| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Former Civil Servants
9. Mr. Flight: What representations he has received on the economic circumstances of former members of the Civil Service who took a gratuity on leaving the service in the 1960s and 1970s. [25365]
Mr. Kilfoyle: Only those made by the hon. Member.
Mr. Flight: I thank the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster for his detailed letter setting out the contractual history. Has the Minister any estimate of the number of female former civil servants whose pensions have been either lost or reduced as a result of their taking gratuities? The situation may be contractually correct, but did those individuals receive the same standard of advice that is now expected of those advising people on their pension arrangements?
Mr. Kilfoyle: No estimate has been made, and the hon. Gentleman knows the difficulties in trying to do so. As to some rearrangement after this period of time, the hon. Gentleman knows that that is an actuarial rather than a political or administrative point. Those who took the marriage gratuity before 1972 were, in the context of their time, advantaged. Oddly enough, the people who were disadvantaged were those who chose to leave the civil service before the age of 50, both male and female.
Public Appointments Unit
10. Mrs. Lait: How many vacancies on public bodies have been filled from the list held by the public appointments unit since 1 May. [25366]
Mr. Kilfoyle: Since May, the public appointments unit has made nominations for around 600 appointments. Over the same period, it has learnt of 59 appointments that have been made following nomination by the unit. A number of recent appointments are still under consideration.
Mrs. Lait: I thank the Minister for that reply, but is he not horrified at how few appointments are made from the public appointments unit, given the thousands of public appointments that there are? Is he aware that, in the "Civil Service Year Book", no civil servant with responsibility for the list is listed? Does he not think it time that the public appointments unit is boosted or, given the cynicism with which it is regarded by those outside who wish to offer themselves for public service, is killed off?
Mr. Kilfoyle: What horrified me after 1 May was the extent to which the Conservatives, while in government, boosted the Tory nomenklatura on the quangocracy. We have attempted to use all means possible, including the public appointments unit, to ensure that there is the widest possible dissemination of information about vacancies on quangos, and to ensure that more women and ethnic minorities get the representation that was denied them in the previous 18 years in the unelected quango state.
UK Presidency
11. Ann Clwyd: What plans he has to press for the simplification of EU rules and administrative procedures during the UK presidency. [25367]
Dr. Clark: My presidency initiative is to press for the simplification of European Union rules and administrative procedures. To make these as effective as possible, I have secured the support of my Austrian and German counterparts to continue the initiative during their presidencies, which follow ours. That means that there will be a 18-month campaign to make European regulations more relevant and focused. I hope that that will mean that silly talk of square eggs and straight bananas will become a thing of the past.
Ann Clwyd: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. When I was a Member of the European Parliament, I spent much of my time trying to translate the gobbledegook of European language into language that people could understand. Will he look at that matter and see whether we can give information to people in clear, simple language so that they know their rights and opportunities as European citizens?
Dr. Clark: I agree with my hon. Friend. Indeed, last week I spent a day with Members of the European Parliament in Brussels trying to explore ways in which to tackle this particularly difficult issue, because it is important that rules and regulations emanating from Governments should be clear and understandable to our citizens. We also took the initiative of launching citizen--[Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. Hon. Members should stop this hullabaloo when the leaders of the parties come in. It is a total waste of time. I had hoped that the Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons might have got it through to Members before now that we do not want these last hurrahs when the leaders of the parties come into the Chamber.
Dr. Clark: I also took the opportunity the week before last to launch the citizen first campaign in Britain, which draws to the attention of the British people their rights under European legislation.
Mr. Maclennan: Will the Chancellor acknowledge that the difficulties of interpretation of European regulations can be compounded by the work of our parliamentary draftsmen, who should be encouraged to follow the best practice of the Government in bringing in clear language that does not restrict discretions in the way in which some legislation, particularly agricultural subordinate legislation, of which he will be aware, has in the past?
Dr. Clark: The right hon. Gentleman raises a real point. We need to be careful that we do not have "gold plating" of European legislation when we incorporate it into our domestic legislation.
Freedom of Information
12. Mr. Dalyell: Pursuant to his oral answer of 30 July 1997, Official Report, columns 322-23, what representations he has received from broadcasting interests on freedom of information. [25368]
Dr. David Clark: I have received a letter from the chief executive of BBC News, which said that the BBC would submit a corporate response to the freedom of information White Paper in due course.
Mr. Dalyell: How about the investigation rights of journalists?
Dr. Clark: It would be very strange if the Freedom of Information Act brought in restrictions on the role of journalists--[Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. I will not have such noise from Government Members either. [Interruption.] We want no geese in the Chamber. I hope that I have made myself clear and that we shall not have this on any other Wednesday.
Dr. Clark: It will be right and proper for any publicly funded organisation such as the BBC to be open to freedom of information, but nothing must be done to restrict investigative journalists or to put pressure on journalists to disclose sources. We made that clear and that is my commitment.
Smartcards
13. Mr. Sheerman: What plans he has to utilise smartcards for the delivery of public services. [25369]
Dr. David Clark: The new technology of smartcards will form a major part of our better government programme, allowing us to modernise public services and deliver flexible, user-friendly packages to our citizens. My Department is focusing on using smartcards to put electronic signatures on electronic forms, which will make life much easier for business people and ordinary citizens. The Government are exploring ways of using smartcards to make life easier for citizens in their dealings with government.
Mr. Sheerman: Has my right hon. Friend examined the experience of France and Germany, which use smartcards extensively in their health services? The process saves an enormous amount of money and a lot of the filing that takes up much of the accommodation of hospitals and general practitioner surgeries. Will he consider whether that experience is applicable to Britain, which has the leaders in smartcards in our leading-edge supermarkets?
Dr. Clark: We are examining all sorts of ways of using smartcards. We are aware of the experiments and work undertaken in Germany and France. There is a project involving the Benefits Agency and the Post Office to consider how to use smartcards and other cards for the delivery of benefits. That will involve considerable new
investment under a private finance initiative for the Post Office. We are exploring along the lines that my hon. Friend suggests.PRIME MINISTER
The Prime Minister was asked--
Engagements
Q1.[25384] Mr. Sanders: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 4 February.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. Later today, I go to the United States of America.
Mr. Sanders: Is the Prime Minister aware that there is a national health service dentist in my constituency [Hon. Members: "Only one?] Yes, only one, and he has to charge his patients £3 a month to continue dispensing on the NHS. Is that legal? Does it fit with the concept of a fully comprehensive national health service free at the point of use? What will the Prime Minister do to increase NHS dentistry in my constituency and elsewhere?
The Prime Minister: We want as much NHS dentistry as possible, but the hon. Gentleman knows that we have inherited a situation where the number of dentists on the NHS was slashed by the previous Government. However, as a result of what the Government have done, £1.5 billion extra is going into the NHS. That is not as much investment as we want, but at least under this Government we are getting the chance to rebuild and renew the national health service as the citizens of our country want.
Q2.[25385] Mr. Rhodri Morgan: When my right hon. Friend flies to Washington, he will not need the services of rocket science to observe that the United States has a democratically elected upper house, whereas we have a Heath Robinson contraption, including the absurdity of an hereditary grouse-moors-R-us component with its built-in Tory majority. When is he going to bring that disgrace to democracy to an end and move the hereditary peers out of Parliament and put them where they belong: in the millennium dome as a permanent exhibition dedicated to feudalism in all its forms?
The Prime Minister: As soon as possible. I am delighted by reports that the Conservative party is changing its policy and will back House of Lords reform. There appear to be a few heads nodding and a few heads shaking. That is about par for the course for today's Tory party. It is essential that we remove a blight on the nation's democracy--that of hereditary peers sitting in the House of Lords making laws. That has no place in a modern democracy, and under our Government it will be got rid of.
Mr. Hague: When the Prime Minister goes to the United States later today, will he take with him the message that there is strong support across all political parties for the backing that this country has given to the United States in its firm stand on Iraq, in its determination to enforce United Nations resolutions and
in dealing with horrific weapons of mass destruction? I am sure that he agrees with us that history has taught us not to be weak in the face of an evil dictator.
The Prime Minister: Yes. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his support. It is absolutely essential that we bring Saddam Hussein back into line with the UN resolution under which he agreed that chemical, biological and nuclear weapons of mass destruction would be removed and destroyed. That resolution was passed by the UN, and it was an agreement that Saddam Hussein entered into: it was part of the deal that ended the Gulf war. It is absolutely essential that we enforce that agreement, otherwise we will have to deal with an even more dangerous situation a few years, or even a few months, down the line.
I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's support and for the support of other political leaders. It is essential that we send out the firmest possible message to Saddam Hussein today and every day until he complies with those UN resolutions.
Mr. Hague:
In supporting the Prime Minister's remarks, may I ask him to agree that history has also taught us that we owe it to our armed forces to exhaust every diplomatic possibility before we use force, to have clear objectives for any military action and to ensure that the armed forces have all the support they need to attain those objectives if they are called upon?
The Prime Minister:
Yes, that is right. We must have the clearest possible strategic and military objectives in any action that we take. Let me repeat that it is our desire--and the desire of everyone involved--to find a diplomatic solution. No one wants to use force, but history has taught us, first, that, in the case of Saddam Hussein, unless diplomacy is backed up by force it will not be successful and, secondly, that it is of paramount importance to prevent his developing the weapons of mass destruction that he has been developing in this past period. His is not a theoretical or abstract capability: he has developed a real capability over a period of time. The proof of that exists, as does the proof that he has attempted at every stage to obstruct the UN inspectors so as to prevent them from carrying out their task.
Of course we shall seek a diplomatic solution. We all want a diplomatic solution, but no one should be in any doubt that our bottom line is that those Security Council resolutions necessary for the peace of the world will be enforced.
Ms Ryan:
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the fact that a child in social class V is five times more likely to die before the age of 15 than a child in social class I cannot be tolerated? What are the Government doing to ensure that improving public health for all is given the highest priority?
The Prime Minister:
That is the Government's priority, which is why we have introduced proposals to improve public health. Experience has taught us that problems of ill health, particularly among children, are often connected with poverty, poor housing and high levels of unemployment. That is precisely why we have set up the £3.5 billion welfare-to-work programme, why we are tackling the problem of poor educational
Mr. Ashdown:
Given Saddam Hussein's record on cruelty and international aggression, will the Prime Minister explain what he believes the consequence would be if we failed to take the actions that may ultimately be necessary to convince and persuade Saddam Hussein that he cannot flout international law and thumb his nose at the international community?
The Prime Minister:
Yes, I will. I should also tell the right hon. Gentleman and the House that we have issued a document, which we will send to all Members of Parliament today, detailing the exact weapons findings that the United Nations inspectors have made. For example, in the last six years they have uncovered some 38,000 chemical weapons, some 480,000 litres of live chemical warfare agents, 48 Scud missiles, 30 missile warheads and a vast biological weapon production plant which they then destroyed.
That is my first point. My second is that, at every stage, Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi authorities have lied and deceived people about the existence of those weapons. If anything could make clearer the case for our ensuring that the UN inspectors can carry out their work, it is that evidence. That is why I say that this is not a theoretical or an abstract threat; it is not a test of international virility or machismo. It is a genuine desire to ensure that we enforce the conditions necessary for peace.
The short answer to the right hon. Gentleman's question is that, if we do not stop Saddam Hussein, there is every possibility that he will develop weapons of mass destruction, and--on the basis of experience--use them.
Mr. Sedgemore:
Can my right hon. Friend think of a better or more inspirational celebration of the 50th anniversary of the national health service than the historic decision to keep St. Bartholomew's open as a world-class hospital dedicated to the service of people in one of the poorest parts of the kingdom?
The Prime Minister:
As my two eldest children were born at Bart's, I well appreciate the importance of keeping it as a hospital in London.
The important feature of yesterday's announcement is that it allows to develop London's long-term health care needs. It is not just a question of Bart's; it is a question of the framework for the long-term development of primary health care services, mental health services and, of course, hospitals, which gives us the chance to build a national health service that is fit for the 21st century in London.
Q3.[25386] Mr. Hawkins:
When one of the Prime Minister's junior Ministers says that the green belt is "up for grabs" and other Ministers overrule the decision to reject housing development in the south-east of England--whereas in the run-up to the general election the Prime Minister and his party were saying that Labour would look after the countryside--is it not yet another Labour broken promise?
The Prime Minister:
No, it is not--and there has, perhaps, been no more hypocritical or opportunist campaign than the Conservative campaign on the countryside.
Let me explain the facts. First, we are continuing precisely the policy of the last Government, apart from the fact that we are tightening it. Secondly, when in government, the Conservatives said that they wanted 50 per cent. of development to be on brown-field sites; then, in their manifesto, it was 60 per cent.; then their junior environment spokesman said that it was 75 per cent.; then the Leader of the Opposition said that it was 66 per cent. Shall I tell the House what the Conservatives did in government? In government, it was 42 per cent. Whatever the Conservatives say now, it is not what they did in government, and this Government intend to do better than they did.
Mr. Connarty:
When the Prime Minister goes to the United States of America, I am sure he will congratulate the President on the surplus in their budget. I wonder whether he, bolstered by his own popularity in this country and the popularity of this Government, will suggest to the United States President that it is time in a mature democracy that they looked again at the policy of oppression of the Cuban people and particularly looked at getting rid of the Helms-Burton Bill, which prevents the people of Cuba moving smoothly to a democratic situation.
The Prime Minister:
I do not know whether that will be part of the conversation between us, but I am aware of my hon. Friend's views and he will be aware of the Government's position.
Q4.[25387] Mr. Burns:
Does the Prime Minister still agree with his Housing Minister that a target for building on brown-field sites of 60 per cent. or more would be a recipe for disaster?
The Prime Minister:
As I understand it, that is not what is being said, but in any event let me make one thing clear again. There is an idea that the present Government are in some way implementing a policy that was no part of the last Government's policy. It is completely in line, apart from the fact that we are trying to tighten it. [Hon. Members: "What about Hertfordshire?"] Conservative Members are shouting about Hertfordshire. The Leader of the Opposition went to Stevenage to say that we were bulldozing green-field sites. We have considered the matter. The building in Hertfordshire is entirely in line with what the inspectors wanted: it is not the Government's decision. Furthermore, most of what has been done in Hertfordshire was done under the previous Government. They had 14,000 houses built on green-field sites and under our proposals there are only 7,000. Yet again there is nothing but an appalling, hypocritical opportunist campaign that does not even convince the Opposition, never mind the public.
Q5.[25388] Mr. Rammell:
Does my right hon. Friend welcome the flat rejection by the Commissioner for Public Appointments of Conservative party complaints about appointments by the Secretary of State for Health to national health service trusts? Does he agree that the contrast with the record of the Conservative Government, when appointments were invariably based on whether applicants were card-carrying Conservatives, is stark? Does he further agree that, however hard Tory Members try to pretend that all politicians are as bad as they are,
The Prime Minister:
My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. They are an Opposition of trivial pursuits at the moment. The latest allegation is absolute rubbish. We wanted to make trust boards more representative of the communities they serve, and that is quite right. The Conservative health spokesman made an allegation that has been comprehensively rebutted by the Commissioner for Public Appointments. It is about time that, one of these days, having made a false allegation, they withdrew it.
Mr. Hague:
On the day of the National Farmers Union conference, will the Prime Minister tell the House by how much farming income fell in the past year?
The Prime Minister:
It has fallen in the past year as a result of a number of factors. [Hon. Members: "How much?"] We are putting in as much support as we possibly can, and rather more than the Conservative Government did.
Mr. Hague:
I am sorry that the Prime Minister does not know the answer. Perhaps he thinks that it is too trivial. The figures published in the past week by his Government show that farming incomes have fallen by 46 per cent. Will he acknowledge that the rural economy faces great difficulties? Has it not been the wrong time to cut the payments to the livestock sector and to reduce support for hill farmers? Will he at least give farmers a guarantee that in the coming year the forecast underspend on agriculture budgets will be put back into agriculture?
The Prime Minister:
The payments to hill farmers that the right hon. Gentleman mentions are payments that we inherited from the previous Government.
Hon. Members
indicated dissent.
The Prime Minister:
Opposition Members shake their heads, but it is precisely the same amount--except that since we came to power we have increased it by £85 million. As I say, £1.6 billion is now going to support the beef industry. Yes, the right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: there is a serious situation in farming. That is why we produced the additional package. It is surely important that we manage to support farming in a way that helps it for the long term and in particular deals with the enormous problems that were left to it by the Conservative Government after BSE.
Mr. Hague:
The Government cut the budget by £129 million before increasing it by £85 million, so the Prime Minister cannot boast about that. The Government have imposed millions of pounds of extra costs on family farms. They have banned beef on the bone without needing to and have presided over a massive fall in farm incomes. The only hope they give to agriculture at the moment is that many Labour party members want to buy eggs to throw at the Chancellor. All we ask for is a clear answer to my question. Will the Prime Minister guarantee that money that is intended for the rural economy goes to
The Prime Minister:
What a load of rubbish. [Hon. Members: "Answer."] Look at them.
Madam Speaker:
Order. Mr. Paterson, save your voice for when you are outside the Chamber. Stop shouting.
The Prime Minister:
First, to blame us for the crisis in the beef industry, when the Conservatives were responsible for BSE, is extraordinary. Secondly, I am informed by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food that, when they were in government, the Conservatives never once did what the Leader of the Opposition is now asking me to do. Thirdly, in relation to the agrimoney that the Conservatives are now saying we should seek, we are the Government who have sought extra money. I am advised that, throughout the entirety of the 20 years of Conservative government, they never once did that.
In relation to this countryside issue, as on all the others, people can tell the difference between an Opposition who are opportunistic and an Opposition who mean something. This Opposition have not a single constructive thing to say, which is why they are in opposition and we are in government.
Q6.[25389] Kate Hoey:
I hope that my right hon. Friend is aware of the huge support that he has in Northern Ireland for his personal determination to reach a settlement in Northern Ireland that will be accepted by everyone who is reasonable, but does he agree that there is a vital need to bolster the democratic process in Northern Ireland? Does he share the concern about--or will he at least study carefully--the BBC consultation document that, if implemented in full, would mean that United Kingdom mainland parties would no longer have political broadcasts in Northern Ireland? Does he realise how that could be perceived in Northern Ireland and, crucially, that it would mean that British citizens would feel even more excluded from democratic politics and from full and equal citizenship?
The Prime Minister:
My hon. Friend will know, of course, that the broadcasters are examining the arrangements for party political broadcasting, and it is for them to take the lead in that. I understand that she has concerns about the proposals and why she puts those concerns forward, but it is clear that these are matters for the broadcasters. I am sure that they will have heard what she has said and the remarks that I have made.
Q7.[25390] Sir Robert Smith:
Will the Prime Minister take the opportunity of his flight to America with his economic adviser, Mr. Gavyn Davies, to ask him about his latest report on the UK economy in which he claims that there is plenty of scope for additional public spending, given the war chest that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is building? When he asks Mr. Davies about that, perhaps the Prime Minister will be able to deal with the problems that are faced by farmers in my constituency, the elderly and those who receive cold weather payments
The Prime Minister:
Gavyn Davies has not, as far as I am aware, supported the Liberal Democrats' claims of some great war chest. On cold weather payments, the Government are giving £200 million of help to pensioners, including £50 directly to pensioner family households who are on income support.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |