PRIME MINISTER
Engagements
Q1. Mr. John Browne
asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 1 March.
The Prime 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 the House, I shall be having further meetings later today, including one with the National Pensioners Convention.
Mr. Browne
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the security situation in the Gulf is deteriorating rapidly, with the likelihood of the gravest consequences for the world in general? Will she assure the House that Her Majesty's Government are taking firm steps to ease this situation by working through the United Nations, and that she is working closely co-ordinating intelligence, planning and actions with our allies, in particular with the United States of America?
The Prime Minister
I share my hon. Friend's concern about the situation in the Gulf. We are working closely [column 387]with the United States and with our other allies on this matter, and we are also supporting efforts of mediation, especially those made by the Secretary-General of the United Nations.
Mr. Steel
Is the Prime Minister aware of the conspicuously evasive answers given on Tuesday by the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, in the other place, about the removal of certain documents relating to the Falklands from the Public Records Office? Will she accept that, now that the Argentine has returned to democracy, open and informed discussions on the future of the Falklands is surely in order? Will she look into this and see that these historic documents are put back as soon as possible?
The Prime Minister
I think that the right hon. Gentleman will find that a number have been put back, or are about to be put back.
Sir Anthony Meyer
Is my right hon. Friend aware that she has the admiration of the nation for the courage and determination with which she won a great victory at Cheltenham, in its way no less significant than the victory she won in the south Atlantic? Does she agree that the fruits of both victories are more likely to endure if she now shows a spirit of conciliation towards the vanquished in both those conflicts?
The Prime Minister
The decision at GCHQ was urged upon us by the management of GCHQ. It was very welcome for some. I realised that it caused difficulties for others, and I am very grateful to the overwhelming majority who have now signed their forms at GCHQ, numbering well in excess of 90 per cent.
Mr. James Hamilton
Will the Prime Minister take further time today to reflect upon the decision that her Government took at GCHQ and, if she will not take note of what has been said from the Labour Benches and from the TUC, will she take note of the many Conservative Members who have disagreed with her policy on GCHQ, particularly her right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), who obviously disagreed with the action taken by the Government?
The Prime Minister
I had hoped that I had answered the hon. Gentleman's question in my reply to the last question. There were differing views. I realised that it caused some difficulties for some people at GCHQ, and I am grateful to them for signing the forms as they have done. I believe that the decision was right.
Q2. Mr. Hoyle
asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 1 March.
The Prime Minister
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
Mr. Hoyle
In between her engagements, has the Prime Minister noted that seasonally adjusted unemployment has increased by 28,600 while the Government are receiving £900 million a month in tax from oil revenues? Why does she persist with a policy of paying people to be unemployed instead of using oil revenues to create jobs by investing in public works and British industry? Does she realise that these policies of waste will be decisively rejected by the electors of Chesterfield today?
The Prime Minister
I agree that the unemployment figures are disappointing. The seasonally adjusted figures [column 388]have increased while the raw figures have diminished. The Government take extensive special measures to try to alleviate the problem. We cannot spend the oil revenue twice over. It is already being spent either on current expenditure or capital expenditure, and a good deal of it is being used to help the creation of small businesses. About 300,000 people a month go off the unemployment register—[Hon. Members: “How many go on?” .] I was about to give that precise figure. I am so grateful to Labour Members for asking the question. Between January and February, 336,000 people became unemployed while 346,000 were leaving unemployment.
Mr. Montgomery
Did my right hon. Friend note that during the day of protest on Tuesday no meals on wheels were delivered in the London borough of Southwark, funerals were jeopardised and there was serious disruption at the Glasgow royal infirmary? Does she agree that it is disgraceful that the elderly, the sick and the bereaved should suffer in this way? Is this not another example of militant trade unionists' inhumanity to man?
The Prime Minister
Yes. I thought that those who went on strike on Tuesday hit out at members of the public who were entirely innocent. It was they who suffered, whether the travelling public or those who rely on meals on wheels or social services. I thought it was very bad that the Labour party, which prides itself on compassion, backed the strike.
Mr. Kinnock
On the subject of man's—or should I say woman's—inhumanity to man or woman, I understand that the Prime Minister is meeting a deputation from the National Pensioners Convention this afternoon. When she sees Mr. Jack Jones and his colleagues, will she be undertaking to scrap the fuel price increases and the housing benefit cuts?
The Prime Minister
No.
Mr. Kinnock
Is that not disgraceful when, a few moments ago, the Prime Minister, on behalf of the Conservative party, made claims to humanity, especially when we bear in mind that if the Prime Minister had not got rid of the link between pensions and earnings a single pensioner would be £1.25 a week better off and a pensioner couple would be £2.50 better off? When will she stop filching from the pensioners in this way?
The Prime Minister
Housing benefit costs about £3.7 billion a year. It goes to 7 million households including, after the adjustment, 3.65 million pensioner households. The special fuel allowance costs about £360 million and about £200 million of that provision goes to pensioners. Both figures are vastly in excess of any record achieved by the Labour Government.
Mr. Kinnock
In many, many respects what the Prime Minister alleges is not true—[Hon. Members: “Oh.” ]—in making her comparisons with the previous Labour Government. Does she think that the National Pensioners Convention would be seeing her this afternoon, demonstrating in London, or constantly urging upon all hon. Members that larger pensions are needed, if what she provides was anything like enough?
The Prime Minister
I am not quite sure which figures the right hon. Gentleman is challenging and I doubt whether he knows, either. The proposals of the National Pensioners Convention for pension increases would cost [column 389]over £15 billion a year. That would add £24.30 a week to national insurance contributions for those on average male earnings. The right hon. Gentleman is usually taking me to task for increasing the national insurance contribution, and now he is proposing to increase them for the working population by an intolerable amount. Does he challenge any of those figures?
Sir Paul Bryan
Is my right hon. Friend aware that later today the Minister with responsibility for sport will answer questions about the entirely predictable behaviour of our so-called soccer fans? Will she say for how many more years our neighbours on the Continent must suffer violence to their people and cities and for how long we must suffer this disgrace before the Government take direct responsibility at the highest level to end this shameful position?
The Prime Minister
The Government and, I believe, right hon. and hon. Members of all parties would condemn the appalling behaviour of a small minority of the visitors to France, who disgraced our country's name abroad. Neil MacfarlaneMy hon. Friend will reply later. He took an initiative after previous incidents in Luxembourg, and special measures were taken this time to ensure that such events did not recur. Clearly, they were not successful. My hon. Friend is in touch with the French Minister for sport and is requesting a full report of the incident. He will also meet the chairman and secretary of the Football Association tomorrow afternoon to discuss the matter. We must all make strenuous efforts to ensure that these appalling incidents do not occur again.
Q3. Mr. Alton
asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 1 March.
The Prime Minister
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
Mr. Alton
If Liverpool city council brings in an illegal rate, will the Government use their powers of direction under section 22 of the Local Government Finance (No. 2) Act 1982 to command that an extraordinary audit takes place? Does the Prime Minister agree that the problems of the city are made worse by the cuts in rate support grant—about £140 million—since the late 1970s? Does she agree that threats of violence and rioting will do nothing to enhance the image of Liverpool, but will drive investment and jobs from the city?
The Prime Minister
I wholly agree with the hon. Gentleman with regard to the last part of his question. Threats of violence do not help Liverpool. Indeed, they do Liverpool and the name of Liverpool great damage. I hope that nothing further will be heard about them and that nothing further will be done. With regard to what Liverpool might do, no illegal rate has been made. I hope that it will not be made, because the consequences of such action would be serious for services, the people of Liverpool and the councillors. I hope that more moderate and responsible opinion in the council will prevail, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will use his influence to that end.
[column 390]Sir Peter Emery
Will my right hon. Friend today consider making a new approach to the Soviet Union to see whether an initiative to work for world multilateral disarmament can be started? Could she build on the success of her visits behind the iron curtain to make the Soviet Union understand that, while we are determined to remain strong, equally we wish to do everything we can to work for world disarmament?
The Prime Minister
I appreciate my hon. Friend's concern, which all hon. Members share because we all wish to see a reduction in the amount spent on armaments. We want to see disarmament take place in a balanced and verifiable way. We are more likely to achieve success at the several disarmament talks if we try to get greater general understanding between the Soviet bloc and the Western Alliance. That is what we are striving to do. Meanwhile, discussions continue at the Stockholm conference, which is a valuable forum.
As my hon. Friend will know, we have made proposals about chemical warfare. We have destroyed all our chemical weapons and are urging the Soviet Union to take a more active role in reducing its chemical weapons. We would like to ban them altogether.
Q4. Dr. Marek
asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 1 March.
The Prime Minister
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
Dr. Marek
Does the Prime Minister accept that the first report of the Select Committee on Energy for 1983–84 is openly contemptuous of Government economic policy on heating costs? Does she accept, with her hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Montgomery), that it is disgraceful that old people should suffer in that way? Instead of coming to the House with facts and figures about what the Labour Government did, and with selective figures that purport to show what she may or may not have done for old-age pensioners, will she go back to the Cabinet and ensure that the aged and the infirm can afford to pay for gas and electricity?
The Prime Minister
I can understand why the hon. Gentleman does not wish me to give facts and figures about the Labour Government's record, but of course I shall do so. This Government increased the price of domestic electricity by 2 per cent. for the first time for two years, compared with the Labour record of a 2 per cent. increase every six weeks.
Mr. Hirst
Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Council for Social Democracy in Scotland recently produced a policy proposal on devolution that called for the abolition of the Secretary of State for Scotland? Does she agree that such a step would deny Scotland an effective and influential voice in the Cabinet and in national and international affairs?
The Prime Minister
Yes, wholeheartedly. I cannot have my right hon. Friend George Youngerthe Secretary of State for Scotland abolished.