Speeches, etc.

Margaret Thatcher

House of Commons PQs

Document type: Speeches, interviews, etc.
Venue: House of Commons
Source: Hansard HC [39/1011-16]
Editorial comments: 1515-1530.
Importance ranking: Major
Word count: 2325
Themes: Education, Higher & further education, Monetary policy, Privatized & state industries, Energy, Taxation, Foreign policy (Americas excluding USA), Foreign policy (Central & Eastern Europe), Housing, Law & order, Race, immigration, nationality
[column 1011]

PRIME MINISTER

Coal Industry

Q1. Mr. Eggar

asked the Prime Minister if she will make a statement on the future of the coal industry.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher)

There is an excellent future for the coal industry provided that it can tackle its fundamental problems and produce coal at a competitive price. Our proven coal reserves will last 300 years at present rates of extraction.

Since we took office the taxpayer has given the industry more than £1,600 million in grants and approved more than £3,000 million in capital investment.

The Selby coalfield is expected to start production in the next few weeks and should achieve productivity levels that are five times the present national average. I also [column 1012]welcome Nigel Lawsonmy right hon. Friend's decision on Asfordby. It removes an obstacle to new investment and new jobs in the mining industry.

Mr. Eggar

Does not my right hon. Friend's answer show that the Government have stuck rigidly by their obligations under “Plan for Coal” ? Is it not unfortunate that Mr. Scargill and the National Union of Mineworkers have agreed to less than one third of the proposed closures in “Plan for Coal” ? Is it reasonable to expect the taxpayer to go on subsidising the coal industry to that extent if the union is not prepared to honour its undertakings?

The Prime Minister

My hon. Friend is quite right. There were two parts to “Plan for Coal” which was published in 1974. One part concerned investment, which the Government have more than honoured, the other was an agreement that exhausted capacity should be closed at about the rate of 3 million tonnes a year. So far, such capacity has been closed at a rate of only 1 million tonnes a year and the productivity expectations have yet to be fulfilled.

Mr. Norman Atkinson

Is the Prime Minister aware that it is suggested that there is a contractual arrangement between the National Coal Board and Mr. MacGregor by which Mr. MacGregor, in return for offering some 5,000 hours of work, will receive a payment of £1.5 million, which seems to work out at about £5 a minute? Does the Prime Minister consider that to be above or below the going rate for the job?

The Prime Minister

I have, as yet, no statement to make about Mr. MacGregor. One will be made as soon as possible. The figure that the hon. Gentleman mentioned is about the same as the losses of the Coal Board per day.

Sir Bernard Braine

Since my right hon. Friend returned from her successful mission for our country——

Mr. Speaker

Order. I ought to remind the hon. Gentleman that this question is about the coal industry. It is not an open question.

Mr. Latham

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Government's decision about Asfordby has been widely welcomed locally and that we must now get on to sort out environmental problems?

The Prime Minister

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I believe that the decision takes full account of the environmental problems and the need to provide new jobs. It is the best decision under all the circumstances.

Dr. Edmund Marshall

Will the Prime Minister initiate a full-scale top-level inquiry into the future of Thorne colliery in my constituency, where the recommencement of coal production would provide many jobs in an area which the right hon. Lady knows is an unemployment black spot? Is she aware that I received a letter today from the chairman of the NCB saying that the underground redevelopment of that colliery has come to a full stop and that one of the reasons for that is the constraint on capital expenditure available to the board?

The Prime Minister

Where investment goes and into which collieries is a matter for the National Coal Board. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, this Government's record in providing new investment for coal exceeds that of the Labour Government and is quite excellent.

[column 1013]

Pratt 's Bottom

Q2. Mr. Stanbrook

asked the Prime Minister if she will pay an official visit to Pratt's Bottom.

The Prime Minister

I have at present no plans to do so, although I know Pratts Bottom well because I used to live within walking distance. Will my hon. Friend please give my warm regards to the people there?

Mr. Stanbrook

Is my right hon. Friend aware that her reply, notwithstanding her good wishes, will be deeply disappointing to the villagers of Pratt's Bottom? Is she aware that they seek an early opportunity to express to her their appreciation of the benefits of the Budget—[Interruption.]—in which they are keenly interested, especially the raising of the tax threshold and the further relief given to mortgagees?

The Prime Minister

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's warm and fully justified praise for Sir Geoffrey Howemy right hon. and learned Friend's Budget. I am especially grateful for his praise of the extra relief on mortgages. In the Greater London area, about 23 per cent. of first-time house purchasers, and about 30 per cent. of those not buying for the first time, have mortgage loans above the former tax relief limit. The extra relief is well deserved.

Mr. Christopher Price

Is the Prime Minister aware that, were she to visit Pratt's Bottom, she would be in P district of the Metropolitan police area and that, to get there, she would have to drive through my constituency down the Bromley road? Is she aware that if she happened to stop on Bromley road, get out of her car and talk to my constituents about the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill, she would find them enormously encouraged by the remarks of her right hon. Friend the Home Secretary from the Dispatch Box on Tuesday—when she was, unhappily, away—to the effect that the Government intend to withdraw two clauses from the Bill because they know that it will be rejected by the bishops and judges in the House of Lords? Will she tell us about the Government's exact intentions in respect of that Bill now that it has fallen into such contempt on both sides of the House?

The Prime Minister

My right hon. Friend William Whitelawthe Home Secretary has audibly dissented from the hon. Gentleman's interpretation of his remarks when I was away on Tuesday. The hon. Gentleman will accept that the Bill was based on the findings of a Royal Commission. He will also accept that we wish to fight crime with every possible legitimate weapon, and it is important that we should be denied neither the means of identification nor the means of proof for fighting those crimes.

Engagements

Q3. Mr. Heddle

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 24 March.

The Prime Minister

This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I shall be attending a dinner given by President Kaunda.

Mr. Heddle

Does my right hon. Friend agree that for far too long teacher training courses have contained too many irrelevant and spurious subjects such as sociology [column 1014]and psychology? Does she agree that the timely announcement earlier this week by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science will better equip teachers to teach children real subjects that will be of practical benefit to them in the real world? Will she undertake to bring forward the White Paper proposals as early as possible?

The Prime Minister

I welcome Sir Keith Josephmy right hon. Friend's White Paper on the training of teachers. There is an opportunity to improve teaching in our schools, to secure a match of teachers' qualifications with the shortage subjects, which is most important, and to assess what really matters, which is their competence in the classroom. Those things will be done and will be warmly welcomed in the country.

Mr. Foot

Perhaps the Prime Minister can help us by clearing up the confusion created by some answers that we heard earlier this afternoon from Treasury spokesmen about loans to Argentina. Can she confirm that talks on the legal conditions of the loan have proved difficult, as was reported in a newspaper a few days ago? Have those difficulties been created by the British Government because they are trying, at last, to lay down conditions about the expenditure of that money on arms?

The Prime Minister

I remember the right hon. Gentleman saying from that Dispatch Box that it was no earthly good trying to lay down such conditions, but his question now is completely different. We supported the loans from the IMF to Argentina on certain stringent conditions. There are two commercial loans to which different conditions apply. We supported the loans for two reasons. First, in the absence of either an IMF loan or commercial loans there was a possibility that Argentina would default. If it did so, it would have far more money to spend on arms than if it met the debt. [Interruption.] I am afraid that that is a fact of life. Furthermore, unless Argentina receives some help, it could default to third countries and, therefore, trigger off the collapse of the difficult and delicate packages that were agreed between the IMF and those countries. Therefore, it was in our interests to do what we did, both through the IMF and through the agreement of two commercial loans under different circumstances.

Mr. Foot

Does the right hon. Lady stand by her statement of 27 January that the money has not been lent for arms? Is it not the case that, under the plans that she is now apparently allowing to go ahead, the money may be spent on arms? Does she take account of the fact that, according to recent reports, up to £6 million of Argentina's £38 million foreign debt is believed to have been spent on defence? Is she aware that Argentina has greatly increased its arms supplies, some of which may have been paid for with British money?

The Prime Minister

The right hon. Gentleman has still not taken note of my first point. The alternative was that Argentina may default. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman may not like it, but if a country defaults on all its debts, much more money is released that could pay for arms than would have been the case if that country was held to repaying its debts. That is obvious.

Mr. David Steel

Has the Prime Minister had time to see the study by the Association for the Conservation of Energy, which suggested that 150,000 new jobs could be [column 1015]created in energy conservation? Is it not deplorable that the Secretary of State for Energy is suppressing the policy unit report from his Department? Will she ensure that the Select Committee on Energy receives a proper Government reply to this proposal?

The Prime Minister

I do not believe that 150,000 new jobs could be created in that way. There is already much conservation of energy in Britain, for good and obvious reasons. With the sharp increases in the price of oil, coal and electricity that we have had, people must insulate their houses and industrialists must introduce processes that require less energy and equipment that conserves energy to a much greater extent. That conservation has led to a substantial reduction in the use of energy in this country. There are special grants to old people to insulate their homes.

Sir Bernard Braine

Since my right hon. Friend's highly successful mission abroad for our country, has her attention been drawn to the deportation last week of a young Romanian, especially to the way in which he was forcibly returned, despite last-minute pleas from Members of Parliament? Is she further aware that he could not speak English when he first arrived here in April 1982, but that it was months before the British-Romanian Association was told of his existence and that that association believes [column 1016]his case? Is she also aware that there appears to have been no consultation with the Foreign Office, which knows about the conditions in iron curtain countries and which may even consider that there has been a breach of the international convention on refugees? Does not my right hon. Friend think that these circumstances warrant the most careful review and examination of what happened to ensure that it does not happen again?

The Prime Minister

I know that my hon. Friend feels very strongly about this.

Mr. Ennals

And the rest of us, too.

The Prime Minister

I read what my right hon. Friend William Whitelawthe Home Secretary said and noticed that at the outset he made the point that this country has an excellent record in awarding refugee status, and will continue to have an excellent record, as has been shown by our treatment of the Polish people who have come here since military law was declared in Poland. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said that, having looked carefully at the conditions of the case, he decided that it was not one for refugee status. I understand, and am advised, that refugee status should be limited to cases that meet the criteria set out in the United Nations convention on refugees. This particular case was considered in that light and apparently did not meet those criteria.