§ Q1. Mr. Penhaligonasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 11 March.
§ The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher)This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
§ Mr. PenhaligonNow that the Government's efforts to save the tin dealers seems finally to have failed, can my Cornish miners assume that the £50 million offered and now saved can instead be used to save the Cornish tin mines? If the answer to that question is no, can the Prime Minister tell us about the priorities that offer help to the dealers but not to the miners?
§ The Prime MinisterThe £50 million was offered provided that other countries of the 22 agreed with us on a scheme to secure a return to orderly trading in the tin market. They did not, so the £50 million, of course, is withdrawn. With regard to the specific question the hon. Gentleman asks, it is too early to say. Cornish mining companies will be better able to assess their commercial prospects once a market price for tin has been re-established. The Department of Trade and Industry is willing to consider grants towards projects to make the mines competitive in the new market situation. However, no decisions can be taken until a realistic assessment of viability can be made.
§ Mr. HarrisCan I press my right hon. Friend further on this matter? While I recognise that the Government did take the lead in putting forward the £50 million to try to save the international aspects, can she please treat as a matter of utmost urgency the plight of the Cornish tin mining industry, particularly Geevor mine in my own constituency?
§ The Prime MinisterI am aware of all the mines and of the importance of securing employment in Cornwall. We shall be in a better position to judge when we know the price of tin, once the markets have reopened. As I indicated, we shall be willing to consider grants towards projects to make the mines competitive in the new market situation.
§ Mr. KinnockMay I ask the Prime Minister whether she agrees that her important exchange of letters with Mr. Gorbachev should be published in the public interest, and 803 may I ask whether she will seek to ensure that that publication can take place? Meanwhile, may I ask her whether she recalls saying in November 1983 that the best Christmas present that President Yuri Andropov could give the West would be to dismantle the SS20 missiles and accept the zero option? Now that General Secretary Gorbachev has publicly made exactly that offer in his 15 January statement, why will she not at least pursue discussions based on the proposal to get SS20s out of Europe altogether?
§ The Prime MinisterThe right hon. Gentleman is mistaken in thinking that that is the offer that Mr. Gorbachev has made. He has not made a total zero-zero offer. He has made an offer which would mean that a number of the missiles went to the far east of the country and could, of course, be moved back. That is totally different from a zero-zero option.
§ Mr. KinnockIs the Prime Minister really saying that she has moved the goalposts so far as to inhibit the removal of all intermediate weapons from the east and west of Europe because of the problems relating to Asia? Will she, I repeat, pursue the question of the dismantling of SS20s, so that not only the menace in Europe is removed, but there is a possibility of ensuring that no additional menace arises even in the far east?
§ The Prime MinisterThe right hon. Gentleman should be aware that there is no point in merely moving weapons to a place from which they could be moved back to be a menace to this country. I remind the right hon. Gentleman of what Mr. Andropov said when dealing with certain proposals. He said, "We are not a naive people." What a pity that the right hon. Gentleman does not take that advice to heart.
§ Mr. KinnockOn such an important issue that affects the fate of all of us and, indeed, future generations, I hope that the Prime Minister will be a little more rational in her approach and will not simply resort to party political bickering. The right hon. Lady says that she wants to concentrate on achieving realistic, balanced and verifiable arms control measures. Why does she not pursue the possibility of securing a freeze in nuclear arms deployment, since plainly that is the most realistic, the most balanced and the most verifiable of all arms control measures?
§ The Prime MinisterThere are very good reasons why one should not have a freeze. First, one freezes in imbalances. Secondly, unless one modernises the strategic deterrent it soon ceases to be a deterrent. That, presumably, is why the right hon. Gentleman's party modernised the Chevaline.
§ Q2. Mr. Cashasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 11 March.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. CashDoes my right hon. Friend agree that the Left-wing councillors in Lambeth and Liverpool deserve what they are getting at the moment for their wilful misconduct towards their ratepayers? Does my right hon. Friend also agree that to see the Leader of the Opposition trying to get off this hook is a pathetic sight? Will she confirm that this Government will maintain the laws on surcharge and disqualification as the only reasonable 804 remedy for making sure that Left-wing councillors throughout the country do not continue, wantonly and extravagantly, to use ratepayers' money?
§ The Prime MinisterI agree with my hon. Friend. Local councillors have a duty to set a legal rate by the appropriate time. It is vital to maintain the sanctions of law to ensure that they carry out their duties properly. That we shall continue to do.
§ Mr. SteelAs the Governments of both the Soviet Union and the United States are keen to secure an arms control agreement in Europe, why does the Prime Minister insist on going ahead with the escalation that is caused by the Trident programme when those Governments are content to leave the British and French deterrents out of the count as things stand at present? Does the Prime Minister not accept that the Trident missile is becoming a two-time loser; first, because of its effect upon our defence equipment programme, and, secondly, because it is becoming an obstacle to an arms control agreement?
§ The Prime MinisterAs the right hon. Gentleman is aware, Trident is not an intermediate weapon but a strategic weapon. It is vital that we keep our independent nuclear deterrent, and it is not a deterrent unless it is modernised. Therefore, we shall go ahead with the modernisation.
§ Mr. ShersbyWill my right hon. Friend take time today to consider abolishing the Property Services Agency and putting the work for which it is responsible out to private enterprise, in the interests of greater efficiency? Is it not a paradox that although the Government are urging the abolition of direct labour departments the Property Services Agency is being retained?
§ The Prime MinisterQuite a lot of the work that the Property Services Agency manages is already put out to private enterprise. At the moment we have no plans to privatise the entire agency.
§ Q3. Mr. Fisherasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 11 March.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. FisherIs the Prime Minister aware that if prescription charges had risen in line with the retail prices index since 1979, they would rise in April from 35p to 37p, not from £2 to £2.–20? Does she not understand that this is nothing but a tax on those who are sick?
§ The Prime MinisterNo. The hon. Gentleman is aware of the enormous exemptions from prescription charges. He knows that these will remain and that they will remain the same. Moreover, the proportion of the family practitioners service that is financed by charges is lower now—at under 10 per cent.—than it was 10 or 20 years ago. The income received from charges provides about £500 million for the National Health Service. That is equal to 20,000 doctors, 65,000 nurses or 500,000 operations. Without the charges, what would the hon. Gentleman do about that?
§ Mr. John TownendIn view of the rise in violent crime and, in particular, the number of appallingly brutal cases of rape, would it not be appropriate for the courts to impose savage sentences as a deterrent? Is it not time that hon. Members re-examined their consciences to see 805 whether they were right—against the wishes of their constituents--to take away from the courts the right to impose sentences of corporal or capital punishment?
§ The Prime MinisterAs my hon. Friend is aware, the Lord Chief Justice has set out a very clear and firm position for the courts in rape cases, and the sentences which should be imposed. I have no doubt that they will follow that. His guideline judgment was, in general, very well received. As my hon. Friend also knows, legislation restoring capital punishment would have to get through this House and the other place. We have already had one debate on that subject. My hon. Friend knows my views, but it is a matter for the House to decide according to its vote.
§ Mr. SheldonHas the Prime Minister read the third report of the Public Accounts Committee, which clearly shows that the British Telecom issue was hopelessly underpriced? Is she aware that a number of people in the City have made vast sums out of that underpricing? If she must continue the privatisation programme, will she at least compare the method of selling such public assets with the way in which Government stock is sold through the Government Broker, getting a very fine rate by releasing it at suitable intervals, at prime prices?
§ The Prime MinisterI have not read the report. However, the privatisation of British Telecom was a huge success, and enabled enormous numbers—[Interruption.—of people who worked for British Telecom, as well as small savers, to obtain shares which they would never have obtained under a Labour Government.
§ Mr. FairbairnWhile the Government are contemplating some considerable alterations to the criminal law of England, will they bear in mind a slightly more modest alteration to the law of England, which is already part of the law of Scotland, and to which objection has never been taken? I refer to the fact that pleas are not taken until after the jury, which is to try the case, is sworn. In that way, the outrage over the Patrick Reilly case would never have arisen.
§ The Prime MinisterI shall, of course, pass on my hon. and learned Friend's comments to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. On that particular case, it is not open to me or to the House to suggest that the defendant was guilty of an offence of which he was acquitted. Obviously I can say nothing more than that.
§ Q4. Mr. Chris Smithasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 11 March.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. DickensRightly so.
§ Mr. SmithIf the Prime Minister is so wrongly proud of her Government's record on the Health Service, can she tell the House and the people of London why St. Thomas' hospital announced last night that it would be able to take only emergency cases from August, why Bloomsbury health authority is having to make major cuts in provision for my constituents and why 221 hospitals have closed in the past five years? Is that not the reality behind the misleading statistics she always uses?
§ The Prime MinisterOn overall expenditure, as the hon. Gentleman is aware, this Government have an excellent record on the Health Service, the best record of any Government since the Health Service began. Being a London Member, the hon. Gentleman is aware that we who represent London constituencies have sometimes seen resources transferred from London to the north to increase facilities there. Does he object to such equality between the north and the south?
§ Mr. Heathcoat-AmoryHas my right hon. Friend had time to consider the impending request by the European Commission for a £1 billion supplementary budget for 1986? Will she be sure to turn down such a request, as it breaches the financial discipline pledged to this House in return for the increase in VAT contributions?
§ The Prime MinisterWe shall fight it hard, as we usually do. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is outside what we would expect and that we should not be expected to contribute even more to the European Community.
§ Q5. Mr. Ewingasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 11 March 1985.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. EwingIs the Prime Minister aware that over the past few years a great many people on all sides of the print and newspaper industry in Scotland have worked a great many hours to create good trade union-management relations, so that the Scottish newspaper industry has one of the best no strike records in Europe? In view of her readiness to condemn bad union practices, will she now condemn the absolutely suicidal management policies of Robert Maxwell, which have resulted in the removal of the Scottish Daily Record from the news stands today?
§ The Prime MinisterIt is vital that the newspaper industry uses the latest technology. I remember visiting the offices of the Glasgow Herald on the paper's 200th anniversary, where the latest technology was being used without problems. I hope that the same will be true for the Daily Record after negotiations.