§ Ql. Mr. MaclennanTo ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 30 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 later today.
§ Mr. MaclennanIs the Government's dogged inflexibility a fair response to the exceptional sense of duty shown by our ambulance men when dealing with injured and dying victims of this week's gales and tempests? What greater catastrophe is required to bring home to the Prime Minister the justice of our ambulance men's case?
§ The Prime MinisterWhat the hon. Gentleman says is not correct. The Government and management have 155 moved on the ambulance men's case for more pay; it is the ambulance men who have not moved at all since their unions recommended, a long time ago, that they accept a 6.5 per cent. increase. The Government moved to an 18-month settlement, which would offer the men increases of between 9 and 16.3 per cent.—a considerable increase that would cost £6 million more to implement in this financial year. That is far from being inflexible; it represents actual movement.
§ Q2. Mr. Cyril D. TownsendTo ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 30 January.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. TownsendDoes my right hon. Friend agree that, when we are faced with the present historic uncertainty in eastern Europe and the collapse of law and order in East Germany, idle talk of a peace dividend is premature? Would it not be prudent for the United Kingdom to look to Vienna for serious and constructive negotiations, rather than slashing our defence forces unilaterally?
§ The Prime MinisterI agree wholly with my hon. Friend. Piecemeal reductions would be fatal at this time of great uncertainty. In such circumstances, the right way is to negotiate through the conventional force reduction talks in Vienna. That is how we managed to secure effective reductions in the Warsaw pact forces—larger reductions than those on our side, indeed—and also some verification. NATO is already considering precisely how those reductions should be shared out equitably between its members.
§ Mr KinnockWill the Prime Minister tell us her response to yesterday's statement by Church leaders appealing for the Government to set up an independent inquiry with the purpose of resolving the ambulance dispute?
§ The Prime MinisterHad the right hon. Gentleman listened to my previous answer he would already know that the Government have moved on the ambulance dispute. There is already a negotiating body, which is the right body to conduct negotiations, and the increases that the management has offered would cost the taxpayer some £6 million more this financial year.
§ Mr. KinnockOn the subject of the cost to the taxpayer, can the Prime Minister confirm that she has already spent £10 million of the public's money on keeping the dispute going? That is more than it would cost to settle it. Where is the sense in that, either for the public or for the ambulance personnel or, indeed, even for the Government? When the public so clearly support the ambulance workers' case why is the Prime Minister so completely out of touch with the feelings of the British people?
§ The Prime MinisterThe sense is to stick to established methods of negotiation, whether a pay review body or a Whitley council. Once one departs from that, it is very difficult for those who have honoured their own methods of negotiation and, indeed, settled at the amounts they were offered, as 85 per cent. did early last summer. It is a great pity that ambulance men did not accept the advice of their union and settle at that time.
§ Q3. Mr. CarringtonTo ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 30 January.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. CarringtonMy right hon. Friend will know that my constituents who live around Stamford Bridge greatly welcome the determination of herself and of the Home Secretary to bring football hooliganism to an end. Is not this in marked contrast to the attitude of those who reject all-seater stadiums and, incredibly, even seek to deny that football hooliganism exists? Will my right hon. Friend undertake to use the licensing powers under the Football Spectators Act to close any ground where football hooliganism persists in the street outside the stadium?
§ The Prime MinisterAs my hon. Friend knows, and as my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary made clear yesterday in his very robust way, the Government accept the Taylor alternative strategy for dealing with these matters in football stadiums, and we accept Lord Justice Taylor's recommendations. During the passage of the Football Spectators Bill we made it clear that having all-seat stadiums could be made a condition of a licence being given by the Football Licensing Authority. It would be open to the licensing authority to do that. I think that the conditions for a licence do not apply to hooliganism outside the grounds. That matter is already dealt with by other measures, such as the Public Order Act, and by some of the changes that have been made to prohibit the availability of alcohol on buses and trains travelling to designated football matches.
§ Mr. Tony LloydOn this day when there has been support for ambulance workers in Britain, why is the Prime Minister so quick to praise them but so slow to pay them?
§ The Prime MinisterOf course I am always quick to praise ambulance men, as I am quick to praise other people who work in the Health Service, 84 per cent. of whom accepted pay increases between 6.5 and 6.8 per cent. last summer. We have, in fact, offered the ambulance men, according to where they work or their qualifications, increases of between 9 and 16.3 per cent. over a period of 18 months. That offer represents an increase on the first one, which was rejected.
§ Q4. Mrs. GormanTo ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 30 January.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mrs. GormanIn view of the Hansard Society's report on women at the top, does not my right hon. Friend agree that it makes sense that a job created in the home, or elsewhere, that helps a woman to go out to work is just as valid as any other job and should be treated in the same way for tax purposes? While we are on the subject, what about a few jobs for top women in our own Whips' Office and in the Cabinet —
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The hon. Lady should ask only one question.
§ Mrs. Gorman. rose? —
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. To ask more than one question would be unfair to the hon. Lady's colleagues.
§ The Prime MinisterI am sure that all my hon. Friend's comments were interesting, but I heard only the first half. I should like to reply to the half that I heard. My hon. Friend asked for tax allowances for people who look after children. As she knows, this is not allowed for tax purposes, any more than are the expenses of travelling to work or of having someone at home to look after an elderly relative would be allowed. That is the present law. A change in the Finance Bill would be needed to change it. I hope that my hon. Friend will make her representations to different quarters, because I can say nothing about that matter.
I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary will have heard my hon. Friend's other request, and will consider what further action to take.
§ Dr. OwenWhat is going wrong with Anglo-American relations? The United States President is cutting defence expenditure by 2 per cent; further, faster and deeper reductions are emerging in the conventional forces European negotiations; and the United States President is openly advocating a NATO defence review. The Prime Minister refuses to do any of those things. The two Governments cannot even split their differences between six months and a year on the compulsory repatriation of Vietnamese boat people.
§ The Prime MinisterThat is two questions in one. As the right hon. Gentleman will be aware, the United States spends a much bigger proportion of her national income on defence than does any other major NATO country. She spends 6 per cent. of her national income on defence whereas, on a similarly calculated basis, we spend 4 per cent., so I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman can criticise the United States if it makes some changes.
Any changes that affect the mainland of Europe, from the Atlantic to the Urals, are made through the CFE negotiations. Any proposals go through the NATO machinery first, so that we are all consulted and agree what should go forward to the CFE negotiations. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman realises that that is perfectly right.
I agree that there is a difference of opinion on the Vietnamese boat people—possibly because of America's history in Vietnam and because she lost 55,000 people in her fight there which kept communism back long enough to prevent its extending throughout the area. We shall, of course, go forward with compulsory repatriation.
§ Q5. Sir Hal MillerTo ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 30 January.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Sir Hal MillerDoes my right hon. Friend agree that whatever other Governments feel able to do, the main responsibility for maintaining the confidence of the people of Hong Kong, on which their prosperity and stability must depend, inevitably lies with the People's Republic of China? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the conclusions of the draft basic law committee on elections in Hong Kong are hardly likely to add to their confidence? Are we yet ready to say what we will do?
§ The Prime MinisterMy hon. Friend is right in saying that China has an important part to play—although not 158 the only part—in maintaining confidence in Hong Kong, as do the Hong Kong people and as does Britain during our administration until the lease is terminated in 1997. Ideally, we obviously wish to agree with China improvements in democracy and increases in the democratic process in Hong Kong which could be continued through 1997. We shall continue to do our best by the people of Hong Kong and to observe the Sino-British agreement on the future of Hong Kong, in the belief that that is in the best interests of the future beyond 1997.
§ Q6. Ms. ShortTo ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 30 January.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer the hon. Lady to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Ms. ShortDoes the Prime Minister agree that the ambulance workers have overwhelming public support? Does she consider herself to be a democrat and, if so, why does she not listen to the view of the people and agree to binding arbitration so that this dispute can be brought to an end?
§ The Prime MinisterNo. The ambulance people have their own negotiating body through which the negotiations should take place. As the hon. Lady is aware, this claim comes from last year when 84 per cent. of the people with whom the ambulance men work in the National Health Service settled at 6.5 and 6.8 per cent. Since then, the ambulance men have been offered an increase, so it is not the management which has not moved, but the ambulance men themselves.
§ Dame Jill KnightBearing in mind that the union leaders of the ambulance men have not always been straightforward in the matter, will my right hon. Friend confirm that it is a question not only of a 9 per cent. increase on offer now, but of an offer that goes hack to April 1989? That should also be taken into consideration.
§ The Prime MinisterMy hon. Friend is quite right. The offer is backdated to April 1989 and for those who have still been working at their posts, considerable back-dated lump sums are to be picked up now, which vary from about £650 to about £1,400. They will be available when the ambulance men settle in respect of their back pay.
§ Q7. Mr. BoatengTo ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 30 January.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. BoatengWhy does the Prime Minister continue to set her face, like stone, against the ambulance workers while giving a £40 million tax handout to the private medical insurance industry? If she were to fall under a bus tomorrow—and it would have to be a brave one—would she call for BUPA or for an ambulance man?
§ The Prime MinisterAs I have already indicated, the ambulance men had an offer, according to where they work and their qualifications, of an increase in pay varying from 9 to 16.3 per cent. Many of them are still maintaining an accident and emergency service—and we honour them for it—although others are not. I should have thought that 9 to 16.3 per cent. was a very fair and reasonable offer.