Q1.
asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 25 July.
This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. Following my duties in the House, I shall be leaving for a brief visit to Washington.
In view of what happened at the trials of mineworkers in Sheffield recently, and in view of the right hon. Lady's statement that it would be better to go down in history as a compassionate lady rather than as the iron lady, should she not use her good offices now to persuade the National Coal Board to use the board's time-tested, time-tried and time-trusted conciliation and consultation machinery, which dealt with similar cases prior to the
I believe that we have plenty of machinery for the Coal Board to deal with colliery closures or with appeals against dismissals, as the hon. Gentleman is well aware. With regard to his earlier remark, one sometimes needs a touch of steel. There is nothing wrong with that. Sometimes one needs a good deal of compassion, and there is nothing wrong with that either.
Is my right hon. Friend aware that tomorrow, while the media of Bristol are occupied with the Queen's visit, the Secretary of State for the Environment will be announcing his decision on the Avon county structure plan? This decision is not likely to be acceptable to the people of the county of Avon, and especially to my constituents. Will my right hon. Friend instruct her Ministers to listen, and perhaps set an example herself by listening, with much greater care to the views of her supporters? Otherwise, she will not have so many of them.
I know that my hon. Friend feels strongly about the Avon structure plan, and also about certain matters of planning and development. I think that he and my colleagues will be the first to understand that it is difficult to strike a balance between those who do not wish there to be much more planning permission in a particular area, and those who wish to make provision for more jobs and more housing for certain purposes. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will have to strike that balance, and I hope that my hon. Friend will be satisfied with what he does when the announcement is made.
While the Prime Minister is in America, will she tell Vice President Bush why we, unlike the United States, have not withdrawn our ambassador from South Africa? Will she tell him why we, unlike the Congress and Senate of the United States, have not attempted to ban new investment in that apartheid regime?
While these events are taking place in South Africa, it is important that we have first hand reviews of them from our ambassador there. We cart carry out a considerable duty in doing that.
I believe that the US Administration is against sanctions and disinvestment, and the right hon. Gentleman will be aware of what Helen Suzman recently said about them:Mrs. Suzman went on:"Many are presently under consideration with disinvestment and sanctions much to the fore. Campaigns and such actions have indeed reached tidal wave proportions in the United States of America. If I thought that these would work, they would have my unconditional support."
"Not only do I not believe these campaigns would be effective; I believe they would be counter-productive."
At first hearing that seems like the feeblest sort of excuse, but I have no doubt that the Prime Minister believes her answer, because she is wholly incapable of understanding the importance of giving a moral lead on this or any other matter.
I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman could, likewise, accuse Mrs. Helen Suzman of failing to give a moral lead. She was very clear in the advice that she gave. The Government believe that it is correct, and that sanctions would hit the black population of South Africa very badly and, as Mrs. Suzman said, be counter-productive. That is the view that we shall continue to hold.
Will my right hon. Friend note with satisfaction that last year this country gave £95 million for famine relief aid, without reducing other aid programmes? Nevertheless, does she agree that our long-term aid programme is for development, and will she say that she will not allow that programme to suffer?
My hon. Friend is correct. The greater part of the aid programme goes to capital development and is tied to jobs in this country. I believe that most people in the House would agree with that. We also give a considerable amount to the poorer countries. Nevertheless, a considerable fund is set aside for disaster relief, and there is a contingency fund. I believe that we have very good arrangements for aid. The amount of aid that we give, coupled with the amount that goes privately and with private investment, gives this country an excellent record on its all-round aid programme.
When the Government Chief Whip on Tuesday night offered the prospect of the Prime Minister's resignation, did he do so with, or without, her authority?
I have to disappoint the right hon. Gentleman. I am here, and will remain here. I am delighted to suffer attacks from the right hon. Gentleman. It means that I am usually right.
Q2.
asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 25 July.
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
Before the Prime Minister leaves this afternoon to address the Capitalist Internationale, will she comment on today's report on the inquiry into British housing, which specifically criticises the Government's single-minded emphasis on owner-occupation as having certain dangers? [HON. MEMBERS: "Reading".] Does she not recognise that it is at least true for working-class families in areas such as Coventry and Liverpool, and for others whose councils' funding will be cut later this afternoon? Before the Prime Minister leaves the country, will she give a guarantee that she will meet the wives and families of Liverpool councillors, who are in the House this afternoon and who handed in such a request to No. 10 Downing street at 2 o'clock?
Before I leave this afternoon I shall be happy to respond to the hon. Gentleman by giving some of our record on housing. Since May 1979, more than 450,000 local authority and new town dwellings have been renovated — a higher number than in previous years. Secondly, 50 per cent. more homes were renovated with the help of grants between 1979 and 1984 than in the previous five years. Thirdly, during our time the dwelling stock has risen by 1·1 million houses, and 1·25 million new homes have been built since 1979. I can go on longer if the hon. Gentleman wishes me to do so.
Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to confirm that the Government have no intention of tampering with the tax relief given on mortgage interest payments?
I am happy to repeat what I have frequently said from this Dispatch Box and shall be saying many times in the future. So long as I am here, tax relief on mortgages will continue.
Q3.
asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 25 July.
I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
In view of the opposition in Scotland to the sale of the Trustee Savings bank in Scotland, and in the light of the litigation before the Court of Session, will the Prime Minister give a categorical undertaking to the House that no legislation in this place will pre-empt or stultify the findings of the Scottish court?
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the findings of the Scottish court must be obeyed. If the House wished to bring forward any further legislation, that would be a matter for the House.
Is my right hon. Friend aware that out of about 4,500 people in my constituency who are claiming unemployment benefit, only 418, fewer than one in 10, have bothered to register their skills with the jobcentre, where more than 800 vacancies are available? Will she discuss with our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment the advisability of reintroducing the registration of the unemployed at jobcentres, especially in areas such as my constituency of Slough, where there are serious skill shortages?
I am very much aware of the position in my hon. Friend's constituency, where, although there are considerable numbers of unemployed, there are, nevertheless, considerable skill shortages. We are considering how best to deal with this matter and at present it is not our intention to require registration at jobcentres. One of the problems is that many of the jobs which are available are not registered at jobcentres, as employers prefer to fill them direct. However, we are reviewing the whole matter and I am grateful for my hon. Friend's views.
Q4.
asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 25 July.
I refer the hon. Lady to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
Before the Prime Minister leaves the country today, will she reflect on the fact that the majority of my constituents hope that she will never come back?
I hope that they will be disappointed, but I cannot believe that the hon. Lady would necessarily say that of the majority of her constituents, who, I believe, would relish political debate.
Q5.
asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 25 July.
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
With regard to the United Kingdom's relationship with the Turkish Government, I wonder whether my right hon. Friend, notwithstanding the disappointment that we had when we failed to get the contract for the Bosphoros bridge, will acknowledge that a letter sent to her by the Prime Minister of Turkey shows that there is tremendous trade potential over a number of projects? Would my right hon. Friend care to share with the House the view that tremendous business opportunities exist between this country and Turkey?
As I think my hon. Friend is aware, exports to Turkey rose last year and continued to rise in the first five to six months of this year. We believe that there are good export opportunities and we are, therefore, keeping under review the amount of medium-term credit.
Is the Prime Minister aware that the minutes of the report of the Foreign Affairs Committee yesterday, and the events surrounding the weekend of 1 and 2 May 1982, show that some members of the Committee prevented others from putting questions to her in writing? Will she now answer one of them, namely, what was the purpose and object of the second visit of the then Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Pym), to Washington and New York over the period of that second fateful weekend?
I have given very full answers on this matter in the past. I have nothing more to add except to say that we debated the matter on 18 February 1985 when the House voted by 351 votes to nil
None of the four hon. Members who signed the minority report of the Select Committee voted against that motion."That this House recognises that the sinking of the General Belgrano was a necessary and legitimate action in the Falklands Campaign; and agrees that the protection of our Armed Forces must be the prime consideration in determining how far matters involving national security and the conduct of military operations can be disclosed."—[Official Report, 18 February 1985; Vol. 73, c. 737.]