| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Unemployment
6. Mr. Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd): What discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the number of unemployed people in Wales in May 1997 and May 2000. [126698]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hanson): My right hon. Friend regularly meets the First Secretary to discuss a wide range of issues, including employment in Wales. In addition, I hold quarterly liaison meetings with the Assembly Secretary for Education and Training.
This Government's continued record of commitment to getting people off benefits and back into work is highlighted by the fact that the number of claimants on jobseeker's allowance for April has been significantly reduced to 59,170, compared with 80,322 when the Conservative Government left office in May 1997.
Mr. Ruane: I thank my right hon. Friend--I mean my hon. Friend, although he should be right hon.--for that answer. In my constituency, unemployment has fallen by 29 per cent. Youth unemployment has fallen by 69 per cent., despite the fact that I lost 800 workers when Kwik Save closed down. However, I am still concerned about the number of economically inactive people in Wales. What discussions has my hon. Friend had with the First Secretary on reducing the number of economically inactive people in our work force?
Mr. Hanson: I am pleased that unemployment has fallen by such a significant amount in my hon. Friend's constituency, thanks in no small part to the new deal and the efforts of the Government. The Government are working in conjunction with the Assembly on lifelong learning, social inclusion and active employment action--all things which I hope will help bring the economically inactive back into the workplace so that we can obtain the maximum benefit from objective 1 and ensure that unemployment falls still further.
Mr. Robert Walter (North Dorset): The House will be somewhat disappointed that the Minister did not give credit to the bright economic legacy left in Wales by my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague). That was the reason for the fall in unemployment in the past three years. But what of the future? Objective 1 status will make a contribution to lowering unemployment, but when will we see the money behind that? This week, the European Commission gave its agreement to objective 1 status for Wales. Can the Minister tell the House whether he and the Secretary of State have convinced the Treasury to give full match funding in addition to existing plans for the Welsh block grant? A simple yes or no will suffice.
Mr. Hanson: The bright legacy left to this Government was the legacy of no Tory MPs in Wales.
As the hon. Gentleman is aware, there is a process and it has been discussed. It has been explained to him on many occasions. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have told him at every possible opportunity that the matter will be sorted out with the comprehensive spending review in July--it will be addressed at that stage.
I remind the hon. Gentleman that the bright economic legacy to which he referred resulted in 80,000 people unemployed in Wales; there are now 59,000 people unemployed in Wales--it must be brighter under Labour.
Aerospace Industry
7. Mr. Barry Jones (Alyn and Deeside): If he will make a statement on the prospects for the aerospace industry in Wales, with particular reference to Raytheon Systems and BAE Systems in Deeside. [126699]
The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Paul Murphy): I am in frequent contact with the First Secretary on a range of issues and we discuss many aspects of industry in Wales. This has included the BAE facility at Broughton. I have also visited both companies with my right hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones).
I was pleased to hear that orders for more than 50 A3XX Airbus planes have been received. I also welcome the announcement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence that the UK will be placing an order for 25 A400M aircraft and that the Ministry of Defence intends to buy more of the advanced medium range air-to-air missiles, produced by Raytheon, to equip Eurofighter when it comes into service.
Mr. Jones: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. He might agree that the Airbus factory is a jewel in the crown of Welsh manufacturing. I have to tell him, however, of the growing anger and perplexity at the grudging attitude in Cardiff with regard to the company's application for a £25 million grant. Does he agree that nowhere else in Europe would he find a national assembly that was not prepared to follow the national Government's vote of confidence by granting such moneys--certainly not in a German lander or a French departement. Does he also agree that Lord Rogers's glass seagull perch cost in excess of the grant for which we are asking? We should very much like my right hon. Friend to intervene to ensure that the grant is paid, to show us that we are on the Cardiff agenda.
Mr. Murphy: I know that my right hon. Friend battles hard for his constituents and for that important facility. He is right to point out, of course, that the UK Government gave £530 million in launch investment by way of loan to BAE. I shall ensure that his points are relayed to the First Secretary.
Mr. Owen Paterson (North Shropshire): How will the moves by British Aerospace to link up with Boeing affect the Welsh aerospace industry?
Mr. Murphy: Obviously, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry takes a keen interest in that matter. As the hon. Gentleman is a member of the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs, he will be aware of the importance of the industry and of that facility to all the people in the north-east and, indeed, to his own constituents. I know that he supports the UK Government in doing all that we can to ensure that the facility is enlarged.
Economy (Deeside)
8. Mr. Ben Chapman (Wirral, South): What recent discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the Deeside economy of Wales. [126701]
The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Paul Murphy): I have regular discussions with the First Secretary on matters relating to the economy of Wales and have visited Deeside on a number of occasions.
The Government's decision to give £530 million launch investment to BAE is good news for the UK and, I know, for my hon. Friend's constituents.
Mr. Chapman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Deeside economy is unitary? To that extent, my constituents who work at BAE also welcome the A3XX and hope that regional selective assistance will be awarded. Does my right hon. Friend also agree that the environment too is unitary and that there is concern in my constituency about the Castle Cement kiln? Can he say what account has been taken of the views of my constituents in any decisions on planning permission for that kiln?
Mr. Paul Murphy: Yes I can. Obviously this is a matter for the National Assembly for Wales. It has called in the planning application, and a planning inquiry into the application will take place on 11 October.
Hunting
9. Mr. James Clappison (Hertsmere): What recent representations he has received about hunting with dogs in Wales. [126702]
The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Paul Murphy): I have received no representations about hunting with dogs in Wales. Together with my Whitehall colleagues, I am taking a keen interest in developments on these issues and I of course am sensitive to the reactions of the Welsh rural community to this matter.
Mr. Clappison: The Secretary of State spoke earlier about the details of the Burns report. What thought has he given to the conclusions of the Burns report as to how difficult it would be to control fox numbers in the upland areas of Wales in the absence of hunting with dogs as it is carried on in Wales? What message does he have for farmers who are worried about their stock, and who face a difficult enough time already?
Mr. Murphy: Conservative Members know that there will be debate on that matter in the House of Commons in a week or so. The hon. Gentleman will be able to express his views then. On the question of pest control in Wales, the hon. Gentleman knows that, in Wales particularly, the farmers themselves flush out foxes with dogs, and he is also fully aware that other methods that are used in Wales could control pests, including foxes. It is not just hunting with hounds that can control foxes. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman also knows that the great bulk of Members of Parliament in Wales--and, for that
matter, as far as we know, Members of the National Assembly--do not believe that hunting with foxes--[Hon. Members: "Foxes?]--is a good idea.PRIME MINISTER
The Prime Minister was asked--
Engagements
Q1. [126723]Mr. James Clappison (Hertsmere): If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 28 June.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I will have further such meetings later today.
Mr. Clappison: Does the Prime Minister have a view as to why crime is now rising for the first time in six years? Could it have anything to do with the fact that police numbers are going down?
The Prime Minister: Of course, crime doubled under the Government of which the hon. Gentleman was so proud. It is correct that in the last few years of the previous Government, and in the first few years of this Government, police numbers have been falling. However, as a result of the extra money that we are able to put in, which the hon. Gentleman's party would cut, by the end of the year police numbers will be rising again.
Q2. [126724]Dr. Ian Gibson (Norwich, North): The recent announcement of two new medical schools, one in Norwich at the university of East Anglia, and the Peninsula medical school in Cornwall and Devon, should be hailed as a great success for our national health service. At the same time, the prospect of the human genome research in rolling out an understanding of the genetics of cancer means that we shall move things forward on that scientific front. Will my right hon. Friend play a major role in the development of our national cancer plan, and will he ensure that we consider, as the Select Committee on Science and Technology is doing, a national cancer institute, and perhaps 12 Royal Marsdens? Certainly, the postcode lottery for treatment with drugs and therapies must disappear.
The Prime Minister: The recent scientific discovery in relation to the human genome is immensely important not just for science but for this country, as we have played a leading part in developing it. I am delighted to say that the establishment of the new medical school at the university of East Anglia, which I know that my hon. Friend campaigned for and supported, will mean that we shall get the first brand-new medical schools in this country for 25 years. We are also increasing the number of medical school places by at least 1,000--the biggest increase in a generation--and, as a result of the additional spending in the national health service, we shall be able to make the investment not merely in bricks and mortar, and in nurses and doctors, but in medical schools as well.
What the country should know is that all that spending would be cut by the Conservatives, because of their risky tax policy.
Mr. William Hague (Richmond, Yorks): After three years of the mounting stealth taxes with which the Government have clobbered the hard-working people of this country, will the Prime Minister now tell the House what the price of a litre of petrol was when he took office, and what it has increased to today?
The Prime Minister: First, I think that people remember the 22 tax rises under the Conservative Government, including the doubling of VAT after they said that they would not do that. As for petrol, yes it is true that petrol prices have gone up, and it is true that, in the first two years of the present Government, they went up substantially as a result of increases in fuel duty. However, it is right to point out that of the rise in the last year--a rise of about 18p a litre--only 2p has been due to fuel duty. Sixteen pence--in other words, the vast bulk of it--has been due to the rise in oil prices, and that is affecting not just this country but countries right round the world.
Mr. Hague: Millions of people are paying the right hon. Gentleman's stealth taxes every day, and he is so out of touch that he does not know how much they are paying. The price of fuel has gone up 44 per cent. at the pump since he took office, and 34 per cent. of that is due to increases in taxation. It has gone up from 59p a litre to 85p a litre. When the Chancellor said in his Budget speech that he was indexing pensions and petrol by inflation, did the Prime Minister realise then what no pensioner could have known--that the inflation figure that he used for petrol was three times higher than the figure he used for pensions?
The Prime Minister: No. As I said in the House last week, the formula used for pension rises is exactly the same as the formula that has been used for the past 12 years. Yes, it is true that this year it has meant a small pension rise. Last year it meant a larger rise, as it will next year. The formula is the same as that used by the Conservative Government of which the right hon. Gentleman was a member.
Mr. Hague: Since the Prime Minister took office, pensions have been indexed by 8 per cent. and petrol by 34 per cent., so trying to make out that somehow that has been of advantage to pensioners is an utterly laughable proposition. Will he now confirm that when the Chancellor said that pensions would go up by inflation, he meant 1.1 per cent., and when he said that petrol would do the same, he meant 3.4 per cent., because he changed the method of calculating the petrol increase from that used by the previous Government? Will the right hon. Gentleman now confirm that when Ministers told the House on 6 April that they had not changed the methodology, they were not telling us the correct story?
The Prime Minister: That is wrong, for the reason that I have just given. Precisely the same formula is used for pensions as was used under the previous Government. As a result of the fuel duty escalator in the first two years of this Government, fuel duties went up, as was the case
under the previous Government, of which the right hon. Gentleman was a member. There is a choice, it is true. We decided that we had to erase the deficit that we inherited--£28 billion in borrowing and a doubled national debt. As a result, we have interest rates that average 6 per cent.--under the previous Government, they averaged 10 per cent.--and we can now make the extra investment in schools and hospitals. Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that he would not have taken those measures on petrol, and would therefore have cut the money spent on schools and hospitals?
Mr. Hague: If the right hon. Gentleman wants me to give him a Budget, he can hand over as First Lord of the Treasury any day. I am asking him a question to which he has not given an adequate answer, as everyone who is watching knows. It turns out to be the case that the switch to a forecast figure for petrol duties was introduced by this Chancellor. It is no good the Prime Minister talking about the escalator, because petrol duties have gone up twice as much in the past three years as in the previous three years. When he abandoned the escalator, he got into a lift instead. For people who have saved up for their cars, people in rural areas who need a car, and people who are old or disabled and need a car to get about, is it not bad enough that he fleeces them at every opportunity, without using every opportunity to cover it up as well?
The Prime Minister: Of course, the fuel duty escalator was introduced by the previous Government. It is correct that we kept it. Petrol prices have gone up significantly, and of course that is difficult for people in rural areas and those who go long distances by car. However, it is worth pointing out that, although it is correct to say that it may cost more than £50 to fill up the average 1600 cc motor car in England, it is also correct to say that it costs more than £40 to do so in France and Germany, and that France has motorway tolls and vastly higher income taxes. I accept that we had to put petrol duty up, but there was a choice: either we could cut the deficit and make the investment in public services, or we could decide not to take those measures. I do not believe that we would have 1 million extra jobs in the economy or interest rates at 6 per cent. if we had not taken those measures. If the right hon. Gentleman is telling us that he would cut fuel duty, that means that he would also cut the money that we are putting into schools, hospitals and transport.
Mr. Hague: This Government cannot even tell the truth about the duty on a litre of petrol. They are so busy with trivia such as banning musical chairs, bailing out the dome, telling the royal family to move house and counting the number of fat people on television, that they have forgotten what really matters to people in this country. Is the time not coming when the people who cannot now afford to run a car will take their revenge on the people who cannot manage to run a Government?
The Prime Minister: Let us see who managed the economy best. The party now in government has created 1 million extra jobs, got interest rates of 6 per cent., managed to halve the deficit that we inherited--in fact, get rid of it--and taken a million children out of poverty.
Was it our party or the right hon. Gentleman's party which, in government, doubled the national debt, had interest rates--[Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. Stop it.
The Prime Minister: It is the comparison that Conservative Members do not like.
Which party had interest rates averaging 10 or 11 per cent., took unemployment figures over 3 million, had manufacturing output cut by 7 per cent., devalued the national health service and our schools, and doubled crime and poverty? [Hon. Members: "Go on."] Yes, I could go on for a long time, as there is a sad story to tell. There will be a choice, and on the day that there is, people will compare the record of this Government with that of the Government of which the right hon. Gentleman was a member--and they will know that the Tories are worse and more extreme than ever.
Q3. [126725]Mr. Anthony D. Wright (Great Yarmouth): I am sure that the Prime Minister will join me in welcoming the 18 per cent. drop in unemployment in my Great Yarmouth constituency. The statistic for the young unemployed is even more impressive, with a drop of more than 50 per cent. in the past three years. Despite that good news, however, Yarmouth's unemployment rate is one of the highest in the country. Indeed, it is three times the East Anglian average. Will the Prime Minister outline to my constituents what the Government intend to do to build on the good news that we have had over the past three years and ensure that sustainable jobs are created in areas such as Great Yarmouth?
The Prime Minister: Of course I am delighted that 1,000 people have started on the new deal programme in my hon. Friend's constituency, and nearly 500 of them have gained jobs. [Interruption.] For those Conservative Members who are shouting, I shall repeat that they would abolish the new deal. People who have got jobs under this Government know that they would have those jobs taken away by a Conservative Government. Moreover, my hon. Friend's constituents, whose mortgage rates have come down from the appalling levels of the early 1990s under the Conservatives, know that under the Conservative boom and bust policy, they would go back up again.
Mr. Charles Kennedy (Ross, Skye and Inverness, West): Can the Prime Minister confirm that health action zone funding will be maintained in 2000-01 at the levels originally set and announced by the Government?
The Prime Minister: The health plans will be set out by myself; I am covering the July plan in a few weeks' time. We shall set out the details of our spending proposals. Health action zones are immensely important and do a very good job in many local areas, and obviously we want to continue them.
Mr. Kennedy: I think that the whole House would want to continue them--[Interruption.] I was just trying to be inclusive. If the position is as optimistic as the Prime Minister says, why, in a letter that came into the public
domain today, did the Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton) state:
- I appreciate the programme funding--
- is less than previously indicated?
- We . . . will, in effect, be announcing cuts to anticipated Health Action Zone Budgets this year.
- This will not be received as good news and we do not recommend a press notice.
The Prime Minister: That is absurd. The Government have announced new money for the national health service, and it is already going into the service. When we came to office, health authorities had huge deficits, which, as a result of the new money, are largely being cleared. There are already 7,500 new nurses, and there are thousands more to come. There are also extra doctors, accident and emergency departments are being renovated, and extra spending has been announced not only for this year but for future years.
As for the right hon. Gentleman's point about health action zones, I shall look into that for him, but I think that he will find that, when taken with the money given to health authorities in those areas, the funding has gone up, not down. I shall set it all out for him in a letter.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |