investment than before and extra services are being run on a range of lines throughout the country. The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) may shake his head, but all he is showing is that he is ignorant–not that he has any knowledge.

    Mr. Ashdown: We have said what we would do to provide extra funding for the health service, both next year and now. If the Government have decided to commit more money to the health service for next year, that is a good thing. If they have decided that the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd), the former Foreign Secretary, was right when he said that cutting taxes would be rejected in Britain if it was bought at the cost of closed hospital wards and sacked teachers, that is even better. But does the Prime Minister not realise that the crisis in the health service is not next year–it is now. Wards are being closed–now. Operations are being cancelled–now. Waiting lists are growing again–now. That money is needed–now. Will he provide it and, if not, what will he do to avert the national health service crisis and to prevent any further hospital ward closures this coming winter?

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman had better wait for the statement by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on health service funding. It will be made clear at the time of the Budget. I have nothing further to say to the right hon. Gentleman this afternoon except this: it was the right hon. Gentleman who, just a few days ago, was lecturing us about spending and debt. Now he is advocating extra expenditure. Whatever happens to be his tune for the day, he will shift to it. We have said–and we have kept the promise throughout 17 years–that we will provide extra resources for the health service to ensure that it is able to match the needs of the people of this country. That is why more people are being treated, and better treated, than ever before. The growth in the health service over the years has outstripped every other area of government, and I have made it clear that, in future, it will beat the inflation rate year after year after year. That is a pledge that people do not have to look in the mirror to see. They can look at our record. We have done it.

    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does my right hon. Friend accept that one of the present Government’s great success stories is the fact that they have brought about a growing economy with low inflation and falling unemployment? Will he now accept an invitation from me to visit Macclesfield, where all those facts are amply demonstrated–where we have a Conservative-controlled authority, where unemployment is falling and where we have an area that is proud to be Tory?

    The Prime Minister: I am delighted that Macclesfield is doing so well. Throughout the country, we see falling unemployment, increasing growth, increasing jobs and increasing prosperity. That will continue to be the case while we retain a Conservative Government following the policies that we have followed in the past few years.

     

    Q2. Mr. Wigley: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 5 November.

    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Wigley: Is the Prime Minister aware that more than 40 per cent. of retirement households in these islands depend entirely on the state pension–and that for a single person it is only £61 a week? Is he further aware that, if the link between pensions and earnings had not been broken in 1980, the pension would be £83 a week? On what basis can the Government deny pensioners who depend totally on the state pension any share at all in the increase in prosperity over that period?

    The Prime Minister: Of course I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concerns. That is why we have always recognised the significance of the state pension as the cornerstone of income in retirement, and ensured that it has kept up with the increase in prices. In addition, of course, I accept that for many people the state pension is not intended to be the sole income. That is why, in preparation for the future, we have encouraged personal responsibility and additional pension provision and why, for the present, we have targeted additional resources on the safety net of income-related benefits for people who have no resources other than the state benefit. That is apart from the entitlement that they would certainly have to council tax benefit and housing benefit, so we have targeted a great deal of additional resources to ensure that people who do not have a substantial income and who perhaps depend entirely on the state pension have additional help.

    Mr. Carrington: As my right hon. Friend knows, millions of ordinary people own shares in privatised utilities. Does he agree that a windfall tax on those utilities would damage those investments and push up prices for the consumer?

    The Prime Minister: There is no doubt about that. It is no good promising on the one hand to cut VAT on fuel while, on the other, proposing a windfall tax on the utilities which would put up the price of fuel by more than any potential reduction in VAT. Thus far, the shadow Chancellor seems to be spending the windfall tax on a number of different things, including helping the long-term unemployed back to work, improvements in child care provision–[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]–new environmental tasks, small business VAT relief–[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]. I am glad to hear Labour Members cheering. How much will the windfall tax be, and upon whom will it be levied? What will it do to the price of the utilities, which are used by everybody in the country? The more Labour Members cheer the spending, the more we know that the windfall tax will rise.

     

    Q3. Mrs. Ewing: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 5 November.

    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Mrs. Ewing: On this historic day when a certain individual tried to set fire to the House of Commons, will the right hon. Gentleman give some serious consideration to the thousands of pensioners and disabled people who, this winter, will be afraid to put on the fires in their houses? Will he give serious consideration to a reduction of VAT on fuel, a review of the home energy efficiency scheme and an automatic payment, thereby giving us a better reason to remember 5 November?

    The Prime Minister: I have always rather fondly hoped that we celebrated Guy Fawkes day because he failed to blow up the House of Commons. The hon. Lady’s point is similar to that raised a few moments ago by the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), and I hope that I can rest on that answer.