§ Q1. Mr. CallaghanTo ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 25 April.
§ The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher)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.
§ Mr. CallaghanIs the Prime Minister aware that the Select Committee on the Environment recently produced a report about the disposal of toxic waste and that the chairman said that only God knows what time bomb we are sitting on because of fears that toxic chemicals will get into our water supply? Is she further aware that the Select Committee unanimously condemned the Department of the Environment for its lack of leadership and control? In view of the Prime Minister's statement that the present Secretary of State for the Environment is the best there has ever been, how does she reconcile those two views? Who is telling the truth?
§ The Prime MinisterI speak from my recollection of reading that full report, but if the hon. Gentleman looks at the list of action taken, he will find that action by the Government goes back to 1983. Our action in regard to beaches goes back to 1979. The Labour party did nothing about the beaches directive for four years and we had to take immediate action. As I have pointed out, there will be another major Bill to implement the consultation that we have had this year.
§ Mr. DickensDoes the Prime Minister agree that our doctors are the custodians of the nation's health but that by the same token, they are also procurement officers on behalf of the taxpayer and the National Health Service, collectively placing orders worth millions of pounds every day? If we are to have a cost-effective and efficient Health Service, we have to make provision for an aging population. Is it not therefore a pity that we are subjected to the politics of fear, envy and myth which, in one word, is Socialism?
§ The Prime MinisterI am very glad to see my hon. Friend back, clearly absolutely recovered. In addition to what he has said, for every £1 that was spent on the Health Service in 1979, £3 is spent today, on more doctors, more nurses, more and better hospitals and very much better care of which he has probably been a recent beneficiary.
§ Mr. KinnockWhen two thirds of the people of West Germany are against the modernisation of short-range nuclear weapons, are not the German Government absolutely right to act on their view?
§ The Prime MinisterShort-range nuclear weapons are part of the NATO strategy. NATO strategy is being discussed and NATO strategy cannot be determined by any one country.
§ Mr. KinnockWhen we are told that the Warsaw pact has a 16:1 advantage in short-range nuclear weapons, does it not make sense for Britain and for NATO to gain the most by negotiating their verifiable removal?
§ The Prime MinisterI thoroughly agreed on that point with an early-day motion which appeared on the Order Paper on 9 February 1989 congratulating
the Socialist Prime Minister of France on his … statement … that 'conventional and nuclear weapons are jointly necessary for the security of Europe',…that 'despite some initial signs of an unquestionable desire for disarmament in the Soviet camp, we are still far from seeing the reasonable sufficiency or the defensive posture that they claim', and that we must avoid having disarmament 'become a smokescreen for denuclearisation.'That was tabled by a Labour Member.
§ Mr. KinnockI am glad to hear the Prime Minister quoting a Socialist President. I quote to her a Conservative Chancellor. Does she agree that there should be
'early negotiations on short-range nuclear weapons based on the goal announced by the Alliance in Reykjavik in 1987 and in Brussels in 1988 to achieve equal numbers at lower levels' and … 'negotiations on nuclear artillery with the aim of achieving equal ceilings at levels that are drastically reduced'That is the view of Chancellor Kohl.
§ The Prime MinisterI do not think that the right hon. Gentleman could have heard my first answer to him—[Interruption.] The strategy that we are discussing is the strategy of NATO, which has protected peace for 40 years. It is the strategy which the right hon. Gentleman does not accept and which he wishes to throw away. The strategy on which he is engaged is to get the denuclearisation of Europe and to have no safety left in defence in NATO for this country.
§ Sir Geoffrey Johnson SmithIs my right hon. Friend aware that there are many parliamentarians both here and on the continent of Europe who share her deep concern about the West German Government proposal to start talks on short-range nuclear weapons with the Warsaw pact countries unilaterally in advance of reductions in chemical weapons and conventional forces?
§ The Prime MinisterI agree with my hon. Friend. NATO has played a vital role in maintaining Germany's freedom, which started the day the second world war ended, and I do not believe that the German Government want to put NATO at risk.
§ Q2. Mr. IllsleyTo ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 25 April.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. IllsleyIn view of the fact that in February of this year the south Yorkshire police instructed Barnsley football club to admit 2,000 spectators to an FA cup match at one minute before the kick-off without payment and without tickets, will the Prime Minister now consider delaying the Football Spectators Bill until after Lord Justice Taylor reports or, even better, withdraw it altogether as such police action clearly makes that Bill unworkable?
§ The Prime MinisterI answered some questions from this Dispatch Box last week pointing out that there had been nearly 300 deaths in the post-war period from crush and hooliganism in football, that unless we had a Bill we 802 should be unable to take any action contained in the measure apart from the national membership scheme and that I believed that, against that number of deaths, for the House to wash its hands of such a Bill would be negligent in the extreme.
§ Mr. Nicholas BakerDoes my right hon. Friend agree that anyone of reputable character—a public company, a national newspaper or a child playing in the street—on finding documents or property lost, stolen or fallen off the back of a lorry, would, as their first action, seek to return it to its rightful owner?
§ Mr. Tony BanksNot in my constituency.
§ The Prime MinisterWhat my hon. Friend says is correct and most people would agree.
§ Mr. AshdownWhat is the limit, if any, below which the Prime Minister would not be prepared to let child benefit be cut?
§ The Prime MinisterOur policy on child benefit has been set out. We increased child benefit to the poorest families, which gave them far more help than they would have had if there had been an across-the-board increase. I am happy to say that that policy was endorsed by a majority of 100 yesterday evening.
§ Mr. Patrick ThompsonBearing in mind that we are this month marking the 40th anniversary of NATO, will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity to discuss with her colleagues at the Department of the Environment the recent decision by Norwich city council to throw out an exhibition which was installed to mark the 40th anniversary of NATO? Does she agree that that Labour-controlled council has pointed up the Opposition's confusion on defence matters?
§ The Prime MinisterMy hon. Friend makes his point effectively. NATO has kept the peace in Europe for over 40 years. We are firmly behind NATO's strategy—which is a mix of conventional and nuclear weapons—as, I believe, are the United States and the overwhelming majority of NATO members. Anything that undermines NATO would be highly damaging to the defence of liberty.
§ Q4. Mr. PawseyTo ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 25 April.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. PawseyDoes my right hon. Friend agree that one of the principal achievements her three Administrations has been the way in which the trade unions have been firmly brought under the rule of law? Would she care to say what the effect would be on the economy and on employment of a return to the secondary picketing advocated by Opposition Members?
§ The Prime MinisterThe effect would be utterly devastating. We would go back to secondary strikes, in which there was no dispute between the employer and the employee and we would see again some of the massive strikes that we had in Labour's last period of office, during 803 which about 13 million days a year were lost through strikes— a situation that would not have been encountered under a Tory Government.
§ Q7. Mr. Tim SmithTo ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 25 April.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. SmithDoes my right hon. Friend agree that some doctors have behaved in a most irresponsible and non-professional nammer in their treatment of elderly and vulnerable patients—[Interruption.]
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder.
§ Mr. SmithThe doctors have frightened their elderly and vulnerable patients about the effect of the National Health Service review. Will my right hon. Friend emphasise to the British Medical Association—the doctors' trade union—before its conference on Thursday, that it should stop using patients as a political battering ram and should instead sit down to discuss the proposals with the Department of Health?
§ The Prime MinisterYes, I wholly agree with my hon. Friend. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health answered the doctors effectively in some of the letters which he sent in reply to them. There are more doctors with more resources than ever before in the Health Service and the objective of the National Health Service White Paper is to give better health care, to give greater choice and to produce greater satisfaction and rewards for those who work in the NHS and who successfully respond to local needs. The changes proposed in remuneration before the White Paper are planned to distribute the same amount of money to doctors, but by way of distributing more to those who have a bigger case load than to those who have a smaller case load. That seems eminently just.
§ 8. Mr. Tony BanksTo ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 25 April.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. BanksIs the Prime Minister aware that there is an important Roman site in Upper Thames street near St. Paul's cathedral, which is the site of the palace of Julius Agricola, a former governor of London?
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The question must have to do with the Prime Minister's responsibilities.
§ Mr. BanksThe site is threatened by office development and there are difficulties with English Heritage and the developers about compensation that might be paid if the development is kept in abeyance while archaeological inspection continues. Will the Prime Minister please look at the matter urgently because the site is of great significance not only to London but to the nation?
§ The Prime MinisterI am aware of the site and of its importance. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be in touch with the Department of the Environment, under which English Heritage comes. If it comes to a final decision on planning, that would be for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to determine.
§ Mr. Frank FieldIs the Prime Minister aware that the first compensation payments will shortly be paid from the Hillsborough disaster fund? Is she also aware that the poorest families may—[Interruption.]
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder.
§ Mr. FieldIs the Prime Minister aware that the first payments will shortly be paid from the Hillsborough disaster fund? Is she also aware that the poorest families may, as a result of gaining help from that fund, lose their entitlement to social security payments? As I cannot believe that the nation contributed generously to that fund so that the Treasury would be the net beneficiary, and because I do not believe that the Treasury would wish to be the net beneficiary, will the right hon. Lady undertake to review the disregard rules so that the poorest families can gain help from that fund and keep their social security payments?
§ The Prime MinisterFirst, I am not sure what the status of the Hillsborough disaster fund will be. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, other funds have chosen to have charitable status, but I am not sure what decision has been made about the Hillsborough fund and that will affect the way in which the payments are made. Secondly, as the hon. Gentleman knows, other disaster funds have had charitable status and they must have worked out a reasonable way forward on this matter. I do not think that we can change the rules and regulations, but I shall look to see how similar funds have worked.