§ Q1. Mr. Fisherasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 11 December.
§ 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. FisherWhen considering whether a pit should close for economic reasons, does the Prime Minister think it sensible or reasonable that costs such as surface damage, which may continue for many years, whether that pit closes or not, should be included? Given the interest in, not to say controversy about, the National Coal Board's accountancy system that has been stirred up, would it not be helpful and constructive if the Prime Minister were to set up a full review now to look into the accounting basis for pit closures?
§ The Prime MinisterNo, the board fully accepts that management decisions on pit closures should not be based on a single accounting document, and that has never been its practice.
§ Mr. HaselhurstCould my right hon. Friend find time today to consider how far my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has infringed his quasi-judicial capacity on airport policies by proceeding with the Civil Aviation Bill? Does she understand that there is grave concern among many hon. Members on both sides of the House that a fair decision on this matter is being prejudiced by the way in which matters are being handled?
§ The Prime MinisterI could not possibly accept my hon. Friend's strictures on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. I am aware of what happened this morning, but the future meetings of that Committee is a matter for the Chairman of that Committee.
§ Q2. Mr. Cunliffeasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 11 December.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. CunliffeWill the right hon. Lady reconsider her Government's mean and niggardly decision to cut old people's heating allowances for those on supplementary benefit by £1? Does she understand that this has caused considerable anxiety and concern in all parts of the House — a concern equal to that about student grants? Furthermore, will she resist any attempts by her Chancellor of the Exchequer to put 15 per cent. VAT on fuel prices, which will again cause severe hardship for pensioners and others?
§ The Prime MinisterThe hon. Gentleman does less than justice to the Government's excellent record on fuel allowances. The Government are spending £400 million this year on help with fuel bills, and £200 million of this goes to pensioners. The level of the heating allowances has risen by 40 per cent. more than the increase in fuel prices.
§ Mr. McCrindleIs my right hon. Friend as concernd as I am about the activities of the drug companies, which are suggesting that the very limited movement into generic prescribing is calculated to create two levels of health service? Will she place on record the fact that there is no reason why any patient should be disturbed, because the efficacy of those drugs being recommended is at least as good as those with brand names? Will she also express surprise that general practitioners and the British Medical Association are prepared to lend their names to this campaign?
§ The Prime MinisterYes, I fully endorse what my hon. Friend has said. The House would have cause to criticise the Government if we did not get the best value for money spent on drugs in the NHS.
§ Mr. KinnockIs the Prime Minister aware that the youth training board of the Manpower Services Commission is recommending to the MSC that the pay of young people on youth training schemes should be increased to £34 next year? Is the Prime Minister willing to endorse that recommendation and so give assistance to young people on training schemes and their families, much as she did last week to deserving young people and their families involved in higher education?
§ The Prime MinisterNo. I think that it is more important to get the maximum number of young people on the youth training scheme—[Interruption.] No. I think that it is much more preferable to get the maximum number of young people on the training scheme, to enable them to get jobs for which higher skills are necessary; jobs which would not be available to them but for that training.
§ Mr. KinnockThere seems to be confusion in the Prime Minister's mind. There is no conflict between the quality of training, the numbers involved and the payment of at least acceptable rates of pay to young people. If the Prime Minister is interested in these matters, will she acknowledge that the youth training board is also interested in involving the maximum number of youngsters, but that it still recommends £34 a week? Will the right hon. Lady also accept that, because of the anticipated underspend in the next year, the MSC could pay £40 a week and still not exceed its budget?
§ The Prime MinisterIf increases were to be made, resources would have to be found. The right hon. Gentleman talked about anticipated underspend. Precisely because of that anticipated underspend we increased other training services. The money has already been spent on other training projects.
§ Mr. KinnockIs the Prime Minister saying that after offering a guarantee to all young people—of which she boasts—that they will have education or training, she has been expanding other schemes by filching money from the funds that she was offering under that solemn guarantee to those young people? Will the right hon. Lady now answer the question? Does she think that young people should be properly paid, by the amount recommended by the youth training board—£34 a week —or does she think that they should continue to be underpaid?
§ The Prime MinisterThe right hon. Gentleman's last question was inconsistent with his previous question. In his previous question he said that an increase was justified because of an anticipated underspend. In his last question 906 he said that we had spent the anticipated underspend that he proposed to spend on increasing the payment — [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman said that we should increase the amount because of the anticipated underspend. I was telling him that because of the anticipated underspend we had already increased the spending. I am concerned about increasing the numbers of young people who are trained. The right hon. Gentleman's proposal is impossible without imposing extra tax.
§ Q3. Mrs. Jill Knightasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 11 December.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.
§ Mrs. KnightIs the Prime Minister aware that claims made last week by an Opposition Member based on an article published in Accountancy that NCB accounts were a flawed instrument have been totally invalidated by the article being withdrawn— [Interruption]. The article's authors have admitted that they did not properly understand the accounting or decision-making procedures employed by the NCB and that they included factual inaccuracies in their article.
§ The Prime MinisterI understand from a press statement issued by the National Coal Board on 7 December that the NCB's members and its director general of finance yesterday met the authors of an article in Accountancy. The statement said:
The board … explained how the authors had misunderstood the board's accounting and decision making procedures and drew attention to factual inaccuracies. The authors, who regretted that the orginal article had been circulated by the magazine before the board had an opportunity to discuss it with them, readily agreed to review the contents of their article.The board … expressed their willingness to discuss with the authors their revised article.
§ Mr. SteelCan the Prime Minister confirm that the £10 Christmas bonus for pensioners introduced by a previous Conservative Government in 1972 is now worth only £2.80 in real terms? Is the right hon. Lady continuing to refuse to uprate the bonus? Does she realise that comparisons between her and Mr. Scrooge are wholly unfair, because he was prepared to see the error of his ways?
§ The Prime MinisterThe right hon. Gentleman is aware that this Government have paid the Christmas bonus every year—unlike the last Labour Government, whom the right hon. Gentleman helped to keep in power. This Government will continue to pay the Christmas bonus. If the right hon. Gentleman wants more, will he tell the House where the resources should come from?
§ Q4. Mrs. Rumboldasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 11 December.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mrs. RumboldAlthough many people agree that the laws on Sunday trading need to be reviewed, does my right hon. Friend agree that the traders who opened last Sunday should be roundly condemned for opening illegally? Would it not have been preferable for those traders not to have opened illegally on Sunday but to have left the matter for Parliament to consider and reach a decision?
§ The Prime MinisterI agree with my hon. Friend that the law must be obeyed until it is changed by Parliament.
§ Q5. Mr. Barronasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 11 December.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. BarronThe Prime Minister said earlier that the National Coal Board does not use any one set of accounting figures in relation to colliery closures. Will the right hon. Lady tell the House why she stood at the Dispatch Box last Thursday and tried to defend the NCB's practice of using a single set of figures? What was said in the article about those figures has not yet been withdrawn. Have not those figures been described as a mine of misinformation?
§ The Prime MinisterI have made the position perfectly clear. The NCB fully accepts that management decisions on pit closures should not be based on a single accounting document. That has never been its practice. What I said last week still obtains—that, whatever the accounting procedures, the taxpayer has paid £1.3 billion subsidy to the NCB. That is a matter, not of accounting procedure, but of fact.
§ Q6. Mr. Sternasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 11 December.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. SternWill my right hon. Friend take time during her busy day to study the recent conclusion of Professor Patrick Minford that the best possible way to reduce unemployment is to raise tax thresholds?
§ The Prime MinisterI accept the implication behind my hon. Friend's question that there is an unemployment trap because there is virtually no gap between the level of what a person can receive on supplementary benefit and some of the levels of pay, and because of the difficulties that occur when withdrawing certain means-tested benefits. It is vital to raise the thresholds. Under Conservative Government, thresholds have been raised by 16 per cent. in real terms, compared with a fall under the last Labour Government.
Mr. John David TaylorDoes the Prime Minister recall her assurance to the House last month that the United Kingdom would not pass on to the European Community super levy payments unless other countries were seen to be complying with the milk quota scheme? What is her reaction to the strange decision of the Commission last night to withhold from the United Kingdom's regular 908 agriculture payments an amount equivalent to what it assumes to be the super levy due by the United Kingdom to the EEC?
§ The Prime MinisterThis matter will be dealt with in the normal way, by representations to the Commission. What I said will hold.
§ Q7. Mr. Michael Forsythasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 11 December.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. ForsythIs my right hon. Friend aware of the Wang factory which will be opened next week in my constituency by His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales and of the news today that Hughes Microelectronics has announced a £25 million expansion scheme in Glenrothes, creating some 500 jobs? Is it not a tragedy that the Labour-controlled local authorities which represent those areas are adding to the costs of these new businesses by squandering more than £1 million of ratepayers' money in support of striking miners?
§ The Prime MinisterYes. I was very glad to hear the news about Hughes Microelectronics setting up in Glenrothes, which means some 500 new jobs. I agree with my hon. Friend that when local councils put heavy rates on business, ultimately it will drive away business from that area. Also, I agree with the implication of my hon. Friend's question that the strike is doing untold damage to the repuation of this country for value for money and speedy delivery.
§ Mr. SpeakerI will take points of order afterwards, unless they are directly related to questions.
§ Mr. SpeakerVery well.
§ Mr. EwingI apologise for raising a point of order, Mr. Speaker, but I noticed that during defence questions when my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) raised a question you called the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels) to give, quite rightly, a contrary point of view. I do not complain about that, but the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) has just made a scurrilous and untrue allegation against—[Interruption.]
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. If the hon. Gentleman had been watching the clock, he would have seen the reason why it was not possible to call another hon. Member.