§ Q1. Mr. O'Neillasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 21 October.
§ The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher)This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, including one with President Soares of Portugal. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
§ Mr. O'NeillIn the light of the increase in mortgage rates announced today, will the Prime Minister tell the House how much of the £4 billion that her Government borrowed in September was used to shore up the pound during the Tory party conference in Bournemouth?
§ The Prime MinisterThe hon. Gentleman is well aware that it is not the practice to comment in any way on intervention. Naturally, we are reluctant to increase interest rates, but when it becomes necessary to do so in order to keep downward pressure on inflation, we do not hesitate to take that step.
§ Mr. Allan StewartWill my right hon. Friend take the opportunity today to congratulate the city of Glasgow on being the United Kingdom's nominee for the European city of culture 1990? Will my right hon. Friend also refute the absurd allegations by the Lord Provost of Edinburgh that Edinburgh's bid failed for political reasons? Is it not the case that Glasgow's hid was simply miles better?
§ The Prime MinisterI gladly respond to my hon. Friend's invitation to congratulate the city of Glasgow on winning the accolade of the city of culture and wish it well.
§ Mr. KinnockDoes the Prime Minister recall saying just 11 days ago at the Conservative party conference that she wanted to conquer unemployment, north and south? How does she reconcile that with her Government's admission to the European regional development fund that, with unchanged policies, the future is frighteningly bleak, or with a policy of cutting public investment by more than 10 per cent. during the next two years? How can she say that she wants to conquer unemployment when unemployment is the weapon which she has mercilessly used for the past seven years and which she intends to go on using?
§ The Prime MinisterThe report to which the right hon. Gentleman refers was compiled from submissions from local and other public authorities designed to support their bids for grants from the European regional development fund. The figures to which the right hon. Gentleman refers are the very same planning assumptions which appear in 941 the public expenditure survey, and there is nothing new. It is those figures applied to existing differentials. We have followed the practice of previous Governments in this.
§ Mr. KinnockNone of that alters the fact that that document is a devastating indictment from within the Government of the Government's own record. If the right hon. Lady is concerned about unemployment, why does she not take the hint from that report and undertake public investment in Wales, in Scotland and in the northwest, north-east and south-west of England, to generate jobs now and provide a foundation for employment in the future instead of following the policy on which she insists?
§ The Prime MinisterIf the right hon. Gentleman is tackling our record on providing capital expenditure for infrastructure, I remind him that the last Labour Government cut public sector capital expenditure by 20 per cent., National Health Service capital expenditure by 30 per cent. and expenditure on roads by 36 per cent. It is we who have restored many of those public sector programmes.
§ Mr. KinnockNobody believes that. Will the right hon. Lady say whether she is prepared to accept the statement of the CBI that unless the Government take the initiative now on capital projects the United Kingdom will lose its chance and slip further behind in the competitive league? If she will not listen to the demands from all over England, Wales and Scotland, from the Opposition and from many others, will she accept the demands of the CBI?
§ The Prime MinisterMay I say exactly what has happened with regard to spending on roads —[Interruption.] The Opposition do not want to hear the facts. Capital spending on motorways and trunk roads has increased by 25 per cent. in real terms to £900 million, National Health Service capital expenditure has increased by 22 per cent. in real terms since 1979, there has been investment of £2 ½ billion in railways and £5 billion on fixed assets in the gas industry, and capital expenditure on housing renovation is up 54 per cent. in real terms. Which of those figures does the right hon.. Gentleman say is wrong?
§ Sir Peter HordernIn considering the Peacock committee report, will my right hon. Friend uphold the recommendation about the need to improve the standards of service of the BBC, which have sunk to an all-time low so that, far from following the public service concept of informing, educating and entertaining, the BBC is now guilty of misinformation and even libel? Does not a heavy responsibility rest on the chairman and governors of the BBC to root out those responsible and to improve the standards of the corporation generally?
§ The Prime MinisterI am sure that the chairman designate of the BBC will wish to do everthing possible to achieve the highest possible standards for the BBC, which is the point of my hon. Friend's question and the wish of everyone.
§ Dr. OwenWill the Prime Minister confirm the statement that came out of No. 10 Downing street yesterday from Mr. Bernard Ingham that the Government will not enter the EMS until after the next election? As our non-membership of the exchange rate mechanism has cost us so heavily, will the Prime Minister give some comfort to the millions of people who face a 1¼ per cent. increase in their mortgage rate?
§ The Prime MinisterAs I have said to the right hon. Gentleman before, there is no change in the Government's position in relation to the EMS. I should point out, however, that although many of those who ask to go into the EMS think that it is somehow a soft option, we should probably have sharper and more rapid increases and decreases in interest rates if we belonged to the EMS than otherwise.
Mr. JacksonIn view of my right hon. Friend's special responsibilities for science, will she take the opportunity today to look into the damage being done to the science budget by the impact of international exchange rate fluctuations?
§ The Prime MinisterWe have been as generous as we possibly can with the science budget. As my hon. Friend is aware, we have made provision for more expenditure in the universities, especially for young people who hitherto were not able to have their theses considered. I will certainly look into the point raised by my hon. Friend, but I do not think that it is possible to compensate for it.
§ Q2. Mr. Cunliffeasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 21 October.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. CunliffeWill the right hon. Lady quote from that part of the United Kingdom regional development fund report which deals with the north-west and Greater Manchester as a whole, and which speaks of the terrifying prospect for the future for the unemployed and the imminent collapse of the infrastructure services in that area? Is that not a result of the Government's senseless and ruthless economic policies, and what is the right hon. Lady prepared to do to remedy that state of affairs?
§ The Prime MinisterNo. I indicated that that report was compiled from submissions from local and other public authorities. It was designed to support their bids for grants from the European regional development fund. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to look at it he will find a copy in the Library, together with a copy of all previous reports under this and previous Labour Governments.
§ Mr. DickensAs the Opposition have given notice at their party conferences that they will abandon our nuclear defences, does my right hon. Friend consider that the red rose of the Labour party should be replaced by the white feather?
§ The Prime MinisterI do not believe that the Labour party will ever win an election, but if it did it would be catastrophic for the defences of Britain.
§ Mr. RowlandsWill the Prime Minister spend some time today thinking about Aberfan and considering the needs of a community which, over the past 20 years, has rebuilt its future after the tragedy and disaster of 20 years ago this week?
§ The Prime MinisterI most certainly will. I was shadowing the Ministry of Fuel and Power when that tragedy occurred. I took part in the debate on that occasion and it is etched on my mind.
§ Mr. HannamHas my right hon. Friend seen the report in the Sunday Times showing that the reductions in taxation on the top earners in Britain and in the United States since 1979 has resulted in an increase in revenue to 943 this country? Does not that expose the fallacy of the Labour party's policy, which presumes to raise £3–5 billion from an increase in the level of taxation on top earners?
§ The Prime MinisterYes. A reduction in the top rate of tax increased the yield from the top tax earners. We also need those top tax earners if we are to create the new businesses upon which new jobs depend. I agree with my hon. Friend.
§ Q3. Mr. Flanneryasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 21 October.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. FlanneryIn view of the sympathy which the Prime Minister has extended to the Prime Minister of Mozambique on the untimely death of President Samora Machel, can we expect her to tell the Government of South Africa that if they take steps to use this untimely death to further destabilise Mozambique the eyes of the world will be upon them and the whole situation in southern Africa — not merely South Africa — will deteriorate in an international way?
§ The Prime MinisterThe death of President Samora Machel was a great shock and a great tragedy, not only for the people of that country, but for the whole of southern Africa. Naturally, we shall be watching the situation very carefully indeed. Our views on South Africa are well known. We dislike and deplore apartheid, but we wish its abolition to come from negotiation and not from sanctions.
§ Mr. Jim SpicerMy right hon. Friend may have read a report about the ill-timed visit of the Leader of the Opposition to Berlin and West Germany last week. Will she take every opportunity to reassure the people of Berlin, West Germany and our own armed forces that the Government and the people of the United Kingdom will never betray them?
§ The Prime MinisterI made it very clear when I went to Berlin that the defence of the West within NATO is indivisible and that we stand by our guarantee to Berlin.
§ Q4. Mr. James Lamondasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 21 October.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
Mr. Lomond Will the right hon. Lady be taking time today to have discussions with the chairman of the Conservative party, in an effort to clear him of the allegations that he has been leaning heavily on Tory Members of Parliament in an attempt to prevent
§ The Prime MinisterI do not answer questions about party political matters from this Dispatch Box —[Interruption.]—and I do not necessarily accept what the hon. Gentleman says.
§ Q5. Mr. Michael Forsythasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 21 October.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. ForsythWill my right hon. Friend confirm that if she acceded to Opposition requests to cancel the Trident 944 programme, thousands of jobs would be lost in Scotland, including at the Ravenscraig plant, which supplies the steel for Trident submarines? Do we not hear double standards from the Opposition on the issue of unemployment as well as on defence?
§ The Prime MinisterI should make it clear that Trident is a vital part of our defence, and this Government will go ahead with the Trident programme.
§ Q6. Mr. Gareth Wardellasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 21 October.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some monents ago.
§ Mr. WardellWhat guarantee can the Prime Minister give that anyone needing a blood transfusion will receive blood that is AIDS-free?
§ The Prime MinisterMy right hon. Friend the Minister for Health is doing everything that he can to ensure that that is possible.
§ Mr. AshtonOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
§ Mr. SpeakerDoes it arise directly out of questions?
§ Mr. AshtonYes, Sir. My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Lamond) asked the Prime Minister a specific and important question about allegations in the press that witnesses have been interfered with by the chairman of the Conservative party. Is it in order for the Prime Minister to refuse—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The hon. Gentleman knows that I am not responsible for the answers that are given.
§ Mr. WilliamsOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker. which arises out of questions. During Question Time my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition referred to the United Kingdom's regional development programme. It is the first time that the Government have spelt out the stark future facing all our regions. The Prime Minister replied by trying to fudge the importance of the document and said that it was a compilation of the views of various regional and local authorities. In paragraph 1.3 of the Government's own submission it says:
The United Kingdom Regional Development Programme sets out the economic difficulties of the regions and the Government's policies for alleviating these difficulties.For that reason, I submit that the Prime Minister has misled the House, and that there should be a statement on this point.
§ Mr. SpeakerIf the right hon. Gentleman made an application for a statement to be made it might be considered, but that point is not a matter for me.
§ Mr. Campbell-SavoursOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
§ Mr. SpeakerDoes it arise directly out of questions?
§ Mr. Campbell-SavoursThe point of order arises from a matter raised at Question Time. You have repeatedly told the House, Mr. Speaker, that you would deprecate any action on the part of an hon. Member that brought the House into disrepute. My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Lamond) raised a question involving the possibility that the House had been brought into disrepute by a right hon. Member who is also a member of the Cabinet. Would it not be wise of you to 945 use whatever means are open to you to ask the Attorney-General to come to the House to answer questions about influence being exerted by a Cabinet member on Back Benchers and others, which might well be contrary to the law and which might lead the Attorney-General to want to make a statement?
§ Mr. SpeakerIt is not for me to ask Ministers to come before the House to answer allegations which, judging from what I hear and read, are pure speculation.