To ask the Secretary of State for Health what level of capitation funding the Nottingham health authority will receive in 1997–98. [10356]

In 1997–98, Nottingham health authority will receive an integrated allocation of £285.6 million—a cash increase over this year of £12.1 million.

Will the Minister confirm that, under the capitation formula, Nottingham will next year receive a growth in funding of 0.34 per cent. over this year? Given that fact, will it not take another seven years for it to reach 100 per cent. formula funding? The Queen's medical centre has not carried out non-urgent operations since November. Should not Nottingham people and Nottingham health services receive a fair share of the cake?

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but I note that Sir David White, the chairman of Nottingham health authority, said that Nottingham's funding in the next year is in line with that authority's proposals for development, and that

"Due to a better than expected national settlement for the NHS and the case put forward by the authority … I am happy to say that the prospects for the development of our local services—and the maintenance of excellence—looks more certain for next year."

Does my hon. Friend understand that those of us who seek the return of a Conservative Government recognise that both parties acknowledge that Nottingham needs the additional money? The settlement is a step in the right direction, but it is only one step and we want considerably more money, year on year, to restore us to the correct position of parity with other similar teaching areas.

As I said in reply to the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping), he has got a far better deal out of this Government than he will ever get out of a Labour Government. Progress was made last year and this year, and will be made next year—if a Conservative Government are re-elected, funding for health authorities will ensure that progress is made in every year to come. I am sure that my hon. Friend looks forward to the re-election of a Conservative Government.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received from the Centre for Policy Studies concerning the future funding of the national health service. [10357]

I have received no such representations.

Will the Minister confirm that a pamphlet recently issued by the Centre for Policy Studies, the author of which was a special adviser to the former Secretary of State for Health, now the Chancellor of the Exchequer, proposed that future policy on the NHS should involve the introduction of top-up fees and vouchers? Does not that show that it is now undeniable that a Conservative Government serving their fifth term would abolish the national health service as we know it and as its founders intended it to be?

The hon. Gentleman asks me about the future funding of the national health service. The Government's policy on that is set out not by the director of the Centre for Policy Studies, but by the Prime Minister. He set it out clearly at the Conservative party conference, when he laid down a challenge, which the Labour Front Bench has so far refused to take up. A re-elected Conservative Government will increase real-terms funding for the health service through the life of the next Parliament, year by year by year by year by year. When will we hear from Labour Front Benchers how they will match that pledge?

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Centre for Policy Studies document "A Conservative Agenda" congratulated the Government on their record of increasing NHS funding since 1979? Does he agree that it is only against a background of guaranteed financial growth throughout the next Parliament that the NHS can continue to thrive?

My hon. Friend is precisely right. The CPS made another suggestion—that we should abolish the regional health authorities. The Government have already done so and delivered as a result £100 million of administrative savings. That was done over the opposition of Labour's Front Benchers, who would be taken a great deal more seriously on the question of administrative savings if they ever voted for one, instead of voting against them.

The Secretary of State and I probably agree that the health service needs more money, although we would disagree about how much. I would argue for more than he would and both he and I would argue for more than the Labour party would.

Where did the hon. Gentleman get that line from?

From Labour's figures.

With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, I do not believe that it is in the interests of the health service or, most important, its patients to freeze the development of the health service. We need to have a service that uses a growing budget, year by year, to deliver improving service to patients. That is the commitment that the present Government give. The commitment given by the Opposition is that they invite patients and the health service to rely on the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), who told Pulse,

"I'll fight my corner for NHS funding."

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the increase in real-terms funding for the NHS—of more than 70 per cent. since 1979—demonstrates the Government's continuing commitment to the NHS? Does he also agree that the record number of patients being treated, including the increase in the number of people having hip replacements and heart bypasses, also demonstrates that firm commitment to the NHS?

My hon. Friend is exactly right. The figures for the past seven years are: an increase of a quarter in the real funding for the NHS and an increase of a third in the number of patients treated. That is the Government's record—extra funding, used efficiently to treat patients. It is a record that the Labour party cannot match in office and would not and cannot match now, ahead of a general election.

Is it not the case that the so-called promise made by the Prime Minister about year-on-year increases in real-terms funding for the health service was disavowed two months later by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he published the figures in the Red Book? Will the Secretary of State admit that page 142 of the Red Book shows clearly that, in the second year, the Government expect a fall in real-terms expenditure in the Department of Health and that, in year three, they expect a standstill in real-terms expenditure in the Department of Health? Does not that show, first, that the Government have already broken the promise that they made at their party conference and, secondly, that they are not to be trusted with the health service or with the government of this country?

Page 142 of the Red Book deals with excise duties, tobacco, fuel, air quality package, and alcohol. The hon. Gentleman cannot even get his page references right. He is probably referring to table 5A.1—

No.

I am looking at the 1997–98 Red Book, published in November 1996. The hon. Gentleman has the wrong reference.

Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the right hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) will not increase health service spending but will burden the health service with the costs of a national minimum wage, which will mean extra pay for manual workers in the health service and less money for patient care?

My hon. Friend is exactly right. The right hon. Member for Dunfermline, East is so unconfident of his ability to deliver a growing economy that he knows he cannot match our commitment to the national health service. What is more, even the paltry budget that the slow-growing British economy under Labour would allow the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury includes a prior commitment to abolishing compulsory competitive tendering. That will cost him £90 million. There is also a prior commitment to introducing a national minimum wage, which the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) was the last Labour spokesman to cost—at £500 million. That makes £590 million that will come out of patient care before the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury can even begin to think about a growing health service.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he last met the chairmen of health authorities to discuss services for mentally ill people. [10358]

I meet chairmen of health authorities whenever issues of mutual interest need to be discussed.

Will the Minister comment on the report published today by the King's Fund commission? Does he agree that it shows that, after 18 years of Conservative rule, London does not have a comprehensive mental health strategy? In the light of that report, will he also look carefully at the proposed mergers of NHS trusts such as the West Cheshire and Wirral Community Healthcare NHS trusts in my constituency, and ensure that any mergers are approved only on the basis of patient care and need, not managerial convenience?

The King's Fund report, published today, is important in that it coincides with much of the work that we have done at the Department of Health on the provision of mental health services in London. No one could disagree that those services are under pressure. Unfortunately, since the creation of the NHS, both inside and outside the medical profession, mental health care has been the Cinderella service. That has been tackled over the past five years with significant increases in funding and targeted funding to deal with particular issues.

Does my hon. Friend accept that there is a gap in the services for mentally ill young people, and that the services offered for children and adults, many of the latter elderly, are not appropriate for this age group? Will he give support to voluntary groups, such as VISYON in Congleton, which seek to highlight the problem and to support mentally ill young people and their families?

A great deal of work is going on with regard to young people and adolescents because of the problems that have arisen. One such problem is that, because of the age of that group, they have never been used to institutional care. As part of the programme of improving and developing a comprehensive mental health service, we have in place the children's and adolescent mental health programme. We are well aware of the problems facing that target group. More must be done in the area because, as I said earlier, in the past—since the creation of the health service—it has not had the same priority as, say, accident and emergency services. We welcome all input to improve and enhance the provision of care, from the voluntary sector as well as within the health service.

As today's King's Fund report on mental health in London clearly shows that services in the inner city are in a state of near collapse, will the Minister explain the huge gap between his recent reassurances and the reality outlined in the report? Is he now finally prepared to accept that that Cinderella service is not providing care in the community for mentally ill people and their families or proper protection for the public in London or elsewhere?

No, I do not accept that analysis. The hon. Lady is well aware that record sums of money are being put into mental health care. For example, the mental health challenge fund, the mental illness specific grant and the £5 million emergency pressures fund are targeted where help is most needed. In addition, because by definition the problem is greater in London—because more people suffer from mental illness there—London receives a significant proportion of the available funding. It is important to build on everything that has been done to create a comprehensive and effective service that provides proper patient care. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced last February a programme to ensure that health authorities draw up plans for a comprehensive community service for mental health. That is going ahead and being monitored. We shall continue to do that to ensure that we catch up and get the best service possible. That is how we should move forward, rather than carping and criticising at the margins.

Services for mentally ill people include not only medical provision in hospital but the provision of adequate housing accommodation when patients are ready to leave hospital so that they do not block beds. May I suggest that my hon. Friend urges the chairmen of health authorities to work closely with local housing associations to ensure that appropriate housing is provided? May I also suggest that he discusses with his colleagues in the Department of the Environment the fact that they, too, should urge housing associations to make such provision and ensure that housing associations have the resources to do so?

I hope that my hon. Friend is reassured that he has identified two important areas that are already at the crux of Government policy. We encourage housing authorities, housing associations, social services and health authorities to work together so that there is a multidisciplinary approach. That is the best way to cut through the problems and reach a solution as quickly as possible. Another area where the Government are doing a great deal of interrelated work is on drug and alcohol abuse, which is a contributory factor in much mental illness.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the latest figures for the number of hospitals closed since 1979. [10359]

This information is not available centrally.

I am surprised that the Government have not fiddled those figures as well. All of us on Opposition Benches know the figures—they are in the Library. Since 1979, 20 per cent. of all hospitals have been closed by this lousy, rotten Government. That is the truth.

The hon. Gentleman's reference to the exercise by his own party earlier this morning will be exposed by my right hon. Friend in the debate that follows as a disgraceful ruse. The statistics for hospitals have never been collected centrally. That has been explained in a number of written answers, as the Opposition know. For a party that wants to cut bureaucracy, it would be bizarre if Labour started to collect those figures now, as they are far less relevant than the figures that show how many people are being treated in the NHS, which is what counts.

Is it not also true that a great many new hospitals have been opened since 1979? Furthermore, is it not true that some hospitals, which were very old and not in a suitable state to serve the public properly, have been renovated, such as the general hospital in Birmingham, which is being converted to the new children's hospital? When Opposition Members speak like the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), they show that they are dinosaurs who want hospitals built in the early 1900s to remain unchanged and unimproved.

My hon. Friend is right to point that out. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) an expert in supporting outdated Victorian industrial practices, now seems to want to do the same for Victorian buildings and hospitals. There has been substantial investment in real estate in the NHS. That investment is now threatened by the Opposition, who do not accept the private finance initiative which will be responsible for the building of more hospitals in their constituencies. They would put that at risk.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he next plans to visit Redbridge to discuss the financial position of Redbridge and Waltham Forest health authority and the situation in local hospitals. [10360]

The national health service executive is in regular contact with national health service Organisations on behalf of Ministers. I have no immediate plans to visit Redbridge and Waltham Forest health authority.

Why not? Does not the Minister know that, in my health authority, there is a £6 million deficit, that Whipps Cross hospital has cancelled elective admissions since just after Christmas because it cannot cope with accident and emergency admissions, and that King George hospital has 97 per cent. bed occupancy? People are frequently left on trolleys for 12, 15 or 20 hours. Why does not the Minister have the courage to come to my local hospital? I will take him there and show him the problems that the Government have created.

If invited, I shall visit the hon. Gentleman's constituency, and I shall be delighted to see the excellent work that has been carried out by the trust in his health authority. He fails to recognise the additional investment that has been made available for this year—an increase of £1.7 million in real terms, a further £4.4 million funding for strategic change and £845,000 for priority services for the rest of the year. Much of that money is now being deployed in trusts in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. I will gladly come along and celebrate the success of that fund as it builds even more facilities.

I encourage my hon. Friend to visit that health authority. Notwithstanding any difficulties that it, like many other health authorities, experiences, will my hon. Friend point out that more than £23 million of capital expenditure has been put into the main hospital there, Whipps Cross hospital, which has resulted in brand new surgeries and a brand new accident and emergency wing, from which local people now benefit?

A cross-party invitation is almost impossible to resist, even with a busy diary. If invited formally, I shall certainly try to make time to acknowledge the progress in the constituency of the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) and the progress to which my hon. Friend drew attention—progress that would not take place if a Government ever got into office who could not make the pledge made by the Prime Minister, that a Conservative Government would continue to fund the health service and to increase funding in real terms year on year.

The nation would be reassured if the Minister would face up to the crisis that is confronting accident and emergency departments throughout the country. What does he have to say to the nurse whom I met recently at Edgware hospital—

Order. This question refers to hospitals that are local to Redbridge and Waltham Forest.

As at Whipps Cross hospital in Redbridge, which has also been gripped by crisis, the nurse said:

"It has been like a war zone here. We have had to put up 18 beds in the minor injuries unit and the Government tells us that there is no crisis."

I would be delighted to meet the ambulatory nurse to whom the hon. Lady refers. She seems to move with great felicity from one health authority to another, depending on the question that is posed. I would tell that nurse that I am sure that she recognises the investment that the Government have made in the health service. If the hon. Lady wants to set the nation's mind at rest, perhaps she and her Front-Bench colleagues could stop drumming up spoof reports—which are based on no facts whatsoever—to scare the public.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the provision of renal services in Greater Manchester and Cheshire. [10361]

Health authorities serving Greater Manchester and south Cheshire have recently consulted the public on proposals to reorganise renal services in the area. The health authority that is co-ordinating the review is presenting its evaluation to all seven participating authorities this month. Afterwards, health authority members and others will have the opportunity to consider the proposals further.

Does my hon. Friend accept that renal failure is a complex illness that often needs the support of other specialties? Does he accept that Macclesfield community health council, which has conducted an in-depth inquiry into the matter and sought public views on the provision of renal services in Cheshire and Greater Manchester, has advanced the unanimous opinion that Wythenshawe hospital, under Dr. Mike Venning and his colleagues, would provide a wonderful hub for the provision of renal services? It found that it would be an advantage to retain three hubs—the Manchester royal infirmary, Hope hospital and Wythenshawe hospital—rather than reducing the hubs to two, with all the associated problems that that would create for those with renal diseases.

I hear what my hon. Friend says. He raises an important point. I put it to him that this is a clinician-led review that involves a lot of capital investment. It will obviously be predicated on the desire to secure better health care for renal patients. I am delighted to tell my hon. Friend—the House will understand my relief in saying this, knowing my hon. Friend's formidable lobbying attributes—that it will include improved satellite facilities in Macclesfield which, as he knows, are not nurse or clinician-led at the moment. They will receive full medical support under the proposals.

Would the Minister like to astonish us all by putting the patients' interests first? This is not a matter that can be decided by the ill-mannered fighting of individual consultants: it is a matter of providing high-quality satellite facilities to serve not just Macclesfield but any patient in south Cheshire who requires renal assistance. Will the Minister confirm that, as far as he is concerned, the quality of renal services will always take precedence over the particular interests of individual Members of Parliament?

Of course that is the case. As I pointed out to my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), this is a clinician-led review with the object of putting more capital investment into a necessary area in order to provide a better service. I am sure that the proposals will achieve that aim, but we take into account all points of view—both those opposed and those in favour—when we consider them.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many residents of (a) Buckinghamshire and (b) Milton Keynes are served by fundholding general practitioners (i) as a percentage of the population and (ii) in total. [10362]

The total registered population in Buckinghamshire covered by a fundholding general practitioner is appropriately 486,000. In Milton Keynes, fundholders serve around 156,000 people. Those figures represent 71 per cent. of the registered population of Buckinghamshire and 80 per cent. of the registered population of Milton Keynes.

As a registered patient with one of the best fundholding GP practices, not just in Newport Pagnell and my constituency but in the country, may I invite my hon. Friend to join me in congratulating the doctors who have demonstrated that this policy works in providing an ever-improving and outstanding service to their patients? What advice would he give to my constituents and others who are anxious to continue to enjoy the benefits of GP fundholding after the next election?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing out the excellent work that is being done not only by his GP fundholder but by others in his constituency. I extend that to across the country as well, where the majority of the population of England are now served by GP fundholders. There is a very simple answer to the question that he posed, because in the election one party will be pledged to abolish GP fundholding—the Labour party. The Conservative Government will sustain GP fundholding when re-elected, so my advice is pretty clear: vote Conservative.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment has been made of the likely savings to be made for the health services as a result of the measures contained in the Health Authorities Act 1995. [10363]

Total annual savings as a result of the Health Authorities Act 1995 are estimated at £150 million: £100 million from the abolition of regional health authorities, and £50 million from the introduction of single, unified health authorities. Those savings will be used for direct patient care.

Does my right hon. Friend recall that the savings from administration that he just announced were bitterly opposed by the Labour party? Will he confirm that an additional £300 million a year will be diverted to patient care from cuts in hospital bureaucracy? Therefore, is it realistic for the Labour party to claim that a further £100 million a year can be saved? Where would the money come from?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There will be an extra £300 million a year for patient care as a result of the Government's squeeze on unnecessary administrative processes.

"Managers will not lose their jobs, says Smith".

The Minister will be aware that, a fortnight ago, a patient from Leeds was sent to the intensive care unit in Hull, a journey of 60 miles, because there was no room in the Leeds intensive care unit. Last Tuesday, because of no room in the Hull royal infirmary intensive care unit, a constituent of mine, Mr. Dennis Drax, was sent to Leeds, another journey of 60 miles. Sadly, both patients died. How much of the new surplus will be given to our intensive care unit?

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point; it is not directly relevant to this question, but I shall answer it none the less.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the development of the private finance initiative for the construction of new hospitals. [10364]

Contracts have been signed for 43 private finance initiative schemes, with a total capital value of £317 million.

Does my hon. Friend remember that, three years ago, when the PFI policy was in its infancy and we were considering the prospects for a brand new district general hospital in Darenth park for the people of north-west Kent, the then spokesman on health for the Labour party, the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman), derided the project as being on a B list and highly unlikely to take place? Will he tell the House what progress is being made with that project, and emphasise the excellent quality of the team in our local NHS trust and the very strong support for the project from the people of north-west Kent?

If, indeed, it was on a B list when the Opposition said it was, it has done pretty well since. The Darenth park scheme is progressing extremely well and making good progress. As the House knows, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, not least among many others, has put a great deal of effort into introducing a successful product. I am glad to be able to say that he is not alone. There are many schemes throughout the country that are benefiting from PFI, where otherwise there would perhaps be no hope of having a new hospital.

Is the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) aware that he has some support from the Opposition? He said in his last election manifesto that he had taken a leading role in securing the recently announced district general hospital. In fact, it has still not been agreed. We await the hon. Gentleman's next election manifesto.

That was a long question. In turn, I will ask the hon. Gentleman a short question. Are the Opposition in favour of PFI or are they not? It is—

Order. The Government are here to answer questions, not to ask them.

We would like some answers, Madam Speaker.

I remember a time when the International Monetary Fund, not the then Government, determined our health expenditure. Will my hon. Friend accept my thanks on behalf of the people of Dartford for all the help that he has given to the PFI, leading to the construction of a new district hospital with 400 beds—a state-of-the-art hospital—in my constituency, which was opposed by the Labour party throughout, by its Front-Bench spokesmen?

That is a fact. The reality is that hospital projects are going forward throughout the country and not only in west Kent. We are seeing projects going forward in Norfolk and Norwich, Durham, Worcester and Carlisle. Such projects are progressing throughout the country as a result of the PFI, with no thanks to the Opposition, who have constantly sniped and accused us of privatisation, all to no effect.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the efficacy of local pay bargaining as a means of determining pay awards for NHS staff. [10365]

Local pay is delivering fair and affordable rewards to staff while supporting the development of flexible and responsive health services.

Is the Secretary of State aware of the recent comments made by Ken Jarrold, the director of human resources of the national health service executive? He said that local pay arrangements would be considered successful only if deals had been made in 50 per cent. of NHS trusts. Surely the right hon. Gentleman is aware that, to date, almost a year after the system was set up, settlements have been reached in only 25 per cent. of NHS trusts. Does he agree with the director's comments or does he not?

The hon. Gentleman has got the facts wrong. As of last Friday, 228 trusts had agreed local deals with their staff. They represent 53 per cent. of all trusts. The substantive question that parties must answer is whether they are in favour of accepting the recommendations of the independent review bodies. The independent nurses' pay review body recommended a system of local pay. The question that every party must answer is whether it is in favour of the continuation of those review bodies and of respecting their advice. The Government are in favour of respecting their advice, which is why we accepted their recommendation in favour of local pay, and why we are implementing it.

Does my right hon. Friend remember a time when pay was agreed centrally, when there was civil war in the Labour party, and when there was a pay freeze, which led to the winter of discontent? Is that not the likely scenario ahead of us if we ever get a Labour Government?

My hon. Friend has quite an authoritative figure on his side. No less a figure than the right hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) was busy yesterday warning nurses:

"Pay squeeze here to stay, Brown warns the nurses".

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 21 January. [10386]

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.

In April last year, the Health Secretary promised to deliver a proper level of paediatric intensive bed space. Will the Prime Minister explain to the House why, despite that promise, 15 critically ill children have been turned away from Addenbrooke's hospital in Cambridge in the past few months? Can he not keep any of his promises?

The hon. Lady should check that her facts are accurate before she mistakenly sets out such policies. Every child needing a paediatric intensive care bed this winter has been found one. The bogus figures that the Labour party has produced can self-evidently be seen as bogus. Perhaps the hon. Lady would care to hear what Dr. David Hallworth, chairman of the independent Paediatric Intensive Care Society, said. He called Labour's claims "pretty meaningless", and very wisely added that this issue should not be

"subject to party political point scoring."

Does the Prime Minister agree that the electorate are not naive? They know that a promise not to increase rates of income tax is not the same as a promise not to increase personal taxation. If one says that one wants a starting rate of 10p, that is utterly meaningless if one does not also say at what level it will start and how wide the band will be. Will my right hon. Friend comment on the Government's record on such matters?

One simply needs to look at which was the last party to put up the basic rate of tax; and one recalls that it was the Labour party. One should look at which party has never supported a single Conservative tax cut and has done nothing to get the basic rate down to 23p—I think that Labour Members know that it is their party—at which party has supported absolutely no measures to control expenditure—the Labour party has supported none—and at which party has made £30 billion-worth of promises that it has not yet disclaimed, but that it must disclaim if it is to stand up its ludicrous claim that it will not increase taxes.

The Conservative party's 22 tax rises since the last election must have slipped the Prime Minister's mind for a moment.

I said a moment ago that the report produced by the Labour party was alarmist nonsense. I repeat that point. Every child needing a paediatric intensive care bed this winter has been found one—

Not to the parents.

Of course not to the parents—but, unless the hon. Lady will persuade the shadow Chancellor to provide more resources for health, I suggest that she and the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) should not criticise a service that is treating more people, and treating them better. Just occasionally, it would be wise of them to praise the health service for the way in which it deals with the growing demands of health care, rather than always criticising it.

We do praise the national health service. We built the national health service. What we condemn is the Government's record on the national health service.

If there is a crisis, and the right hon. Gentleman is concerned about the language of priorities, why does he not match our pledge on spending in the national health service? If there is a crisis, why are more people being treated in the national health service than ever before? If there is a crisis, why have we met the charge set out by the shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), on whether our reforms are working—that is, whether more people are being treated?

May I put it to the Prime Minister that, over the past few years—since he has been in charge of the national health service—the service has been given 20,000 more managers but has 50,000 fewer nurses? Is it not the case that the national health service would be better if it were run as a proper co-operative service again, rather than hospital against hospital and doctor against doctor? The only party that will rebuild Britain's national health service is the party that created it.

It is perfectly true that the Labour party established the national health service, and I offer it full credit for its role in following up the Beveridge report instituted earlier by an all-party Government; but it is the Conservative party that has built up the health service. We have been in power for two thirds of the period that has elapsed since then, and we have built up the health service from its beginnings into a service that is now recognised as the best in the world.

During the course of today, when the Prime Minister looked back on his trip to the far east, did he remember seeing there a beautiful and very rare flower called the rafflesia amoldia, which is parasitic in nature, is without a stem or roots and which with its vines embraces any handy, strong tree? If he did, did he draw any conclusions from seeing it?

I saw no such flowers on that occasion.

Will the Prime Minister accept that, in last night's vote, the Government won no part of informed opinion, including that in his own party, in support of their proposals for bugging people and their homes through the Police Bill? Surely he cannot accuse four past Home Secretaries, including a Conservative one, one past Conservative Attorney-General, the present Lord Chief Justice and many Law Lords of failing to back the police because they insist that those wide-ranging powers ought to be subject to prior judicial authority. We all understand that the Home Secretary must take time to digest that vote, but will the Prime Minister at least assure us that, rather than riding roughshod over that opinion, he will listen and respond to it? Will he note that, if he wishes to do so on a cross-party basis, we stand ready to participate?

The whole House, including I assume the right hon. Gentleman, knows that intensive surveillance has been going on under successive Governments under the mantra of guidelines for about 30 years: there is nothing new about it. The purpose of the Bill was to put it on a statutory footing: that was what my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary was seeking to do, and he proposed that it should be put under independent review. The amendments tabled by the Labour and Liberal parties in the Lords contradict one another. They are unsatisfactory and will need to be changed. Of course my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will reflect upon the view that was expressed in another place, but the right hon. Gentleman has to realise that intensive surveillance can be used only in investigating serious crime and where there is no other way of obtaining the intelligence. That is an important principle, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not wish to move away from that principle.

Will my right hon. Friend remind those who listened with incredulity to the yesterday's speech by the shadow Chancellor that, although imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, it is no substitute for the original?

I suppose that every Conservative Member regards imitation as the sincerest form of flattery, but the reality is that, whatever the best intentions of the shadow Chancellor, the sheer nature of the Labour party is such that he certainly could not deliver that which he has promised. He knows that, I think the electorate know that, and the faces behind him portray that very clearly.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 21 January. [10387]

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

Since 1989, some 25 per cent. of beds have been lost to the national health service in Scotland. Today, the senior Duke, the Duke of Hamilton, who happens to be the brother of the Minister who has responsibility for health in Scotland, told the people of Scotland that the Tories cannot be trusted with health. Does the Prime Minister agree?

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could explain, after yet another attempt to denigrate the health service by the Labour party, why more people are being treated in the health service in Scotland and elsewhere. Can the hon. Gentleman explain that, or is he playing "follow my leader" by trying to use Britain's national health service as a party political football for the Labour party?

Will my right hon. Friend ask to see a report of the incident overnight at Full Sutton prison? When he does, does he expect to find that the progress that has been made in the Prison Service in recent years will be reflected by the fact that the disturbance was quelled quickly by the excellent work of the Prison Service and prison officers, to whom praise is due? Will he note that Full Sutton is a modern prison with no overcrowding, but that it holds some of the most violent prisoners in the country? It is their behaviour that was the cause of the riot.

My hon. Friend makes his point with great clarity and I need not add to it. I agree with him. I shall be seeing the report of what happened last night and I am delighted that it was handled so swiftly and efficiently.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 21 January. [10388]

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

Will the Prime Minister accept some facts about the national health service? The Royal Victoria infirmary in Newcastle has turned away 23 children in need of intensive care beds in the past three months, including a 20-month-old baby who had to be taken 120 miles north to Edinburgh. If we add to that the case of my elderly constituent who, tragically, died after being driven 40 miles south to Hartlepool because there were no beds available in Gateshead, surely even the Prime Minister can see why the Tories are no longer trusted with the national health service.

Of course I cannot respond immediately to the individual cases that the hon. Gentleman raised—if he had wished me to do so, he would doubtless have given me notice of them—since literally hundreds of thousands of people are treated in the national health service every day. The hon. Gentleman gave some facts about the health service; perhaps I can give him some. We now spend £724 for every man, woman and child in the country compared with £444 in 1979. [Interruption.] It is nice to see that the mouth of the Humber has returned from Hong Kong.