§ Q1. Mr. Sumbergasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 9 February.
§ 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.
§ Mr. SumbergIs the Prime Minister aware that the Greater Manchester council, which represents part of my constituency, is currently engaged in a publicity and advertising jamboree to justify its existence? Bearing in mind that we received widespread support for the abolition proposals at the general election, and that authorities within Greater Manchester council's area, including my own, support them, is it not time that this blatant political exercise was brought to an end?
§ The Prime MinisterI dislike political activity on the rates as much as does my hon. Friend. It is open to any elector to challenge any items of expenditure through the auditor and to suggest to him that it is ultra vires, and for the auditor then to make the determination.
§ Mr. RymanHas the Prime Minister had an opportunity to read the report by Sir Douglas Lovelock, which criticises her former Minister for his attack on citizens advice bureaux? Are the Government prepared to implement the recommendations of the Lovelock committee's report, and are they prepared to provide the extra money which the report strongly recommends for the excellent work that citizens advice bureaux do?
§ The Prime MinisterI saw the report. The Government are considering it and will give their reply in due course.
§ Mr. BendallDoes the Prime Minister think it right that the British task force should have been pulled out of Beirut prior to British nationals being withdrawn? Will she comment on the fact that British nationals are being asked to sign pieces of paper for their fares?
§ The Prime MinisterThe British forces in the Lebanon had their headquarters at Haddâsse. From that position they would have been totally unable to help British nationals in west Beirut. They are better able to help, through being on RFA Reliant, than from their previous position. We had to consider their safety in their previous position and their inability to carry out the tasks that had been allocated to them, which were to safeguard the bank where the ceasefire talks were taking place and to patrol in west Beirut. There have been no ceasefire talks since 16 January, and patrolling in west Beirut was impossible. Both tasks became impossible. I am sure that my hon. Friend will think that it was right to withdraw them under those circumstances rather than leave them in a very dangerous and exposed position.
Our ambassador in Beirut is making arrangements for the evacuation of British nationals. The piece of paper that they are being asked to sign to say that they will pay £30 is in accordance with standard practice for all evacuations over a long period. When the Labour Government evacuated people from Tehran, the price charged was £68.
§ Mr. HattersleyHas the Prime Minister had time to consider the answer she gave last Tuesday concerning taxation under her Government? Will she confirm that, while income tax has gone down by £1.4 billion, the wage-earners' contribution to national insurance has gone up by £3.4 billion? Does she agree that what she has put back into wage-earners' pockets is only half of what she has taken out in a different form?
§ The Prime MinisterOf course national insurance contributions have increased, because the largest component of expenditure from the social security fund is pensions, and the number of pensioners has also increased. The national insurance contribution is not a tax and never has been since it was proposed by Beveridge. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the pension that one draws out is proportionate to the contributions one makes in national insurance payments, and that is why one draws it out by right.
§ Mr. HattersleyIf national insurance contributions are not taxes, will the Prime Minister tell that to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who almost every week so classifies them in Hansard? I shall gladly give her the references. Or is the difference between the Prime Minister and the Financial Secretary that he answers questions according to facts and she answers them according to party propaganda?
§ The Prime MinisterMy hon. Friend the Financial Secretary answers questions on national insurance contributions. As one who was in the Department for three years, I know that one draws unemployment benefit, sickness benefit or pensions by virtue of having made contributions over the years. Unless those contributions are fully paid, one does not draw out the full amount in pensions. It is not a tax, but an insurance contribution.
§ Mr. SteelWhy has the Prime Minister forbidden senior civil servants to discuss the workings of Whitehall with the freedom of information campaign?
§ The Prime MinisterI am not aware that that has taken place, but I should have thought it was reasonable to do so. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has any objection.
§ Q2. Mr. Canavanasked the Prime Minister what are her offical engagements for 9 February.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. CanavanWill the Prime Minister explain why she seems to favour the granting of contracts to a firm such as Trafalgar House, whether for building a university in Oman or for the asset-stripping of Scott Lithgow, which will throw nearly 3,000 workers out of their jobs? Will she intervene now to ensure the job prospects of Scottish workers, or is she willing to intervene only to help improve the job prospects of her son?
§ The Prime MinisterThe British taxpayer has paid about £165 million in respect of the Scott Lithgow shipbuilding yard since nationalisation. That is a very large sum, and the amount paid last year was equal to a subsidy of £13,000 for each worker in the yard. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the future of the contract for the Britoil rig is in question. There have been discussions about the whole of Scott Lithgow between British Shipbuilders and Trafalgar House and those discussions 1018 have made good progress. A number of parties have expressed interest. Trafalgar House has pursued its interest and has reached conditional agreement with British Shipbuilders. It is open to others to make offers to British Shipbuilders, but time is short. I deplore the unions apparent rejection of the chance of retaining between 1,000 and 2,000 jobs on the Clyde.
§ Mr. John BrowneIs my right hon. Friend aware that her speech at the small business conference yesterday at Frimley will be widely welcomed by entrepreneurs and investors in free enterprise throughout the country? Will she assure the House that she will not yield in her drive to dismantle the monopolies and other obstacles to investment and enterprise in Britain?
§ The Prime MinisterOur objective is to increase competition, believing that that serves the consumer best, and to maximise the amount of denationalisation, all the while offering opportunities to those who work in former nationalised enterprises to purchase shares so that they may have a stake in the business in which they work.
§ Q3. Mr. Altonasked the Prime Minister if she will list her offical engagements for Thursday 9 February.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. AltonWill the Prime Minister comment on the Government's decision to allow the Central Electricity Generating Board to pre-order component parts for the pressurised water reactor project, bearing in mind that the decision of the inquiry is some 18 months hence? Does she agree that this either makes a mockery of the inquiry or means that the Government are prepared to write off possibly £12 million?
§ The Prime MinisterIf there is to be any chance of that project going ahead it is vital to order those component parts now. If the decision eventually is to let the project proceed, it will turn out to have been a very economical move. The project might not go ahead for a long time. If it does not proceed it will be necessary to dispose of those parts elsewhere.
§ Mr. WardIn view of the reluctance of the French police to give protection to British lorry drivers going about their lawful business, does my right hon. Friend consider that the thousands of tourists who propose to visit France this year should find some other destination than France or some other route than via the French Channel ports?
§ The Prime MinisterWe shall consider giving advice nearer that time. I point out that the President has been adamant that the law must be obeyed and has been very helpful in that respect.
§ Mr. WrigglesworthHaving gone back on the proposal for the introduction of postal ballots in trade union elections, will the Prime Minister explain why the Government appear to be going back on the proposal to introduce contracting-in for the political levy?
§ The Prime MinisterThe Government are carrying out the undertakings in their manifesto to the effect that we would try first to reach voluntary agreement with the unions. Only if we were unable to reach that agreement would we introduce legislation.
§ Mr. Kenneth CarlisleDoes my right hon. Friend agree that the recent 50 per cent. increase in profits by the 1019 National Freight Corporation Co. Ltd. in which more than half the employees own shares, demonstrates not only that we must do even more to encourage employees to have a stake in that business but that denationalisation, works?
§ The Prime MinisterThat increase shows two things. It demonstrates the wisdom of denationalisation which helps to make profits and serves the consumer, and shows that it is a good deal for those who work in the business.
§ Q4. Mr. Wareingasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 9 February.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. WareingIn view of the right hon. Lady's oft-repeated claim that the economy is looking up, how does she think that squares with the recent survey by the Merseyside chamber of commerce which said that
Home deliveries and orders static or dropping … More firms working at 60 per cent. to 80 per cent. capacity only … liquidity worsening—
§ Mr. WareingI am quoting—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The hon. Member must not quote.
§ Mr. WareingI am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I believe that the point has been made. The chamber of commerce went on to talk about more labour-shedding in future. What hope do the right hon. Lady and her Government have for the people of Merseyside after the Government's disastrous four years in office?
§ The Prime MinisterI am not sure that I heard all of the question, but I got its general drift. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the Government have made great efforts with regard to Merseyside. Since May 1979, about £20 million of taxpayers' money has been spent on Merseyside. Inevitably, there will still be redundancies as companies become more efficient. If they are not efficient, there is not a proper basis for expansion.
§ Mr. HendersonIs my right hon. Friend aware that those in Scotland who are genuinely worried about the possible social and economic consequences of the complete closure of Scott Lithgow deplore the politically prejudiced remarks from the Opposition now that the possibility of averting total closure is emerging? Will she ensure that every possible step is taken to carry through the hope that now exists for the future?
§ The Prime MinisterI believe, with my hon. Friend, that the hope for Scott Lithgow lies in getting that Britoil 1020 rig, and the yard, into the private sector, and in that yard having a new start under totally new management. Scott Lithgow could then get rid of the reputation, which it has unfortunately obtained, of not fulfilling orders on time and within budget. If Scott Lithgow goes into the private sector and makes a good job of the rig, it may obtain other orders and the work force will have a good future.
§ Q5. Mr. Sean Hughesasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 9 February.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. HughesIn view of the Prime Minister's well-known crusade against extravagance and waste, can she find time to tell the House whether the Ministry of Defence's estimate of the cost of the flight by the Secretary of State for Defence from the Falkland Islands was a gross underestimate at £90,000? If it was, how much did the flight cost?
§ The Prime MinisterMy right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence went there in a Hercules and came back in a Nimrod. It seems to me to be right for the Secretary of State for Defence to avail himself of one of the regular flights—down in a Hercules—and to find exactly what it is like flying back by Nimrod. I am glad that he did it.
§ Mr. SkinnerOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
§ Mr. SpeakerI shall take points of order afterwards.
§ Mr. SkinnerMy point of order is to do with Question Time. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, during exchanges on questions to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that I referred to the Duke of Devonshire managing to find a tax incentive scheme so that he does not have to pay tax—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. We cannot deal with that question again.
§ Mr. SkinnerIt is important.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. We have a big day ahead of us, with important debates. That is not a point of order.
§ Mr. SkinnerI made a mistake.
§ Mr. SpeakerYou made a mistake! Oh, well.
§ Mr. SkinnerI referred to tax dodging, and so on, but I forgot to mention that the Duke of Devonshire—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I give the hon. Member full marks for ingenuity—but that is enough.