§ Q1. Mr. Dixonasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 7 February.
§ 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. DixonWill the Prime Minister find time today to apologise to the Archbishop of Canterbury for trying to steal the credit for the release of the four Britons from Libya? Now that she has seen that the Church has shown more initiative, wisdom and diplomacy about foreign affairs than her Government, will she accept its advice on domestic affairs and get the National Coal Board to negotiate a speedy and honourable settlement of this dispute?
§ The Prime MinisterI gladly pay tribute to the Archbishop of Canterbury and Mr. Waite, as I did on Tuesday. The hon. Gentleman will find that in Hansard. All the praise is theirs for having secured a successful outcome to the Libyan hostages problem.
§ Q2. Mr. Gerald Howarthasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 7 February.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. HowarthMy right hon. Friend will have heard today that more miners going to work have again been stoned by pickets. In view of the critical part played by violence and intimidation in prolonging the coal dispute, will she set up an inquiry to examine the organisation and the financing of organised picketing and violence in the dispute?
§ The Prime MinisterAs my hon. Friend knows, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has been undertaking a review of the Public Order Act, which will take account of experiences on the picket line. I agree that 1097 the strike has been prolonged by violence and intimidation. The Home Secretary's review is nearing completion, and I hope that we shall soon be in a position to make an announcement about it.
§ Mr. KinnockThroughout the miners' strike the Prime Minister has repeatedly demanded that the National Union of Mineworkers accepts the NACOD agreement. In the light of today's joint statement from the unions, which says that
the conditions being demanded of the NUM by the NCB effectively negate the agreement reached between NACOD and the NCBwill she strongly advise the board to return to full negotiations, so that the strike can be settled?
§ The Prime MinisterThe right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the board met NACODS early this week and made it clear that it would honour the agreement with NACODS in full. The board reaffirmed that position to NACODS. It is perhaps a greaty pity that this morning NACODS was unable to persuade the NUM to accept the NACODS agreement and the spirit of it, or, alternatively, to accept the single compromise that was previously negotiated through the Advisory Conciliation and Arbitration Service.
§ Mr. KinnockThe Prime Minister is either grossly misinterpreting or grossly misrepresenting this morning's events and the discussion and agreement between the NUM executive and NACODS. She has before her the joint statement issued by those unions. Now that there is a serious effort to restart negotiations for settlement, will she start to act like a responsible Prime Minister instead of seeking further to impede negotiations and being a wrecker who wants conquest at any cost?
§ The Prime MinisterThat is absolute nonsense. The board will honour the agreement with NACODS in full. May I stress that again and again. It is not in doubt. If the NUM would also accept the NACODS agreement and the spirit of it, the coal strike could be over. I urge the right hon. Gentleman to urge the NUM to accept the NACODS agreement.
§ Mr. KinnockThe Prime Minister has used exactly the words that she used last week. I urge her, because the circumstances are significantly changed by this morning's discussion and agreement between the two unions, to use the power that she knows she has to advise the board to resume negotiations. The National Association of Colliery Overmen, Deputies and Shotfirers has said:
It is agreed that the conditions being demanded of the NUM by the NCB would effectively negate the agreement reached between NACODS and the NCB in October 1984.Does the right hon. Lady not understand that the whole basis of agreement is in jeopardy because of her interference and the way in which she has sought to prolong the dispute? She has a chance to secure negotiation and settlement now. Why does she not take it?
§ The Prime MinisterThe right hon. Gentleman is trying to make out that an agreement freely negotiated between the NCB and NACODS is in jeopardy. It is not, and nothing that he says can put a freely negotiated agreement between two sides in jeopardy. That agreement with NACODS is not in jeopardy. The National Coal Board met NACODS earlier this week to re-affirm, yet again, that the agreement will be honoured in full. Why does not the right hon. Gentleman urge the NUM to accept 1098 that agreement? It will be honoured by the NCB in full, regardless of the impression that the right hon. Gentleman is trying to give to prolong the strike.
§ Mr. SackvilleIn view of what many pensioners and chronically ill people are being told by their doctors about the future availability of medicines, will my right hon. Friend confirm that no limited list will be issued which, of itself, compels NHS patients to pay for or do without medicines for which they have a clear clinical need?
§ The Prime MinisterMy right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services has gone into this matter in great detail. The proposals that he has put forward are in the interests of NHS patients and will release money for the care of more patients.
§ Dr. OwenWill the Prime Minister clarify the NACODS settlement? Is it not true that the settlement allows for an independent reviw procedure, but that it also allows the NCB to close pits against the advice of the independent review procedure? Equally, there is no commitment on NACODS' part to accept the independent review procedure, and it can take strike action. The same would apply to the NUM if it signed the NACODS agreement. The unions are not bound to accept the advice of the independent review procedure. Does the Prime Minister accept that it is vital that the NCB's right to manage should not be interfered with?
§ The Prime MinisterYes, Sir. The last paragraph of the NACODS agreement states:
If, at the end of this process"Ȕthat is the colliery review procedureȔthe matter was still in conflict and might lead to a foreshortening of a colliery's life expectancy, this question, as has already happened in the past, can be referred for national consideration and, indeed, would then be subject to the Independent Review Body and full weight given to its findings, just as would be the case in any question of a distinct closure proposal.The NACODS approach was given in evidence to the Select Committee. It was different from the NUM approach given in evidence to that same Select Committee. On 25 November 1982 NACODS made it clear that it would, as the right hon. Gentleman said, oppose closures. Its representatives made it clear that the association would normally agree to closures only when reserves of coal had been absolutely worked out. It went on then to make the right hon. Gentleman's other point:In other circumstances, the decision to close will be made by the National Coal Board.The right hon. Gentleman is correct. NACODS may oppose all the way, but in the end it will accept the National Coal Board's right to manage, and of course it is perfectly free to use the strike weapon should it choose. [Interruption.] Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen do not want to hear the agreement or the evidence that was given. An agreement cannot be negated by things said outside the room in which it was reached.
§ Q3. Mr. Wilsonasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 7 February.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. WilsonWith the renewed onset of severe winter weather, will the Prime Minister read the letter sent to her by her own Solicitor-General for Scotland criticising the unfair and unjustifiable fuel allowances system that caused so much concern three weeks ago? Is she not aware that 1099 there are rumours circulating that, instead of conducting a review intended to bring in fairer allowances, the intention of the DHSS and the Cabinet is to abolish heating allowances altogether? Since the average electricity heating bill in the north of Scotland is £290, compared with £204 in the south of England, will she take action to deny the rumours that the DHSS does not intend to reach a fairer fuel allowance system and pledge that the Government will introduce one as soon as possible?
§ The Prime MinisterThe hon. Gentleman will be aware that we have already announced a review of these provisions, and that is being undertaken by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security. I have in front of me the letter to which the hon. Gentleman refers. It says:
Although every Scottish MP knows that more than four hundred million pounds is spent on heating allowances throughout the United Kingdom each year, that fact is being conveniently overlooked.It also says that I shouldbe aware that the SNP as well as the Labour Party have been outspoken in their support for this very damaging, costly and violent strike. They ignore the fact that the potential effect of this industrial action on pensioners' fuel bills is far greater than anything this additional heating allowance could ever cover.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I appeal for shorter questions, please. [HON. MEMBERS: "And shorter answers."]
§ Q.4 Mr. Stokesasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 7 February.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. StokesHas my right hon. Friend noticed in yesterday's and today's newspapers the great success story of a firm in the north-east of England, Tyne Shiprepairers, which, since privatisation only a year ago, has turned a loss of £13 million into a profit, has gained new orders of £l9 million and has doubled its labour force—all in the space of one year? Is there not a moral here?
§ The Prime MinisterI congratulate the Tyne Shiprepair company on an excellent first year. It took 500 people on to its payroll. It has done extremely well under the spur of privatisation and has now 1,200 on its payroll. Success and privatisation — [Interruption.] — create genuine jobs—and how the Opposition hate that.
§ Mr. FootReverting to the mining dispute, does the Prime Minister appreciate that what changed the situation last week was the issue, by the Coal Board with her approval, of a demand that the National Union of Mineworkers should sign a document before it came to the negotiating table? Does she not understand that it was that demand that also wrecked the position with NACODS? Does she not understand this, and will she say why she and her Ministers did not consult NACODS before they gave approval to the document that injured the negotiations? As she has played such a prominent part in injuring those negotiations, will she at last make some effort to get decent negotiations going?
§ The Prime MinisterThe right hon. Gentleman is, I believe, under a fundamental misconception. An agreement negotiated between two bodies holds and is reaffirmed and can never be upset, except by further agreement between those two bodies. The NCB met 1100 NACODS earlier this week and reaffirmed that the agreement that they had previously negotiated still stands. It cannot be upset by what is said elsewhere.
§ Mr. FlanneryOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
§ Mr. SpeakerDoes it arise from questions?
§ Mr. FlanneryYes, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for the Prime Minister to adopt a completely new habit of reading from the pamphlets that she brings with her, so much so that Back Benchers now have less time available to ask questions because of the amount of endless and boring reading in which the Prime Minister engages?
§ Mr. SpeakerAs the House knows, I take a particular interest in ensuring the protection of Back Benchers. My view is that at Prime Minister's Question Time a little too much time is now taken up by the Front Benches, thereby denying time to Back Benchers.
§ Mr. KinnockFurther to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) was referring to a very recent habit — repeated again today — of reading from a lengthy statement of Government policy, on this occasion in response to a question from an Opposition Member. However, on Tuesday the Prime Minister did so in response to a vital question on Gibraltar from a Conservative Member.
As you are concerned about the time taken by the Front Benches, I invite you to go through Hansard for the last few months and to compare my subscriptions with the responses of the Prime Minister. I am sure you will discover that the House has been preoccupied much more with the right hon. Lady's long answers than with any of my questions.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. We have a busy day ahead of us and I do not think we should get into any dispute on this matter. I simply say to the Leader of the Opposition that I leave him wide discretion to rise more than twice—mostly on three occasions — for that very reason. I realise that a very important issue was discussed today.
§ Mr. LoydenFurther to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not an abuse of the House and of the protection afforded Back Benchers who are entitled to question the Prime Minister — who is already under considerable protection, given that she answers questions for only half an hour each week—for the right hon. Lady to use Back Benchers' time to avoid responding to questions?
§ Mr. SpeakerIt is a question of balance, and in the past we have done rather well. On one occasion we got through 15 questions to the Prime Minister.
§ Sir John Biggs-DavisonFurther to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would not some of these points be met, and would not we all get on much better, if the Opposition abandoned their consistent attempts, Tuesday after Tuesday, Thursday after Thursday, to prevent the Prime Minister from being heard, thus adding to the time it takes for my right hon. Friend to inform the House of her views?
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I think that it is generally acknowledged—and I say this with sadness—that the noise during Prime Minister's Question Time has increased. I have mentioned this in recent weeks. I hope that the House will take that very much to heart.
§ Mr. SkinnerFurther to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is not only a matter for the Front Benches of the Labour party and a question of the Prime Minister taking up more time than my right hon. Friend. You should also take into account, Mr. Speaker, that whenever the Leader of the Social Democratic party is called he 1102 speaks with the same voice as the Prime Minister, so, in effect, you should subtract his time and add it on to the Government's.
§ Mr. SpeakerI do take that into account, and I did so today.