§ Q1. Mr. Gerald Howarthasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 12 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. This evening I shall be attending a state banquet given by the Amir of Bahrain.
§ Mr. HowarthIs my right hon. Friend aware that many of my constituents who work at the Littleton colliery will be extremely disappointed at the decision of the National Union of Mineworkers this morning not to hold an immediate national ballot? Is she further aware that the proposal to alter the rule book will be regarded by many people simply as an attempt to coerce out on strike men who, in my constituency, have voted by three to one to carry on working to support their families?
§ The Prime MinisterI agree with my hon. Friend that many miners will be greatly concerned that the chance for a national ballot has been delayed still further.
§ Mr. KinnockWill the Prime Minister join me in welcoming the fact that a national ballot of the National Union of Mineworkers is now a clearer and closer prospect than it was before today's meeting? Will she accept that it is a much clearer and closer prospect than are ballots for the election of the council to run London in the next few years? Will she address the real issues of the coal mining dispute? She has clearly instructed Mr. MacGregor to run down the coal mining industry in substantial part, regardless of the cost. Does she understand that the price of that strategy for the industry, the communities dependent upon it and for the country is immense? Will she therefore now change that strategy and instruct Mr. MacGregor to do the appropriate thing?
§ The Prime MinisterI assume that if the right hon. Gentleman welcomes the fact that a national ballot is clearer and closer—that is his phrase—he would have preferred it to have been decided today. Perhaps he will make that clear in his next supplementary question. "Plan for Coal" is as it has always been. The right hon. Gentleman will know that in the 11 years of Labour Government some 300 mines were closed and that in the nine years of Conservative Government 92 have been closed.
§ Mr. KinnockIn giving me instructions on ballots, the right hon. Lady is rather in the position of someone in a glasshouse throwing stones. With regard to comparisons of rundown, the fact is that during the Labour Government there were some jobs for redundant miners to go to, whereas there are now none. If she is anxious about cost, does she not realise that the cost of replacing 4 million tonnes of coal is likely to mean the purchase of Australian coal and that even if that resulted in a saving of £120 million, the resulting redundancies would cost £160 million a year, apart from redundancy payments of £300 million over the next couple of years?
§ The Prime MinisterThere have been no compulsory redundancies so far. Redundancy money offered by this Government is more generous than that offered by any Labour Government. Investment in the future for coal mines is far better under this Government than under any Labour Government. Coal mines have a better future under Conservatives than they ever had under Labour.
§ Mr. KinnockDoes the Prime Minister realise that the investment that she is supposed to be sponsoring, of which 523 she is so proud and which is welcome, relates to production in the 1990s at a few specific, limited sites? The problem is here and now. Will she instruct Mr. MacGregor to alter the pace, scale and method of change in the coal mining industry to ensure its future and save coal mining communities?
§ The Prime MinisterThe Government are ensuring the future. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell me when a Labour Government invested £800 million a year in coal mines?
§ Mr. AlexanderHas my right hon. Friend this week had the opportunity to read about the incident involving nails stuck in pieces of wood, which were left in various places and designed to cripple horses? Will she condemn that as heartless cruelty? Does she agree that that is not peaceful picketing, but cruel and violent, and justifies the presence of every policeman on the beat to get my constituents to work?
§ The Prime MinisterI agree with my hon. Friend. I understand that that happened at one mine. That behaviour is disgraceful and callous.
§ Rev. Ian PaisleyWill the Prime Minister immediately consult the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland about the tragedy that has overtaken the milk industry in Northern Ireland because of the European Community package? Will she now comment on what the Minister of State—the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Butler)—said when he appeared before the Agriculture Committee of the Northern Ireland Assembly about her statement of 3 April in the House:
Clearly, the statement made by the Prime Minister was not in line with the facts; there must have been some misunderstanding.
§ The Prime MinisterThe hon. Gentleman knows that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food secured a special quota for Northern Ireland, consequent upon the extra quota given through the European Community to the Republic of Ireland. It means that the milk industry in Northern Ireland will not be as severely affected as it would otherwise have been. I hope that the announcement about the quotas for separate parts of the United Kingdom will be made shortly.
§ Dr. OwenWhy did the Government reject the amendment to the Trade Union Bill proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth), which would have allowed for trigger ballots when a significant group in any industry wanted a ballot? Is it not clear that the tactics of the national executive of the National Union of Mineworkers are to create such chaos in the union that eventually even moderates will vote for a national strike to unite the union? If a trigger ballot existed, those moderates would have the right to force a ballot and would probably have come out against a strike.
§ The Prime MinisterTrigger ballots would give rise to many complications and were dealt with during the debate. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it is important to have a ballot as quickly as possible, especially when that facility is in the union's constitution.
§ Mr. Allan RobertsWhen the Prime Minister next sees the Queen—[Interruption.] will she tell the Queen that when she is no longer Prime Minister she does not intend to accept a hereditary peerage? Or did she 524 reintroduce grossly undemocratic hereditary peerages to guarantee a future for her son when she is no longer Prime Minister? [Interruption.] Will——
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder.
§ Mr. Robertsrose——
§ Mr. SpeakerThe hon. Gentleman has asked one question. That is enough.
§ The Prime MinisterI am delighted with the previous hereditary peerages that I recommended to Her Majesty.
§ Q2. Mr. Blairasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 12 April.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. BlairThe Secretary of State for the Environment, while introducing the paving Bill in the House yesterday, said:
The question of precedent is very important."—[Official Report, 11 April 1984; Vol. 58, c. 411.]Can the Prime Minister name the precedent for a Bill that abolishes local elections and transfers political control from directly elected local authorities to bodies that are indirectly elected or nominated?
§ The Prime MinisterYesterday's debate revolved round the transitional arrangements. It seemed to be agreed by most people in the House that it would be absurd to hold special general elections for a body that would not exist a year later. Therefore, the answer was either to extend the terms of office of those who had been elected beyond the period for which they had been elected, or to put the charge of the functions being transferred into the hands of local councillors whose period of office had not terminated. We took the latter view, which I believe was the correct one. It would have been bad to extend the period of election beyond the term of election of councillors.
§ Mr. StanbrookDoes my right hon. Friend find it ironic that my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), who, more than any individual, was responsible for adding a further tier of government on the backs of the overburdened British people, should object to our removing one?
§ The Prime MinisterI thought that yesterday's debate was only about the period of transition. In so far as there was a difference between my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) and myself, I am sure that I was right.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. RymanHas the Prime Minister seen the report on page two of The Times today, in which the eminent theologian, the Archibishop of York, has pledged support to the NUM in its fight against the National Coal Board's ferocious policy on pit closures? Is she so conceited that she proposes to ignore the advice of even the bishops?
§ The Prime MinisterI do not propose to tangle with the Archbishop of York. I would say only that unless coal is as cheap and competitive as it can be, many jobs will be lost in other industries.
§ Mr. Alan HowarthDoes not my right hon. Friend find the affectation on the part of the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), in setting the pace in the direction of trade union reform, remarkably unconvincing given that, as a member of the Labour Government, supported the illiberal and oppressive trade union and labour relations legislation, including the closed shop? Does she believe that in such matters a complete change of heart is credible, or does she see it as political opportunism on his part?
§ The Prime MinisterI welcome any change in people's Labour affiliations, and I hope that in time they will change a little more.