§ Q1. Mr. Penhaligonasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 19 July.
§ The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher)This morning I 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 hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen.
§ Mr. PenhaligonIs the Prime Minister aware that during the general election the then Chancellor of the Exchequer said that he had seen the document outlining the circumstances in which American weapons in Britain may be used? Will the Prime Minister confirm that? Will she let us know who else has seen this document and say why the rest of us cannot see it?
§ The Prime MinisterI cannot confirm whether my right hon. and learned Friend the former Chancellor of the Exchequer said that he had seen the document. If he said that he had, he had. He must answer for that.
§ Mr. AmeryWill my right hon. Friend consider seriously with our right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary whether the proposed compromise to end the Madrid talks on the Helsinki agreement really fulfils our obligations to ensure human rights? Or is this just agreement for agreement's sake?
§ The Prime MinisterIt is more than agreement for agreement's sake. It is a provisional agreement so far and not yet fully signed. It has two things in particular which we are anxious to achieve. The first is the conference on disarmament in Europe—Europe for the first time being defined as going right up to the Ural mountains—which 173 will take place in Stockholm in January 1984. Secondly, it has further references to human rights on which two meetings will take place—one in Canada in 1985 and the other in Switzerland in 1986. There will be particular concern for human contacts—the separation of families and so on. We are anxious to have both of those things, and therefore gave our provisional agreement to the document.
§ Mr. Donald StewartDoes the Prime Minister accept that in the past local authorities were free to raise their own rates, being answerable only to their electors? The right hon. Lady has asserted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has a responsibility for determining the amount raised by local authorities. On what legal basis is that assertion made?
§ The Prime MinisterLocal authorities have only the powers granted to them by statute. Statutes change from time to time. Such changes must go through the House and it is perfectly permissilbe to seek to change statutes from time to time in the customary way.
§ Mr. Maxwell-HyslopWill my right hon. Friend find time today to issue a reminder to her Ministers that the treaty of Rome makes provision only for a European Assembly, not for a European Parliament? Does she agree that if Ministers, among others, falsely describe it, that encourages those who wish to endow it with powers which the treaty of Rome does not give it so to do, to the disadvantage of the signatories to the treaty?
§ The Prime MinisterI agree with and confirm what my hon. Friend said, that "Assembly" is the correct title, and it is so called in the treaty of Rome.
§ Q2. Mr. Simon Hughesasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 19 July.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. HughesWill the Prime Minister explain how she can reconcile the statement in the Gracious Speech that the Government would pursue policies to reduce unemployment with the reported statement yesterday by the Secretary of State for the Environment that the Government's policies on local authority financing would cause considerable numbers of redundancies, possibly including thousands of teachers?
§ The Prime MinisterIf the policies pursued by the Government were such that interest rates rose considerably because of factors within our control, far more jobs would be lost, far more construction projects would be aborted and far more small businesses would not be able to expand. If we are to take advantage of an upturn in world trade we must pursue policies which enable small businesses to expand and new ones to start.
§ Q3. Mr. Sean Hughesasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 19 July.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. HughesIs the Prime Minister aware that one of my constituents recently sent his three world war 2 medals to me as a protest, because as he is in receipt of a war pension he is entitled to only 28p a week supplementary benefit? Will the Prime Minister find time to explain to 174 him where his patriotism and suffering rank on her list of priorities, compared with a runway on the Falkland Islands or tax cuts for the rich?
§ The Prime MinisterIf the hon. Gentleman wishes to raise a specific case about supplementary benefit, perhaps he will write to me or to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. As a Parliamentary Secretary for three years I dealt with detailed cases, and I shall not answer a specific point about a detailed case without prior notice.
§ Mr. Kenneth CarlisleDoes my right hon. Friend agree that the recent news that productivity in the British Steel Corporation has reached German levels bodes well for that business and for this country? Is not being competitive the only way to create real jobs in the long term?
§ The Prime MinisterYes, BSC productivity is excellent and, I understand, better than our competitors in Germany. In a world in which we hope trade will expand, that is the way to secure orders and jobs for Britain and keep our main factories working.
§ Mr. FootWill the Prime Minister confirm the report in The Times today that on Thursday her Cabinet will have before it proposals from the Chanceller of the Exchequer for a £5 billion cut in projected public expenditure for next year? Is that a correct report?
§ The Prime MinisterAs the right hon. Gentleman has been a member of a Cabinet, he is fully aware that one never reveals agendas, let alone the contents of papers, in advance. He is fully aware of that practice and I am surprised that he should wish to break it, other than for his own personal reasons.
§ Mr. FootDid not The Times get it right about the last round of cuts? As some of the right hon. Lady's Cabinet colleagues apparently complained that they were bounced into cuts then, will she confirm—even if she will not confirm the figure quoted in The Times—that the Cabinet will be discussing projected public expenditure cuts for the year ahead? In the light of her earlier reply, will she tell us whether she agrees with the Secretary of State for the Environment that the projected cuts will lead to a large measure of redundancies? Those are his words. Will those redundancies include more teachers, home helps, dinner ladies and librarians? Is that what will happen under the cuts to be discussed in the Cabinet on Thursday?
§ The Prime MinisterThe right hon. Gentleman is fully aware that this is the time of the year when public expenditure surveys for the following year begin. Decisions for the following year are usually made in the autumn, and for the years after that in the expenditure White Paper in January or later—sometimes as late as the Budget. That is the usual procedure. The right hon. Gentleman is aware that we have published our total expenditure plans for this year and next, and we expect to adhere to them.
§ Mr. LyellHas my right hon. Friend seen a report of the excellent speech yesterday by Prince Charles? Does she agree that not only young offenders but school leavers under 18 would benefit from a period of training of the type mentioned by Prince Charles? Will she ask her right hon. Friends at the Home Office, the Departments of Defence and Employment and the Treasury to liaise to try to make further progress in that direction?
§ The Prime MinisterI am aware of the speech. A wide range of courses and facilities are available for the supervision of young offenders in the community. The course to which the Prince of Wales referred was the good youth adventure scheme run last year by the Army, which was widely welcomed and greatly appreciated by those who took part. It is being replaced by a much larger youth training scheme to provide training and work expertise. I believe that the number of applications will probably greatly exceed the number of places.
§ Dr. OwenWill the Prime Minister confirm that the Government do not intend to interfere with the Office of Fair Trading's impending court action against the Stock Exchange in the Restrictive Practices Court? Does she admit that it would be extremely odd for a Government committed to fair competition to interfere in that way?
§ The Prime MinisterThe case is still before the court. However, that does not preclude the Stock Exchange council from making proposals to settle the matter. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has told the chairman of the Stock Exchange that he would be prepared to consider such proposals. If proposals are made which the Government can recommend to Parliament, a statement will be made to the House and an order to exempt the Stock Exchange from restrictive trade practices will have to be made. Therefore, it will be a matter for the House.