§ Q1. Mr. BuchanTo ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 7 December.
§ The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher)This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had 463 meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. I shall depart for Strasbourg later today to attend the European Council.
§ Mr. BuchanWhen the right hon. Lady met her fellow Ministers this morning, did she discuss with the Secretary of State for Scotland his astonishing statement yesterday about homelessness in Scotland, when he said that there was no need for money to be included in the public expenditure statement for homelessness in Scotland because additional money was being made available for London and many of the homeless in London were young Scots? Would the right hon. Lady be prepared to spend Christmas in a cardboard box? Does she agree that the Secretary of State made an appalling statement, both about the position in London and that in Scotland?
§ The Prime MinisterMy right hon. and learned Friend will answer the hon. Gentleman as he did very effectively with regard to Scotland. Many bed spaces in London are not used in the evening, especially those available for the homeless. People are sometimes sent to such places but do not receive any attention for their personal problems, which we think is necessary. The amount that is being spent on homelessness will continue to increase. In general, the number of houses has risen. The amount available to the Housing Corporation over the next two years will rise from about £817 million to about £1,500 million.
§ Mrs. Ann WintertonMy right hon. Friend will be aware of the overwhelming support on both sides of the House and in the country for the cause of the pre-1973 war widows. Will she review the Government's policy as a matter of urgency and place those deserving women, without exception, on a par with their post-1973 colleagues?
§ The Prime MinisterAs my hon. Friend knows, most of the advances in war widows' pensions—whether on tax matters or the additional amounts given from the age of 65, again at 70 and again at 80—have been made by Conservative Governments. It is an excellent record that we are anxious to keep. We are therefore considering the matter further and hope to be in position to make a further statement before Christmas.
§ Mr. HattersleyWhen the permanent secretary to the Department of Trade and Industry said on Monday that the terms of the Rover deal were hidden to avoid severely damaging our relations with the European Community, what did he mean?
§ The Prime MinisterMy right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has answered to the House. I firmly agree with the view that the sale of Rover to British Aerospace was greatly in the interests of the British taxpayer, who had already lost about £3 billion, with another £1.6 billion at risk. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we were in danger of losing the deal. It was an extremely good deal for the British taxpayer and it remains an extremely good deal.
§ Mr. HattersleyAs that answer bears not the slightest relationship to the question that the Prime Minister was asked, let me return to the statement made by the permanent secretary to a Committee of the House this week. When he spoke of severe damage to our relations with the European Community, was he not saying in terms that to have revealed the truth would have done so much 464 damage that the Government entered into a calculated deception, and is that view not reinforced by today's revelation that the Government assessed the consequences of such a deception? If there was no deception, why did Lord Young circulate colleagues asking what the price of deception would be?
§ The Prime MinisterI do not accept the right hon. Gentleman's interpretation of letters which I understand are now being discussed. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry answered questions on the other matters in the House, and answered them satisfactorily.
§ Mr. HattersleyIs the Prime Minister aware that, although she may not accept that interpretation, Parliament, the country and the European Community do? That is why she will go to Strasbourg with a tarnished reputation.
§ The Prime MinisterParliament, the European Community and, above all, the country, know full well that this was an excellent deal for the British taxpayer, as well as for all who work at Rover and who previously worked at British Leyland. It was good for both workers and taxpayers to privatise both the lorry and the car sectors. Of course the right hon. Gentleman does not like that; he would much prefer the British taxpayer to have to pay over and over again, as long as the thing stayed nationalised—and that was bad.
§ Q2. Mr. BrazierTo ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 7 December.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. BrazierDoes my right hon. Friend agree that the decision by the EEC Transport Ministers to deregulate air fares is a triumph for British diplomacy, and that it is the kind of concrete measure to help ordinary citizens that she called for at Bruges? Will she take it from me that the majority of the British people wish her well on her way to the Strasbourg summit, and would like to hear more in the same vein?
§ The Prime MinisterI am grateful to my hon. Friend. Britain has been pressing very hard to secure cheaper air fares in Europe: we were paying far more per mile to go there than we have ever paid to go to the United States. The agreement is indeed a triumph for British diplomacy, and also a triumph for our kind of Europe. We believe in a much freer and more open Europe, which will break down trade barriers and be of great benefit to the people of Britain. [Interruption.]
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. There is a great deal of noise today.
§ Mr. HumeGiven the agenda of the Strasbourg summit, will the Prime Minister reflct on some realities on her way there—for instance, the fact that West Germany's interest rate is 5 per cent., Holland's 6 per cent., Denmark's 7 per cent. and Belgium's and France's 9 per cent., while the United Kingdom's is 15 per cent? Moreover, the inflation rates of all those countries are less than half that of the United Kingdom. Given her attitude to the European monetary system, why does the Prime Minister think that all those countries are out of step?
§ The Prime MinisterLet me point out—citing some of the countries that the hon. Gentleman mentioned—that Belgium's unemployment rate is 10 per cent., Denmark's and Spain's is 16.8 per cent., France's 10 per cent., Ireland's 17.3 per cent., Italy's 10.7 per cent. and the United Kingdom's 6 per cent.
§ Q3. Sir Richard BodyTo ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 7 December.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Sir Richard BodyAs my right hon. Friend will have an opportunity to express her views on the European social charter this weekend in Strasbourg, will she make it plain that—far from being some document of woolly principles—the charter contains some 43 action points, including 17 directives to the House to change the law? According to an independent study by Liverpool university, one of those directives is in danger of causing the loss of no fewer than half a million jobs in this country.
§ The Prime MinisterMy hon. Friend is absolutely right: the social charter was accompanied by an action programme embodying 43 proposals and 17 directives, most of which were entirely inappropriate for the Commission. If any action is to be taken, it should be a matter for national Parliaments.
Furthermore, the social charter would cause a great increase in unemployment in this country—and, I believe, in others—and would probably mean a fortress Europe in the end. It is utterly right that the House rejected it decisively in a vote, and we shall do the same at Strasbourg.
§ Mr. PikeDoes the Prime Minister recognise that millions of people in this country have been losers as a result of her Government's policies during the last 10 years and that increasingly millions of people recognise that they will lose even more next April when the poll tax is introduced, because of its basic unfairness and its failure to take into account ability to pay? Will she do something urgently to rectify that, or does she intend to allow the losers to ensure that she and her party lose the next general election?
§ The Prime MinisterThe overwhelming majority of people in this country have been gainers during the lifetime of this Government. Their standard of living is higher than they have ever known before. The standard of social services is also higher than they have ever known before.
As for the community charge, I imagine that the hon. Gentleman believes that people should bear a fair share of the cost of local authority public expenditure. In England, only 25 per cent. of local authority expenditure is borne by the community charge. About 9 million or 10 million people will get a community charge rebate, at a cost of £2.5 billion to £3 billion, every penny piece of which will be paid by the taxpayer. I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not wish people to get out of paying their legitimate dues to the local authority.
§ Q4. Mr. SumbergTo ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 7 December 1988.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. SumbergGiven the economic revival of the north-west of England as a result of the policies of my right hon. Friend and her Government, would it not be a really good advertisement for Britain if Manchester were to host the 1996 Olympic games? If my right hon. Friend agrees with me, will she join me in supporting the campaign to achieve the objective?
§ The Prime MinisterI agree entirely that to hold the 1996 Olympic games in Manchester would be a very good way of celebrating the revival of the north-west under this Government. I wish the Manchester Olympic bid team well. I wrote on, I believe, 10 November to the International Olympic committee supporting Manchester's claim for the Olympic games in 1996 to be held in Manchester.
§ Mr. ShoreNow that Chancellor Kohl has provided a welcome respite from the headlong rush into European union—[Interruption.]
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder.
§ Mr. Shore—does not the Prime Minister agree that it would make very good sense for Britain now to organise a serious study of the constitutional and economic consequences of economic and monetary union—a study not confined to the governors of the European central banks—and at the same time to ensure that placed at the very top of the European agenda is the future relationship between the European Communities and the emerging independent and democratic countries of eastern Europe? [Interruption.]
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The Prime Minister.
§ The Prime MinisterAs the right hon. Gentleman is aware, when the House debated these matters it took precisely the same view as that which he has expressed so clearly on Delors stages 2 and 3: that it was not right to take away from the House of Commons fundamental rights that are central to our duties. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we have already produced an alternative paper on monetary union which will be considered along with the Delors paper. It goes just a little beyond stage 1, but it would not require any central bank or any common currency. However, it would result in more consistent monetary policies.
As for the relationship between the Community and eastern European countries, we shall be considering that matter at Strasbourg. We put a paper to the Commission, following questions that I raised at the Paris summit just a few days ago, about the varying kinds of relationships that we could have with eastern European countries. The matter will, therefore, be discussed at the Strasbourg meeting, and I shall duly report upon it to the House on my return.
§ Q5. Mr DunnTo ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 7 December.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. DunnIs the Prime Minister aware that all right hon. and hon. Members welcome the destruction of the 467 Berlin wall? Does she agree with me that remnants of the wall ought to be kept standing to remind us, and those who follow us, that the wall was built by Socialists, not to keep people out but to keep them in?
§ The Prime MinisterMy hon. Friend makes his point effectively in his own inimitable way. After 40 years of that sort of system, people in eastern Europe are making their views very clear indeed. Socialism does not work and they want to have no more of it.