§ Q1. Mr. FraserTo ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 4 February 1988.
§ The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher)This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today.
§ Mr. FraserWill the Prime Minister accept, from those of us who were with the nurses at their demonstration yesterday, that they had the vast, visible and vocal support of the public? As long as wards are closed and operations cancelled, in London and elsewhere, the Health Service is not serving the patient. What is at fault is not the right hon. Lady's familiar statistics, but her judgment of the country's need.
§ The Prime MinisterConservative Members and patients are grateful to those nurses who did not go on strike, who stayed to carry out their duties, looking after their patients, and who are concerned that about 400 operations will have been postponed because of the activities of this week. I find it astonishing that some nurses should go on strike when a pay review body is considering their claim. The review body was granted to them because they, like some other professions, such as the 1153 armed forces and the police, cannot go on strike. We felt that they should have this special review body to make its own recommendations on nurses' pay.
§ Mr. WardGiven the Attorney-General's announcement yesterday about the inability to withdraw charitable status from the Unification Church, will my right hon. Friend give her support to an urgent review of the law on charitable status?
§ The Prime MinisterI read in great detail the statement made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. I know that some people were disappointed, but it is difficult to get a precise definition of charities suitable to the circumstances. I shall pass on what my hon. Friend has said to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. My hon. Friend will be very much aware that it is easy to analyse problems in this sphere; it is very difficult to draft something that is precisely suitable for what is wanted. I shall consider the matter with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
§ Mr. KinnockFollowing the statements by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury yesterday, and other statements and counter-statements by Members of the Government over recent weeks, there is considerable public confusion about the Government's policy on nurses' pay. — [Interruption.] In an effort to clear that confusion, will the Prime Minister ensure that the Government's submission to the pay body is published?
§ The Prime MinisterNo. It is not customary for that submission to be published. It is customary for each side to give its submission to the other, and that is why the Government's submission was made available to the unions. It is very strange that when these papers are made available to the other side they somehow find their way into public perception. But that is not our practice. There is no confusion in Government policy over setting up a pay review body or about the way in which we have dealt with it. That is a matter of fact.
§ Mr. KinnockIt is not commonplace for the presidents of the royal colleges, or for the British Medical Association, to have to take the kind of stand that they have taken to in recent months. Nor is it commonplace for nurses to be driven into the protest action that they have been taking. As the staff side submissions have been made public for many weeks, why will the Prime Minister not make it clear where the Government stand? Will she confirm the report yesterday in a reputable journal, Nursing Times, that the Government have submitted that
the total resources now provided for health authorities in 1988–1989 will be expected to cover all pay and price increases.Is that true?
§ The Prime MinisterThe pay review body will consider the proposals put to it from both sides. It will consider the new structure, which is vital, and which has been agreed. The review body will put figures to that. May I point out to the right hon. Gentleman that there was not a review body for nurses in his time. May I also point out that the way in which his Government dealt with the review body proposals—[Interruption.] This point is material. I want to point out to the right hon. Gentleman the way in which his Government dealt with the review body proposals for doctors' pay. May I remind him that in 1976 and 1977 the then Government did implement the doctors and dentists review body proposals in full, but when in 1976 inflation 1154 was 16.5 per cent., the review body recommendation was 2.2 per cent. It protested to the Government about the restraint measures—[HON. MEMBERS: "Boring."]—on the pay system and structures, which were not compatible with the duties that it had to carry out. There are no such restraints on the nurses pay review body.
§ Mr. Gerald HowarthIs my right hon. Friend aware that any strike action by Ford workers following their rejection of the recent pay offer will imperil their jobs and many thousands of jobs throughout the country among people working in the motor components manufacturing business, including nearly 300 of my constituents? Does she agree that the current wave of strikes, if continued, will seriously damage Britain's new and hard-won reputation for having kicked the strike habit?
§ The Prime MinisterI agree with my hon. Friend that strikes put the jobs of the strikers in jeopardy. They also jeopardise the jobs of those who supply components and other materials to the factories. If the latters' jobs are in jeopardy, they should blame the Ford workers.
§ Q2. Mr. Simon HughesTo ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 4 February.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. HughesDoes the Prime Minister realise that the reason why nurses, doctors, other Health Service staff and patients were on the streets yesterday was that top salaries have risen 30 per cent. and manual workers' wages have gone down by 6 per cent. under this Government? Does she realise, further, that they were also protesting at the suggestion that nurses might only not get more money in the Budget, but the health authorities may be obliged to pay all the money that is awarded? Does the Prime Minister not think that, just once, the public tide might be right and that Queen Canute might be wrong?
§ The Prime MinisterI have indicated in reply to a previous question that under a previous Government, which the Liberal party supported, the doctors' and dentists' review body was put under substantial restraints over what it could recommend, as a result of which it recommended pay increases that were greatly below the increase in inflation. That is what the hon. Gentleman supported. Under this Government the increases for doctors and nurses have been substantially above the increases in inflation. Labour put down doctors' and nurses' pay by something like 20 per cent. in real terms and the Tories have put up nurses' and doctors' pay by about 30 per cent. and 20 per cent. respectively. That is an excellent record and that is what the hon. Gentleman cannot bear.
§ Mr. Anthony CoombsIs my right hon. Friend aware of the depth of support for her insistence that reform of EEC funding should depend upon a fundamental reform of the common agricultural policy? Does she agree that allowing the EEC a fourth resource—a percentage on GDP rather than VAT — would make EEC spending less, rather than more, responsible, would increase the burdens on the British taxpayer and should be firmly resisted?
§ The Prime MinisterI agree with my hon. Friend that the key to the European Council meeting is whether all 1155 member countries are really prepared to tackle the matter of surplus commodities, in particular wheat, barley and oil seeds. They are a great drain upon the financial budget. We must tackle those, and every country must do so.
With regard to how the budget is financed, a fourth resource, related to GNP, would alter the way in which the money was raised, and it is possible that some countries with a rising GNP are not paying enough. We shall insist that the Fontainebleau abatement continues. We do not wish either to gain or lose on that abatement.
§ Q.3 Mr. CallaghanTo ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 4 February.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. CallaghanIs the Prime Minister aware of inefficiency at the top of the DHSS? Is she aware that the chief executive officer of the Rochdale local authority wrote to ask for a public inquiry into the running of the Rochdale health authority, and seven months later he was told that his original letter was lost? Is she further aware that I asked for another, different type of equally involved inquiry, and that 17 weeks later, when I asked the Leader of the House to take up the matter, I was told that my letter, too, had been lost? Is she aware that the cynical name of the Department now is the "Department of Stealth and Total Obscurity"? Will she investigate the inefficiency of this Department at the top level?
§ The Prime MinisterI am very sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not get a reply to his letter. It does not seem to have prevented considerable increases in cash coining to Rochdale health authority—[interruption.] The hon. Gentleman may wish to know that the cash allocation to the Rochdale health authority went up 10 per cent.— [Interruption.] —in cash terms and capital was up by £6.3 million. [Interruption.]
§ Mr. ChurchillWill my right hon. Friend join the Royal College of Nursing in condemning strikes within the NHS, and remind the Leader of the Opposition that during the two most recent major stoppages in the Health Service, in 1979 and 1982, on both occasions the effect was to increase the waiting lists in hospitals by more than 100,000? Is this what the Labour party means by its concern for patient care?
§ The Prime MinisterYes, I join my hon. Friend. The nurses were given a special review body because the Royal College of Nursing did not go on strike. It was noticeable yesterday that the RCN nurses stayed at their posts. Nurses who belonged to other unions—not very many— went on strike. Nevertheless, we think that the activities 1156 this week by a few of the nurses will have delayed about 400 operations. I should have thought that hon. Gentlemen, as well as Conservative Members, would be concerned about that, but lion. Gentlemen seem to be more interested in having strikes than in the welfare of the patients.
§ Q4. Mr. Alex CarlileTo ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 4 February.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer the hon. and learned Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. CarlileWhat is the right hon. Lady's view of the shocking fact that officers as senior as superintendent in the Royal Ulster Constabulary have been held to have attempted to pervert the course of justice? Does she agree that nothing less than the resignation of the Chief Constable will satisfy national and international concern about the Stalker-Sampson inquiry?
§ The Prime MinisterAs the hon. and learned Gentleman is aware, my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has already dealt fully in his statement of 25 January with the question of criminal proceedings. I have nothing to add to what he said. The hon. and learned Gentleman is also aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has told the House that the next step is for the findings of the Stalker-Sampson inquiry to be considered in the context of possible disciplinary proceedings, and he has promised a statement on matters within his responsibility concerning procedures and control within the RUC.
§ Q5. Mr. Roger KingTo ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 4 February.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. KingIs my right hon. Friend aware that in the city of Birmingham about 5,000 youngsters sat their entrance test for the King Edward foundation grammer school? Is this not ample evidence that parents have a high regard for academic achievements within the schooling system, in schools which the Labour party would have destroyed many years ago? Is not the great Education Reform Bill an attempt to develop those academic schools throughout the length and breadth of the land?
§ The Prime MinisterYes, Mr. Speaker. Parents are always anxious to get their children into good schools which not only serve the pupils who go to them but help to raise standards in their own areas and all over the country. I congratulate my hon. Friend.