§ Q3. Mr. George Robertsonasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 28 February.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. RobertsonWill the Prime Minister take time, between her meetings, to read the ninth report of the Public Accounts Committee, on the sale of Hamilton college of education? Will she reflect on the fact that the Minister responsible for taking the decisions that gained the unanimous censure of the Public Accounts Committee, and who lost the taxpayer more than £5 million, remains a Minister, presiding over her competition and mergers policy at the Department of Trade and Industry? Will that Minister get off scot free for his culpable negligence, or will the right hon. Lady force somebody to take responsibility for the fiasco?
§ The Prime MinisterThe Government will reply to the PAC's report on the matter of Hamilton college in due course. In the meantime, I totally repudiate the hon. Gentleman's remarks against my hon. Friend.
§ Mr. RentonHas my right hon. Friend lightened her busy day by reading the remarks of the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) in Chesterfield, that,
Tony without Denis is like Torvill without Dean"?Does she not agree that that pair of politicians would not win a medal in the three-legged race, and that this shotgun marriage shows that the Labour Front Bench is skating on thin ice?
§ The Prime MinisterI am grateful to my hon. Friend, whose genius is contained in his question. The right hon. 136 Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) is no person to complain about other people's shooting, judging by his performance at the general election when, single-handed, he shot through the Foot.
§ Mr. KinnockTo come back to self-inflicted injuries, and to return to the subject of GCHQ, does not the Prime Minister agree that the refusal to accept money in exchange for the loss of personal liberties is to be applauded?
§ The Prime MinisterIt is a matter of personal choice. [Interruption.] Had we not been prepared to give compensation for rights that were lost, I believe that we would have laid ourselves open to criticism.
§ Mr. KinnockWill the Prime Minister tell us whether it was necessary to take such powers and offer such freedom of choice during wartime, when this country was fighting for its freedom? If it was not necessary to do so then, what can justify it now? Is it not a fact that the Prime Minister's selfish pride has reached such depths as to require her to threaten the careers of loyal civil servants in order to impose her selfish will?
§ The Prime MinisterThe right hon. Gentleman tries to forget, as do many other trade unionists, the events of 1979 and 1981. Indeed, I thought that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House made the charge against me yesterday that I did not take action sooner, as many people thought we should have done, after 1981.
§ Mr. Robert AtkinsDoes my right hon. Friend recall that, prior to the general election, the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), the Leader of the Opposition and Mr. Benn, to name but three, suggested that the Government were cutting and running, and that all sorts of nameless diseases would follow if the Conservative party won the election? In view of the improvement in the economic indicators, albeit gradual, does my right hon. Friend agree that the electors of Chesterfield, and in the rest of the country, should have no faith in what the Opposition say?
§ The Prime MinisterI wholly agree with my hon. Friend. I note that the Leader of the Opposition has taken his party further Left than the manifesto for the last election.
§ Q4. Mr. Wareingasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 28 February.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. WareingBearing in mind that since 1975 the rate of job losses in Liverpool city council has been three times that of other local authorities and four times that of all the metropolitan districts, does the right hon. Lady agree that it would be irresponsible for Liverpool city council to succumb to the suggestion of the Secretary of State for the Environment that more workers in its employ should be sacked or else it should increase the rates by 60 per cent., thereby making more people in the private sector redundant?
§ The Prime MinisterNo, Sir. Every local authority has a duty to run its affairs prudently. For every £5 million by which the Liverpool city council can cut its spending plans to come closer to target, it stands to gain £10 million in Government grants.
§ Mr. ProctorWhile not in any way condoning mercenaries' activity, will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity during her busy day to thank the President of Angola for his act of clemency? Will she congratulate Foreign Office Ministers, and particularly our ambassador in Luanda, for the work that has been done on behalf of the seven men who were released overnight?
§ The Prime MinisterI am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am pleased at this act of clemency by the Angolan Government. I shall certainly pass on my hon. Friend's remarks to Her Majesty's ambassador in Luanda. We also thank the Foreign Secretary for his skilful negotiations.
§ Mr. FreesonWill the Prime Minister add to the list of her engagements today, or shortly, a meeting with the chairman of the governors of the BBC with a view to removing the cut imposed on a major local radio station in London, which has resulted in a significant reduction in the black Londoners' programme, the only one of its kind operated in this country today?
§ The Prime MinisterNo, Sir. The licence fee arranged for the BBC on the last occasion when it was put up was an arrangement for three years, which I believe was ample for the duties that it has to perform. The BBC chooses where it economises or spends more.
§ Sir Kenneth LewisIf the trade union leadership from the TUC and the unions in Cheltenham wanted to see my right hon. Friend on the third time of asking to discuss whether there was any possibility of reaching agreement on what the Foreign Secretary said yesterday was a marginal difference between them and herself, would she be prepared to meet them again?
§ The Prime MinisterOn the same subject, I do not think that there would be any point in having a further meeting. I note that we had a majority of 176 last night, that the official Labour Opposition did not vote, and that two Labour Members who did were sacked.
§ Mr. WrigglesworthBefore the Prime Minister claims that the vote last night was a major victory, will she explain why 194 Conservative Members of Parliament did not support her in the Lobby?
§ The Prime MinisterThey suffer from an advantage which the hon. Gentleman, in his position on the alliance Bench, does not have.
§ Mr. Nicholas WintertonIs my right hon. Friend aware that she has great support in this country and on the Conservative Benches for the concern and commitment that she has shown towards the national security of this country in her decision over GCHQ? Does she agree that all Members of the House should show the same interest and commitment towards the position of Mr. Speaker in the way that they behave in the House?
§ The Prime MinisterI believe that the decision we took on GCHQ was the right one in the interests of national security. I agree that I am stubborn about pursuing matters of national security, but the British people would expect no less.
§ Mr. MaxtonIs the Prime Minister aware that there will be considerable anger, disquiet and dismay in Scotland at the reply she gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) concerning the Public Accounts Committee report on the sale of Hamilton college? Is she saying that Ministers can preside over gross incompetence without her taking any action against them, and that loyalty to her is the only quality by which she judges Ministers?
§ The Prime MinisterI pointed out that the Government would reply to the report of the Public Accounts Committee in due course. I staunchly defend one of my colleagues.