| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
European Legislation
7. Mrs. Diana Organ (Forest of Dean): What steps he has recently taken to improve the ways in which the United Kingdom negotiates, implements and publicises European legislation. [90877]
The Minister for the Cabinet Office (Dr. Jack Cunningham): We have today published "The Guide to Better European Regulation". It is the result of wide consultation within both the UK and the European Union. This will ensure that Ministers and officials adhere to the principles of good regulation when developing European legislation.
Mrs. Organ: I thank my right hon. Friend for the announcement of that publication today. Does he agree that that clearly demonstrates how the Government are working positively with our partners to negotiate such good deals for farmers, businesses and consumers in Britain, and that we wish to regulate through the European Union and tell the British people how we are doing it, with openness and transparency?
Dr. Cunningham: Yes, and in stark contrast to the Conservative Opposition we are determined to play a leading part at the heart of developments in Europe and not lead Britain into the isolation that the previous Administration did.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Vale of York): Does the right hon. Gentleman share my view that the United Kingdom should subscribe to the theory that the Commission should do less but do what it does better? Does he also agree that Neil Kinnock, albeit a charming man, is not the right candidate to reform the EU given that he could not even reform the state aid regime for airlines throughout the EU as Transport Commissioner?
Dr. Cunningham: I certainly agree with the first part of the hon. Lady's question, but I profoundly disagree with the second part. Whatever the reasons for the failure to reform the regime to which she refers, they cannot be laid at the door of Neil Kinnock.
Illegal Drugs
8. Mr. David Lock (Wyre Forest): What progress his Department is making on tackling the use of illegal drugs by young people in Great Britain. [90878]
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr. Peter Kilfoyle): The UK anti-drugs co-ordinator's national plan set targets to reduce the proportion of young people using heroin and cocaine by 50 per cent. by 2008 and by 25 per cent. by 2005.
Mr. Lock: "Tackling Drugs to Build a Better Britain" identifies growing evidence that treatment works but that its supply fails in some places to meet demand. Does my hon. Friend agree with that conclusion, and what steps will the Government take over the next two years to develop effective treatment so that a person does not have to go to prison as a drug addict in order to receive it?
Mr. Kilfoyle: My hon. Friend will appreciate that our first priority was to develop a strategy with an emphasis
different to that of previous policies. The strategy focuses on the interests of young people and communities, stressing treatment and rehabilitation without forgetting that we have to choke off supply. The national plan tries to cater to individual needs in different areas through the local drug action teams. That will be an extremely effective way forward.
Mrs. Ann Winterton (Congleton): Following the recent drugs debate, the Minister for the Cabinet Office will be aware of concerns on both sides of the House that treatment for drug abusers can take up to 12 weeks, during which time they can become completely demotivated. Has the Minister taken any recent steps in conjunction with the Secretary of State for Health to set targets to reduce waiting times for detoxification and to ensure that there is a seamless service that is followed by rehabilitation services?
Mr. Kilfoyle: The hon. Lady will appreciate that one of the problems in her cri de coeur for a seamless service is that there are many different forms of treatment. We want to ensure consistency in our overall objectives, and we and the Department of Health keep these matters under constant review.
Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover): Does my hon. Friend agree that when millions of parents and others in Britain are wrestling with the problems of drug abuse among young people, and when the Government are trying to do their level best to tackle those problems, it is a sad state of affairs that the Tory Opposition receive £1 million a year from one of the biggest drug runners in the west? [Hon. Members: "Oh."] Is it not high time that the Leader of the Opposition had the guts to get rid of him?
Mr. Kilfoyle: I obviously hear what my hon. Friend says, but he will not expect me to comment on the specifics of allegations that have appeared in newspapers and elsewhere. I share--I hope that we all do--his empathy with the many parents worried about the plague of drugs that affects their children and about its effect on wider communities. He will appreciate the efforts of the enforcement agencies which are pledged to try to stem the flow of drugs into the country.
Civil Servants (Work Experience)
10. Fiona Mactaggart (Slough): What progress he has made in developing opportunities for civil servants to gain relevant work experience in private companies and public institutions outside the civil service. [90880]
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr. Peter Kilfoyle): The White Paper "Modernising Government" showed how we are promoting the exchange of people and good practice between the civil service and other organisations through the interchange initiative. Departments and agencies are on course to meet the current target of 50 per cent. of the senior civil service having experience outside Whitehall by 2005.
Fiona Mactaggart: I am glad to hear that we are on course towards that target. Will the Minister consider giving us a report on which Departments are taking initiatives, and what those initiatives are? That would
allow us to encourage more short-term movements between public and private institutions and the civil service.
Mr. Kilfoyle: The initiative will certainly galvanise attitudes in the civil service and in outside organisations that benefit from civil service expertise. It will help towards the culture change that my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office has identified as the sine qua non for success in delivering modernised government. A full report will be produced on how well the interchange programme progresses Department by Department.
Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the only relevant experience that the Labour Government seem to value is work experience with the Labour party? How else does he explain the appointment of Ian Hepplewhite as the head press officer at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport--a man who was widely reported in the press as being an aide to the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and celebrating at the victory party? Mr. Hepplewhite was condemned by the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) as one of the 24 Labour party insiders who went to a lobbyist; he has now been appointed as a head press officer, having been a Labour party press officer for many years. He was appointed without a press notice or any other public information. Is that what the Government call valuing "impartiality, objectivity and integrity"?
Mr. Kilfoyle: There was a very loud reception for my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) when he mentioned an individual. I think it is extremely sad that the right hon. Lady has named an individual on the basis--[Interruption.] The right hon. Lady knows full well the terms and conditions for appointments to such posts. The byword has always been appointment on merit. People are entitled to put themselves forward for any jobs, whether as press officer, information officer or anything else. They get the position only on merit. I deplore the fact that the individual named should be maligned in the House.
PRIME MINISTER
The Prime Minister was asked--
Engagements
Q1. [90900] Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst): If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 21 July.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning, I met the Israeli Prime Minister and later visited Winsford in the Eddisbury constituency. Later today, in addition to my duties in the House, I shall be meeting ministerial colleagues and others.
Mr. Forth: With which of the views expressed on the future of the European Union by the Prime Minister's friend and protege, Mr. Prodi, does the right hon. Gentleman disagree?
The Prime Minister: I am delighted to say that Mr. Prodi made a speech today with which I agree
wholeheartedly--it was a speech about the reform of the European Commission and how to make Europe more accountable. If it were not for the total anti-European obsession of the Conservative party, the Opposition might at long last find something to applaud in what he said.Q2. [90901] Mr. Patrick Hall (Bedford): Does my right hon. Friend agree that a top priority for the proposed Strategic Rail Authority is to encourage the transfer of traffic from road to rail? Does he also agree that the east-west rail project that is intended to link towns and cities throughout the east and centre of England--including Bedford and Kempston--is precisely the type of imaginative scheme that the SRA ought to push forward to boost local and regional economies, and to raise the quality of life for all of us?
The Prime Minister: On the east-west rail link, I am pleased to say that my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London has been considering the proposals that have been made. She suggests looking at a phased approach that would allow sections of the proposed link to be updated and improved--delivering immediate benefits. More than that, the Strategic Rail Authority can restore order to the chaos of privatisation; in particular, it can ensure that public money is well spent after the scandal of the sale of our rail industry, at a loss of more than £5 billion--for which we have still not received an apology from the previous Conservative Government.
Mr. William Hague (Richmond, Yorks): The Prime Minister must know as well as anyone that the Army is now severely overstretched: 89 per cent. of its forces are committed in some way. Given the extent of those commitments and the need to back up the Regular Army, would it not now be wise to reconsider the huge reductions in the Territorial Army? The Prime Minister can ask his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, who has just entered the Chamber.
The Prime Minister: The changes that have been made in the Territorial Army--[Interruption.] Let me remind Opposition Members that a Conservative Government cut defence spending by almost 30 per cent. and they cut the Territorial Army as well. The changes are to the benefit of the Territorial Army, which will be better used in the future. As a result of the strategic defence review that the Labour Government have undertaken, we shall have defence forces who are far better able to carry out the capabilities that we want.
Mr. Hague: The changes are obviously not to the benefit of the Territorial Army. As for lecturing us about the past, the Conservatives were maintaining the defences of this country when the right hon. Gentleman was waving a CND placard. We are talking about what is happening now. Are not the facts clear? The Army is 6,000 below strength, with more people leaving than joining and, at the same time, the Government are cutting the Territorial Army by 18,000, with the result that TA engineering battalions are being disbanded when we need more engineers. If we are not to undermine the future effectiveness of the Army, should not the Prime Minister at least postpone those decisions?
The Prime Minister: No, because the decisions were taken as a result of the strategic defence review that was
conducted with the full support of our armed forces and has been widely admired right around the world. It is as a result of what we are doing that we are able to meet the capabilities that we have set out--and will in future have better capability, especially in areas such as strategic lift--whereas the previous Conservative Government actually left us unable to carry out the capabilities we inherited.
Mr. Hague: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman should listen to the Select Committee on Defence, which has a Labour majority and which said in its report:
- "The cuts in the TA infantry"--
- "engineers . . . are shortsighted. The TA are . . . a valuable resource of long term insurance against the unexpected . . . We urge the MoD to reconsider the cuts."
The Prime Minister: No, for the reason that I gave. The changes that have been made will result in our armed forces being in a better position to carry out the capabilities that we have set for them. That is not only my view, but that of the Chief of the Defence Staff. The review has been conducted with immense care. It was the first time that any Government had come in and looked at what our capabilities would be. As I said, the result of that review has not only been widely admired but is expected to be imitated around the rest of the world.
As for the performance of British troops and the Territorials in particular, I pay tribute to the way in which our armed forces have worked, especially in Kosovo, and I pay tribute to the Territorial Army. However, just as changes were made when the Conservatives were in government, it is important that we make changes. The difference is that we are making them with the full agreement of the armed forces.
Ms Dari Taylor (Stockton, South):
Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating a group of women from my constituency who are driving a truck full of aid to Kosovo? Will he reassure the House that the Government are responding to the support aid agencies that are helping refugees, who often have only the clothes in which they stand?
The Prime Minister:
I thank all elements of the voluntary sector. People in my hon. Friend's constituency and throughout the country, in community groups, church groups and the voluntary sector, have raised an immense amount of money for Kosovo and have sent out a lot of aid and help to the people there. Britain can be immensely proud, not only of our armed forces, but of the contribution that the people of this country have made to the people of Kosovo.
Madam Speaker:
I call Mr. Ashdown. [Interruption.]
Mr. Paddy Ashdown (Yeovil):
Yes, yes, I shall miss you all too.
I am reluctant at this late stage to try the patience of the House by returning to an issue that I have raised several times. However, having returned this morning
from Pristina, I ask the Prime Minister to recognise that, although we won the war at no inconsiderable cost, it is important that we do not lose the peace. There is a race on in Kosovo between order and disorder, and disorder has made a flying start. In that context, I remind the Prime Minister of the international promise to have 3,000 police officers in Kosovo--there are only 70 there now. Into that vacuum, criminality and political intimidation are moving fast. Will the Prime Minister give an assurance that no stone will be left unturned in the effort to move the British contingent out there fast and that he will urge his alliance partners to do the same?
The Prime Minister:
I certainly will give that assurance. We have been urging many of our partners to recognise--particularly in relation to troop movements--the importance of getting our forces to Kosovo as quickly as possible. I believe that the conference that will be held on 30 July in Sarajevo will provide an opportunity to make good the promises that we made during the Kosovo conflict. We made those promises not merely to the people of Kosovo, but to the surrounding front-line states and the Balkans region. I intend to make good the promises that this Government and this country made.
Mr. Ashdown:
I am grateful for that assurance. However, this is a practical matter. Those policemen are needed on the streets of Kosovo today and there has already been a delay. I ask the Prime Minister to solve this puzzle. He will undoubtedly agree that the professionalism of the average British police officer would be of considerable advantage in Kosovo, where our police officers could make a considerable contribution. Why, therefore, has the Home Office decided that, because the Kosovo police will be armed, British police can perform only purely administrative duties? If British policemen can be armed in special circumstances in Manchester, why can they not be armed in Kosovo?
The Prime Minister:
The decision on exactly how the British police forces will be used will be taken on the ground. That is a matter best left to the people on the ground to decide, rather than trying to decide it here. British police officers are ready to go to Kosovo and we are trying to clear obstacles there rather than here to facilitate their relocation. As for troops, we have troops stationed in Kosovo and we want to ensure that other countries make a contribution as well.
As this is the right hon. Gentleman's last Question Time, I pay tribute to the tremendous contribution that he has made to British politics in the past few years, not least on Kosovo and Bosnia, where he was well ahead of the rest of us and right long before the rest of us.
Mr. Paul Flynn (Newport, West):
Does the Prime Minister believe that those patients who suffer from multiple sclerosis, the side-effects of chemotherapy or other chronic pain should be prosecuted and jailed for using medicinal cannabis?
The Prime Minister:
The same regime applies to those people as to any others. Penalties are a matter for the courts, which will take account of all circumstances. I really cannot comment further except to say that I do not believe that it would be right to change the law in relation to cannabis.
Q3. [90902] Mr. Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire):
The retirement of a leader brings many changes--
The Prime Minister:
I suspect that it is just as well for the hon. Gentleman's future in this place that the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) is retiring.
As to the Sutherland report, we have already acted on some of the royal commission's recommendations. For example, we have improved services for carers by allocating £140 million over three years to help fund more respite care. We are extending direct payments for people aged 65 and over and we have announced our intention to establish a proper commission for care standards, as soon as parliamentary time allows, so that residential and nursing homes can be regulated and inspected by an independent agency.
As for the funding of long-term care, we are considering both majority and minority report recommendations. We want to put an end, so far as is humanly possible, to the situation where people face either poverty in old age or selling their homes to pay nursing care costs. We must do that in a financially responsible way and we will make our position clear in due course.
Q4. [90903] Mr. David Taylor (North-West Leicestershire):
Will the Prime Minister's holiday reading include the 1999 United Nations human development report, which recently noted that income inequality in the mid-1990s in the United Kingdom was greater than in any other developed country? Does he share my concern about that leaden, not golden, Tory legacy? Will he encourage our Government to bridge the chasm that exists between the rich and the poor in our land as rapidly as possible?
The Prime Minister:
Our desire to do that is our reason for introducing the new deal, which is the largest ever programme for the long-term unemployed, which is opposed by the Conservatives. It is the reason for the working families tax credit, which gives help to 1.5 million low-income families and which would be scrapped by the Conservatives. It is the reason for the minimum wage, which would also be scrapped by the Conservatives, and for the £100 bonus for pensioners, which is opposed by the Conservatives. Those are all policies that will help to reduce inequalities in this country, and that is a good and right new Labour message.
Mr. Crispin Blunt (Reigate):
The operational assumptions that underlay the strategic defence review were wholly exaggerated, as demonstrated following the deployment to Kosovo. The strategic defence review cut £500 million from the defence budget. How can the Prime Minister reconcile that cut to the budget with the overstretch that our armed forces are now facing?
The Prime Minister:
First, we have, through the strategic defence review, enhanced our main capabilities, which is important. Secondly, as I said earlier, the review
Q5. [90904] Mrs. Sylvia Heal (Halesowen and Rowley Regis):
Will my right hon. Friend tell the House when he will introduce the promised legislation on the funding of political parties? Will he ensure that those proposals include safeguards to address the understandable public concern about the funding of a major political party by a UN ambassador to a foreign country?
The Prime Minister:
I am pleased to say that a draft Bill will be presented to the House next week. As part of our commitment, we shall ban foreign donations and ensure that donations over £5,000 are disclosed. We should not forget that the legislation has been brought about by the recommendations of the Neill committee, and that the Conservative party, when in government, consistently blocked any independent inquiry into public financing.
Mr. William Hague (Richmond, Yorks):
After the events surrounding formula one and fox hunting, we can see that in only one party is a large donation followed by a change in policy, and that is in the Labour party.
Figures released by the House of Commons Library today reveal that average class sizes throughout the country have risen in the past two years. Will the Prime Minister now admit that when he said at Question Time last week, "class sizes are falling", a true statement would have been, "class sizes have risen"?
The Prime Minister:
That is wrong. Class sizes have fallen. For the first time in 10 years, we are seeing falls in primary school class sizes. When the right hon. Gentleman quoted primary school figures to me last week, he took the figure for one key stage and omitted all the rest. If one takes all the figures together, one sees that primary school class sizes are falling, and so are class sizes overall.
Mr. Hague:
I asked the Library to take together figures for all primary schools, nursery schools and secondary schools, and the answer is that average class sizes have risen in the past two years. That is here in black and white, and the right hon. Gentleman can have the figures. Why does he not read out the Government's own figures for average class sizes, not only for five to seven-year-olds, but for nursery, junior and secondary school classes? Class sizes have stayed the same for five to seven-year-olds and they have risen for every other age group. Why does the Prime Minister not read out the figures?
The Prime Minister:
The right hon. Gentleman is wrong; I shall give him the figures. For the first time in 10 years, class sizes in primary schools are falling. For the first time in five years, overall average class sizes in all maintained primary and secondary schools in England fell between January 1998 and January 1999--since the general election. More than that, as a result of our phasing out of the assisted places scheme, there will be an extra
Mr. Hague:
The Prime Minister does not want to read out the figures because they show that class sizes have risen. He promised smaller class sizes in all classes to the whole country. It is even written on one of his famous mugs. I will show him one; it says: "Smaller Class Sizes". It does not say that for five, six and seven-year-olds. [Interruption.] I know that he wants to see the back of his mugs, but he will have to wait for the reshuffle--[Interruption.]
Madam Speaker:
Order. I want to see the mug and hear what the right hon. Gentleman is saying.
Mr. Hague:
All that the mug says on the bottom is:
The Prime Minister:
There is only one mug in this place. We know the difference between the two parties. The right hon. Gentleman prefers the assisted places scheme to reducing class sizes for five, six and seven-year-olds. When the annual report is published next week, it will show the fact that, for the first time in years, class sizes are falling; that hospital waiting lists are down; that unemployment is down; that we have the lowest interest rates for more than 30 years; that crime is down.
What the report will not show, but what I shall tell the House now, is the difference between the Labour party and the Conservative party. We are introducing, through the largest ever investment in schools, better schools for all our children. The Tory party opposes that extra investment and opposes the money for smaller class sizes, and that is because it is happy to stand for fox hunting and hereditary peers. When it comes to the minimum wage and class sizes, we need a Labour Government.
Q6. [90905] Mr. Mike Gapes (Ilford, South):
Does my right hon. Friend agree that any consideration of the problems of public transport should start from recognition of the Conservatives' 18 years of underinvestment and neglect? Does he agree that, although the additional £517 million announced last week for the London underground is very welcome, the Government must do far more to put right the legacy? Will he assure the House that they will take all necessary steps to increase investment and modernise in order to make the public transport system something of which we can truly be proud?
The Prime Minister:
Again, there is an important difference between Labour and the previous Conservative Government. Our proposals for London underground mean an extra £500 million funding for it. We propose to increase by 30 per cent. funding for the railway system. On roads maintenance, we are due to spend an extra
Q7. [90906] Mr. Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington):
The Prime Minister will soon be setting off on a well-deserved holiday. As he sits in the VIP lounge at Heathrow or Gatwick airport, would he care to read the report "The Future of National Air Traffic Services"? It says that the Government should
for National Air Traffic Services
and that
for NATS
Does the Prime Minister agree with me, the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee, an ex-Transport Minister in his Government and many Labour Back Benchers that he should deal with safety first, and get the Swanwick centre up and running before breaking his pre-election promise on NATS in the pursuit of profit and privatisation?
The Prime Minister:
A public-private partnership is precisely what we did promise, and of course we shall look very carefully at what the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee and other Committees say about this. However, we must get not just the best value for money--safety obviously does come first--but the best system for the future. I do not think that involving private sector management in these situations is necessarily wrong, but we shall, of course, evaluate the matter and do the best thing.
Ms Linda Perham (Ilford, North):
May I welcome the meeting that my right hon. Friend had this morning with the Prime Minister of Israel? Can he comment on those discussions and say how the Government can assist Israel and its neighbours in securing a peace of the brave?
The Prime Minister:
I was very impressed by the degree to which the new Prime Minister of Israel was determined to take forward not just the Palestinian track, but the Syrian track, and to try to get a lasting settlement in the middle east. For our part, we have said that we shall give Israel every support that we can in achieving a proper and just settlement, which recognises the need for justice and the security needs. I was pleased that the new Prime Minister of Israel felt that Britain and, indeed, the European Union could play a part in trying to bring about peace in the middle east, and we shall certainly be happy to do so.
Q8. [90907] Mr. Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham):
Is the Prime Minister at all concerned that one of his Back Benchers, the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Bradley), is prepared to abuse parliamentary privilege to smear a man who cannot answer back?
The Prime Minister:
There is a very simple response to the hon. Gentleman. The Conservative party can refer this entire case to the Neill committee. So why does it not do so? [Interruption.]
Madam Speaker:
Order. I remind the House that serious charges against another hon. Member must be made by tabling a motion on the Order Paper.
Mr. Martin Salter (Reading, West):
Does my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister genuinely believe that the bipartisan approach to the Northern Ireland peace process is still alive, or does he share the view of some Labour Members that there are elements within the British Conservative party that have done all that they can to undermine the progress that we have made during the past 18 months?
The Prime Minister:
I would simply say that I hope very much that the bipartisan approach is maintained, because Northern Ireland should not be an issue of party politics. [Hon. Members: "Oh."] It was not when we were in opposition. I hope very much that bipartisanship is maintained, because it is in the interests of the people of Northern Ireland that it should be.
Q9. [90908] Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold):
Does the Prime Minister recall saying, on "Question Time" on 8 July,
He went on to promise significant improvement by the time of the next election. Given that the number of people waiting who have been referred by a general practitioner to a consultant has doubled in the two years since the Prime Minister was elected, will he now undertake to publish monthly figures not only for waiting lists, but for those waiting for the waiting lists, so that the British people can see what is happening?
The Prime Minister:
Again the hon. Gentleman is simply wrong. Waiting lists have come down under the present Government. Waiting times have also come down. In relation to out-patient lists, this year, we have treated 200,000 more people than last year--far more than the previous Conservative Government did. And yes, it will take time, but we have introduced NHS Direct. An investment of £21 billion is being made in the health service, opposed by the Conservative party. We are renovating every accident and emergency department in
Q10. [90909] Mr. David Lock (Wyre Forest):
As the minds of hon. Members turn towards their holidays, does my right hon. Friend agree that they will be joined this year by an extra 2.5 million people, who are getting paid holidays for the first time? Does he recall that Conservative Members, when in government, decided to oppose in the courts British people having paid holidays, rather than letting them go on those holidays? Does he
The Prime Minister:
That is what they deserve. The Conservative party is opposed to the proposals for holiday leave. It is opposed to the minimum wage. It is opposed to any basic standards in the workplace. It is opposed to the working families tax credit--that boost to 1.5 million low-income families. It is opposed to it because the true one nation party of British politics today is on the Government side of the House of Commons. The Conservative party, as is obvious, is increasingly extreme, divided and out of touch.
"This product needs warm, soapy water".
When the Prime Minister publishes the Government's annual report next week, will he skip the warm, soapy water and explain to people that on this, as on so many other things, he has broken his election promise?
"re-evaluate its proposals for Public Private Partnership"
"to ensure that they are entirely compatible with the safe and expeditious movement of air traffic",
"any decision to opt for a Public Private Partnership"
"should be deferred until the Swanwick Centre is opened."
"The point I am making is we've still got far too many people waiting to see a consultant and on the waiting list"?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |