§ Q1. Mr. Skinnerasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 3 July.
§ 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.
§ Mr. SkinnerNow that the Prime Minister has turned the United Kingdom into a land fit for drug pushers to live in and is bailing out the international bankers, the French farmers and shutting British pits, is it not treating the British people with contempt to agree proposals at Fontainebleau to have a European flag, a Common Market coin and a Euro anthem? Why did the Prime Minister not have the guts last Wednesday to come to the Dispatch Box and tell us about this sell-out to European federalism?
§ The Prime MinisterThat was a rapid tour around many subjects — from international bankers to Fontainebleau. I answered questions on Fontainebleau for about an hour, and on the whole I thought that I answered all the questions that were put to me. I note what the hon. Gentleman has said about this country, but I am happy to report to him that Bolsover colliery has won a £2 million a year contract — [Interruption.] — which will keep people working in the pit.
§ Dr. HampsonIn considering the Government's response to their Lordships' recent decision on the Local 142 Government (Interim Provisions) Bill, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that if she is considering a compromise which allows for an extension of the term of office of the existing councillors, it will be tolerable to many of us only if at the same time she introduces legislation which ensures that we do not get asset-stripping on a massive scale which any fag end of local government will ensure occurs, particularly if it is as ideologically committed as the metropolitan counties and the GLC?
§ The Prime MinisterI am grateful to my hon. Friend. We are aware of that point and will take it into account.
§ Mr. KinnockOn the subject of asset-stripping, why was it apparently against the public interest for one purchaser to own more than 10 per cent. of Enterprise Oil last Thursday, but apparently not against the public interest for the same purchaser to own 15 per cent. of Enterprise Oil on the following Monday?
§ The Prime MinisterMy right hon. Friend the Secretary of State answered that point yesterday. I think that the right hon. Gentleman has muddled two things. The 10 per cent. in the initial allocation is made under very special conditions. The rest must be obtained under the normal rules of the panel on takeovers and mergers and the Council of the Securities Industry. Those rules apply to shares bought in the market place. Shares that are allocated come under different rules.
§ Mr. KinnockWhy was the 10 per cent. not mentioned in the prospectus, and why, if the Prime Minister understood the situation so well, did the Secretary of State have to come here last Thursday to make a panic statement to explain the condition? Can the right hon. Lady tell us whether she understood what would be the consequences of the flotation of shares in Enterprise Oil? If she did, why was it necessary for the Secretary of State to come to the House? If she did not know, how can she excuse such crass ignorance of the capital market system—[Interruption.] Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen can laugh. In the Cabinet a week last Thursday, neither the right hon. Gentleman nor the Prime Minister understood the God-awful mess they were going to get us into over Enterprise Oil. Can the right hon. Lady excuse ignorance of a system which she is supposed to regard with something near religious faith?
§ The Prime MinisterThe reality is that the privatisation of Enterprise Oil was completed successfully last week and the sale raised £392 million for the taxpayers. Under the terms of sale, Enterprise Oil is now an independent British oil company. RTZ has not gained control. The Government clearly stated in the prospectus their intention that the company should be free from outside control in its early years. All that has been carried out successfully.
§ Mr. KinnockIf the Enterprise Oil fiasco has been a success, God help us if the Government encounter a failure.
Can the right hon. Lady tell us what will happen in the future — [Interruption.] If the Prime Minister understands what her right hon. Friend said last Thursday, she should be able to tell us, as well as the British taxpayers and those who are interested in the affair around the country, what will happen in the future. Can she tell us whether other major purchasers will enjoy the same generosity as that shown to Enterprise Oil? Can she tell us, 143 as the Government are supposed to be in charge, what is their policy, given RTZ's stated objective of getting 49 per cent. control of Enterprise Oil—[Interruption.]
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I ask the House to give the Leader of the Opposition a fair chance.
§ Mr. KinnockThese are our assets, the British people's assets, that are being flogged off by the Government. We want to know from the Government where they will stop this list of flops, failures and fiascos, drop their programme now, before they get in an even bigger mess over Jaguar, British Airways, British Aerospace, or British Telecom.
§ The Prime MinisterI have never heard a bigger mess made of a question than that. I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman has lost sight, in his tirade, of the fact that the Government took a special share to protect Enterprise Oil's independence for a number of years. Therefore, if anyone in the market were to bid up to a substantial figure for shares, he would know full well that that special share would be used to keep Enterprise Oil independent, so long as that special share lasted. To call something a fiasco which in fact gets £392 million for the taxpayers and which is independent, merely means that the right hon. Gentleman does not have a clue about the way in which these matters work.
§ Mr. OttawayDoes my right hon. Friend agree that it is impossible to intervene in the coal mining dispute when, on the one hand, there is a commercial standpoint and, on the other, a political argument?
§ The Prime MinisterI see little point in intervening. Indeed, there is no point in the Government intervening when it seems as though the dispute is not about the industrial side of the offer, but about something else.
§ Q2. Mr. Dobsonasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 3 July.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. DobsonWill the Prime Minister take time today to instruct the Minister for Health—who has already met the employers, Crothalls—to meet representatives of the women on strike at Barking hospital who object to their pay being reduced from £57 to £17 per week? Could any of the right hon. Lady's family get by on £17 a week?
§ The Prime MinisterI gather that the hon. Gentleman is talking about the dispute at Barking hospital between a private company and the health authority. I understand that the company that was tendering re-examined its work schedules and carried out a re-rostering of staff to produce the most cost-effective work patterns. It also altered the conditions of employment. The effect was to reduce staff hours by between 40 and 60 per cent., and earnings by 40 per cent. However, rates of pay are being maintained at previous levels. The health authority is using the savings to improve nurse staffing, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman welcomes that.
§ Mr. ThorntonIs my right hon. Friend aware that this morning the millionth person visited the international garden festival on Merseyside? Has not the festival proved to be an overwhelming success and justification of this Government's faith in the ability of the people of 144 Liverpool and all connected with the festival to make it a success? May I invite my right hon. Friend to congratulate them?
§ The Prime MinisterThe festival is a great success and morale booster for the people of Liverpool. It is also a great success for the chairman and other members of the Merseyside Development Corporation. I hope it means that Liverpool will enter a new era and that it can be fully associated with success.
§ Mr. WoodallIs the Prime Minister aware that this year unemployment in my constituency has risen, due to the mining dispute? Is she further aware that married and single ladies in my constituency who cannot work in colliery canteens because of the dispute have signed the register as being unable to work? A test case was brought and they received unemployment benefit, but a diktat came from somewhere and that unemployment benefit has now been stopped. That is yet another blatant example of the attempt to starve miners back to work. Will the right hon. Lady have a word with the Secretary of State for Employment, who shakes his head, and ask him and his colleagues to review that case urgently and to act like honourable Gentlemen?
§ The Prime MinisterI note that the hon. Gentleman has clearly made the point that strikes cause unemployment. They do so in the coal, steel and rail industries, and in many other industries that depend on coal supplies. However, the hon. Gentleman is well aware that decisions about unemployment benefit are made not by the Government but by independent authorities. If the first decision is the subject of argument, there is a right of appeal to independent authorities. The Government cannot interfere with their decision.
§ Mr. McQuarrieWill my right hon. Friend offer her support to the steel unions which have refused to accept the blackmailing diktats of Arthur Scargill, and record her congratulations of those lorry drivers who, for 24 hours, have carried coal and iron ore to Ravenscraig steelworks to keep Scottish steel workers working?
§ The Prime MinisterThere are 60,000 people working in the mining industry and earning good money. Many people are taking the products of that work to steelworks and power stations. I earnestly congratulate those who regard it as their responsibility to continue to work and look after their families.
§ Dr. OwenAs the only negotiations between the Soviet Union and the United States are the comprehensive test ban negotiations, in which Britain plays a full part, will the Prime Minister ensure that when the Foreign Secretary talks to President Chernenko he suggests that the comprehensive test ban negotiations should be resumed, especially since considerable progress was made on the issue of verification in 1978? Will the Prime Minister confirm that she is not withholding her permission or wish to continue with the negotiations because of the Trident missile system?
§ The Prime MinisterThe difficulty with the comprehensive test ban treaty is its verification, as the right hon. Gentleman surmised. My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary has seen President Chernenko, and will, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, make make a full report to the House tomorrow.
§ Later—
145§ Mr. RathboneOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have quite rightly continued the habit of previous Speakers in granting extra time to the Opposition Front Bench for asking supplementary questions during Prime Minister's 146 Question Time. However, I have never before noticed the Opposition Leader having to read out most of his third supplementary——
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The hon. Gentleman is very experienced, and I am sure that he knows that that is not a matter for me.