§ Ql. Mr. Terry Davisasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 24 May.
§ 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 addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today.
§ Mr. DavisIn view of the breakdown in talks yesterday between the National Coal Board and the National Union of Mineworkers, will the Prime Minister shoulder her responsibility to reach a settlement in the national interest?
§ The Prime MinisterTowards the end of the meeting yesterday the NCB offered talks at senior level between the two s ides to discuss "Plan for Coal". I understand that the offer was followed up by a letter today which confirmed the statement made by Mr. Cowan at the meeting that talks with no conditions or prior commitments by either side could now take place about the principles of "Plan for Coal" in relation to the future of the industry. I understand that words were used to the effect that such talks might offer the prospect of finding a solution to the present problems, and that Mr. Cowan's 1244 offer to talk at any time without preconditions about these problems was confirmed. I understand from the news at lunchtime today that that offer was taken up. That is good news.
§ Mr. SkinnerIt is a victory.
§ The Prime MinisterI also understand that from the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who is muttering below the Gangway. He confirms it, but whether that means it must be right, I do not know.
§ Mr. SkinnerIt means that we have won.
§ Mr. RentonDoes my right hon. Friend agree that the events of the last 24 hours in the House show Labour's leadership to be at best non-existent, at worst an utter shambles and that the phrase "in-out" applies not only to Labour's Common Market policy but to whoever happens to be jumping in and out of their place at the Dispatch Box.
§ The Prime MinisterI agree with my hon. Friend. With regard to what happened yesterday, the Opposition made a muck of it.
§ Mr. KinnockI welcome the change in the Prime Minister's attitude towards conciliation in the coalmining dispute. I hope that she will do all she can, since she has extensive powers in these matters, to promote constructive discussions about the dispute.
In a spirit of conciliation and humanity, may I ask the Prime Minister to instruct the Department of Health and Social Security not in any way to inhibit the supply of support to miners' wives and families, or to withdraw support that is necessary for those who are in great domestic difficulty?
§ The Prime MinisterAs the right hon. Gentleman knows, the rules for supplementary benefit are set out in legislation, and there is a right of appeal to independent statutory authorities on any decision. The legislation is not waived, but is carried out exactly as it has always been.
§ Mr. KinnockThat was a stiff answer of extraordinary insensitivity to families in real difficulties. Does the Prime Minister understand that discretion can be exercised to support expectant mothers, to ensure that people receive their Girocheques on time, and to ensure that those who receive food parcels do not lose their entitlement to supplementary benefit? I ask her again: will she ensure that the discretion that exists under the law is exercised in favour of people who are destitute?
§ The Prime MinisterThe right hon. Gentleman does not have the fundamental facts. The law on supplementary benefit is set out in orders passed by the House. Politicians cannot determine how much an individual receives, and it would be completely wrong if they could. Appeals can be made to independent statutory authorities, which then determine the case if anyone expresses dissatisfaction with the amount he has received. If the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting that a politician can bend the law at will, chat is the end of the law.
§ Mr. HefferIt is the right hon. Lady's law.
§ Mr. KinnockThe right hon. Lady sounds like a bureaucratic tape recorder. She knows very well that, within the law and with no politician bending it, it is possible for local officers to help people in need, including 1245 pregnant women, the elderly and the poor. Will she act like a human being and say that she wants that discretion to be exercised so that people in need can be helped?
§ The Prime MinisterShouting from the Dispatch Box will not alter the law. The law is not my law, as the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) said from the Front Bench, but the law passed by the House as it applies to supplementay benefit. Provision is made for an appeal in any case. What the right hon. Gentleman shows is that he neither understands the law nor wishes it to be applied.
§ Mr. Michael HowardIn the light of fresh reports today of mass picketing in the coalfields, does my right hon. Friend recall that in March 1974 the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot), as Secretary of State for Employment, commended to the House the rules on picketing laid down by the National Union of Mineworkers in the 1974 dispute, which limited the number of pickets at any local dispute to six? Would it not help to reduce the conflict between police and pickets in the present dispute if in 1984 the union laid down rules similar to those that it laid down in 1974?
§ The Prime MinisterMy hon. and learned Friend is correct. The number of pickets, by agreement and by code of practice, was limited to six. I agree that it would help if that code of practice were applied.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I called the Leader of the Liberal party.
§ Mr. SteelAs the Prime Minister sets such store by the law, will she explain the extraordinary view taken by he Government before the European Commission of Human Rights that any British Government may nationalise the property of British citizens without compensation?
§ The Prime MinisterThe case is before the Court of Human Rights and if the judgment is against what we have done, the right hon. Gentleman knows that we shall adhere to that decision. It is nice to see the right hon. Gentleman back in his place. I understand that he voted once yesterday.
§ Q2. Mr. John Townendasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 24 May.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. TownendIs my right hon. Friend aware that there is a growing feeling in some quarters that the progressive reduction of inflation to zero is no longer the Government's number one priority? Will she confirm that this is not correct, and will she spell out the advantages to the economy, industry and the creation of jobs of sound financial strategy?
§ The Prime MinisterI agree with my hon. Friend and I commend to him the speech of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the CBI yesterday, in which he said that we remain firmly committed to the objective of stable prices. The policy of honest money is the only one for a sound Government to follow.
§ Mr. EadieAs the National Coal Board has obviously had a re-think as a consequence of its walking out of the meeting with the NUM yesterday—and those talks are about to be resumed—will the Prime Minister give the 1246 House the assurance that she and her Government will do everything in their power to make sure that the talks come to a satisfactory conclusion, as conciliation and consultation should be in the political knapsack of any Government and they have been sadly lacking in this Government as of late?
§ The Prime MinisterI realise that the hon. Gentleman was probably at the meeting yesterday—
§ The Prime Minister—although, when I last answered questions at the Dispatch Box, he shouted from his seat that the meeting had been cancelled because I had put a veto on it. Neither allegation was correct. The meeting took place. As the hon. Gentleman knows, at that meeting the NCB offered talks at senior level between the two sides to discuss "Plan for Coal". He also knows that at that meeting officials of the NCB made four presentations, one on progress on "Plan for Coal", one on the market prospects for coal, one on the deterioration of coal pits and faces if the dispute drags on, and one on the financial prospects. On all these, the NCB asked if there were any comments from the NUM, but there were none.
It was after that that the NCB offered talks at senior level between the two sides to discuss "Plan for Coal". That was a wise offer and it is the kind of offer that should be made between management and the work force. I most earnestly hope that the talks will succeed, because the Government have done their part in providing for investment in the future of the coal industry.
§ Q3. Mr. Hal Millerasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 24 May.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. MillerWill my right hon. Friend give a warm welcome to the announcement of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services yesterday removing an injustice to people who leave company pension schemes when changing jobs, thus promoting mobility and giving us encouragement that there will be more news to come on the pensions front?
§ The Prime MinisterYes, we are very much aware that a number of peopel who left their jobs to go to others felt that they had a considerable grievance about their pension provision. The consultative document is meant to cure that and to consult about how best to do it. I believe that it will be generally welcomed and that it will improve mobility, particularly on the part of those at management level whose services are needed if we are to get enterprise up to the level that we need for success and expansion.
§ Q4. Mr. Geoffrey Robinsonasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 24 May.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. RobinsonIs the Prime Minister aware that the long agenda that was discussed yesterday is wholly irrelevant to the real issues that have to be discussed? Is it not surprising to her that the NCB chairman has already volunteered out of any further negotiations? Does that not prove to her what a bad appointment that was? Will she 1247 take the initiative that lies with her and put forward a realistic agenda for proper discussions in order to obtain a settlement to this terrible dispute?
§ The Prime MinisterNo, Mr. Speaker. If the hon. Gentleman reflects on that agenda he will find that each and every item is highly relevant. He is failing to observe that the letter has gone out and been accepted as a result of consultation between management and work force, who, as he knows full well, will have to co-operate for the future. I wish the talks every success.
§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The hon. Gentleman jumps up nearly every day on a point of order. We have a heavy day ahead of us. Does his point of order concern Question Time?
§ Mr. SkinnerNo. It is concerned with the debate on cruise missiles later.
§ Mr. Henry Bellingham (Norfolk, North-West)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask for your guidance? Do you not agree that it is damaging to the morale and reputation of the House when one or two Labour Members turn up looking like football hooligans?
§ Mr. SpeakerThere are no dress regulations for the House, but we should dress appropriately.