To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the potential contribution of (a) cycling and (b) walking to the health of the nation. [33208]

Responsible cycling and walking can improve physical and mental fitness and reduce the risk of coronary heart disease and stroke.

May I, as a fellow Leicestershire Member of Parliament, welcome the new Secretary of State to his first Question Time?

On behalf of my right hon. Friend, I am grateful for my hon. Friend's opening remarks; and I can confirm that he and I walked here for questions. I know of my hon. Friend's prowess as a cyclist. From time to time I am taken for a walk by my border terrier. We can certainly agree that cycling and walking are better for us than captaining losing tug-of-war teams, which he and I have both done.

If walking and cycling are so healthy, perhaps we should all be grateful to ASLEF for its strike, which means that people can walk and cycle to work. That is another way of looking at the dispute.

Of course, if public transport was not on strike, fewer people would be in cars, more would be on the railways, and there would be less air pollution. The hon. Gentleman is right, however, to say that the issue needs looking at. Together with our right hon. Friends in other Departments and in our committees, air pollution is being examined at present; but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will indulge in a little exercise whether or not the trains are on strike, so as to improve his mental as well as his physical health.

Does my hon. Friend agree that all exercise is important, not just cycling and walking? In that context, does my hon. Friend agree that one of the most successful campaigns in Britain was the one run by the Sports Council, in conjunction with the Health Education Authority, "50 Plus and all to Play For"? Will my hon. Friend give encouragement to a similar campaign on a continuing basis to encourage those of us who are getting on a bit?

First, I congratulate my hon. Friend on swimming the Thames for charity and raising, I think, some £16,000. That is a tremendous achievement. Next time, we look forward to him walking it.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many accident and emergency departments have been temporarily closed in the last month. [33209]

That information is not routinely collected, but I can tell the hon. Lady that the London ambulance service has no record of any temporary closures in the area of her constituency during the past month.

I thank the Minister for his reply, but I am extremely shocked that such figures are not available nationally. The figures from the London ambulance service supplied to me show that in June alone eight units were temporarily or partially closed and a further seven were put on "avoid admittance". The Minister must respond to the fact that there is a serious and excess demand for accident and emergency places, particularly in London, and I ask him to review his policy, particularly on Oldchurch hospital, because at the moment the demand there is excessive.

Our hospitals are now seeing 13 million attendances a day which is a remarkable achievement for which the hon. Lady should give credit. This month, reasons for temporary closures included burst water mains in two cases, a power failure, an orthopaedic registrar taken ill and a shortage of junior medical staff. The hon. Lady should not seek to trivialise the difficulties that staff face.

Having read the report of the Royal College of Surgeons containing the shocking statistic that one in four deaths in our accident and emergency departments is avoidable, does my hon. Friend agree that a significant reason for that is the fact that too many accident and emergency departments are fragmented and cannot deal with every type of accident? If the paramount priority of our NHS is to save lives, at least in our more densely populated areas there should be fewer but more comprehensively equipped accident and emergency departments which, apart from anything else, would ensure greater cover by consultants.

I welcome what my hon. Friend says because accident and emergency care has developed and changed more than almost any other part of the health service in recent years. Two things are needed: a network of paramedics—highly trained ambulance staff—who can treat patients on the ground and take them promptly to hospitals, and a network of high-tech accident and emergency units with access to all the major specialties. This is not about politics but about the medical facts of survival in accident and emergency units.

I join the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) in welcoming the Secretary of State to his new responsibility. The Minister's answer about accident and emergency departments and temporary closures is extraordinary. He says that this is an area of medicine that has changed more than any other. One of the changes, as he should be aware, is that we have seen a pattern of temporary closures of accident and emergency units across the country—in Peterborough, Hull, Wales and Scotland. Clearly, there is a serious problem.

The right hon. Lady is being ridiculous. The amount of time for which accident and emergency units are closed is a tiny fraction of the number of hours during which they are in operation. It is absurd to suggest that units do not inform each other of problems as they arise, or that they do not have systems enabling them to inform ambulance services.

First, may I add my congratulations to those that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already received on his appointment?

That is true. The new faculty of accident and emergency came into being only a couple of years ago. There has been a rapid increase in the number of specialists, and a growing realisation that the latest techniques in accident and emergency treatment and resuscitation save many lives that would otherwise not have been saved.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to review the working arrangements and contracts of consultants. [33210]

None. The working arrangements and contracts of consultants are a matter for individual national health service employers.

Has the Secretary of State seen a recent report on consultants' working patterns by John Yates, who has advised the Government on waiting lists? In the light of that report, can the right hon. Gentleman explain why some consultant surgeons are operating five times as much as others? In particular, can he explain why some consultant surgeons who are working on maximum NHS contracts are finding it possible to work in the private sector for two or three half-days a week? John Yates has asked for a full and urgent inquiry; will the Minister give us one?

Let me begin by thanking various hon. Members for their good wishes on my appointment. I hope that they will not evaporate too quickly.

"We favour local flexibility to meet local need."

I agree with my right hon. Friend about local arrangements. Does he agree with me that there is national anxiety about the work of consultants who are suspended from their own trusts? It strikes me as extraordinary that a consultant who has been suspended should be able to continue to work in the private sector without let or hindrance. There have also been far too many cases of consultants who have been suspended finding work in other trusts.

I entirely agree that the maintenance of professional standards of medical conduct, both in the NHS and in private practice, is an important issue for the medical authorities and, ultimately, the General Medical Council to consider. I welcome the fact that the Medical (Professional Performance) Bill, which was passed earlier in the Session, will allow a more rigorous view to be taken by the medical authorities. I shall follow up my hon. Friend's point in that context.

Why does the Department propose to stop collecting information about the availability and use of operating theatres? Is it not because the Government want to fiddle the figures for the number of operations that are carried out and cancelled, just as they have fiddled the unemployment figures over the past 10 years?

No, it is much more straightforward than that. We should collect information that we are going to use; we should not waste taxpayers' resources by collecting information for which there is no effective use, so the test to be applied to all administrative routines in the national health service is: will this improve patient care? If it does not pass that test, the administrative routine will be abolished.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to strengthen the NHS in West Sussex. [33211]

I am pleased to be able to tell my hon. Friend that more than £284 million, including £6 million in growth money, has been allocated to West Sussex this year for investment in health services. They will have nearly £12 million more growth money next year. There is also a five-year capital programme of more than £100 million. That represents a significant demonstration of commitment to the health of my hon. Friend's constituents.

On behalf of all my constituents, I thank my hon. Friend for the massive injection of cash that the Government have put into the local NHS. Will he join me in thanking not only the doctors and nurses, but the administrators, without whose skill and dedication the local NHS would not have been able to treat more patients, and to a higher standard today than at any time in its history?

My hon. Friend is right. It is team work of clinicians, administrators and everyone involved in the NHS that delivers high standards of excellent health care, but I must give him a warning. I mentioned growth money in his constituency and in that part of West Sussex. That comes from savings in bureaucracy from getting rid of regions, which the Labour party has pledged to restore. I ask him therefore to point that out to his constituents, and to tell them that, if they want that growth money to flow, they had better have a careful look at Labour party policy.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many junior doctors are (a) contracted for and (b) working more than 72 hours per week. [33213]

Our task forces reported that, as at 8 February this year, 768 hard-pressed on-call posts still required action to comply with our aim to bring all such posts within 72 contracted hours. That was a reduction of 88 per cent. from the position in March 1994. A further 1,776 posts in the less onerous, non-acute specialties are due to be brought down to 72 contracted hours by December 1996.

I thank the Minister for his reply, but has he seen the big notices on motorways which say that tiredness can kill, and that applies to lorry drivers whose maximum working week is a mere 45 hours? Is he aware that the 72 contracted hours level that has been agreed is an average, not a maximum, and that as many as six out of 10 junior doctors may regularly be working more than 72 hours? Does he agree that an exhausted young doctor in a hospital ward where the nursing staff is overstretched must be a danger to patients' safety?

I suggest that the hon. Lady considers the signs in her constituency, never mind signs on motorways. Northern general hospital has one of the best records in cutting hard-pressed posts—there are none at all over 72 hours. Only 14 per cent. of juniors are working more than 56 hours, which is less than half the national average, so perhaps, when she looks for success in this policy area, she might best look at home.

Why do some junior doctors work much longer hours than the average and than those who work a normal week? Is better management required? Is work going on to achieve that?

My hon. Friend is right to point out the variations that take place across specialties. The reason for that is straightforward. Different specialties require different work patterns. For example, in some specialties, a large proportion of the time is spent on call; in others, the work is especially active. That is the reason for the variation across specialties, but of course we are trying to ensure that we come within the overall targets set.

I congratulate the Minister of State on surviving the ministerial reshuffle. Given the increasing commercial pressures being placed by the internal market on hospital trusts, and given that the Government recently announced that the contracts of junior doctors are to be held by the trusts, not by the region or the Department, will he confirm that the hours worked by junior doctors now stand to be negotiated locally and that the wages and conditions of junior doctors also stand to be negotiated locally by the hospital trusts?

May I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on not being whisked off to Australia with the Leader of the Opposition to deliver a lecture, but remaining here to ensure that the health policy set by his leader is observed by the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett). The question of junior hospital doctors' contracts and the custody of them is perfectly straightforward. They are best held at trust level. If they were held at regional level, we should have the curious experience of doctors becoming civil servants, which is not what anyone wants. The details are still being discussed with junior doctors but we are alive to their concerns. Deans will be responsible for the educational aspect of their contracts. I hope that we shall be able to resolve the matter in the not too distant future.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the best measure of the Government's success in this area is not only that 96 per cent. or so of junior doctors are meeting the new deal targets on hours but that we are beginning to hear comments from the profession itself suggesting that junior doctors are missing out on vital experience because they are required to clock on and off, as it were, to meet some of those targets?

My hon. Friend is quite right to point out that such comments are increasingly being made by junior hospital doctors, but, despite that, I must stress the Government's commitment to ensuring that those targets are met. We are determined that they should be met, but it depends, of course, how each trust configures the service. It must be done with two things in mind: reducing the burdens on junior doctors and ensuring that they get proper and flexible training.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans his Department has to review the travel cost allowance and facilities provided for overnight accommodation for low-income parents of children undergoing major surgery outside their locality. [33214]

The 1993 Audit Commission report "Children First" showed that most hospitals provide facilities for parents to stay overnight at no charge. The hospital travel costs scheme for taking a child to hospital is kept under review. Community care grants for hospital visiting of children are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security.

I am grateful to the Minister for that reply, but does he not think it unacceptable that parents whose children have to have major surgery in an area outside their own have to search for funding either from the social fund or from charities to enable all their costs to be met? A constituent of mine eventually managed to obtain funding from the social fund, but it did not meet all the costs. She went to see her daughter who was having surgery in Birmingham but found it very difficult to manage. Will the Minister review the situation and introduce a rule whereby all NHS hospitals provide not only accommodation but transport costs?

The hon. Lady says that families should not have to hunt for funds. I have here a guide that contains information for parents of children going to hospital. We have a very good system of support for families on low incomes—if they are taking a child to hospital, they are covered by the hospital travel costs scheme and if they are visiting, they can have access to social fund community care grants. There is discretion for those above income support level if their journeys are regular and frequent.

Will my hon. Friend not follow that line of questioning and give help only to children who have had major surgery? Does he accept that although leukaemia sufferers, for example, may not need major surgery, their parents need to be with them? Is he aware that voluntary bodies have set up hostels for just such cases, as happened in Birmingham? Will he listen with a sympathetic ear to any of them who ask for help?

I will always listen with a sympathetic ear to my hon. Friend. I know well of the success story of the voluntary hostels in Birmingham to which she has referred and I shall certainly look at it. As I promised, we shall keep the whole scheme under review. She knows too of the remarkably good facilities in the Birmingham children's hospital, with some 29 parents' beds and five flatlets available for families. There has been progress in that area and we want it to continue.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action his Department is taking to reduce the prevalence of cigarette smoking among young people; and if he will make a statement. [33215]

Action is being taken across government to reduce smoking among young people.

Is the Minister aware that for many people the quintessential image of life in Conservative Britain is a young school girl or school leaver with a fag drooping out of his or her mouth? Is he further aware that the incidence of smoking among school girls is on the increase and that the money allocated to campaign against it has been cut by half in the past 12 months? Is not the fundamental problem that the Conservative Government take any money in any form from tobacco companies rather than legislate in advertising or any other sphere to put the health of our young people first?

A Government who increase by a huge figure the taxation on tobacco in every Budget are hardly trying to encourage tobacco producers or the use of their product. The hon. Gentleman thinks that he is a good European. He may like to ask his friends in Brussels why they continue to pay £1 billion a year for the production of tobacco in southern Europe, and why at least one European country taxes tobacco so low that cigarettes are sold at a fifth of the level in this country. He might like to consider whether behind his question and his new-found interest is a certain whiff of Euro-hypocrisy.

Is my hon. Friend aware that one of the reasons why there has been an increase in smoking among young people is the prevalence of cheap, smuggled tobacco? What is he doing in the Council of Health Ministers to raise public awareness of that issue in the other European countries?

We are doing everything possible to persuade our European partners, in the spirit of harmonisation, to increase their taxation on tobacco. Of the major countries, we are by far the largest taxer of tobacco. I agree with my hon. Friend that just as it is very difficult to persuade young people not to do things on the ground that it is bad for their health, it is also very difficult to persuade them not to buy cigarettes cheaply across the channel and bring them into this country.

Is the Minister aware of the new moves being taken by the public health authorities in the United States to consider making tobacco and nicotine controlled substances under the dangerous drugs regime? Will he assure the House that the Department of Health will watch carefully what is happening in that regard? Would not the most effective way of dealing with smoking in young people be for the new ministerial team simply to ban the advertising of cigarettes available to young people?

Having brought the accursed habit of smoking from the American colonies originally, perhaps we can learn some lessons from them on how to reduce consumption here.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many fundholding general practitioners there are in Redbridge and Waltham Forest district. [33216]

There are currently 86 general practitioners who are fundholders in the Redbridge and Waltham Forest family health services authority area serving an estimated 44 per cent. of the population.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that information. Does he agree that one of the great success stories of fundholders has been the fact that they have helped improve standards across the board for all general practitioners by the use of innovation and best practice, not only by driving down the cost of the drug budget, but by bringing areas of medicine into their practice? Will my right hon. Friend undertake to do two things as a result: first to make it even easier for other practitioners to become fundholders as fast as possible, and secondly to expose the nonsense of the Opposition, who seek to level downwards to get rid of best practice and innovation and to crush the whole idea of improvement among general practitioners?

I entirely agree with both my hon. Friend's propositions. He will know that we are developing fundholding by extending the concept to include the total purchase of health care for a particular resident population and by extending it down the patient list size. There is now a fundholding scheme for relatively small general practices. Both of those are welcome developments which follow through the Government's policy of giving real budgets to doctors to allow them to make real choices. That is in preference to Labour's policy, which is to give notional budgets to doctors to allow them to make notional choices.

Surely the Secretary of State must be aware that, although there is no evidence to justify the statements just made by the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith)—there is no proper evidence and no evaluation behind those statements—there is growing evidence that GP commissioning is both more effective and less expensive than fundholding. As the Secretary of State seems to have overlooked them, I draw to his attention the recent remarks by Duncan Nichol, the former head of the health service executive. He said that he preferred GP commissioning and then said:

"You don't necessarily need the budget in your hand but you need to influence it."

The right hon. Lady says that there is no evidence; that is not true. The efficiency with which fundholders use their resources has been assessed at between a 3.5 and 4 per cent. improvement year by year. The total cost of the administrative element of the fundholding budget is between 2 and 3 per cent. Even if one assumes that the total cost is extra cost, it is actually paid for by the efficiency achieved by fundholding doctors. In terms of the choice between notional commissioning and hard budgeting, I should like to hear the right hon. Lady explain why she thinks that a doctor is better able to deliver value for his patients if he is given a notional budget than he is if he is given the opportunity to commit real money to buy real care from real health service providers.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the trend in waiting lists in Dorset compared to the rest of the country. [33217]

The numbers of patients on waiting lists fell last year both in Dorset, by 1.3 per cent., and nationally, by 2 per cent. More importantly, Dorset hospitals have made considerable progress in reducing waiting times.

Does my hon. Friend agree that much of the success of the hospitals in Dorset can be explained by exactly what the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) asked for—the evidence? The evidence is that going ahead quickly with fundholding and trusts has been extremely successful. Will my hon. Friend congratulate the people in the NHS in my constituency and throughout Dorset on their work? There is, perhaps, one cautionary tale. I would be grateful if my hon. Friend would look at dentists in Dorset to see whether he can get them as well sorted out as the rest of the health service in Dorset has been.

On the last point, I am of course happy to look at the position of dentists. I am also happy to congratulate all those who work in hospitals in Dorset. There have been fantastic achievements. There were 97 six-month waiters in the West Dorset General Hospitals trust in September 1994. That figure is now down by 100 per cent. There was one six-month waiter at the Poole Hospital NHS trust in 1994; that figure is down by 100 per cent. The Dorset Healthcare trust had only three six-month waiters in 1994; that figure has been reduced by 100 per cent. At the Royal Bournemouth and Christchurch Hospitals NHS trust, there were 333 patients who had waited for more than six months at 30 September 1994; that figure is down by 100 per cent. That is a 100 per cent. success rate for west Dorset. My hon. Friend is right to congratulate all those who are responsible for delivering it.

The Minister may be interested to know that I worked in the Dorchester hospital many years ago. For that reason, I have taken a keen interest in what is happening in the area. The Minister quotes figures. He should be aware that 811 operations were cancelled in Dorset in the past financial year and that 20 per cent. of the patients involved were not readmitted within one month as agreed in the charter. The Minister will also know that nationally in the three months to March 1995, there was a 22 per cent. increase in operation cancellations. The number of patients who were not readmitted within one month increased massively to 49 per cent. on the previous three months.

I welcome the hon. Lady to the Dispatch Box and to her responsibilities. Cancellation of operations across the country as a whole is a matter for concern, and one that individual hospitals are addressing. Only last week I visited Basingstoke hospital, where a pre-admissions ward has reduced cancellations almost to zero. We must make such initiatives widely known throughout the country, so that the problem can be dealt with.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health when and how he intends to implement the modified weighted capitation formula in allocating resources to health authorities. [33188]

The modified formula will be used as the basis of allocations to the new health authorities in 1996–97. Implementation will be gradual in order to safeguard continuity and stability of funding.

The Secretary of State will be aware that the York university report commissioned by the Government and published in October showed conclusively that inner-city areas such as mine do not receive an adequate share of health service resources. In the light of that information, is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with the fact that it has taken so long to introduce the new formula, and is he as alarmed as I am by the fact that, this year, for the first time, 24 per cent. of the resources allocated to health authorities are being distributed without reference to deprivation criteria? What initiatives can he announce to the House to ensure that people living in areas such as mine receive a fair deal in the allocation of health service resources?

The hon. Gentleman asked what initiatives we have to ensure the fair allocation of resources throughout the health service. I entirely agree that fair allocation of resources is an important priority; that is why the York university work was done, at the Government's request, to ensure that the weighted capitation formula represented a fair way of distributing resources to purchaser health authorities. As for the hon. Gentleman's question about the 24 per cent., the York university work covered roughly 76 per cent. of health care—in-patient and day-patient care—but did not cover the assessment of need for community and other services. That element of health service care not covered by the York university work accounts for 24 per cent. of total resources. That is why that element is not covered by the formula.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that in areas such as my constituency of Colchester, North there has historically been a lack of funds because of the unfair distribution of resources? I welcome the new formulae. Does my right hon. Friend also agree that waiting lists in places such as north-east Essex reflect the problem of unequal funding rather than a lack of efficiency in hospitals?

My hon. Friend is right to say that the allocation of resources to his constituents needs updating. That is why we have changed the formula, and why the new formula will be used to distribute resources in future. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) has returned to us, and it would be wrong of me to let this moment pass without welcoming him back from his travels. Moses went to Mount Sinai and the right hon. Gentleman has been to Hayman Island. It is right for the whole House to welcome him on his return.

The Secretary of State paid a fulsome tribute to the York university researchers who did the work on which his new NHS funding formula is based, but he did not answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Timms).Why has the Department entirely removed the needs weighting for the community health services part of the funding formula? When will the Government start increasing funding for underfunded health authorities in inner cities and in the north so that everybody in the country will get an equal and fair share of NHS funding?

The answer is that the formula does not apply to the 24 per cent. to which the hon. Gentleman referred because it is not designed to apply to it. He asked when the process of change is to start, but the answer is that it has already started. This year, the regional health authority allocation to district health authorities is informed by the new formula, and we will ensure that future distributions are also informed by the formula.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about the Finchley Memorial hospital. [33189]

The Finchley Memorial hospital is an excellent example of a community hospital providing a range of services to local people including rehabilitation and respite care, out-patient clinics and therapy services.

My hon. Friend commends the Finchley Memorial hospital as a community hospital and for its excellent work. In launching the neighbouring community hospital in Edgware, will he hold up the Finchley Memorial hospital as an example of best practice, and so take the scare out of the scaremongering of Opposition Members?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The hospital is part of a pattern for the modern health service in providing community services, and those services have been backed by a further £15 million of primary care from Barnet health authority. That should provide a pattern for the future of which my hon. Friend can be proud.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 July. [33178]

This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Does the Prime Minister share—[Interruption.]

Order. I must hear the question. Hon. Members must stop shouting.

Does the Prime Minister share the public's concern about hon. Members who peddle political influence for private gain? If so, why is he rejecting Lord Nolan's plan that earnings from such activities should be declared? Where does he stand on the matter? Why, for once, does not he give a lead?

When the hon. Gentleman began, I thought that he was going to comment on the rail strike. The fact that he is sponsored by the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers might explain why he did not. The House will have an opportunity to discuss the matter that the hon. Gentleman has in mind, and I look forward to that.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 July. [33179]

I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Now that we have seen the quite ridiculous spectacle of the Labour leader travelling around Australia passing himself off as Margaret Thatcher, is it not time that my right hon. Friend reminded the House that while he was actively working in support of Margaret Thatcher's policies of low taxation, a strong national defence and moderate trade unionism, that very same Labour leader was actively and consistently opposing every single one of those policies?

It seems to be the case that the Labour party in opposition today supports the policies that it opposed so vigorously in the 1980s. I have no doubt that the Labour party in opposition in the future will support the policies that it so vigorously opposes today.

rose—[Interruption.]

Order.

I would have slightly more respect for Conservative Members who say how shameful it is to have dealings with the Murdoch press if they had said that at the time of the 1992 general election.

The right hon. Gentleman and I spoke at length about Bosnia earlier this morning and I am grateful to him for saying at that time that he would raise the general question this afternoon.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, thanks to the Government, the police and the courts, crime has been falling throughout the country for the past two years? In Staffordshire, crime has fallen by 14.5 per cent. and in the City of London it has halved. Does that not show that we are the party of law and order? As my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) would say, by opposing every toughening measure that we have introduced, that lot over there are nothing but wind and soundbites.

I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend. I agree with his analysis and the accuracy of pointing out that the crime statistics are indeed falling and have been falling for some time. Neither the Government nor the police are complacent about the task that lies ahead and I commend a number of police constabularies for the innovative moves that they have made—Operation Bumblebee is but one example—to target particular types of crime. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary believes that it is important to continue in that fashion. We intend to do so, and to continue to give top priority to the battle against crime.

If there is not to be a total and irreversible humiliation of the United Nations and all that it stands for in this desperate situation, do not clear and achievable objectives have to be identified and followed through? Would not one of those objectives be the maintenance and defence of a clear humanitarian route over Mount Igman to Sarajevo to relieve and supply that city?

The right hon. Gentleman may be right about that. It is one of the matters that is being examined at the moment with the commanders on the ground. A route over Mount Igman would be suitable in the summer but perhaps less suitable in the winter. What is necessary for Sarajevo is an access and egress route in both summer and winter, but I do not deny the importance of having proper access and egress over Mount Igman.

Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the Royal Liverpool Philharmonic orchestra and its management on the completion of a highly successful summer pops concert programme that has given pleasure and enjoyment to 25,000 people? Will my right hon. Friend also reflect on the fact that it was held in the Merseyside development corporation area, which represents a continuing commitment to the Government's wish to regenerate the inner-city areas?

I am happy to congratulate everyone concerned on what was clearly an attractive and worthwhile event. My hon. Friend is right to point out the proposals that we have carried out for some years to regenerate the inner-city areas. There is a good deal more to come, and I believe that people up and down the country will welcome it.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 July. [33180]

I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Do the Prime Minister and the leaders of other western democracies understand how deeply betrayed the people of Bosnia feel? They live, or did live, in so-called safe areas, but they have been given no protection in the face of Serbian aggression. If it was right, as I believe that it was, for the House to pass legislation about alleged Nazi war criminals living in Britain, what are we and the international community going to do about those war criminals in Bosnia today who are ethnic cleansing, mass murdering, raping and committing other such war crimes? Will any action be taken to bring those war criminals to justice?

The hon. Gentleman knows the answer to that because it has been given in the House on a number of occasions—he knows that the answer is yes. I know that the hon. Gentleman feels deeply about this matter, but he should not underestimate the work done by the aid agencies and United Nations troops, who have aided those agencies to carry out work that otherwise would have been impossible to complete. Many people are alive today who would not have been but for that action, which was largely led by this country and British troops.

I fully appreciate the difficulties confronting my right hon. Friend in the decisions that he must take with his fellow national leaders over Bosnia. Is he aware, however, that the honour of Britain is engaged in the defence of the safe haven of Gorazde, which the Government established, and which is guarded by 200 Royal Welch Fusiliers? Is it not now incumbent on us to ensure the safety of those tens of thousands of the civilian population who have flocked there? Will he make sure that we and our allies, together with the United States, do all in our power to ensure that Gorazde does not fall?

I am conscious of that, but my hon. Friend would be the first to realise that it would not be appropriate for me to expand on that matter.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 July. [33181]

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.

Does the Prime Minister realise that the recommendations of the Greenbury committee will do nothing to curb the obscene pay rises that have been awarded to the directors and chief executives of privatised utilities? Does he further realise that the announcement yesterday about taxation will affect the half a million ordinary employees who have share options? Is it not time that the Prime Minister took action to curb excessive pay awards in major companies rather than increasing the tax burden on ordinary employees?

I know that it is coming to the end of term, but that is pretty rich from the hon. Gentleman. The Labour party has been calling for share options to be taxed as income for some time. Just as some Members now appear to be calling for a 50 per cent. tax rate on earnings, here is the hon. Gentleman talking about reducing taxes. There seems to be a lack of conjunction between the Front Bench and the Back Bench.

"There is, believe it or not, still prejudice against success".