§ Q1. Mr. Foulkesasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 4 November.
§ 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. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty The Queen.
§ Mr. FoulkesHas the Prime Minister seen today the report of the serious concern expressed in Europe and the United States of America, as well as throughout Latin America, at the unilateral announcement of a Falklands fisheries zone? As it is in our interests to get an internationally accepted agreement on fisheries and to do nothing to undermine democracy in Argentina, will she think again about this hasty and ill-considered decision?
§ The Prime MinisterThe decision was absolutely right. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, we have been trying through the Food and Agriculture Organisation to secure a multilateral agreement on fisheries with Argentina. We first took an initiative in April 1985, but it was delayed by Argentina. Eventually Argentina signed bilateral agreements which purported to regulate fishing in waters over which the Falklands are entitled to exercise jurisdiction. Faced with that, we took our action. It was correct arid, indeed, necessary to exercise jurisdiction over those waters.
§ Mr. FallonIs my right hon. Friend aware that most parents will regard the teachers' pay award of 16 per cent. as reasonable, generous and fair? Will she reassure the House that the Government will protect children from any further disruption of their schooling?
§ The Prime MinisterI agree with my hon. Friend that the offer made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is, as he said, fair, reasonable and, indeed, generous. Indeed, with the latest offer it would mean that Scottish teachers had had about 797 a 30 per cent. increase in pay over the past two and a half years. Many parents would wish to have a similar increase, and they have every right to expect that their children will be properly and fully educated.
§ Mr. KinnockWill the Prime Minister condemn the manic efforts of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to suborn the BBC by his smears and menaces, or is he acting under her orders?
§ The Prime MinisterThe matter raised with the BBC is a straightforward one of whether the BBC is honouring the terms of its charter and its licence and agreement which it signed after the charter some time in 1981. A complaint has been made to the BBC. It is not for us to discuss it, it is now for the BBC to reply.
§ Mr. KinnockThe Prime Minister is incredible. Is she trying to say that her creature—which the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster most definitely is—is acting in a straightforward fashion? Is this not the most tortuous attempt to try to intimidate the BBC because it is not manipulating the news in the way that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster would like?
§ The Prime MinisterIt may be that the right hon. Gentleman has read the submission, but from what he has said it does not seem that he has. If he has, he will have seen that it refers to the terms and conditions under which the BBC broadcasts, and a complaint has been made. It seems to me a matter of fact for the governors to consider. It is only they who can decide and reply to that complaint. It was a fairly measured complaint, which the right hon. Gentleman will see if he reads the submission.
§ Mr. KinnockI have read the submission. It is not a complaint, which is right; it is coercion, which is entirely wrong.
§ The Prime MinisterIt is a matter for the governors, and only the governors, to see whether the charter, and the licence and the agreement have been honoured. It is not for us to have an argument on this matter. A complaint has been made and it is for the governors to reply.
§ Q2. Mr. Hirstasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 4 November 1986.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. HirstMay I remind my right hon. Friend that the people of Scotland are anxiously awaiting confirmation that the Queen's Speech next week will contain proposals for legislation to reform the thoroughly discredited and unfair rating system in Scotland? Can she reassure me that they will not be disappointed?
§ The Prime MinisterI know how anxiously Scotland awaits this legislation and I gladly give my hon. Friend the reassurance he requires.
§ Dr. OwenIn view of her earlier reply, can the right hon. Lady tell the House whether the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was complaining to the BBC, or was his complaint made solely in his role as chairman of the Conservative party? If so, how are the two roles distinguished? Surely the real issue is that the board of governors are responsible for the BBC and it is they who should now reply to the Conservative party, and the Government should distance themselves from Mr. Tebbit's other role, in which he does not act as a member of the Government?
§ The Prime MinisterThe right hon. Gentleman is correct—my right hon. Friend was acting as chairman of the Conservative party.
I have experience and know that if, on that basis, I refuse to answer all questions, rather a lot of noise ensues in the House.
§ Mr. Patrick ThompsonIs my right hon. Friend aware that it is reported that teachers in Norwich are on strike today? Does she agree that this action by the teachers' unions is destroying support for the teachers' case and lowering the regard in which the teaching profession is held by right-thinking people in Britain?
§ The Prime MinisterYes, I think that such action is utterly disgraceful and shows no regard whatsoever for the children who are in the care of the teachers. I believe that the offer that has been made is a very generous one and that most teachers would wish to accept it. I agree very much with my hon. Friend that if teachers wish to have their professional standards restored — that is our purpose — they should accept the offer and return to giving a full education to all our children.
§ Q3. Mr. Lofthouseasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 4 November 1986.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. LofthouseIs the Prime Minister aware that the Jarrow marchers arrived in London today to protest about unemployment and to defend their right to work? Is she also aware that these marchers have now been on the march for four weeks? With regard to last week's statement, does she really think that the marchers should lose their benefit because they are not available for employment?
§ The Prime MinisterYes, of course I am aware of the march. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, unemployment benefit is paid to those who are genuinely available for work.
§ Mr. Campbell-SavoursThe right hon. Lady is cruel.
§ The Prime MinisterThe statement that has been made is the response to the criticisms made by the Public Accounts Committee of the existing arrangements. The new questionnaire applies the law—
§ Mr. Campbell-SavoursHeartless.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The Prime Minister is giving an answer.
§ The Prime MinisterThe new questionnaire applies the law as the Labour Government reaffirmed it in the Social Security Act 1975, which said:
a day shall not be treated in relation to any person—(i) as a day of unemployment unless on that day he is capable of work and he is, or is deemed in accordance with regulations to be available to be employed in employed earner's employment".— [Interruption.] — Of course Opposition Members make a noise. They do not like the facts read out.
§ Mr. CouchmanDuring her busy day yesterday, did my right hon. Friend have a chance to read the report in The Daily Telegraph about the extraordinary happenings on Manchester city council? Does she agree that a council which behaves in that thoroughly intolerable way deserves the sort of support—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The Prime Minister can answer questions only on matters for which she has responsibility.
§ Q4. Mr. Easthamasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 4 November.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. EasthamIs the Prime Minister aware that two weeks ago the Employment Select Committee visited Japan, a country to which the Prime Minister would possibly refer as being very successful, where we were advised that inflation is now standing at zero, but in spite of that they paid a 4.7 per cent. wage increase this year? Is the Prime Minister aware that when we met the industrialists they advised us that they were borrowing money from the banks for industrial development at 41/8 per cent.—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The same rules must apply. The Prime Minister can answer questions only on matters for which she is responsible.
§ Q5. Mr. McNamaraasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 4 November.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. McNamararose—
§ Mr. EasthamOn a point of order.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I shall take points of order afterwards.
§ Mr. Easthamrose—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I shall deal with that afterwards.
§ Mr. McNamaraThe Prime Minister will recall that when the decision was taken on the dual track to have cruise and Pershing in this country it was on the ground that it would force the Russians to the table and make them take out the SS20s. Now that the Russians under Secretary-General Gorbachev, and the Americans under President Reagan, have agreed that the SS20s and cruise and Pershings should go, why is she running to the United States to see President Reagan and saying that she did not really mean it and, please, can she keep those weapons here?
§ The Prime MinisterThe matter of the intermediate nuclear forces has to be negotiated, as the hon. Member knows, in Geneva. That is the only place where agreement can be reached. Her Majesty's Government welcome the progress made on INF at Reykjavik. It is consistent with the long-standing Alliance position that INF must be dealt with on a global basis. A zero-zero solution in Europe with some long-range intermediate nuclear forces in Asia is acceptable provided that the disparity is not to great. It is also the well-known Alliance position that the problem of the short-range intermediate nuclear forces must also be addressed because they were put in the satellite countries in response to cruise and Pershing, which themselves were in response to the SS20. The whole thing must be thoroughly and properly worked out.
§ Mr. Nicholas WintertonWill my right hon. Friend, during her very busy day, have a word with the Secretary 800 of State for Defence about the Royal Air Force's need for an advanced early warning system? Will she accept that if that order is not placed with GEC Avionics and British Aerospace it will be a dreadful blow for Britain's manufacturing industry, a further blow for unemployment and a kick in the teeth for British technology?
§ The Prime MinisterOf course one would wish orders to go to Britain. They have to be won on merit, and the important thing is whether the services which that aircraft and early warning system provide are acceptable on the ground of competence to the Royal Air Force and all the forces who use it.
§ Q7. Mr. Dobsonasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 5 November.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. DobsonWill the Prime Minister tell the House whether, in the course of her busy involvement in the pressurising of the BBC by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, she found time to read the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the standards of conduct in public life?
§ The Prime MinisterI have, I believe, sufficiently answered the hon. Gentleman's question.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. To forestall any possible points of order, I should tell the House that I stopped the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) from asking a question about what went on in the Manchester city council — [Interruption.] The Prime Minister is not responsible. I must apply the rules equally to both sides of the House.
§ Mr. Easthamrose—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. If the hon. Gentleman will do me the courtesy of reading in Hansard what he said, I think he will see that had he framed his question in a rather different way it would have been in order.
§ Mr. Easthamrose—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. From all that I heard, he was saying about Japan very much the same kind of thing as the hon. Member for Gillingham was saying about Manchester.
§ Mr. Easthamrose—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. There has been a tendency in recent days for the Prime Minister to be asked questions on matters for which she is not responsible. I think we ought to get back to the traditional rules.
§ Mr. ShoreOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker. All questions to the Prime Minister are prefaced, to a greater of lesser extent, by paving material in order to put the question, and my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Eastham) was precisely paving the way to ask a question about Britain's economic performance compared with that of Japan, which the Prime Minister, as First Lord of the Treasury, is perfectly capable of answering, and for which she is responsible.
§ Mr. Easthamrose—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. Let me forestall all this. I shall read carefully what the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Eastham) said, and, indeed, what the hon. 801 Member for Gillingham said, although my recollection is that in prefacing his question the hon. Member said "Did the Prime Minister, in the course of her busy day yesterday consider …" Allow me to reflect on the matter. I am simply telling the House that I must apply the same rules to both sides and that we should get back to the position of asking the Prime Minister about matters for which she has direct responsibility.
§ Mr. EasthamOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
§ Mr. DickensOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) has sought to do no more and no less than to encourage the BBC to be impartial—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. That seems the sort of question that might well be asked of a Minister, but not of me.
§ Mr. Dickensrose—
§ Mr. Beaumont-DarkOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to ask for your guidance on the rights of Back Benchers in the House. It arises specifically from the next item, a private notice question about unemployment, an issue which any Opposition Member can and does raise any day of the week. I put in an application this morning to ask you about—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The hon. Gentleman knows that if he put in an application to me for a private notice question he must not raise the matter in the House.
§ Mr. Beaumont-DarkI am asking for legitimate guidance from you, Mr. Speaker in the Chair. Why is it that an issue of great importance to the integrity of Britain, about whether someone is sent abroad in a crate, whether to Israel or to Nigeria, is not allowed while a private notice question about unemployment, which can be asked at any time, is in order? Why are Back Benchers ignored while matters coming from the Front Bench are allowed?
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. That is a very unworthy statement by the hon. Gentleman, who well knows that I treat the Front Benches and the Back Benches with an equal and even hand. The hon. Gentleman has not even heard the private notice question.
§ Mr. Beaumont-DarkAnswer the question.
§ Mr. Dickensrose—
§ Mr. SpeakerI cannot answer a question about the chairman of the Conservative party. That is what the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) asked about.
§ Mr. Beaumont-DarkYes, but I did not.
§ Mr. Easthamrose—
§ Mr. Skinnerrose—
§ Sir Kenneth Lewisrose—
§ Mr. SpeakerI will call Mr. Eastham first.
§ Mr. EasthamOn a point of order Mr. Speaker. May I seek clarification? I asked the Prime Minister to make some comparisons between the Japanese economy and the disastrous British economy, but you ruled me out of order and did not give me an opportunity to pose my question. What is the reason for such conduct?
§ Mr. SpeakerI have explained that to the hon. Gentleman. I have said that I will read carefully in Hansard what he said. I did not hear him preface his 802 remarks with, "In the course of her busy day" or anything like that. May I say to the House that if, on any day, I feel that I have been unfair to any hon. Member, I have ways of putting that straight, and I always do so.
§ Sir Kenneth LewisOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker, have you noticed that there are 139 questions down today to the Prime Minister? My right hon. Friend is in great demand to answer questions on every subject under the sun, and she does it very well. May I ask my right hon. Friend to consider, instead of answering questions for a quarter of an hour twice a week, answering them for half a day in order to get rid of the backlog.
§ Mr. FauldsOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
§ Mr. SpeakerWe have a busy day ahead of us, but I will take it.
§ Mr. FauldsOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This, oddly enough, is a genuine point of order. You made some comments a little earlier drawing to the attention of the House the fact that questions to the Prime Minister should have some relevance to her responsibilities. Of course, this House does not expect any longer any real answers from the Prime Minister. Would it not test the subtlety of Members of the House if you were to reinstitute the former requirement, which I think has been abandoned under your Speakership, that the questions should be prefaced by some relevance to her activities on the day on which the question is put? That old practice has increasingly been abandoned and it would be healthy for the skills of the House and a sensible return to old practice if there were a requirement to preface the question by considering today whatever the relevance of the question is.
§ Mr. SpeakerThat is exactly the point that I was seeking to make. The hon. Gentleman makes it clearly for me and I thank him.
§ Mr. AdleyFurther to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I try to be helpful over this matter of Prime Minister's questions? The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) made a fair point about paving questions, and we all know that occasionally some of us become a little long-winded in putting our paving questions. In these days of modern technology, might not a device be put to work to help you, Mr. Speaker, of the sort that is used at Wimbledon that causes bells to ring? If Members cannot get their paving questions out in the first 100 words, a bell would ring and you, Mr. Speaker, would tell them to sit down.
Mr. James CallaghanI was wondering, Mr. Speaker, whether, to help us phrase our questions correctly, you could advise us how to distinguish between the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster requesting the BBC to act impartially and fairly and the chairman of the Conservative party sending a bullying letter.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. As the right hon. Gentleman knows from his long experience, I am in no way responsible to the chairmen of political parties. I am responsible, however, for Ministers in this place when they come to the Dispatch Box.
§ Mr. Dickensrose—
§ Mr. SpeakerIf the hon. Member wishes to raise a point of order I shall take it, but it must be a point of order and not a spoof.
§ Mr. DickensOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry that I misled you earlier, but I was going on to say, had I been given the chance to do so, that earlier this afternoon the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), with great venom, referred to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of 804 Lancaster by his ordinary name in making a cheap point about broadcasting. Surely we are to return to the niceties of this place.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I judged that the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) was referring to the Minister in his capacity as chairman of a party and not as a Member of the House.