PRIME MINISTER
Engagements
Mr. Spencer
asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 19 December.
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. Spencer
In view of the announcement by the board of Westland Helicopters that it intends to enter into [column 564]an agreement with Sikorsky-Fiat, will my right hon. Friend confirm that the position of the Government is as set out in the statement of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on Monday?
The Prime Minister
Yes, Sir. The future of Westland is a matter for the company to decide. The company's decision is a matter of commercial judgment for its directors and shareholders. That was the position set out by Leon Brittanmy right hon. and learned Friend, and that was the position reaffirmed by the Cabinet this morning.
Mr. Kinnock
It is something of a change for this matter to go before the Cabinet, or so it appears. Given the patently obvious views stated publicly by the Secretary of State for Defence and the Select Committee on Defence, does the Prime Minister really believe that the subjective preferences of a company are an adequate basis on which to determine important national defence interests?
The Prime Minister
Westland is a private sector public limited company. Its future is a matter for the company to decide, and the company's decision is a matter of commercial judgment for its directors and, ultimately, its shareholders. That is the position, and it was reaffirmed by the Cabinet this morning.
Mr. Kinnock
The Prime Minister said that the company was responsible to its shareholders. Is she not, as Prime Minister, responsible to the nation and for the proper welfare of the nation? Why is she not taking that into proper account, as the Secretary of State for Defence clearly believes she should? When the strategic, considered judgment of the Secretary of State for Defence is contrary to the view of a private company, why is she backing the company, not him?
The Prime Minister
I have informed the House of the position of the Cabinet this morning. The position of the Cabinet is the position of the whole Government.
Mr. Churchill
Has my right hon. Friend heard of a farce that is playing on the South Bank entitled “Robin Ratepayer and his Merry Ratepayers” ? Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is entirely appropriate that the leader of the Greater London council should play the star role in this production, for he and the other Marxist city henchmen of the Leader of the Opposition have been robbing ratepayers for years? Will she accept that the ratepayers of the metropolitan counties will be delighted when she rings down the curtain on this over-expensive production next March?
The Prime Minister
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I agree with his broad analysis. I believe that the GLC has taken in far more rates than it needs. There should therefore be a goodly amount to be returned to the district councils when the GLC is extinguished.
Mr. Tony Banks
At least there is still a sense of humour on the South Bank. Does the Prime Minister care that the Christmas present to 6,000 loyal GLC staff this Christmas will be their redundancy notices? In view of the misery and unhappiness that the right hon. Lady is causing to these people and to the 3.5 million people who are on the dole, does she think that she deserves a happy Christmas this year?
The Prime Minister
The decision to abolish the GLC was taken by Parliament. I did not hear the hon. Gentleman mention whether Labour councils will be [column 565]prepared to take on those extra people. The hon. Gentleman ought to remember that there were two years under a Labour Government when all pensioners received no Christmas bonus.
Sir Fergus Montgomery
During her busy day, will my right hon. Friend find time to consult the relevant Ministers about the disgraceful way in which the chief constable of Greater Manchester is being treated? Is she aware that yesterday the Labour party used its built-in majority on the police committee to censure this man for merely telling the truth? Is this not yet another example of the Fascist Left in this country pillorying decent public servants who refuse to kowtow to them?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes his point very cogently. I am sure he will understand that I cannot comment while that investigation is in progress.
Q4. Mr. Madden
asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 19 December.
The Prime Minister
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
Mr. Madden
Will the Prime Minister confirm that the city of Bradford has been earmarked to receive extra resources for urban renewal? Will she also confirm that the key to urban renewal lies in providing more money for new council housing and more money for home improvement grants? Finally, will she confirm that any new money will be given to the local councils concerned and not to a new range of unelected and unaccountable quangos?
The Prime Minister
I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman that the key to urban renewal lies solely with urban housing. The amount of money that has been spent on urban housing and the way in which it has been spent are two of the factors that have led to many of the problems.
Sir John Biggs-Davison
When Ulster is told that it may be rid of the Intergovernmental Conference when it accepts devolution, is legislative devolution and devolved government meant by devolution, or what is meant? Why do a Unionist Government pursue policies that tend to detach Northern Ireland from Great Britain?
The Prime Minister
I cannot accept the latter part of my hon. Friend's question. As he knows, I believe that Union will certainly continue under the Agreement, so long as there is a majority and the majority expresses that wish. Devolved government has to be in accordance with the agreement, which is one that is acceptable to the two traditions in Northern Ireland. As my hon. Friend is aware, there was, in legislation about the Assembly, a possible means of securing much more decision-taking through the Assembly, through the two communities, than is at present the case.
Dr. Owen
In view of the widespread disquiet in the country and in the City about the situation affecting Lloyd's, and in the light of what has happened to its chief executive, how do the Government justify not placing Lloyd's under the new market investing board? Will the Prime Minister consider this issue again and also the need for a full-time chairman of considerable independence and stature to supervise this aspect of the City's behaviour, which many people feel the present legislation is inadequate to cover?
[column 566]The Prime Minister
I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would be aware that Lloyd's had its own regulatory system and Act of Parliament, the Lloyd's Act 1982. It is too early to pass judgment on the effectiveness of the new regime. We believe that events at Lloyd's to which publicity had been given originated before the Act was passed, but we are keeping a close watch on events there and if it becomes necessary to take action or to legislate we shall not hesitate to do so.
Sir Peter Hordern (Horsham)
Will my right hon. Friend make it clear to the chairman of ICI and others who are calling for a lower exchange rate that if industry insists on raising wages so that its products become uncompetitive, the Government will not bail them out by reducing the exchange rate?
The Prime Minister
Yes, I shall make that very clear. That way does not lie increased and improved competitiveness. The only way is to have efficiency in the company, in costs, in design and in quality. No company should look to the exchange rate to secure competitiveness which it cannot itself produce.
Q5. Mr. Dobson
asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 19 December.
The Prime Minister
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
Mr. Dobson
The Prime Minister told the House on Tuesday that there had to be losers in the social security review. Will she now say how many there will be, who they will be and how much they will lose?
The Prime Minister
If we were to bring in what the Labour party has plans for—[Interruption.]—the burden on the working population would be colossal. We reckon that national insurance contributions for people on average earnings would rise by £9 a week, so that about 20 million people would lose under Labour's plans.
Q6. Mr. Teddy Taylor
asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 19 December.
The Prime Minister
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
Mr. Taylor
If the Sikorsky deal goes through, as I hope it does, will the Prime Minister ensure that there will be no question of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence discriminating against the Westland company or any of its excellent products?
Will she convey to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment the thanks of Southend borough council for the most favourable rate support grant settlement—[Interruption.]—which its efficiency deserves?
The Prime Minister
In respect of both parts of my hon. Friend's supplementary question I indicated the Cabinet's decision this morning, and I wish to make it clear that major procurement decisions are a matter for the collective decision of the Government as a whole. I thank my hon. Friend for what he said about the rate support grant. Any authority that spends efficiently and keeps its budget in line with assessed need gets its full grant, and its ratepayers may be very grateful.
Q7. Mr. Gould
asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 19 December.
[column 567]The Prime Minister
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
Mr. Gould
Will the Prime Minister now answer the question that was put by my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson)? How many losers will there be under the social security review, who will they be and how much will they lose?
The Prime Minister
This Government have protected those most in need—[Hon. Members: “Answer.” ]—and have increased, over and above prices, the retirement pension, supplementary benefit rates and benefits for the sick and the disabled—[Interruption.] They have all risen by considerably more than prices. The social security review must be taken as a whole. It is fair both to beneficiaries and the working population. As I said earlier, under arrangements that have been proposed by the Opposition, about 20 million of the working population would stand to lose through national insurance contribution increases.
Sir Geoffrey Finsberg
Does my right hon. Friend agree that whatever decision may ultimately be taken by the shareholders of Westland, it has at least flushed out the Labour party Front Bench into appearing to support the defence of this country?
The Prime Minister
The Labour party is supporting NATO and the defence of Britain. That is worth while, and a change of policy for some.
Mr. John Morris
In view of the recent track record of the Department of Health and Social Security and the Department of Transport in the courts, will the Prime Minister say whether the Attorney-General's Department was consulted? To save taxpayers' money in future, will she co-ordinate the activities of the legal officers of those Departments and the Attorney-General's office?
[column 568]The Prime Minister
The right hon. and learned Gentleman is correct. Yes, the Government have been before the courts and have abided by the decisions of the courts. That is what the rule of law is all about.
Mr. Kinnock
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to raise this matter while the Prime Minister is still present. During Prime Minister's Question Time we heard that the Cabinet had taken a decision regarding Westlands. Since this is a vital matter, may we have a further statement from the Government? Can the Prime Minister tell us whether such a statement will be made by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, or by the Secretary of State for Defence?
Mr. Speaker
I cannot answer that.
Mr. Dykes
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My point arises directly from Question Time, when you called hon. Members for agriculture questions, shortly before the change of subject. The old custom was that you would be notified if hon. Members were not to be present. I know that it is just before Christmas, but, in one go, an unprecedented list of 10 hon. Members were not present. Do you have any observations on that?
Mr. Speaker
Only that that is the present custom also.
Mr. Madden
On a point of order Mr. Speaker. You will have heard, with the rest of us, the Prime Minister's dismissive view of the importance of housing. Does that attitude explain why the Secretary of State is today issuing by written answer the details of the housing investment programme rather than coming to the Dispatch Box to make a statement?
Mr. Speaker
That is a continuation of Question Time. It is not a matter for me.