To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he last visited an NHS hospital in Birmingham to discuss patient care. [7491]

My right hon. Friend visited Good Hope Hospital NHS trust Sutton Coldfield last Friday, when he met staff and patients.

Does the Minister accept that people in hospital may get too much care because their discharge is delayed by a lack of adequate, immediately available community care facilities? Will he study carefully the plans and proposals of a qualified constituent of mine that I sent him before Christmas? They suggest a fast-track approach with perhaps a small part of the budget being given to health service discharge planners to help people move more quickly out of acute beds so that there would be no bed-blocking. That would save the NHS a fortune, help people to be discharged more quickly and release more beds for acute care.

I read with great care the letter that the hon. Gentleman's constituent sent him. It contained a number of very practical proposals, all of which, fortunately, need no change to national policy to be implemented. I, too, happened to be in the Birmingham area on Friday and travelled to Nuneaton, where I saw a hospital at which such a partnership was in action and social services had a halfway-home ward in which people were able to step down and get rehabilitation treatment before they went into the community. The NHS executive published a book in 1984 that gave guidance on discharge. Of course, we are always happy to learn where best practice tells us that we can do better, but with local action I believe that we can make a great impact on the problem. The hon. Gentleman's constituent made some very valid points on that.

May I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for the action that he is taking to improve accident and emergency services at Good Hope hospital in Sutton Coldfield? However, I hope that he will also recognise that a new admission ward is needed and that, if one was introduced, it would make long waits on trolleys a thing of the past. I hope that he will consider that.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for acknowledging the progress that has been made at Good Hope hospital, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was able on Friday to be at a press conference where it was announced that 65 beds were being brought back into service. That was a step in the right direction. I have listened carefully to what my right hon. Friend said about the proposals put forward by the trust. I understand that they are being evaluated by the regional health authority, which I expect to look rigorously at the proposals and do what it can constructively to help to alleviate the problem at Good Hope.

While I welcome the announcement on beds at Good Hope, when will the Minister recognise that Birmingham is being short-changed on national health service spending and the fact that the 1.1 per cent. increase on spending announced by the Minister before Christmas amounts to only 0.5 per cent. in Birmingham? That will result in cuts in the community facilities mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) and could make the difference as to whether 75 community psychiatric nurses are in post. When will he do something about that?

I saw with some interest the proposal put forward by the local community health council, which seemed to suggest that there was underfunding in Birmingham of some 20 per cent. However, there is, of course, an equitable weighted capitation process in England that allocates funds. I should like to discover from the hon. Gentleman some time whether he is saying that he is committed to undoing the weighted capitation system. Can his Front Benchers commit his party to doing that in a way that would automatically bring more funds to bear in Birmingham? Unless he is undertaking to do so, his observation is entirely irrelevant. I would have hoped that what he might rather have done is to look at the forthcoming merger between the two Birmingham health authorities, which will immediately result in £1.2 million of savings, which will be available for added patient care.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the change in the number of psychiatric community nurses since 1979. [7492]

The number of whole-time equivalent nurses working in the community psychiatric area has increased from 1,080 in 1981, which is the earliest year for which figures are available, to 4,760 in 1994, an increase of 340 per cent.

While I think that my hon. Friend and his predecessor should be given full credit for that impressive increase, which clearly demonstrates the Government's commitment to the mentally ill, does he agree that his Department's report into homicides and suicides by mentally ill people provides even more evidence that there are still not enough psychiatric community nurses to go round to give that essential face-to-face contact with patients—especially schizophrenia patients—to make a success of our community care approach?

My hon. Friend has referred to the confidential inquiry report, which was set against the background of a decreasing proportion of homicides committed by mentally ill people.

How does the Minister's reply relate to the case of my constituent, Dylan Thomas Jones, a mentally ill patient about whom I wrote to every agency that was involved in his case? I told them that he was likely to kill either himself or someone else unless the most urgent action was taken. A few weeks ago, he killed himself. I wrote to the Department of Health to say that that might happen.

That case is a tragedy, and we feel for the family or families concerned. After any such case, the Department of Health and the national health service order a full investigation into what has gone wrong. The lessons learnt are fed into the programming and planning of our mental health services. I can make that pledge, today and always, to the hon. Gentleman.

"Our recent developments in improving mental health services will ensure that the UK continues to lead the world in this area".

I congratulate my hon. Friend on developing the community psychiatric nurse programme. Is he aware that there are times when that programme plays a crucial role in rescuing someone who is suffering from mental illness and ensuring that he reaches the appropriate help in time? Does he agree that his programme has now developed fourfold since the Government came to power? That is a far cry from the Labour party, which talked and talked, but did nothing.

My hon. Friend is right—the programme has developed since those days because the Government have made it a priority. My hon. Friend is also right to pay particular attention to psychiatric nurses working in the community and to others who act as the key workers in each case. Every patient who is discharged from hospital care or the mental health services should have a care programme around him or her, monitored and led by the key worker who is often a nurse and who is able to spot things when they are going wrong and alert the necessary professionals to help the individual get through the crisis that he or she may be suffering. If we work towards that end, we shall have a service that is in the best interests of both patients and the wider community.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of community care provision. [7493]

Since April 1993, the Department of Health has monitored the implementation of the community care reforms. In addition, the social services inspectorate carries out regular inspections, statistics are regularly collected and published, and longer-term research is in hand to evaluate the progress of the policy.

While I pay tribute to the dedication of the medical and nursing staff engaged in the sector, would not they—and does not the report of the Royal College of Psychiatrists—point to serious and growing need? May we have an assurance not only that the Government are pledged to maintain supervision, but that they will provide more psychiatric hospital beds and improve staffing to assist those at the sharp end of sometimes horrifying and intensifying need?

The House can certainly have the assurance that we shall continue to invest to ensure that adequate, up-to-date hospital space is available for those with acute hospital needs who are mentally ill. In addition, we have already announced our intention to introduce a mental health patients charter that will define the standards that patients are entitled to expect from the mental health services. I also announced at the time of the Budget a package that will provide an extra £50 million of new money for the delivery of mental health services. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will welcome those steps.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the resources that the Government have devoted to all community care services have more than doubled in only five years and have been increased by 9 per cent. this year over last year?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the fast rate of growth in the resources available for the community care of elderly people. Indeed, my hon. Friend understates the scale of the public resources committed by the Government to care for elderly people. The figure in 1979 was £851 million in total—almost all of it was spent by local authorities. In today's values, that figure is £2.5 billion. The figure that we, local authorities and the Department of Social Security are spending this year is just over £7 billion. There has been an increase, in today's values, from £2.5 billion to more than £7 billion. We have multiplied support by a factor of nearly three.

Does the Minister accept that there is a crisis in public confidence about care in the community policies that has culminated in today's report on the tragic toll of suicides and homicides involving severely mentally ill people? Has not the Government's mismanagement of mental health policy left the NHS in the worst of all possible worlds—with too few beds in hospitals, inadequate facilities in the community and a shortage of trained staff in both? Surely the Minister does not believe that vulnerable people should simply be left to fend for themselves. When will he address the serious shortcomings identified in the report in order to help to avert further tragedies in future?

In dealing with this subject, the House is dealing with two separate issues: when answering my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) I dealt with community care for elderly people; my answer to the two questions from the Opposition involves community care for the mentally ill. I might have hoped that, when he referred to the confidential report, the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) would draw attention to the fact that it demonstrates that, despite public perceptions to the contrary, there has not been—

That is the point.

The hon. Gentleman says that the perception is the point. The fact that there has not been an increase in the number of homicides caused by people suffering from mental illness is important. It does not excuse—

One is too many.

One is too many, of course, but there is no rising trend.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients were treated at Basildon hospital during the last year. [7494]

In 1994–95, there were 49,873 finished consultant episodes—in-patient and day cases—at Basildon and Thurrock General Hospitals NHS trust. In addition, there were 158,552 out-patient attendances.

Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating the hospital on achieving the shortest waiting list time in Essex? Does my hon. Friend agree that Basildon hospital's success in achieving trust status may be judged by the 14 extra consultants employed in the past year, the 35 extra nurses, the opening of a new postgraduate centre, the award of a charter mark for its X-ray services and the 23 per cent. increase in patients treated?

I shall not add to my hon. Friend's magnificent list of statistics, for they are all accurate. It is obvious that Basildon has a great hospital as well as a great Member of Parliament.

Did the Minister see that the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) recently called for the sacking of the Basildon hospital management? How does the Minister square that with his most recent remarks?

The hon. Gentleman should bring his facts up to date. The episodes that he complains about were in 1992. They were apologised for at the time—and rightly so; they were extremely regrettable episodes. Those hospitals have reformed their procedures and, since then, put in the performance that I and my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) described.

May I divorce myself from the derogatory and disgraceful remarks made by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) about the hospitals in my constituency? I remind the hon. Gentleman, as well as my hon. Friend the Minister, of the wonderful service being done by the Thameside health authority, which covers the community needs of our area. It has recently provided almost 100 new beds for the elderly infirm. They therefore do not block hospital beds in the mainstream hospitals, with the result that we have practically no complaints as sitting Members about bed blocking, which cannot be said for many trusts in Labour-dominated areas.

I should have said that not only does the area have two great hospitals, but it has two great Members of Parliament.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he last met the Association of District Councils to discuss the provision of care for elderly people. [7495]

To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he last met the Association of District Councils to discuss community care. [7504]

The Association of County Councils is representing the Association of District Councils on social care matters where district authorities are becoming unitary authorities. We meet it and other local authority associations regularly to discuss community care issues. I last met them on 23 October 1995.

Did those organisations convey to the Minister the concern that many elderly people feel about the cost of long-term care? What will the Government do to reduce the number of people—now about 40,000—who are forced to sell their homes each year? What additional measures do the Government intend to introduce to make the system more equitable and to ensure that that figure is reduced dramatically this year?

The basis of charging policy is exactly the same as it was when it was introduced by the Labour Government in 1948. We have listened to local authority associations and others and we have sought to ease the cost of people's accommodation. That is why we came forward with the proposals on occupational pensions, and it is why my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced decisions in the Budget on capital disregard and consultation about the partnership concept. We are looking for ways to encourage and enable people to prepare for their future care needs.

"leaves many important questions unanswered".

Will the Minister confirm that the £16,000 disregard is nothing but a cruel hoax on elderly people, whose homes, on average, are worth about £67,000, as many of them will still lose their homes? Will the Minister say something about the inconsistency of eligibility as between local areas which makes care for the elderly a lottery in many parts of the country?

The question of charging comparisons in different areas does not apply because there is a standard national system of charging. Although there are some areas of discretion for local authorities, they are perfectly open and it is for the elected members of those authorities to decide whether they are fair.

Does my hon. Friend agree that many local authorities, including mine, have worked very hard to implement community care both in the spirit and in the letter and that it is generally working well? Does he accept also that there is evidence that some authorities do not meet the standard required? Will he confirm that his Department is not only carefully monitoring the implementation of community care but taking steps to elevate those laggard authorities to the standards and the quality of the best?

My hon. Friend is right on both counts. First, there has been a very good start in implementing community care around the country. We always said that it would take a decade to implement it fully. Secondly, he is correct to say that, for a variety of reasons, some authorities are less than good. I fear that that is sometimes due to incompetence and that it is sometimes due to ideological hostility to the use of the independent sector, for example. That fact is borne out by the reports of the independent Audit Commission, not just by my Department's monitoring. The social services inspectorate and the Audit Commission do a great deal of monitoring and we try to follow that up with good practice guidance and by pursuing those authorities that are falling behind.

Will my hon. Friend consider what action can be taken against Labour and Liberal-controlled authorities that waste thousands of pounds by insisting on placing elderly people in local authority-run homes rather than those operated by the private sector? Is he aware that, in Essex, that ideological and blinkered policy is wasting £90,000 every week?

I am aware of problems in Essex. As my hon. Friend knows, it is an area that the social services inspectorate is examining. I am aware also that authorities waste money by failing to use the most cost-effective placements. There are two remedies to that: first, there is statutory direction of choice that allows individuals to choose the home of their preference; secondly, district auditors have responsibility for checking value for money. A third response—perhaps it is the ideal solution—is to change the nature of the Essex authority so that it is run by the Conservative party.

Does the Minister recall that community care was introduced with all-party consent on the basis that elderly people would be able to choose between care in residential homes and their own homes? Did not the Government seriously underestimate the number of elderly people who would make the more expensive choice of living at home rather than in residential homes? How does he intend to ensure that resources match need?

I welcome the hon. Gentleman's support for the policy of community care. It has always been the intention that there should be the maximum choice possible within the resources available in an area. Resources must be taken into account as well. We have been putting massive resources into community care policy. This year, £5.1 billion will go into English local authorities—an increase of 12 per cent. on last year. No one can say that we are not putting our money where our policy is.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of the gross domestic product was spent on the NHS in the most recent year for which figures are available; and what was the percentage in 1978. [7496]

National Health Service spending in the United Kingdom as a whole has risen from 4.7 per cent. of gross domestic product in 1978–79 to an estimated 5.7 per cent. in 1995–96.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that those figures show clearly the different priorities of Conservative and Labour Governments for the NHS?

My hon. Friend is right. The figures show also how right the hon. Member for York (Mr. Bayley) was when he wrote in his paper to the Fabian Society:

"Labour's health policy will not look credible at the General Election if we do not commit ourselves to matching the rate of growth delivered by the Conservatives in recent years."

The Secretary of State should read more than the articles that his civil servants dig out. He might have read my recent article in the New Statesman in which it was acknowledged that health spending has increased in real terms under the Conservatives, but not as fast as it did under the Labour Government. The real issue is whether all patients in all parts of the country are given equal priority.

The hon. Gentleman has raised an interesting prospect, which is that the Labour party should commit itself to tearing up the GP national contract. I look forward to hearing that policy endorsed from the Opposition Front Bench.

The increase in expenditure on the health service by the Government is extremely commendable and I congratulate my right hon. Friend. Does he accept, however, that there is still a problem in community care, which has already been referred to this afternoon? Does he accept that there is a gap in the provision of care between the health service and social services when it comes to the mentally ill and those with behavioural problems? I refer especially to the cases in my constituency of Lynn Fox and Emma Larkins. Lynn Fox was stabbed to death because of the tremendous problems that she was creating for her neighbours. Emma Larkins burnt herself to death. Does my right hon. Friend agree that these things should not occur in a modern, civilised society and that we need to close the gap in the provision of care?

What my hon. Friend shows is that, not only in the mental health services but across the other services of the health service, expectations of the quality of service that we want to see are rising, and that opportunities to improve the quality of service provided by medical science are rising, too. The Government's spending record has allowed us to reconcile those rising expectations with the resources available.

If the view of the professionals in the health service and those who speak on their behalf is that there are insufficient resources to ensure that the core services of the NHS—the acute and emergency services—can be comprehensively delivered in the country, what is the explanation? Is it that the NHS, for which the Secretary of State is responsible, is not efficient with its resources? Or is the truth that, although there has been real growth of about 10 per cent. since 1979, there is now barely any, and the next two years will see a cut in real resources to the NHS in real terms for the first time in 25 years?

Almost every one of the figures that the hon. Gentleman quoted was wrong. He talked about an increase in real resources since 1979 of 10 per cent.; the actual figure is 71 per cent. He talked about a decline in real resources in the years ahead; that is not true, either. I announced before Christmas an increase of 1.6 per cent. in the real spending resources available to the health service next year over this year. That is building on the Government's record since 1979 of demonstrating the priority that they attach to health care by increasing the real resources available to the health service.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Lancaster Acute Hospitals NHS trust has used its share of the increased gross national product to build the most up-to-date hospital in the country, including an overhead X-ray gantry in the resuscitation room, which is linked directly with the X-ray room, and to install—the first in Europe—a digital X-ray system that puts images immediately on to computer, which can be flashed out instantly to general practitioners in other hospitals anywhere in the world?

My hon. Friend referred to the use of capital within the health service. She was quite right to say that, because we have a record capital programme in the health service, we are able to invest in the things to which she referred. There is a problem for the Labour party in the capital programme. We made it clear that we abolished capital rationing in the health service by introducing the private sector through the private finance initiative.

"The PFI is right in principle."—[Official Report, 28 November 1995; Vol. 267, c. 1077.]

Will the Secretary of State recognise that, despite his claims about extra resources, many hospitals are so overstretched that they are turning patients away from their casualty wards and that patients face waits of up to 20 hours on trolleys before they can get a bed? Will he consider my proposals today for a four-point plan to tackle the casualty crisis? Will he declare a moratorium on further bed cuts? Will he appoint someone in each health authority to identify and take action locally? Will he monitor and publish a weekly report on the crisis and issue clear national guidelines to end the uncertainty about who pays for continuing care?

The hon. Lady asks for a moratorium on bed cuts to deal with the pressure on the emergency services. Let me tell the House what has happened since the beginning of the year with regard to the availability of beds for emergency cases. An extra 10 beds have been opened in Consett, 26 in Sunderland, 24 in Good Hope hospital in Birmingham, 12 in the West Middlesex, 32 in Newham general, 28 in Chester, 28 in Crewe, 10 in Warrington, 25 in Aintree, and so on. So much for bed cuts. I do not think that the hon. Lady is quite up to date.

I welcome the extra resources that have been put into the NHS, but does my right hon. Friend agree that it is essential that they are used effectively? Does he agree that it is important that health authorities identify the health needs in their area, look at those procedures that are ineffective and ensure that less money is spent on them so that more money can be spent on those procedures that are effective and will deliver improved patient care?

My hon. Friend is on to an extremely important point. What we need to do in the health service is to ensure that clinical effectiveness is the test applied by clinicians in making their clinical judgments. That is not controversial within the clinical profession; the profession is committed to delivering it. That is why, when I announced guidelines on the subject last week, I was pleased to have the specific endorsement of representatives of the general practitioner fraternity and the hospital doctors for the important principle that my hon. Friend enunciates.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has further to involve the private sector in the provision of health services. [7497]

We welcome public and private finance working together in health and have long argued for public-private partnerships. I am sure that the hon. Lady tabled her question so that she could express her agreement with that policy.

Will the Minister confirm that NHS spending on private health care has shot up by 50 per cent. in the past year and that, since the creation of the internal market, £1.5 billion of NHS money has gone on private treatment? Is he also aware that in my constituency people find it increasingly difficult to obtain NHS dental care? They are faced with the stark choice of paying the full cost of private care or taking out private Den plan insurance. When the health service was set up, people were told that dental care would be provided. Why have the Tories broken that promise?

I was fascinated to see that the hon. Lady did not take the opportunity to agree with the policy that I set out, for the simple reason that the first clause was in the words of the Leader of the Opposition and the second clause was in the words of the deputy Leader of the Opposition who, conveniently, has just taken his place. The point is simply that the Opposition cannot decide whether they welcome public-private partnerships, which is precisely what the hon. Lady's question is all about. They reject it one day and accept it the next. That is an absolutely ludicrous policy with which to go to the nation. They cannot make up their minds.

Could my hon. Friend give an assurance that he will not be fostering the development of the private sector in the borough of Barnet simply to facilitate the closure of Edgware general hospital's accident and emergency unit?

Certainly not. I congratulate my hon. Friend on looking down the Order Paper and anticipating a point that he might have wished to raise slightly later.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health what monitoring he has undertaken of staffing for intensive care beds [7499]

It is for health authorities and trusts to determine the level of intensive care provision, including the level of staffing, that is needed by their local populations.

Is the Secretary of State aware of the widespread concern, certainly in Rotherham, and in all other hospitals, at the cuts in intensive care beds? He will have seen the recent British Medical Association report.

The problem with the hon. Gentleman's question is that he talked about intensive care bed cuts, including some in his constituency, when the reality is that the Rotherham trust is discussing the commissioning of an extra intensive care bed and of an extra high-dependency bed in Rotherham as well. Opposition Members say that that is happening only in Rotherham, but the figures show that, compared with 1990, an extra 1,000 intensive care nurses are now employed. It simply is not true to say that there is reduced availability of intensive care beds in the national health service. What is certainly true—and this far I will go with the hon. Gentleman—is that we need to ensure that the structures in health service hospitals make the most effective possible use of the expensive resource of intensive care beds. That is why we set up a review to give advice and guidance on precisely that, the report of which I expect will be available shortly.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 January. [7521]

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.

How on earth can the Prime Minister justify sacking 3,000 prison officers at a time when his Home Secretary has forecast that the prison population will increase, and what will he do with 3,000 extra pairs of handcuffs? Is he going to use them on Lady Thatcher and the bastards in the Cabinet?

My right hon. and learned Friend is seeking to ensure that we receive from the Prison Service the efficiency that both we and taxpayers have a right to expect from the Prison Service. The hon. Gentleman may not be concerned about efficiency for taxpayers' money, but we are.

Did not the Saudi Government prove to be stable and sound allies in the Gulf war? Is it not in the interests of Britain that the Saudis should continue to have a stable Government, and has not Mr. Al-Masari abused his position as a guest in this country? Do not the thousands of people whose jobs he puts at risk, especially in the north of England, feel that he is very fortunate to be offered a home on a Caribbean island, rather than being sent back to where he came from?

As my hon. Friend will know, the United Kingdom has a long and honourable tradition of protecting and helping people who seek asylum, but if people abuse that hospitality, we should not ignore that. The stability of the Saudi Arabian Government is a matter of importance throughout the Gulf and for stability more generally, and we should not give comfort to people who seek to undermine it.

Can the Prime Minister tell us why the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People has been reprimanded for writing his letter to The Times?

I set out my views on that issue last week and they have not changed.

What we would like to know is: has the Minister been reprimanded, yes or no?

Matters in my Government are for me and not you.

To which I can only say, looking at the Government, thank goodness.

While we are on the subject of being clear about views, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman could tell us whether he would renationalise British Rail to please his party, or leave it alone to give his slogan some substance. Let him tell us some more. Would he abolish the grant-maintained schools that he voted against, or would he let parents enjoy the choice that he talks about? Would he tax more successful people to please his left wing, or does he believe that success should be rewarded? Can he make up his mind about any of those examples, and a dozen more that I can give him—or does he not know the answer?

Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to congratulate Land Rover on the major new overseas order that was announced this morning, on its continuing success in the overseas market and, above all, on the design of its new military ambulance?

Land Rover is an excellent company with a long and honourable record, and I am delighted to congratulate it.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 January. [7522]

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

If, as the Prime Minister claims, his policies have created strong economic growth, why are the appalling 500,000 job losses in the construction industry due—according to the Building Employers Confederation—to rise by a further 22,000? Where will those workers look for jobs, and where will thousands of homeless families look for homes?

Let me remind the hon. Lady of some of the economic circumstances—including the fall in unemployment—that now pertain in this country. No significantly sized country in western Europe has as much of its population in work; none of the major European countries has unemployment as low as ours; none of them has seen unemployment fall for over two years; and none of them can combine that with the lowest inflation levels for 50 years, the lowest mortgage rates for 30 years, the lowest basic rate of tax for 50 years and the best prospects that we have seen for many years.

Are more murders, muggings and mindless acts of violence carried out by adolescents now, or were there more in the days when corporal punishment was available both in schools and to the courts? If the answer is now, can we have corporal punishment back? I am sure that many people are concerned about the state of our streets and cities.

I do not have the figures immediately to hand, but I can tell my hon. Friend, if he wishes to exercise arguments of that sort, that if he went back far enough and extended his thoughts to capital as well as corporal punishment, he would find that the number of murders committed many years ago when capital punishment applied was far larger than it is now. I am not sure that I draw the conclusion that was implicit in my hon. Friend's question.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 January. [7523]

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

Will the Prime Minister confirm that the average age of a member of the Conservative party is now 62, that there are no more than 5,000 members of the Young Conservatives and that the Young Conservatives' conference had to be cancelled this year owing to lack of interest? Will he tell us why young people in Britain have lost all interest in the Conservative party, and want nothing to do with it?

The answers to the hon. Gentleman's three questions are no, no and no; so the last part of what he said does not apply.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 January. [7524]

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

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the way to give people a stake in society is to allow them to own their homes, to own shares, to have their own pension schemes and, above all, to pay low taxes? Does he agree that that contrasts sharply with the Labour party's vision of a stakeholding society, which would place burdens on business men and, indeed, bring back vested interests in Labour's old friends?

My hon. Friend is right in what she says. There has been some discussion recently about the term "stakeholder society" or "stakeholder economy". The Leader of the Opposition now tells us that it is a slogan, and the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) tells us that he has not the faintest idea what it means. But we know and have been practising what it means for the past 16 years. It means giving people a direct, personal interest in what happens—lower taxes, more home ownership, more personal pensions—exercised by the holders themselves, not exercised by other people allegedly on their behalf.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 January. [7525]

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

Will the Prime Minister look into the case of my elderly constituent, Teresa Stewart, who was referred to Fazackerly hospital by her GP? She arrived there at 4 o'clock in the afternoon but was not seen by a hospital doctor until 10 o'clock that evening. Thereafter, she remained on a trolley until noon the next day. Does not her case, and the hundreds of others up and down the country, demonstrate yet again that the national health service is not safe in the Tories' hands?

Of course I will look into the individual case that the hon. Gentleman raises and I will ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health to respond to him. But the hon. Gentleman should realise that, with a service the size of the national health service, he will from time to time find matters of concern. There are now something over 8.5 million patients treated in total each year. The hon. Gentleman might care to consider how much lower that number was when last his party was in government.

Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to reassure the House that he will not follow the example of the Leader of the Opposition in seeming to imply to the nation that he has rejected everything he has ever believed? Will he also give an assurance that he will never, as Prime Minister and leader of our party, give the impression that he has accepted totally the philosophy of the party that he has fought all his political life? Will he assure Conservative Members of that so that we will not have a similar fear to that of many Labour Members—that the leader of the Labour party is about to cross the Floor and join us?

I can certainly give my hon. Friend the assurance he seeks. The Leader of the Opposition seems to base the prospects for his future on the belief that he has always been wrong.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 January. [7526]

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

Does the Prime Minister have any new policies to end the recession in the housing market?

If the hon. Gentleman looks, he will see that house prices have risen throughout the past five months. That is a very welcome trend. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) seems neither to understand nor to hear anything that is said to him. I repeat the point—house prices have risen throughout the past five months. That is a welcome development, and I hope and expect to see it continue.

Has my right hon. Friend found time to read the latest book by the Labour guru, Will Hutton, especially the chapter entitled "Stakeholder Capitalism"? If my right hon. Friend has read that chapter, does he agree that Labour's vision of stakeholder capitalism owes more to the failed corporatism of the 1970s than to anything happening in Singapore today? Does he have any plans to introduce stakeholder trade unions, which would enjoy extra powers and rights?

The distinction between the Government and the Opposition on this matter is that we believe people should have a personal interest, personally owned, in the country. The Opposition seem to believe—if the idea is more than just a slogan, although that is not clear—in a corporatist approach in which special interest groups operate on behalf of the public at large, as the shadow Secretary of State for Transport said just the other day. The Leader of the Opposition, desperately trying to put flesh on his slogan, has failed to do so and has reaffirmed me in my belief that all he is concerned about is the readmission of a corporatist Britain of the sort we rejected in the 1980s and will not have back in the 1990s.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 January. [7527]

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

We are always on the look-out for fresh ideas from the Prime Minister. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] So is his own party. What new plans does he have to increase investment in the British economy?

The hon. Gentleman is certainly right, in that the Opposition have sought, rather inadequately, to borrow many of our ideas—just as they have sought, without real conviction, to ditch their own.