§ Q1 Mr. Penhaligonasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 20 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. I attended the memorial service for Mr. Palme in Westminster Abbey. In addition to my duties in this House I shall be having further meetings later today.
§ Mr. PenhaligonAs a result of the Budget a married man will, on his 72nd earned pound, pay 29p in tax, but someone fortunate enough to inherit £10 million from a rich parent will have the tax reduced from £3 million to nothing. What have the Government got against working?
§ The Prime MinisterI make no apology for this Government having reduced the confiscatory levels of taxation on those with considerable earnings and accumulated capital. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to join the Opposition Front Bench in going back to 83 per cent. on earned income and 98 per cent. on savings, will he let us know what Liberal party policy is?
§ Q2. Mr. Wilkinsonasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 20 March.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. WilkinsonIn view of the alarming increase in the incidence of violent crime, particularly by young people, can my right hon. Friend find time today to reconsider carefully the potential merits of the reintroduction of national service, especially as national service, in addition 410 to the youth training scheme, could be an invaluable way of providing young people with the technical training and skills which they need in today's world?
§ The Prime MinisterI know my hon. Friend's views on this, but it would mean an enormous change in the whole of our defence policy, which is founded on professional armed services, and which has served the country well. Although I know that he would like to give many young people an opportunity of belonging to something like the armed services, I do not think I can promise him anything on this so far as I can see in the future. We prefer to rely on the armed services youth training scheme to give some people the opportunity.
§ Mr. KinnockThe Chancellor of the Exchequer rightly said on Tuesday:
given the very substantial increase in the oil companies' margins, there is clearly no need for the pump price of petrol to go up at all. Indeed, it ought to fall further."—[Official Report, 18 March 1986; Vol. 94, c. 180.]In view of the refusal of the major oil companies to follow that view, will the Prime Minister give an undertaking now that if the oil companies do not cut the price of a gallon of petrol by the 12p which they could well afford, she will take away their gains in a windfall tax on profits?
§ The Prime MinisterI think that the right hon. Gentleman is a little premature. I support wholly what the Chancellor said. Indeed, we said virtually as much in the House before the Budget. If the majors do not hold down their prices, they will stand to lose out to the independents, who are purchasing and selling at cheaper prices. Therefore, they would not gain. I think that the announcement in which they said that they would put up their prices has already done them a great deal of harm.
§ Mr. KinnockAt the rate of £14 million a week in extra profit, which the oil majors will make if they do not cut their prices, they will be laughing all the way to the bank. Why does the Prime Minister not use the power that she has instead of offering what is now only a pious sentiment and expressing a hope in competition, which will probably not be realised?
§ The Prime MinisterI think that it will take place. I think that people are shrewd enough to go to the independents, which are charging far less for petrol. I find it amazing that people will choose to go to those who charge higher prices when they can go to the independents, which, I have no doubt, will offer considerable competition.
§ Q3. Mr. Leighasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 20 March.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. LeighIn the course of her busy day, has the Prime Minister had an opportunity to read Bernard Shaw's "The Intelligent Woman's Guide to Socialism and Capitalism", and in particular, the phrase:
money is made for us to get what we want, instead of what other people think we ought to want.Is not the theme of this Budget that tax cuts will enable the British people to get what they want, rather than what the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) thinks they ought to want?
§ The Prime MinisterI agree with my hon. Friend, and that is why we are making a point of reducing personal 411 income tax. Had we left the national insurance surcharge—introduced and then raised by a Labour Government—where it was, personal income tax could already be down to 25p in the pound on the basic rate.
§ Q4. Mr. Cartwrightasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 20 March.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. CartwrightHas the Prime Minister had time to note the admission by the Minister for Environment, Countryside and Local Government yesterday that sulphur pollution from British power stations is damaging Norwegian lakes? In the light of that admission, will the Government now ensure that all coal-fired power stations, particularly the five new ones announced yesterday, will be so designed as to cut sulphur emissions?
§ The Prime MinisterObviously we shall try to design new power stations so that there are even greater improvements than those which we have achieved on sulphur emission. This Government's record on reducing pollution is very good indeed.
§ Mr. Rhodes JamesHas the Prime Minister's attention been drawn to the deliberate physical assaults upon and intimidation of Professor John Vincent of Bristol university, who is an eminent and deeply respected historian? His lectures have been disrupted, his teaching prevented, his family afflicted, simply because he writes occasional articles for a paper owned by Mr. Rupert Murdoch. What has happened to free speech that we had—and for which we went through two world wars—and why is the Leader of the Opposition so silent about these outrages?
§ The Prime MinisterI agree with my hon. Friend that such assaults are intolerable and should never occur in a free country. They should he condemned by everyone on both sides of this House.
§ Q5. Mr. Garrettasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 20 March.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. GarrettI appreciate that the Prime Minister has a busy schedule and that she will not be able to attend the launch next week at Swan Hunters on Tyneside of HMS Sheffield. This ship replaces one sunk in the Falklands. Could she make arrangements to attend the launch on 8 April, the following week, of her sister ship, HMS Coventry? She will see, on both occasions, that both ships have gone down the slipway on time, and both have been secured as the result of hard, competitive bargaining with the Ministry of Defence. Is the right hon. Lady aware that, now that those ships are nearing completion, there will be a gap, and it is important that, on a free competitive basis, further orders be given to fill this gap in the work load, or there will be redundancies?
§ The Prime MinisterI congratulate the hon. Gentleman and the work force of Swan Hunters on producing these ships on time. I recognise that further orders have to be placed on a competitive basis. I know the one about which he is concerned, and I stress that the order has to be done on a competitive basis.
§ Mr. Douglas HoggMy right hon. Friend will know that last week the Select Committee on the Environment 412 published a report on the disposal of nuclear waste. Does she agree that before any special development order is laid before the House authorising exploratory work to be carried out at Fulbeck airfield, time should be given for the fullest debate and consideration of the report, and that the special development order should be deferred until such time?
§ The Prime MinisterI am aware that my hon. Friend has a particular interest in one of the sites, Fulbeck, which I also happen to know. I shall pass on the message to my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal, and I understand that he will want a full debate on these matters.
§ Dr. OwenIn view of the need to increase industrial competitiveness, why did the Government not use the money that they had given away in a penny off the standard rate of income tax to cut national insurance contributions by 10 per cent., which would also have had a substantially greater impact on unemployment?
§ The Prime MinisterBecause, having already abolished the national insurance surcharge—the right hon. Gentleman was a member of the Government that put it on and increased it—it was felt that those in industry should also have some incentive. I shall be interested to see whether the right hon. Gentleman votes against the reduction.
§ Mr. ChurchillHas my right hon. Friend noticed the much greater alacrity with which oil companies have put up their prices, compared to the way they bring them down in line with worldwide prices? If the oil majors persist in refusing to heed the words of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and other Ministers, will my right hon. Friend consider referral to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission?
§ The Prime MinisterI shall pass that message on to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. We should wait a little to see whether the oil majors take the advice of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, which was clearly given. If they do not, they will not get as much business. Therefore, they will have less profit than they would otherwise receive.
§ Q6. Ms. Richardsonasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 20 March.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer the hon. Lady to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Ms. RichardsonAs all women in a certain age group have to spend about £2 or £3 a month on sanitary products, when many of them are in low-paid jobs or on supplementary benefit, and as they have not had one penny of help out of the Budget, will the Prime Minister ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take the earliest opportunity to remove VAT from sanitary products?
§ The Prime MinisterNo. I believe that this is a matter that has come up every year on the Budget for many years under all Governments. I am afraid that I shall have to disappoint the hon. Lady.
§ Q7. Mr. Pawseyasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 20 March.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. PawseyIs my right hon. Friend aware of the concern that is felt in some quarters about the introduction 413 of the GCSE examination? Can she confirm that the examination is on target and that some adequate resources have been put into the system to ensure that teachers will be adequately trained in the new examination when it is introduced later this year?
§ The Prime MinisterAs my hon. Friend implies, I am aware that there is a great deal of concern about the timing of the new examination. I also know that considerable resources are being put into the programme—about £10 million for teacher training, and about £20 million for special equipment and textbooks. Although there is concern about the timing, I know of no proposal to postpone the introduction of this examination.
§ Mr. Alfred MorrisHas the Prime Minister seen the recent Harris Poll finding, showing that a huge 91 per cent. of the electorate want Members of Parliament to be given a free vote on Sunday trading? Would it not be totally outrageous for her Government to try to steamroll the Shops Bill through, in the light of that finding?
§ The Prime MinisterAs the right hon. Gentleman is aware, the Bill has come from another place, and I think he must leave whipping until the Bill is going through this House.
§ Q8. Mr. Favellasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 20 March.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. FavellWhat does my right hon. Friend think would be the effect on the Treasury of suddenly losing £5 billion of revenue if, God forbid, we ever had another Labour Government—or an alliance one, come to that?
§ The Prime MinisterIt would not be long before this country went to the International Monetary Fund again, and we must see that that never happens and that the possibility of a Labour Government does not happen.
§ Mr. Willie W. HamiltonDoes the Prime Minister recall that before the election she was making scathing references to the enormous salaries of the City slickers? She was also referring to the tax imposed on the low-paid £140-a-week nurse. Does she concede that, as a result of the Budget, the City slicker on a salary of over £100,000 is getting more than £30 a week back in income tax while the £140-a-week nurse is getting 30 bob, and, if she lives in nursing accommodation and is threatened with eviction, she will be even worse off?
§ The Prime MinisterBut according to what I understood from the hon. Gentleman's own Front Bench yesterday, his party will not vote against the reduction of basic rate income tax.
§ Mr. HickmetOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During questions to Home Office Ministers the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) accused some Members of being racists. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw that remark, especially as it is particularly offensive coming from a Member who has entertained the IRA in this Palace.
§ Mr. SpeakerI did not hear a remark of that kind, but I am sure that the whole House would agree that we do not want comments of that sort levelled across the Chamber, if it was said.