§ Q1. Mr. Cartwrightasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 13 March.
§ 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 this House I shall be having further meetings later today.
§ Mr. CartwrightDoes the Prime Minister acknowledge that today's reports of unlimited extra money for teachers' pay in Scotland simply encourage militant teachers in England, who want to use the current ACAS negotiations as a pause before further disruption in our schools? Therefore, will she ensure that Ministers give the same positive support and financial commitment to the ACAS negotiations as they are giving to the independent inquiry in Scotland, so that teachers, parents and, most important, pupils can look forward to lasting peace in the schools?
§ The Prime MinisterI am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the question, because I think that the reports have not been wholly accurate. As he knows, there is a formula for distributing extra money. The formula is on a well-known basis, so that when changes are made in public expenditure programmes for England and Wales, changes are made in the comparable Scottish programmes on the basis of the fixed formula. That formula will still obtain for taxpayers' money.
§ Sir John FarrNotwithstanding the statement in the House yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, will my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister see whether something can be done so that British Airways can be privatised in the immediate future? That would meet the needs and desires of many people.
§ The Prime MinisterYes, we are anxious to get British Airways privatised. As my hon. Friend will be aware, there are certain legal and negotiating requirements under the Bermuda agreement with the United States and we must safeguard our vital interests before British Airways can be privatised.
§ Mr. FoulkesHas the Prime Minister seen the reports that the Budget commissioner, Mr. Christopherssen, has said that the United Kingdom rebate is now in doubt? Will she confess that the rebate was not automatic, as she promised, and will she tell the House what she intends to do about it?
§ The Prime MinisterThe rebate is made upon a formula. I am not certain what the hon. Gentleman is 1077 referring to. There are times when there has to be a small supplementary budget to enable us to receive our rebate. Our refunds have risen from £440 million for 1983 to £570 million for 1984, and to at least £830 million for 1985. So the amount we are getting back has almost doubled in two years.
§ Sir Edward GardnerDoes my right hon. Friend agree that there appears to be a growing and strong link between violent crime, including rape, and the widespread misuse of heroin and cocaine? Will she confirm that the Government are giving, and will continue to give, the highest priority and all the resources that may be necessary to meet the terrible dangers of drug abuse?
§ The Prime MinisterYes, Sir. I agree with my hon. and learned Friend that the use of drugs makes all crime, and particularly crimes of violence, worse than they would otherwise have been. We shall give every priority to tackling this terrible canker in our lives. As my hon. and learned Friend knows, largely at his instigation we are changing the law to make it easier to get at the proceeds of this dastardly crime.
§ Mr. KinnockIn view of the continuing and alarming rise in crime—a massive increase of 41 per cent. since 1978—will the Prime Minister ensure that new money is allocated to local authorities to assist them in their efforts to make streets and homes safer in their areas for ordinary citizens, especially the elderly?
§ The Prime MinisterThe right hon. Gentleman is aware that local authorities were given extra money through the police grant. Some money is expended under the community programme to further crime prevention programmes.
§ Mr. KinnockIs not that answer somewhat misleading? At the crime prevention seminar which the right hon. Lady held back in January the only new money that was ever referred to was the £50 million to be taken from the housing improvement programme. Does she not think that that would be an inadequate sum from absolutely the wrong source? Will she acknowledge that the sums involved in improving door locks, the standards and safety of doors, lighting, telephone entry systems and many other additions to security should be paid for, and that they can appropriately be assisted by the Government?
§ The Prime MinisterMost people will and should be able to make their own provision for crime prevention.
§ Mr. SkinnerSomeone can if he lives in Dulwich.
§ The Prime MinisterAs with almost every question, the right hon. Gentleman shows that he wants to put his hands deeper into the taxpayers' pocket. It is important to say—
§ Mr. Campbell-SavoursThe right hon. Lady does not care.
§ The Prime MinisterOpposition Members do not care how much they take away from the taxpayer. It is far better for most people, who are able to do so, to take crime prevention measures themselves. As for the elderly, who cannot afford to take such measures, it is very proper use of money and labour from, for example, the community programme, to assist with a crime prevention scheme. I will stand comparison with any Opposition Member on personal care and provision—[Interruption.]
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. It is very difficult, even for me, to hear against this background noise.
§ Mr. KinnockMuch of what the right hon. Lady says might be true in Dulwich, but it is not necessarily true on housing estates throughout the country. If we do not find resources to help old people and poor people to protect their homes and their streets, we shall have to find the money in any case to help the police detect the crime, too late—after the damage has been done.
§ The Prime MinisterThe right hon. Gentleman's record on the police should be compared with ours. We have provided extra police and extra equipment, and he goes and shakes hands with Bernie Grant and Scargill.
§ Mr. LawrenceIs my right hon. Friend encouraged to pursue her economic policies by the annual report of the British Overseas Trade Board, which says that British manufacturing industry is improving its performance and that last year it expanded its volume exports by 8 per cent., thus proving that the rubbish spoken by Opposition Members about the British manufacturing base contracting is utterly false, as it is expanding?
§ The Prime MinisterMy hon. and learned Friend is right. British manufacturing industry increased its exports last year by a further 8.5 per cent. That contributes greatly to our balance of payments and to the provision of jobs. Management and work force should be warmly congratulated.
§ Mr. Beithasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 13 March.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. BeithIn connection with the crime figures, is the Prime Minister giving urgent attention to the large increase in reported crimes of rape and sexual assault on women? Does she believe that, among other things, what appears in the media plays some part in creating the climate of opinion in which so much of this violence takes place? Will she dissociate herself from the offensive way in which the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) was ridiculed when she tried to bring this matter before the House yesterday, and will she perhaps use her influence to bring together some of the newspaper proprietors and editors to talk about how they might improve the climate and not add to the grief of the victims of rape?
§ The Prime MinisterRape is a uniquely barbaric offence and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is very pleased with the recent judgment of the Lord Chief Justice, which set out guideline sentences of a much more severe kind than seem to have been applied in previous cases. The whole of the media bear a great responsibility for the way in which they report crimes of violence. As far as this particular crime is concerned, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that the name of the victim must not be given, by law, after a charge has been made, and that there are certain customs and conventions which obtain between the commission of this terrible offence and the court which one would hope would be observed by the press.
§ Mr. HillDoes my right hon. Friend remember that in July last year we held a very informative meeting on the deregulation of the six freeports in the United Kingdom? She kindly gave me a letter after the meeting, but unfortunately I have to say today that the six freeports are 1079 ailing and dying because Customs and Excise is still applying all the regulations within its power. VAT, import duties and all the other taxes are still being charged within the freeports by Customs and Excise. The six freeports are very worried about this.
§ The Prime MinisterPerhaps my hon. Friend will let us have details. I think he is saying that fees are being charged which should not be charged because they are freeports. I doubt very much whether the Inland Revenue or Customs and Excise is charging what should not be charged, but if they are, perhaps my hon. Friend will let us know.
§ Q3. Mr. Ray Powellasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 13 March.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. PowellIf the Prime Minister is not concerned about the old-age pensioners, I wonder whether she could show some concern for shop workers. Is she aware that 99 of her right hon. and hon. Friends have signed early-day motion No. 90 requesting a free vote on the Sunday trading legislation? Is she also aware that early-day motion No. 538 asking for the preservation of the traditional Sunday is supported by 70 right hon. and hon. Members? Is she further aware that Home Office Ministers have expressed great concern at the fact that they have received 400 letters in support of the Shops Bill and 40,000 against it? Is it not time that she reconsidered the situation and either withdrew the Bill or took it to the country?
§ The Prime MinisterFirst, with regard to pensions, I would point out that when the pension went up in November it went up to the highest ever level in real terms, and this is the first time that we have had an interim increase in the pension.
Secondly, if the law on Sunday trading were to be enforced, garden centres, do-it-yourself shops, furniture shops and video shops would be closed, newsagents and chemists would be able to sell only a fraction of their normal stock, and food shops would be trading illegally if they sold anything except fresh fruit, vegetables and milk. It is legal to sell on a Sunday boiled fish and baked potatoes at a fish and chip shop, but not fish and chips. Fish and chips may be sold at any takeaway food shop except a fish and chip shop. I hope the hon. Gentleman understands that it would be utterly impossible to carry on with the existing law on Sunday trading.
§ Q4. Mr. Amessasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 13 March.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. AmessHas my right hon. Friend read press reports today which show that, despite the negative 1080 attitude of the Socialist parties towards Britain's manufacturing prospects and performance, it is predicted that exports of manufactured goods will increase to offset any loss of oil revenues?
§ The Prime MinisterExports of manufactured goods are doing very well and have increased by 8.5 per cent. in volume terms—[Interruption.] Opposition Members are not interested in good news. This is good news for manufacturing industry and will provide jobs. Opposition Members would much prefer not to listen to success stories. Moreover, there is wider investment in manufacturing. In 1985, overall investment reached an all-time record of about £60 billion.
§ Q5. Mr. O'Neillasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 13 March.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. O'NeillGiven the Prime Minister's well known interest in law and order, may I ask her to consider what happened at Wapping last night, when one of Rupert Murdoch's lorries ran into a crowd of people who were peacefully listening to speeches from Privy Councillors and members of the shadow Cabinet? Will she institute a full inquiry into the rogue lorry that attacked those people last night?
§ The Prime MinisterI regret that in this incident two demonstrators at Wapping suffered injuries, and I am glad to report that neither was seriously hurt. Two police officers also suffered minor injuries. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will express sympathy—[Interruption.]
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. Only one question has been asked.
§ The Prime MinisterI hope that the hon. Gentleman will express sympathy for the 79 policemen who have been injured at the picket line at Wapping.
§ Later—
§ Mr. RymanOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should like to raise a short but not bogus point of order arising from questions. When the Chief Secretary to the Treasury answered question 13, he distinctly said that he had not heard the queston. Before the question could be repeated, he answered it, without having heard the original question.
With respect, Mr. Speaker, I believe it is legitimate to raise this point of order. If a Minister does not hear a question, he should ask for it to be repeated so that he can purport to answer it. To purport to answer a question when that question is inaudible is, even for this Minister, extraordinary conduct.
§ Mr. SpeakerI also noticed that, but I am not responsible for Minister's answers.