§ Q1. Mr. Chris Smithasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 15 January.
§ 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. SmithIs the Prime Minister content that her Government preside over a society in which the chairman of Guinness can earn £350,000 a year while thousands of pensioners—[Interruption.]—are freezing because they cannot afford to heat their homes? Is such a gulf between the rich and poor not an inevitable consequence of the Prime Minister's and her Government's philosophy and system of values?
§ The Prime MinisterWith regard to the first part of the question, the hon. Gentleman knows that we are to have a reply to a private notice question later today.
The way in which this Government have looked after the needs of pensioners in severe weather is greatly in excess of the services and amounts that any other Government have previously given. The severe weather payments are on top of the scale rates for heating in the supplementary benefit payments, and on top of the heating additions that are paid regularly throughout the year.
§ Mr. CouchmanIn the present dreadful spell of cold weather, perhaps Kent has suffered as badly as anywhere. Many shops in my constituency are virtually out of food and access to the Medway towns is almost impossible. Movement is very difficult indeed. Will my right hon. Friend give urgent consideration to whether we should declare a state of emergency? That could help the situation. Will my right hon. Friend further consider giving permission for the unfettered use of troops, without consideration of budget?
§ The Prime MinisterI do not consider that a declaration of a state of emergency would be appropriate. Of course, we shall see how help can be brought in to move in food and necessary supplies to people who are without them.
§ Mr. KinnockHas the Prime Minister's attention been drawn to the commendable view expressed in the Financial Times this morning that self-regulation can work only if people who are supervised have a sense of obligation towards the system and if that is greater than the desire to win their way in any particular case? In view of the widespread disquiet about financial dealings, including in the City itself, will the Prime Minister now take steps to make the Securities and Investments Board a statutory body with powers to investigate and prosecute any cases of abuse during mergers and takeovers?
§ The Prime MinisterI think not at present. Most people will accept that action has been taken very quickly indeed in setting up inspections under the Companies Act by Board of Trade inspectors. We must await the result of the report. It is far too early to go from the present voluntary self-regulation and conclude that we should go to a full statutory system. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the Financial Times. He will find that there were leaders in overseas papers, including in the United States, saying that the speed at which action has been taken under the voluntary system has sometimes exceeded the swiftness of action under any statutory system.
§ Mr. KinnockFrom the Prime Minister's answer, are we to believe that if the current evidence of gross abuse were to continue we would, in a short time, have the introduction of a statutory system so that full force could be brought to bear against those who are abusing their knowledge and office in the course of mergers or takeovers, or are we to believe that because statutory 405 schemes have not been introduced elsewhere there is no circumstance in which the Prime Minister would wish one to be introduced in Britain?
§ The Prime MinisterThe right hon. Gentleman concludes too much. Insider dealing was not even a criminal offence under the Labour Government, yet it is now. But then, he is always expecting something totally different from us. We have made insider trading a criminal offence and, the right hon. Gentleman knows, criminal prosecutions are a matter for the appropriate authorities and not for the Government. Board of Trade investigations are implemented under the Companies Act and come under the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. Inspections have been implemented very quickly, and they are now under way.
§ Mr. KinnockThe value of mergers and takeovers has multiplied tenfold during the time that the Prime Minister has been in office, so these matters are of great importance to hundreds and thousands of people, both inside and outside the City. The Prime Minister introduced deregulation and is now having to clean up the mess left by the abuses of that system. Will she make the SIB statutory in order to help with that process?
§ The Prime MinisterI answered that question in my initial reply to the right hon. Gentleman. There are two factors. First, insider trading is now a criminal offence although it was not a criminal offence under a Labour Government. Secondly, there is now voluntary regulation, and I believe that there are powers in statute eventually for Ministers to take over if voluntary regulation turns out not to be right. However, it is much too soon to judge. Action has been taken very quickly by Board of Trade inspectors under the present system. They are in the process of establishing the facts. Indeed, if the right hon. Gentleman thought about it, he might agree that it is as well to establish the facts before drawing any conclusions.
§ Mr. HanleyMy right hon. Friend has shown her great concern for those most in need by acting swiftly to help to provide the additional heating allowance. Does she not therefore utterly condemn the actions of staff at the main post office in East Sheen in my constituency in closing their doors for the past five working days because, they claim, it is too cold to work? They have thereby locked out claimants, including pensioners, thus ensuring that they cannot cash their benefit cheques. As a result, those people cannot buy food or fuel——
§ Mr. SpeakerBriefly.
§ Mr. HanleyThose people are therefore having to trudge in the snow and slush to sub post offices that are prepared to open.
§ The Prime MinisterMy hon. Friend has made his point very effectively. However, we would all wish to praise and thank those who have gone to work, despite the difficult circumstances. They have been determined to carry on with their jobs and to get medical help, supplies or cash to those who need them. Perhaps that serves to highlight those who have not made such efforts.
§ Dr. OwenIn view of the widespread concern about the young single homeless, which will go on long after the cold weather snap, will the Prime Minister reconsider the board and lodging regulations as well as the possibility of giving special help to local councils for emergency programmes 406 to help young people? It is no answer to say that council houses are still standing vacant, because under the Act councils do not have responsibility for the young single homeless. There is a major gap in our social provision, and some action would be very welcome.
§ The Prime MinisterI think that it is an answer to say that there is a good deal of council house property standing vacant. If housing is not being used, it could obviously be put to use for homeless families. It is because the right hon. Gentleman knows that that is an answer that he tried to avoid it in his question.
§ Sir Peter TapsellWill my right hon. Friend please bear in mind that although the existence of a statutory body in the form of the Securities and Exchange Commission in the United States did not prevent the Boesky scandal, some of us have felt for some time that the increasing internationalisation of financial markets, with all the complexities and difficulties for national regulation that they bring, means that we should now look towards a statutory body to help with these matters?
§ The Prime MinisterIt is too soon to conclude that we should change the present system, which has been in operation for only a short time. As my hon. Friend knows, there is provision for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to take statutory powers. However, we should go further with the present system before we conclude that we should go to a statutory one.
§ Q2. Miss Maynardasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 15 January.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer the hon. Lady to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Miss MaynardDoes the Prime Minister agree that it is a scandal that, 15 months after her Government promised to review the case of the six men convicted of the Birmingham pub bombings, the Home Office still prevaricates? Does she further agree that nothing undermines the rule of law more than keeping innocent people in gaol because authorities do not have the courage to admit that they made a mistake? Will she reassure the House today that her Government are conducting a genuine investigation and not a cover-up?
§ The Prime MinisterMy right hon. Friend the Home Secretary continues to review that case carefully and will inform the House of his conclusions when he has reached them.
§ Q3. Mr. Neil Hamiltonasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 15 January.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. HamiltonIs there any country in which unmployment is falling faster than in the United Kingdom?
§ The Prime MinisterSuffice it to say that, on a seasonally adjusted basis, unemployment has fallen here for the fifth successive month. That is good news. We hope that that will continue, although we are bound to have problems. It is also good news that unemployment is falling in the north, the north-west, the west midlands and Wales. I hope that the whole House will welcome that news.
§ Q4. Mr. Norman Atkinsonasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 15 January.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. AtkinsonHas the Prime Minister seen this morning's report by the Royal Institute of Public Administration, which dubiously clears her of politicising the top echelons of the Civil Service? In view of that report and all the implications, together with the criticism that has been made of her decision not to allow civil servants to appear before Select Committees and truthfully answer questions without the permission of the Secretary of State, will she now reconsider her previous answer and allow civil servants the openness that is recommended in the report?
§ The Prime MinisterI do not wholly accept the underlying premise of the hon. Gentleman's question. The Select Committee asked how far civil servants could properly answer for their own conduct in a particular case. There are certain strong traditions in relation to that. I am sure that people would not wish to undermine those traditions or in any way to turn the House into a kind of conduct court when they have their own disciplinary procedure. With regard to what the Royal Institute of Public Administration said, we should pay tribute to the impartial administration and the traditions and standards of the Civil Service.
§ Mr. HaywardWill my right hon. Friend consider today the comments made recently by a senior political analyst on local radio in Bristol to the effect that the loony Left is damaging the Labour party, that the economy is in reasonable shape and that the Conservatives will win the next election? The senior political analyst concerned was the right hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Cocks).
§ The Prime MinisterThe point in that most excellent dissertation with which I wish to quarrel is that it is not the loony Left but the Left in power in local authorities. That is the way in which the present Labour party acts when in power.
§ Q5. Mr. Terry Davisasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 15 January.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. DavisAs the Prime Minister is so pleased with the latest unemployment figures, will she now confirm that the cumulative effect of the past five months has been to reduce the unemployment rate from 11.4 per cent. a year ago to 11.3 per cent. in December? As she is so easily pleased with the figures, is she aware that my constituents think that it is because she does not really care?
§ The Prime MinisterHon. Gentlemen have been mouthing the phrase "people care", but we know that that is not the case from the record of Opposition Members on many social service issues and by the way in which they did not hesitate to reduce the value of pensioners' savings by inflation. I would have hoped that the hon. Gentleman would be pleased that unemployment has fallen for the fifth month running and that over 1 million more jobs have been created in the past three years. That is a good record and the prospects for the economy look good for the coming months.
§ Q6. Mr. Thurnhamasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 15 January.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. ThurnhamWill my right hon. Friend take time during her busy day to observe how the number of building society depositors has increased since she came to power? Does she agree that those 28 million investors set a good example of thrift and that their savings would be whittled away by the inflationary policies advanced by Opposition Members?
§ The Prime MinisterYes. The number of building society investors has increased enormously. It is part of the wider distribution of property in terms of housing, personal savings and possibly shares. That is part of the Conservative party's and the Government's fundamental philosophy. I wholly agree with my hon. Friend that under this Government savers, who are so important because without savings we do not have the means of the investment that we wish to see, have had a good deal and will continue to do so, and that under a Labour Government they would have a very bad deal because of the Labour party's inflationary policies, which would rob the savings of their value.