Engagements (Hansard, 24 October 1989)

§ Q1. Ms. Quin
To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 24 October 1989.

§ The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Geoffrey Howe)
I have been asked to reply.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is returning from the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Kuala Lumpur.

§ Ms. Quin
Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman recall the 1979 election statement by the Prime Minister, that under a Conservative Government the products will stream from our factories and workshops while the customers of the world scramble over each other to buy them. Given the continuing and colossal trade deficit, what is his view now of that prediction?

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
The hon. Lady should understand that export performance, as recorded in the figures reported today, continues to be encouraging—[Interruption.] Export volume performances excluding erratic items are up over the latest three months by 8.5 per cent. in volume terms. That is consistent with the Prime Minister's claim.

§ Q2. Mr. Brazier
To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 24 October 1989.

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
I have been asked to reply.
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

§ Mr. Brazier
Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the scenes last night of 250,000 East Germans demonstrating in Leipzig were a reminder yet again of the utter bankruptcy of Communism? Does he further agree that it is ridiculous for any party in the West to want to see a return to state control and economic collectivism?

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
The point that my hon. Friend makes is entirely valid and of great importance. It shows that people all over the world are turning away from the doctrine adopted by the Labour party, which has a prescription for Britain from which the rest of the world is trying to escape.

§ Mr. Kinnock
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman say why the Government are so opposed to the sensible course of referring the ambulance dispute to binding arbitration?

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
Because, as the right hon. Gentleman knows well, there is no provision for independent arbitration in the Whitley council procedures. On offer to the London ambulance service qualified staff is an increase of more than 9 per cent., with a consequent increase in overtime rates of almost 20 per cent. The real value of the 1986 salary structure has been more than maintained and the offer also contains the prospect of a review of that structure in the light of three years' experience. I am sure that the whole House will join me in wishing that those who are currently taking quite unjustified industrial action would return to the negotiating table and discuss the dispute there.

§ Mr. Kinnock
If the right hon. and learned Gentleman will not help to get the ambulances back on the road by supporting binding arbitration as a means of resolving the dispute, will he tell us at what stage the Government intend to honour the pledge made by the Prime Minister that ambulance workers' pay should have firm and automatic linkage to national price or wage rises?

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
The right hon. Gentleman knows very well that the particular proposals put forward some years ago for linkage of ambulance men's pay to that of other services was specifically rejected by the Clegg commission, which was appointed by the Labour Government. I return to the point that there is no provision for independent arbitration in the current arrangements. National Health Service management must retain control over the pay of National Health Service staff, and since 94 per cent. of those working in the NHS have already settled their pay this year without industrial action, it is greatly to be hoped that the ambulance men will do the same.

§ Mr. Kinnock
It really is not good enough for the Government, faced with the ambulance dispute, to use Whitley and Clegg as excuses. When will they face up to their responsibilities, support binding arbitration and get the ambulances back on the roads?

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
We do not need any advice from the right hon. Gentleman about facing up to responsibilities. When will he face up to his responsibility to confront an industrial dispute without supporting those who take industrial action?

§ Q3. Mr. Squire
To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 24 October.

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
I have been asked to reply.
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

§ Mr. Squire
Against the background that we read of the possible non-uprating of child benefit for the third successive year, may I urge my right hon. and learned Friend even now to consider an alternative—the exclusion of the 500,000 taxpayers who have children and who pay the higher rate of tax from eligibility for child benefit, and the restoration of a full increase for the remainder of recipients? That would have widespread approval in the country and bring much-needed relief to many poorer families.

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
I understand my hon. Friend's sincere concern with this topic. I must tell him, first, that any statement on the uprating of benefits will be made 665 shortly in the usual way, and I cannot comment on the matter ahead of it. However, taking account of the principle that my hon. Friend endorses—that there should be some attempt to concentrate help on those in greatest need—he should surely take account of the fact that since 1979, real take-home pay for families on the average wage and with two children has risen by almost a third. In our policy to concentrate help on those most in need through family credit we provided last year about £200 million extra for low-income families, another £100 million extra for non-working families, through income support, and from April this year we have provided for the poorest families an extra £70 million over and above the amount that they would have received through the uprating of benefits. That has been a generous application of the principle that my hon. Friend urges.

§ Q5. Mr. Bradley
To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 24 October.

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
I have been asked to reply.
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

§ Mr. Bradley
It is clear from the reply that the deputy Prime Minister gave some moments ago that he has no understanding of the anguish expressed by millions of families in this country or of the horror felt on both sides of the House at the news that child benefit is to be frozen. Does he not realise that one in three families in Manchester already lives in poverty, and that 12,000 children are now not entitled to free school meals because of the so-called targeting of benefits? How do the Government justify these relentless attacks on our children in not uprating child benefit? The answer is certainly not means testing.

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
The hon. Gentleman entirely misses the point. The extent to which our social security expenditure of all kinds has risen during the 10 years that we have been in office—by some £17 billion, to a total of some £53 billion, so in real terms, after taking account of inflation, it has risen by more than a third—has been specifically designed to concentrate help on those who most need it, exactly as I described a moment ago. That is the right way to bring help to those in greatest need.

§ Q6. Mr. Thurnham
To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 24 October.

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
I have been asked to reply.
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

§ Mr. Thurnham
Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept the congratulations of the House on his bold and wise decision, taken 10 years ago yesterday, to bring great economic benefits to this country by his foresight and daring in abolishing all exchange controls? Now that our EEC partners have decided to follow suit, does he agree that the Labour party can no longer rely on exchange controls to save its economic policies, despite its new-found European enthusiasm?

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his congratulations. He makes an extremely valid point. It is of great importance that the other countries in the European Community will be following the example that we set 10 years ago—contrary to the expectations of the 666 Labour party, which predicted that abolition of exchange controls would be a great disaster. In fact, it has turned out to be a huge success and a disaster for Labour's economic insight.

§ Mr. Steel
The right hon. and learned Gentleman is a veteran of Commonwealth conferences. When the Government team returns from Kuala Lumpur will he seek two meetings—one with the new Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to console him, as a fellow sufferer, on the way in which he was treated by the Prime Minister, and one with the Prime Minister to try to teach her the difference between free speech and gross discourtesy?

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman has not expressed satisfaction at the reform measures now under way in South Africa and has been unwilling to acknowledge the part played in bringing that about—not just through the efforts of the Commonwealth as a whole but through the courageous and consistent stance of the British Government, which was always plainly spelt out. My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary agreed on each of the steps taken, on the communiqué endorsed at the conference, and on the statement issued subsequently. That statement explained clearly the position of the British Government, which has helped to bring about the changes that the whole House should welcome.

§ Q7. Mr. Bowis
To ask the Prime Minister if she has received recent representations regarding energy conservation.

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
I have been asked to reply.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has received a number of representations regarding energy conservation and energy efficiency. Over the last four years for which figures are available, the United Kingdom's ratio of energy use to gross domestic product has increased at twice the European Community average.

§ Mr. Bowis
Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is good news that the £100 million invested by the Government has resulted in energy savings of some £500 million per year? Does he agree that much more needs to be done—not least in Government Departments. where energy costs are currently running at £300 million per year? Will he take steps to initiate savings in all Departments, and not least in the steamy sauna that passes for a House of Commons?

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding me of the need to apply the policy to the Government as a whole. He will recall that on 20 July my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy announced the framework of a campaign to be applied to Government Departments, aimed at achieving savings of 15 per cent. of the total energy bill over the next five years and at investing 10 per cent. of the energy bill in measures to improve energy efficiency.
An energy audit of the Palace of Westminster has also been undertaken, but it is more difficult to apply proposals for energy savings to Members of this House than to other parts of Government.

§ Mr. Pike
Does the Leader of the House recognise that energy conservation is important and that energy provision should not be left to the private sector? Should 667 we not, therefore, ensure proper control of our energy and stop electricity privatisation so as to guarantee proper energy use and conservation?

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
Among other things, electricity privatisation policies will be directed at maintaining and improving energy conservation. As I have said, for the last four years for which figures are available the United Kingdom's ratio of energy use to GDP has been improving at twice the average of EC countries.

§ Mr. Ian Bruce
Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that privatisation of electricity will ensure that private companies will make profits by reducing the fuel that they burn and that energy conservation will be greatly improved by that means?

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
My hon. Friend is right to remind the House that privatisation induces a much more commercial and cost-conscious attitude throughout all sections of industry, as it will do in the respect that he mentions.