PRIME MINISTER
Mr. Charles Powell
Q1. Mr. Dalyell
To ask the Prime Minister what assessment was made, when Mr. Charles Powell was seconded to her Office as her private secretary for overseas affairs, of the implications of his role and authority in that capacity for his effectiveness in any future posting on his eventual return to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office; and if she will make a statement.
The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher)
None, Sir.
Mr. Dalyell
Did Mr. Powell really fail to tell the Prime Minister about the role of the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in the Westland Law Officer's leaked letter before the inquiry had reported?
[column 1266]The Prime Minister
As I have told the hon. Gentleman many times. I have nothing to add to the many answers and statements that I have given on this matter.
Mr. Cash
Does my right hon. Friend accept that the batty question asked by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) shows that he has no clue about the qualities that are needed for such appointments? He knows perfectly well that he has no justification for the allegations he has been putting down on the Order Paper, which are a grave misuse of the procedure of the House.
The Prime Minister
I agree with my hon. Friend.
Mr. Fatchett
Is it not about time that the Prime Minister came clean with my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and the House and told the whole truth about the Westland affair, particularly in the light of the journal report this week which suggested that the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), who was then Secretary of State for Defence, had made it abundantly clear that the Prime Minister was responsible for the leaked letter? Is it not time that the Prime Minister commented on that and told us the truth? It is her integrity that is being challenged by these proceedings and by the right hon. Gentleman's comments.
The Prime Minister
I have answered innumerable questions and given extensive replies. I have nothing further to add.
Sir Bernard Braine
When my right hon. Friend rightly drew a sharp contrast between the orderly and civilised city of Toronto——
Mr. Speaker
Order. I hesitate to interrupt the Father of the House, but this is a definitive question.
Engagements
Q2. Mr. Ron Davies
To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 23 June.
The Prime Minister
This morning I returned from Canada. 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, including one with the President of West Germany.
Mr. Davies
Will the Prime Minister confirm a report in The Daily Telegraph of yesterday that she informed the Ottawa summit that she was now of the opinion that private affluence did not necessarily solve all society's problems? If that conversion is true, will she have a word with her hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) before she makes a complete fool of herself and the Tory party by her attempts to legitimise and justify the disgraceful actions of the ticket touts at Wimbledon?
The Prime Minister
First, the summit was not in Ottawa, but in Toronto. I do not know of anyone who thinks that affluence will solve all problems. People cannot know anything about human nature if they think that. Ticket touts at Wimbledon are not a matter for me.
Sir Peter Blaker
Bearing in mind that today is the 40th anniversary of the beginning of the 10-month blockade of West Berlin by the Soviet Union, which led to the signing of the North Atlantic treaty, will my right hon. Friend [column 1267]affirm that, in spite of the changes in the Soviet Union under Mr. Gorbachev, a strong NATO remains as essential as ever?
The Prime Minister
Yes. A strong NATO is our only sure defence. One of the reasons why we are able to welcome the bold actions of Mr. Gorbachev in trying to change the Soviet Union is that, whatever happens, our defence under NATO will be sure.
Dr. Owen
Will the Prime Minister support in Hanover next week the proposed study by the central bankers for a European independent central bank? Does she agree that that would be the mechanism whereby the freeing of capital flows would be a success, so that in the longer term United Kingdom domestic interest rates might come down to the OECD average?
The Prime Minister
No, not precisely that. Other things need doing, which I shall refer to in a moment. We can have a European central bank only when there is a united states of Europe under one sovereign Government, not under 12, and when all the countries have the same economic policy. That not being on the cards, I see no point in anyone studying a European central bank. There are points in having a number of central bankers and possibly Finance Ministers considering the composition of reserves and greater use of the ecu, but that is a different proposition from the one which the right hon. Gentleman has put, which would come about only with the dissolution of this House, among others.
Q3. Mr. Colvin
To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 23 June.
The Prime Minister
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
Mr. Colvin
Will my right hon. Friend find time today to read the ruling of the European Court on rates of value added tax in the United Kingdom? Is this not another example of the loss of sovereignty that is part of the price that we have to pay for membership of the EEC? In view of her concern about the need to crack down on alcohol abuse, will my right hon. Friend take note that if there is harmonisation of taxes on alcoholic drinks, 18p will come off a pint of beer, the price of a bottle of wine will drop by 25 per cent. and a bottle of whisky will be a full third cheaper? What would that do for the sobriety of the nation?
The Prime Minister
As my hon. Friend is aware, following a statement in the House on Tuesday, that VAT judgment arose from a 1977 directive which must have gone through the House, or not have been objected to by the House, for it to become a directive. Therefore, the court was re-interpreting existing law. With regard to drink taxation, the Commission's harmonisation proposals would require the unanimous agreement of all member states and could not be imposed against the will of the United Kingdom Government. We believe that these attempts to harmonise duties are misconceived and unnecessary, and we shall oppose them.
Mr. Kinnock
Is the Prime Minister aware that after the interest rate rise yesterday Mr. John Banhan of the CBI said:
“We do not believe the present medicine will have the desired results. It will have very serious side effects.”
Does the Prime Minister think that he is wrong?
[column 1268]The Prime Minister
The most important thing is what Nigel Lawsonthe Chancellor said in his Budget speech:
“Short-term interest rates remain the essential instrument of monetary policy. Within a continuous and comprehensive assessment of monetary conditions, I will continue to set interest rates at the level necessary to ensure downward pressure on inflation.” —[Official Report, 15 March 1988; Vol. 129, c. 997.]
Most industrialists agree that the worst thing for them would be a return of inflation. My right hon. Friend took steps to prevent that.
Mr. Kinnock
Clearly, the Prime Minister thinks that Mr. Banham and all who agree with him are wrong. Is it not obvious that the further increase in interest rates came because the Government have completely lost control of credit? [Interruption.] Having completely lost control of credit, the Prime Minister is making British industry pay the price, as usual. Why does she always do that? Is it any wonder, given those policies, that British industry has lost 20 per cent. of the international market and 30 per cent. of the British market? Why does the Prime Minister not give our producers a chance for a change?
The Prime Minister
Short-term interest rates are the essential instrument of monetary policy. If the right hon. Gentleman has no such instruments to control it, how does he ever expect to be able to keep inflation down? But then, of course, he never did. With regard to industry, may I make it absolutely clear that a 1 per cent. increase in wages costs industry four times as much as a 1 per cent. increase in interest rates. Wages went up by over 8½ per cent. last year.
Mr. Kinnock
If it is short-term interest rates that concern the Prime Minister, why have interest rates been higher for longer under her Government than under any other Government?
The Prime Minister
And inflation has been lower than the right hon. Gentleman's party ever achieved in Government.
Q4. Mr. John Marshall
To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 23 June.
The Prime Minister
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
Mr. Marshall
Yesterday in Moscow I was asked to thank the Prime Minister—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker
Order. Let us hear it.
Mr. Marshall
I was asked to thank the Prime Minister for the support that she has given the refusenik community. In doing so, may I ask her, in the course of her busy day—[Hon.Members: “Reading” .]—to consider the plight of Vladimir Kislik who has been fighting for an exit visa since 1973? Does she agree that his condition is intolerable, and will she press the Russians to give him an exit visa?
The Prime Minister
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for passing on those thanks. I am pleased to receive the message. Official consultations on human rights questions are taking place in Moscow today and the plight of Soviet refuseniks will, of course, be among the matters that are discussed. Our officials will be handing over a list of cases, which includes the case of Vladimir Kislik. His name was also on the list handed to Mr. Shevardnadze last year. [column 1269]Despite recent improvements in emigration arrangements, many Soviet Jews are still waiting to leave. We shall not forget them and we shall continue to raise their plight.
Q5. Mr. Simon Hughes
To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 23 June.
The Prime Minister
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
Mr. Hughes
Will the Prime Minister explain this? A reply dated 9 June 1987 from her Office, on her personal notepaper, to a Mr. St. John from south London, described the system under which council tenants could have their tenancies transferred. She said that that would happen only if the majority of tenants expressed their support for it. Is she aware that the Housing Bill now before the House blatantly contradicts that commitment and allows a transfer even if the majority do not express their support? Will the Prime Minister honour her commitment of last year, reverse the U-turn and make sure that tenants' transfer is conducted under a democratic and proper system of voting?
The Prime Minister
I thought that we had arranged that it was a majority of those voting—either for tenants' co-operatives or for a possible transfer to housing associations. The hon. Gentleman will be referring to housing action trusts—[Interruption.] In that case, may I have another look at it? I think that we have arranged for a block to be transferred only with a majority of those voting and for those who do not wish to be transferred to remain under existing ownership.
[column 1270]Q6. Mr. Beaumont-Dark
To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 23 June.
The Prime Minister
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
Mr. Beaumont-Dark
Will my right hon. Friend accept that one of the most important rights that people have in this country is the resort to justice? The problem that arises is that if one is poor enough one may get legal aid, and if one is rich enough one may pursue a case to the end of one's pocket. However, if one is in the middle, which the great majority of people are, one has little hope or right to justice because, unless one is willing to impoverish one's family at a cost of a hundreds of thousands of pounds—as have some hon. Members—one cannot get it. Will my right hon. Friend accept, at long last, that this one great monopoly should fall, as other monopolies have fallen, because she believes that justice should be done for all?
The Prime Minister
Legal aid is widely available, often to those with incomes well above the national average. I think it is right that we should have a place where we draw the line. It would be quite wrong for everyone, automatically, regardless of means, to be able to get legal aid. A report of the review body on civil justice was published on 7 June. It has made recommendations that would make justice quicker, simpler, more cost-effective and more accessible to the public. Lord MackayThe Lord Chancellor is at present consulting on those suggestions.