PRIME MINISTER
Engagements
Q1. Mr. Montgomery
asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 10 May.
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
Will my right hon. Friend, at this critical time in the coal industry dispute, reiterate her confidence in and commitment to the long-term future of the coal industry? Does she agree that customers, not subsidies, will guarantee success?
The Prime Minister
Yes, my hon. Friend is right. This Government want a prosperous coal industry. To that end, we believe that the pay offer that has been made, amounting to wages of 25 per cent. above average industrial wages, the excellent investment record, amounting to £2 million a day in good new coal mines, and the good voluntary redundancy payments are the best ever and offer very good prospects for the future of the coal industry if people will go to work and cut the coal to meet the orders that have recently been obtained.
Mr. Steel
Is not the Prime Minister not troubled by the growing violence this week at Ravenscraig and Hunterston between pickets and the police, and by the warnings from the British Steel chairman about the long-term threat to the steel industry if the disruption goes on? Does she accept that Ministers have a responsibility in this deteriorating climate to try to bring the parties together, rather than to act as idle spectators at a tug-of-war in which the British economy is the rope?
The Prime Minister
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that we must wholly and utterly condemn violence and its use to further industrial ends. We hope that it will be reduced. We must also congratulate the police on the way in which they have carried out their duty of seeing that those who wish to get to their place of work shall be able to get there. The way ahead is to condemn the violence and to see that those who practise it cease to do so.
Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
Is my right hon. Friend aware that applications by industry for the coal conversion [column 1078]scheme have fallen from about 20 a month before the troubles to just three a month now? Is it not just another proof that if our coal industry is to have a secure future it is essential that markets be first won and then secured?
The Prime Minister
Yes. As my hon. Friend knows, the Government have made available a subsidy for industries which wish to turn to coal as a means of providing the energy that they require. Clearly, industries which turn to coal must have the guarantee of security of supply or they will not make the change. Indeed, ICI has deferred until the end of the strike a decision on whether to use coal. Should that company agree to use coal, it will mean another 1,000 jobs in coalpits in Durham—exactly where the jobs are needed. It is another instance of an order waiting to be picked up, if those in the coal industry will only do so.
Mr. Benn
When will the Prime Minister realise that she will never starve the miners into accepting a programme of mass pit closures that will deny the nation the coal that it needs for the prosperity of our industry?
The Prime Minister
During 11 years the Labour Government closed 300 pits. The Conservative Government have closed only 92. Is the right hon. Gentleman disowning previous Labour Governments? Many miners, fortunately, are exercising their right to go to work and are producing coal. If others exercise their right to work, we shall have a good, prosperous industry. Apart from that, those who are not working have so far lost about £220 million in wages, and I hope that they will soon return to work.
Q2. Mr. Madden
asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 10 May.
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 police experts have now identified one of the guns found at the Libyan People's Bureau as the weapon used in the killing of a Libyan in this country some time ago? In those circumstances, will she establish an independent inquiry into the activities of diplomats at the bureau and the circumstances which led to the siege? In the same context, will she cancel her meeting with the Prime Minister of South Africa in protest at the unacceptable activities of South African diplomats, because the vast majority of people in this country are repelled by the evils of apartheid?
The Prime Minister
The answer with regard to both the independent inquiry and South Africa is no in each case.
Mr. John Carlisle
After another night of mindless violence on the Continent—this time in Brussels—will my right hon. Friend send a message of apology to the Belgian Government? Will she also send a message to the Belgian magistrates that, when these thugs come up before them, they should show no mercy towards them and that, if they consider it necessary, they should keep these thugs in custody for yet another football season, as that would certainly please the British people?
The Prime Minister
I think that we are all deeply concerned about the violence displayed in Brussels last night and wholly and utterly condemn it. There have been a number of cases of violence. This time it was not in the [column 1079]stadium, but took place both before and after the match. A special committee was set up after previous examples of violence in Luxembourg. It will report shortly. I am happy to take my hon. Friend's invitation and condemn the violence. It was a disgrace to Britain and we deeply apologise for it.
Q4. Mr. Dormand
asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 10 May.
The Prime Minister
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
Mr. Dormand
Will the Prime Minister confirm that a line in a well-known prayer, which she recited to the nation in 1979,
“grant that I may seek … to understand rather than to be understood”
still guides her in her duties? If so, will she now intervene in the miners dispute as the only possible way of breaking the deadlock? Will she cease to play the role of Pontius Pilate by washing her hands of the dispute? Is that not the way to seek greater understanding?
The Prime Minister
I seek both to understand and to be understood. I hope that I do not have great difficulty in either. I believe that the way to end the coal dispute is by taking advantage of the consultation procedures which exist and which are being attended by some of the miners unions.
Mr. Richard Body
In the course of today, will my right hon. Friend reflect on the answer to the written question tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) regarding the vast quantities of surpluses still being exported to Soviet Russia? In particular, will she consider the vast quantities of wine sold at only 2½p a pint? So long as wine is sent to Russia at 2½p a pint on such a vast scale, can we say that there is any reason for an increase in the own resources of the EEC?
The Prime Minister
As my hon. Friend is aware, decisions on the export of surplus foodstuffs and wine in Europe are taken by a management committee. Those decisions are taken by a majority. Although we vote against them, we are not able to stop exports at highly subsidised prices. We disagree with those decisions and hope eventually to persuade others likewise. In the meantime, what my hon. Friend says reinforces the Government's present attitude and approach. This time, as part of the budget settlement, we must have strict financial guidelines on expenditure for ensuing years, including for agricultural expenditure.
Mr. Kinnock
As the Government have had the report and recommendations of the independent review body on nurses pay since early April, will the Prime Minister say why she is making the nurses wait for several more weeks before telling them whether she will honour the report's recommendations?
The Prime Minister
I believe that the time taken to decide on review bodies' reports in general is in keeping with what happened previously. Obviously, we like to consider them all together.
I remind the right hon. Gentleman that those who report on review bodies do not have the duty of Governments who have to examine not only the amount recommended but how the money will be found.
[column 1080]Mr. Kinnock
But that still does not explain why it will be two months or more between the time of the submission of the report and when the Prime Minister says she may make an announcement. Does the right hon. Lady not understand that nurses deserve a higher pay rise—one well above the current rate of inflation—and that she has no plausible reason whatever for denying that or continuing the delay? Why does the Prime Minister not announce now that she will honour the report and the figure recommended in it?
The Prime Minister
If the right hon. Gentleman had listened, he would have heard my reply. We now have all the reports of the top salary review body and the special review bodies. We like to consider them together and to ensure that we know where the money will come from to meet whatever recommendations are made. That is a sound financial principle.
I remind the right hon. Gentleman that since we came to office nurses' pay has increased by over 80 per cent., which is ahead of both average earnings and prices. In addition, nurses have benefited from a reduced working week. This Government have a very good record on nurses' pay.
Mr. Kinnock
I am sure that you, Mr. Speaker, and the Prime Minister would agree that nurses are worth everything that they can get. In her answer, was the Prime Minister suggesting that nurses' pay is in any way dependent on the allocations which she may choose to make to people on some of the highest salaries in the land? If so, things are much worse than we thought. It really is time that the Prime Minister made it absolutely clear that no other considerations about top salaries can inhibit the proper pay settlement which nurses deserve.
The Prime Minister
No. The right hon. Gentleman attempts to put words in my mouth, but he will not succeed. I merely suggest that we shall examine all the review bodies' reports together. Before we make a pronouncement, we shall know exactly where the resources will come from.
Of course, a Labour Government would not consider where the money would come from. They would only try to pay it out and jolly soon they would go back to the IMF. Indeed, we are now paying back money which they borrowed.
Q5. Mr. Hal Miller
asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 10 May.
The Prime Minister
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
Mr. Miller
Will my right hon. Friend confirm her support for the refusal of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to intervene in the recent dispute between the owner and editor of The Observer, despite the urgings of the Opposition, whose noisy clamour on that contrasts deafeningly with their silence on the current issue of freedom of the press at the Daily Express in the light of the SOGAT issue?
The Prime Minister
I confirm that I wholly agree with the line taken by my right hon. Friend Norman Tebbitthe Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on the matter relating to The Observer. We stand four square behind the freedom of the press. That freedom would soon be lost if threats to production succeeded in obtaining space in a newspaper for the propagation of particular points of view.
[column 1081]Mr. McCrindle
In view of recent press speculation, will my right hon. Friend tell me what respective importance she places on fiscal neutrality and the continuing encouragement to the self-employed and others to make provision for their own retirement through tax relief on their contributions?
The Prime Minister
The two are not mutually exclusive and can be accommodated together.
Q6. Mr. Tony Banks
asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 10 May.
The Prime Minister
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
Mr. Banks
In the light of recent announcements by the Soviet Union, Algeria and Bulgaria, and in view of the bad example that the Prime Minister set the world with her [column 1082]own botched-up attempt at an Olympic boycott in 1980, will she now give Government support to the setting up of a permanent Olympic site in Greece, perhaps with United Nations status?
The Prime Minister
Conditions for the Olympics were different in 1980. The hon. Gentleman may recall that they took place soon after the Soviet Union had entered Afghanistan, which it still occupies. That is different from the conditions under which the Olympics are to be held this year in Los Angeles. We greatly regret the apparent decision by the Soviet national Olympics committee not to participate in the Olympics. We hope that it will reconsider it.
The question whether there should be a permanent place in which to hold the Olympics is a matter for the Olympics committee, not Her Majesty's Government.