§ Q1. Mr. Wallaceasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 1 December.
§ 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 attending a diplomatic reception at Buckingham palace given by Her Majesty the Queen.
§ Mr. WallaceSince the Prime Minister's return home has she had an opportunity to read yesterday's speech by the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Pym) and the comments made in an interview on television during the weekend by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, both of whom linked unemployment with the increasing level of violence and lawlessness? Do those comments herald a new dawn of realism and understanding in the Tory party, and has it yet dawned on the right hon. Lady?
§ The Prime MinisterWith regard to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, the policy that I am pursuing now is precisely the same as that which I pursued when my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Pym) was a distinguished member of my Cabinet. They are also the policies on which we won the general election so handsomely. On the latter part of this question, the hon. Gentleman should refer to the excellent investigation carried out by the Social Science Research Council, which found that there was no connection between unemployment and crime.
§ Mr. KinnockIn an effort to resolve the continuing dispute at the Stockport Messenger, will the Prime Minister use the power which we know she has and, at the least, get her Secretary of State for Employment to invite Mr. Shah, the National Graphical Association and the chairman of ACAS to meet the Secretary of State for discussions to pursue a resolution of the dispute and arrange for that meeting to be in London?
§ The Prime MinisterNo, Sir. ACAS was set up by the Labour Government. It exists to act as a reconciliation agency in disputes. One of the parties involved will be seeing ACAS this afternoon. It is not the Government's function to take these matters over.
§ Mr. KinnockWe have heard much of the Prime Minister's policy of non-intervention. On 14 October Mr. Shah obtained his first two injunctions under the 1980 and 1982 legislation. That was also the day on which the Prime Minister met Mr. Shah in the north and—[Interruption.] If the Prime Minister wants photographic evidence I have it here. The Sale and Altrincham Messenger of 21 October carries two photographs of the Prime Minister in deep conversation with Mr. Shah. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh"] So much for non-intervention. When she met Mr. Shah, did she counsel peace or conflict? Did she advise him to pursue industrial relations by litigation or by negotiation?
§ The Prime MinisterI advise everyone, employer or employee, to keep within the law, because the law is their best protection. I do not discuss particular industrial relations problems with particular employers. Will the right hon. Gentleman advise the NGA to obey the law and to purge its contempt of court?
§ Mr. KinnockThe Prime Minister has not answered the question. She is refusing to give an honest answer to the question. Is she really trying to persuade the House that on the very day that this business man went to court and got two injunctions, she, as the authoress of the two pieces of legislation that gave rise to the injunction, did not discuss this matter with him? Is not the fact that the Conservative party and the alliance parties want this dispute to be more bitter and more prolonged for purposes of political profit, when we on the Opposition Benches, and every reasonable person, want the dispute to be resolved so that we can have peace in the printing industry and on Fleet street?
§ The Prime MinisterThis dispute is about an attempt to impose—[Interruption.]
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The House must listen in silence to the Prime Minister. [Interruption.] Order. I repeat what I said yesterday—if we cannot have order in this House, how can we expect it outside?
§ The Prime MinisterThis dispute is about an attempt to impose a closed shop on employees, who did not want it, by a process of union intimidation, and further to prevent that company from producing a newspaper by unlawful picketing under the criminal law. The employer has rightly sought the protection of the courts. The protection of the law is there for every citizen in the land and it is to be used. The law is wholly separate from politics.
Q2. Mr. Nicholas Baker asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 1 December.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
Mr. BakerIs my right hon. Friend aware of the support that she will receive in the negotiations next week in Athens, and does she accept that the own resources of the Community should not be increased unless arrangements on the budgetary process and the common agricultural policy are arrived at that are satisfactory to the House?
§ The Prime MinisterYes, I firmly agree. The objective at Athens is to achieve a fair sharing of the financial burden of the Community among the several members, so that no member pays to the Community a share disproportionate to its relative prosperity. It is particularly important that we get a safety net for our contribution. It is also very important that we get control of expenditure under the Community budget, and in particular under the common agricultural policy.
§ Mr. SteelDoes the right hon. Lady recognise that she should tell the House what was the advice that she gave to Mr. Shah? However, does she agree that, regardless of the more recent legislation, the mass picketing that is going on was illegal under the Labour Government's legislation, and that that should be condemned, and hon. Members participating in those pickets should be repudiated by their party leader?
§ The Prime MinisterI do not advise anyone upon the law. That is a matter for their professional advisers and their solicitors, and most wise politicians would take that view. With regard to the mass picketing, that is a matter for the criminal law. That has been the position for decades, certainly long before our last legislation.
§ Mr. DickensI congratulate my right hon. Friend on a first-class Commonwealth conference. Following the long statement by Mr. Mugabe, does my right hon. Friend now feel that there is a real hope for the British airmen still imprisoned in Zimbabwe — and for their families — of early release?
§ The Prime MinisterI saw Mr. Mugabe in Delhi at the Commonwealth conference and we had a conversation in which this issue arose. I understand that the fourth of the air force officers was released when his case came before a review tribunal, which recommended his release. I understand that the other three cases will come before the review tribunal and go through the usual process, we hope with the same result.
§ Mr. Merlyn ReesHas the Prime Minister been advised on the allegation made while she was away that an eminent member of the judiciary was acting as adviser to one of her Departments, and that the Home Secretary yesterday said that the facts had been distorted? What were the facts?
§ The Prime MinisterI am not in a position to comment — [Interruption.] — on double hearsay. I have full confidence in the judiciary, which is independent of politics and must remain so.
§ Q3. Mr. Ray Powellasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 1 December.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. PowellBefore the right hon. Lady replies to my question, she should give a reply to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, who presented her with a question that has not yet been answered. In the meantime, will she read in today's Official Report the Standing Order No. 10 application made by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), in which he inquired whether she was aware of what had transpired in the Peruvian peace talks and had been informed on 2 May before the sinking of the Belgrano—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh".] All the information that was contained in yesterday's application came from the Wall Street Journal. Will she now decide whether she will take legal action against that newspaper for fabrication, or will she make a statement to the House and tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
§ The Prime MinisterI read the Standing Order No. 10 application and I read the report, the information in which is totally and utterly wrong.
§ Mr. BudgenIs my right hon. Friend aware of a widespread demand on the Conservative Benches for the publication of a document setting out the political priorities for containing public expenditure m this Parliament, and will she give her support to the publication of such a document?
§ The Prime MinisterObviously we are looking at the long-term consequences of the present trend of public expenditure. We shall let my hon. Friend and other hon. Members have as much information as we possibly can. We must have the information to make a proper assessment of the taxation consequences of certain levels of public expenditure.
§ Q4. Mr. Spellerasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 1 December.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. SpellerIs my right hon. Friend aware that the Post Office Engineering Union imposed a weekly levy of £1 on all its members, to be used solely for political purposes. In view of this, will she consider recommending to the chairman of British Telecom that an alternative union, the Engineering Officers Technical Association, be empowered to act and negotiate on behalf of the technical officers, who would prefer to belong to a union that worked for them rather than to a union that works largely for political purposes?
§ The Prime MinisterI understand my hon. Friend's concern, but it is for the chairman of British Telecom to take whatever decisions are in the best interests of the business. I understand that some members of the POEU have been reluctant to pay the levy. That shows that they have made a better assessment than some of their leaders of the benefits of privatisation.
§ Mr. Robert C. BrownWill the Prime Minister reconsider the decision to increase fuel prices at a time when the British Gas Corporation could reduce prices by 10 per cent. and carry on making its current profits? If riot, will the right hon. Lady accept that she is setting herself up as jury, judge and executioner of many sick, disabled and elderly people? Does the right hon. Lady relish the prospect of becoming a mass murderer in coming winters?
§ The Prime MinisterI have already answered that question. The amount of gas is limited. Present supplies are made up in large part of cheap gas from the southern basin of the North sea at 6p a therm, progressively supplemented by imported gas at 19p a therm. It is therefore inevitable that gas prices will rise over the years. To keep them artificially low would be to use gas in this generation at the cost of the future. That would be a short-sighted policy. If the hon. Gentleman will refer to his own Government's record on gas prices he will find that they deliberately loaded gas prices on to industry in order to keep them down for the consumer. The most recent Labour Government loaded gas prices on to industry to the tune of 291 per cent. We have done it only to the extent of 85 per cent.