PRIME MINISTER
Engagements
Q1. Mr. Fatchett
asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 22 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. I shall also have the great pleasure of making a presentation to your predecessor, Mr. Speaker, to mark his distinguished service to this House.
Mr. Fatchett
Will the Prime Minister take the opportunity during the course of the day of getting in touch with the English Rugby Union and ask it to call off the proposed rugby tour of South Africa? Will she point out to it that such a tour will bring comfort to a morally repugnant regime while putting in danger the Commonwealth Games, which are planned to be held in Edinburgh?
The Prime Minister
As I have said in the House previously, the Gleneagles agreement has been affirmed. It is a voluntary agreement, but I must make it clear that we genuinely discourage the rugby tour of South Africa because of the damaging consequences that it will have for the Commonwealth and international sport. My hon. Friend Neil Macfarlanethe Minister with responsibility for sport has made it clear that that is our view.
Mr. Rippon
First, may I congratulate the Prime Minister on the firm stand that she took at Brussels? Does not the way in which the partners in the Community have withheld the funds to which we are already entitled demonstrate how right she is in pressing for a long-term, stable budgetary structure? At the same time, will she give the House an assurance that she will continue to negotiate patiently and that the Government do not contemplate any retaliatory, illegal action that might undermine our position, bearing in mind that the future of western Europe cannot be considered only in terms of nicely calculated “less or more” ?
The Prime Minister
Like my right hon. and learned Friend, I regret that France and Italy have blocked, so far, our 1983 refunds. We have learnt this morning that the Presidency of the Community intends to hold a special meeting of Foreign Ministers in Brussels on Tuesday next on the basis of the texts that were on the table of this week's European Council. We welcome this initiative. In [column 1174]these circumstances, the Government will take no action that might damage the prospects of decisive progress next week. Our objectives in the negotiations will be to obtain an agreement that meets the requirements that I have outlined to the House. In the meantime, we shall not ask the House to consider a Supplementary Estimate for an advance payment to the Commission. We shall consider our position on that request in the light of the outcome of the meeting to which I have referred.
Mr. Kinnock
The news of the special meeting is welcome, but how many special meetings are there likely to be? As £500 million of our money is at stake and the strong need for fundamental reform is in question, is the Prime Minister going to go on as if nothing had happened?
The Prime Minister
I answered the right hon. Gentleman's question before he asked it, except that part in which he asked how many special meetings there will be, which by the very nature of the issue is entirely unpredictable. We learnt this morning that the Presidency intends to hold a special meeting. I said that the basis of the meeting will be the texts that were on the table at the end of this week's European Council. I hope that the progress that we have made will be taken further at that meeting. As the right hon. Gentleman is already aware, the refunds are not due, by agreement between us, until 31 March. I hope, therefore, that the meeting will unblock the refunds. I also hope that we will get a good deal further on a matter that was before us at Brussels, that is agreement on a system and amounts for a long-term settlement of the Community's budgetary problems.
Q2. Mr. Ward
asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 22 March.
The Prime Minister
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
Mr. Ward
Has my right hon. Friend noticed that in recent weeks hundreds of new jobs have been created in high technology in England, Scotland and Wales? Does that not further demonstrate that the economic recovery is under way?
The Prime Minister
That is very well demonstrated. The recovery will be considerably assisted by the Budget that my right hon. Friend Nigel Lawsonthe Chancellor of the Exchequer presented to the House a short time ago. Gross domestic product figures published on Tuesday show that average measures of GDP, as forecast by the Chancellor, rose 3 per cent. in 1983. It was recently announced that the United States company Commodore is to employ about 1,000 more people in Corby in a £20 million expansion which will make that Corby factory the biggest microcomputer plant in Europe.
Dr. Owen
Although I welcome the decision to meet on Tuesday and hope that it is possible to bridge the narrow divide on the Presidency text, is the Prime Minister aware that she did not answer the question posed by her right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon)? Surely the Cabinet has come to a conclusion on the constitutional impropriety of withdrawing any form of payment. Do the Government realise that that is not a lever in the negotiations, but a question of law and order? The House and the country are entitled to a clear-cut view from the British Cabinet that this is unconstitutional and will not [column 1175]be considered, and to an assurance that we will not see the Prime Minister “hotting” this issue up by reference to the acolythate press.
The Prime Minister
If anyone is hotting up the issue, it is the right hon. Gentleman. I gave the House the answer and informed hon. Members about the decision that was taken this morning. In the circumstances, the Government will take no action that might damage the prospect of decisive progress next week. Our objective in these negotiations will be to obtain an agreement that meets the requirements I outlined to the House. Why, then, is the right hon. Gentleman trying to “hot up” the issue?
Q3. Mr. Dixon
asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 22 March.
The Prime Minister
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
Mr. Dixon
Is the Prime Minister aware that long-term unemployment has risen from 375,000 in 1981 to almost 1.2 million today, which represents 40 per cent. of those unemployed? Is she aware that 600,000 people have been unemployed for more than two years and 300,000 for more than three years? Is she further aware that, of the unemployment total, 575,000 people are aged 50 and over and have little prospect of finding a job under the present Government? When will the Government recognise the plight of these unfortunate people and extend long-term supplementary benefit to them?
The Prime Minister
I am aware of some of the figures that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. The Government are aware of the arguments for extending the long-term rate to the unemployed who are under the age of 60. However, the cost would be £480 million, and for that reason alone it must be ruled out.
Mr. Sackville
As a major American manufacturer is bidding against British industry to supply the Royal Navy with its primary surface weapon—the anti-ship missile—does my right hon. Friend agree that the decision on the contract must be taken not merely on marginal price comparison based on fanciful future exchange rate assumptions, but with regard to its impact on British jobs, British exports, British technology and British control of our major weapons systems?
The Prime Minister
No decision has been taken on which of the several contenders will be selected to meet the Royal Navy's requirement for a second-generation, surface-to-surface guided weapon. Tenders are still being considered by the Ministry of Defence and the Government will wish to take fully into account all relevant factors, including those mentioned by my hon. Friend, before making any announcement.
Mr. Donald Stewart
On the EC negotiations, is the right hon. Lady aware that her reply to the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) will demonstrate to many people that, despite the rhetoric of resolution, the way has been prepared for another sell-out? As the idea of retaining our own funds has been described as unconstitutional, does the right hon. Lady believe that that is the case under the British constitution?
The Prime Minister
I am not prepared to give a legal opinion on a question that has not yet arisen and on a decision that has not yet been taken. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will approve the action that the Government [column 1176]are taking. As the Presidency of the Community, which was most helpful to us last week in trying to draft a system and in putting it to the Community, has called another meeting based on identical texts, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman thinks that the best way forward is to try to seek the settlement that we want on our budgetary refunds and to try to secure at that meeting, in conjunction with a decision by the European Assembly, a decision to unblock the refunds, which we hope will be paid by 31 March.
Mr. Howard
Did my right hon. Friend have an opportunity this morning to listen to the “Today” programme on which the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins) declared that he would have accepted the deal on offer in Brussels on Tuesday? Does that not confirm that if the alliance parties had had anything to do with such matters the gap would have been closed, not by skill, as was suggested yesterday by the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), but by surrender?
The Prime Minister
I had exactly the same feeling when I heard exactly the same thing on exactly the same programme.
Q4. Mr. Terry Fields
asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 22 March.
The Prime Minister
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
Mr. Fields
How does the Prime Minister square her stand on Britain's EC contributions and the suggestion of breaking European law with the hypocrisy of the attacks on Liverpool city council and her unwillingness to concede £30 million to the Liverpool people? Is she saying that another 5,500 jobless people in Liverpool do not worry her? Does she understand that the massive demonstrations on 29 March in Liverpool and elsewhere, and the struggle of the miners and other workers, are a complete refutation of the policies that she and her pathetic Government are pursuing?
The Prime Minister
I am not sure whether I heard the hon. Gentleman's entire question, but I understand that the first part was about the EC and the second part about Liverpool. Nothing that I said about the EC contravenes the law in any way. I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has given me a chance to mention Liverpool. During the past three years capital expenditure in Merseyside, under the Department of the Environment's main programmes, has reached about £650 million. That is the measure of the support that has been given by the Government, or through the Government, to try to help matters in Liverpool.
Mr. Butterfill
Can my right hon. Friend confirm a report that has reached me that the British high commissioner in Lagos was recently attacked with a machete and that there has been a serious breakdown of law and order in the diplomatic quarter of Lagos, with four recent armed robberies? What representations has she made to the Government of Nigeria to ensure that security is restored in that area?
The Prime Minister
As my hon. Friend surmises, it is the duty of the host Government to protect those in the diplomatic services. Had there been any difficulty, I would have drawn that to the attention of the host Government. I shall inquire further into my hon. Friend's allegations.
[column 1177]Mr. Madden
Does the Prime Minister anticipate giving evidence shortly to the Select Committee on Members' Interests?
The Prime Minister
No, Sir.
Q5. Mr. Tim Smith
asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 22 March.
The Prime Minister
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
Mr. Smith
Has my right hon. Friend seen the latest long-term economic indicator, which has risen for the fourth successive month, suggesting that economic recovery will continue well into 1985? Do not the [column 1178]indicator and the medium-term corporation tax strategy in the Budget make it clear that industry has more opportunity now to increase profits, investment and jobs than for many years?
The Prime Minister
I think that, on the basis of low inflation and the Budget announced by my right hon. Friend Nigel Lawsonthe Chancellor a few days ago, industry is better placed to recover, to make good profits, to expand and to give new jobs, than for a very long time. What is more, I believe that that recovery is sustainable. We have given a tremendous boost to jobs by taking off that terrible tax on jobs which was put on and increased by the Labour Government.