§ Q3. Mr. Heddleasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 24 March.
§ The Prime MinisterThis 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 dinner given by President Kaunda.
§ Mr. HeddleDoes my right hon. Friend agree that for far too long teacher training courses have contained too many irrelevant and spurious subjects such as sociology 1014 and psychology? Does she agree that the timely announcement earlier this week by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science will better equip teachers to teach children real subjects that will be of practical benefit to them in the real world? Will she undertake to bring forward the White Paper proposals as early as possible?
§ The Prime MinisterI welcome my right hon. Friend's White Paper on the training of teachers. There is an opportunity to improve teaching in our schools, to secure a match of teachers' qualifications with the shortage subjects, which is most important, and to assess what really matters, which is their competence in the classroom. Those things will be done and will be warmly welcomed in the country.
§ Mr. FootPerhaps the Prime Minister can help us by clearing up the confusion created by some answers that we heard earlier this afternoon from Treasury spokesmen about loans to Argentina. Can she confirm that talks on the legal conditions of the loan have proved difficult, as was reported in a newspaper a few days ago? Have those difficulties been created by the British Government because they are trying, at last, to lay down conditions about the expenditure of that money on arms?
§ The Prime MinisterI remember the right hon. Gentleman saying from that Dispatch Box that it was no earthly good trying to lay down such conditions, but his question now is completely different. We supported the loans from the IMF to Argentina on certain stringent conditions. There are two commercial loans to which different conditions apply. We supported the loans for two reasons. First, in the absence of either an IMF loan or commercial loans there was a possibility that Argentina would default. If it did so, it would have far more money to spend on arms than if it met the debt. [Interruption.] I am afraid that that is a fact of life. Furthermore, unless Argentina receives some help, it could default to third countries and, therefore, trigger off the collapse of the difficult and delicate packages that were agreed between the IMF and those countries. Therefore, it was in our interests to do what we did, both through the IMF and through the agreement of two commercial loans under different circumstances.
§ Mr. FootDoes the right hon. Lady stand by her statement of 27 January that the money has not been lent for arms? Is it not the case that, under the plans that she is now apparently allowing to go ahead, the money may be spent on arms? Does she take account of the fact that, according to recent reports, up to £6 million of Argentina's £38 million foreign debt is believed to have been spent on defence? Is she aware that Argentina has greatly increased its arms supplies, some of which may have been paid for with British money?
§ The Prime MinisterThe right hon. Gentleman has still not taken note of my first point. The alternative was that Argentina may default. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman may not like it, but if a country defaults on all its debts, much more money is released that could pay for arms than would have been the case if that country was held to repaying its debts. That is obvious.
§ Mr. David SteelHas the Prime Minister had time to see the study by the Association for the Conservation of Energy, which suggested that 150,000 new jobs could be 1015 created in energy conservation? Is it not deplorable that the Secretary of State for Energy is suppressing the policy unit report from his Department? Will she ensure that the Select Committee on Energy receives a proper Government reply to this proposal?
§ The Prime MinisterI do not believe that 150,000 new jobs could be created in that way. There is already much conservation of energy in Britain, for good and obvious reasons. With the sharp increases in the price of oil, coal and electricity that we have had, people must insulate their houses and industrialists must introduce processes that require less energy and equipment that conserves energy to a much greater extent. That conservation has led to a substantial reduction in the use of energy in this country. There are special grants to old people to insulate their homes.
§ Sir Bernard BraineSince my right hon. Friend's highly successful mission abroad for our country, has her attention been drawn to the deportation last week of a young Romanian, especially to the way in which he was forcibly returned, despite last-minute pleas from Members of Parliament? Is she further aware that he could not speak English when he first arrived here in April 1982, but that it was months before the British-Romanian Association was told of his existence and that that association believes 1016 his case? Is she also aware that there appears to have been no consultation with the Foreign Office, which knows about the conditions in iron curtain countries and which may even consider that there has been a breach of the international convention on refugees? Does not my right hon. Friend think that these circumstances warrant the most careful review and examination of what happened to ensure that it does not happen again?
§ The Prime MinisterI know that my hon. Friend feels very strongly about this.
§ Mr. EnnalsAnd the rest of us, too.
§ The Prime MinisterI read what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said and noticed that at the outset he made the point that this country has an excellent record in awarding refugee status, and will continue to have an excellent record, as has been shown by our treatment of the Polish people who have come here since military law was declared in Poland. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said that, having looked carefully at the conditions of the case, he decided that it was not one for refugee status. I understand, and am advised, that refugee status should be limited to cases that meet the criteria set out in the United Nations convention on refugees. This particular case was considered in that light and apparently did not meet those criteria.