[column 139]

PRIME MINISTER

Sir Richard Armstrong—Mr. Chapman Pincher (Correspondence)

Q1. Mr. Dalyell

asked the Prime Minister if she will place in the Library a copy of all correspondence conducted on her behalf between Sir Robert Armstrong and Mr. Chapman Pincher.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher)

It remains inappropriate to comment on matters in issue in the Peter Wright case in Australia. I also intend to follow the precedent set by previous Governments of not commenting on security matters.

Mr. Dalyell

By what method did a Government agency first obtain the page proofs of “Their Trade is Treachery” ? This is not exactly related to the current case.

The Prime Minister

The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is covered by my first reply.

Mr. Adley

Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to thank the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) for constantly parading his political obsessions before us? Does she agree that they may account for the current standing in public opinion of the Labour party and its leader?

The Prime Minister

I am very grateful for the fact that I am not responsible for the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell).

Mr. Benn

Now that the Cabinet documents for 1956 have been published and are, therefore, no longer covered by any matter relating to immediate security, and now that it is clear that there was collusion then with the Israeli Government, and that——

Mr. Speaker

Order. This is not an open question. The question on the Order Paper is specifically about correspondence conducted between Sir Robert Armstrong and Mr. Chapman Pincher.

Mr. Benn

But with great respect, Mr. Speaker, one of the points referred to by Mr. Peter Wright in the book that is being suppressed is the attempt by M16 to assassinate Colonel Nasser.

Engagements

Q2. Mr. Snape

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 13 January.

[column 140]

The Prime Minister

This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Snape

Will the Prime Minister find time today to initiate a proper and long-term review of severe weather payments? Will she look, in particular, at the £500 limit? Does she favour thrift, or does she not?

The Prime Minister

As the hon. Gentleman is aware, severe weather payments were brought in under this Government. They are paid on top of the heating addition allowance, which amounts to some £400 million a year, compared with £90 million under the previous Labour Government. The hon. Gentleman will also be aware of the statement made earlier today by my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security:

“It is our firm expectation that the trigger point for severe weather payments will be reached throughout the country this week. In view of this and of the unprecedented cold weather, I wish to make it clear today that the extra payment of £5 will be made to everyone in the qualifying groups for this week.”

I find it encouraging that even Labour Members expect and receive a much higher standard of heating benefit for the elderly from a Conservative Government than they ever got from a Labour Government.

Mr. Hind

Will my right hon. Friend take time during the course of her busy day to look at much of the press comment about the takeover bid by BTR for Pilkington? Will she bear in mind, especially in the light of the arguments about the north-south divide, the importance of Pilkington to the north-west region and have words today with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and urge him to refer that takeover bid to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission?

The Prime Minister

As my hon. Friend said, that is a matter for my right hon. Friend Paul Channonthe Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who must wait to receive advice from the Director General of Fair Trading.

Mr. Kinnock

The announcement by the Minister earlier today on severe weather payments was welcome, but an admission of the—[Interruption.] We are glad to get anything we can for old people who are cold. The announcement was welcome, but was an admission of the utter incompetence of the present system offered by the Prime Minister. Does she recognise that that is a hopelessly inadequate way of trying to remove the gross deficiencies of a pathetically bad system and one recognised as such by organisations representing old people as well as by the old themselves? Must we wait for weekly announcements from Ministers so that the old and the cold can live without fear of freezing? Why does the Prime Minister not scrap the present absurdly bureaucratic and inadequate system and introduce one that provides secure and consistent help to those most in need and which responds to the realities of age, cold, and a deep fear of paying bills?

The Prime Minister

First, there was no system of severe weather payments under the Labour Government. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman expects a better standard of care from Conservative Governments than his own could possibly have given.

Secondly, the present system was referred to the Social Security Advisory Committee, which gave general support to the main elements of our proposals. It said: [column 141]

“The proposals submitted to us represent a significant improvement on the previous scheme for exceptionally severe weather payments, in terms of simplicity, comprehensibility and certainty of payment.”

Thirdly, when we have a totally unprecedented level of low temperatures of the sort that we have experienced recently, which were lower than ever before except in 1940, we are indeed anxious, and will waive the strict bureaucratic procedures in order—[Interruption.] That is precisely what my hon. Friend—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker

Order.

The Prime Minister

Hon. Members do not wish to hear the truth of what has happened. Yes, we were anxious to waive the bureaucracy. As my hon. Friend the Minister said:

“I wish to make it clear today that the extra payment of £5 will be made to everyone in the qualifying groups for this week … The Government are determined that vulnerable groups should know without delay where they stand, so that they will not be discouraged from heating their homes during this very cold spell.” That is an excellent record and an excellent decision.

Mr. Kinnock

The people at risk, of whom there are many thousands, do not want a distorted history lesson from the Prime Minister. They want help with their heating and all her recitations from Committee minutes do not fill any bellies or warm any homes. Will the Prime Minister answer my question? Are we to wait for weekly announcements of adjustments in an incompetent policy, or will she get rid of her stupid system?

The Prime Minister

I have two further points in reply to the right hon. Gentleman. The last time that we had extremely severe weather was in 1978–79, and the heating additions then were £90 million. Today they are £400 million. At that time the Labour Government were in office and not one right hon. or hon. Gentleman raised the matter at Question Time with his own Government. Furthermore, may I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the other danger to the elderly of having insufficient heat was during the coal strike, which he supported.

Mr. Kinnock

Will the Prime Minister now—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker

Order.

Mr. Kinnock

Now, Mr. Prime Minister—[Laughter.] I am anticipating events. Will the Prime Minister now answer the question? Must we wait for a weekly announcement, or will the right hon. Lady help old people directly and consistently? Does she not recall that last year she defended that incompetent system? This year she is defending this mess. How many additional old people must die before she changes her policy?

The Prime Minister

The comparison is as follows: under the Labour Government £90 million—[Interruption.] I shall say what is happening now. [Interruption.] Obviously, the right hon. Gentleman does not want me to make the comparison. The comparison is heating additions of £90 million a year under a Labour Government with £400 million a year under this Conservative Government; no severe weather payments under that Labour Government, with generous severe weather payments under this Government, with arrangements that have just been modified to ensure that [column 142]pensioners receive it; and the coal strike under Labour that deprived old people of heat, and resistance to that from a Tory Government.

York

Q3. Mr. Gregory

asked the Prime Minister if she has any plans to make an official visit to York,.

The Prime Minister

I have at present no plans to do so.

Mr. Gregory

Will my right hon. Friend praise the railway work force in York, which has achieved, both on the administrative and the engineering sides, such solid benefits? Furthermore, will she confirm that under the Conservative Government, in real terms, a great deal more investment is going into the railways, amounting to more than £414 million per annum, compared with a derisory £343.5 million per annum under Labour?

The Prime Minister

As my hon. Friend is aware, the Government have fully recognised the importance of the railways and since we took office British Rail has invested a total of £3 billion in modernising the railways. We are now seeing the largest ever programme for new trains. In the past three years the Government have approved nearly £1 billion of investment in major railway projects, such as the east coast main line electrification scheme. It is for those in this country to compete for new orders, and it is for British Rail to decide where the contracts are given.

Q4. Mr. Cartwright

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 13 January.

Engagements

The Prime Minister

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Cartwright

Does the Prime Minister agree that in the present appalling weather we should be concerned, not only about the elderly, but about the growing number of homeless young people, of whom there are literally hundreds living rough in London alone, with council housing and private rented housing denied to them? What hope can the Government give to that growing band of homeless youngsters?

The Prime Minister

As the hon. Gentleman is aware, there are a large number of council houses vacant, including some in London. Some have been vacant for over a year and one would hope that they will soon be used to house those who need them. There are legislative provisions for dealing with homelessness which bear on the duties of local authorities.

Mr. Robert B. Jones

Will my right hon. Friend find time in her busy day to congratulate Crosfield Electronics in my constituency on having trebled its turnover from £60 million to nearly £200 million in three years, breaking into Japan with about 35 per cent. of the market, and having 35 per cent. of the European market and 35 per cent. of the American market, won against local competition, for computer-aided technology? Is that not a great achievement?

The Prime Minister

I know the factory to which my hon. Friend refers. I visited it about a year ago, when my hon. Friend was present. It is an impressive firm with extremely impressive achievements which have been of great benefit to its people and to the whole of Britain. I congratulate the company and wish it well in the future.

[column 143]

Mr. Steel

Further to the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright), will the Prime Minister recognise that the charity Crisis at Christmas had a record number of young homeless to deal with this Christmas at its soup kitchens and shelters? If, as the right hon. Lady says, there is housing available in London, will she take the time to go and look at the cardboard city on the south bank, and will she ask her Ministers to take action on the issue, which is a growing scandal?

The Prime Minister

I join the right hon. Gentleman in congratulating the charity Crisis at Christmas, which is helped by an enormous number of people. It ran a very impressive and helpful operation which brought joy to many people. In London about 28,000 homes are empty and 10,000 of them are vacant for more than a year. That has been a problem for several years and from time to time I read out the number of empty houses. Some of them are being done up for new tenants; others seem to have been empty for a very long time.

Mr. Kinnock

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is imperative that the House has the opportunity to debate the subject of severe weather payments, because thousands of people, including the constituents of Conservative Members, are at risk and are desperate to be able to maintain heating in their homes. [Interruption.] There is a crisis of cold in Britain that affects many old and poor people and it is not changed by the announcement that we have heard this afternoon. [Interruption.] This House must attend to that subject and I therefore want to inform you, Mr. Speaker——

Mr. Speaker

Order. I may have lost my voice, but I want to be able to hear what is being said.

Mr. Kinnock

For those reasons, Mr. Speaker, I want to inform you that tomorrow the Opposition intend to devote the whole of their Opposition day to debates on the condition of the old and the cold, and the problem of fuel poverty, which will endure much longer than the validity of today's announcement and still leave a basic crisis of poverty and loneliness to be answered. We shall, of course, return quickly to the failure of the Government's economic policies. However, anyone who knows of the fear which is now gripping so many thousands of our old people in this country must recognise the primacy of this issue for consideration by this House.

Mr. Biffen

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. In many parts of the House there will be an appreciation of the topicality of the subject that has been chosen for tomorrow. I should like also to thank the right hon. Gentleman for the indication that there will be a debate on the economy because this House, especially Conservative Members, have a vested interest in that subject being debated as early as possible and in as much depth as possible. Therefore, I undertake to do my best to see that a day is made available.

Mr. Frank Cook

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I simply ask you to contrast the reception that was given to the Leader of the House as against that given to the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Conway

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not the fact that the Leader of the Opposition simply wants to run away from the economic debate, and [column 144]should not the House be aware that on 2 December the Opposition were not even here for the debate.—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker

Order. That is not a matter for me.

Mr. Madden

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I raise the fact that this morning the Bracknell Met Office refused to give information about temperatures, on the ground that such information was politically contentious? I understand that the DHSS has a contract with the Met service about supplying information on temperatures. I am sure that you would be concerned as much as we would be if there were to be any suggestion that the DHSS has leant on the Met service to withhold information about temperatures. As it seems from the——

Mr. Speaker

Order. I cannot see that what goes on at the Bracknell Met Office is anything to do with me. It is a matter that could quite legitmately, and perhaps even should, be mentioned in the debate tomorrow.

Mr. Andrew MacKay

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As the Member representing Bracknell and the Met Office, I know that a large number of my constituents who serve at the Met Office would deeply resent the remarks that have just been made by the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) and I ask him to withdraw them.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We all accept that what the Leader of the Opposition had to say was about an important subject. However, if the House is to be run in a civilised and proper way, a point of order has to be either a proper point of order or it is nothing. It is either a personal statement or a request. What the Leader of the Opposition said was surely not a point of order, in the widest use of the words. Is this House to be run properly or for the use of the Opposition?

Mr. Speaker

Order. As far as I am aware, no subject for tomorrow's debate had been announced in the House, and I think that it was for the general convenience of the House, as the Leader of the House indicated, to know exactly what the subject tomorrow is to be.

Mr. Hoyle

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would it not have been better for the Minister, in making his announcement on severe weather payments, instead of relying on a fortuitous question from an Opposition Member, to have made the statement at the end of questions? That would have been fairer to you, Mr. Speaker, and would have allowed all hon. Members with an interest in the elderly to make a contribution.

Mr. Speaker

Order. These are matters that should legitimately be raised tomorrow in the debate, which I now understand is to last a full day. If the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle) is fortunate, he can raise that point then.

Mr. Dykes

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Because of your loss of voice, I am sorry to ask you to guide the House further. Manifestly, the comment of the Leader of the Opposition was not a point of order. [Interruption.] I am sorry to go on, but this is an important point to do with defending the interests of the House. Having an altercation with people outside Indian restaurants is one thing, but obviously for the Leader of the Opposition having an altercation with the Prime Minister is much more difficult. We understand that. [column 145]However, he should not use a bogus point of order as an excuse to continue a debate. Since the Opposition's humbug on this issue has been shown as a result of the Government's announcement, should not a change of business be announced through the usual channels by the Leader of the House?

Mr. Speaker

Order. Let me clear this matter. Before we adjourned for the Christmas recess, no subject for the Opposition day had been announced. As far as I am aware, since I do not receive party Whips, no subject has yet been announced. I think that it was for the general convenience of the House to know—[Interruption.[ Order. The House has to know in some way or another. The only way in which it can be told is if the subject is announced by a member of the Opposition. It was perfectly legitimate to do that.

Mr. Skinner

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. In order to try to clarify the issue, is it not a fact that during this Session and the previous Session the Leader of the House, on more than one occasion, has introduced a business statement under the guise of a point of order and it has been accepted by you?

We have all noticed that your voice is breaking, Mr. Speaker. You sound like the House of Commons' answer to Aled Jones. If this turns into any form of acute pain, will you assure the House that you will use a National Health Service hospital and not follow the Prime Minister and use a private one?

[column 146]

Mr. Speaker

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his concern about my health. However, my eyesight is fine, my hearing is fine and my memory is very good.

Mr. Dickens

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. When you opened the proceedings this afternoon you said something similar to what you have just repeated—that you had trouble with your voice, but that your eyes were sharp. May we all be assured that you have had a good look at those who have taken advantage of your voice this afternoon?

Mr. Madden

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker

Order. I have dealt with one point of order from the hon. Gentleman. If he has another, I shall take it, but not if it deals with the same subject.

Mr. Madden

The Library cannot advise me who is ministerially responsible for the Met Office. If we wish to obtain information about temperatures, will the Table Office accept questions that the Met Office in Bracknell is apparently refusing to answer if they are made to the Department of the Environment, which is the Met Office's best guess as to who is the Minister responsible?

Mr. Speaker

I suggest that the hon. Member tries that out on the Table Office. I am sure that he will be given good advice.