QUANGOS
Q1. Mr. Ioan Evans
asked the Prime Minister what action she proposes to take on the “Report on Non-Departmental Public Bodies.”
The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher)
As I told my hon. Friend the Member for Carlton (Mr. Holland) on 16 January, the Government endorse the proposals for the future set out in Sir Leo Pliatzky 's excellent report. I have set in hand the steps necessary to implement them.
Mr. Evans
Does the right hon. Lady agree that, despite the propaganda about quangos put out by the Conservative Party before the general election, this report fully justifies the good public work done by the people serving on these nominated bodies? In view of the fact that many thousands of people give their services free, will the right hon. Lady pay tribute to their work and ensure that these bodies have the public funds they need to perform their tasks—especially the NEB and the Scottish and Welsh Development Agencies—thus minimising the untold damage inflicted by this Government's economic and financial policies?
The Prime Minister
I think that what the report did was to show that a large numbers of quangos can be weeded out, and were, in fact, terminated, with a saving of about 3,700 appointments and, in the end, a good deal of money. The report also showed that a number of other quangos must continue and I gladly pay tribute to the people who work in those.
Mr. Marks
Is the Prime Minister aware that the abolition of the Clean Air Council will be considered by many as evidence that the Government do not propose to do much about air pollution in the next few years? Is the right hon. Lady aware that for £15,000 a year the Government received a great deal of expert advice and work? Will she tell her right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to take that clause out of the Local Government, Planning and Land (No. 2) Bill?
The Prime Minister
No, Sir. It is a mistake to think that we need to have [column 1554]an advisory council on everything to get Government to take action. Sometimes such bodies can slow it down.
PRIME MINISTER
(ENGAGEMENTS)
Q2. Mr. Freud
asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 31 January.
The Prime Minister
This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet. In addition to my duties in this House. I shall be having further meetings with ministerial colleagues and others.
Mr. Freud
Between her meetings I wonder whether the Prime Minister would care to drive down Ebury Bridge Road and to try, if she can, to enter a building marked “P.O./T.H.Q. O.P.D/E.D.D.” so that she can tell the House exactly what is going on?
The Prime Minister
The answer is “No, Sir.” I have nothing to add to the excellent replies given earlier by my right hon. Friend William Whitelawthe Home Secretary on this matter.
Sir Graham Page
Having regard to the report that yesterday in Cheshire a lorry driver was struck in the face by a stone thrown from a picket line, will my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister take the opportunity today to confirm the excellent statement by the Secretary of State for Employment on television last night, in which he said that tougher proposals would be brought forward to control picketing? Will she confirm that that is Government policy?
The Prime Minister
I think that my right hon. Friend James Priorthe Secretary of State for Employment was last night referring to proposals that arose out of the judgement in the McShane case, its effect upon trade union immunities, and his intentions to bring forward proposals because he felt that trade union immunities went too wide at the moment. With respect to my right hon. Friend, I think that most of the proposals on picketing are already in the Bill as it stands.
Mr. Winnick
Are not the allegations on telephone tapping that are contained in the press reports disturbing? Is there not a need for the right hon. Lady to [column 1555]satisfy the House that there is effective political control over the security services?
The Prime Minister
I am happy to say that there is effective political control over the security services. I have made that clear in previous debates. There is also effective ministerial control over the subject of telephone interception.
Mr. Dover
Has the Prime Minister studied recent reports to the effect that there is a shortage of staff in the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate, and is she worried that that may delay the recently announced nuclear programme? Will she arrange, if necessary, secondment of staff from other Departments?
The Prime Minister
As my hon. Friend knows, the work done by the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate is highly specialised. I was not aware that there was a shortage of staff. Its work is extremely important, and we would never go ahead with a particular nuclear power station or system without safety clearance from the inspectorate. I shall look into the points that my hon. Friend raises.
Mr. Robert Sheldon
Will the right hon. Lady assure us that telephones of right hon. and hon. Members are not tapped?
The Prime Minister
It is exactly the same practice that was announced under the Prime Ministership of the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson). All Governments have followed that practice since. There has been no change whatsoever.
NUCLEAR SECURITY
Q3. Mr. Dalyell
asked the Prime Minister what discussions she has had with Chancellor Schmidt on security arrangements at the Joint Centrifuge Centre, at URENCO Almelo, Holland, run by Great Britain, West Germany and Holland, in the light of the Khan incident, involving nuclear proliferation in the Arab world.
The Prime Minister
None, but we remain in close touch with the German and Netherlands Governments about the follow-up to the Khan affair.
Mr. Dalyell
What assurances have the Germans given that they will do everything possible to stop their sophisticated [column 1556]industries from exporting items such as inverters, which make possible a nuclear capacity for developing countries?
The Prime Minister
I am not aware of any particular assurance given through the joint committee. The hon. Gentleman knows of the concern of all who are connected with the centrifuge enrichment plant there that there should be no repetition of previous events. We are four-square behind the nuclear non-proliferation agreement. We all genuinely and sincerely endeavour to carry out those duties in practice.
PRIME MINISTER
(ENGAGEMENTS)
Q4. Mr. Parry
asked the Prime Minister if she will list her public engagements for Thursday 31 January.
The Prime Minister
I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud).
Mr. Parry
Following yesterday's farcical meetings over our EEC budget contributions, are the Prime Minister and her ministerial colleagues aware that the increasing inflation and unemployment, together with further public spending cuts—estimated at £2 billion, and said to be coming from present allocations—mean that the Government are heading for the biggest confrontation with the trade union and Labour movement since the war?
The Prime Minister
Certainly not. I do not accept the premise in the hon. Gentleman's question in any way. With regard to the question that I at first thought that he was asking, concerning yesterday's meeting with Signor Cossiga, if that was his question, my reply is that it was not disastrous in any way. The European Community is moving towards our position——
Mr. Kilroy-Silk
Where is the community moving?
The Prime Minister
The European Community is moving towards our position, but I made it perfectly clear that it is not moving far enough or fast enough for my liking.
Mr. James Callaghan
I am sure that we all hope that the right hon. Lady [column 1557]is right when she says that the European Community is moving towards our position, but is it the case that we are moving towards the Community's position? In other words, has the right hon. Lady now departed from the statement that she made to the House, namely, that she is insisting on a broad balance between our payments and receipts?
The Prime Minister
I cannot change the answer that I have given to this question many, many times since we returned from Dublin. We seek a genuine compromise, but we have very little room for manoeuvre. I have used that phrase and will continue to use it because it is true.
Mr. Callaghan
Would the right hon. Lady now care to answer the question? Has she moved from her position or is she moving?
The Prime Minister
I have, indeed, answered the right hon. Gentleman. He was very, very critical of the approach that I adopted in Dublin. The approach that I adopted in Dublin was that I would not be palmed off with some £350 million.
Mr. Callaghan
Is the answer “Yes” or “No” ?
The Prime Minister
The answer, if the right hon. Gentleman cannot hear, is that at the end of Dublin I said that the position that we adopted was one of genuine compromise but that we had little room for manoeuvre. If the right hon. Gentleman had not left me such an awful problem, we should not have to be considering it right now.
Mr. Temple-Morris
Is my right hon. Friend aware that the whole country, if not the whole House, is entirely behind her in her efforts to reduce our EEC contribution? Is she further aware that she is admired for not coming back from Dublin pretending that she had some hollow victory? Does she agree that her case would be far stronger if she had the support of the Opposition?
The Prime Minister
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. If I may say so, I believe that some of my European colleagues were a lot more shaken than I was.
Mr. David Steel
Will the Prime Minister confirm that she intends to intervene [column 1558]in the dispute between the Department of Trade and the Department of Industry over the possible awarding of contracts for a new air traffic control systems for this country to the United States? Is she aware that, if that happens, it will not only mean redundancies for workers in this country but the possible future loss of exports? In comparing the competitive bids from Britain will she bear in mind that the Americans have enjoyed State funding in research and development?
The Prime Minister
No. I do not intend to intervene. The chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority is the person who is responsible for its operation and the security of air traffic control. I must leave it to him.
Mr. McCrindle
Since there is no monopoly on the collection and delivery of newspapers or the collection and delivery of parcels, has the Prime Minister had time today to consider whether these remains a justification for a monopoly on the collection and delivery of letters?
The Prime Minister
I believe that what my hon. Friend is saying is that where there is a monopoly that is a bad bargain for the public, that results in very high prices without commensurate service I agree with my hon. Friend. [Hon. Members: “Gas.” ] The Post Office's prices are going up today. Nationalised industries with a monopoly are a bad bargain for the consumer, and I hope that one day we shall be able to remove that monopoly.
Mr. Donald Stewart
Will the Prime Minister say why she did not adhere to her principle of non-intervention in the case of the gas industry? Since the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that pay awards would be based on the successful running of industries, what figure does she have in mind for the substanial increases due to the workers in the industry?
The Prime Minister
It is surely right where public money is involved, to set a reasonable rate of return on public money. I wish that there were more nationalised industries from which we received a reasonable rate of return instead of having a very large number that take out of the pool of wealth that this country creates.
[column 1559]Mr. Emery
Will my right hon. Friend find time today to consider the growing demand from a majority of people in this country that an individual and his dependants should not be kept by the taxpayer when he is on strike? What measure will she introduce to fulfil the pledge given in our manifesto to bring that about?
The Prime Minister
At present we have no particular proposals to bring forward, but we should clearly understand that a person is primarily responsible for keeping his family. We expect him fully to discharge that duty. Equally, we expect trade unions, when they bring people out on strike, to make some contribution to their income during that period.
Q5. Mr. Flannery
asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 31 January.
The Prime Minister
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave earlier to the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud).
Mr. Flannery
In view of the steadily deteriorating industrial situation, may I ask whether the Prime Minister has turned her mind recently to the iniquitous industrial Relations Act of the last Tory Government? Does she remember the jailing of the five dockers, when the Official Solicitor had to step in and do something about that matter? When will the right hon. Lady do something about the steel workers, in view of Lord Denning 's judgement? Does she not realise that the entire trade union movement is ready to fight back if she tries to hamstring them by the laws that she is trying to introduce against them? Should not the right hon. Lady do something to bring the situation to fruition?
The Prime Minister
I am more concerned with the present Employment Bill which, I believe, has the support of the vast majority of trade unionists in the country—even though that fact does not suit the hon. Gentleman. As the hon. Gentleman knows, leave to appeal to their Lordships' House against the Denning judgment was granted this morning.