§ Q1. Mr. James Lamondasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 15 March.
§ 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. This evening I shall be holding a reception for the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association.
§ Mr. LamondNow that the Government have turned their attention to bullying teachers of peace studies, would it not be even-handed if they also looked at the sabre-rattling speeches often made on school speech days, such as the one made by Lord Home in north London recently? Lord Home praised nuclear missiles and said that the Russians were not to be trusted in negotiations. Is not that point of view contrary to the Government's latest policies, or is this just another case of an ex-Prime Minister trying to pull the rug from under the current Prime Minister?
§ Mrs. ThatcherI welcome Lord Home's speeches. I only wish that more young people could hear them and pay attention to them.
§ Mr. LyellWhile praising the miners' union for making strike ballots possible, will my right hon. Friend condemn those who seek to frustrate them by violence and intimidation? Above all, will she make it crystal clear that there will be no repeat of the events at Saltley cokeworks under the present Government and that the law will be fairly but firmly enforced?
§ The Prime MinisterMost of the miners want either to go in to work in peace or to go in to exercise their right to ballot. Those are both peaceful, law-abiding pursuits. It is the duty of the police to uphold people's rights to go about their law-abiding business in peace. They have powers to limit the number of pickets, to disperse pickets and to prevent excessive numbers of pickets from assembling. If necessary, they can stop vehicles carrying pickets. They have the resources and the facilities for mutual support which they require. I am certain that the police will carry out their duty of upholding the rights of law-abiding citizens to go about their duties. In that they will have the full support of the Government and the overwhelming majority of the people, including the miners.
§ Dr. OwenAlthough there must be no equivocation on upholding and enforcing the rule of law on pickets, will the Prime Minister acknowledge—as she said herself—that most miners want to work and that the real anxiety is not redundancy pay but the feeling in many of the communities associated with mines that there will be no jobs? Will the Prime Minister look at BSC Industry Ltd., which has created 19,000 jobs since 1978 in steel communities that have been hit by closures and consider introducing a similar NCB Industry Ltd. to create jobs for miners who are threatened by pit closures?
§ The Prime MinisterI know of the job-creating activities of the British Steel Corporation. It was extremely successful, especially in places such as Corby. The real way to keep jobs in coal is to concentrate production on the newest and most excellent mines and try to reduce expensive production at the loss-making mines. In that way there will be a very good future in the coal industry for sales in Britain and exports overseas.
§ Q2. Dr. Marekasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 15 March.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Dr. MarekWhy does the Prime Minister continue to block questions on Oman tabled by the shadow Leader of the House? What has she to hide? Will she now say whether she has met Mr. Jamil Amyuni, the middle east director of Cementation Ltd.? If she has, when and where did she meet him and what did they discuss?
§ The Prime MinisterI have not met the gentleman in an official capacity—I do not answer in any other capacity from the Dispatch Box. With regard to answers on Oman, I have answered repeatedly that I did not raise the interest of any individual companies which at that stage could have been interested in securing the right to negotiate on aspects of the university project. I raised, as I was advised to do, Britain's general interest in all aspects of the project. During my tour round the Gulf, which was intended to help get jobs for Britain, contracts came to Britain as follows: National Guard hospital in Saudi Arabia—the total value of that contract to date is £120 million; Hawk trainer aircraft for the Emirates and later for Kuwait on another visit—the total value of those contracts granted to British Aerospace is approximately £160 million; a major defence contract in Qatar—total value £70 million; memorandum of understanding to BP for the exploration of the north-west Dome gas field in Qatar. In India, during the April visit I raised the issue of the power station and a coal mine project, subsequently granted to Northern Engineering Industries, and valued at about £250 million. I was trying to get business for Britain, in spite of the miserable-minded people opposite.
§ Mr. Neil HamiltonAlthough I accept my right hon. Friend's statement about police powers to deal with civil disorder, is she satisfied that those powers are being used effectively and that the law is being enforced?
§ The Prime MinisterPolice constables are making strenuous efforts to uphold the law and I believe that we should give them every support.
§ Q4. Mr. Penhaligonasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 15 March.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. PenhaligonCan the Prime Minister explain to my constituents why the Government have decided that people who let homes for holiday use by the week, fortnight and month should pay less tax on their income and investment than people who let houses for family homes?
§ The Prime MinisterIf that is correct, it is a matter that the hon. Gentleman must take up with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor.
§ Mr. KinnockWill the Prime Minister today instruct the Chancellor to withdraw his take-away tax, as many people now realise that it is unfair in its effect and absolutely plain daft in its operation?
§ The Prime MinisterNo, Sir. If that is the only complaint that the right hon. Gentleman has of the Budget, it shows the paucity of his argument and his contribution.
§ Mr. KinnockI have many complaints about the Prime Minister and her Government, but since I do not have as much time during Question Time as the Prime Minister, I cannot list them all. How can she justify taxing the food of some of the least well-off people in Britain while at the same time giving major tax concessions to people with savings of more than £70,000?
§ The Prime MinisterThe right hon. Gentleman complains about my right hon. Friend the Chancellor extending the VAT base as he did. I remind him that in April 1974 the Labour Government extended VAT to confectionery, soft drinks, ice cream and potato crisps. In April 1975 the Labour Government applied VAT of 25 per cent. to electrical appliances, radios, televisions, hi-fi, boats and caravans, which nearly ruined those industries.
§ Mr. KinnockWill the Prime Minister now answer the question, instead of referring to something that happened 10 years ago, 2 million jobs ago and £40,000 million worth of oil revenue ago? Will she tell the House how she justifies giving huge tax concessions to some of the best-off in society while imposing major taxes on the foodstuffs of some of the poorest people?
§ The Prime MinisterThe right hon. Gentleman knows that we raised thresholds, which obviously affect—[Interruption.] Obviously right hon. and hon. Gentlemen do not want to remember that. Under the Conservative Government the real value of thresholds rose, but it did not under Labour. We believe in justice for all taxpayers.
§ Mr. Beaumont-DarkDoes my right hon. Friend accept that all hon. Members understand that the law on picketing is meant to be good enough to enforce the rights of people who want to work, and of those who wish to strike? Does she accept that that law has done nothing to stop the flying cohorts of intimidation of Scargill, and that unless the police are given the powers and the reinforcement to stop such intimidation the law will be held in disrespect and the intimidation of those who wish to work will grow?
§ The Prime MinisterI agree with my hon. Friend that intimidation and violence must not win. I made it clear that the police have the powers to limit the number of pickets, to disperse excessive pickets, to prevent excessive numbers of pickets from assembling and, for that purpose, to stop vehicles carrying pickets if necessary. They also have the resources and facilities of mutual support. The police are active in upholding the rights of citizens to go about their lawful business. We should condemn all those who seek to prevent people from going about their normal business and should support the police in every way.
§ Mr. Cyril D. TownsendWhile I bear in mind the Prime Minister's admirable message to President Alfonsin of Argentina following his democratic election, is it not 506 in the interests of Britain, the Falkland Islands and Argentina to restore diplomatic and commercial relationships? Has not the time come to deal direct with diplomats of that country, rather than work through the protecting powers?
§ The Prime MinisterIt would be difficult to restore diplomatic relations until Argentina said that hostilities towards us had permanently ceased, as it was the invading power. It is wise to try to restore normal commercial relations, and that we are seeking to do.
§ Q5. Mr. Ray Powellasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 15 March.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. PowellIs the Prime Minister aware that she is now known throughout the country as "take-away Thatcher" as she has taken away school meals, school milk, 3 million jobs and trade union rights? Is it not time that the Government realised that the miners will fight for their rights, as will the 10 million trade unionists in this country?
§ The Prime MinisterThe hon. Gentleman should also note that the Government over which I have presided have taken away national insurance surcharge, many of the top tax rates, which were stopping enterprise, some of the tax burden from people by raising thresholds, and reduced the standard rate of income tax from 33p to 30p. The fact that those taxes have been taken away from people, and that the tax on jobs has been removed, was welcomed both by those seeking employment and employers.
With regard to what the hon. Gentleman said about the miners, I believe that the majority of miners are law-abiding, do not like violence or intimidation, wish to go to their place of work and wish also to have the right to ballot, which is being denied them at present.
§ Mr. Michael ForsythIf Mr. Arthur Scargill and his colleagues in the National Union of Mineworkers believe that there is a future for loss-making pits, will my right hon. Friend give them the opportunity to prove that by transferring those pits lock, stock and barrel to the NUM?
§ The Prime MinisterIf they wished to have a management buy-out, I am sure that we would consider it sympathetically.
§ Mr. EadieSince the Prime Minister has announced to the House that she is very much in favour of ballots by miners, will she make her contribution to such ballots by giving the miners an opportunity to vote on whether they want Ian MacGregor to remain as chairman of the National Coal Board?
§ The Prime MinisterThe issue of who holds management positions is not a matter for ballots; whether or not there should be a strike is a matter for ballots. I did not notice the Labour Government giving the right to ballot on who should be chairman of the National Coal Board. Of course, they did not. They would not have been so damned silly.