PRIME MINISTER
Disabled People
Q1. Mr. Tom Clarke
asked the Prime Minister when Her Majesty's Government intend to implement in full the Disabled Persons (Services Consultation and Representation) Act which was given Royal Assent on 8 July 1986.
The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher)
It is hoped that sections 4, 8, 9 and 10 can be brought into operation by next April and section 11 during the course of 1987. However, the provisions of the Act, which have significant resource implications, can be brought into effect only as and when these resources can be provided.
Mr. Clarke
How can the Prime Minister justify her Government's failure to introduce a single order or to set aside an extra penny for the implementation of this Act? Does she accept that people will not take lightly a decision to set aside the clearly expressed will of the House, to treat it with contempt and to do so in the knowledge that the needs of disabled persons and those who care for them are being sacrificed on the high altar of pre-election tax cuts?
The Prime Minister
During the passage of the Bill we consistently made it clear that it would be wrong to impose extra financial burdens on local and health authorities until sufficient resources were available. That remains the position. The Labour Government—[Interruption]—faced a similar difficulty after they had passed the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. When a Labour Government later came in they took no steps to provide local authorities with the resources to put the Act into effect. The hon. Gentleman says that we have not provided money. May I point out to him that increased spending on benefits for the long-term sick and disabled has gone up by about 75 per cent., allowing for inflation, to nearly £6 billion.
Mr. Favell
Referring to the way in which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was dealt with by The Times this morning——
Mr. Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman should look at the Order Paper.
Mr. Kinnock
Does the right hon. Lady not recall the Minister of State saying last July that he wanted to bring the provisions of this Act into effect in time to benefit disabled young people leaving full-time education in the summer of 1987, that is by the autumn of 1986? Given the fact that absolutely nothing relevant to this Act has been allocated in any of the rate support grant settlements, will the Prime Minister now tell us where she thinks that the extra money to implement those sections of the Act relating to school leavers is supposed to come from? In her refusal so far to honour her Government's commitments, is she not being mean and evasive with the disabled?
The Prime Minister
I have indicated the sections that we hope can be brought into operation by next April, with section 11 during the course of 1987. I have also indicated that, although we would all wish to do more, a former Labour Government—[Interruption] Of course, hon. Members do not like to hear this reply because it is true. A former Labour Government who passed the Chronically [column 157]Sick and Disabled Persons Act were also in a similar position. The last Labour Government did not, in five years of government—[Interruption]——
Mr. Speaker
Order. This is a rare definitive question on the Order Paper and I think that the whole House wants to hear the answer.
The Prime Minister
The last Labour Government, during five years in office, did not take steps to provide local authorities with resources to put the Act into effect. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes me to give him the whole excellent record of this Government in giving extra help to the disabled I shall do so. We increased spending on benefits for the long-term sick and disabled by 75 per cent., after allowing for inflation, to nearly £6 billion. We have increased the real value of the mobility allowance and the new severe disablement allowance. The Opposition hate to hear that because it is true and shows us in a much better light than them.
Mr. Kinnock
The sum of which we speak in relation to sections 5 and 6 of that Act and the disabled school leavers amounts, by the best calculations, to no more than £50 million. The right hon. Lady's lectures about the availability of resources comes ill from a Prime Minister who is allegedly contemplating a give-away of £3 billion in the Budget. While all the voluntary organisations concerned with the disabled welcome any progress made under any Government, why does the right hon. Lady not heed the view that they express about this Act when they say that if the Government do not move now the future of those young people leaving school in 1988 and 1989 will be seriously and adversely affected? That is not the voice of congratulation: it is the voice of justified suspicion. Why does the Prime Minister not listen to it and do her duty by the disabled, instead of dodging?
The Prime Minister
We do not need any lectures from a former Labour supporter of the last Labour Government, who did not begin to do anything like as well for the disabled as we have done. The right hon. Gentleman's second point was about helping people into jobs. As far as the disabled are concerned—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker
Order.
The Prime Minister
—we have extended help through the Manpower Services Commission which has meant that last year over 77,000 people were placed in work or on the community programme. That is all help for the disabled.
Engagements
Q2. Dame Jill Knight
asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 10 February.
The Prime Minister
This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, and attended the memorial service for the first Earl of Stockton. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen.
Dame Jill Knight
Is my right hon. Friend aware of the strong public feeling that court sentences are too often so lenient that they do not deter and thus offer no protection whatever to the public? Since guidelines laid down even by the Lord Chief Justice and the Lord Chancellor on this matter have consistently been ignored by judges, will my [column 158]right hon. Friend find time in her busy day to consider the possibility of supporting a suggestion that inadequate sentences be referred to an appeal court?
The Prime Minister
I am well aware of strong feelings about certain sentences. In general, the guidelines laid down by Lord Lanethe Lord Chief Justice have been followed. However, there appear to be some cases where that is not so, and they have given rise to great concern. As my hon. Friend is aware, clause 29 of the Criminal Justice Bill would give a power to the Attorney-General to refer a particular sentence to the Court of Appeal, with the leave of that court, for it to say, not what the sentence should have been in the specific case—so it would not affect the case my hon. Friend has in mind—but to give a guideline about what would be an appropriate sentence for such a case in future. Of course, that would be argued in open court and people could hear the arguments. The guideline would then have more effect. Such a clause will help public opinion and help to give a clear indication by the Court of Appeal about a proper sentence.
Mr. Steel
As the National Farmers Union conference this morning called for the resignation of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, will the right hon. Lady see to it? Does she recognise that his statement yesterday, taken together with the Secretary of State for the Environment's recent Green Paper abolishing structure plans, amounts to a free-for-all for development in the countryside? Will this not simply accelerate the north-south drift and turn our farmers from stewards of our land into speculators in it?
The Prime Minister
If the right hon. Gentleman has read the draft circular for consultation, he will know that what he says is nonsense. There is no question of removing planning controls on agricultural land. There is nothing in the proposals to reduce the protection given to the green belt, national parks or other areas of good countryside. What we have said is that it no longer makes sense to apply reservations on agricultural grounds to less good land that is being proposed for development. Each planning application will continue to be considered on its merits according to the usual planning considerations.
With regard to the motion of the National Farmers Union this morning, the NFU's action reflects a shortterm view of the farming community. The last chairman of the NFU took a different view, which was set out in the NFU booklet “The Way Forward” . This Government have made the preservation of a strong rural community an important objective. If the farming community wishes to have—[Interruption.] It will not be lost on the farming community that the Labour party is committed to rating agricultural land, tighter planning controls and increased capital taxation.
Viscount Cranborne
My right hon. Friend will be aware of the visit this week to Britain of Maulawi Younes Khales, leader of the Hezb-i-Islami of Afghanistan. Will my right hon. Friend therefore take time today to reassert Her Majesty's Government's support for the right to self-determination for the people of Afghanistan, free of outside interference?
The Prime Minister
We believe wholeheartedly, as my hon. Friend says, in self-determination for the people of Afghanistan, and that the occupying forces of the Soviet Union should be withdrawn completely.
[column 159]Q3. Mr. Faulds
asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 10 February 1987.
The Prime Minister
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
Mr. Faulds
As this morning the National Farmers Union—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman has a right to ask his question, as has any hon. Member.
Mr. Faulds
I am most grateful to you, Sir. May I assure you that the chiacking will not silence me. We will start again. As this morning the National Farmers Union passed a vote of no confidence in the right hon. Lady's Minister of Agriculture—a matter quite without precedent—and, indeed, demanded his resignation, and in view of the consternation that he is causing among his parliamentary colleagues and fellow Ministers, does the Prime Minister retain any confidence in him?
The Prime Minister
Yes, complete confidence. Michael JoplingMy right hon. Friend has done a great deal to try to modify the common agricultural policy. Whatever votes were passed by the NFU this morning, in agriculture, food supply and demand must be brought more closely into balance, and surpluses eliminated. New surpluses must not build up through the intervention system. That matter will have to be dealt with in the interests of taxpayers, and consumers—all who purchase goods.
Q4. Mr. Hannam
asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 10 February.
The Prime Minister
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
Mr. Hannam
Has my right hon. Friend studied the detailed account of the events leading up to the cancellation by the BBC of Ian Curteis's play on the [column 160]Falklands war? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the actions of the leading BBC officials in trying to enforce changes in the script, just because the play appeared to be pro-British, pro-Government and pro-Prime Minister, are disgraceful? Should not the BBC hand over the script to ITV so that it can produce the play to commemorate the successful defence of freedom?
The Prime Minister
I am grateful for what my hon. Friend says. I am sure that the people concerned will take careful note of his comments.
Mr. Speaker
Mr. Rooker.
Mr. Rooker
Where is the morality——
Mr. Speaker
Order. Question No. 5.
Q5. Mr. Rooker
asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 10 February.
The Prime Minister
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
Mr. Rooker
I repeat: where is the morality in the British Government allowing Iranian arms dealers to organise their arms purchases from London where there are British citizens in Iranian goals who have not been charged or brought to trial?
The Prime Minister
As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the only powers that Governments have are to prevent exports of such arms from London without an export licence. There has been no such export licence. I am afraid that if the hon. Gentleman wants us to take powers to find out what goes on in every office we shall totally reject that.
Mr. Tom Clarke
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker
Order. I will take the hon. Gentleman's point of order later.