§ Q1. Dr. Marekasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 5 April.
§ 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.
§ Dr. MarekDid the right hon. Lady hear the lunchtime news today, which carried a report of a death in unexplained circumstances of an employee at GCHQ Cheltenham? Can she give the House any further information on that matter?
§ The Prime MinisterI am not certain to which matter the hon. Gentleman is referring. I know a number of—but they will be reported in due time when all the information is known.
§ Mr. FarrIf my right hon. Friend has a chance today, will she consider the position facing some local authorities which are having to meet additional bills for police expenditure because of the miners' strike? Is she aware that in Leicestershire the bill so far is an additional £2 million? It will be difficult for local authorities to meet that sort of money out of their funds.
§ The Prime MinisterI understand that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary met certain local authorities recently and has said that when we know the full extent of the bill he will generously and sympathetically consider applications for help.
§ Mr. KinnockOn the specific subject of local authorities, is the Prime Minister not ashamed to be bringing before Parliament a Bill that will remove voting rights from 13 million electors in Greater London and the metropolitan counties? Will she, in the name of basic British democracy, ensure that the Bill is withdrawn?
§ The Prime MinisterNo, Sir. [Laughter.]
§ Mr. KinnockI note the humour of Conservative Members at the removal of those democratic rights. Is that 1108 not exactly the misuse of Government power and abuse of democratic values of which the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Pym) warned during the general election? At some stage, will the Prime Minister try to provide the facts that are supposed to support her case for taking them away? When, in any democratic country, have any democratic Government given satellite status to the council of their capital city?
§ The Prime MinisterThe policy was endorsed by the votes of 13 million people at the last general election.
§ Mr. KinnockIf the right hon. Lady is referring to her manifesto, there is no mention in it of the abolition of the right to vote in any circumstances. The right hon. Lady may have a mandate for some things; she has no mandate for imposing puppet councils on London and the metropolitan counties.
§ The Prime MinisterThe abolition of the GLC and the metropolitan counties was a foremost part of our manifesto. We intend to carry out those abolitions.
§ Q2. Mr. Simon Hughesasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 5 April.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. HughesWill the Prime Minister confirm that her Office has already confirmed the report that, within the last day or two, a GCHQ employee has committed suicide; that that has been confirmed by GCHQ: that a note was left and that note confirmed that the suicide was attributable to the pressure put on that employee as a result of the Government's policy of taking away the right to belong to a trade union? Will the inquest be in public? Will the report be made available to the House? What was the rank of that GCHQ official? Will the Prime Minister make a statement about the matter?
§ The Prime MinisterAny suicide—I am aware of the suicide to which the hon. Gentleman refers, which was accompanied by a suicide note—will be a matter for the coroner. I expect that that note is in his possession.
§ Sir Dudley SmithIs my right hon. Friend aware that the announcement by the hard-nosed General Motors Corporation of America that it intends to invest £100 million in this country because of the changed circumstances here is a considerable vindication of the policy that she has pursued over the past four and a half years? Is she further aware that other policies of that kind will lead to further successful investment?
§ The Prime MinisterI saw the news to which my hon. Friend refers. It is very good news and augurs well for the future of General Motors in Britain and prospects for jobs.
Mr. James CallaghanIn giving permission to the Metropolitan police to acquire sub-machine guns, have the Government considered the impact of this serious further step in arming the police on the relationship between the police and the public, and on the very nature of the police service? I recognise the Government's dilemma in protecting foreign Heads of Government, but would it not be preferable in those circumstances to give that responsibility to the regular armed services when the Government are faced with short-term need? If the Metropolitan police are armed with sub-machine guns, 1109 that could change the character of the force and sacrifice a long-term beneficial system of policing to a short-term need.
§ The Prime MinisterAs the right hon. Gentleman knows, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary agreed to a request from the Metropolitan police for the purchase of a small number of sub-machine guns, as I said on Tuesday. The right hon. Gentleman may recollect, as it is within public knowledge, that as long ago as 1976 the Labour Administration approved the acquisition by the Metropolitan police of a small number of conventional sub-machine guns — [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah".] — for possible use in a terrorist emergency—a cause which I feel sure the right hon. Gentleman and the then Home Secretary had very much in mind when they approved that purchase.
§ Mr. Eldon GriffithsReverting to the question raised by the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan), is my right hon. Friend aware that the authorisation for the purchase of sub-machine guns by the police was given by the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins) when he was Home Secretary? Is she further aware that when the Leader of the Opposition seeks to make mischief and to attack the British police for doing what the Labour Government authorised them to do he is stabbing in the back the best police service in the world?
§ The Prime MinisterI am sure that any Home Secretary would have considered such a request very carefully, as I am sure my right hon. and learned Friend did, and had good reason for granting it.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I think that we should move on. I think that the House will consider it fair if I call the next question, as the Leader of the Opposition has had three opportunities to ask a question.
§ Later—
§ Mr. KinnockOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should like to raise with you a point of order relating to remarks made by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths), which you and the House will have heard during the Prime Ministr's Question Time. The hon. Gentleman said that I made an attack on the police. That has never been true, is not true, and never will be true.
My references to the use of sub-machine guns —[Interruption.]
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I have called the right hon. Gentleman on a point of order, and I want to hear him.
§ Mr. KinnockMy references to the provision of submachine guns for body guarding purposes are anything but an attack on the police, for whom I have every respect. The hon. Gentleman is sponsored in the House by the Police Federation, but my opinions are held in common with my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan); the editor of Gun Review, himself a former police inspector, who called the Government's decision "horrendous"; and the editor of The Times this morning.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. Many provocative things are said in the Chamber from both sides of the House. I hope that 1110 we shall not have an extension of Question Time through points of order. I called the Leader of the Opposition, and I wanted to hear what he had to say.
§ Mr. Maxwell-HyslopFurther to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Leader of the Opposition raised what he claimed to be a point of order. To protect Back Benchers, will you declare that spuriously to raise as a point of order something that in no sense is a point of order is just as unacceptable from the Front Benches as it is from the Back Benches—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
§ Mr. SpeakerThe hon. Gentleman is a great expert on procedural matters and I entirely agree with what he has said. I called the Leader of the Opposition, and to that extent it is my responsibility, not his. I do not think that we should take this matter any further.