§ Q1. Mr. Nichollsasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 21 February.
§ 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 paying an official visit to the United States.
§ Mr. NichollsWill my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to confirm, in regard to limited list prescribing, that it is and always has been the Government's intention that a full and comprehensive list of drugs should be available for all National Health Service patients, irrespective of their ability to pay? Will he, therefore, condemn the disreputable behaviour of a small minority of doctors who have grossly misrepresented the Government's proposals and in so doing have caused their patients, particularly their elderly patients, acute anguish and distress?
§ Mr. BiffenI can confirm that it has always been the intention that the list should be comprehensive and well judged. I agree that there has been a good deal of public misapprehension about what is intended. I very much hope that that problem will be resolved when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services makes a statement later this afternoon.
§ Mr. James HamiltonWhen the right hon. Lady comes back from America, will the Leader of the House ask her to visit Strathclyde region, where half of the male population who are unemployed and drawing benefit have been unemployed for over a year, where 40 per cent. of them have actually been unemployed for over two years and where 40 per cent. of the women between the ages of 30 and 59 have also been unemployed for over two years? Is it not time that the Prime Minister paid a visit to the region to see at first hand the effects of her economic policy?
§ Mr. BiffenMy right hon. Friend is undoubtedly sufficiently seized of the problems of unemployment not to need to visit any particular part of the United Kingdom to realise that it is a substantial and widespread difficulty. In that context, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will at least take some solace from the latest figures of the Department of Employment, which show that the number employed is rising, and rising quite well.
§ Mr. SpeakerMr. Cockeram.
§ Mr. CockeramHas my right hon. Friend had time to study the figures—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. Question No. 2.
§ Q2. Mr. Cockeramasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 21 February.
§ Mr. BiffenI have been asked to reply.
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. CockeramHas my right hon. Friend had time to study the figures to which he referred in his reply to the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Mr. Hamilton)? Is it not remarkable that the number of people in work has risen by over one third of a million in the last 12 months? Is not this the other side of the coin to the number joining the unemployment register and seeking work, which of course includes married women?
§ Mr. BiffenMy hon. Friend is right in the point that he has made. Without doubt, a study of the register demonstrates the importance of the self-employed in our economy and, therefore, of economic policies designed to encourage their interests.
§ Ms. HarmanWill the right hon. Gentleman confirm, or deny, that I am being subjected to political snooping by 1195 MI5? If I am, will he arrange for me to see a copy of my file? Is it not the case that such snooping is outside the guidelines, since information gathered on me clearly has nothing to do with national security?
§ Mr. BiffenIf it is of any interest to the House, I am in absolutely no position to comment upon what may have been the situation of the hon. Lady. She will know that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary confirmed on 7 February what has been the practice of successive Governments, that it was never the practice in cases of individuals where telephone tapping was alleged either to confirm or deny that interception had taken place.
§ Q3. Mr. Wardasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 21 February.
§ Mr. BiffenI have been asked to reply.
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. WardWill my right hon. Friend urge our right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary to study carefully the representations made by Poole borough council on Sunday trading? May we have an early assurance that action will be taken to clear up the collection of anomalies that exist at the moment?
§ Mr. BiffenI am sure that the representations of Poole council will be among the many that will be assessed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. Indeed, the House will wish to assess them when it, in turn, debates the Auld report. My hon. Friend will recollect that that matter was considered in private Members' time in the last Parliament, and on that occasion a sharp division of opinion was revealed.
§ Mr. BellI take on board the earlier responses of the Leader of the House, but can he remind the Prime Minister, on her return from Washington, of her written promise to me to visit Teesside in the lifetime of this Parliament? Will he further remind the Prime Minister that 1,000 jobs were lost in the first 10 days of the year and that there is nothing like personal experience of unemployment to chasten the mind and change the Government's policies?
§ Mr. BiffenI say particularly in the context of the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Mr. Hamilton) that a visit to Teesside, no less than a visit to Scotland, is a pleasurable prospect. I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the hon. Gentleman's point. On the wider issue of unemployment, I go back to the answer that I have given hitherto. I believe that it is the Government's policies that will ultimately provide the basis for a recovery in employment, and there is some harbinger of that in the figures for those who are actually in work.
§ Q4. Sir Fergus Montgomeryasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 21 February.
§ Mr. BiffenI have been asked to reply.
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Sir Fergus MontgomeryIs my right hon. Friend aware that there are press reports that the United Kingdom may make a bid to have the 1992 Olympic Games in this country? Is he further aware that there are other places in 1196 this country than London? Does he appreciate that somewhere north of Watford is an area known as the north-west, where we have some of the finest sporting facilities in the country? Does my right hon. Friend not think that Manchester would be a splendid venue for the 1992 Olympic Games?
§ Mr. BiffenI take note of what my hon. Friend says, championing the claims of Manchester. The appropriate action would be for the city to make its cause favoured by the British Olympic Association. I suggest that as the course that my hon. Friend should follow. I should also like to make this observation. By the time we come towards the casting of the Olympic Games, I believe that some authorities in England will be happy to declare themselves Olympic-free zones.
§ Mr. DubsWill the Leader of the House confirm that it is the British Government's policy in no way to support American backing for the Contras against Nicaragua? Will he make sure that that point is made clear by the Prime Minister to President Reagan during her present visit?
§ Mr. BiffenI am sure that the Prime Minister will make the most clear and explicit statements promoting the British national interest in the Caribbean, and that they will not be lost on the American regime.
§ Q5. Mr. Temple-Morrisasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 21 February.
§ Mr. BiffenI have been asked to reply.
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. Temple-MorrisDoes my right hon. Friend agree that the executive of the National Union of Mineworkers has utterly isolated itself, not only from the Coal Board, but from nearly half — probably more — of its own membership and the leadership of the British trade union movement? Does my right hon. Friend further agree that it is about time that the Labour party condemned the strike and appealed, together with us in the Conservative party, for a return to work as soon as possible?
§ Mr. BiffenThe House will be aware that the Secretary of State for Energy will answer a private notice question on that matter in a few moments. I should like to respond to my hon. Friend by saying that I believe that Mr. Scargill has no hope whatsoever of securing victory, but he has a very real prospect of dividing his union.
§ Mr. SkinnerIs the Leader of the House aware that another construction can be put on the toings and froings between the TUC, the Government and the Coal Board? Many members of the NUM and others believe that the TUC was hoodwinked by the Prime Minister and that the liaison committee, headed by Norman Willis, came back with a deal that was infinitely worse than the one the week before.
§ Mr. BiffenI cannot join the hon. Gentleman in delivering so magisterial a rebuke to the TUC — one which alleged, above all, that it displayed the cardinal crime of innocence when in the presence of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I do not think that Ray Buckton is hoodwinking material. This instance demonstrates the intransigence of Arthur Scargill and the reason why, from 1197 the very outset, it has never been possible to come to a reasonable and working arrangement to terminate the strike.
§ Q6. Mr. Loydenasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 21 February.
§ Mr. BiffenI have been asked to reply.
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. LoydenWill the Leader of the House urge the Prime Minister, when she returns, to clarify the position of members of the Transport and General Workers Union working at the Ministry of Defence who have been dismissed? The reason for dismissal given to Mrs. Balkinson and other women was that their security screening clearance had run out. The decision taken by the contractors might be a reason for the dismissal. The trade union movement has been unable to obtain a clear answer from the Government. May we take it that this is part of the post-Ponting hysteria that prevails at the Ministry of Defence? Will the right hon. Gentleman press for this matter to be cleared up as soon as possible?
§ Mr. BiffenI should like to thank the hon. Gentleman for his courtesy in giving me notice that he would raise this question. I understand that the matter is now before my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. I shall certainly ensure that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is apprised of the question when she returns from the United States.
§ Mr. DickensDoes my right hon. Friend accept that the greatest scar and scab on this nation is Arthur Scargill? Does my right hon. Friend remember that 10 months ago I advised the house that Scargill was a Marxist surrounded by Communists and supported by the Kremlin? Does my right hon. Friend accept that we know that Scargill is a Marxist surrounded by Communists and that Russian money is coming into his grubby little hands?
§ Mr. BiffenI think that the whole House realises that Mr. Arthur Scargill is possessed of a wide range of formidable qualities, many of which were covered by my hon. Friend's question. What the House is entitled to know, and what doubtless will be revealed when we come to the private notice question, is how many hon. Members remain in the Arthur Scargill fan club.
§ Mr. KinnockIs the Leader of the House aware that there is wide public concern about Government threats to employees' pension schemes in companies and to the state 1198 earnings-related pension scheme? Will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that the Government will not undermine the employees' occupational pension schemes either by changes in taxation or by DHSS proposals for portable pensions? Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the specific statement made by the Prime Minister during the general election campaign—that there are no plans to change the earnings-related component of the state pension — still defines the Government's position?
§ Mr. BiffenAs the right hon. Gentleman knows, the earnings-related scheme is covered by one of the reviews now being undertaken by my right hon. Friend. The right hon. Gentleman, together with the rest of us, will have to wait to learn the consequences of the review.
On the taxation of pensions, the right hon. Gentleman knows that he makes comments that invite a judgment upon the Budget. First, he addressed the wrong person; and, secondly, he asked his questions at the wrong time, as they are just ahead of the Budget. He should take a lesson in patience and, in the best Asquithian sense, wait and see.
§ Mr. KinnockOn occupational pensions, I urge the right hon. Gentleman to convey to his right hon. Friend that it is a pension scheme, which in every respect has been worked for and paid for by people in this country, and they must not be let down for any reason, including the taxation convenience of the Government.
The right hon. Gentleman said that the inquiry would cover the earnings-related scheme, yet his right hon. Friend said that the aim of setting up the inquiry was not to call into question the fundamental pension structure established in the 1970s. Will the right hon. Gentleman assure us that, with or without the inquiry, there will be no disadvantageous changes in the state earnings-related pension scheme?
§ Mr. BiffenNo, I must say quite clearly—
§ Mr. Campbell-SavoursWhy is the Secretary of State for Energy telling the right hon. Gentleman what to say?
§ Mr. BiffenI shall provide National Health spectacles for the hon. Gentleman if he thinks that I am seeking to get a message from my left hand side.
I shall not stand at this Box and say anything that prejudices either the Budget considerations or the outcome of the pension reviews now being conducted by my right hon. Friend.