PRIME MINISTER
Engagements
Q1. Mr. Hinchliffe
To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 13 November.
The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher)
rose—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker
Order. I ask the House to behave reasonably at this time. The Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister
This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, including one with Professor Landsbergis of Lithuania. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
Mr. Hinchliffe
Is the Prime Minister proud of the fact that her attempts to privatise the national health service have resulted in the loss of nearly 5,000 hospital beds so far [column 444]this year, including 100 in the Wakefield area? Has she any idea of the pain and discomfort facing vast numbers of patients on waiting lists as a direct result of her policies? Have not we reached the stage when she should be spending more time at home with Denis, making way for a Labour Prime Minister who believes in the NHS?
The Prime Minister
Our policies have resulted in 1 million more patients a year being treated. In the past four years expenditure on the health service has risen from £24 billion in 1988 to £26 billion, to £29 billion and to £32 billion—an increase of nearly 50 per cent. in real terms since we took over. That is a very good record which would never have been surpassed, let alone equalled, by the Labour party.
Mr. Atkinson
What advice did my right hon. Friend give to President Landsbergis of Lithuania in support of his demand for his country's independence?
The Prime Minister
The same advice as I have given him before—that we have never recognised that Lithuania was legally annexed and, therefore, have never allowed ambassadors or consuls in that country. We recognise the difficulties that Lithuania is in now. We believe that they can be resolved by negotiations. We recognise, too that those have run into unexpected difficulties recently and we shall do our level best to take them up so that negotiations resume.
Mr. Kinnock
Will the Prime Minister join me in agreeing with her new Secretary of State for Education and Science in his very firm opposition to the daft idea of education vouchers?
The Prime Minister
My right hon. and learned Friend Kenneth Clarkethe new Secretary of State for Education and Science said almost precisely the same as I did in the House. If the right hon. Gentleman had done his homework before he came in, he would know that.
Mr. Kinnock
That gives a new meaning to the word “almost” . Why is the Prime Minister being so evasive about the question of education vouchers? After all, all that I asked her was whether she agreed with a Minister in her Cabinet. Why cannot she simply say that she backs the Secretary of State for Education and Science on this important question?
The Prime Minister
In fact, the Secretary of State for Education and Science backed me.[Interruption.]We said—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker
Order. This takes a great deal of time from Back Benchers.
The Prime Minister
May I now read to the right hon. Gentleman what he should have read before he came into the Chamber? He will find that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science said precisely the same as I did, and that I said precisely the same as he did. He will find it—[Interruption.]They never like the facts, Mr. Speaker, but perhaps I can get them out. On 18 October in oral answers to questions, I said in reply to the right hon. Gentleman:
“In education we are attempting to increase choice—in city technology colleges, in grant-maintained schools and with open rolls.”
The right hon. Gentleman then asked me about vouchers, and I pointed out that vouchers [column 445] “are one, and only one, method of what we are already operating; the money follows the pupil.” —[Hon. Members: “Reading.” ] Of course, I am reading. Had the right hon. Gentleman read the remarks before he came into the Chamber, he could have saved himself a question.
May I read the sentence again:
“They are one, and only one, method of what we are already operating; the money follows the pupil. That is a form of giving extra choice and of giving the voucher to the parent for the pupil.” —[Official Report, 18 October 1990; Vol. 177, c. 1374.]
Mr. Kinnock
I thought that the Prime Minister had formally declared herself against stonewalling, but it appears that that does not extend to Prime Minister's Question Time.
Let me put it very simply to the Prime Minister. The Secretary of State for Education and Science said that education vouchers were “not on the agenda” . He said:
“I have never been in favour of vouchers. I don't think they play any part in the Government's plans … I don't think they play any part in the Government's plans … I don't think you need vouchers.”
Does the Prime Minister agree with him?
The Prime Minister
I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the complete answer that I gave at column 1374 of Hansard, when I pointed out that we are already introducing a pilot scheme for vouchers in training. That is Cabinet policy and in education we are increasing choice. I know that the right hon. Gentleman is against increasing choice, but I repeat that, if he had read my reply, he would not have needed to ask the question. Perhaps he had better go back to bowling from the nursery end.
Mr. Chris Butler
I do not know whether my right hon. Friend has had a chance to watch Sky Television—[Laughter.]
Mr. Speaker
Order. We shall make very slow progress at this rate.
Mr. Butler
Last night there was an absolutely devastating exposure of conditions in Romanian orphanages. The conditions are absolutely disgusting. Will my right hon. Friend review the programme and see whether any initiative can be taken by the United Kingdom Government?
The Prime Minister
I did not see that particular television programme, but I have seen other programmes showing those conditions. Obviously it is something that we would wish to help with. When we received a request from Romania for disposable syringes, for example, we met it immediately. I am very well aware of the problem and we will look at it again.
Mr. Ashdown
Did the Prime Minister see today's disgraceful attack in The Sun today made by the supporters of her cause on three of her colleagues? As, in her position, she should set the standards of public life in Britain, will she take this opportunity unequivocally to condemn that attempt to smear her colleagues, undermine democracy in her party and cheapen public life?
The Prime Minister
I share the right hon. Gentleman's concern. Politics is about policy; it should never be about personal attacks on people's way of living. I totally condemn any such personal attacks.
[column 446]Sir Nicholas Bonsor
Is my right hon. Friend aware that deep concern is felt in our armed forces about the continual suggestions that there should be cuts in our Army manpower at a time when both the Gulf and Northern Ireland place great calls on our strength? Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to say categorically that our armed forces will be kept at the level that is necessary for the task facing them?
The Prime Minister
That is an undertaking that I can give. The tasks which face us are changing, as my right hon. Friend Tom Kingthe Secretary of State for Defence told the House. We are therefore looking at “Options for Change” and my right hon. Friend is coming across with policies to meet those “Options for Change” which are intended always to ensure that our defence is sure enough to meet whatever attack may come, from whatever quarter it may come.
Gulf Crisis
Q2. Mr. Dalyell
To ask the Prime Minister if she will make a statement on the discussions in Geneva with King Hussein of Jordan in relation to the ecological consequences of war in the middle east.
The Prime Minister
My bilateral discussions with King Hussein did not cover this subject, as I made clear to the hon. Gentleman on 7 November. However, if a tyrant is never to be fought in order that freedom and justice may be restored, tyranny will triumph with all its brutality and the environment of human rights, which we seek to extend, will have received a fatal blow.
Mr. Dalyell
If King Hussein is right and 50,000 million barrels of oil equivalent go up in flames, what will be the result in terms of carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide and sulphur dioxide, and what would that do to people and the planet?
The Prime Minister
If the hon. Gentleman wishes to avert such a tragedy, there is one method which would do it easily—that is for Saddam Hussein to withdraw totally from Kuwait and for a legitimate Government to be restored. I do not necessarily accept King Hussein 's figures—mine are a little different—but that is not the main point. Saddam Hussein 's withdrawal would not put right a wrong, because of the brutality that has been perpetrated in his name, but that is the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question.
Sir Bernard Braine
Was there on the occasion referred to any discussion of the human consequences of Saddam Hussein 's actions so far, such as the killing of tens of thousands of his own people in Iraqi Kurdistan by the use of poison gas and, for example, the killing and torturing of Kuwaiti citizens that is taking place even today in the territory that his armies have occupied? If we are to have such statements, let a proper balance be struck.
The Prime Minister
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. As he knows, Saddam Hussein has used chemical weapons both in war and on his own people, the Kurds. We were one of the foremost countries to condemn him. We believe that he also has biological weapons at his disposal. It is contrary to the law to make them, let alone to use them. We also believe that he is not far from having nuclear weapons. However, the strongest point is that the [column 447]terrible brutalities and barbarities that he has perpetrated cannot just be left. Kuwait must be restored. If Saddam Hussein will not withdraw, we must do it by the military option.
Engagements
Q3. Mr. Mullin
To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 13 November.
The Prime Minister
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
Mr. Mullin
May I wish the Prime Minister well in her current difficulty? Although I cannot speak for Conservative Members, many Opposition Members are rooting for her. Is the Prime Minister aware that an auction is taking place today in Sunderland of the assets of the last remaining shipyard, despite the fact that bids were received from companies that were willing, without subsidy, to build and repair ships in that yard? Is the Prime Minister aware that if she had resisted the EC veto with a fraction of the resistance that she has offered in her other European adventures, she would have enjoyed wider support? Will she take this opportunity to apologise to the people of Sunderland?
The Prime Minister
As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the closure of that shipyard was announced in 1988 after negotiations with the Commission in Europe. In return for the closure we had a new enterprise zone in Sunderland and a £45 million package to assist the people of Sunderland to come into new industries, the industries of [column 448]tomorrow, because, as the hon. Gentleman will know, we had too much shipbuilding capacity in this country. It was a reasonable deal for Sunderland and a better one than if we had put subsidies into an old industry. We could not put in extra subsidies because of our agreement with the Commission and, indeed, it would not have been the right thing to do.
Q4. Mr. Andrew Mitchell
To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 13 November.
The Prime Minister
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
Mr. Mitchell
As the autumn statement has been received by the financial markets and our constituents with great satisfaction, does my right hon. Friend feel that the decision to spend an extra £3,000 million on health will finally give the lie to any suggestion that the Government are not firmly committed to an excellent NHS?
The Prime Minister
Yes. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It was a settlement which kept firm control of public spending, which is necessary for financial prudence. Nevertheless, it found sufficient resources to meet our commitments to the social services, pensioners and health and extra for the disabled, while at the same time redeeming some past debt, much of which was built up by the Opposition. That is an account of very good stewardship on the part of my right hon. Friends Norman Lamontthe Chief Secretary to the Treasury and John Majorthe Chancellor of the Exchequer and I congratulate them both.