Prime Minister
(Engagements)
Q2. Mr. Watson
asked the Prime Minister whether she will list her official engagements for Thursday 19 February.
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 this House, I shall be having further meetings later today, including one with Mr. Christopher Tugendhat.
Mr. Watson
In view of the developments in the coal industry in the past 24 hours, will the Prime Minister take time today to confirm that the least efficient 10 per cent. of all British pits are currently losing money at the rate of £190 million per year, and that whatever may be the outcome of talks over the next few days, the most effective way of reducing the cost, and thereby restoring the competitiveness, of British coal lies in a planned and agreed schedule of pit closures?
The Prime Minister
I understand that those figures are broadly correct. I stress that it is the wish of us on this side of the House, and I believe on the other, to have a competitive coal industry because that puts the least burdens on other parts of the economy and would enable very many other industries which are big users of electricity, which is based on coal, to have that electricity more cheaply, and thereby to keep more jobs in their own industries.
Mr. Michael Foot
May I, a little more generously than the right hon. Lady's hon. Friend, congratulate the right hon. Lady on what, certainly on the present evidence, appears to be a great victory for the miners and for the nation? We shall, of course, wish to have explicit undertakings from the Minister who was so vague two days ago, but so far it looks like a very good thing. I assure the right hon. Lady that every time she turns she will get a nice bouquet from me. I might even ask her to dinner—who can tell? Are the Government thinking of including the specific undertakings given to the miners of financial support in a new coal industry Bill? When will that Bill be introduced, and what figure does she set upon the the amount that the Government will give to enable the undertakings that have been made to be carried through?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman referred to dinners. Doubtless he will not need reminding that on occasion it is a lady's prerogative to say “No” .
Mr. Ashton
Not to the miners.
The Prime Minister
That was precisely why I led in with my phrase relating to dinners. [Interruption.] I am not unaware of what the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) was saying. I thought that he said “congratulations” as I came in.
Mr. Skinner
Not that.
The Prime Minister
Perhaps not. Such generosity would not become the hon. Gentleman.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the amount of money. I must stick to what my right hon. Friend said at the meeting yesterday. Two main points were raised at that meeting. It would be quite wrong to put any gloss on them, because the matters will continue to be negotiated next [column 448]week. My right hon. Friend said that the Government were prepared to discuss the financial constraints with an open mind and also with a view to movement.
The chairman of the NCB said that, in the light of this, the board would withdraw its closure proposals and re-examine the position in consultation with the unions. I am not in a position to go any further. The consultations, discussions and negotiations will continue at the meeting next week, and there is nothing that I can usefully add.
Mr. Foot
I am eager to thank the right hon. Lady on every available occasion. I also thank her for turning yesterday's listening session into a talking session. That was an improvement as well. What would be worst of all would be if, after the Government had secured the apparent movement towards a settlement, there were to be any breach of faith—[Hon. Members: “Question” .] I am asking the same question to which I did not get an answer. What amount of money is involved? Will it be incorporated in a new coal industry Bill, because the last Coal Industry Act was part of the cause of the trouble?
The Prime Minister
It is precisely because there must be no breach of faith with what took place at the meeting that I have stuck to quoting the words that were heard and were the subject of the action taken at that meeting. Precisely for the reason given by the right hon. Gentleman, it would be most unwise to go any further when those words will be the subject of negotiation at the next meeting.
Q3. Mr. Fox
asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 19 February.
The Prime Minister
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
Mr. Fox
I know that my right hon. Friend is as concerned as any Conservative Member at the recent dismissal of Miss Joanna Harris by the Sandwell council. Is she aware that this is only the tip of the iceberg in that a number of my constituents who are placed in the same position have now received instructions from the Labour-controlled Bradford metropolitan council that only trade unionists will be transferred in their jobs or promoted? Is that not a disgraceful state of affairs which borders on blackmail? These people have every right to expect Parliament to help them.
The Prime Minister
I share my hon. Friend's use of the word “disgraceful” to describe the reported activities of the Bradford council, saying that only people who joined unions would be considered for promotion. That is repugnant and disgraceful. I believe that the vast majority of people in this country, as well as those in trade unions, are against the closed shop.
Mr. Russell Kerr
Ask Jim Prior.
The Prime Minister
I have not looked at the particular agreement of the Bradford council, but it is quite possible that it might be in breach of the Employment Act. If so, I hope that action will be taken. The Green Paper on trade union immunities makes further legislative proposals with regard to the closed shop. I hope that people who have particular examples, or strong feelings on the subject, will contact my right hon. Friend James Priorthe Secretary of State for Employment.
Dr. Owen
Why did the Prime Minister ignore the repeated explanations during all stages of the Coal [column 449]Industry Act that it was, in fact, a pit closure measure? Who are the trimmers now? Is this slow motion Conservatism or the first note of the Limehouse Blues?
The Prime Minister
The action was swift, decisive and realistic.
Q4. Mr. Lang
asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 19 February.
The Prime Minister
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave some moments ago.
Mr. Lang
Will my right hon. Friend find time today to consider the good news from Scotland in the form of 1,000 new jobs in electronics at the Timex factory in Dundee? Does she agree that it is sensible to back such new growth industries as a means of helping to create a new industrial base in Scotland?
The Prime Minister
Yes. I think that my hon. Friend is probably referring to the new Sinclair development——
Mr. Cryer
Saved by the NEB.
The Prime Minister
—of the very small television sets which it is hoped to sell for about £50 each. I wish the project every success and agree that if we get the economic climate right these new growth industries will develop and provide jobs in Scotland and elsewhere in the country.
Mr. Barry Jones
Does the right hon. Lady feel any concern about the continuing level of steel imports, notwithstanding the depression? Is she aware that the remaining 2,000 jobs at BSC Shotton depend for the next fortnight on imported steel from Holland? What will she do about that crazy situation?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman must take up such matters with the BSC. He knows that it is in charge and that only it can deal with matters of that kind. If ever a Government have to answer every detailed question about every industry we shall cease to have a democracy in this country. There will—I hope next week—be a statement on the future of the BSC's plan.
Mr. David Steel
While the Prime Minister is in her present constructive mood, will she turn her attention to lowering interest rates?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman must realise that if more money is to be found—perhaps the whole House will realise it—the only place from which it can come is the people of this country. It must either come out of the taxpayers' pocket or be borrowed, and that would lead to higher interest rates. When people constantly ask for more money, I hope that they will bear that in mind.
Parliamentary Question
Q5. Mr. Wilkinson
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the lack of substantive questions tabled [column 450]to her, she will seek to appoint a Select Committee to examine whether some form of priority could be established for those questions addressed to her requiring a substantive answer, above those requesting her to list her engagements for the day.
The Prime Minister
The arrangements for Prime Minister's questions have been reviewed twice by Select Committees in recent years, and I am not sure how much further progress we would make by appointing another Committee now. I am very willing to answer substantive questions if they are tabled, and I hope that hon. Members will take the opportunity to put down more of them.
Mr. Wilkinson
I appreciate my right hon. Friend's willingness to answer any question from virtually anyone, but does not she agree that the plethora of open questions is making a monkey of our business? While we need a balance between admirable, spontaneous questions such as that from my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Fox), we also need some specific questions to balance the Order Paper in respect of Prime Minister's Question Time.
The Prime Minister
I have never transferred a single oral question which has been put to me. I am wholly in favour of what my hon. Friend is saying. Substantive questions are the easiest to answer.
Mr. Whitehead
Has the Prime Minister seen the announcement today of new editors for Times Newspapers Limited—The Times and The Sunday Times?——
Mr. Speaker
Order. This is not an open question.
Mr. Harry Ewing
If the Prime Minister is not in favour of setting up a Committee to examine Prime Minister's questions, can she set up a Committee to examine Prime Minister's answers? Is the right hon. Lady aware that the answer that she has given to the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Lang) regarding the new jobs in Scotland is without foundation? Is she aware that a company is taking over people who are in jobs at present? It is wrong to mislead the House and to pretend that those are new jobs when they are existing jobs.
The Prime Minister
No one can be sure that a particular job will exist in X years' time. It is impossible to be sure. Many jobs now are concerned with products which did not exist 10 years ago, let alone 20 years ago. Opposition Members will be aware that from 1964 to 1970, while the Labour Government were in power, the average annual number of closures in the pits was 40.
Mr. Hugh Dykes (Harrow, East)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) seems to have had question number 1 or 2——
Mr. Speaker
Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman has a real point of order for me.