§ Q1. Mr. Wilsonasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 6 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. WilsonWill the Prime Minister take time today to study the letter that was sent by the chairman of the Scottish Development Agency to the previous Secretary of State for Scotland saying that if Gartcosh were closed Ravenscraig might not be viable? As the Conservative party's standing in Scotland commands the support of only 14 per cent. of the electorate, and as it is fourth in the opinion polls, is she aware that if she allows the Scottish steel industry to be wiped out, she will also allow her right hon. and hon. Friends who represent Scottish constituencies to face the same fate at the next general election?
§ The Prime MinisterAs I have said, the Government have done a great deal to ensure the future of Ravenscraig as far as we can during the currency of the present British Steel Corporation plan. With regard to the letter, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland replied on 4 February to the letter from the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes). He confirmed that the chairman of the Scottish Development Agency had written to his predecessor in November last year confirming the agency's general views on the future of the steel industry in Scotland. He said that this was a private letter. My right hon. and learned Friend has indicated that it is for the Scottish Development Agency to decide whether it wants to make its views known.
§ Mr. Bill WalkerDoes my right hon. Friend agree that competition is good for the Scotch whisky industry, as for others, and that that might best be achieved by companies such as Bell's and Distillers competing with each other at home and overseas?
§ The Prime MinisterI confirm that competition is generally good for industry. I wish the industry well in getting increased sales of its products.
§ Mr. SteelWithout encroaching on the wider issue of the future of British Leyland, can the Prime Minister explain why, when the Land Rover division is profitable, when it has been a symbol of British engineering quality around the globe for 40 years and when it does a great service for our armed forces, she is trying secretly to sell it off to the highest foreign bidder?
§ The Prime MinisterThere will be a full statement on British Leyland later. I think it best to leave the answer until then.
§ Mr. Temple-MorrisIs my right hon. Friend aware that, in its wisdom, the Trades Union Congress has somehow found the electricians guilty of conduct 428 unbecoming to the trade union movement? Does she agree that during the past 20 years the two unions most involved in this dispute have—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. This is a bad habit. The hon. Member must ask the Prime Minister a question relating to her responsibilities.
§ Mr. Temple-MorrisMy right hon. Friend is responsible for the wellbeing of the country, for the newspaper industry and for a becoming trade union movement. Have not the two unions involved abused everything that the trade union movement should have stood for during the past 20 years?
§ The Prime MinisterI gladly congratulate any union, especially the one to which my hon. Friend has referred, which abolishes restrictive practices and overmanning and embraces the latest technology. That is how to have the best and most efficient industry.
§ Q2. Mr. Dixonasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 6 February.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. DixonIs the Prime Minister aware that during recent years the number of ships in our merchant fleet has fallen from 1,600 to 600 and that the number of men working for British Shipbuilders has fallen from 87,300 to 10,000? According to the news, the unions had meetings with the chairman of British Shipbuilders today and it is reported that another 4,000 men will be declared redundant before the end of this year—half of whom will be from the northern region, which already has the highest percentage of unemployment in mainland Britain. When will the right hon. Lady do something to save that industry, which is vital to an island nation? When will she show the same type of patriotism to our country as she asked for from the British people during the Falklands war?
§ The Prime MinisterThe problems of British Shipbuilders, and shipbuilders the world over, is a shortage of orders. That shortage is difficult to overcome by any of the methods that the hon. Gentleman suggests. Since 1977, taxpayers' support for British Shipbuilders has amounted to £1.4 billion, and accumulated losses have amounted to £800 million.
§ Mr. Richard ShepherdDoes my right hon. Friend appreciate that there will be a Bill before the House tomorrow dealing with the removal of Crown immunity from National Health establishments? Does she recognise that if the Government concluded their urgent review of Crown immunity that would be welcomed by the House with gratitude and would be immensely popular throughout the country, because it would show the Government's concern to protect the health and welfare of patients?
§ The Prime MinisterObviously, we are very concerned to protect the health and welfare of patients. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Health has had this matter under review and I understand that he will make a statement later this afternoon.
§ Mr. LeightonHas the Prime Minister noticed the cynical and deceitful way in which, over a period of 429 months, Mr. Rupert Murdoch has been cold-bloodedly conspiring and scheming to sack his entire work force in one go?
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. What is the Prime Minister's responsibility in this matter?
§ Mr. LeightonThis has been described in some quarters as Thatcherism in action. Would the right hon. Lady care to say whether that is an accurate description, or would she like to dissociate herself from that brutal and unprecedented action?
§ The Prime MinisterI do not believe that that is a matter for me, but I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman is so resistant to getting the latest technology into British industry and to improving newspapers.
§ Q3. Mr. Budgenasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 6 February.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. BudgenI congratulate my right hon. Friend on the fact that during the previous month the Government have not attempted to hold up the value of the pound, either by wasting the country's reserves of foreign currency or by increasing interest rates. Will she please remind those who are interested in heavy manufacturing industry in the west midlands that they have more to gain from a low pound and lower energy costs than from state protection and state subsidy?
§ The Prime MinisterI entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Lower energy costs will be welcome to many manufacturers. Lower exchange rates are not, and must never be, considered as an easy option. The only assurance of sustained success is for industry to be competitive by virtue of its efficiency, not by relying on the exchange rate.
§ Mr. TorneyIn view of the condemnation expressed yesterday by the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) of the proposed sale of British Leyland to the Americans, will the Prime Minister reconsider the proposals? Will she make a statement, especially in the light of the threat, as outlined by her right hon. Friend, of no security for the workers at British Leyland?
§ The Prime MinisterMy right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will be making a statement on British Leyland. Regarding investment from the United States to Britain and from Britain to the United States, inward investment and equity investment in Britain from overseas have created 100,000 new jobs and safeguarded many more. One purpose of our entry into the Common Market was that we might attract investment to this country.
§ Q4. Mr. Favellasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 6 February.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. FavellWill my right hon. Friend take time today to remind those engaged in United Kingdom car manufacturing that their share of the home market has dropped from 90 per cent. 25 years ago to 34 per cent. now? How many job losses in suppliers such as the steel industry have been caused by this abysmal performance?
§ The Prime MinisterThe performance on productivity has improved, but not by enough to recover a sufficient share of the car market. As my hon. Friend will be aware, the only way to do that is to be competitive not only on price but on design and delivery, and I hope that the car industry will continue to strive to that end.
§ Mr. KinnockBritish public investment saved BL. Does the Prime Minister believe that British taxpayers saved it so that it could be used for a foreign sell-out?
§ The Prime MinisterThe British taxpayer has been very generous to British Leyland. We wish there to be a secure future for the car industry in Britain and, with that in mind, we have taken decisions which will be the subject of a statement later this afternoon.
§ Mr. KinnockSince the Prime Minister discussed the matter in Cabinet this morning, may I ask what security she believes will be provided, and which assurances can be sustained, in the light of the international car market and the fact that decisions would be made well outside Britain for reasons which would primarily benefit a multinational company outside Britain?
§ The Prime MinisterThe assurances are that one gets a larger share of the market by virtue of being efficient and having a very good distribution mechanism. May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the Labour Government did not object to Chrysler taking a majority shareholding in Rootes.
§ Mr. KinnockDoes the Prime Minister believe that that precedent should be followed? Does she believe that after £2 billion of British taxpayers' money has gone into the industry, all the benefit should be reaped by a foreign multinational?
§ The Prime MinisterIf there were a private sector buyer for the whole lot in Britain, that would be very welcome.
§ Mr. SoamesDoes my right hon. Friend agree that, with the inevitable great pressure on the defence budget, the time has come for a thorough defence review? Does she agree also that that must include a reassessment of the role of the British Army of the Rhine?
§ The Prime MinisterWe have thorough defence reviews at this time of the year, and the House has several debates on different parts of the defence services, as it will later today. I recognise the question which my hon. Friend is asking, but I must ask him to consider the political consequences of any such review.
§ Q5. Mr. Maxtonasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 6 February.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. MaxtonAs the Prime Minister and Ministers have consistently said during the past months that we must have regard to the views of the work force of Westland in deciding the future of that company, will she give the same regard to the work force of British Leyland?
§ The Prime MinisterThe hon. Gentleman will recall that the Government decided not to mount a rescue package for Westland or to put in any more money other than to write off the launch aid of £40 million, which expenditure had already occurred, should the W30 project be terminated.
§ Q6. Mrs. Virginia Bottomleyasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 6 February.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mrs. BottomleyWill my right hon. Friend join others in congratulating the Daily Star this week on cataloguing the corrosive and cumulative amount of television violence that comes into our homes? Does she expect the television or broadcasting authorities to take that mounting public concern into account in their policy discussions?
§ The Prime MinisterI agree with my hon. Friend. I saw that catalogue of violence displayed over a short time on television. There is much public disquiet about it, which is why my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary called in representatives of the BBC and the IBA to discuss how they would alter their guidelines on violence to ensure that violence was reduced. We must wait to see what they do, monitor it carefully, and see whether further action must be taken.
§ The Prime MinisterThe system of support changed from direct support when we went into Europe. The amount of support through Europe is too high a cost on the taxpayer, and we are trying to achieve a reduction in surpluses.
§ Mr. JesselCan my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government intend to continue to uphold the excellent standards of British Army bands—which add splendour to royal and state occasions—and which are trained at Kneller hall, Twickenham? As the Public Accounts Committee has today reported its "grave disquiet" at the lack of any financial basis for the decision of the former Secretary of State for Defence to move the bands elsewhere, will the new Secretary of State take a fresh look at the facts?
§ The Prime MinisterI congratulate my hon. Friend on his valiant campaign in support of the excellent military bands. I note that the report of the PAC on that matter has been published today. Obviously I cannot at this stage reply to that, but I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks—that the new Secretary of State will indeed look at matters afresh in the light of the latest facts.