PRIME MINISTER
Engagements
Q1. Mr. Montgomery
asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 22 November.
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.
Mr. Montgomery
Does my right hon. Friend agree that if a union calls its members out on strike, a strike [column 400]which can often cause great inconvenience and cost to the community at large, the responsibility for looking after those strikers should fall on the union responsible?
The Prime Minister
Yes, I agree. That is what was proposed in our 1979 manifesto, which was overwhelmingly endorsed and passed into law in the Social Security (No.2) Act 1980, under which deductions from benefit payable to strikers' families are made.
Mr. Hattersley
Did the Prime Minister hear the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) on the radio this morning admit that the Specified Sums Order 1984 will further reduce the real value—the purchasing power—of the social security payments that are made to the families of striking miners? What possible justification can there be for that gratuitously vindictive act? Does the Prime Minister still not realise that such callousness confirms our long-held view that she is less concerned with the waste and suffering of the miners' dispute than with the hope of scoring a cheap political victory?
The Prime Minister
If, in accordance with the Act, the NUM meets its obligations to the strikers, they will get the full benefit of the social security uprating because the NUM will provide the £16. The callousness and vindictiveness should be turned upon those in the NUM who are prepared to use the money for mob violence rather than for paying the miners.
Mr. Hattersley
Why does the Prime Minister continually pretend that this is necessary under the Act when the Act gives her powers to change the regulations and the payment? Secondly, if the right hon. Lady is so conscious and certain of the righteousness of her cause, why does she try to sneak the order through at the last moment rather than present it to the House properly? Indeed, to coin a phrase that she will remember from Question Time a week ago, why does she not have the guts to come down and explain it herself?
The Prime Minister
First, the point of the Act is that those who belong to trade unions are entitled to look to them for a part of their benefit while they are on strike. If the NUM carried out its obligations, those strikers would be receiving £16 next week. Secondly, the formula is contained in section 6(2) of the Social Security Act 1980. It is automatically applied every year, and has been every year since 1980. In 1980 the sum was £12. In 1981, by formula, it was £13; in 1982, by formula, £14.50; in 1983, by formula, £15 and in 1984, by automatic formula, £16. The right hon. Gentleman could have calculated that. As for explaining it, my right hon. Friend Norman Fowlerthe Secretary of State tried to, but was prevented from doing so by the rowdiest scenes that this House has ever seen, perpetrated by members of the right hon. Gentleman's own party. [Interruption.]
Mr. Hattersley
rose——
Mr. Speaker
Order. The Prime Minister gave a very detailed reply, and I shall call the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley).
Mr. Hattersley
I think that the right hon. Members who were shouting me down were complaining about noise in the House last night. Why does the Prime Minister persist in telling the House that she had no choice other than to implement the order in the way in which she chose to do? There are two sections within the Act which allow [column 401]her and the Government to vary the order if they so choose. However, she has not chosen to vary the order and, therefore, she must take direct responsibility for what happens in terms of suffering, hardship and bitterness.
The Prime Minister
A special regulation has to be brought before the House to alter the formula contained in that Act. Every single thing that the right hon. Gentleman says should be turned against the NUM for its callousness in not looking after its members and in calling them out on strike without a ballot and then refusing to give them any help during the strike.
Mr. Onslow
Since there can be no excuse or justification for the disgraceful exhibition that was staged last night by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) and some of Mr. Scargill 's other friends in this House, may I assure my right hon. Friend that you, Mr. Speaker, will have the full support of Conservative Members for whatever action you think necessary to protect the rights of my right hon. Friend's Government and the democratically elected majority that she represents?
The Prime Minister
Yes, Sir. The Government replied to a specific request from the Opposition to make a statement. The Government were then prevented—almost physically, I understand—from making that statement. I hope that the Opposition Front Bench will dissociate itself from the disgraceful scenes last night.
Dr. Owen
Would it not have been wiser if the Prime Minister, instead of rounding up the reduction from 75p to £1, had used section 6(3) of the Act to introduce regulations that would have meant an increase of £15.50? That would also have been in line with the increase introduced for supplementary benefit. [Interruption.] That would have been fair to the miners and would have demonstrated——
Mr. Rogers
Here is some money for the right hon. Gentleman. Here is an old threepenny bit—fewer sides than him.
Dr. Owen
There are some of us in this House who are going to be heard—[Interruption.]—despite——
Mr. Speaker
Order. The right hon. Gentleman is asking a question and has every right to be heard.
Dr. Owen
I have every right, just as the House has rights which were flouted last night, thus damaging reasoned debate. There is a real question here. [Interruption.] The Government could have been fairer to miners' families and miners themselves and shown greater sensitivity over this very delicate issue if they had increased—[Interruption.] No, Mr. Speaker. I shall not be harried by this mob.
Mr. Speaker
Order. This disorder is not fair to the House or to other hon. Members with questions on the Order Paper.
Dr. Owen
I shall stand until hell freezes over. I put it to the Prime Minister, in answer to a reasoned debate, that regulations to increase the deduction from £15 to £15.50 would have been fairer.
The Prime Minister
No. The formula under the Act was applied precisely. To change that formula would have required new regulations to be brought before the House. The formula was used this year, as it has been used every [column 402]year since 1980. I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would join me in expecting unions which call their members out on strike to have some obligation to pay them strike money—to pay them the amount which would otherwise be deducted.
Q2. Mr. Stern
asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 22 November.
The Prime Minister
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some minutes ago.
Mr. Stern
Does the Prime Minister agree that the disruption last night was disgraceful? Does she further agree that those concerned should apologise both to Mr. Speaker and to the House as a whole?
The Prime Minister
That would be a very nice way to end a very ugly incident.
Mr. Dormand
Does not the Prime Minister's continued refusal to answer the direct question, repeated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), demonstrate what a guilty conscience she has? Will she now say clearly that the Government have the power under the Act not to increase the needs allowance? May we have a straight answer? Is this not proof of the Government's main purpose, which is simply to break the NUM's power?
The Prime Minister
The figure given by Norman Fowlermy right hon. Friend arose from the precise application of the formula contained in the 1980 Act. If that formula is to be altered, secondary legislation must be brought before the House. The formula has been applied precisely every year since the Act was passed. The sum started at £12 a week. The same application of the formula has been published in the results every year. If the hon. Gentleman has any conscience, perhaps he will address it to the NUM and ask it to help its own people whom it called out on strike.
Q3. Mrs. Peacock
asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 22 November.
The Prime Minister
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some minutes ago.
Mrs. Peacock
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best way to provide a good Christmas for miners' families is for the miners to return tomorrow rather than for them to rely on hand-outs from local authorities such as Kirklees metropolitan authority?
The Prime Minister
Yes. Some local authorities are providing hand-outs and this is causing deep offence to many ratepayers. I agree that a return to normal and a return to work by the striking miners would be best for the industry, best for the families and best for the country. My right hon. and hon. Friends would all welcome that very much indeed.
Mr. Alfred Morris
How does the Prime Minister respond to the Irish Prime Minister's charge that she was “gratuitously offensive” ?
The Prime Minister
With total disagreement. I do not understand his comment in any way.
Q4. Mr. Greg Knight
asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 22 November.
[column 403]The Prime Minister
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
Mr. Knight
Is my right hon. Friend aware that Derbyshire county council has decided to recall all of its stationery, including school notepaper, at an estimated cost of £50,000 so that the slogan
“Derbyshire supports nuclear-free zones”
can be overprinted? Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is a disgraceful waste of public money? Is there not a case, in the interests of ratepayers and taxpayers, for increasing the list of those authorities which should be abolished?
The Prime Minister
I agree with my hon. Friend that that is a disgraceful waste of money. My hon. Friend made his point effectively in his question.
Mr. Eadie
The right hon. Lady has been hard put today to defend the indefensible—[Hon. Members: “No” .]—in relation to starving women and children as a consequence of her action. Since the right hon. Lady is [column 404]trying to get some mileage out of the matter of conduct in the House, I ask her to read the Adjournment debate that took place on Monday night. [Interruption.] Thirty Conservative Members came into the House, after a very good dinner, and during the whole of that debate tried to prevent my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) from making his speech. [Interruption.] Does the right hon. Lady endorse that conduct?
The Prime Minister
I am sorry that I did not hear the whole of the hon. Gentleman's question. Sometimes it is not easy to hear the whole of the questions against the background of noise. With regard to the amount that will be paid to the families of those on strike, even if the NUM does not pay them their £16, the facts are that some 85 per cent. of miners' families who are receiving supplementary benefit will have a net cash increase in their benefit, about 6,000 will have no change and only about 100 people are likely to receive less benefit. I shall read the Adjournment debate to which the hon. Gentleman referred.