§ Q1. Mr. Geoffrey Robinsonasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 3 April.
§ 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 attend a dinner given by Her Majesty the Queen at Windsor.
§ Mr. RobinsonIs the Prime Minister aware that the incongruous comparison yesterday by the Secretary of State for Social Services of his review with the great and constructive Beveridge report of 40 years ago will be treated with the greatest suspicion throughout the country? Is she further aware that under her Administration the number of those drawing supplementary benefit has increased by over 40 per cent. and now totals nearly 4.5 million people? Will she, therefore, in the light of those figures, give the House a categorical assurance this afternoon that, as a result of the review now under way, there will be no cut in real terms in the already shamefully low level of supplementary benefit?
§ The Prime MinisterMy right hon. Friend is conducting a comprehensive review of four particular areas and undertaking a statistical survey of the fifth. I think that it is time for a review and that the review will be welcome. It is most unwise to presume the result of a review before it has been undertaken, and therefore I shall keep an open mind. Supplementary benefit has risen in real terms.
§ Mr. HickmetIs my right hon. Friend aware that the steelworks in my constituency of Scunthorpe uses 2.6 million tonnes of coal per annum, 1.8 million tonnes of which comes from the Yorkshire pits? Is she further aware that, as a direct consequence of the action initiated by Arthur Scargill, that plant is faced with closure and the possible loss of 10,000 jobs? Is she also aware that, as a direct result of that, 11 pits in England, six of which are in Yorkshire, may also close with a possible loss of a further 15,000 jobs? Is that not a disgrace and should there not be a national ballot of the members of the National Union of Mineworkers?
§ The Prime MinisterI recognise what my hon. Friend has said about Scunthorpe, which has made strenuous efforts to improve its performance and has succeeded in doing so. I hope that it will have the opportunity to continue in the excellent way in which it has started under the British Steel Corporation. I agree with him that most people in the mining industry would like to have a national ballot and I hope that that desire will be supported by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition Benches.
§ Mr. KinnockWe have heard in the past few days of the decision to permit some policemen to be armed with sub-machine guns. All Members will want to safeguard the security of leaders who will be coming for the summit meeting in June, as we want to safeguard the security of anyone else who is likely to be the target of terrorist attack. Nevertheless, can the Prime Minister tell us what on earth is the use of sub-machine guns for the purpose of personal security?
§ The Prime MinisterMy right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department has approved the purchase by the Metropolitan police of a small number of sub-machine guns. They are intended for the protection of persons at high risk but will be issued only under the most stringent conditions and in the most exceptional circumstances, when the degree of threat against a person being protected justifies such a precaution. Authority for their issue may not be given by a person below the rank of assistant commissioner.
§ Mr. KinnockEven taking into account the interests of security, that response and, it appears, the procedures laid down, are much too vague to justify a huge change in the disposition of security personnel. Can the Prime Minister imagine what the effect would be of pursuit with sub-machine guns through a crowded London street? Will she reconsider this decision and ensure that permission to purchase and bear these arms is withdrawn?
§ The Prime MinisterMy right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary took this step after great consideration. I have explained some of the safeguards —the order is for a small number of sub-machine guns for the protection of persons at high risk, for use only in exceptional circumstances, and authority for the issue of the guns may not be given by a person below the rank of 805 assistant commissioner. The officers to whom these weapons will be issued will be trained to high standards by the Metropolitan police force arms training specialists in techniques appropriate to the role of the police. They will not be trained by military personnel.
§ Dr. GlynIs my right hon. Friend aware, following on that question, that the Thames Valley police authority was told on Friday that it would not receive the £1.5 million promised by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary towards the costs of policing at Greenham common, but would receive only half? Is my right hon. Friend also aware that the balance will fall on the ratepayers and that the cost of policing these demonstrations, which are now no longer local but national, must be funded from central Government and not local ratepayers?
§ The Prime MinisterI have made inquiries about this matter and I understand that the grants given to the Thames Valley police authority were calculated on the ordinary rules.
§ Q2. Mr. Evansasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 3 April.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. EvansDuring the course of the Prime Minister's busy day, will she take the Secretary of State for Social Services to one side, point out to him that no inquiry is needed into the plight of the over-50 long-term unemployed, and tell him that he could assist them immediately by paying diem the long-term rate of supplementary benefit?
§ The Prime MinisterI answered a similar question two or three weeks ago. To do that would require expenditure of some £450 million extra. I am always being urged by Labour Members to reduce the burden of taxation, and I cannot do that and increase public expenditure.
§ Mr. LordDoes my right hon. Friend agree that the one inescapable responsibility of the Leader of the Opposition—[Interruption.]
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. Let the hon. Gentleman finish his question. I presume that he is asking a question which the Prime Minister can answer. He cannot ask questions on what the Prime Minister's view of the Leader of the Opposition would be.
§ Mr. LordAll I ask my right hon. Friend is whether, in her opinion, as Leader of the Opposition — [HON. MEMBERS: "No."]
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The hon. Gentleman must be much more sophisticated than that.
§ Mr. LordIs it not now time that the Leader of the Opposition asked for a national ballot on the miners' strike?
§ The Prime MinisterI do not answer for the Leader of the Opposition, but I live in hope that he may support such a proposition.
§ Mr. HumeDoes the Prime Minister accept that, with the agreement reached at the weekend by Community Ministers of Agriculture, her Minister of Agriculture, 806 Fisheries and Food failed to honour her pledge to the agriculture industry in Northern Ireland to achieve the same arrangements as those achieved for the Republic of Ireland? Is she aware that agriculture is the largest, and our only indigenous, industry in Northern Ireland, and does she accept that damage has been done not only to the dairy industry but to the meat exporting industry, the damage to which has been described today by its leaders as devastating? Will she at least—this is a modest request —ask her Minister to carry out an assessment of the damage done to that industry, with a view to taking corrective action?
§ The Prime MinisterI do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. I believe that my right hon. Friend got a reasonable agreement for Northern Ireland, bearing in mind that in the rest of the United Kingdom farmers are having to cut down their surplus milk production, whereas in Northern Ireland, by virtue of what my right hon. Friend has managed to procure in the Community, they will have a special amount so that they can increase their production.
§ Q3. Mr. James Hamiltonasked the Prime Minister if she will list he official engagements for Tuesday 3 April.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. James HamiltonWill the Prime Minister take time today to reflect upon the fact that, when she became Prime Minister in 1979, in Scotland there were 154,400 unemployed, and that now in 1984 there are 434,300 unemployed? In north Lanarkshire, which incorporates my constituency, ther has been an increase since 1979 of 128 per cent. and, of these, 24.1 per cent. are males, some of whom will never work again. Will she now do something with compassion, get these people back to work, loosen the purse strings of the revenue coming from North sea oil and give them a chance to live a proper life?
§ The Prime MinisterI am the first to agree that unemployment has gone up in Scotland — indeed, it went up also during the lifetime of the last Labour Government. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that there are now many new industries in Scotland which have an excellent future and give good prospects for jobs. These are industries that were not there before, and which are now expanding.
§ Sir Peter BlakerSince tomorrow is the 35th anniversary of the signature by Britain of the North Atlantic treaty, by a Labour Foreign Secretary, Ernest Bevin, will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity today to pay tribute to the success of the Alliance in keeping the peace for all that time by a policy of deterrence and multilateral disarmament?
§ The Prime MinisterYes, NATO is our shield and our security. It is vital that that organisation continues, and I pay tribute to its function of deterrence in the nuclear field, and to the wish of all of us to try to secure multilateral disarmament in conventional and nuclear weapons at all levels. That is our object, and we shall strive ever more to succeed.
§ Mr. SteelSince the Government of the Argentine sent proposals on 18 February for improving relations between our two countries, why is it taking so long to send a reply, and when will it be sent?
§ The Prime MinisterWe sent proposals to the Argentine Government, to which they responded. We shall shortly be responding to them. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman appreciates that it would not have been wise to send a reply during recent days, which obviously was a time of heightened sensitivity.
§ Q4. Mr. Montgomeryasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 3 April.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. MontgomeryHas my right hon. Friend noted the report of the CBI on the post-Budget forecast that was published yesterday, which suggests that manufacturing output will rise even more rapidly in this country this year and next year than the Government's own forecasts? Does she not think that it would be refreshing if the pessimistic people on the Opposition side of the House would just occasionally welcome something that is obviously very good news for Britain?
§ The Prime MinisterYes, I do. The CBI report was excellent news, particularly following a month, indeed a quarter, of very good news about exports, and following upon very good news about higher productivity. But I do not expect right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition Benches to welcome that. Good news for Britain is bad news for them.
§ Mr. Chris SmithHas the Prime Minister seen the reports in the press in the past two weeks about the appalling conditions in which many homeless families are forced to live in inner London, and especially in Princes Lodge, Commercial road, in Tower Hamlets? Will she 808 now take urgent action to ensure that local authorities in London have sufficient resources to meet the problem of homelessness, or does she want the homeless on her conscience as well as the unemployed?
§ The Prime MinisterI suggest that the first thing to be done is to fill those many empty local authority houses, some of which have been vacant for up to a year. If they were brought into service many more people would have homes.
§ Mr. DickensIs my right hon. Friend aware that Mr. Arthur Scargill is a confessed Marxist, surrounded by Communist aides and advisers? Even more serious, is she aware that the support for Mr. Scargill is coming from the Kremlin?
§ The Prime MinisterI hear what my hon. Friend—[Interruption.]
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I think that the House would like to hear the answer to the question.
§ The Prime MinisterI hear what my hon. Friend says. I am concerned that the miners should have an opportunity to express their views on their right to go to their place of work and earn a decent living. I hope that they will consider the case on merit: first, because they have a reasonable pay offer that will keep their pay about 27 per cent. above the average; secondly, because the Government have an outstanding record in supporting investment in the coal industry; and thirdly, because the Government have been reasonable in providing good amounts for early retirement and especially good redundancy payments for those who have to leave their jobs. That amounts to a vote of confidence in the miners and in the future of the industry in which they work.