Prime Minister (Engagements)
Q1. Mr. Michael Brown
asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 17 February.
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. Brown
Has my right hon. Friend considered with her ministerial colleagues the possibility of relocating the seat of government to the country of Humberside where the Conservative-controlled council has reduced the rates by 6p in the pound? Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity of congratulating the Conservative council there on its excellent record and perhaps give her view on Labour authorities that jack up the rates with a consequent loss of jobs and industrial opportunities?
The Prime Minister
I certainly take the opportunity of congratulating Humberside on being able to reduce its rates by 6p in the pound in spite of a reduction, I understand, in the rate support grant. I understand that Humberside has been very efficient in reducing the [column 132]numbers employed, mostly by natural wastage, not by redundancy. I understand that there has been a reduction of 3,000 by natural wastage. The county, nevertheless, has a very good pupil teacher ratio. It has a very good all-round record. I congratulate it.
Mr. Foot
Has the right hon. Lady had the chance today to apply her mind to the question of the growing coal crisis? While we are extremely grateful for the fact that the Government have abandoned the stance that they appeared to be taking on Tuesday and Thursday last week, against having the tripartite meeting for which I asked, does she not think it absurd that the country should have to wait until next Monday for that meeting to take place? Will she give orders that it should take place at once?
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend David Howellthe Secretary of State for Energy will be having a meeting with the National Coal Board and the National Union of Mineworkers. It was at first fixed for next Monday because it was thought that date was convenient to everyone. Since then, a message has come in with a request for a much earlier meeting. My right hon. Friend will be making a statement about it after questions. It is expected to take place tomorrow.
Mr. Foot
I thank the right hon. Lady once again for having agreed to the proposal which the National Union of Mineworkers put forward this morning, which it put forward yesterday, and to which the Government could have agreed. I thank the right hon. Lady. Will she now agree that all proposals from the National Coal Board or the Government will be held up until those conversations have taken place?
The Prime Minister
I imagine that tomorrow morning the area boards will carry on with their meetings with the areas. As one would expect, they took place yesterday, this morning, and are due to take place on Wednesday. They will need to do so to get the facts out about what their proposals are. I understand from the advice that I have received that there are far fewer pits to be closed than has been rumoured and, similarly, far fewer jobs to be lost than has been rumoured. It is absolutely vital that any talks should be conducted on the basis of the facts. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his thanks. It is a rare treat.
Mr. Montgomery
Has my right hon. Friend had time today to study the trade figures for January, which show a surplus of £957 million? Would she care to comment on them?
The Prime Minister
It is an excellent result and shows that our exports are very high—[Interruption.] It also shows that imports have declined. However, in the past three months, exports have increased in volume. We should congratulate all those in industry—both management and work force—on achieving that excellent result.
Mr. David Steel
Will the Prime Minister accept that most of us welcome the fact that the tripartite talks have been brought forward to tomorrow? Given the amount of the public sector borrowing requirement that is committed for redundancy pay and unemployment benefit, would it not be more fruitful to explore the National Coal Board's proposals for greater forward investment instead of considering greater expenditure on redundancy pay for coal miners?
The Prime Minister
The Government have honoured the “Plan for Coal,” which was produced in 1974. We are [column 133]particularly anxious that extra money should go into pits for the future. This year, investment amounts to about £800 million. The greater part of that amount comes from money that is supplied through the external finance limit, by taxpayers.
Q2. Mr. Neubert
asked the Prime Minister whether she will list her official engagements for 17 February.
The Prime Minister
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave a few moments ago.
Mr. Neubert
Can my right hon. Friend confirm today's reports that the public offer of 50 per cent. of the shares in British Aerospace was oversubscribed three and a half times, with many employee and small share applications? Why do not the Government sell off the remaining 50 per cent. of the shares and speed up the programme of denationalisation?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is right. The sale of shares in British Aerospace was oversubscribed by a factor of three. Approximately 40 per cent. of eligible employees applied for shares and an unusually large number of small applications—well over 100,000—were allocated in full. That augurs well for future issues of shares in nationalised industries. As regards my hon. Friend's second question, the shares were issued on the basis that the Government would retain a major shareholding. Therefore, there is no question of doing as my hon. Friend wishes, as retention of that major shareholding formed part of the understanding.
Mr. Alfred Morris
Will the Prime Minister reflect today on the fact that the Disabled Persons Bill—which has the support of 267 hon. Members—was blocked last Friday by those who sit on the Government side of the House? Does the right hon. Lady support the Bill? If not, why not?
The Prime Minister
Naturally, we all wish to do as much as we can for the disabled. The Government have increased a number of benefits—including the mobility allowance—by amounts that are far higher than the rate of inflation. Wishes and good intention are never quite enough. We must steadily try to improve the economy in order to make resources available. In the meantime, the disabled are affected by the number of professional people in the National Health Service. I should point out that the number of doctors in the National Health Service has increased by more than 2,000 and that the number of nurses has increased by more than 10,000.
Mr. Ashley
Answer the question.
Mr. John Browne
Will my right hon. Friend find time today to note that the Second Reading of the Armed Forces Bill showed—despite the free vote in this House to the contrary—that the Government apparently do recognise that the death penalty is a deterrent, at least in the Armed Forces? Will my right hon. Friend please reconsider extending that deterrent for the protection of the civilian section of the community? If not will she consider the proposal of a referendum on the subject?
The Prime Minister
There has always been a free vote on the death penalty. Indeed, in this Parliament there has already been a free vote on this subject. Given that free vote, the Government are unlikely to reopen the question.
Mr. Ford
Will the right hon. Lady find time today to study reports on the effective and orderly lobby that was [column 134]mounted yesterday by frustrated and angry textile workers? Do the right hon. Lady and her Government think that the textile industry is a strategic industry? Do the Government intend to maintain it as a viable industry?
The Prime Minister
The textile industry is extremely important. It employs well over 600,000, people and is a very big provider of jobs. Certain parts of the industry are very good at exporting. The multi-fibre arrangement will come up for renegotiation. The Government intend to pursue a vigorous new arrangement with the Commission.
Mr. Marlow
Is my right hon. Friend aware of the dastardly plan by the petrol monopolies to do away with the gallon in the fourth quarter of this year? As I know my right hon. Friend's instinct for popular feeling, may I ask her to do whatever she can to prevent that crime from being committed?
The Prime Minister
I am all in favour of the gallon, although I know that some people purchase petrol in accordance with a particular cash amount. However, I assure my hon. Friend that I am for the gallon.
Q4. Mr. Edwin Wainwright
asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 17 February.
The Prime Minister
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
Mr. Wainwright
With reference to the question asked earlier by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot), does not the Prime Minister realise that for several years pit closures have gone on at a steady pace? Does not the right hon. Lady realise that in the past six years about 46 closures have taken place? Why has the National Coal Board taken such rapid action to close pits? Did not the Government tell the NCB that it had to break even in 1982? Have they not compelled the NCB to take this action? If so, are not the Prime Minister and the Government responsible?
The Prime Minister
As the hon. Gentleman knows, pit closures have been going on for a number of years. In the past decade there have been, on average, eight pit closures per annum. In the previous decade, pit closures took place at the rate of 40 per annum. There is nothing new about pit closures. Many pits become geologically exhausted and have to be closed.
However, it is important to ensure a bright future for the coal industry, to honour “Plan for Coal” and regularly to invest large amounts in the future. I cannot over-emphasise the fact that the Government have honoured the “Plan for Coal.” This year, investment amounts to £800 million. We want to put as much money into the future of coal as we can.
National Economic Development Council
Q6. Mr. Renton
asked the Prime Minister when she next plans to take the chair at a meeting of the National Economic Development Council.
The Prime Minister
No further dates have yet been arranged.
Mr. Renton
In view of the need to compete with Germany and Japan, does my right hon. Friend think it is appropriate to have a forum in which British industry's [column 135]winners and losers in the years ahead can be discussed? If so, does my right hon. Friend think that NEDC is the best place for such discussion?
The Prime Minister
NEDC is concerned with much deeper economic factors. It is concerned with increasing the rate of productivity, investment and profitability. It tries to look ahead. It is useful that the Government, the CBI, financiers, banks and trade unions should be able to discuss such matters. In addition, the sector working parties draw attention to matters that affect particular industries. Their reports are particularly valuable and can alert us to things that need to be done.
[column 136]Mr. Peter Hardy
Does the Prime Minister realise that a few moments ago she was extremely complacent in her assessment of the balance of payments position? Does she not accept that one reason for those figures has been the virtual cessation of the purchase of essential raw materials by large sections of British industry? Does she not recognise that when the oil has gone there will be very little left in many areas of the United Kingdom?
The Prime Minister
I would not accept the hon. Gentleman's analysis. For years we were bedevilled by an adverse balance of payments. At the moment we have a very good balance of payments—one that countries such as West Germany envy.