§ Q1. Mr. Rookerasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 30 June.
§ 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, including one with Sir Joshua Hassan, the Chief Minister of Gibraltar. This evening I am giving a reception at 10 Downing street for British exporters.
§ Mr. RookerDoes the Prime Minister believe that the families of the unemployed, and the unemployed, should be able to purchase the same amount of food, fuel and clothing from their unemployment benefit in one year as compared with another—yes or no?
§ The Prime MinisterThat will depend very much on their choice of foods and the movement in food prices. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that last year food prices —[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer".]—increased by only 1 per cent., which is a record never bettered by the Labour Government.
§ Mr. FootWill the right hon. Lady withdraw the answer that she has just made about the choice of food? Does she not think that that is an insulting way to talk of the unemployed people and the way that she is proposing to treat them? Is it not deplorable that this Parliament should have been forced to start with a controversy about the amount of pay that may go to unemployed people in Britain? Has she not recognised that her policies may be adding to the 7 million people already forced to live on means-tested supplementary benefit? Does she say to them that their standard of living merely depends on their choice of food?
§ The Prime MinisterHow they use their national insurance and supplementary benefit is wholly a matter for their choice—[Interruption.] Of course it is.
§ Mr. HefferNo understanding.
§ The Prime MinisterI have a very good understanding of both selling and buying food, as the hon. Gentleman knows full well. The supplementary benefit system is an addition to, and an essential part of, the national insurance system so that if national insurance is not enough sufficient can be provided for a reasonable standard of living and for housing. Naturally, how people wish to use it is for them. If they require extra for specific purposes, such as heating, extra is available.
§ Mr. SpeakerMr. Maxwell-Hyslop.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I am sorry, I shall call the Leader of the Opposition again in a moment. I have already called the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop).
§ Mr. Maxwell-HyslopWhen meeting Sir Joshua Hassan, will my right hon. Friend assure him that the British Government will match any subsidies or other Government assistance given to dockyards in Portugal or Spain, which enable them to undercut the commercial viability of the Gibraltar dockyard?
§ The Prime MinisterNo, I cannot give that specific undertaking. We have made generous arrangements for the transfer to a commercial dockyard company of the naval dockyard in Gibraltar, accompanied by about £28 million for the development of Gibraltar. It is for the Government of Gibraltar to decide how that money should be spent.
§ Mr. FootDoes the right hon. Lady recall the controversy in the last Parliament about the cut in unemployment benefit? Before she allows her Government to cut that unemployment benefit again, will she arrange for a debate in the House of Commons so that hon. Members can take into account what she said about the unemployed and their choice of food?
§ The Prime MinisterThe arrangements for uprating all national insurance benefits are announced once a year. They are always debated. If those amounts are insufficient, supplementary benefit is available. The right hon. Gentleman is aware that many of the unemployed avail themselves of those benefits, which are for that purpose.
§ Mr. ChurchillAt a time when, by the admission of the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), the Soviet Union has established nuclear superiority in Europe, is it not reckless and irresponsible for the Opposition to endorse the Kremlin's call for a nuclear freeze, bearing in mind that that would let the Soviet Union off the hook of having to make any reductions in its nuclear capability? Is it not clear that if a breakthrough is to be made in Geneva it will be made, in contrast, by the determination and stalwartness of the NATO allies and specifically by the British, American and West German Governments?
§ The Prime MinisterI agree with my hon. Friend. It is an old and well-known tactic of the Soviet Union, first to modernise a particular group of weapons and then to announce a freeze. That increases its superiority and undermines our essential security and defence. We must never be taken in by that ruse.
§ Mr. FisherWill the Prime Minister confirm that Britain does not have dual control of United States nuclear 697 weapons sited here? Will she also confirm that the so-called understanding that she has is based upon the 1952 Churchill-Truman communiqué which, in one sentence, refers to
joint decision … in the light of circumstances prevailing at the time."?
§ The Prime MinisterThat question was fully answered in the last Parliament in the following terms:
The existing understandings between the United Kingdom and the United States governing the use by the United States of nuclear weapons and bases in this country have been jointly reviewed in the light of the planned deployment of cruise missiles. We are satisfied that they are effective. The arrangements will apply to United States cruise missiles based in the United Kingdom whether on or off base. The effect of understandings and the arrangements for implementing them is that no nuclear weapon would be fired or launched from British territory without the agreement of the British Prime Minister." —[Official Report, 12 May 1983; Vol. 42, c. 435.]