§ Q1. Mr. Winnickasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 27 February.
§ 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 this House I shall be having further meetings later today.
§ Mr. WinnickWill the Prime Minister reaffirm that the Anglo-Irish agreement stands, regardless of what happens next Monday, and that no amount of violence, intimidation or paramilitary force will change the mind of the large majority of British people who are clearly in favour of the agreement? Is it not the case that if a power-sharing agreement had not been destroyed 12 years ago by the Unionists there would have been no need for such an agreement in the first place?
§ The Prime MinisterI make it clear that should the strike go ahead on Monday the action will not deflect the Government from their determination to implement the new Anglo-Irish agreement, which has the support of the overwhelming majority of both Houses of Parliament of the United Kingdom.
§ Mr. Maxwell-HyslopWhen my right hon. Friend reflects upon the largest export order ever obtained by this country, does she also reflect on the vicious personal attacks made upon her when she went to Saudi Arabia and did so much of the work that resulted in that contract?
§ The Prime MinisterI leave any attacks on me aside—if one puts oneself in the front line in politics, one will get shot at, as we see every Tuesday and Thursday. I congratulate British Aerospace on the excellent order that it has received, and thank Saudi Arabia for the faith that it has placed in our factories, their management and those who work in them.
§ Dr. OwenIs the Prime Minister aware that Customs and Excise has today raided around 30 premises, one of which is the headquarters of Johnson Matthey Bankers? Is she further aware that there have been some 12 arrests, that Customs and Excise is investigating as much as £7.25 million in gold bullion which, it appears, may have been smuggled into the country, and that the Bank of England 1063 has confirmed that Johnson Matthey Bankers is co-operating with Customs and Excise? In view of the fact that the Prime Minister on 2 August 1985 refused my request to set up a tribunal of inquiry on the very issue of the unsoundness of—[Interruption.] Some £185 million worth of this country's money has been given to Johnson Matthey Bankers. In view of the fact that the Prime Minister refused to conduct a tribunal of inquiry at the Governor of the Bank of England's insistence — [Interruption.]
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. This is a very long question.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. But equally, fair shares all round.
§ Dr. OwenSince the Governor of the Bank of England has repeatedly said that the banking and gold bullion business of Johnson Matthey Bankers is sound, will the Prime Minister now set up a tribunal of inquiry?
§ The Prime MinisterNo, Sir. I understand that Customs officers visited a number of premises today, including Johnson Matthey's. They visited those premises this morning in the course of investigating possible VAT irregularities involving gold. Johnson Matthey Bankers issued a press statement. The Customs officers were following the responsibilities laid on them by statute and, of course, such cases are not referred to Ministers.
§ Mr. RostWill my right hon. Friend comment on the latest lunacy on the part of Derbyshire county council, which has ordered the banning of The Times newspaper from public libraries and educational establishments because of the dispute at Wapping? Is that not the latest example——
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The hon. Gentleman's question must relate to the Prime Minister's responsibilities.
§ The Prime MinisterThe banning of newspapers is small-minded and smacks of censorship.
§ Q2. Mr. Bruceasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday, 27 February.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. BruceIs the Prime Minister aware of the anger in my constituency among the 390 employees of British Airways Helicopters, based in my constituency, about the negotiations to sell the company to Coln Valley Investments? Is she further aware that Mr. Martin Meade is the subject of litigation over an alleged offence under section 330 of the Companies Act 1985, involving £18,000 of expenses? Coln Valley Investments last registered its accounts in 1982, when it made a loss of £40,000. Will the Prime Minister intervene and urge British Airways to break off negotiations with this cowboy operator, which has a record of asset-stripping and job destruction?
§ The Prime MinisterNo, I will not intervene. If the hon. Gentleman feels strongly about the matter, he can take it up with British Airways.
§ Mr. RoweWill my right hon. Friend bear in mind the deep and deepening anger felt by a great many of us over 1064 the fact that in a part of the United Kingdom an agreement designed to improve the security of the whole of the United Kingdom is being undermined by actions, some of which are not even legal?
§ The Prime MinisterI have indicated our approach to this strike. I hope that it will not take place, but if it does, and if it takes place in the name of Unionism, it will lead to the erosion of support for the Union in the United Kingdom.
Mr. J. Enoch PowellIs it not desirable that this House should have the opportunity, for the first time, to debate the principle under which an external court purports to lay down what legislation may or may not be passed or must be passed by this House?
§ The Prime MinisterI assume that the right hon. Gentleman is referring to the decision of the European Court. That was a limited decision about the age at which women may retire from the public service. The decision was made under a law passed by this House and the consequences flow from it.
§ Sir Peter EmeryBefore 7 o'clock, will my right hon. Friend look again at the Order Paper, on which there is an amendment tabled by the Procedure Committee, which is now supported by 150 hon. Members, right hon. Members, ex-Ministers, ex-Whips and even a senior ex-Chief Whip? Perhaps, as a birthday present to me, my right hon. Friend will follow the recommendations of her advisers that this amendment should be the subject of a free vote—really as a free vote—and will ensure that certain unknown influences—perhaps not so unknown—will not drum Ministers and Parliamentary Private Secretaries into the Lobby to vote against it?
§ The Prime MinisterI wish my hon. Friend a happy birthday and congratulate him on his assiduous work. I am sure that, at the end of the debate to which he referred, he will hear most excellent advice from my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal.
§ Q3. Mr. Lofthouseasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 27 February.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. LofthouseGiven the Prime Minister's support for Victorian values and family life, may I ask why she supports the Sunday trading Bill? Will she give Back-Bench Members a free vote on the matter?
§ The Prime MinisterYes, I support the Sunday trading Bill. I do not believe that the restriction of choice should apply to Sunday trading when it does not apply to so many other things on a Sunday. People must make their own choice.
§ Mr. Philip OppenheimWill my right hon. Friend join many people in congratulating the Leader of the Opposition on his efforts to rid the Labour party of the hard Left, but would she remind him——
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. Questions must relate to the Prime Minister's responsibility.
§ Q4. Miss Maynardasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 27 February.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer the hon. Lady to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Miss MaynardIn view of the Government's insistence that the miners should have held a ballot before their recent industrial action, why do the Government not support the Fleet street print workers, who held a ballot and voted 7:1 in favour of industrial action?
§ The Prime MinisterI notice that the hon. Lady referred to the miners. It is one year ago today since the miners' strike was ended—a strike which the Opposition supported through the bitterest, cold weather. The printers made their own choice on a ballot, and must take the reasonable consequences which flow from the choice which they freely made.
§ Q5. Mr. Hanleyasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 27 February.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. HanleyYesterday, in another place, it was suggested that drug traffickers should be injected with their own poison and left out in the street to die. Despite what might be the initial attractions of that policy, does my right hon. Friend agree that a better policy would be to fight demand by effective education, to fight supply by international co-operation through intelligence and drug eradication programmes, and to fight the profits of drug trafficking by imposing long prison sentences, equivalent to those for premeditated murder, and by confiscation of the profits of drug traffickers?
§ The Prime MinisterI agree with my hon. Friend that we must fight drug trafficking through education, Customs, the police and the courts. I am sure that he ardently supports the Bill now before the House to enable us to confiscate the proceeds of drug trafficking, which I hope will be speedily set on its way so that we may carry it into action.
§ Mr. KinnockThe Prime Minister said yesterday that she likes an upsurge of patriotism, but she likes it accompanied by action. Is her idea of action or, indeed, patriotism, selling off assets built up by the contributions of the British people? They have put up. Does she believe that they should shut up?
§ The Prime MinisterThe right hon. Gentleman is aware that, by Tuesday, we shall have some idea of the 1066 numbers of people who wish to bid and an idea of the approximate amount. I can say no more until all those bids are in and have been properly and thoroughly discussed.
§ Mr. KinnockThe Prime Minister reminds us that next Tuesday is the deadline. Does that not stand on their head her claims yesterday and previously that consortia of bids could be built up for an offer for which there is no prospectus, but for which there is a deadline? Does that not make her claims absolute nonsense and show that she was never serious about competitive tendering and bidding in any case?
§ The Prime MinisterNo. The right hon. Gentleman is talking nonsense. Those who are interested in making genuine bids—the trade unions could have done the self-same thing—could have obtained the information from the Department of Trade and Industry or British Leyland.
§ Mr. KinnockThat is another of Maggie's myths. Does she not know that the total combined assets of British trade unions are less than £500 million, and that it is nonsense to suggest that the trade unions could mount a bid for purchase? I ask her again: when the British people have bought and paid for a high technology company, many parts of which are turning into profit, why does she want to flog it off to foreigners?
§ The Prime MinisterIf the right hon. Gentleman has such faith, he must know that there are many pension funds, with enormous assets belonging to the unions, which could purchase into that company. The right hon. Gentleman wants British Leyland to be a permanent pensioner on the pockets of his constituents. We do not—[Interruption.]
§ Q6. Mr. Freemanasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 27 February.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. FreemanWill my right hon. Friend stick to her plans for public expenditure and not pursue policies such as those of the Opposition, whose plans call for an increase in value added tax of almost 41 per cent.?
§ The Prime MinisterIt would be our purpose to do exactly what my hon. Friend has said. It is no part of our policy to try to take an increasing proportion of people's earnings through income tax. We believe that they work harder so that they have more for their own families, not to pay more to the Government.