§ Q1. Mr. Tony Lloydasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 19 March.
§ The]'rime 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, including one with the Board of Deputies of British Jews.
§ Mr. LloydIn this week of tax handouts, will the Prime Minister turn her attention to the position of the Science and Engineering Research Council, which has cancelled new scientific research in British universities? Given the Government's responsibility for the shortfall in funding, will she look at the comments of Professor Strange of Kent university, who said:
The decision seems an extraordinary thing to coincide with a tax giveaway Budget.He warned that Britain will "lose scientists". Will the Prime Minister do something about this or, once again, will the nation's future be sacrificed for an electoral present?
§ The Prime MinisterGovernment spending on research and development is substantial and bears comparison with 1036 that of all advanced countries, as I have said before. United Kingdom Government-funded civilian research and development as a proportion of national output exceeds the level in Japan and the United States. Of course, there are many more people who would like more research on a particular project in which they are interested. How that money is allocated is decided not by Government but by the board which advised my right hon. Friend, the board of the research councils. Our overall record is a very good one.
§ Mr. Kenneth CarlisleDoes the Budget not reduce the tax burden of the average family by £3 a week? Is it not clear that the Labour party is pledged to claw back that £3? In reality, is it not a fact that to pay for their huge spending plans a Labour Government would have to raise taxes far higher?
§ The Prime MinisterYes, I agree with my hon. Friend. It is an extremely good Budget, extremely well balanced and highly responsible. It rightly gave a reduction in the standard rate of income tax, which will be of great use to the nearly 18 million people whose earnings are below average male earnings. The Labour party cannot trust people to spend their earnings in their own way.
§ Mr. KinnockIs the Prime Minister aware that the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor), has been reported as saying that despite the record levels of crime there will be no increase in police manpower until there is concrete evidence of an improvement in police performance? As recruitment by results would be a foolish way to determine efficient manning levels in the police foice, will the Prime Minister repudiate that view and direct the Home Office instead to establish what extra police and administrative manning levels are required to combat the 50 per cent. rise in crime under her premiership?
§ The Prime MinisterThe right hon. Gentleman has a short memory. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has announced increases in establishment for police forces, not only in London, but in other places all over the country. Those forces have not necessarily reached establishment figures yet, because they have to select people who are sufficiently advanced and sufficiently good to be properly trained to be policemen. So the basis of the right hon. Gentleman's question is incorrect.
§ Mr. KinnockCan the Prime Minister now tell us, since she refused to do so before, whether she agrees with Sir Kenneth Newman that one of the major causes of the serious rise in crime in recent years has been unemployment?
§ The Prime MinisterThe right hon. Gentleman must have run out of questions to ask. The identical question was asked on Tuesday when he was here. Let me give him the answer that I gave then.
It is a sad fact that the peak age of offenders is 15 years. That is below the school-leaving age".So that can have little to do with unemployment. I also said:Academic research has suggested that there is ne significant association between increases in recorded crime and increases in unemployment.My third point was:Unemployment involved a much bigger proportion of the working population in the 1930s"— [Official Report, 17 March 1987; Vol. 112, c. 812.]than it does now.1037 If the right hon. Gentleman's assumption had been correct there would have been a much higher rate of crime in the 1930s, but, in fact, the rate was lower.
§ Mr. KinnockIf the Prime Minister thinks that unemployment affects only the unemployed, she under-stands even less about unemployment than I thought. Is she aware that there is colliding evidence from academic researchers? There is also the view of practising police officers and common sense. Will she now tell us whether she agrees with Sir Kenneth Newman and other working policemen?
§ The Prime MinisterI have made my view clear. I will add one further factor. If the right hon. Gentleman were correct, countries which have very low rates of unemployment should have much lower rates of crime, but that is not the case.
§ Mr. LordDoes my right hon. Friend agree that the principal problem facing many of our inner cities is quite simply that they are controlled by extremist Socialist councils? Is it not the case that no amount of help from central Government will solve their problems as long as they are in the grip of people who have neither the will nor the ability to honour their obligations to the people they represent?
§ The Prime MinisterYes, I agree with my hon. Friend. A large number of Labour local authorities go out of their way to undermine the police and finance criticism of the police at public expense. I would also point out that under this Government there are now 15,700 more people working with the police— 10,000 more police officers and 5,700 more civilians—than in 1979.
§ Mr. DubsIs the Prime Minister aware that in the space of the 15 minutes during which she is answering questions today a total of 110 crimes will be committed in this country, and that it is simply no good her standing up week after week and saying, "Don't blame me, I'm only the Prime Minister"? The people of Britain are dissatisfied with her and she knows it.
§ The Prime MinisterWhat a pity that Opposition Members did not vote to refer lenient sentences to the Court of Appeal. What a pity that they did not vote to increase maximum sentences. They have abolutely no standing at all when it comes to criticising the record of this Government.
§ Q2. Mr. Gregoryasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 19 March.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. GregoryWill my right hon. Friend accept the grateful thanks of the nation and of the constituents of York, in particular, for the success of her Budget? Furthermore, will she comment on the latest expenditure plans as envisaged by the Labour party, the cost of which will amount to some £34,000 million and which would result in a penal basic rate of tax of 56p in the pound or value added tax of 49 per cent.?
§ The Prime MinisterI agree with my hon. Friend. The programme of the Labour party would land us with high borrowing, high taxation and bankruptcy in very short order. Our policies have, in fact, directed extra spending to particular targets such as education and the social 1038 services. They have cut down borrowing to what my right hon. Friend regards as a reasonable amount, I per cent. of GDP. They are policies which have also kept inflation down, which are producing more jobs and which are causing a substantial fall in unemployment. They are excellent policies for this country.
§ Q4. Dame Jill Knightasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 19 March.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Dame Jill KnightWill my right hon. Friend consider initiating proposals at the United Nations for the revision of the Vienna convention as it affects diplomatic status, so that those who claim diplomatic immunity may face prosecution when they break the laws of our land? Is she aware that there is strong resentment about the fact that these people avoid charges that others must rightly face?
§ The Prime MinisterI know the concerns that lie behind my hon. Friend's question, but I am advised that if we were to do so such a proposal would not win support from other Governments. The Government and the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs both concluded in 1985 that abuse of diplomatic immunity should be dealt with by stricter application of the existing provisions of the Vienna convention and not by amending it. We also have to remember that sometimes our diplomats serve in countries which have a very different legal system from ours. That must be taken into account.
§ Dr. OwenAs two former Home Secretaries believe that the fresh allegations about the deliberate campaign to destabilise the elected Government need investigation, as one of those former Home Secretaries has already made it clear that the investigation which took place in 1977 focused on electronic surveillance of No. 10, and in view of the Cabinet Secretary's possible role at the time, would it not be appropriate now for the Prime Minister to consult the former Prime Minister and consider jointly whether there should be an inquiry?
§ The Prime MinisterAs I have indicated, the then Prime Minister's statement in 1977 shows that he had made detailed inquiries into the allegations, in the plural, then current and had reached clear conclusions. The noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Rievaulx associated himself at the time with that statement.
§ Q6. Mr. McCrindleasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 19 March.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. McCrindleWill my right hon. Friend reaffirm that, much as we would all like to see cruise missiles reduced or even eliminated from the United Kingdom, there remains a special British interest to ensure that that does not happen in such a way as to affect adversely our security? Will she further note that the so-called concessions on cruise extended this week by the Labour party are merely a smokescreen? Does my right hon. Friend remain of the belief, as I do, that the Labour party remains wholly committed to unilateral nuclear disarmament?
§ The Prime MinisterI agree with my hon. Friend that, as the NATO communique pointed out, when we are 1039 negotiating on intermediate nuclear weapons there must also be taken into account the large number of shorter-range weapons which the Soviet Union has, and the proponderance of them. That has been the subject of communiques produced by NATO. I also agree with my hon. Friend that it would seem that the Leader of the Opposition simply could not bear going to the United States to defend his indefensible defence policy. Therefore, he has said that for the time being he would leave in cruise missiles. I understand that assumes that there will be a successful negotiation satisfactory to this country. But if there were not he would still take out cruise missiles and have a unilateral defence policy.
§ Q7. Mr. Soleyasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 19 March.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. SoleyIf the Prime Minister is genuinely concerned to increase respect for law and order, will she take this opportunity to comment on the activities of her hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Proctor) and his many supporters in the Conservative party— [Interruption.]
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The whole House knows that the hon. Member must not seek to reflect upon the conduct of any other Member of the House, except by way of motion.
§ Mr. SoleyIs it not a fact that it is the Government's double standards on law and order that make this Conservative Government unique, in not only presiding over the most dramatic rise in crime, but in presiding over a fall in the number of crimes cleared up, something that has been repeated only by a previous Conservative Government, between 1971 and 1974? Is that not the reason why the Government are in such a mess on law and order?
§ The Prime MinisterThe position on crime would have been infinitely worse had it not been for the positive policies of this Government to increase the numbers of police and the armed forces, to increase their pay and equipment and the number of civilian assistants, to have an active crime prevention policy, with a large number of neighbourhood watch schemes, and to support the police and the courts in their efforts to reduce the amount of crime.