§ Q1. Sir John HannamTo ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 3 February.
§ The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major)This morning, I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
§ Sir John HannamDoes my right hon. Friend agree that the visit by Gerry Adams to America has done nothing to advance peace in Northern Ireland? Will he assure the House that the lies and evasions of Sinn Fein will not be allowed to hold up progress towards a settlement in Northern Ireland?
§ The Prime MinisterI agree with my hon. Friend, and that will be the overwhelming view of right hon. and hon. Members. The way to advance peace in Northern Ireland is for the IRA to end violence now. That is in its hands, and it is in Mr. Adams's hands and I believe that he could and should do it. However, progress in Northern Ireland cannot and will not wait for Sinn Fein. The Government propose 1022 to carry forward actively the political talks with the constitutional parties and with the Irish Government, In further meetings, my right hon. and learned Friend will be floating ideas to give further focus and direction to all three strands of the talks process. This is a democratic process. If Sinn Fein and the provisionals want to be part of it, they must renounce violence for good. The way is open to them, but it is for them to take it.
§ Mr. John SmithIs it correct that the Government intend to raise prescription charges from £4.25 to £4.75 —an increase of 11.6 per cent., which is more than six times the rate of inflation?
§ The Prime MinisterWhen we are in a position to make an announcement to the House about that, we will make an announcement in the normal fashion.
§ Mr. John SmithDoes the Prime Minister not appreciate that his likely increase, and indeed any increase, in prescription charges comes on top of massive tax increases already being imposed by the Government on the ordinary people of this country? Given all that, for once could not the Prime Minister spare the sick?
§ The Prime MinisterI think that, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman will recall, only those who can afford to pay prescription charges are asked to pay them. From memory, around 80 per cent. of prescribed items are now free of charge. In 1979, it was, I believe, around 55 to 60 per cent.—a significant change. There is no firm evidence in any information that we have that prescription charges deter patients from obtaining necessary medication. The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that. He makes no ackowledgement of the fact that most people do not pay prescription charges. He should get his facts right before he pursues these matters in this fashion.
§ Mr. John SmithIt is quite clear from that that prescription charges are going to go up. Given that the Public Accounts Committee has identified millions of pounds that have been wasted by the Government's health service quangos, would it not make much more sense to tackle that rather than to seek to tax the sick?
§ The Prime MinisterThe revenue from prescription charges this year is sufficient to fund around 70,000 hip replacements or 45,000 coronary artery bypass grafts. What I should like to hear from the Opposition, for all their complaints about prescription charges, is whether they would abolish prescription charges. If they would, who woud pick up the bill of over £260 million? Would it be the national health service, with fewer people treated? Would it be the taxpayer? Or would they borrow more? That is another example of the right hon. and learned Gentleman saying that he would control expenditure, yet every opportunity he gets, he asks for more expenditure to make cheap political points.
§ Q2. Mr. BurnsTo ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 3 February.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. BurnsWill my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government will close any genuine tax loopholes, but will not close what the CBI has shown are not genuine loopholes, as, by so doing, they would fail to raise revenue and would merely damage the economy in general and the 1023 economic recovery in particular? Does my right hon. Friend agree that that blows away the smokescreen of the tax-and-spend policies of the Labour party?
§ The Prime MinisterOn the last point, my hon. Friend is generous to assume that the Opposition have tax and spending policies. In successive Budgets, we have closed tax loopholes and tackled abuse. My right hon. and learned Friend will continue to do so wherever he finds abuse. The Labour party, with its hare-brained schemes, is not genuinely concerned about closing loopholes. It would close not loopholes but businesses. That would be the result of its policies. As the CBI says today, Labour supports higher taxes on business. That is why Labour will always be the enemy of enterprise, of employment and of British business.
§ Mr. FoulkesHas the Prime Minister had a report of yesterday's debate on the Child Support Agency, during which hon. Members on both sides of the House related tales of heartbreak and hardship caused by the operation of the agency and asked the Prime Minister and the Government to undertake another review of its working? Will the right hon. Gentleman now announce such a review so that people may look forward to an end to the hardship and the heartbreak?
§ The Prime MinisterI read with some care yesterday's debate on the Child Support Agency, and I am glad to say that the principles behind it received a warm welcome from every part of the House. The reforms will have a significant effect once the maintenance bills of those who qualify are reduced. When the legislation was being introduced, we stated that it would be kept under review. We are still true to that pledge—it still applies.
§ Q3. Mr. John GreenwayTo ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 3 February.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. GreenwayWill my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the £26 million investment by Nestle Rowntree, at its York factory, in the new production line for Kit Kat, which is one of Europe's leading confectionery brands? Does not that illustrate very clearly the advantage, in terms of new investment, of multinational companies having a significant presence in Britain?
§ The Prime MinisterI believe that it most certainly does. I had hoped to visit that factory in Yorkshire last week, but, unfortunately, was unable to do so. I was looking forward to seeing the new investment and to congratulating the management and the work force on their success. What that inward investment shows is that Britain is increasingly competitive and increasingly attractive to overseas investors. That is good news for exports, good news for orders and good news for jobs. Conservative Members welcome inward investment—we do not carp at it whenever it is received.
§ Mr. MallonThe Prime Minister no doubt has noticed that during his visit to the United States Mr. Adams provided some clarification by indicating that he does not accept the principle of self-determination based on consent. Indeed, Mr. Adams said that it would be nonsense to argue for such a thing. Does the Prime Minister agree 1024 that that runs counter to article 1A of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, counter to paragraph 4 of the joint declaration and counter to the view of every political party in Ireland, excluding the Democratic Unionist party and Sinn Fein, and that it is not the view of the vast majority of the people of Ireland who support the joint declaration? Can he assure the House that the two Governments will jointly pursue the objectives of the joint declaration and there will be no unilateral deviation from it in the interests of short-term expediency?
§ The Prime MinisterWe will certainly continue to pursue the objectives of the joint declaration—there should be no doubt about that. In America, Mr. Adams avoided the central issue on every occasion he could. Sinn Fein has been challenged to give up violence—it has not done so. I do not believe that I can put it any better than today's edition of the Irish Independent. I quote:
It is a disgrace that hethat is, Adams—should go on mouthing platitudes while the Provisional IRA continues its violence.
§ Mr. SkinnerThe Prime Minister is jealous—Adams was a hit and he was ignored.
§ The Prime MinisterI do not believe that people in Britain or in Ireland have been deceived by Adams's performance, with the possible exception of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).
The Irish Deputy Prime Minister, Mr. Spring, yesterday posed the critical question: Has Adams got the leadership and the courage to take his people with him in carrying out his own stated commitment to peace and to going the extra mile? That is the question to which everyone awaits an answer.