§ Q1. Mr. Fatchettasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 31 January.
§ The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher)This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, including one with a delegation from the Scottish TUC. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today.
§ Mr. FatchettIf the economy is improving in the way that the Prime Minister claims, why do the Government still feel it necessary to cut the housing benefit of about 1.5 million old-age pensioners?
§ The Prime MinisterAs the hon. Gentleman knows, we have increased the amount spent on housing benefit by about 80 per cent. in real terms since the Labour Government were in office. We are already spending about £3.7 billion on it, and that should be sufficient to cater for all those who are truly in need.
§ Mr. KinnockHas the hardship experienced by many badly-off families during the recent spell of severe weather caused the Prime Minister to change her mind about imposing unsolicited and unnecessary increases in electricity charges?
§ The Prime MinisterThe increases in electricity charges are the first for two years. They amount to some 2 per cent. over two years, which should be contrasted with a 2 per cent. increase every six weeks under Labour.
§ Mr. KinnockI am sure that the Prime Minister and I could hold a very interesting discussion about the past, but those people are cold, not in the past, but now. They will be further disadvantaged by the price increases which the Prime Minister and her Government are directly imposing on them. May I appeal to the Prime Minister to put herself in the position of a young mother with children at home who cannot afford properly to heat her home? Will the right hon. Lady undertake to restore to the poor the £70 million obtained from the higher electricity prices which she is levying, and so help them with their fuel bills?
§ The Prime MinisterThe Government have an excellent record of helping the poor with their fuel bills. We are now spending £350 million on that special help.
§ Mr. ChurchillWhen my right hon. Friend tomorrow meets the leaders of the Civil Service unions on the question of GCHQ, will she explain that they have no one but themselves to blame for the Government's decision, because several years ago those union leaders decided to try to involve the staff at GCHQ and to use them as a weapon in bargaining against the Government?
§ The Prime MinisterThe decision to bring GCHQ into line with the rules applying to other intelligence agencies was right. My hon. Friend is quite right to say that in the Civil Service disputes between 1979 and 1981 the general Civil Service unions called out people in areas which they thought were particularly sensitive, including GCHQ. In one of the campaign reports of the Council of Civil Service Unions it states:
48 hours walkouts have severely hit secret monitoring stations belonging to the Composite Signals Organisation. The Government is clearly worried and will be subject to huge pressure from NATO allies. The latest walkouts are at two stations"—which the council then names. The council also said in campaign report No. 1:Our ultimate success depends upon the extent to which revenue collection is upset, defence readiness hampered, and trading relations disrupted by this and future action.That was the attitude it took in trying to use strikes to force increases in pay.
§ Mr. SteelIs the Prime Minister aware that it does the Government's reputation no good for the idea to be put about that the people working at Cheltenham are somehow unreliable? Is she not aware that that report contrasts strongly with the message sent to them after the Falklands operation by Sir John Nott when he said:
I would go so far as to say that we could not have done without you.Does the whole episode not reflect badly on the way the Government conduct their industrial relations?
§ The Prime MinisterNo, it does not. We have special rules under all Governments for people working in intelligence agencies. The overwhelming majority of people who work there loyally observe those rules and often do more than is necessary, because sometimes they have to cover for other people who are on strike. The accounts that I read out were from the campaign report for the Council of Civil Service Unions during the time when it was deliberately selecting where it could take the most damaging action.
§ Mr. Jim SpicerIn the course of her extremely busy day will my right hon. Friend give some thought to getting a message through, by whatever means possible, to the 135 President of the European Commission suggesting that his officials spend their time dealing with their real duties rather than dreaming up ways in which they can get back from the United Kingdom money which is not really owed to them?
§ The Prime MinisterI take it that my hon. Friend is referring to the reports about disallowing moneys due to this country by virtue of the activities of the milk marketing boards. We would regard it as absolutely intolerable if the Commission were to try to disallow this expenditure. It would be without precedent and would not be justified in any way. The Commission has authorised the milk marketing boards under the rules laid down and has not attempted to withdraw that authorisation.
§ Q2. Mr. Winnickasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 31 January.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. WinnickWill the Prime Minister say what legislation exists which forbids membership of a trade union? At tomorrow's meeting with the trade union leaders, will she bear in mind that one of the most important rights in a democracy is the right to belong to a trade union and to be represented by it? Is the right hon. Lady aware that trade unionists at GCHQ or anywhere else need no lessons in loyalty from some of the people who were featured in last night's "Panorama" programme and who seemed to have far more in common with Fascism that with parliamentary democracy?
§ The Prime MinisterI reject utterly what the hon. Member said in the last part of his question. With regard to the first part, the certificates issued under the employment protection legislation simply say that the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 provisions relating to trade union membership and activities no longer apply. However, it can be a condition of service that staff should belong only to a staff association approved by the director of GCHQ. Staff who wish to remain members of their existing trade unions may seek to transfer to another branch of the Civil Service.
§ Mr. HickmetDoes my right hon. Friend welcome the decision of the Nissan car company to open a car manufacturing plant in the United Kingdom in 1985? To what does she attribute the decision of Nissan to come to the United Kingdom? Does she agree that the plant would best be sited in south Humberside, more properly known as north Lincolnshire?
§ The Prime MinisterI must disappoint my hon. Friend. So far no announcement to that effect has been made. I hope that there will be an announcement shortly, within a few days.
§ Mr. Merlyn ReesIn a written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Dr. McDonald) last night, the Foreign Secretary gave a list of industrial disputes to which the Prime Minister has already referred. In the quoted briefing today it is stated that those disputes could have had serious consequences for national security. Two of the disputes on the list refer to events in the Falklands before and after invasion day. Did those disputes in any way affect operational capacity vis-a-vis national security in the Falklands?
§ The Prime MinisterI tried partially to answer the right hon. Gentleman or one of his right hon. or hon. Friends the other day. If one loses a great deal of time in continuous surveillance—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I am trying to answer but Opposition Members will not listen. If 10,000 working days are lost in an agency which is concerned with continuous surveillance it is not possible to know what information has been lost or what its relevance may have been, but one will not have had it continuously. The right hon. Gentleman referred the other day to a question which John Nott, as he then was, answered. He was referring only to military operations. GCHQ did not come under his then Department and does not now.
§ Mr. TerlezkiAs my right hon. Friend is to visit Hungary, will she ensure that she stresses that it is imperative and vital that visits between the people of Great Britain and Hungary occur as often as possible, as that is the way in which to ensure peace and prosperity in Europe and the rest of the world?
§ Mr. DobsonThe hon. Gentleman is a wetzki.
§ The Prime MinisterI am looking forward to my visit to Hungary. It would be of great advantage in the atmosphere between East and West if we were able to look forward to more visits from people who live in iron curtain countries to the Western world. We hope that that will happen. We also hope that the full agreement which was signed in Helsinki will be honoured in that regard.
§ Q3. Mr. Sean Hughesasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 31 January.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. HughesWill the Prime Minister find time to explain how it is right to spend £7 million building 54 houses in the Falklands when my borough council, which has an enormous housing problem, has had its capital housing allocation limited by the Government to £6 million?
§ The Prime MinisterThe hon. Gentleman will be aware of the need to replace in the Falklands some houses which were damaged and to build new ones. All of the necessary equipment must be taken from Britain. A substantial part of the cost is taken up by transportation and erection and preparation of the site. Labour is short in the Falklands so we must send people from Britain to do that work. I do not think that many people will begrudge the Falkland Islanders those houses, although I understand that Opposition Members do.
§ Sir Peter BlakerIs there not something inherently unsatisfactory about a system under which the staff at GCHQ have been represented in negotiations on their grievances by national officers of unions who have a lower level of security clearance than the staff?
§ The Prime MinisterMy right hon. Friend has put his finger on an extremely important point. It is vital in future negotiations with the staff at GCHQ to negotiate entirely local agreements with people who work there. A staff association would achieve that.
§ Q4. Mr. Strangasked the Prime Minister if she will list her offical engagements for Tuesday 31 January.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. StrangIs the Prime Minister aware that workers are occupying the Henry Robb shipyard because they are determined to fight for their jobs, for shipbuilding at Leith and because there is a widespread belief throughout that community that the yard should and could be saved with the help of a public sector contract which is in the pipeline and well suited to Leith? Will the Prime Minster give an assurance that the Secretary of State will receive an all-party deputation from Edinburgh to discuss what practical measures might be taken to save the yard?
§ The Prime MinisterI thank the hon. Gentleman for having given notice that he would raise this matter. I recognise that he is disappointed that some orders recently went to other yards. I understand that the reason given was that none of the yards being closed had prospects of winning new work on acceptable terms. I recognise the disappointment, but one of the orders went to an Aberdeen yard and another went to a yard in north Humberside. It is customary to receive deputations if there is a closure in a constituency.
§ Q5. Mr. Pawseyasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 31 January.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. PawseyHas my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to read the CBI survey, which was quoted in The Standard today? It shows that we have the highest orders for seven years. Will my right hon. Friend comment on the impact that those orders will have on unemployment, industry and the nation?
§ The Prime MinisterI saw, and welcome, the CBI survey today. It shows a picture of rising demand and activity levels spreading more widely through the 138 economy, and rising investment. Those trends are welcome, but we cannot expect sudden great improvements in the labour market. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said, in an excellent speech, our GDP is about the same as it was in 1979—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] We are producing, by virtue of not having overmanning and by improved technology — [Interruption.]
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. Opposition Members expect to be able to ask their questions in silence. The Prime Minister should be allowed silence in which to reply.
§ The Prime MinisterBy improved technology and increased efficiency we are producing the same output, with 1.7 million fewer people in the work force. None the less, there is good news in the fact that there were more that 210,000 new jobs in the service sector in the first three quarters of 1983.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. We must move on to the statement.
§ Mr. SkinnerOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There have been several interruptions during Prime Minister's Question Time, which began later than usual today. In view of that, I wonder whether you will invite the Prime Minister to answer the question on the Oman deal, put to her yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), the shadow Leader of the House? I am sure that she would like to answer it.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The hon. Gentleman will have seen from the clock that Prime Minister's Question Time began at 3.16 pm and ended at 3.31 pm. Therefore, the time allowed for questions is accurate.