§ Q1. Mr. Favellasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 29 March.
§ 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 446 addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I am holding a reception for the British winter olympic team.
§ Mr. FavellDid my right hon. Friend see on television this morning the chairman of the Labour party give his support to mass pickets? Does she agree that those miners who wish to work and produce coal at a price that people can afford, have the support and respect of the vast majority of the nation?
§ The Prime MinisterI wholly agree with my hon. Friend that miners who wish to go to their place of work to produce coal—that industry has great prospects—must be enabled to go about their law-abiding duties peaceably. The overwhelming majority of people in Britain, except, perhaps, those in the Labour party, are behind the police and the excellent work that they are doing.
§ Mr. FlanneryWhen one considers the action taken by London Transport yesterday, the marches and demonstrations in London today, and what is happening in Liverpool and among working people generally, is it not clear that the Government's draconian policies are themselves pregnant with violence, and that the election of a Tory Government, such as this one, is bound to produce unrest?
§ The Prime MinisterNonsense. Despite the action taken by London Transport yesterday, most commuters were determined to get to work, and to work normally.
§ Mr. HirstHas my right hon. Friend seen the reports of the speech made last week by the Leader of the Opposition to the National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses Ltd., in which he recognised the importance of small business? [HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] Does she agree that his apparent conversion would sound less opportunist and more convincing the Opposition were prepared to recognise and welcome the many measures in the Budget designed further to assist small business?
§ The Prime MinisterI wholly agree with my hon. Friend. It is important to note not only those measures that are designed to assist small businesses but those which are designed to assist all business, especially the removal of the national insurance surcharge, which Labour put on when in office.
Mr. J. Enoch PowellWhen the Prime Minister reflects on the point that has been reached between the United Kingdom and the rest of the European Economic Community, will she bear in mind the fact that when grave issues and fundamental differences come up for resolution, nothing is commoner than for them to be disguised as if they were a quarrel about details and small sums of money, such as the little local difficulty over £50 million?
§ The Prime MinisterWith regard to the money aspect of the right hon. Gentleman's question, it is about a great deal more than that because it is about securing an entire and permanent system. It is also about getting a fundamentally equitable system of sharing the burden of financing the Common Market. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it is about even more than that, because the fact is that many of us had far greater ideals for the European Community than have yet been achieved. We shall continue to work for them but we believe that the financial and agricultural matters must be settled first.
§ Q2. Mr. Andrew MacKayasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 29 March.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. MacKayDoes my right hon. Friend agree that it is a sad day for the rule of law in our democracy when the Leader of the Opposition and his party's national executive committee blame the police for the violence on the picket lines and utterly fail to condemn the excesses of unlawful secondary pickets?
§ The Prime MinisterYes, I agree with my hon. Friend. It is an upside-down world in which Opposition Members blame the police for enabling law-abiding miners to go to work while endorsing the action of those who are attempting to intimidate them to prevent them from going to work.
§ Dr. OwenIs the Prime Minister aware that some people would find it easier to understand her ideals for the EC if, every now and then, they got the feeling that she was prepared to listen a little more to some of the views of other European countries? Will she now quantify the narrow divide that still exists between what she feels are the vital interests of Britain and what it is reasonable to ask from our European partners?
§ The Prime MinisterBy asking that question the right hon. Gentleman shows that he does not understand the type of negotiation that we were having on the Community budget. It was about two things. First, it was about having a continuous system that will endure for a long time. That system has been extremely difficult to negotiate. Secondly, it was about the starting figure for that system which will determine what happens in the future. Great differences remain to be resolved. They are not quantifiable, as the right hon. Gentleman would know if he understood the type of negotiation that we were carrying out.
§ Mr. PikeHow can the Prime Minister claim to believe in democracy while proposing to take steps to deprive Londoners of the right to vote next year and stop the other metropolitan county elections? In a democracy, is it not a reasonable price to pay to allow those elections to take place next year?
§ The Prime MinisterNo. The decision to abolish the GLC and the metropolitan county councils was a foremost part of our manifesto, which was endorsed by more than 13 million voters.
§ Dr. MawhinneyDoes my right hon. Friend accept that my constituents, who live within the area of a shire county that has accepted the Government's rate support grant allocation for this year and its implications for next year's rates, would simply not understand it if the Government gave one extra penny in rate support grant to the Militant Tendency councillors of Liverpool?
§ The Prime MinisterI understand what my hon. Friend says but if the Liverpool councillors reduced their expenditure they would find that they would get an increase in rate support grant. I believe that most of us would welcome a reduction in that council's expenditure.
§ Mr. KinnockDoes the Prime Minister stand for town hall, not Whitehall, and does she accept the freedom of local government as one of the twin pillars of our 448 constitution? If she does, why is she capping, cutting and centralising local government on a scale that is utterly incompatible with any realistic notion of democracy in the locality, for the locality, by the locality?
§ The Prime MinisterAs was indicated in some very excellent speeches — which I hope the right hon. Gentleman will read — when we debated this matter yesterday, it is the Government's duty to be in charge of the economy and public expenditure of this country and to be in charge of the overall level of taxation levied upon our citizens. It is, of course, a traditional role of Parliament to protect the citizen. There is not the slightest shadow of a doubt, as was indicated last night, that there has been oppression of ratepayers by the very large amount of rates that have been levied because of very high public expenditure. That view was endorsed by a majority of 125 at the end of the debate last evening.
§ Mr. KinnockSince the Prime Minister is right to say that it is the Government's responsibility to be aware of the overall level of taxation, why are her Government levying more tax than any other Government in British history? If it is the case that the Government have a responsibility for the citizen, why is she introducing and adopting powers that mean that cuts in services and inflict deprivation, disadvantage and even danger on the weakest people in our community?
§ The Prime MinisterWith regard to the latter point, local authorities are spending well above Government target, and if they are choosing to cut on some of the weakest sections, it is up to local people to say what they should choose to spend money on. [Interruption.]
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The House must allow the Prime Minister to complete her answer.
§ The Prime MinisterSecondly, with regard to the earlier part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, one main reason why more tax is being levied now is that incomes are up. In fact, figures produced at 2.30 pm today show that real personal disposable income in 1983 was 3 per cent. above that for the fourth quarter of 1982 and higher than at any time under Labour.
§ Mr. Kinnockrose——
§ Mr. Bill Walkerrose——
§ Mr. Hordernrose——
§ Mr. SpeakerI think in fairness we really should move on. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Order. I am the defender of the Back Benches here. [Interruption.] The Front Bench always has some dispensation, but I have called the right hon. Gentleman twice and I think that three times would be one time too many, and unfair to Back Benchers.
§ Q3. Mr. Maclennanasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 29 March.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. MaclennanIs the Prime Minister aware of the growing public concern in this country about the erosion of the liberties of our subjects by the—[Interruption.]—arbitrary, secretive and oppressive use of central Government power under successive Governments, and is she prepared—[Interruption.]—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. Come along Mr. Maclennan.
§ Mr. MaclennanIs she prepared to fulfil the promise made in her 1979 manifesto to—[Interruption.]—seek to enter into constitutional talks with all parties in the House—[Interruption.] This is impossible.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The hon. Gentleman must bring his question to a conclusion.
§ Mr. MaclennanIn particular—[Interruption.]—is the Prime Minister prepared to enter into discussions to seek to ensure that those of our citizens whose fundamental rights have been eroded, although they are guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights, do not have to seek a remedy through the court in Strasbourg but may do so—[Interruption.]—in our own British courts?
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I think that that is enough.
§ The Prime MinisterI do not accept that there has been such an erosion of rights. I noticed that the hon. Gentleman condemned the Government of which he was a member.
§ Mrs. RumboldDoes not my right hon. Friend agree that yesterday's day of disruption in London by striking London Transport workers caused not only disruption to those trying to get to work but great damage to the capital's commercial and industrial life?
§ The Prime MinisterThose who embarked on that day of disruption are not concerned with the commercial success of the capital. However, most people were determined to see that it was business as usual.