Engagements (Hansard, 23 October 1984)

§ Q1. Mr. Wareing
asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 23 October.

§ The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher)
This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. I was present at Victoria to meet President Mitterrand on his arrival for a state visit. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I hope to attend a state banquet in honour of President Mitterrand at Buckingham Palace.

§ Mr. Wareing
When will the Prime Minister stop sacrificing the poor and the aged on the altar of her Government's dinosaurian economic policies? [Interruption.]

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I appeal to the House to allow the hon. Gentleman to finish his question. Such interruptions take time out of Question Time.

§ Mr. Wareing
Has the right hon. Lady just one grain of compassion for those old people who are threatened with death through hypothermia this winter? If she has, will she review her Government's policy of increasing the heating allowance but cutting the real value of that allowance, so that far more people suffer as a direct result of her Government's half-baked policies?

§ The Prime Minister
As the hon. Gentleman has just heard in social security and health questions, in the Health Service more day patients and inpatients are being treated than ever before, while the retirement pension has gone up in real terms, as have supplementary benefit and benefits for the sick and disabled. As to the hon. Gentleman's specific point about heating, the sum now spent on heating is £400 million. The amount has gone up by far more than inflation and is far greater than it was during the time of the last Labour Government.

§ Mr. Lyell
Bearing in mind that, of the three questions put to members of the National Association of Colliery Overmen, Deputies and Shotfirers' in the September ballot, question three on the crossing of picket lines has been conceded in full, question two on conciliation procedures has been fully met and question one on pit closures is covered by the offer by the Coal Board to give full weight to the independent arbitration procedure, what possible grounds are there for NACODS entering its members on a full-scale strike?

§ The Prime Minister
I agree with my hon. and learned Friend. The strike by the NACODS members will do great damage to jobs and the economy. NACODS is negotiating with the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service and the NCB and it is to be hoped that those negotiations will result in a settlement acceptable to NACODS and the NCB.

§ Mr. Kinnock
I congratulate the right hon. Lady on her escape from injury in the horror at Brighton. I also express our warm wish that her injured colleagues will continue to make a good recovery.
After 33 weeks of the coal mining dispute, we again ask the Government to make a constructive intervention to try to secure a satisfactory outcome to this dispute. Will the Prime Minister now give specific answers to the specific questions that I raised with her last week? First, are the proposals for the loss of 4 million tonnes of productive capacity now withdrawn?
Secondly, will the Government, as one of the parties to the "Plan for Coal", support the return of the colliery review procedure under that plan? May I please have specific answers to those specific and straightforward questions?

§ The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the kind words at the beginning of his question. I shall pass on his good wishes to those who are still in hospital. I am sure that they will be very pleased with what the right hon. Gentleman said.
The right hon. Gentleman wrote a letter to me on the two specific points. I tried to answer them in full. He will recall that, in the debate that we had just before the House adjourned, the question of colliery procedures arose. It was agreed between both sides of the House that uneconomic pits had always been closed. [Interruption.] The debate then resolved itself into an issue of colliery closure procedures.
On 1 August the National Coal Board issued a statement pointing out that the colliery review procedures were as they had always been, and gave the results of those review procedures. Those review procedures are the same as they have always been since the beginning. [Interruption.] There is only one proposed change. That was proposed by ACAS during the last round of negotiations. It was an improvement and it was accepted by the NCB. Otherwise the colliery review procedures have not changed.
With regard to the proposals of 6 March, as I pointed out to the right hon. Gentleman, it was agreed in some of the talks between the National Coal Board and the National Union of Mineworkers—and published in the middle of July—that in the light of the changed circumstances the Board will revise the March 6 proposals and re-examine those proposals for individual areas, taking account of the changes that have occurred in the needs of the market and the loss of output resulting from the dispute". It seems to me, therefore, that I have fully answered the right hon. Gentleman.

§ Mr. Kinnock
I read what the Prime Minister said in the letter that she was kind enough to send to me last Friday, and I have listened to her again this afternoon. It appears that she does not yet comprehend the need—as Mr. MacGregor has previously said—to be specific.
With regard to the June and July propositions for revision of the productive capacity figures, it is necessary to speak not of revision or re-examination in the light of the loss of 54 million tonnes of coal in the weeks of dispute but to say whether the proposition relating to the cut in capacity is now withdrawn. I hope that the right Lady understands the need to be specific.
Will the right hon. Lady understand that it is necessary to emphasise that the return to the review procedure must 550 be in line with "Plan for Coal"? Otherwise it is nothing more than an arbitrary formula for shutdown, which is what was rejected at the beginning of the dispute.

§ The Prime Minister
I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman has been through the National Coal Board proposals of 6 March. They were proposals to bring the capacity of the whole industry into line with the continuing demand for coal in the most cost-effective way possible. Because of the length of time that the strike had taken, in July the National Coal Board made the undertaking that I have mentioned. There was no hit-list in the 6 March proposals. [Interruption.] Will the right hon. Gentleman tell me in what paragraph of those proposals that hit-list appeared? [Interruption.] Those proposals were to bring the capacity of the whole industry into line with the continuing demand for coal in the most cost-effective way possible. The colliery review procedures are as they have always been.
The right hon. Gentleman is well aware that "Plan for Coal" was accepted in the terms of the associated documents. Those documents have been honoured by the Government; indeed, they have been more than honoured in regard to investment. The part that has not been fully honoured is that dealing with the increase in productivity, which should have been some 4 per cent. per annum. It has been only 4.7 per cent. over the 10 years as a whole. As the right hon. Gentleman will be aware, the number of closures has been less than was forecast in "Plan for Coal".

§ Mr. Kinnock
I regret having to come back, but this is obviously a central issue, and the Government's reluctance to be constructively involved in promoting a settlement is still causing problems. So much has changed as a consequence of the dispute that speeches that the Prime Minister could have made seven months ago are now no longer relevant. Further, the proposition of March this year for the cutback of 4 million tonnes and the announcement on 23 March by the NCB of the loss of 20,000 jobs directly constitute a hit list. Until the right hon. Lady realises that this is the case it is difficult to see how progress can be made.

§ The Prime Minister
No, Sir. I repeat that the proposals of 6 March were to bring capacity into line with demand in the most cost-effective way. All the proposals for colliery closures go through the colliery review procedures, as they have since 1973. Since 1973 it has been accepted that heavy losses at pits were grounds for making closures. The procedures have not changed; the only proposed change in procedures is an improvement which ACAS proposed and the NCB accepted.

§ Q2. Mr. John Hunt
asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 23 October.

§ The Prime Minister
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

§ Mr. Hunt
Still on the miners' dispute, will my right hon. Friend continue to ram home the fact that, in terms of wages, investment, redundancy payments and closure procedures, the miners are getting a better deal under this Government than under any previous Administration, Labour or Conservative, and guaranteed work?

§ The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. On pay the offer to the miners exceeds anything that was ever offered to them under the Labour Government. It means that they would be 25 per cent. above the level 551 of average male industrial earnings compared with 18 per cent. under Labour. Investment has exceeded all expectations. It is £650 million more than was expected under "Plan for Coal". The colliery review procedure remains as it is. There is a guarantee that no one shall be compulsorily redundant. I should like to give one example of voluntary redundancy pay. At the age of 49, someone who had been in the coal industry for many years would have got about £1,700 redundancy pay under Labour and would get £33,000 under the Conservative Government.

§ Mr. Steel
Will the Prime Minister discuss with President Mitterrand the French Government's newly announced policy of offering every school leaver a place in higher education, a place in industrial training or a job? As both France and Germany can do that, why cannot the right hon. Lady do the same instead of offering our teenagers places on the dole queue?

§ The Prime Minister
As the right hon. Gentleman is well aware, every school leaver of the age of 16 was guaranteed a place on the youth training scheme by Christmas if he left school the previous summer. In fact, that was fully met and, indeed, there were spare places. That guarantee will be fully met again this year. Therefore, young people can have the option either of staying on in education until the age of 18 or going into the YTS, with a number of them still going into work. We really hope to reach the position where it is not an option to be unemployed. Young people can already stay on in education.

§ Q3. Mr. Heddle
asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 23 October.

§ The Prime Minister
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gove some moments ago.

§ Mr. Heddle
Will my right hon. Friend take time today to deplore publicly the long-running strike at the Department of Health and Social Security computer centre in Newcastle? Is that not an example of how strikes inspired by Left-wing militancy hit hardest the pensioners in all right hon. and hon. Members' constituencies? Is it not one further example of how strikes of this nature hit the most vulnerable members of our community?

§ The Prime Minister
That strike appears to be designed to prevent the uprating of pensions due in November and to prevent the uprating of child benefit. It is therefore deliberately aimed at both the old and young in our community in a disgraceful way.
Fortunately, my right hon. Friend and the administration at Newcastle and elsewhere in the offices are determined that the upratings will go ahead. It is because of the loyalty of many, many people working for the service that pensioners will get their upratings and that others will get their child benefits. It is nothing to do with those 400 who callously have gone on strike.

§ Q4. Mr. Blair
asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 23 October.

§ The Prime Minister
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

§ Mr. Blair
Is not the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement at the weekend that unemployment is not an economic problem but only a human or social one the most humiliating confession of failure? Does the Prime Minister stand by that confession? If she does, how does she square that with her endorsement at her party conference of the 1944 employment White Paper, which puts the battle for jobs at the heart of economic policy?

§ The Prime Minister
Unemployment is both an economic and social problem, of course. One cannot possibly argue against that. If the hon. Gentleman were fully familiar with the 1944 White Paper on employment I am sure he would agree that it has a great deal in common with the policies that the Government are pursuing — [Interruption.] I have a copy in my handbag. He must know the White Paper. It is indeed very old. — [Interruption.] It points out right at the beginning: But the success of the policy outlined in this Paper will ultimately depend on the understanding and support of the community as a whole — and especially on the efforts of employers and workers in industry; for without a rising standard of industrial efficiency we cannot achieve a high level of employment combined with a rising standard of living.