§ Q1. Mr. DykesTo ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 16 January.
§ 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 today.
§ Mr. DykesDoes my right hon. Friend agree that the best way to maximise the advantages and opportunities for Britain in the developing European Community is for Members of Parliament and Members of the European Parliament to work more closely together in future, not grow further apart?
§ The Prime MinisterI understand that the Procedure Committee has some proposals to make on that matter, and its report will be debated in this House in due course. It is most important to work together in such a way that Europe is open for trade and is not protectionist, and that it operates in such a way that the rights of this House—the sovereign and oldest House of Parliament in the European Community—are well and truly respected.
§ Mr. BattleWhy are the Government continuing to allow the dumping of industrial toxic waste into the North sea, despite comments made during last night's Second Reading of the Environmental Protection Bill, international assurances, and the protests made by the rest of Europe? Will the Government continue blatantly to disregard international agreements and the environmental health of the North sea?
§ The Prime MinisterI have checked the law and the reports, and they confirm that we agreed to phase out dumping of industrial waste into the North sea by the end 155 of 1989, except where there was no practicable land disposal option—which requires a great deal of planning permission and investment. But then we have to show to the satisfaction of the Oslo Commission that waste dumped at sea will not cause harm. That is being done, so we are not infringing any of our legal responsibilities.
§ Q2. Mr. John GreenwayTo ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 16 January.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. GreenwayFarmers in my constituency believe that there is a contradiction in the attitude adopted by the European Commission, which wants to see greater progress made towards monetary union but is nevertheless prepared to reduce the gap between the real and notional value of the green pound by only one third. How can there be a single European market for agriculture when that crippling disadvantage for British farmers is so lightly dismissed by Brussels bureaucrats?
§ The Prime MinisterAs my hon. Friend knows, farm price differences are due to the arrangements for green currency. We agreed to phase out the green currencies by the end of 1992, which will be of great benefit to our farmers, and we must hold our partners to that agreement. Meanwhile, the Commission's current proposals will reduce the gap by one third, which is a step in the right direction. Whether or not that goes far enough is a matter for negotiation in the coming months.
§ Mr. KinnockDoes the Prime Minister recall telling the House last year that, under the present Government, there is no incomes policy? Why did she change her mind?
§ The Prime MinisterThe right hon. Gentleman is not correct. Under this Government, it is for the private sector to determine its pay levels and for the Government, as an employer, to determine their pay levels.
§ Mr. KinnockI wish to jog the Prime Minister's memory by quoting from Hansard. She said:
Under this Government there is no incomes…policy." —[Official Report, 16 February 1989; Vol. 147, c. 482.]Perhaps she can explain why she has two incomes policies in the public sector—one for the top paid, above the rate of inflation, and one for the remainder, below the rate of inflation. Why does she not come clean and admit that, even though it would mean swallowing her own words?
§ The Prime MinisterThe right hon. Gentleman does not understand what an incomes policy is. If he did, he would know that there is no incomes policy under this Government. It is for the private sector to determine pay arrangements in relation to productivity and bearing in mind the need to keep prices competitive. It is for the Government, in the public sector, to determine the rate of pay for those who come directly under our employment. To do that, we have observed the recommendations of the pay review bodies for those people who do not go on strike. We have observed the many negotiating arrangements. The position is much more complex than the right hon. Gentleman understands.
§ Sir Fergus MontgomeryIf the NHS management bows to industrial action by the ambulance men and decide to 156 raise the offer, what message would that convey to the 84 per cent. of NHS workers who, last year, settled their pay claims through the usual negotiating machinery?
§ The Prime MinisterMy hon. Friend is right. The pay claim that is being resolved now should have been settled last spring or early summer. That pay round was settled at 6.5 to 6.8 per cent. by some 84 per cent. of NHS employees including nurses, administrative and clerical grades, senior managers, ancillary staff, building trade operatives and medical laboratory scientific officers. They all settled at the right time for between 6.5 and 6.8 per cent. It would be unfair if, because the ambulance workers did not settle and have gone on strike and disrupted some of their work, they were to receive more than those who settled and did not strike.
§ Q3. Mr. Bill MichieTo ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 16 January.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago—[Interruption.]
§ Mr. MichieI am here. Will the Prime Minister admit to the shabby Government policy that restricts ambulance crews having a decent living wage, while around her she has highly-paid colleagues who make more moonlighting than they earn as Members of Parliament? Is it not time that she cleaned up this sleaze Parliament?
§ The Prime MinisterI thank the hon. Gentleman for calling attention to his place. I am used to answering Sheffield questions from that area. I do not agree with him. As he is aware, the ambulance men have had a revised offer costing another £6 million this year, which varies between 9 and 16.3 per cent., according to where they work and their qualifications, and for a period of 18 months. That is a good offer. It is 16.3 per cent. for those with more qualifications because we want more ambulance men with more medical qualifications. I hope that they will return to the relevant Whitley council and accept the offer .
§ Mr. AitkenWhen my right hon. Friend speaks of the need to preserve the right of this sovereign Parliament, is she fully aware of the disadvantage under which we are working because of the flow of documents from Europe? Is she further aware that during the past 12 months the European Commission sent this House 765 legislative documents consisting of 10,000 pages? That is an impossible total for the House to carry over and above its existing domestic legislation. Surely we need to reform our procedures as soon as possible.
§ The Prime MinisterI agree with my hon. Friend that there is an enormous amount of extra work involved in properly scrutinising the many documents that come before us. I hope that the report of the Select Committee on Procedure will soon be debated in the House and I hope that when all the arrangements are in place for 1992 that stream of directives will be infinitely less. As I have said frequently in the House, we have to remember that no other Parliament in the European Community is as central to the life of a nation as this one, and that is not surprising, because we are the oldest sovereign Parliament in the Community.
§ Mr. Andrew WelshTo ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 16 January.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. WelshDoes the right hon. Lady agree with President Gorbachev when he says that the people of Lithuania have an absolute right to independence if they so choose? Does she know about today's opinion poll in Scotland, in which the Conservatives have gone down to 16 per cent.—a level at which they would be almost wiped out in the House—which adds to their annihilation at a European level? When the Scottish people say yes to self-government what will be the Prime Minister's reply?
§ The Prime MinisterIt is for Mr. Gorbachev to make his views clear, which he does very competently. Expenditure per head in Scotland is 23 per cent. above the United Kingdom average, so Scotland does very well out of the Government. When the time comes, it will be for Scotland to consider whether it wants to throw over those advantages for something less.
§ Q5. Mr. BendallTo ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 16 January.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. BendallIs my right hon. Friend aware that, under the block services grant, Redbridge will suffer? The national change is about 11 per cent., but in Redbridge we shall get 6.7 per cent., which is a shortfall of 4.3 per cent. Will my right hon. Friend comment on that?
§ The Prime MinisterI am not sure that I recognise all of my hon. Friend's figures. Redbridge will do well from the proposed grant settlements, and it will receive 27 per cent. more income from the Government grant and business rates in the coming year than it received this year from those sources. Many hon. Members would be very pleased with such a settlement.
§ Mr. Michael J. MartinSix thousand people are unemployed in my constituency, and more than one third have been unemployed for more than a year. What will the right hon. Lady do about unemployment in Britain?
§ The Prime MinisterI am sure that the hon. Gentleman will take advantage of the new employment training arrangements which are very successful. He will be aware that it is vitally important that we train people for new jobs, and that we do not necessarily try to keep the old ones. That is why we have set up the new training and enterprise councils which I hope will give training and jobs 158 to more of his constituents. It would also help if they welcomed private enterprise and co-operated to keep costs down.
§ Q6. Mr. ArbuthnotTo ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 16 January.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. ArbuthnotIs my right hon. Friend aware that the system for compensating people who are affected by road and rail developments leaves something to be desired? Does she agree that if we did as the French do—more than compensate people who are affected—we might find that we cut out some of the delays that we face when building the roads and railways that we so badly need, and in the long run we might save a great deal of money?
§ The Prime MinisterI know that the viewpoint put by my hon. Friend is popular as a way to get things done more quickly. He will be aware that we compensate people with the full market value at the moment, and there are certain other disturbance costs granted to people who have to move. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is considering whether we need to give more compensation, but that would mean legislation in a new Bill. Perhaps, if we come to that conclusion, there will be time in the next Session.
§ Q7. Mrs. Rosie BarnesTo ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 16 January.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer the hon. Lady to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mrs. BarnesDoes the Prime Minister agree that health visitors are a vital part of the community health service. particularly in their role of screening families to identify vulnerable young children? Will she join me in condemning the action of the Greenwich health authority, which has curtailed the service severely?
§ The Prime MinisterI join the hon. Lady in paying tribute to the health visitors, and to the vital part that they play as they go around performing their duties. I uphold their service in every respect, but it is not for me to make a judgment that must properly be made by Greenwich council when it weighs expenditure on one service against expenditure on another. The hon. Lady must not provoke me to make a judgment that I should not make because I am not in possession of the full facts.