To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will ensure that travel vaccines continue to be made available on the NHS. [31694]

Yes.

Is the Minister aware that last year alone 39 million British people made overseas visits, 16 per cent. of them to areas with a high risk of infection? Will he resist any suggestions that vaccination should cease to be available on the NHS? If he does not, many people may not get vaccinated, which would lead to an increase in the number of infected travellers returning to Britain, thereby increasing costs to the national health service and having a detrimental effect on many people's health.

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair case for the economic health of the nation that enables so many people to travel abroad, and a good point about travellers needing to take precautions. Just as they need to take out travel insurance, they should consider their health protection. I hope that they will read the "Health Information for Overseas Travel" booklet produced by the Government. The position of successive Governments has been that immunisations are free for travellers where there is considered to be a real risk to public health if a disease is brought back to the United Kingdom. That remains the case. I am happy to join him in resisting any change to that.

Before my hon. Friend is overcome by generosity, will he bear in mind that many business travellers have their vaccinations paid for by their companies? It is difficult to have sympathy with people who go on exotic holidays to Australia and Thailand who say that they cannot afford to pay for their vaccinations.

My hon. Friend makes a fair point. That is why there is a balance in the system whereby vaccinations for diseases that would not be a threat to the remainder of the population if someone were to bring them back from abroad are the responsibility of the individual. As he said, they may be paid for by a company, but the cost is small compared with the overall cost of travel abroad, certainly to the remote places that he mentioned. Where there is a potential public health risk, it is right that the NHS system should be able to provide the service through doctors or clinics.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he last met the chairmen of NHS trusts to discuss the administrative costs of purchasing contracts. [31695]

To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received about administrative costs in the NHS. [31700]

I meet NHS trust chairmen regularly. The Government are committed both to the effective management of the NHS and to the reduction of unnecessary bureaucracy.

While I recognise that an extra £1.4 billion was put into the national health service in 1993–94, every penny of it went on administrative costs. Is that obsession with bureaucracy, as opposed to front-line services, the reason why three quarters of NHS trusts have yet to make a local pay offer to nurses four months after Ministers pledged action on the matter? Is that another broken Tory promise?

The Opposition's concern about bureaucracy would be a great deal more convincing if they had not voted against the abolition of the regional health authorities, which was the biggest single element in the £300 million programme for shifting resources out of unnecessary bureaucracy into front-line patient services.

Will the Secretary of State now confirm that there are 20,000 extra NHS managers and 50,000 fewer nurses as a result of the Government's programme? Is that by design on the part of the Government or by accident?

The hon. Gentleman persists in deliberately misreading figures, despite repeated explanations of what the figures he quotes mean. He might do well to remember the words of the previous shadow health spokesman, who said:

"I don't think it's really in question any more that the NHS has been under-managed in the past."

Does my right hon. Friend agree that administrative costs in the health service should be kept in proportion? Does he further agree that, if increased administrative costs result in more medically qualified people undertaking less administrative work, and in the more effective targeting of the ever-increasing funding of our national health service for the benefit of patients, they are justified.

My hon. Friend is on a very important point. He underlines the interest that every taxpayer and every patient of the NHS has in its efficient management. The question that should be asked of the Opposition Front-Bench team, particularly of the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) in the light of press reports at the weekend, is why the Labour party wishes to disfranchise 6.5 million people who take out private health insurance and prevent them ever playing any part in the management of NHS trusts and health authorities.

Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the proportion of NHS staff who are involved in the direct care of patients has increased in the past decade?

My hon. Friend is on to an important point. We have increased commitment to front-line services, delivering more treatment to more patients than ever before in the history of the NHS. The Labour party is more concerned with dogma. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Darlington says that I should not believe everything that I read in the newspapers. Perhaps he would like to deny the story in the weekend newspapers, since it appeared in quotation marks, attributed to him.

Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the bill for bureaucracy for his NHS internal market is an extra £1.5 billion every year? Is he aware that, because of the market, St. Thomas's and Guy's hospitals now have to send out 57,000 invoices every year? How can he justify children being turned away from intensive care and their parents being told, "Sorry, there is no bed"? How can he justify patients waiting for hours on trollies? How can he justify patients being told at the last minute, "Sorry, we are cancelling your operation"? How can he justify any of that while he squanders precious NHS resources on red tape to run the market?

Rather than uttering these repetitive soundbites, the hon. Lady might do better to explain to the NHS and to the public what she means when she says that she will abolish the internal market. Her policy document is clear. She retains the purchaser system. She retains the principle that purchasers should be free to place their contracts where their patients' advantage lies. How will she do that while delivering the commitment that she professes to abolish an internal market?

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the benefits of the internal market is that it has enabled health authorities to focus on the real issues of health need and effectiveness of health care? Does he agree that it is nonsense for people to pretend that the NHS can be managed without managers, and managed on a system based on ignorance? Have not the changes led to real improvements in the quality of health care given to the people of this country?

My hon. Friend is right. The interest of every patient and every taxpayer is that the health service should be efficiently managed and that health resources should be targeted at real health need. That is the purpose of NHS management. The hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) professes to mean that, but consistently commits herself to undermining the structure that makes it possible.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he last met representatives of local authorities to discuss the provision of care to the elderly people living in the community. [31696]

I meet them on a wide range of formal and informal occasions and discuss with them an equally wide range of issues.

Is the Minister aware of the considerable confusion that exists in local authorities and in other agencies, such as Age Concern and widows' associations, and the tremendous anxiety that many older people now feel about their future and about the Government's plans, which seem to be aimed at further commercialising and privatising the health services that older people have a right to rely on, having paid for them all their working lives?

In that case, I am sure that, if the hon. Gentleman has discerned this concern, he will reassure those people by pointing out that 40 per cent. of NHS health care spending is spent on people over 65, despite the fact that they are only 16 per cent. of the population. I am sure that he will also have reassured them by pointing out that the present Government have enabled social services departments to spend £5.7 billion on their community care needs.

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the most important things that helps elderly people living in their own homes is the home help service? Is he aware that many local authority social services departments now state that doing the shopping should be top priority for home helps, but that the people they help need a reasonably clean home, whereas neighbours and relatives will often do the shopping? Can he do something about that?

My hon. Friend is right to suggest that local authorities, which are responsible for arranging social care when that is needed, should listen carefully to the users of those services and their families to discover what type of services they should be purchasing on their behalf. I believe that the Community Care (Direct Payments) Bill, which is passing through the House, will also help people in the coming years as more and more people are able to benefit from that. It does, however, as the Audit Commission pointed out, depend also on the efficient use of the substantial resources that the taxpayer is providing for local government and social services in particular. It is no good, as Liverpool is doing, spending £500 a week on each person in its own care homes compared with the £198 a week that it spends on independent homes, and then wondering why there is not enough for other services.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent monitoring he has undertaken of GP fundholding. [31697]

Throughout the country, general practitioner fundholders are improving services to patients through effective management of resources. Health authorities monitor them monthly, in accordance with the accountability framework; and the national health service executive monitors both health authorities and fundholders through its regional offices.

What assessment has the Minister made of the recent Audit Commission report on GP fundholding? Can he confirm that the report vindicates the long-standing criticisms that Labour has made of the scheme, and does he agree that fundholding involves massive duplication of bureaucracy without any significant benefits to patients?

No, of course not. Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I have read the report from beginning to end. It shows that every fundholder has brought benefits to patients. It also says that some, who have not brought as many benefits to patients as others, should be encouraged. I would expect the hon. Gentleman to support that idea.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the difference between a single GP and a group of fundholding GPs is the collective amount of money available? I already know of several individual GPs in Southampton who have run out of funds long before their group counterparts. Would it be possible to send teams to the new unitary authorities—now in the middle of the reorganisation—to advise GPs and social workers of the benefits of GP fundholding?

It is never very gracious to disagree with a knight of the realm—I congratulate my hon. Friend on that distinction—and in any event I do not disagree with the substance of his question. We certainly expect health authorities to work with fundholders and non-fundholders to build better care for patients. I am sure that that is happening in my hon. Friend's local health authority.

Does the Minister agree with the Audit Commission's conclusion that GP fundholding has added to management costs in all parts of the NHS? How does he justify wasting £260 million a year on red tape for fundholding when it produces no gains for patients? Will he now accept that the replacement of fundholding by GP commissioning will not only give all family doctors a say in shaping hospital services for their patients but will shift NHS resources from back-line bureaucracy to front-line patient care?

The hon. Gentleman makes exactly the same mistake as his hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm)—not reading the report or understanding its conclusions. The report clearly points out that, for an on-going payment of some two per cent. of total budget, there is a four per cent. gain in patient care efficiency. The hon. Gentleman persistently refuses to understand that that is a benefit for patients. I am glad that he and his hon. Friends have now clearly told the world that that is an advantage that they would abolish—that is their firm policy. The 50 per cent. or so who are GP fundholders will understand that it is the Labour party's intention to abolish them if it ever comes to power, as will the 53 per cent. of the population who benefit from GP fundholding.

Contrary to the drivel talked by the Opposition spokesman, is my hon. Friend aware that giving decision-making powers to GPs in my constituency has produced a better standard of primary health care than ever before? Is it not disgraceful that the Labour party should now decide to take away those powers from GPs and give them to the party's own bureaucrats, quangos and councillors? Such a move would be bad for primary care in my constituency.

My hon. Friend is right. The point that he rightly makes is that it is the effective purchasing power of general practitioners which has brought about change. Conservatives welcome the fact that other GPs are becoming involved in the purchasing process, but it has been driven by GP fundholding—the true success story which has brought far better patient care to all constituents, including those of my hon. Friend

To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the progress of schemes costing over £10 million using private finance. [31698]

The full potential of the private finance initiative is now being realised. Since the initiative started, seven schemes valued at more than £10 million each have been approved, with a total capital value of £394 million. Another 50 schemes worth between £1 million and £10 million have been approved, with a total capital value of £130 million, and 40 schemes with an estimated capital value of £1.5 billion are currently being tested for private finance.

The Minister will be aware that we have been waiting for a new hospital in Carlisle for more than 20 years. Is he aware that, for the past two years, the private finance initiative has delayed that hospital? There are currently 556 beds in Carlisle, but the PFI scheme will reduce that number to 274. I understand that AMEC, the only bidder for the scheme, is talking about reducing the number of beds to 400. Will the Minister give us an assurance that 474 beds will be the minimum? Can he confirm that the price of the scheme is still £43 million?

The hon. Gentleman understates the extent to which the PFI is bringing forward the hospital. It is not 20 years since the idea was first tabled—it is almost 30 years. The Cumberland infirmary project was first tabled in 1968. It is a source of considerable pride to me that the PFI is making it possible to turn that idea, of almost 30 years standing, into a firm project for the benefit of the hon. Gentleman's constituents. I hoped that the hon. Gentleman would welcome that. As he knows, the project design is the subject of continuing local discussions.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the trade union Unison vigorously opposes any use of the private finance initiative in the national health service? Does he believe that there is a link between Unison's continuing financial support for the Labour Front Bench and their attempt to claim that on the PFI they will be able to face both ways?

My hon. Friend raises an important point. There is no doubt where Unison stands on this issue—the doubt rests with where the Labour Front Bench stands. The Leader of the Opposition says that the PFI is right in principle and the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) says that the PFI is a new trick to privatise the health service—both propositions cannot be the Labour party's policy.

Will the Minister confirm the number of hospitals that have been approved and have signed contracts? The people of Norwich and Swindon have consistently had their new hospitals approved, but no contracts have been signed. Earlier this year, the Minister rushed legislation through the House to try to bail out the Government's PFI initiative. Yesterday, in the Financial Times, Martin Laing of the Laing Construction Group attacked the Bill. He said that he wanted more assurances and guarantees from the Government before PFI could go ahead.

In order to appeal to the hon. Gentleman, I will offer a sotto voce reply. The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends simply have to answer the following question: are they in favour of the PFI? Introducing all kinds of questions and red herrings will not get them off the hook. Are they in favour of the Leader of the Opposition's policy or are they in favour of the shadow health spokesman's policy? It is a simple question and the Labour Front Bench has to sort it out.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the current number of patients on the waiting list for the South Humber health authority. [31699]

Provisional figures show that at 30 April 1996 there were 6,919 South Humber residents waiting for admission to hospital, all but seven of whom had been waiting for less than 12 months. This is a significant improvement on recent figures

Will my hon. Friend confirm that, in the 1970s, approximately 20 per cent. of the patients were on the waiting list for more than 12 months? Does not his answer indicate that we have made dramatic improvements in South Humber? I refer to one point of concern to local residents: yesterday there was a report that too many operations are being cancelled at the last minute. Will the Minister assure me and my constituents that he will look into this matter, as there is nothing more distressing for a patient than being called to hospital only to have an operation cancelled?

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend's latter comment: there is nothing more distressing than having an operation cancelled at the last minute. There has been a problem in my hon. Friend's area due to the illness of one consultant combined with a sudden increase in the number of emergency admissions. However, all but one of the people whose operations were cancelled were admitted within a month—which is within patients charter standards. Given the excellent performance of South Humberside in reducing its waiting list—my hon. Friend paid tribute to that record—I know that it will make every effort to ensure that it does not happen again.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on his Department's recent inspection of facilities at Basildon hospital. [31701]

There has been no recent departmental inspection but, as my hon. Friend knows, I recently visited Basildon hospital where I was able to see the new Mary Wright unit for general practitioner referrals. I was impressed by the way that the unit speeds up the entry of patients to hospital and reduces the pressure on the accident and emergency department.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the local hospital has been able to develop and enhance services since obtaining trust status? Will he join me in celebrating Hospice Fortnight and in congratulating the staff of St. Luke's hospice in my constituency, of Fair Haven in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) and of Little Haven in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) on their magnificent work?

I am happy to join my hon. Friend in his remarks. The trust in his area has an extremely impressive record. Day case activity has increased by 25.9 per cent. and the trust achieved a maximum wait of 12 months for all day cases and in-patient treatments by the end of March 1996. No patient waits for more than 13 weeks for a routine first out-patient appointment. I also remember visiting the trust when it was awarded a citizens charter mark for excellence in service provision—which is much appreciated by all patients.

Does the Minister visit hospitals prior to their being awarded charter marks or hospitals that are not awarded charter marks? If he did, he might have visited Basildon during the bad times that were endured by my constituents in Thurrock and by the people of Basildon who suffered inordinate waiting times in the accident and emergency department because of the closure of the accident and emergency department at Orsett hospital. The people of Edgware are soon to suffer a similar experience. The fact is that the Minister turns up when there is good news but he is not prepared to face patients during the bad times like those suffered by the people of Thurrock and of Basildon.

I visited the Basildon trust within a few weeks of being appointed Minister in order to see how our policies were affecting it. The hon. Gentleman is quite right: there were bad times. However, the bad times have gone and the good times are here as a result of our policies which the hon. Gentleman has persistently opposed.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the reported incidence of CJD worldwide since 1986. [31702]

Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease occurs worldwide at an average incidence of up to one case per million people.

Given the disgraceful way in which the Opposition—particularly the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman)—sought to exploit the alleged connection between bovine spongiform encephalopathy and CJD, will my right hon. Friend confirm the latest results which show that the new strain of CJD is occurring in countries that are BSE-free, including many European countries? Does he agree with Dr. Paul Brown, the director of the United States Health Authority and a world expert on the subject, who has said that the incidence of three or four cases of the new strain of CJD in Europe will blow out of the water the thesis that the new strain is caused by BSE? The hon. Member for Peckham will then have to apologise.

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about the disreputable behaviour of the hon. Member for Peckham in seeking to feed public fears during the early stages of the argument. As to the incidence of the new strain of CJD, so far there has been one confirmed case outside the United Kingdom in France, although, as my hon. Friend rightly says, it is important that we continue to cast the net widely. That approach was supported by the World Health Organisation in May. The work is being co-ordinated from the British Government CJD surveillance centre in Edinburgh, which is recognised as a world centre of expertise in the matter.

Does the Secretary of State recall that, when he made his statement on this issue in March, I pressed him about resources for research into CJD? Does he therefore understand my surprise at discovering, when I visited the Western general hospital in Edinburgh a week last Friday, that, although verbal promises have been made about additional resources, it has received nothing in writing and, basically, it has the same team as was working in March; that those doctors still have to carry out their responsibilities without the certainty of additional hands to share the work; and that, in the past fortnight, only advertisements have appeared—produced jointly by the Department for Health and the Medical Research Council—for research to be undertaken by those who are dedicated to the work? Is it not time that we gave priority to that work and made resources available? It is a scandal that, three months on, that is not being done.

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that the people doing the work are leading practitioners in the relevant medical fields. I make no apology for that, since they are best placed to make the necessary judgments to ensure that we understand the issue properly. On resources and the development of the research programme, I announced to the House in March that the Government support such development, and the hon. Gentleman has just reported the fact that that development is going ahead.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the European country that has the highest incidence of CJD is Austria, and that international studies indicate that there is no correlation between the incidence of CJD and behavioural patterns, such as whether one eats beef or meat or is merely a stupid vegan?

My hon. Friend expresses his own views about vegans or—possibly—a particular sub-group of vegans. He underlines the fact that any link between beef eating and CJD has not been proven. Indeed, it is some way from being proven.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of prescriptions issued in the last 12 months were for more than one item. [31703]

It is estimated that 40 per cent. of prescription forms dispensed in the past 12 months were for more than one item.

Does the Minister recognise that many people on low incomes who have to pay full prescription charges for two items every month have considerable difficulty meeting that cost? They cannot afford to pay for pre-payment certificates and there is a problem. Does he also recognise that there is a particular problem with dual packs, for which people have to pay two prescription charges?

The hon. Gentleman referred to people on low incomes. If they are on income support, they do not have to pay for prescriptions. I remind him that, when the Labour Government reintroduced prescription charges, exemptions ran at 42 per cent. The rate is now 85 per cent. A further 5 per cent. of people benefit from pre-payment certificates, to which he referred.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for spelling out the exemptions. Will he explain the different categories of people who get free prescriptions?

Yes, I will. Those who are exempted from prescription charges are men and women aged 60 and over, children under 16, students under 19, a person or partner receiving income support, family credit or disability working allowance, people entitled to full help under the NHS low income scheme, pregnant women and women who have had a child in the previous 12 months, and people who receive a war or Ministry of Defence disablement pension who need medication for that disablement. In addition, some medical conditions carry exemption. A tremendous number of people are exempt. We have one of the most generous exemption systems in Europe, which is why we can say that the vast majority of people who cannot afford to pay are well covered by it.

Is it not the case that many students, even those below income support level, do not receive free prescriptions? Would the Minister like to comment on that?

If the hon. Lady is saying that people below income support level are not receiving free prescriptions, they are entitled to do so. The hon. Lady has only to add up the numbers about which we are talking—[Interruption.] I am sure that she can add up. If the total adds up to the 85 per cent. of British people who are entitled to free prescriptions, and a further 5 per cent. who benefit from the pre-payment certificates, she will see that there is not a problem. She will also see that it is a much more generous system than it was when the Labour Government reintroduced prescription charges.

On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Order. I take points of order after Questions.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I give notice that I intend to raise the matter on the Adjournment—

Order. The hon. Lady did not ask the substantive question, so I am afraid that she does not have the opportunity to do that.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many private finance initiative projects have been approved in respect of national health service trust hospitals; and how many are awaiting approval. [31704]

Since the launch of the private finance initiative, 41 national health service trust schemes valued at £1 million or above have been approved, with a total capital value of £472 million. Forty more projects, with a total value of approximately £1.5 billion, are testing for private finance as part of the procurement process.

I thank my hon. Friend for that encouraging reply. Will he undertake to do two things? First, as the experience of his excellent scheme grows, will he make every effort to ensure that the rules governing it become much simpler for trusts and others to understand? Secondly, will he review again the balance between the advantage that the trusts obtain from skilful use of their capital assets and the amount that the central authorities take from those capital assets for their own purposes?

I understand my hon. Friend's points. It is not only a question of making the rules simpler, but of making the contract shorter as well. I am sure that my hon. Friend, with his interest in small companies, will agree that we must make it a process that is as available to them as it is to the large conglomerates. I certainly give him that assurance.

If the Minister thinks that the PFI is as successful as he says, would he care to comment on the position of the Rubery Hollymoor primary health care centre in my constituency? It was promised to local people four years ago, they were told that the money was available from the NHS two years ago, it was trumpeted as a great new project by the then regional health authority, but it has been held up by the PFI and not one stone has yet been laid. Does the hon. Gentleman think it right that the working of the PFI should deny local people the services that the Government promised them?

I do not know the particular scheme to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but I shall look into it. None the less, the PFI is accelerating the process. We are breaking out of the traditional system whereby everyone has to wait for the Treasury—waiting for Godot, one might say. If the scheme is good and provides value for money, and the risk is properly apportioned, it can obtain private sector finance. We are talking about a new era for hospital building in Britain, yet we still do not know what the Opposition think about it.

Is my hon. Friend encouraged by the splendid progress being made by the £100 million PFI project for a new hospital at Darenth Park to serve the people of Gravesham and Dartford? Will he do the best he can to sweep out of the way any obstacles that might arise, particularly those that might arise from the scaremongering of the Labour party and the hon. Member for Peckham(Ms Harman)?

Yes, I confirm to my hon. Friend that that is an important scheme, which I am anxious should go ahead and to which I am giving constant attention.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to increase the number of dentists offering treatment in the national health service. [31705]

There are nearly 16,000 dentists on health authority lists in England—an increase of 500 since 1992 alone. The reforms that I announced in the House last week should provide a further boost to NHS dentistry by removing uncertainty for the dental profession and creating a firm foundation for future development.

That answer will be cold comfort for my constituents in Barnoldswick. The Minister will recall that, last Wednesday, I told him that there was one NHS dentist in Barnoldswick—a town of 10,000 people. Today, there is not one NHS dentist in that town. Are not the Government's proposals to revitalise NHS dentistry a complete sham? Is it not the case that they are, as I described them last Wednesday, fraudulent?

The hon. Gentleman's point is as absurd today as it was last week because, by implication, he is saying that dentists, who are self-employed practitioners, had been nationalised under a Labour Government and directed to work in certain places where he wished them to work. I have examined the situation in his constituency, and in Barnoldswick. Dental treatment is available in Colne, some five miles away, or in Burnley or Nelson.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 June. [31724]

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.

Is the Prime Minister aware that he spoke for the whole nation on Friday when he said that he had had "a bellyful" of the Tory party?

I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that his quotation is inaccurate, but it could certainly be applied to questions such as that.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that more and more people in Germany wish that their economy was run like ours—with low inflation, steady economic growth, flexible labour markets and falling unemployment? Will he take an early opportunity to invite the leaders of the German opposition parties to Britain so that they can see what can be achieved with Conservative policies?

More, more.

I am glad to see that it evokes such approval on the Opposition Benches.

Will the Prime Minister join me in condemning the appalling outrage of Saturday in Manchester and send our thanks to the emergency services and our sympathy to the victims? Is this not a moment of truth for Sinn Fein? Does it not show the wisdom of demanding a ceasefire before Sinn Fein participates in any talks? Does not the responsibility now lie squarely on it if it is to play any part in the future progress of peace?

I agree entirely with the right hon. Gentleman. Saturday's bomb in Manchester was a callous and inhuman act. It is a miracle that many more people were not injured and that many people were not killed. What is so startling is the total indifference of the people who left that bomb to what could well have happened to many people who have no connection whatever with the disputes in Ireland or the disputes that the IRA may have with the British Government or others.

I join with that entirely.

It is entirely right that the talks must continue. We have no intention of allowing the search for a political settlement for Northern Ireland to be derailed by the activities of the IRA and Sinn Fein. I hope that all the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland will continue to demonstrate the leadership and courage necessary to make rapid progress, and to show the IRA that it cannot stop the process with bombs in Manchester, London or anywhere else.

In the light of falls in unemployment, interest rates and inflation, does my right hon. Friend agree that Britain is now one of the most competitive economies in Europe? Does he accept, however, that much more still needs to be done to raise standards in our schools? Although things are improving, far too many children still leave school without the basic skills.

Both the premise of my hon. Friend's question and her substantive point are important. She knows that the British economy is in very sound shape; we intend to keep it so. As for education and basic standards, the Government have introduced a programme of reforms that is more comprehensive than any that we have seen at any stage in the past, designed to raise standards in schools, build on the national curriculum and ensure regular inspection and the publication of performance information.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 June. [31725]

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

Given the funds that the Government have made available to the Russian Government and organisations in Russia in recent years to help to establish democracy, has the Prime Minister had time to read today's statement by the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe expressing the CSCE's regret and concern at the extensive bias in the coverage of the presidential election? Will the right hon. Gentleman now use his contacts with President Yeltsin to point out to him the value of the British precedent of television and radio providing equal time for candidates, to legitimise this final stage of the Russian election?

I have not yet seen the particular statement to which the hon. Gentleman refers. In view of what he says, I shall certainly consider it, but the very fact of the Russian presidential elections, and the way in which they have been carried, out would have seemed inconceivable just a few years ago. It is a welcome sign that Russia is settling into the normal pattern of democracy, and we must give great credit to President Yeltsin for that. I hope that the second round will be conducted well and that there will be a clear-cut and satisfactory result.

Does my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister agree that the control of business rates under the Government has been of immense benefit to businesses, large and small, throughout Britain and, therefore, to jobs? Will he ask the relevant Government Departments to analyse the consequences for jobs and for prosperity of taking off these controls and handing decisions back to loony Labour councils, as is advocated by the Labour party?

I will certainly consider any mechanism that tries to restrain on-costs on British business. It is clear that the fact that British business as a whole pays less over and above wages in on-costs is one of the principal reasons why are more citizens are in work in Britain than in any other country of similar size throughout western Europe.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 June. [31726]

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

Did the Prime Minister see last night's "Panorama" programme, which catalogued 10 years of evasion and incompetence by the Government on the BSE issue? What does he have to say to Scotland's hill farmers, now awaiting being dragged into the general economic catastrophe created by the Government, while he postures to no effect in Europe?

Of course I did not waste my time watching "Panorama" last night—[Interruption.] I have much more productive things to do with my time than waste it watching nonsense from "Panorama". We have taken account of the scientific advice that we have had throughout this affair, and that is what we will continue to do in the interests of British agriculture and of the British beef consumer.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 June. [31727]

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

Does my right hon. Friend recall the exchanges that he and I had in the House last October, when I raised the question of closed circuit television for security purposes in our towns and cities? Is he aware that the initiative that he announced last year is one of the most practical ways of dealing with crime and of introducing crime prevention measures? Although he may not be able to confirm to me today whether my constituency of Cleethorpes is to benefit from the forthcoming announcement, will he guarantee that he will have a word with our right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and advise him that we in Cleethorpes are very supportive of that initiative?

Bringing closed circuit television to all corners of the United Kingdom is a practical effort to create a safer Britain in future. We are investing around £50 million, and our target is to fund 10,000 new cameras in the next three years. I am pleased to hear from my hon. Friend about the Cleethorpes bid. Knowing my hon. Friend, I would have been surprised if there had not been a Cleethorpes bid, but he is right—I cannot confirm to him today whether it has been successful, but I hope that announcements will be made before too long.

The Prime Minister will understand that there are no words to describe the loathing that Manchester people have for the perpetrators of the crime against our city last Saturday, but it has happened and we must now begin to rebuild Manchester. Mancunians are resilient people, but they require help. Will the Prime Minister today give the assurance to the House that the Government will offer every support, including financial aid, for the restoration of businesses, buildings, jobs and homes in Manchester? Sympathy will not pay the bills.

The hon. Gentleman has commented on three matters of importance. I entirely share his initial remarks about Manchester, and I have no doubt about the courage and determination of the people of that city in recovering from last week's incident. Individuals injured by the bomb are eligible to apply for compensation under the criminal injuries compensation scheme. The Government-backed terrorism insurance scheme will ensure that participating insurers can meet claims by companies that purchased full terrorism cover. Businesses that have not done so are likely to receive limited reimbursement and should contact their insurance companies.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 June. [31728]

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

Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity to pay tribute to a great man now gone, the late Sir Fitzroy Maclean? Was there not much to admire in that soldier, diplomat, Conservative Member of Parliament and patriot, who had an enviable ability for getting out of tight corners?

Sir Fitzroy Maclean was a remarkable man with many qualities to admire—from being a founder of the Special Air Services to a Minister of the Crown at this Dispatch Box. In all his many roles, Sir Fitzroy made a remarkable contribution. He also played a crucial role in work with Tito's partisans in the second world war. People will think of Sir Fitzroy Maclean as a man who lived life to the full. From what I know of him, I believe that he would regard that as a satisfactory epitaph.