| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Organophosphates
7. Mr. Llwyd: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent research his Department has (a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on the effects of organophosphate toxicity upon humans; and if he will make a statement. [14733]
Mr. Malone: We have awarded a research contract to the Institute of Occupational Medicine in Edinburgh worth £500,000 to examine the possible long-term human effects of organophosphorous sheep dips.
My officials routinely obtain and evaluate papers in scientific journals that appear relevant to the effects of OPs upon humans. The medical and scientific panel, which is a sub-committee of the veterinary products committee, evaluates research on OPs used in veterinary medicines.
Mr. Llwyd:
I thank the Minister for that answer, but is it not complacent? For at least 15 years, those drugs have been known to be dangerous, but the Government are no further down the line. If the veterinary committee was not shot through with vested interests, perhaps we would get results sooner.
Mr. Malone:
That is an unworthy allegation and, on reflection, the hon. Gentleman would probably wish to
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman:
Has my hon. Friend seen the written answer that I received yesterday on the subject? It states that the veterinary products committee has examined the matter carefully and found no scientific justification, on present evidence, for withdrawing the dips from the market.
Mr. Malone:
My hon. Friend is right, and she will disappoint all those in the House who prefer to proceed not on the basis of the scientific evidence that is made available to Ministers, but on some other, politically motivated basis. My right hon. Friend's answer yesterday was based on the professional and scientific advice that he received. The Government will continue to examine all such advice and, if necessary, we will change our procedures accordingly.
8. Mr. Canavan:
To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the number of NHS beds for frail elderly people in 2000. [14734]
Mr. Burns:
The Government do not produce forecasts of the number of beds, although the number of geriatric cases treated rose by 19 per cent. between 1990-91 and 1995-96.
Mr. Canavan:
What does the Minister have to say about a health board or health authority with a projected population of more than 40,000 elderly people by the year 2000, which plans to reduce the number of national health service beds for frail elderly people to a mere 160, which means that there will be an NHS bed for less than 0.4 per cent. of the elderly population? Would it not be a gross betrayal of the very generation of people who built our national health service if the Government were to deprive them of an NHS bed at their time of need?
Mr. Burns:
I genuinely do not want to be unhelpful to the hon. Gentleman, but I assume that he is referring to Lochgreen hospital in his constituency. He will appreciate that he should raise the issue with--
Mr. Canavan:
Answer the question.
Mr. Burns:
I will in a minute. The narrow issue behind the hon. Gentleman's question should be raised with the
Mr. Nicholas Winterton:
Does my hon. Friend accept that various illnesses are associated with aging, and that, with the number of geriatric beds available, there is a difficulty in accommodating such people in the NHS? Is it not necessary to re-examine the number of beds for those with aging illnesses, so that they do not have to be accommodated in private nursing homes?
Mr. Burns:
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. As he will be aware, the decision to discharge anyone--elderly or otherwise--from hospital is a clinical decision, with back-up care provided, if needed, after they have left hospital. I am sure that he will welcome the noticeable increase in the number of nursing home beds as well as convalescent homes and halfway house wards for people who may need additional care after they have been treated in a hospital.
9. Mr. Campbell-Savours:
To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the future of St. Bartholomew's hospital. [14735]
Mr. Dorrell:
The Royal Hospitals NHS trust is carrying out the decisions that my predecessor announced on 4 April 1995.
Mr. Campbell-Savours:
Why close St. Bartholomew's hospital when the people of London want to keep it open? Why close an institution that opened in 1123, which has been open for 874 years, and which survived the reformation, the great fire of London and Hitler's bombing of London? Yet now it is to be closed by the Tory Government.
Mr. Dorrell:
Let us be precisely clear about what this Tory Government will do for health care for the people of the east end of London. We will invest £230 million in building a brand new hospital to deliver 21st-century care to people in the centre of London. The founders of St. Bartholomew's hospital would be proud of us.
Mr. Brooke:
Does my right hon. Friend accept that the accelerated bed closures at Bart's have exacerbated the distress of local people, who are already acknowledged to be disadvantaged by the original decision on Bart's? Does he consider that a more sensitive political decision of a two-site project at Bart's might have greatly facilitated the progress of this particular private finance initiative?
Mr. Dorrell:
My right hon. Friend has always pursued the interests and views of his constituents very honourably and straightforwardly with both me and my predecessor. As I made clear when I took over these responsibilities, I do not believe that the holder of any ministerial office can revisit all the decisions made by his or her predecessor. I am quite clear that the course of action on
PRIME MINISTER
Engagements
Q1. Mr. Whittingdale: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 February. [14757]
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. Whittingdale: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the Scots and the Welsh were to be given their own Parliament there would be an overwhelming demand from my constituents in Essex, and elsewhere in England, for English Members of Parliament to be given exclusive control over English affairs? What consequence does he think that that would have for the integrity of the United Kingdom?
The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend about the anomalies that would be thrown up were there to be a Scottish or Welsh Parliament. The shadow Foreign Secretary once said, when he was shadow Health Secretary, that he as a Scot could not be Health Secretary in England were health to be devolved to a Scottish Parliament. Clearly there are much wider applications than just health were such a Parliament to be established. That is just one of many anomalies thrown up by the policy of devolution which I hope that we will be able to examine this week.
Mr. Blair: Does the Prime Minister recall the promise that he made on "Panorama" a couple of years ago that the excesses that we saw in the water industry would not be repeated in the rail industry? Is he aware that, in the next few days, the second of the railway rolling stock companies, which was bought on privatisation for £580 million, is to be sold for £900 million? The first rolling stock company, having been bought for just over £500 million, was sold a few months later for more than £800 million. Does he agree that such profits are entirely unjustified?
The Prime Minister: I seem to recall the right hon. Gentleman saying that he supported the enterprise of the market and the rigour of competition. That seems to apply only in generality and not in the real world when companies are efficient and sold on. The right hon. Gentleman and his party are as opposed to private ownership and privatisation today as they have ever been at any stage. They know that that is so and take every opportunity that they can to try to denigrate the success across the whole range of privatisation.
Mr. Blair: I certainly support the enterprise of the market. What I do not support is the incompetence of the
Government. I believe that most people in this country will see the difference between making an honest profit and profiteering.
Can I point out to the Prime Minister that, in the sale in the next few days, the managing director, who put in £110,000 a year ago, will make £20 million and the finance and engineering directors, who put in £80,000, will make £10 million each, and it is reported that the part-time chairman of the company privatised earlier, who worked for one day a month and put in £25,000, has walked away with £4 million? Does the Prime Minister believe that that is the enterprise of the market? Is it not simple profiteering?
The Prime Minister:
It is hard not to remember that the right hon. Gentleman's private office is funded by the profits of privatisation. If such funds are so wrong, perhaps he will pay them back to those who provided them. It is not all that long ago that he was saying:
Mr. Blair:
May I suggest to the Prime Minister that, just for once at one of these Prime Minister's Question Times, he tries answering the question put to him? Is there not the sharpest contrast between the massive windfall gains--[Interruption.]
Madam Speaker:
Order. Let us have a little order in this House. I can hear the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) shouting and bawling.
Mr. Blair:
Is there not the sharpest contrast between the massive windfall gains made on the sale of a public asset that is effectively run through public subsidy, and the misery of thousands of commuters yesterday at Waterloo station, who saw their trains cancelled and their services destroyed because the train company laid off one tenth of its drivers? Is not that the clearest example of a Conservative Government favouring the few at the expense of the many?
The Prime Minister:
The right hon. Gentleman remembers the bad old days of British Rail nationalisation--services were cut with no protection for the passenger. Now, penalties can be imposed and passengers have the right to apply for compensation. Clearly, from what he is saying, he is proposing new capital controls on the market. We look forward to hearing precisely what those are. He cannot deny that privatisation has been a success. Investment is at record levels. [Interruption.] It is interesting to see Labour Members' opposition to private ownership. I shall let them hoot a little longer. New rolling stock is being introduced, extra services are being offered--new services, new investment and higher standards. That is through private ownership across the range of privatised industries. People recall what it was like when Governments tried to run them.
Q2. Mr. Dunn:
To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 February. [14758]
The Prime Minister:
I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
Mr. Dunn:
Is my right hon. Friend aware that grammar schools and high schools exist in Dartford and in a further
The Prime Minister:
That must be right. The message to parents is quite clear: Labour in office would wipe out grammar schools. Labour local authority leaders have made that absolutely clear. As the shadow education spokesman said some time ago,
Q3. Mr. Winnick:
To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 February. [14759]
The Prime Minister:
I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
Mr. Winnick:
Does the Prime Minister take the same view as I do: that the Daily Mail was right to campaign for the murderers of Stephen Lawrence to be brought to justice, and to name names? All law-abiding citizens are pleased that the murderer of Philip Lawrence, the headmaster who was knifed to death, is in prison--for a long time to come, I hope--but it is a matter of deep and continuing concern that the murderers of the 18-year-old lad who was knifed to death almost four years ago have not been brought to justice. Should not the authorities explore every avenue to ensure that his murderers are brought before the courts?
The Prime Minister:
The whole House is united in offering its sympathy to the parents of Stephen Lawrence, and in condemning this unpunished racist attack. There is total unanimity on that point. I am not a lawyer, but I understand that there is no question of statutory contempt as a result of the activities of the Daily Mail. As the House is aware, it is not through lack of effort that no successful prosecution has yet been brought. I hope that, even at this stage, it will be possible to mount a successful prosecution. If evidence is forthcoming, it will be examined. There is no lack of will to prosecute.
Mr. Duncan:
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, unlike Labour's foreign affairs spokesman, the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), he is not
The Prime Minister:
Unlike the shadow Foreign Secretary, who alas is not present, I am self-evidently not at home with the European social model. It is evident why no one should be. The head of European operations at one of Britain's most successful companies was quoted in one of yesterday's newspapers. He referred to one European country, and said:
Q4. Mr. Loyden:
To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 February. [14760]
The Prime Minister:
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.
Mr. Loyden:
Does the Prime Minister agree that we owe a debt to those people who fought in the second world war and who, in their working lives, created the wealth of this nation, and that they should be treated with the greatest respect? Is he aware that in my constituency two elderly people's homes are to be closed? The age of the people in those homes ranges from 70 plus to the 90s. Does that reflect a civilised society, and will the Prime Minister speak to the Minister responsible to ensure that some action is taken to avoid breaking up what is now a family of people in their dotage?
The Prime Minister:
Of course I agree with the general proposition with which the hon. Gentleman started his question. I do not know the details of the case that he raises, but I will certainly ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health to examine it. When he has done so, I will write to the hon. Gentleman.
Q5. Mr. Robathan:
To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 February. [14761]
The Prime Minister:
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.
Mr. Robathan:
In the course of his busy day, has my right hon. Friend had the opportunity to study the form
The Prime Minister:
The plan to privatise the Tote, apparently floated by the shadow Chancellor, seems to have been shot down very speedily by the shadow Foreign Secretary. One might say that it fell at the first fence.
Q6. Mr. Michael J. Martin:
To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 February. [14762]
The Prime Minister:
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.
Mr. Martin:
On the question of a Scottish Parliament, I notice that the Secretary of State for Scotland says one thing and the Secretary of State for Health says another, but it would be petty, mean and spiteful if any future Tory Government tried to dismantle the Parliament that the Scottish people want.
The Prime Minister:
I hope that we shall have the opportunity of a detailed and sensible debate on devolution proposals--
The Prime Minister:
Yes, I had hoped in here on Thursday, and beyond here thereafter, because, despite the passions and convictions felt about this issue by people on both sides of the argument, we can all, I hope, agree that it is an issue of crucial importance to the future of Scotland, of Wales, of the House and of other parts of the United Kingdom. I hope therefore that we can deal with it in detail. There are many questions to be asked and answered. I hope that that is the nature of the debate that we will have in the weeks ahead.
"the pragmatic approach to privatisation is . . . correct. The key is . . . sticking to it regardless of the pressures."
Of course, he said that in South Africa; what he says here is quite different.
"Watch my lips. . . . With Labour there will be no selection."
There would be no selection, no choice, no improved standards, no opportunities and, if Labour had had its way, no tests, no information to parents and no improvement in education across the board. The worst 20 education authorities are all long-term Labour education authorities. That is not an accident; it is inevitable, given Labour's policies and instincts.
"at home with the European social model"?
Will he also confirm that if we were to adopt that habit in this country, 23 million households would immediately face a £2,300 tax hike, which they would otherwise not need to pay?
"The costs were absurd and everything we wanted to do was blocked by the unions . . . Whenever we wanted to do anything to improve the business, their first reaction was to call a meeting of the works council."
The senior executive of Grundig said:
"No employee or business is safe."
That is the reality of the way in which these well-meaning ideas work in practice. The second reality is the 4.5 million unemployed in Germany, the 3 million unemployed in France and the 2 million plus unemployed in Italy.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |