§ Q1. Mr. Thurnhamasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 4 April.
§ The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen)I have been asked to reply.
My right hon. Friend is travelling to south-east Asia for an official visit.
§ Mr. ThurnhamTomorrow is the end of the tax year. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that there will be no special Easter eggs for any over-zealous tax inspectors who take too many second looks at the books of small business men?
§ Mr. BiffenI can happily give that assurance. There is no question of tax inspectors being offered bonuses for increasing tax revenue from small businesses.
§ Mr. HattersleyThe Leader of the House will know that yesterday, after they had fixed their rates, many shire counties discovered that the rate support grant was again to be cut from the level of which they had previously been notified. What advice are the Government giving those counties about how they should accommodate the new cuts?
§ Mr. BiffenIt has always been made clear, and local authorities have always understood, that the initial RSG figure given to them by the Department is an estimate and is subject to change in the light of council spending plans.
§ Mr. HattersleyI hope that that carefully prepared answer will be gleefully accepted in the shire counties which are to be penalised. Apart from that answer, which the right hon. Gentleman read with such precision, can he comment on the absurdity of rate legislation which, simply because the GLC has fixed a rate lower than the statutory maximum, requires cuts in shire county allocation? The figure for Lancashire has fallen by £4.2 million, the figure for Cleveland by £1.3 million and that for Kent by £3.25 million. How will the right hon. Gentleman explain to those counties that their grant is to be cut simply because the GLC has levied a rate lower than that which the Government anticipated?
§ Mr. BiffenThe hon. Gentleman describes a set of situations on which I cannot confidently comment — [HoN. MEmBERs:"Oh."] I will commit the great solecism in this House of refusing to comment on what I cannot comment on accurately. There is no doubt that the shire counties will contrast their own prudent financial management with what is happening in many other areas of the country, including that covered by the GLC.
§ Mr. HattersleyThe right hon. Gentleman fails to grasp the essential point. What he describes as prudent financial management in the shire counties has resulted in the shire counties receiving further cuts in RSG.
§ Mr. BiffenI have indicated to the right hon. Gentleman that I will not follow him down that path because I am not certain of my ground.
§ Mr. GreenwayIs my right hon. Friend aware that I understand that to save overtime, no searcher dogs were used in the VIP departure lounge at Heathrow today before the departure of the Prime Minister to the far east? Will he look into this, bearing in mind the fact that the country is concerned about the Prime Minister's security above all things and would not mind paying for the overtime required?
§ Mr. BiffenMy hon. Friend is right to underline the great national concern that our leaders and the Prime Minister should always have the utmost security in their movements when undertaking national duties, but I have no doubt that the necessary standards have been fulfilled.
§ Mr. SteelAlthough the Lord Privy Seal is right not to comment with confidence, or even without confidence, on the detailed figures of the cuts imposed on local authorities, how does he expect local government officials or elected members to cope with the constantly changing barriers against which the Government place them?
§ Mr. BiffenThe right hon. Gentleman must know that the rate support grant figures are always issued on a provisional basis. On this occasion they have been revised, and revisions must be expected.
§ Mr. Cyril D. TownsendWill my right hon. Friend take time during the recess to consult his right hon. Friends on what new initiatives the Government might take to patch up our quarrel with Argentina, bearing in mind that the conflict started nearly three and a half years ago? Does he agree that, while it is all too easy for both countries to blame each other, there would be considerable long-term benefits for Britain and the Falkland Islands in having proper diplomatic and commercial links with Argentina and its new democratic Government? Would that not be in the interests of the long-term future of the region?
§ Mr. BiffenI accept that it must be in our ultimate interests to restore satisfactory relationships with Argentina, but that will be the consequence of a detailed and closely argued process of negotiation. We are at the beginning of that now, and we shall have to fight our corner.
§ Q2. Mr. Canavanasked the Prime Minister what are her official engagements for 4 April.
§ Mr. BiffenI have been asked to reply.
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave a few moments ago.
§ Mr. CanavanIs it just coincidence that almost every time I hit the jackpot at Prime Minister's Question Time she does a bunk to the far east or somewhere else? In the Prime Minister's absence, will the Leader of the House ensure that approporiate Government action is taken to compensate Scottish football fans after the Government's intervention to switch the venue of the Scotland-England football international from Wembley to Hampden? Will they compensate the Scottish football fans, including some of my constituents, who have spent hundreds of pounds in non-refundable deposits for hotel bookings in London, only to discover that the great dictatorial referee in Downing street has blown the whistle and moved the goal posts from London to Glasgow?
§ Mr. BiffenI have a lively sympathy with the hon. Gentleman with regard to his discovery that I am here to 1343 answer his questions rather than the Prime Minister. I no more wish to answer his question than he wishes to ask it of me, but we are chained together by circumstance. As I am sure he will realise, my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for sport asked the Football Association to reconsider the date of the international. The change in the venue was a judgment of the Football Association and the Scottish Football Association. But I have left the worse news until last. Although there is much sympathy, there is no question of the Government accepting any liability such as the hon. Gentleman suggests.
§ Q3. Mr. Hirstasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 4 April.
§ Mr. BiffenI have been asked to reply.
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. HirstIs my right hon. Friend aware that, at its conference in Inverness last weekend, the Liberal party voted to remove all United States bases from Britain? Does he agree that this is yet another example of a glaring inconsistency in the policy of the alliance on a critical issue? Apart from offering sympathy to the Social Democratic party for its curious bedfellows, will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to reaffirm the Government's support for the other Alliance—NATO—which is the ultimate guarantor of the peace and security of British people?
§ Mr. BiffenI am happy to affirm the Government's commitment to the NATO Alliance and to say that all parties which affirm their support for NATO cannot have it both ways. They cannot want the Alliance and its nuclear implications, but deny that Alliance the nuclear bases.
§ Mr. MacKenzieWill the Leader of the House answer more sympathetically the question put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan)? If the Government so arrange sporting fixtures that it will cost sporting fans a great deal of money, and if they take the responsibility for changing the dates, they must take some responsibility for compensating those people for the many hundreds of pounds that they have lost. We will not have this. The Government must take either one line or the other.
§ Mr. BiffenThe right hon. Gentleman is advancing a most contentious proposition: that the Government should undertake financial responsibilities and liabilities in this instance. This would be a major policy departure. It is simply not on.
§ Q4. Mr. Pawseyasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 4 April.
§ Mr. BiffenI have been asked to reply.
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. PawseyIs my right hon. Friend aware that there are many Conservative Members who, since 1979, have been urging rate reform? Is he further aware that we very much welcome the initiative of our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in this matter? However, can he say when a fairer system that will better reflect people's ability to pay will come before the House? Indeed, will it come during the lifetime of this Parliament?
§ Mr. BiffenThat would be a fairly fundamental reply to let slip out on a Thursday morning before we depart for 1344 Easter. I accept at once the good wishes that my hon. Friend conveys, but this is a very tangled problem and the sooner it can be dispatched the better. However, it would be just as well if we got the answer right rather than produced it quickly.
§ Q7. Mr. Andrew MacKayasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 4 April.
§ Mr. BiffenI have been asked to reply.
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. MackayWill my right hon. Friend find some time today further to consider the newspaper report in last Sunday's Observer about substantial ballot-rigging in the Transport and General Workers Union, which apparently led to the election of Mr. Ron Todd as the general secretary? Will he reflect upon the fact that our trade union legislation which passed through the House last year, is very important in the light of this ballot-rigging, and will he further reflect that no Labour party spokesman has condemned this action, taken by one of its major paymasters?
§ Mr. BiffenMy hon. Friend has very generously asked me to do not much more than reflect, and I am very happy to reflect on all the various aspects of the issue that he mentioned. I join him in saying that I believe it underlines the considerable importance that we might attach to the postal ballot provisions in our recent trade union legislation.
§ Ms. HarmanWhy have the Government, against the advice of their own quango, Playboard, made massive cuts in urban programme funding for holiday play schemes? Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that without safe, constructive play, school holidays for many children will spell boredom and that for many parents, particularly working parents, they involve the worry that, instead of playing safely, their children might end up either in hospital or the juvenile court? Will he reinstate these important funds?
§ Mr. BiffenI have no authority to reinstate these programmes, but I shall of course draw the attention of the relevant Secretary of State to the point made by the hon. Lady. However, I suspect that these and all other public spending provisions have to be carefully assessed against need and value for money.
§ Q9. Sir John Biggs-Davisonasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 4 April.
§ Mr. BiffenI have been asked to reply.
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Sir John Biggs-DavisonDid the First Lord of the Treasury, for whom my right hon. Friend is replying, know of— I cannot believe that she can have approved of—the discontinuance of the £10 paid every year since the reign of Henry VII by the Exchequer to a certain university — not mine? Should not a Tory Government cherish harmless anomalies and pleasant traditions?
§ Mr. BiffenI must admit that that is not even a technical knock-out. I have been floored in round one. I have not the faintest idea of what it is to which my hon.
1345 Friend refers. I know that it is of national significance, otherwise the words would not be on his lips. I shall see that my right hon. Friend is informed of it the moment that she returns from the far east.
§ Mr. Tony BanksWill the right hon. Gentleman care to tell the House how many right hon. or hon. Members have had their phones tapped since the Prime Minister was elected in 1979?
§ Mr. BiffenI did not hear the question.
§ Mr. BanksClearly there would be little point in tapping the right hon. Gentleman's telephone. I asked him whether he could tell us how many hon. Members have had their telephones tapped since 1979.
§ Mr. BiffenAs I understand it, undertakings have been given in the House by previous Prime Ministers, and have since been reinforced, that no hon. Members have had their telephones tapped.
§ Mr. FlanneryOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will have noticed that my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Dubs) and I have been here throughout Question Time, including Northern Ireland Question Time, but we did not reach the highly topical question on political discussions on Northern Ireland. A considerable number of hon. Members who had not tabled any questions were called more than once. We waited and stayed behind precisely for those highly political questions. They were not reached because hon. Members who had not tabled questions, and others, were called many times.
§ Mr. SpeakerThere is always a difficult balance to strike, but the hon. Gentleman is well aware of the fact that I seek to balance questions between Northern Ireland Members and those from the rest of the United Kingdom. I am sorry that we did not get as far as the hon. Gentleman's question. If he had risen on question No. 6 he would probably have got in, but he did not do so. His question was No. 17.