PRIME MINISTER
Engagements
Q1. Mr. Terry Fields
asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 25 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 this House I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen.
Mr. Fields
Does the Prime Minister recall her words in the Budget debate on 19 April 1961 and her outright condemnation of share speculation? Do not those words ring hollow today in view of the arrogant disregard—[Interruption.]—of the conventions of this House by a Prime Minister abusing that office in her dealings for five years in undisclosed shares? May we have an assurance that when the district auditors have finished investigating honest politicians in Liverpool and Lambeth they will open up the books of the Prime Minister?
Mr. Speaker
Order. First, that was a very long question, and, secondly, I could easily hear it.
The Prime Minister
In reply to the hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker
Order. The Prime Minister heard the question.
The Prime Minister
I have scrupulously observed the long-standing convention governing the holding of shares by Ministers. These conventions are set out in a memorandum by the former Secretary of the Cabinet, which has been in the Library of the House since 1975. Under those conventions there is nothing which requires me, on assuming office, to dispose of my shares or to transfer them into a trust or into the name of investment managers.
Sir Peter Tapsell
Is it not a concept worthy of George Orwell that the only new idea that the official Opposition had during Budget week was to promise us all free burglar alarms——
Mr. Speaker
Order. Questions must relate to the Prime Minister.
Sir Peter Tapsell
—particularly bearing in mind that the tax policies of the Labour party are designed to turn burglary itself into a nationalised industry?
The Prime Minister
I am sure that my hon. Friend's question was very pertinent. My only comment on the Budget is that the Opposition were not prepared to condemn the reduction in the standard rate of income tax by one penny, and yet were not prepared to vote for it.
Mr. Kinnock
I understand that the Foreign Office will not make a statement in the House today about the incident yesterday in the Gulf of Sidra. May I therefore ask the Prime Minister whether she agrees that her Government's response to the atrocities, to the attacks on British citizens [column 782]and to the United States proposal in January for economic sanctions against Libya has been a great deal more rational and responsible than the dangerous and destabilising attacks on Libya yesterday by American forces?
Can the right hon. Lady further tell me what view her Government expressed in the United States when they were informed of its intention to carry out naval exercises in the Gulf of Sidra some weeks ago? Finally, are United Kingdom citizens in Libya being advised to take any additional precautions in the wake of yesterday's incidents?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman is referring to the Gulf of Sirte. Let me make it clear that United States ships and aircraft were operating in international waters and airspace and that they have every right so to do. It is important that international waters and airspace be kept open, and we support the right of the United States so to operate.
Mr. Kinnock
The rights of the United States navy to be in international waters are not in question in the House, and certainly nobody could or should accept Gaddafi 's definition of what are international waters in the Gulf of Sidra, which is the same place as the right hon. Lady mentioned, as, she should know. What is in question is the United States judgment in exercising those rights. Does she not think that, in view of the destabilising effect of the exchange, it is appropriate for the British Prime Minister to express an opinion that is slightly more assertive than that which she has expressed so far?
The Prime Minister
I have expressed a clear opinion, and shall express it again. It is important that international waters and airspace be kept open. The United States was operating in international waters and airspace and we support its right to operate that way. Its planes were attacked by missiles. The missiles did not hit. In pursuance of article 51 of the United Nations charter, the United States is entitled to act in self-defence against such attacks.
Mr. Fletcher
Will my right hon. Friend accept that only the Opposition Benches would suggest that her personal conduct requires any investigation? Will she also accept that the Conservative Benches and the country have every confidence in her personal integrity?
The Prime Minister
The rules can be read in the Library of the House, I made my position clear. When specific scandalous, scurrilous and totally false allegations were made outside the House, I answered outside the House in meticulous detail to show that the allegations were completely unfounded and outrageous.
Q2. Mr. Wallace
asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 25 March.
The Prime Minister
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
Mr. Wallace
Is the Prime Minister aware that I have received many representations from parents of children from two schools in my constituency—Symbister junior high in Shetland and St. Margaret's Hope in Orkney—about the state of those schools? One was described as dangerous and unsanitary, and the other as being a fire risk? Does she accept that for pupils to study day in and day out in such schools is as adverse to their education as any number of industrial disputes? How can she justify [column 783]policies which allow our children to be educated in schools of such damaged fabric when so many people are unemployed, particularly in the construction industry?
The Prime Minister
As the hon. Gentleman is aware, education policy is either for Malcolm Rifkindthe Secretary of State for Scotland, as the authority which decides upon capital grants, or for his local education authority. He should pursue the matter with them as a matter of priority.
Mr. Charles Wardle
Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Science and Engineering Research Council intends to remove the Royal Greenwich Observatory from Herstmonceaux in my constituency? Will she encourage the council to consider the impact of its decision on local tourism and ask it to demonstrate how that would be a cost-effective use of millions of pounds of research funds?
The Prime Minister
As my hon. Friend knows, it was the decision of the Science and Engineering Research Council to move the astronomy facilities from Herstmonceaux to one of three other places. It is consulting widely and will consult my right hon. Friend Sir Keith Josephthe Secretary of State for Education and Science before a final move is made. I know that it will be painful for those who live near Herstmonceaux if that decision were taken, and I must make it clear that there could be no removal from Herstmonceaux elsewhere before 1990. The consultations will take place, the opinion of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science will be sought and he will also consult the Department of the Environment before any decision is taken.
Mr. Nicholas Brown
In the course of her busy day, will the Prime Minister spare a thought for the people of Tyneside, and in particular the owners, management and work force of Swan Hunter shipbuilders? We are grateful for the interest which the Prime Minister is taking in the placement of the auxiliary oil replenishment vessel. The very future of our community on Tyneside depends upon it. Will the Prime Minister personally intervene to ensure that that order is committed to Swan Hunter and that the shipbuilding industry on the Tyne can survive?
The Prime Minister
As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, all Members who represent that part of the country, and, of course, those who are responsible for the rival shipyard in Northern Ireland, are making a very strong case that limited orders should go to their own yards. He will be aware that it is important that the orders should go to the place that has put in the most effective value-for-money tender. It will have to be considered mainly on that basis, and of course the matter is receiving a great deal of attention from my right hon. Friends Paul Channonthe Secretaries of State for Trade and Industry, Tom Kingfor Northern Ireland and George Youngerfor Defence. I have nothing further at the moment to say to the hon. Gentleman and those who take the view that he does.
Q3. Mr. Stokes
asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 25 March.
The Prime Minister
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
Mr. Stokes
My right hon. Friend will know of the great importance of British Leyland in my constituency and in many other neighbouring constituencies. Without referring specifically to the statement this afternoon, will she state in general that the Government's policy is either [column 784]to merge or to sell constituent parts of BL to those who can make good—probably very good—profits, thus ensuring the long-term future of both employees and suppliers? Will she also state categorically that bids from the United States of America will not be turned down under what The Times calls today “perverse patriotism” ?
The Prime Minister
Yes of course it is this Government's policy to secure in the end the privatisation of British Leyland. With that in mind we were making contacts to see whether we could have the privatisation of BL Trucks, Land Rover, Leyland and Freight Rover. My hon. Friend must await the statement, but I make it absolutely clear that we are concerned that there should be a prosperous industry with good prospects for the future for the people who work in it. We are concerned that some day it should be able to stand on its own feet without making extra demands on the taxpayer. Like other firms, it has to run without subsidy.
Q4. Mr. Beith
asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 25 March.
The Prime Minister
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
Mr. Beith
In seeking the best value for money in the AOR vessel contract, will the Prime Minister bear in mind that if Swan Hunter were to underestimate its costs it would be the shareholders who would pay, but that if Harland and Wolff were to underestimate its costs it might be the taxpayer who would be expected to bail it out as a nationalised yard?
The Prime Minister
All hon. Members who have made representations to me have made it very clear that we must watch very carefully to ensure that there is no element of cross-subsidisation in any bid. We are taking that very much into account and having a look at the detailed figures.
Mr. Franks
As the Prime Minister has been invited to consider individual shareholdings, may I invite her to consider the individual shareholdings of 11,400 employees in the Vickers shipyard, representing over 81 per cent. of the total work force, who have applied to buy shares in the company?
The Prime Minister
Yes, this is popular capitalism at work, which has no place in Labour party policy. I wish it well in the allocation of shares to them and in the future of their shipyard.
Q5. Mr. Wigley
asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 25 March.
The Prime Minister
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
Mr. Wigley
Will the Prime Minister find time to consider the inquiry into the case of Isabel Schwartz, the social worker who was killed by her mentally ill client, who had been released into the community without adequate assessment of her needs? Does this case not graphically illustrate the need for the Disabled Persons (Services Consultation and Representation) Bill to be passed? Is the Prime Minister aware that if it had been passed in 1982, Isabel Schwartz might be alive today?
The Prime Minister
As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the Government's view of the Bill is that it should be turned into a workable Bill that will not put too many extra [column 785]burdens on local authorities. We are particularly aware of the concerns, which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned, about these terrible tragedies. We shall do everything that we can to try to avoid them.
Q6. Ms. Clare Short
asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 25 March.
The Prime Minister
I refer the hon. Lady to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
Ms. Short
Does the Prime Minister agree with the majority of women in Britain, and with many men, that pictures of naked women in mass circulation newspapers should be made illegal?
The Prime Minister
The Obscene Publications Act would already apply if the hon. Lady has any complaints to make.
Mr. Pavitt
On a point of order arising out of questions, Mr. Speaker. During Question Time, you will [column 786]have heard a number of references to a voluntary agreement between the tobacco industry and the Minister for Health. I tried to see a copy of that agreement in the Library this morning, but hon. Members have not had the opportunity to see it. Can you give instructions so that such a copy can be placed in the Library, so that we can see what has been decided?
Mr. Speaker
This is a matter for the Minister, but I am sure that the Front Bench will have heard the hon. Gentleman's request.
Mr. Terry Fields
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for members of the Arthur Daley tendency on the Conservative Benches to seek to muzzle genuine questions to the Prime Minister on a matter of national importance by their——
Mr. Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman had an opportunity to ask his question. I do not think that he was muzzled. I intervened to give him some protection.