Engagements (Hansard, 19 June 1990)

§ Q1. Mr. Duffy
To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 19 June.

§ The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher)
This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, including one with the director general of the International Atomic Agency and another with the 796 Foreign Ministers of Bangladesh, Sudan, and Somalia. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today, including one with Mr. Attali, president-elect of the new European bank for reconstruction and development, which will have its headquarters in London.

§ Mr. Duffy
Did the Prime Minister note the biting comment in the Sunday quality press that the fast-revolving door through which ex-Cabinet Ministers are passing towards the boards of privatised industries that they themselves have set up has become a symbol of greed in high office? As that is an entirely new development for which discretion and restraint are simply not enough, as we saw last week, will the Prime Minister consider extending to ex-Ministers the same restrictions that apply to former civil servants?

§ The Prime Minister
There will be 15 months between the noble Lord Young leaving office and taking up his appointment. For civil servants, that period may be shorter. I agree with the Earl of Stockton who, when asked a similar question, said that it is desirable and beneficial to the country that men of considerable experience should be available, when they leave the Government, to the service of industry and commerce. —[Official Report, 20 November 1962; Vol. 667, c. 1000.] I quoted last week what the noble Lord Wilson said in a similar vein.

§ Mr. Nelson
Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to reflect on the interview with the Leader of the Opposition on television—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The question should relate to a matter for which the Prime Minister has responsibility.

§ Mr. Nelson
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that a Conservative Government will remain committed, even after the next general election, to reducing still further the direct burden of taxation on individuals, whereas the inevitable consequence of Labour policies, despite what the Leader of the Opposition says, will be to raise significantly the average burden of taxation on the British people?

§ The Prime Minister
Yes, I confirm that our policy on income tax rates remains to reduce the standard rate of income tax from 25p to 20p as and when it is prudent to do so.

§ Mr. Kinnock
What will the Prime Minister do now to stop inflation reaching 10 per cent?

§ The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman somehow seems to believe that reducing interest rates will cure inflation, but we shall maintain our policy, because the interest rate of 15 per cent. will succeed in bringing down inflation.

§ Mr. Kinnock
Does the Prime Minister recall telling me early last year that the Government were "proceeding" towards zero inflation? We have had 16 more months of her policy since then, but, rather than proceeding towards zero, inflation is proceeding towards double figures. Apart from trying to fix the figures, what is the Prime Minister going to do to get inflation down?

§ The Prime Minister
Does the right hon. Gentleman seriously maintain his position, and his ridiculous economics, by saying that to get inflation down one needs 797 to cut interest rates? [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] That would put it up to the rates that Labour Governments were used to having.

§ Mr. Kinnock
Is any economic policy more ridiculous than one that produces the lowest growth rate, the highest inflation rate and the worst balance of payments position in the major industrialised countries? If the right hon. Lady wants to talk about ridiculous economics, let her look at herself.

§ The Prime Minister
That policy also produces—and has for three years—the highest level of investment in industry that we have ever experienced, the highest standard of living and the highest standard of social services that this country has ever known, and the lowest levels of income tax in the post-war period.

§ Mr. Burns
Does my right hon. Friend share my anger about the misery, frustration and expense caused by squatters who occupy privately owned homes? Does she accept that, provided that no damage is done to securely locked houses, there is nothing that the police can do before a court order is obtained? Is it not time that the balance of the law was redressed to favour the innocent home owner, rather than the reprehensible activities of squatters?

§ The Prime Minister
As my hon. Friend is aware, squatting that directly excludes a householder from his home is already a criminal offence. The police can act, and penalties are severe. However, squatting in residential property which does not cause the immediate threat of homelessness can be dealt with only through civil action. I agree with my hon. Friend that there appears to be a defect in the law, and I am looking into the matter further.