§ Q1. Mr. MansTo ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 20 June.
§ The Prime Minister: (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher)This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
§ Mr. MansDoes my right hon. Friend agree that the only way of improving the environment is through increased prosperity? Will she therefore press on with her highly successful policies of the past decade to ensure that this prosperity allows us to continue to meet the aspirations of all our people?
§ The Prime MinisterIt is because the Government have created the conditions for a record standard of living that we have been able to spend so much on improving the environment, so much on improving the quality of water—about £1.2 billion this year—and a great deal on improving river cleanliness so that we have the first-equal record of anyone in Europe, far better than any previous Government. Of course, we are spending nearly £2 billion to ensure compliance with the acid rain directive. Altogether, by ensuring prosperity, we have been able to contribute the maximum amount to the environment.
§ Mr. Hattersleyrose—[Interruption.]
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I ask the House to settle down.
§ Mr. HattersleyLast week—last Monday to be exact—the Secretary of State for Social Security explicity rejected the idea that the state pension should provide a "comfortable standard of living". Is that Government policy?
§ The Prime MinisterThe basic state pension has always been a basic state pension—never anticipated to create for all the needs of life. That is why we have—[Interruption.]—at the level at which we would and do provide. That is why, even when I was Parliamentary Secretary in the Ministry of Pensions, we started a second pension, the basic pension followed by a second compulsory pension, either a graduated pension financed by the state or an occupational pension scheme. That is why we also have housing benefit. That is why we also have income support and family credit to make up the pension and to make up incomes to a reasonable standard of living beyond that which the basic pension could possibly reach.
§ Mr. HattersleyWill the Prime Minister make it absolutely explicit—I use the words again—that when the Secretary of State for Social Security says that pensioners living on the basic pension should not expect a "comfortable standard of living", that is Government policy? Yes or no?
§ The Prime MinisterIf pensioners have no further income than the basic pension, they will be entitled, as are 2 million, to income support—[Interruption.] The Income 143 support for older pensioners will go up this October-November. That, too, was the policy accepted by the Labour Government of which the right hon. Gentleman was a member, if he only knew it.
§ Mr. HattersleyWill the Prime Minister never learn? Does she not realise that it is the bland statement of such callous policies that encompassed her humiliation last Thursday?
§ The Prime MinisterIt is the policy which Labour Governments have had to follow as well, in spite of all their rhetoric. I can remember, as the right hon. Gentleman was Minister of State for Prices and Consumer Protection,—[Interruption]—for five years, that in his time—[Interruption.]—inflation averaged 12 per cent. a year over five years. I can also remember of that Government, in which he was a Minister—[Interruption.]
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The Prime Minister must have an opportunity to reply.
§ The Prime MinisterI can also remember, when the right hon. Gentleman was the Minister for High Prices —[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—that inflation in 1976 was 21½per cent., and the then Labour Government could not even make up the pension to that.
§ Sir John HuntWill my right hon. Friend give thought today to the Underground strike, which is set to paralyse London tomorrow? In the interests of the long-suffering travelling public in London, is it not time that irresponsible wildcat action of this kind was outlawed by legislation, and when will that be done?
§ The Prime MinisterI wholly and utterly condemn this strike. It is contrary to the public—is against fellow members of the public who rely, and who are entitled to rely, on transport to get to work. It is a typically selfish policy to put themselves first, before those who have to use —[Interruption.]—to put themselves first, deliberately causing massive inconvenience to those who have to work. Of course, we do not expect Labour Members ever to think of public service.
§ Q2. Mr. Andrew F. BennettTo ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 20 June.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. BennettWill the Prime Minister agree that, while the question last Tuesday was when the Chancellor of the Exchequer would need the removal men, the question now is when the right hon. Lady will need the removal men? Does she have the same unequivocal support from the Chancellor and the Foreign Secretary that she gave them last week?
§ The Prime MinisterWe are very much together as a Government—[Interruption.]—as the hon. Gentleman knows, in spite of tremendous efforts to say to the contrary, and we are very happy with our houses at Nos. 10 and 11 Downing street and in Carlton gardens.
§ Sir Richard BodyWhen my right hon. Friend is considering whether, at the next meeting of the European Council, the subject of the European social charter is to be raised, will she bear in mind that long ago, the European social charter was established by the Council of Europe, 144 that this country was one of the first to sign and ratify it and that there are members of the European Community, not least Spain, that have yet to sign and ratify it?
§ The Prime MinisterMy hon. Friend makes the point very effectively indeed, and I shall raise it at Madrid. I agree that we signed the charter of the Council of Europe, which is a declaration and is not legally binding. In regard to the proposed social charter for Europe, it is quite absurd to try to impose on very different countries with different social services the same level of social services. It would either mean enormous burdens of extra costs on employers, and therefore more unemployment, or it would mean colossal extra subsidies from this country and Germany to those poorer countries in Europe which could not afford it without our aid. With £2 billion net paid to the European Community, we are paying enough.
§ Q3. Mr. McFallTo ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 20 June.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. McFallNow that in European terms both Scotland and Wales are Tory-free zones, and mindful of the voters' verdict in the Vale of Glamorgan, Vauxhall, and Glasgow, Central, does the Prime Minister accept that her nostrums for the country are now as potent and as palatable as a tub of hazelnut yoghurt?
§ The Prime MinisterI am naturally concerned that we have no representation in Scotland, but had Scotland had a Labour Government in the United Kingdom, it would not enjoy a fraction of the prosperity that it now enjoys.
§ Q5. Mr. YeoTo ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 20 June.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. YeoKnowing my right hon. Friend's great concern with environmental issues, does she share my sense of shock that every single member of the European Community has been successfully prosecuted for failing to comply with European Commission directives—that is, every single member with one exception, and will she confirm that the one country with an unblemished record of commitment to both the European ideal and the green ideal is the United Kingdom?
§ The Prime MinisterYes, the United Kingdom is indeed the only one of the main EC countries not to be so prosecuted, because our record on the environment is so good. That is one reason. The second reason is that, as is well known, this Government always play by the rules.
§ Mr. AshdownWhen, on Friday, the Prime Minister meets Dame Lydia Dunn, the most respected and most senior of Hong Kong's politicians, will she pay special attention to the comments that Dame Lydia made yesterday when she said that failure to face up to the nationality problem in Hong Kong could undermine the administration of the colony in the years up to 1997? If the Prime Minister will not herself—[Interruption.] If the Prime Minister believes that Britain cannot meet that responsibility itself, will she at least take the lead in ensuring an international solution to these issues?
§ The Prime MinisterThe last time that the right hon. Gentleman and other right hon. and hon. Members asked that, I pointed out that we are endeavouring to find increased flexibility, first in the sections of the British Nationality Act 1981 and, secondly, under the broader immigration rules. My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary has also pointed out that the British overseas passport does not confer right of abode on people and that right of abode would not enable them to move freely and easily around Europe. That requires citizenship. However, those people can come here for a very brief period with the other passport. If it came to a vital refugee problem, of course, we would wish to garner the help of the whole world to deal with it.
§ Q6. Mr. StanbrookTo ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 20 June.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. StanbrookWhile reflecting on the good as well as the bad things arising out of the Euro-elections, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend agrees that the outgoing President of the European Parliament, Lord Plumb, did a very good job indeed and deserves all our thanks, regardless of party, for the competence, dignity and integrity which he demonstrated over two and a half years as the first British holder of that post?
§ The Prime MinisterYes, Mr. Speaker. I gladly join my hon. Friend. The noble Lord has been an excellent President of the European Parliament and has given valiant service to it, on which I most earnestly congratulate him. I wish him good luck in the future in his seat in the European Parliament.
§ Mr. SedgemoreHas the Prime Minister read the unanimous report of the Select Committee on the Treasury and the Civil Service on Delors? If she has read it, has she understood it? If perchance she understood it, does she agree with it?
§ The Prime MinisterThe whole report I have not read. I have read the Chancellor's evidence. It is absolutely first-class and points out that he would not think of joining the exchange rate mechanism at present; he believes I hat the first priority is to get inflation down. I understand that some of the Labour members of the Committee went flatly against the Labour manifesto and voted in favour of joining the exchange rate mechanism.