Engagements (Hansard, 4 July 1989)

§ Q1. Mr. James Lamond
To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 4 July.

§ The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher)
This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

§ Mr. Lamond
Is the right hon. Lady aware of the divided families campaign which is concerned with the plight of a very large number of immigrant families who for nearly two decades now have been refused permission for their spouses and families to join them in Britain? Now, through the new DNA fingerprint tests, they can prove without a shadow of a doubt that those people are their families, yet they are still being refused permission to join their families in Britain. Should not something be done by the right hon. Lady to right that injustice, or will she have a nasty taste in her mouth every time she speaks of her concern for family life in Britain?

§ The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman is aware that immigration into this country, including some of those people who have been waiting for a considerable time, is of the order of 40,000 to 50,000 a year. That is as many as we can possibly cope with.

§ Q2. Mr. Sumberg
To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 4 July.

§ The Prime Minister
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

§ Mr. Sumberg
Will my right hon. Friend send a message of sympathy to the hard-pressed rail and tube travellers who will undergo yet another strike tomorrow? Will she join me in condemning the union leadership that has inflicted this inconvenience on the public? Does she agree that as in previous public sector disputes, the total and complete silence of the Leader of the Opposition makes him the strikers' friend?

§ The Prime Minister
I agree with my hon. Friend. The unions have given no thought to the general public. My hon. Friend is aware that the Government are taking practical steps to help the public get to work tomorrow. Of course the dispute is for the management and unions to resolve, but I believe that three points should be absolutely clear. First, the National Union of Railwaymen and not British Rail has broken the 1956 agreement by refusing to use the established negotiating machinery to settle the question of basic pay. I note that at least one other union has honoured that agreement. Secondly, the British Railways board has offered to meet the NUR at any time and any place to resolve the other outstanding issue—the negotiating machinery. Thirdly, despite the NUR's advertising, the small print makes it absolutely clear that it will not negotiate without pre-conditions.

§ Mr. Kinnock
Will the Prime Minister constructively and immediately assist in efforts to resolve the rail dispute—first, by strongly encouraging both sides to go hack to the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service to 149 discuss all the matters in dispute and, secondly, by stopping those of her interventions that are intended, for obvious partisan reasons, to inflame conflict?

§ The Prime Minister
I note that the right hon. Gentleman has no thought whatsoever for the travelling public. [Interruption.] Had he listened to my previous reply, he might have found most of the answers to his question. This is a dispute for the management of British Rail and the unions to resolve. With regard to pay, there is a 1956 agreement under which, before industrial action is taken, there should be recourse to the railway staff national tribunal. The NUR has broken that agreement on pay. That tribunal will sit tomorrow and the Transport Salaried Staffs Association is going to it. With regard to negotiating machinery, British Rail has offered to meet the NUR at any time and any place, including ACAS, to try to resolve the other outstanding issues. The NUR is setting pre-conditions to meeting British Rail, which is totally contrary to the 1956 agreement. It should go to ACAS without pre-conditions.

§ Mr. Kinnock
If the Prime Minister really wants to help rail users, will she come back to the real world of the present and deal with the issue in hand? It must be clear, even to the Prime Minister, that this dispute can be urgently resolved if both parties go to ACAS to discuss all the issues. I urge both parties to do just that. Will she urge them to do that, in the national interest?

§ The Prime Minister
The National Union of Railwaymen—[Interruption.]

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The Prime Minister must be given a chance to answer.

§ The Prime Minister
As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, there is a 1956 agreement—[Interruption.] Yes. Clearly, Labour does not believe in keeping its agreements. There is a 1956 agreement under which, before there is any—[Interruption.]

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. We must be able to hear the Prime Minister.

§ The Prime Minister
Before there is any industrial dispute, there is a 1956 agreement under which pay should be resolved by using the established negotiating machinery to settle the question of basic pay. The National Union of Railwaymen has broken that agreement. Another union has accepted it and is going to the tribunal to use its services. British Rail has said that it will meet the NUR at any time and any place to try to resolve the outstanding issues on negotiating machinery, but not with preconditions such as that which the NUR has set.

§ Mr. Kinnock
If the Prime Minister will not act responsibly and do her duty as she should—[Interruption.]—will she at least stop being irresponsible and accept the common-sense argument put by The Daily Telegraph this morning that to "outlaw strikes" in public services would be an indefensible attack on the employee's liberty to withhold … labour and would be 'unBritish' and could have no place in a polity founded upon freedom"? Or does the Prime Minister think that the civil right of free trade unionism should stop the other side of the Polish border?

§ The Prime Minister
Why does the right hon. Gentleman not have a flash of responsibility for once, and condemn the strike? Why does he not ask the National Union of Railwaymen to go to arbitration, which is where they should go and to settle their claim that way, and support the travelling public for once?