| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Food Safety
9. Mr. Heppell: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what discussions he has had with colleagues on issues relating to food safety. [4935]
Dr. David Clark: At the request of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, I chair the ministerial group on food safety. In this capacity, I co-ordinate departmental considerations of issues arising from the establishment of the food standards agency and other aspects of food safety.
Mr. Heppell: Can my right hon. Friend confirm what I believe that he was saying earlier--that responsibility for the food standards agency when it is set up will rest with the Secretary of State for Health--and can he tell us how it will report to the House?
Dr. Clark: It is envisaged that the food standards agency will be a body akin to the Health and Safety Commission which for the past 20 years has served health and safety in Britain very well. At the end of the day, it has been decided that the food standards agency should report to the House through a Department of Health Minister.
Mr. Paice: I welcome the fact that McDonald's now recognises that British beef is safe, but can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House of any action taken by his Government which means that British beef was any safer last week than it was on 1 May?
Dr. Clark: It stretches credulity a little for a member of the Conservative party to talk about the safety of British beef. That is the party which was supposed to go ahead with a cull of beef cattle to try to ensure that Britain's beef herd was safe. That is the party which promised that the European ban would be lifted when it was not. The Government will take no lecturing at all on the beef industry from Conservative Members.
Open Government
11. Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans he has to provide public access to information terminals to allow communication with Government. [4937]
Dr. David Clark: A number of pilot projects using public access terminals have been set up around the
country. They provide information on a range of public services and local amenities. As I suspect that the hon. Gentleman knows, the purpose of the pilots is to test consumer acceptance of the terminals as service delivery mechanisms. We intend a number of similar projects to be distributed throughout the country during the coming year.
Mr. Bruce: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that answer. Can he tell the House when citizens in my constituency, having heard the Budget speech, will be able to punch in their own details and find out how much money the Labour party intends to take out of their pockets?
Dr. Clark: The hon. Gentleman will have to wait a little while before even he knows the answer--if that is indeed the answer. In all seriousness, the hon. Gentleman has long taken an interest in the subject of his main question and, like me, he knows the implications and the impact that information technology will have on the delivery of Government information and Government services to individuals. He will be pleased to know that I have made arrangements for right hon. and hon. Members to view some of the access terminals and that a demonstration will be staged from 7 to 11 July in the Upper Waiting Hall.
Citizens Charter
12. Mr. Evans: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what recent representations he has received concerning the future of the citizens charter. [4938]
Mr. Kilfoyle: Two weeks ago, we met representatives from the National Consumer Council to talk about the new Government agenda, of which the charter is one part. We are also in discussion with a number of other interested organisations on the future of the charter programme. We also have the helpful report on the charter published in March by the Public Service Committee, on which the hon. Gentleman served.
Mr. Evans: As the Minister will know, the citizens charter was introduced by the Conservative Government to ensure that the level of public services was increased and that the taxpayer received a high level of public service. I know that he will not be able to assure the House that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not introduce new taxes this afternoon--we shall not have to wait long to discover that--but can he assure us that the Labour Government will break the habit of a lifetime and that the British taxpayer will not end up paying more and receiving less?
Mr. Kilfoyle: One can take the boy out of shopkeeping, but one cannot take shopkeeping out of the boy. That may explain the hon. Gentleman's Poujadist view of what government ought to be about. As he knows, there are 41 national charters, 10,000 local charters and 645 recipients of the chartermark. We want to ensure that the whole movement is reinforced. That takes not money but will--a will that the Labour party has and the Conservative party before 1 May lacked.
13. Mr. Connarty: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the effectiveness of the citizens charter. [4939]
Mr. Kilfoyle: We believe that there is room for improvement, but that there is real potential in the
programme, and we intend to release it by involving ordinary people throughout the country in genuine consultation about how we can improve public services.
Mr. Connarty: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Does he accept that there is a real need to replace the previous Government's top-down approach to the citizens charter programme? What plans does my hon. Friend have to involve ordinary members of the public, who are the recipients of the services on a daily basis, in deciding what is an acceptable level of public service?
Mr. Kilfoyle: One of the ways in which we intend to involve ordinary people is demonstrated by the fact that we are considering setting up a people's panel, to involve many people throughout the country and find out what they expect of services both local and national. We have already mentioned that in the near future we shall be addressing forums of ordinary citizens from all over the country. In addition, we shall undertake trips to meet people in the provinces at various organisations.
Mr. Rowe: Given that virtually the only citizens in this country who are forced by law to attend a particular place are the children who have to go to school, will the hon. Gentleman consider extending the citizens charter to make it clear that schools are expected to deliver children's ability to read, write and figure?
Mr. Kilfoyle: The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that one of the forums that I shall soon be meeting will consist of young children, the future citizens of this country. Moreover, we have worked in partnership with the Citizenship Foundation to ensure that more than 4,000 schools that wished to do so received a pack relating directly to their interests.
Open Government
14. Mr. Amess: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what recent representations he has received about open government. [4940]
Dr. David Clark: My Department has received representations from more than 60 organisations and individuals, all welcoming the Government's plans for greater openness and a freedom of information Act.
Mr. Amess: Will the Minister explain to the House how the new Labour Government's professed belief in open government is compatible with the answer given by Ministers when asked a difficult question--that there will be a review?
Dr. Clark: During today's Question Time, I have not mentioned the word "review".
Mr. Pike: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, for the first time for 18 years, we have a Government committed to open and accountable government--the exact opposite of the previous Tory Government?
Dr. Clark: I am afraid that I could not even attempt to add to the sensible words of my hon. Friend, who is absolutely correct. We now have a Government who
believe in openness, transparency and accountability, and we intend to rebuild the trust of the British people in their Government.PRIME MINISTER
Engagements
Q1. Dr. Lynne Jones: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 2 July. [4957]
The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning, we had a Cabinet meeting to discuss the Budget. I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In between, I am delighted to say that I was able to watch Mr. Tim Henman win magnificently at tennis.
Dr. Jones: Does my right hon. Friend agree with the CBI, chambers of commerce, a string of economists and even the Bank of England that tax increases and not rises in interest rates are needed if we are to convert the threatened consumer boom into sustained growth in a productive economy? Would not fair taxation changes in a generally upward direction be welcomed by the public, who want to see more spent on health and education?
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend will have to wait for the Chancellor's statement a little later, but she is right to draw attention to the appalling state of the public finances left to us by the previous Government.
Mr. Hague: Will the Prime Minister tell the House who gave authority to the Treasury press office to confirm certain details of the Budget in advance of its presentation to Parliament?
The Prime Minister: I have to say to the right hon. Gentleman that, as far as I am aware, all Treasury officials have done is to confirm that we will do what we said we would do before the election. This may be a novel proposition for the Conservative party, but it is not for us.
Mr. Hague: Is the Prime Minister aware that on top of this morning's disclosure by the Treasury, the Financial Times quotes a senior member of the Government as confirming that changes to dividend tax credits will be included in the Budget--something which was not the previously stated policy of the Labour party and was not in its election manifesto? Is he aware that Hugh Dalton, the Labour Chancellor who resigned over a Budget leak--admittedly, he was old Labour and one could trust him--said that one must always own up? Who will own up for that particular leak? Will the Prime Minister mount an investigation into that leak and, in common with previous practice on Budget leaks, will it be a police investigation?
The Prime Minister: I have never heard anything quite so absurd as this.
Mr. Skinner: Hold a referendum.
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right--why not hold a referendum? I say to the right hon. Gentleman that at least with this Government, the whole of the Budget was not leaked.
Mr. Hague: It is all very well for the Prime Minister to make light of the leaking of Budget details which affect
billions of pounds on the markets and the savings of millions of people. He should mount an investigation into the leak. If he does, will he make a better job of it than last week's investigation into the behaviour of the Secretary of State for Wales? When he gave us his assurance last week that an investigation had been carried out to his satisfaction, did he know that in the course of that investigation the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith), who made the allegations, had not been contacted?
The Prime Minister: My advice to the right hon. Gentleman is to quit while he is behind. As for his going back to last week's Question Time, I think that he should stop flogging a dead horse.
Mr. Hague: My advice to the Prime Minister is to answer the question that he is paid to answer. My advice to the Prime Minister is that when there is incompetence in the Treasury, or when Budget details are leaked without authorisation, the buck stops there, with the First Lord of the Treasury.
Does it not worry the Prime Minister even a little that, after his personal assurances to the House last week, one of his own Members of Parliament said, "What the Prime Minister--I am sad to say--said is wrong"? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, if and when these matters are properly investigated--as they should be--the rules of conduct that he so publicly sets for others must apply to the Labour party, the Government and himself?
The Prime Minister:
The right hon. Gentleman will have to wait for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's statement, which will be made in a moment, but I can give him this assurance. We set out some clear promises in our manifesto, and we will maintain those promises: we will keep them. One of the great differences that people see between the Government and the Opposition is that when we make promises, we keep them.
Q2. Mr. Rammell:
In the nine weeks since my election, I have received literally hundreds of letters from my constituents in Harlow about a wide range of issues; but I have yet to receive a single letter demanding a referendum on the outcome of the Amsterdam summit. Does my right hon. Friend agree with me--and, it seems, with the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke)--that there is no need for such referendums, and that they should not take place? [4958]
The Prime Minister:
I thank my hon. Friend. I am rather surprised that the Leader of the Opposition did not raise that as his big point at Prime Minister's Question Time.
Apparently, the reason why some people say that there should be a referendum is the extension of qualified majority voting. I have looked carefully at both the Single European Act and the Maastricht treaty, and there are vastly greater extensions of qualified majority voting in both. Not one word about a referendum did we ever hear from Conservative Members--but then they are consistent at least in their inconsistency.
Q3. Mr. Tyler:
In the light of the outcome of the Aitken affair, can the Prime Minister confirm that he is examining the role of the Cabinet Secretary--and, indeed,
The Prime Minister:
I cannot confirm that. What I can tell the hon. Gentleman is that any allegation will be properly investigated. Many of these matters, however, are currently in the hands of the various authorities that should investigate them, and it would not be right for me to comment on them, certainly at this stage.
Q4. Mr. Pickthall:
My right hon. Friend will understand the concern of those living in areas bordering the northern parts of the Irish sea about the revelation of the secret dumping of radioactive material in the Beaufort Dyke. I commend the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), for the speed with which he has made the information public, but will my right hon. Friend assure us that such secret dumping is not happening now, and cannot happen in the future? Does he agree that this is a fine example of the need for open government? [4960]
The Prime Minister:
I can confirm that, contrary to assurances that were given in good faith by Conservative and Labour Governments, some radioactive material was, apparently, dumped at Beaufort Dyke in the 1950s. Our understanding and my advice is that it was of an extremely small nature and that it poses no risk either to human health or to the environment. We have received further information, and as it becomes available we will make it public, because we are concerned to ensure that anything that is alleged is brought out into the open so that people can know exactly what happened.
Sir Sydney Chapman:
Can the Prime Minister inform the House as a matter of open government whether the impending so-called anti-sleaze Bill will contain a provision to make it an offence for a Member of Parliament to induce another Member of Parliament to give up his seat in return for a peerage?
The Prime Minister:
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, in contradistinction to the previous Government, we shall uphold the highest standards in public life.
Q5. Mr. Berry:
Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge the warm welcome given by disabled people to the Government's pledge to introduce comprehensive and enforceable civil rights legislation, and not least by the 1,000 or so people who lobbied Parliament yesterday? What action is being taken to implement that manifesto commitment? [4961]
The Prime Minister:
First, I congratulate my hon. Friend on all the work that he has done for disabled people. We are currently considering his Disability Rights Commission Bill. Our discussions with employment Ministers and disability organisations are continuing, and I am sure that they will result in the fulfilment of our manifesto pledge. It is worth pointing out that advances that have been made in the field of disability have always
Mr. Ashdown:
Earlier, the Prime Minister told us that when he had made promises he would keep them. At the general election, he made two promises: that the Government would cut taxes, and that they would improve public services. Does he believe that he can keep both?
The Prime Minister:
I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman waits for the Budget statement that is about to be made.
Mr. Ashdown:
Let me be more specific: one of the Prime Minister's key pledges--I think that they were called sacred pledges--was to cut class sizes, but the Government are forcing local authorities to continue to sack teachers. How is it possible to cut class sizes and to kick out teachers at the same time?
The Prime Minister:
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we are committed to cutting class sizes for five, six and seven-year-olds to 30 or fewer. We are committed to that, and we will do it. That is to be funded by phasing out the assisted places scheme. That Bill is on its way through the House of Commons now. We said that we would do that, and we will do it. If we do not, the right hon. Gentleman can come back and tackle us on it.
Q6. Mr. Soley:
Following the successful transfer of sovereignty in Hong Kong, does my right hon. Friend agree that we have a genuine opportunity, over the period for which the Anglo-Chinese agreement continues, not only to exercise our rights and duties in respect of the freedoms of the people of Hong Kong but to build a much more productive and positive relationship with the people and Government of China, with a two-way exchange to the benefit of the people of both countries? [4962]
The Prime Minister:
I agree with my hon. Friend. It is important to realise that the basis of a strong and stable relationship with China, which we want, is adherence to the joint declaration. That is the basis of the freedoms of the people in Hong Kong and we will expect it to be adhered to. In particular, it is important to put the elections that should be held within the year in the context of that joint declaration.
It is also the case that, through the joint liaison group between Britain and China, which will exist up to 2000, and with our continuing commitment for 50 years under the joint declaration, we shall have a continuing interest in Hong Kong. It is in the interests of Britain, China and the people of Hong Kong that we make sure that the joint declaration is kept to strictly--which we will--and that we build upon that a strong and good relationship with China for the future; we will do that, too.
Sir Peter Tapsell:
Does the Prime Minister understand that his attempt to trivialise allegations of a Budget leak can only be damaging to his reputation, especially in view of his many statements that he would aim, as we all hope that he will, for the maintenance of the highest possible standards in public life? Is he aware that the alleged statements by Ministers, which were circulating as
The Prime Minister:
To my certain knowledge, I have sat through 14 Budgets of the previous Conservative Government, and some of my hon. Friends have sat through 18. There is Budget speculation every year. It happens all the time; it happened under the previous Conservative Government and I do not doubt that it will happen for ever. It is simply a matter of the way it goes. As for the leaks about which the Conservative Opposition are complaining today, those are things that we said that we would do in our manifesto and intend doing.
Q7. Mr. Healey:
Is the Prime Minister aware that the legacy of the previous Government has left the Rotherham area with the highest unemployment rate of anywhere in the Yorkshire and Humberside region? Nearly one in three of our unemployed are under 25. Will he therefore spell out what guarantees he can offer to the young people of Rotherham and Dearne that their job prospects will improve under the current Government? [4963]
The Prime Minister:
I thank my hon. Friend for that question. No doubt if I mention the windfall tax I will be accused of leaking the Budget, but that measure was set out clearly in our election manifesto. The purpose of it is to give a chance to young people in my hon. Friend's area, my constituency and many other parts of the country who do not have hope and opportunity, or the possibility of getting a job or decent skills. They will get that chance for themselves because it is right that they should have the chance to do well for themselves and on behalf of the country, because the whole country benefits from a fairer, more decent and more civilised society.
Rev. Martin Smyth:
Does the Prime Minister agree with me that threats from the Provisional IRA or loyalist Protestant volunteer forces are neither wanted nor helpful at this time? Does he also agree that there is something wrong when, although civil servants were aware of an aide-memoire response from Sinn Fein, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland was, apparently, not informed? Surely in open government civil servants should advise Ministers accurately.
The Prime Minister:
I am not entirely sure that I understood one part of the hon. Gentleman's question and forgive me if I did not. I will write to him if there is any misunderstanding.
The aide-memoire was passed by the Government to Sinn Fein in the circumstances that I explained last week. I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman about the case against threats or intimidation to the process. We will resist them now, and if the set of circumstances ever comes about in which there are all-inclusive talks, we will resist them then as well. What we want to see is a lasting political settlement, but the only people who have the right to play any part in that are those who are giving up violence, not those who are following it.
Q8. Mr. Jim Cunningham:
Does my right hon. Friend agree that when crime is committed in the community we
The Prime Minister:
I can tell my hon. Friend that, tomorrow, the Home Secretary will announce a series of measures that will improve the treatment of victims within our court system. In particular, they will try to deal with the intimidation of victims and witnesses, which is an extremely serious problem. I can assure my hon. Friend that crime is an issue which is raised with us continually and we will act upon it.
Q9. Mr. Wigley:
Is the Prime Minister aware that in Wales, and no doubt elsewhere, health trusts and health authorities are teetering on the verge of bankruptcy because of a lack of funds? Because of underfunding by the previous Government, nurses are being sacked; beds are being closed; and commitments on community hospitals are not being fulfilled. Will he give an assurance that his Government will provide adequate resources to ensure that in the coming winter no one goes without a bed in hospital if in need? [4965]
The Prime Minister:
We shall do our very best to ensure that that happens. I have to say two things. First, it is important that any money that we spend on the national health service goes into patient care, which is why we are committed to ending the Conservative internal market and making sure that that money goes to patients rather than bureaucrats and administrators. Secondly, it is extremely important that we take all the steps necessary to make sure that the national health service is available for people on the basis of need, not ability to pay. I assure the hon. Gentleman that those two principles will underwrite everything that we do.
Ms Hewitt:
Does my right hon. Friend agree, without tempting him into any Budget leaks, that millions of families who have been struggling to pay more than 20 tax rises imposed on them by the previous Government will be hoping in this afternoon's Budget for a cut in the rate of VAT on fuel and for a commitment to reduce, and not raise, tax rates for ordinary working families?
The Prime Minister:
I can certainly say, without in any way entering into Budget discussions, that we will adhere to our promises. Those promises include cutting VAT on fuel. When the last Government introduced that it caused enormous distress to ordinary families throughout the country, and especially to pensioners, who ended up bearing the brunt of it.
Q10. Mr. Willetts:
Can the Prime Minister confirm that he supports the principle of independent taxation of husband and wife? Would it not be inconceivable to go back to the days when the incomes of husband and wife were taxed jointly? Will he therefore assure the House that nothing in the Government's review of integrating tax and benefits will undermine that principle? [4966]
The Prime Minister:
As I have said to other hon. Members, I am not getting tempted into anything that
Mr. Corbett:
Can the Prime Minister confirm that his Government attach high importance to giving every possible assistance to helping the two Cypriot communities reach agreement on a federal bi-zonal solution to what has unhappily been known for the past 25 years as the Cyprus problem?
The Prime Minister:
Yes. I can confirm that we remain committed to that. We will have the European Union presidency in the first part of next year. As I said to the House a week ago, we are committed to using the presidency to find the long-term solution to the problem of Cyprus that everyone wishes to see.
Q11. Mr. Rendel:
Given that the money from the cancellation of the assisted places scheme cannot become available to the Government for at least another year, and that many local education authorities are already threatening to sack teachers this year--Labour-run Bury, for example, is threatening to sack 167--does the Prime Minister admit that teacher-pupil ratios will continue to get worse and that the number of primary school children in classes of more than 30 will continue to grow for at least another year? [4967]
The Prime Minister:
What I can confirm is that tremendous problems have been left to us. We have to deal with those problems as we can, making progress in the way that we are able to, given the difficulties of public finances and all the rest that we have inherited. In this matter, as in others, people expect us to make progress as we are able. If we had the support of all parties in the House to get through the measures that we need to get rid of the assisted places scheme and put in place the funding of lower class sizes, we would be able to make swifter progress. We will do all that we can consistent with the proper management of the nation's finances. If I may say so, that is the difference between government and opposition.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |