FactCheck: Prime Minister's Questions 17 Jan 2006

Last Modified: 17 Jan 2007
By: Channel 4 News

Waiting lists, Scottish independence and defence spending were bowled at Tony Blair.

The Claim

"On 30 November 2005 at the despatch box prime minister guaranteed that no one would wait more than six months for an NHS operation. Every month since, that guarantee has proved to be worthless and bogus. Today official government figures show that there are 15,832 patients waiting more than six months. Why?"
Peter Bone, Conservative MP

Analysis

A reduction in waiting lists is one of New Labour's proudest boasts, and Tony Blair duly dismissed Bone's statement as wrong:

"On the inpatient list there are literally a handful of patients waiting over six months. That contrasts with 1997, when there were 300,000 waiting over six months. The fact is there has been a dramatic improvement with waiting lists, the lowest since records began, 400,000 down since we came to office and waiting times now an average of seven weeks."

So, who's right? The argument hinges on what you define as a "waiting list". First of all, let's look at exactly what Blair said at that session of PMQs back in November 2005:

"When we came to office, many people had to wait over 18 months for their operation - sometimes over a year - in their tens of thousands. From the end of this month, there will be a six-month maximum wait; by the end of 2008, an 18-week maximum from the GPs' surgery right through to the operating theatre."

Based on the current official waiting list, Blair has indeed kept his promise. As he mentioned in his answer to today's question, official figures published on 5 January showed NHS waiting lists at a record low - although, as FactCheck noted last week, these records have only been around since September 1987 - this feat isn't quite as impressive as it might sound.

However, these official waiting lists don't show the time between seeing a GP and being referred for treatment. The figures released today, to which Bone is referring, show far more patients on "hidden waiting lists", waiting for diagnostic tests such as scans.

While Blair's right about the length of official waiting lists at the moment, things may seem different from 2008, when the government aims to bring in an 18-week maximum wait from GP to treatment, including all diagnostic tests.

The Claim

"Yesterday the government appeared before the OECD in order to explain its decision to drop the investigations into the allegations of corruption in relation to the arms sales to Saudi Arabia. When will the PM publish and make public the government's submissions to the OECD so that the British public can judge for themselves?"
Sir Menzies Campbell

Analysis

Not today, that's for sure. In December, the Attorney General told parliament that a Serious Fraud Office investigation into allegations of corruption regarding payments involving BAE systems and Saudi Arabia had been dropped because of the need to safeguard national and international security.

As he pointed out, the OECD anti-bribery convention, to which Britain has signed up, prevents economic factors influencing such decisions.

But is the dropping of the investigation all above board? The OECD is now conducting an inquiry into the matter - and Sir Menzies asked the PM to make the evidence public. Well, Blair reckons we can already judge, based on what he's told us. He told Sir Menzies:

"They can already judge for themselves because we've made it clear the reasons why - my advice certainly was that this investigation would do enormous damage to our relationship with Saudi Arabia, and I said that because I believe then and I believe now that it would do enormous damage to our cooperation on terrorism, to issues to do with security, the broader Middle East - quite apart from the thousands of jobs that would have been lost as a result of the particular contract - although that's not the reason the decision was taken."

The most specific evidence that he gives in the answer refers to the "thousands of jobs" that could have been lost - though he's quick (perhaps too quick?) to say that this has nothing to do with the reasons for dropping. Why mention it then?

Sir Menzies used his next question to ask whether other current investigations into corruption in other arms deals would also be dropped. Blair's answer gave little concrete information, instead accusing the Lib Dems of being "an object lesson in the absence of leadership".

Could Sir Menzies have hit a raw nerve, or is Blair just unable to say more because of matters of national security? Hopefully, the results of the OECD investigation will give the answer.

The Claim

Scotland "A referendum ... would have a disastrous effect on the Scottish economy."
Tony Blair

Analysis

Three hundred years and one day after the Act of Union, Blair responds to a question from a Scottish Labour MP, who says that none of her constituents have ever come to ask her about a referendum on Scottish independence. Scottish independence is a high priority for the SNP who, if elected, promise a referendum in its first term of government.

The effect of separation on the Scottish economy is a tricky question - although in the summer, FactCheck looked at the SNP's figures and found that the revenue from North Sea oil meant there was a case that Scotland would be better off financially if separate from England. However, factors such as the size of Scotland's deficit complicated matters.

With Scottish elections due for May, the SNP reckons that support for Scottish independence is growing. However, a BBC Newsnight poll released yesterday found that while 31 per cent of Scots questioned thought the country would be better off financially if independent, 37 per cent thought it would lose out.

And a majority of people in all countries questioned - 56 per cent of Scots, 73 per cent of English and 69 per cent of Welsh - said they would "prefer [the] union to continue as it is / has done".