Prime Minister
Engagements
Q1. Mr. Tony Lloyd
asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 2 July.
The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher)
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.
Mr. Lloyd
I thank the Prime Minister for that reply. For eight years people in the inner cities have thought that she was the major part of the problem, so why should they believe her now when she says that she has changed?
The Prime Minister
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that total expenditure on the urban programme in England increased from £93 million in 1978–79 to £324 million in 1987–88—a 73 per cent. increase in real terms. One of the difficulties about inner cities, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware, is that some councils are positively hostile to the private sector, which could solve their problems.
Mr. Lord
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the fundamental problem in terms of agricultural surpluses, particularly cereal surpluses, is how to reduce them quickly without seriously damaging farming interests in Britain? Since farmers have to plan ahead, and bearing in mind the problems in leaving the sorting out of milk to the last minute, will my right hon. Friend please urge on our partners in Europe the need to act quickly on this most important issue?
The Prime Minister
I have a feeling that my hon. Friend did not get in on questions that ended just before my own began, but I shall do my best to answer him. We have left a number of guidelines with the Commission. One of them involves how to reduce the amount of wheat that goes into intervention and reduce the surpluses, before we dispose of the surpluses. Instructions have been given to draw up guidelines in a regulation, but I am aware that farmers need some time to adjust to any new regime because of the inevitable time cycle involved in agricultural production.
Mr. Kinnock
On another type of inner city question, the 1985 insider dealing legislation made provision for two-year prison sentences. Does the Prime Minister think that a £25,000 fine and a suspended sentence is a punishment that adequately fits the crime?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman is aware, as he indicated, that we were the first to make insider dealing a crime. The maximum penalty is two years' imprisonment, but there is a measure before the House that puts up the penalty to seven years. The right hon. Gentleman is also aware that it is Parliament's duty to ensure that the maximum penalty is available, but he knows full well that one is not able to comment on any particular sentence.
Mr. Nicholas Bennett
My right hon. Friend will recall that during the general election we had high-minded sermons from the leaders of the Liberal and SDP parties talked about co-operation, goodwill and partnership. In view of their present behaviour towards each other——
[column 623]Mr. Speaker
Order. I have to tell the hon. Member, and all new hon. Members, that questions to the Prime Minister must relate to her responsibilities and not to those of others.
Mr. Bennett
I was wondering whether my right hon. Friend could refer the two right hon. Members to a good marriage guidance counsellor or divorce lawyer.
The Prime Minister
I do not think that that is a matter for me.
Q2. Mr. Haynes
asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 2 July.
The Prime Minister
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
Mr. Haynes
Does the Prime Minister agree with the statement that her Secretary of State for the Environment made last night in the debate on the Loyal Address? [Hon. Members: “Which statement?” ] If so, will she confirm that the worst off in our society will be far worse off with a vicious poll tax?
The Prime Minister
I would not agree that the worst off will be adversely affected. Most single people in houses, single pensioners and widows will be far better off under the community charge. The worst off will be those on supplementary benefit. The less worst off will get up to 80 per cent. rebate of the community charge. The worst off, in addition to an 80 per cent. rebate, will be on supplementary benefit—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman asked the question and I am giving him the courtesy of an answer. I ask that he do me the courtesy of listening. For the less well off there will be up to an 80 per cent. rebate of the community charge. For the worst off who are on supplementary benefit or income support, there will be an amount added to that income support or supplementary benefit equal to the average of the 20 per cent. that they would have to pay. So, they will not be adversely affected.
Q3. Mr. Evennett
asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 2 July.
The Prime Minister
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
Mr. Evennett
Is my right hon. Friend aware of the understandable concern of many in the community when people of ability leave to go abroad to work? Will she explain what steps are being taken by the Government to encourage people to stay and work here?
The Prime Minister
I agree that it is important that our very able scientists stay and work in this country. As my hon. Friend is aware, the recent report of the Royal Society showed that there is not a brain drain, but that there is a movement of scientists both ways. Some of our best scientists go overseas, but some very good ones come here. We are anxious that scientists should have excellent facilities in which to work. Therefore, we must consider setting up centres of excellence and multi-disciplinary laboratories in universities. We must also ensure that those scientists who are on high pay do not pay such high taxation, so that there is an incentive to move overseas, where taxation is infinitely lower.
Mr. Steel
Will the Prime Minister welcome efforts made by Business in the Community to encourage investment into inner city areas such as the London [column 624]borough of Tower Hamlets, which was visited by its president yesterday? Will she match its efforts and concerns by implementing the report of the Home Affairs Sub-Committee last year, which recommended that the Government should increase the housing allocation to that London borough?
The Prime Minister
I cannot give a direction that housing allocations to any particular borough should be increased. As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, it would be quite wrong if I could make arbitrary decisions of that kind. I join the right hon. Gentleman in welcoming the work of Business in the Community and the One Per Cent Club, the members of which give 1 per cent. of their profits to help the inner cities, particularly localities where factories are situated. It is a very good, enterprising set-up.
Mr. Mills
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that our partners in the EEC still consider that London is the best possible location, and our country the best possible location, for the proposed EC trade mark office, and that that would be a great help in developing London's inner city, because the placing of that important European institution in Britain would result in 2,000 to 3,000 jobs?
The Prime Minister
As my hon. Friend is aware, we think that London would be the best site for the Community trade mark office and we have put in a bid at a site which we think is most likely to receive favourable consideration— St. Katherine's dock—and we have been prepared to back our bid with generous financial support. There are bids from three other cities—Madrid, The Hague and Munich. The Foreign Affairs Council will have to make the final decision. Naturally, we think that London would be the best.
Q4. Mr. Skinner
asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 2 July.
The Prime Minister
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
Mr. Skinner
Does the Prime Minister recall that on 24 March 1981 Mr. Speaker gave a ruling during the passage of a Bill to the effect that, if Members of Parliament had any doubts whatever about pecuniary interests arising out of the passage of a Bill, they should not vote on that matter? In view of all the publicity surrounding the poll tax and the fact that she will benefit to the tune of £37 a week, will she abide by Mr. Speaker's ruling of 24 March 1981? Will she call upon all other members of the Tory Cabinet who will line their pockets to do the same, and, as a result of that, bring a bit of decency into this poll tax legislation?
The Prime Minister
Well, Mr. Speaker, in view of what the hon. Gentleman has said, I wonder who he thinks will vote on Members' pay.
Q5. Mr. Adley
asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 2 July.
The Prime Minister
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
Mr. Adley
Is my right hon. Friend aware that many Conservative Members welcome the Government's determination to try to resuscitate commercial life in the inner cities? Does she agree that that problem could partly be solved at the same time as dealing with the problem of over-development in areas such as mine if the Government would simply consider providing tax incentives to [column 625]developers to develop in the inner cities while at the same time considering tax penalties on developers who insist on trying to develop on green field sites in the prosperous south, where there are environmental problems?
The Prime Minister
As my hon. Friend is aware, there are tax incentives on rates in the enterprise zones and planning incentives in the enterprise zones and in the urban development corporations. These are designed to act as incentives to people to set up there. It would not be right to put a tax penalty on businesses which choose to develop elsewhere. They must develop where it is commercially sound to do so, provided that they can obtain planning permission, which, I think, is one of the problems in my hon. Friend's area. That is a matter for the local area first and for my right hon. Friend Nicholas Ridleythe Secretary of State for the Environment in an appeal instance.
Q6. Mrs. Clwyd
asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 2 July.
The Prime Minister
I refer the hon. Lady to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
Mrs. Clwyd
Given the serious errors that have occurred in the reading of cervical cytology slides in the Liverpool area, where 487 women have had to be recalled for further treatment or tests, what assurances can the Prime Minister give to women all over the country that they can have faith in the screening procedures? Will she set up an independent inquiry into the cancer screening system?
[column 626]The Prime Minister
No. I do not think that it is necessary to set up an independent inquiry. I am aware of the accidents described by the hon. Lady. We should not condemn the whole system simply because there have been some mistakes. We should consider the mistakes, which, of course, caused great distress. I understand that the matter is to be put right as soon as the incidents can be reconsidered and re-examined.
Sir Peter Hordern
Does my right hon. Friend accept that the common agricultural policy represents a growing threat to the stability of the European Community, which many of us support? Does she also accept that the right approach to the matter is to adopt the good shopkeeping attitude suggested to us by Napoleon—who is rather better known than Monsieur Chirac—who called us a nation of good shopkeepers? Will she suggest that that attitude should be adopted more widely by our partners in the European Community?
The Prime Minister
Yes, I think that my hon. Friend is absolutely right. Expenditure on the common agricultural policy totally unbalances the entire budget. Most of that expenditure goes, not to farmers, but to maintaining or disposing of surpluses. The whole Community budget is 33 billion ecu a year, of which 17 billion ecu go either to maintaining surpluses or to disposing of them. Because of that, we are trying to persuade our partners to our point of view, which is good shopkeeping and good housekeeping.