HC Deb 15 May 1984 vol 60 cc143-8
Q1. Dr. Mawhinney

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 15 May.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher)

This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, including one with a delegation of unofficial Members of the Executive and Legislative Council from Hong Kong. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today, including one with Sir Robert Muldoon, the Prime Minister of New Zealand. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen.

Dr. Mawhinney

Has my right hon. Friend read today the rejection by the general secretaries of the electricians union and the Civil and Public Services Association of politically motivated and revolutionary campaigns of industrial action? Does she agree that that rejection represents the view of the overwhelming majority of trade unionists? Will she urge miners' leaders, if they will not listen to her, at least to listen to their fellow trade unionists?

The Prime Minister

I agree with my hon. Friend. Miners have already been offered a larger pay increase than that accepted by power and gas workers. I ask the miners only to look at the matter on merit—the amount of pay that they have been awarded and investment, which is at an all-time record. So far there have been no compulsory redundancies, and redundancy payments are far better than have ever been provided under any previous Government.

Mr. Steel

Bearing in mind the defence estimates that were published yesterday, how does the Prime Minister justify scrapping the Polaris fleet and replacing it with a nuclear force that is 14 times as powerful, when that will distort our defence budget at a cost double the £5 billion that was originally given to the House? Does she not think that Britain will now be put outside the international arms control discussions?

The Prime Minister

No, Sir. The Polaris fleet will have to replaced in the early 1990s. We are still to have an independent nuclear deterrent; Trident is the best replacement. It amounts to only 3 per cent. of the defence budget and up to 6 per cent. of the equipment budget and gives far greater deterrence for that expenditure than any substitute could.

Mr. Rost

Now that Mr. Scargill has admitted that he is manipulating an industrial dispute with the wider objective of overthrowing a democratically elected Government, will my right hon. Friend invite the Leader of the Opposition to No. 10 so that he might declare whether he and his party still believe in—

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman is in danger of doing what I hoped we would not do again—putting into the Prime Minister's mind thoughts about what is in the mind of the Leader of the Opposition. The hon. Gentleman must ask a question on a matter for which the Prime Minister has responsibility.

Mr. Rost

Will the Prime Minister, as one of her responsibilities, invite to No. 10 Downing street the Leader of the Opposition and ask him whether his party still believes in democratic government by the ballot box?

The Prime Minister

I must give my hon. Friend the answer which I really believe he would expect, which is no, Sir. I ask the coal miners to look at the case on merit.

Q2. Mr. Ernie Ross

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 15 May.

The Prime Minister

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Ross

Will the right hon. Lady take some time today to contemplate on the fact that if she establishes pay review boards to look into pay and conditions for groups of workers but shelves the reports when the boards report back, she will bring the whole pay review board system into disrepute?

The Prime Minister

No, the pay review system has been established for some time. We try to consider the results of the reports together, knowing that we have to look at not only the recommendations but where the money will come from and how it can be raised. I remind the hon. Gentleman that before the 1979 election the Labour Government referred nurses' pay to Clegg. That board took a very long time to report, but the Conservative Government honoured what was recommended.

Mr. Maclean

As Arthur Scargill has declared his intention to bring down the Government of this country by unconstitutional means, and is aided and abetted by the Labour party, what conclusion does my right hon. Friend draw from the deafening silence of the Labour party leadership, which does not condemn such action?

The Prime Minister

I have frequently said that the Labour party has always been the strikers' friend, as it appears to be in this case. There is a difference of opinion. Some miners are working and earning well so that they can look after their families and give the coal mining industry a good future by their faithfulness in producing coal when there are orders to be met. I suggest that we follow their example.

Mr. Hattersley

May I ask the right hon. Lady a question which enables her to behave like a Prime Minister rather than a party spokesman? Will she take a moment to explain why the Government have imposed what amounts to a veto on arbitration in the teachers' pay dispute? Why was she so passionate for arbitration in the water dispute, and why is she so opposed to it now? Can the right hon. Lady tell us why she prefers to continue the conflict rather than end the dispute honourably, practicably and sensibly?

The Prime Minister

I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman thinks so little of party spokesmen. We have all been through that period. With regard to the right hon. Gentleman's question, I have already heard my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science answer it to the effect that the offer was the maximum that ratepayers and taxpayers could afford. With respect, the difference between teachers and water workers is obvious. An increase for the water workers could have been met by one of three methods: by price, efficiency or falling numbers. In relation to teachers, increasing the offer could be done only by a reduction in the number of teachers.

Mr. Hattersley

Can the Prime Minister make it absolutely clear whether she is opposed to arbitration in this case or whether she is opposed to arbitration in general? Many people would say that she is totally opposed to arbitration because conflict rather than conciliation meets her party's needs.

The Prime Minister

How can the right hon. Gentleman ask that question when he has just said that I asked people to go to arbitration in a particular case? His question falls to the ground by virtue of the question that he previously asked.

Q4. Mr. Lofthouse

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 15 May.

The Prime Minister

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Lofthouse

Is the Prime Minister aware of the fires at Rossington colliery in Yorkshire? How many more pits must be destroyed before she feels that it is her responsibility to intervene in the miners' strike and get the parties round the table for responsible and realistic talks? Is she prepared to sit back and hope for a Galtieri-like victory? Does she further realise that she is not fighting a foreign aggressor or an individual inside or outside the NUM, but the hard-working men of the mining industry? Does the right hon. Lady realise that these men's families and children are now suffering great financial hardship? Will she intervene, or does she want to starve them into defeat?

The Prime Minister

I understand that the face in that colliery has had to be sealed for technical reasons. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the face is susceptible to heating. Unfortunately, there is about £2 million worth of equipment down there, which has also had to be sealed off. Had the strike not occurred that would have not happened and, presumably, the face would also be working. Some 50,000 miners are working, earning well and looking after their families. I seek only a good prospect and a good future for the coal industry. This Government have put more investment into the future of coal than any previous Government, by providing external financing limits and good objectives for the future. The National Coal Board is getting extra orders. It now remains for the miners to take advantage of those opportunities.

Mr. Peter Bottomley

Given that the money for the coal industry runs at about £1.5 million per year per constituency, why should nurses and teachers in my constituency be asked to give greater subsidies to the mining industry when the miners are not willing to work on the earnings which they presently receive?

The Prime Minister

My hon. Friend has made a very cogent point. Workers in other industries — indeed, taxpayers on the whole—annually have to put quite a considerable amount of subsidy into the coal mining industry. Every taxpayer pays on average between 75p and £1 per week in subsidies to the coal mining industry before he begins to pay for coal or electricity.

Q5. Mr. Beith

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 15 May.

The Prime Minister

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Beith

Will the Prime Minister reconsider, in the light of some recent cases, her long-held hostility to any form of parliamentary scrutiny by a Select Committee of the security services? Has she not come to the conclusion that it is easier to keep Ministers in the dark when they are not in turn answerable to Parliament, and that that sometimes extends even to the Prime Minister?

The Prime Minister

No, Sir.

Mr. Teddy Taylor

At her meeting today with representatives of New Zealand, was my right hon. Friend able to tell them that Britain will never forget the sacrifices that New Zealand has always been willing to make for us in the most difficult times of our country? Was she able to give them an assurance that we shall resist further cuts in the very small amount of agricultural produce that New Zealand sends to this country?

The Prime Minister

When I see the Prime Minister of New Zealand later in the afternoon I shall most certainly give him that message. I have given him such messages frequently. We are always grateful for the sacrifices that New Zealand made for freedom in Europe and the world over. We constantly remind our European partners that it is to countries such as New Zealand that we owe, in part, some of the liberties which we now enjoy. They should respond to that by giving New Zealand a reasonable deal on both butter and sheep in the European Community.

Mr. O'Brien

In view of the gross uncertainty that surrounds the nurses' pay award and the implementation of the committee's decision, will the Prime Minister assure the House that the nurses will receive the higher wage award to which they are entitled?

The Prime Minister

I said that we were considering all the review body's reports together. I hope to be able to make an announcement on all of them not later than just after the Whitsun recess.

Q6. Mr. Greenway

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 15 May.

The Prime Minister

I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Greenway

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, whatever the rights and wrongs of the teachers' pay dispute, it is unacceptable that children's examinations and their future should be put at risk by strikes? Would it not be more fitting for that vocational profession to commit itself to a no-strike agreement to protect the weakest members of society—our children?

The Prime Minister

I agree with my hon. Friend. I understand that there is no interference with examinations at the moment—I hope that that is correct. We expect professional people to give a lead and to put the children first.

Q7. Mr. Tony Lloyd

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 15 May.

The Prime Minister

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Lloyd

Will the Prime Minister find time today to read the latest survey from the Manchester chamber of commerce, which states that the patchy economic recovery, which may have been detectable in 1983, has petered out? Will she stop kidding herself and the country that an economic recovery is on the way and do something serious for my constituents who are, or will be, out of work, and for the economy of the north-west?

The Prime Minister

Taking the country as a whole, I cannot possibly agree with the hon. Gentleman's report. The gross domestic product has increased by about 3 per cent. compared with a year ago, real personal disposable income has increased, inflation has been halved, manufacturing productivity has increased by 14 per cent., and in spite of the fact that interest rates have increased by 0.5 per cent., they remain considerably lower than those in the United States.

Later—

Mr. Tony Lloyd

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Before the Prime Minister leaves the Chamber, may I seek your guidance? My right hon. and hon. Friends and I are ever anxious to help the good government of this country, but I was surprised to receive a communication from the Prime Minister's Parliamentary Private Secretary—

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman seeks to ask a question of the Prime Minister, not to raise a point of order. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Well, I cannot be responsible for letters which the hon. Gentleman receives from the Prime Minister's Parliamentary Private Secretary.

Mr. Lloyd

I am asking your advice, Mr. Speaker, on whether it was in order for me to receive a letter asking me to inform the Prime Minister's PPS what my supplementary question would have been. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]

Mr. Speaker

Order. It sounds to me like a fair cop.