§ 1. Mr. Yeoasked the Prime Minister is she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 10 December.
§ The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher)This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, including one with Secretary of State Shultz. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen.
§ Mr. YeoHas my right hon. Friend noticed some of the alarmist reports today about the possible consequences of a fall in oil prices? Does she share my view that the gloom is largely misplaced? If the price of oil declines and that leads to a reversal of the recent strength of sterling, there will be a direct benefit to British exporters and a general boost to international trade. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the most likely overall consequence will be a further strenthening of Britain's already healthy balance of payments?
§ The Prime MinisterI believe that large disruptive movements in the price of oil would not be in anyone's interests. I agree with my hon. Friend that comparatively 758 small movements would reduce world inflation. The autumn statement took into account the possibility of a small fall in world prices.
§ Mr. KinnockHas the Prime Minister seen the report of the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service on the autumn statement? Will she tell the Committee and me why she is so coy about explicitly admitting to the major changes in economic policies that have made everything dependent on high interest rates? How will she respond to the CBI's call for an immediate cut in interest rates? Do her Budget intentions still include tax cuts, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has repeatedly implied? Does she intend to continue to sell off public assets to finance the consequences of her economic failures?
§ The Prime MinisterGovernment policy depends upon the factors which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has frequently set out and which were set out in his autumn statement. He did not provide a fiscal adjustment. There used not to be a fiscal adjustment given in the past, but the practice was changed temporarily. My right hon. Friend has returned to previous practice, which I believe is thoroughly wise. The privatisation programme will go ahead. The public sector borrowing requirement, either including or excluding the assets of the privatisation programme, is still a smaller percentage of gross domestic product than it has been since 1971–72. Therefore, policies will continue as formerly. I think that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that right now is not the time to lower interest rates.
§ Mr. KinnockThe Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service was not convinced by the replies of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I do not think that anyone can be convinced by those of the Prime Minister. Will she tell us how she will respond to the CBI's call, and the call of manufacturers and employers throughout the country, for an immediate cut in interest rates?
§ The Prime MinisterOn further reflection, the right hon. Gentleman will realise that today is not the time to call for further cuts in interest rates. I also point out to him and the CBI that although a 1 per cent. cut in interest rates would benefit industry to the order of £250 million, a reduction of 1 per cent. in wage rate increases would benefit industry by £1 billion. Thus, it will know where to get the greater amount.
§ Mr. Ian LloydWould my right hon. Friend care to express a view, in her role not only as Prime Minister but as the nation's science supremo, on the breach that has recently occurred of the fundamental principle of the freedom of members of the Association of Scientists, irrespective of the political views of the Government for whom they work? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the recent decision at Southampton is most regrettable? Can anything that follows from that be of any possible benefit to all the countries in sub-Saharan Africa that are dependent on the high quality of science that must be observed, not least in South Africa itself?
§ The Prime MinisterAs usual, my hon. Friend makes his point well. Scientific talent must depend on scientific ability, not on political views.
§ Mr. SteelDoes the Prime Minister recall the thoughtful speech by the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary in March about the strategic defence initiative? If so, will she tell the House what answer she has given 759 to the question that he raised about whether the enormous funds to be devoted to such systems might be better employed?
§ The Prime MinisterI believe that that is a matter for the United States. It is for them to decide what funds will be devoted to the system. I believe that it is right to go ahead with the strategic defence initiative, and it is right that the Alliance should be well ahead in the latest scientific and technological advances in defence. That being so, I believe that we were right to take part in SDI. Other countries will follow us. They may not like it, but, as usual, we went ahead first.
Mr. Andy StewartIs my right hon. Friend aware that her support for the coal industry has seen the creation of Britain's newest trade union—the Union of Democratic Mineworkers? I am proudly wearing its lapel badge today. On the badge it says, "Democracy reborn 1985". Is my right hon. Friend not surprised that she cannot see the badge being worn by any Labour Members?
§ The Prime MinisterI agree with my hon. Friend, and congratulate him on the way in which he put his question.
§ Q2. Mr. Flanneryasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 10 December.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. FlanneryWill the Prime Minister explain to us what priority she has when, to use her own language, she can throw £250 million of taxpayers' money at the festering abscess of Johnson Matthey and yet refuse to pay a professional wage to the teachers who are carrying out a vital task for the community? Does she not realise that they have a deep feeling of frustration because of the Government's conduct? That moderate section of the community has struggled alongside most of the people in Britain for a living wage, yet, in her obdurate intransigence, along with the Secretary of State, the Prime Minister refuses to give them a professional wage when they have proved over and over again that the gerrymandering of the Burnham committee will not solve the problem of getting our children back to school.
§ The Prime MinisterI share the view of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science that in dealing with teachers' pay it is vital to set out a statement of their contract of service so that there can be no other argument about it. It is also vital to have a pay structure that means that the better teachers will be paid more. Subject to those two things, as the hon. Gentleman is aware, some £1.25 billion over four years, over and above the normal pay increases, has been offered to the teachers. That would result in a pay structure starting at £7,500 for a new graduate rising to £24,000 for the headmaster of a large secondary school. We believe that that is reasonable.
§ Q3. Mr. Leighasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 10 December.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. LeighGiven my right hon. Friend's responsibility for Government publicity, will she reject the cynical advice offered to her by the dirty tricks booklet from the Association of Liberal Councillors? Does she agree that, 760 whatever else may divide us from the Labour party, we fight on the real issues, not on character assassination and cynical appeals for tactical voting on behalf of what has become the refugee camp and dustbin of British politics?
§ The Prime MinisterI am not responsible for the propaganda of the Liberal party. I have fought the Liberals all my life in my constituency, and beaten them every time.
§ Mr. LofthouseIs the Prime Minister aware that some hon. Members are receiving financial rewards from companies interested in the Channel tunnel? Does she agree that if votes are cast by those hon. Members in connection with the scheme, it must be bordering on corruption?
§ The Prime MinisterWhether hon. Members cast votes in connection with something in which they have an interest is a matter for the House. Many and varied interests affect both sides of the House.
§ Q5. Mr. Spencerasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 10 December.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer my hon. and learned Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. SpencerIs my right hon. Friend aware that the district health authority in Leicester has saved over £400,000 by putting out to competitive tender cleaning contracts at the Glenfield hospital and Leicester general hospital? Does she agree that in the Tory party it is the patients who come first?
§ The Prime MinisterI agree with my hon. and learned Friend that contracting out some of the domestic, catering and cleaning services in the National Health Service has already saved a good deal of money, and that money is now being put towards extra patient care, which is a good thing. There are about £1 billion worth of such services, which leaves a lot of scope for more contracts going to the private sector.
§ Q8. Mr. Amessasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 10 December.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. AmessLast week I presented the Unborn Children (Protection) Bill on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Hargreaves). Will the Prime Minister join me in hoping that the Bill enjoys a swift passage through both Houses and that its opponents do not talk it out?
§ The Prime MinisterIf I did that on every Bill that I may or may not support, I should soon be in acute difficulty. I hope that my hon. Friend will have a good debate on those important issues.
§ Mr. DouglasI revert to an earlier supplementary question. How will the Prime Minister ensure a small reduction in world oil prices in view of her profligancy in producing 2.7 million barrels per day from the North sea at present?
§ The Prime MinisterI said that the autumn statement had already made provision for a small change in oil prices. The hon. Gentleman knows that it is not for any one of us to be able to effect a change in world oil prices —up or down.
§ Q9. Mr. Cockeramasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 10 December.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. CockeramDoes the Prime Minister share the concern of the general public at the depths to which the BBC will now stoop to present a "good" programme, as demonstrated by the intimidation and threats to the witnesses in a recent case featured on the programme called "Rough Justice"?
§ The Prime MinisterThe Lord Chief Justice made his strictures very clear, and as far as I can remember they are absolutely unprecedented. I feel sure that the BBC will take them very seriously. Indeed, it should do so.
§ Q10. Mr. Canavanasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 10 December.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. CanavanNow that the 1922 Committee has ruled that only Members of Parliament representing Scottish constituencies can vote in the Scottish group of Tory Members, will the Prime Minister consider extending that good democratic principle to all Scottish business in the House to bring to an end once and for all the undemocratic practice whereby the majority of Scotland's elected representatives are often outnumbered and outvoted when the Lobbies—
§ Mr. DickensOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
§ Mr. Canavan—are infiltrated by Tory extremists from the deep south?
§ The Prime MinisterThe rules of the House are for the House and the hon. Gentleman would be the first to criticise me if I were to arrogate them to myself.
§ Mr. SkinnerOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
§ Mr. SpeakerDoes it arise directly out of questions?
§ Mr. SkinnerYes, Mr. Speaker. You will recall, that during Question Time there were at least two references to the Register of Members' Interests, with specific reference to the Channel tunnel. You may also be aware that last night it was revealed on BBC television's "Newsnight" that certain Tory Members of Parliament were not entering their names on the Register in time. Indeed, it was suggested that one entry on the Register was made only after the challenge had been made on television by the interviewer.
As you, Mr. Speaker, are ultimately responsible for the register being properly drawn up, are you satisfied that it is up to date? Can I be satisfied that, on the sale of Cable and Wireless in the morning, those concerned with that matter in stockbroking do not include the Under-Secretary of State for Employment, the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Mr. Trippier), whose firm, remarkably, has been granted the opportunity to take part in that sale? That is a family firm and the hon. Gentleman was a partner until recently. His father is the consultant to Pilling Trippier and Co. and his sister is also a partner. That borders on corruption and should be examined.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I was in the Chamber last night when the programme went out so I do not know what was 762 said on it, but I have heard about it this morning. The House knows that interests must be registered in the Register of Members' Interests.
§ Mr. WinnickFurther to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
§ Mr. SpeakerDoes it arise directly out of Question Time?
§ Mr. WinnickIt does arise from Question Time, Mr. Speaker. It arises from a question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) and, with respect, it is not simply a matter of the Register of Members' Interests. There is a larger issue involved. Financial rewards are being paid to hon. Members by companies seeking a contract for the Channel tunnel. The television film last night revealed that there is the utmost pressure by companies and payments are being made to hon. Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) asked about the Register of Members' Interests. There is nothing in the register about rewards paid to hon. Members. I have raised that point previously. Is it in order, Mr. Speaker, for hon. Members to receive financial rewards in respect of contracts that are being bid for by companies? Does not that call into question whether there is an element of corruption? How can any hon. Member speak and vote when he is being financially rewarded by a company?
§ Mr. SpeakerWill the hon. Gentleman come to the point?
§ Mr. WinnickI want you to rule, Mr. Speaker, on whether the practice that is now going on is acceptable, or whether, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover has correctly said, it borders on corruption.
§ Mr. NellistFurther to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. When you consider the points put to you by my hon. Friends the Members for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) and for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), could you also consider the references made at Question Time and Prime Minister's Question Time today to the increased privatisation of cleaning and other services in the Health Service, and Tory Members who are directors of or consultants to the companies that receive the contracts?
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. Points of order take time from our next debate, but I shall take them if they arise directly on this matter.
§ Mr. AshtonFurther to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. On the programme last night certain definite allegations were made that the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) had not registered his interests. After questioning by the programme, he altered the entry in the Register of Members' Interests, which is available to the House. Either the programme was guilty of contempt or breach of privilege, or the programme, which made serious allegations about the lobbying that is taking place, should be investigated.
§ Mr. Maxwell-HyslopFurther to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is surely notorious that, although a Select Committee made a recommendation which was accepted by the House, the House never enforced its rule against the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell), who has refused to comply with the requirement to register interests 763 in the Register of Members' Interests. That is why the matter has fallen into disrepute and disuse. I notice that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who complains of a failure of the Register of Members' Interests, has not complained to you that the most notorious case of this has endured for years—that of the right hon. Member for South Down. Because the House has, wrongly, never chosen to enforce its rule in his case, as he is articulate and television-worthy, it has become clear that the rule is not a rule at all. Either the register should be enforced, which is what I favour, or it should be done away with as spurious. It should not be left in its present condition, in which one of the most senior Privy Councillors defies it with impunity, and has done so for a decade.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I shall take one more point of order.
§ Mr. Merlyn ReesFurther to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you, on our behalf, look at the film and see whether it raises any matters of privilege? I saw the film last night in company, and after it people raised matters about the way in which hon. Members behaved, which needs investigation.
§ Mr. SpeakerIf the right hon. Member is alleging the involvement of privilege, he should raise it in the normal way. I take the point of the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop). There is a Select Committee which deals with complaints about the registering and declaring of interests. The House lays down the rules governing declaration, and it is right that they should be followed.
§ Mr. Campbell-Savoursrose—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. Every right hon. and hon. Member knows that if he has an interest in an enterprise, it should be registered. That is a matter of honour.
§ Mr. Campbell-Savoursrose—
§ Mr. Robert C. Brownrose
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I have nothing more to add.
§ Mr. Campbell-SavoursFurther to that—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I have nothing more to add to what I have said.
§ Mr. Campbell-Savoursrose
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. If it is a different point of order, I shall take it, but I will take nothing more on that subject.
§ Mr. Campbell-SavoursOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During the past four weeks at business questions on Thursday I have asked the Leader of the House whether a report of the Select Committee on Members' Interests, which was published last July, could be brought before the House for debate. As I understand it, that report may well be debated next week and, indeed, at the beginning of January. If any hon. Member wishes to make representations on the matter, he could do so during that debate. However, the point that is being raised is an extension of that. It is whether those who declare an interest should vote. That is an extension of the principle that we have not examined in the Select Committee.
§ Mr. SpeakerThe hon. Members makes a wise point. The House should debate the report.