UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: 1982

  • David Alton – 1982 Parliamentary Question on the Christmas Bonus for Pensioners

    David Alton – 1982 Parliamentary Question on the Christmas Bonus for Pensioners

    The parliamentary question asked by David Alton, the then Liberal MP for Liverpool Edge Hill, in the House of Commons on 16 November 1982.

    Mr. Alton

    Following the Prime Minister’s statement last night that pensioners should not be reduced to penury, will she confirm that had the £10 Christmas bonus kept pace with inflation it should now be about £30? Does she agree with what a Liverpool pensioner said to me recently, that if she does not increase this pitiful sum it could reasonably be said that Scrooge is alive and well and living in Downing Street?

    The Prime Minister

    My comments last night referred to the savings of non-index-linked pensioners having been reduced by a policy of inflation over the years. I said that those days were over; the pensioners were abused disgracefully by a policy of inflation over a decade.

    It is easy for the hon. Gentleman to ask for increases in the bonus, but they must be met out of the pockets of the working population. Every time that we put extra burdens on them or on industry we make it more difficult for industry to be competitive. The hon. Gentleman knows of the increases in the national insurance contribution that we have had to make this year. It would not be wise to put an extra burden on the working population.

  • William Clark – 1982 Parliamentary Question on the Right-To-Buy

    William Clark – 1982 Parliamentary Question on the Right-To-Buy

    The parliamentary question asked by William Clark, the then Conservative MP for Croydon South, in the House of Commons on 16 November 1982.

    Sir William Clark

    Is my right hon. Friend aware that with the recent 2 per cent. cut in mortgage interest, rates have come down by 5 per cent this year? Does she agree that in many cases it is cheaper for a council tenant to buy rather than to rent, which should be an added incentive for people to buy council houses?

    Margaret Thatcher (The Prime Minister)

    Yes. In many cases the discount permitted to council tenants and the tax relief on mortgage payments will mean that the net mortgage repayment is less than the rent that would otherwise have been paid. I hope that that fact will lead many council tenants to take the opportunity to purchase their houses under the right-to-buy legislation.

  • Patrick Duffy – 1982 Parliamentary Question on Flat Industrial Production

    Patrick Duffy – 1982 Parliamentary Question on Flat Industrial Production

    The parliamentary question asked by Patrick Duffy, the Labour MP for Sheffield Attercliffe, in the House of Commons on 16 November 1982.

    Mr. Duffy

    What encouragement does the Prime Minister draw from the latest findings of the Central Statistical Office showing industrial production in September as flat, and with no improvement in the third quarter over the second, thus confirming the recent bleak forecasts of the CBI? Does the Prime Minister deny that the PSBR could now provide for some pump-priming, or has she abandoned unemployed people to the electoral needs of a give-away Budget?

    The Prime Minister

    The hon. Gentleman is right, production is flat. But he will have noticed that the retail trade is buoyant and he will have drawn the conclusion that people are buying more goods. The demand is there, but it is not being met by production from our factories. That stresses the need once again to be competitive both in price and design. As regards the PSBR, as one of the world troubles in the coming financial year will be the accumulated deficits of debtor countries, it is far better that we do not join those countries, but keep our finances on a sound basis.

  • Stan Newens – 1982 Parliamentary Question on Cruise Missiles

    Stan Newens – 1982 Parliamentary Question on Cruise Missiles

    The parliamentary question asked by Stan Newens, the then Labour MP for Harlow, in the House of Commons on 16 November 1982.

    Mr. Newens asked the Secretary of State for Defence when the first cruise missiles are due to be deployed in the United Kingdom.

    The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Peter Blaker)

    In the absence of concrete results in the arms reduction negotiations in Geneva on intermediate nuclear forces, cruise missiles are due to be deployed in the United Kingdom by December 1983.

    Mr. Newens

    As the United States, on many occasions, particularly recently, has made it clear that it is prepared to put United States interests before those of Britain where it suits it, how on earth can the deployment of American owned and controlled cruise missiles in this country be justified? Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that the majority of people in Britain today reject this proposal?

    Mr. Blaker

    The hon. Gentleman appears to misunderstand the reasoning behind the proposed installation of cruise and Pershing II missiles in Europe. That action is due to be taken, in the absence of an arms reduction agreement, at the request of the European countries. It is intended to demonstrate to the Soviet Union and to Western Europe that the United States is fully committed to the defence of Western Europe.

    Mr. Cartwright

    Has the Minister noted statements by United States officials that development problems affecting cruise and Pershing II missiles are no worse than those affecting any new weapon system? Does he find that choice of words comforting? Is he convinced that the cruise will be ready on time?

    Mr. Blaker

    According to the information that I have, I expect the cruise to be ready for deployment by the end of next year. The tests being conducted on the Tomahawk cruise missile, which is the relevant one, show a success rate of over 80 per cent.

    Mr. Stokes

    Is my hon. Friend aware that most people hope that the sooner these weapons are deployed in the United Kingdom the better, especially in view of the threat from the growing number of Soviet SS20 missiles? Will my hon. Friend do all in his power to counter the dangerous and misleading opposition to the stationing of these weapons here?

    Mr. Blaker

    I agree with my hon. Friend about the urgency of this problem. When NATO first proposed in 1979 the installation of cruise and Pershing missiles, and simultaneous negotiations with the Soviet Union to make that deployment unnecessary if agreement could be reached, the number of SS20s in the Soviet Union was just over 100. The figure is now 324. I believe, therefore, that the imbalance that existed in 1979 has worsened. We shall try to reach a disarmament agreement, but in the absence of such an agreement we must press on with our plans.

    Mr. Strang

    Is the Minister aware that the brave women of the Greenham Common peace campaign are representative of the views of millions of women in this country? Has he recognised that the harsh decision of the authorities to imprison them will increase rather than decrease the determination of women and men throughout Britain who are determined to oppose this dangerous escalation of the nuclear arms race?

    Mr. Blaker

    It is clear to me that the vast majority of people in this country believe in nuclear deterrence combined with a policy of multilateral negotiations for arms reduction. The case of the women at the so-called peace camp at Greenham Common is not a matter for me.

    Mr. Colvin

    Will my hon. Friend confirm that cruise missiles are defensive or retaliatory, and that they are in no way offensive or first-strike weapons.

    Mr. Blaker

    My hon. Friend is absolutely right. They travel at about the same speed as a British Airways jet. They would take three hours to reach Moscow.

    Mr. Denzil Davies

    Is the Minister aware that the original decision to deploy cruise missiles, far from bringing America and Western Europe closer together, has created confusion and dissension, especially by raising the spectre of limited nuclear war in Europe? Why do not the Government cancel the project, which is a major and dangerous step on the ladder of nuclear escalation?

    Mr. Blaker

    If there is confusion, it has been caused largely by some of the unilateralist organisations which have been spreading false information. I have previously told the House that one CND leaflet contained five gross errors of fact, three of which are conceded either by Monsignor Bruce Kent or by Lord Jenkins of Putney, a former hon. Member of this House. A limited nuclear war is not an objective of Western policy. The introduction of cruise missiles is intended to demonstrate that the United States is bound into the defence of Western Europe.

    Mr. Davies

    Will the hon. Gentleman concede that the whole object of a cruise missile is to fight a nuclear war on the Continent of Europe? Why is that not a limited nuclear war?

    Mr. Blaker

    The right hon. Gentleman is talking rubbish.

  • Robert Hicks – 1982 Parliamentary Question on HMS Fisgard

    Robert Hicks – 1982 Parliamentary Question on HMS Fisgard

    The parliamentary question asked by Robert Hicks, the then Conservative MP for Bodmin, in the House of Commons on 16 November 1982.

    Mr. Hicks asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has yet determined the future use of the land now occupied by HMS “Fisgard”, Torpoint; and if he will make a statement.

    The Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Jerry Wiggin)

    As has been announced, HMS “Fisgard” is due to close in December 1983. Provided that there is no other Ministry of Defence requirement for the land and buildings there, the property will be passed to the Property Services Agency for disposal in the usual way.

    Mr. Hicks

    Will my hon. Friend state whether there is any prospect of the Royal Marines or some other Service unit occupying this valuable and extensive site? If not, can he give the House the assurance that he will instruct the PSA to get on as quickly as possible with the sale of the site for some other positive use?

    Mr. Wiggin

    As the search has not been completed, I cannot say whether there will be any other Service use. If there is not, I can give my hon. Friend the assurance for which he asks. I can also inform him that the Royal Marines will not be going there.

  • Michael Heseltine – 1982 Speech on Department of Environment Finances and New Enterprise Zones

    Michael Heseltine – 1982 Speech on Department of Environment Finances and New Enterprise Zones

    The speech made by Michael Heseltine, the then Secretary of State for the Environment, in the House of Commons on 15 November 1982.

    With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement about certain public expenditure programmes for the Department of the Environment. This follows the statement made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 8 November. Details are being laid in the Vote Office. I shall also announce the designation of new enterprise zones.

    As my right hon. and learned Friend said, for the first time since 1977 a Government’s public expenditure plans have not had to be revised upwards from one year to the next. The total of planned expenditure for my own programmes has also remained broadly the same. However, as a result of the considerable success of the programme of sales of council houses and of other assets, significant additional resources are now being realised by local government. In 1983–84 these sales should be worth about £1,750 million. This allows for a marked increase in certain capital programmes.

    I deal first with housing. For the current year I have asked local authorities to accelerate their capital programmes in order to spend closer to the national provision. I have offered additional capital allocations for all authorities which need them. Local authorities can increase their expenditure on home improvement grants this year without limit. The Government agree with the proposal—endorsed by The House Builders Federation—that local authorities should buy completed, or nearly completed, low-cost homes direct from house builders for sale, under shared ownership arrangements, to first-time buyers and those on the waiting list. I urge local authorities to promote these schemes.
    I have also discussed with the Housing Corporation the effective use of additional resources this year. I have agreed an increase of £150 million in the corporation’s cash imit for 1982–83 to £680 million. This allows additional expenditure on fair rent, hostel and low-cost home ownership schemes and the refinancing of private borrowing guaranteed by the corporation.

    For 1983–84 the gross capital provision for housing will be increased from this year’s provision of £3,190 million to £3,243 million. This is about £340 million above the expected outturn for the current year, taking account of the forecast additional spend from my statement today. It will sustain a substantial increase in construction and improvement activity. I have already announced the continuation of the higher improvement grant rates until the end of 1983–84. I shall be taking additional steps to assist local authorities to meet the resulting demand.

    I deal now with other Department of the Environment programmes. For the current year, 1982–83, local authorities have been invited to seek any additional allocations they need for derelict land, urban programme expenditure, or other projects. The grant to the Sports Council is also being increased to allow increased capital expenditure, particularly in communities where the needs are greatest and where the development of small facilities can provide a basis for partnership between voluntary organisations and local government. The Minister for the Arts and I are making a further grant of £5 million to the national heritage memorial fund. I will also provide additions to the grants to the Nature Conservancy Council and the Countryside Commission.

    A breakdown of Department of the Environment programmes for 1983–84 is shown in the figures placed in the Vote Office. The external financing limit for water authorities will allow capital investment to be increased from £632 million to £677 million. Provision for gross capital expenditure on local environmental services will be £605 million compared with forecast outturn this year of £481 million. Within the smaller programmes there will be an increase in the heritage, conservation and sports budgets from £156 million to £165 million.

    I shall be concentrating further additional resources on the urban and derelict land programmes. The House will be aware that I recently launched a new initiative under the urban and derelict land programmes and invited local authorities to submit viable schemes, provided that they attract substantial funds from the private sector. The response from local government and the private sector has greatly exceeded expectations. We have bids of £275 million from the public sector put forward in conjunction with a potential further £900 million of investment from the private sector, spread over a number of years. Our initial appraisal shows that in the first year a public contribution of £85 million could be necessary. I have therefore increased accordingly the £70 million originally earmarked. Substantial private sector funds will flow as a consequence of this injection of Government support. The balance of both public and private expenditure will be invested over subsequent years.

    In addition, I am increasing the remaining special budgets for the urban and derelict land programmes. Including the £85 million for the joint schemes, the urban programme will be increased from an expected outturn of —280 million this year to —348 million next year, the derelict land programme will be increased from £59 million to £75 million; and the resources of the urban development corporations of London and Merseyside will be increased from £64 million to £67 million. In total, the public expenditure provision for these programmes next year will be £490 million—an increase of £87 million or 22 per cent. on the likely outturn for this year.

    As a further part of our efforts to restore economic health to rundown industrial areas, I can tell the House the Government’s decisions on the designation of new enterprise zones in England.

    My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced on 27 July that the Government intended to designate 11 new zones, seven of them in England. More than 50 English authorities have submitted bids, many of high quality.

    As a result, the Government have decided that, in England, we should go ahead with nine new zones; in Allerdale and North-East Lancashire in the North-West; Rotherham and Scunthorpe in Yorkshire and Humberside; Telford in the West Midlands; North-East Derbyshire and Wellingborough in the East Midlands; Middlesbrough in the North-East; and in North-West Kent, including parts of Rochester, Gillingham and Gravesham. The Government have also decided to extend the existing zones at Speke in Liverpool and Wakefield in West Yorkshire. There will be further detailed discussions.

    These programmes give priority to capital expenditure. Significant additional resources arise from the success of local government—which I commend—in selling council houses to their tenants and in realising other assets. The announcements today underline our commitment to the inner cities and to the restoration and improvement of some of the most rundown and depressed industrial areas of our society, and there is an enhanced opportunity for capital investment by much of local government.

  • David Ennals – 1982 Parliamentary Question on Pressurised Water Reactor at Sizewell

    David Ennals – 1982 Parliamentary Question on Pressurised Water Reactor at Sizewell

    The parliamentary question asked by David Ennals, the then Labour MP for Norwich North, in the House of Commons on 15 November 1982.

    Mr. Ennals asked the Secretary of State what representations he has received concerning his decision to refuse financial support to organisations wishing to present to the public inquiry evidence against the establishment of a pressurised water reactor at Sizewell, Suffolk; and if he will now reconsider his decision.

    Mr. Lawson

    I have received 12 letters on this matter since I wrote to the inquiry inspector on 21 September. My decision stands.

    Mr. Ennals

    Is the Secretary of State aware that this inquiry is of great national as well as local importance because it may determine the pattern for energy and capital expenditure over the next 20 years? Does he agree that it is vital that the public should know that both sides of the argument have been effectively and properly put forward? Bearing in mind the funds available to the Central Electricity Generating Board, does he agree that some assistance should be given to organisations taking a contrary view so that the case may be fairly presented?

    Mr. Lawson

    I agree with the right hon. Gentleman about the importance of the inquiry, but I do not agree on the other points. As time is short, I merely refer him to the arguments that I set out at considerable length in my letter to Sir Frank Layfield explaining why I did not think it right to do as the right hon. Gentleman suggests. As I know that the right hon. Gentleman has great concern for the views of the trade unions, I am sure that he will be pleased to know that I have received a letter from the Employees’ National Committee for the Electricity Supply Industry, the chairman and secretary of which are Mr. Frank Chapple and Mr. John Lyons, expressing strong opposition to any public funding for the objectors at the Sizewell inquiry.

  • Richard Douglas – 1982 Parliamentary Question on North Sea Oil and Gas

    Richard Douglas – 1982 Parliamentary Question on North Sea Oil and Gas

    The parliamentary question asked by Richard Douglas, the then Labour MP for Dunfermline West, in the House of Commons on 15 November 1982.

    Mr. Douglas

    asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the number of North Sea fields which he expects to be in production in 1984 and the anticipated aggregate flows of oil and gas.

    Mr. Gray

    It is expected that by the end of 1984, 25 oilfields and seven gas fields will be in production in the United Kingdom section of the North Sea. Projections of production for oil and gas in 1984 and beyond are necessarily subject to wide ranges of uncertainty. Projections of oil production in 1984 given in the 1982 Brown Book are 95 million to 125 million tonnes.

    Mr. Douglas

    I thank the Minister for that reply. Is there not a danger that, unless we get a reasonable and sensible policy, we shall become net oil importers by the late 1980s? Does he concede—his right hon. and learned Friend alluded to this matter a few weeks ago—that we must sort out the tax regime? What proposals on that matter does he envisage in the forthcoming Finance Bill?

    Mr. Gray

    The hon. Gentleman has been a Member long enough to know that at this stage there is no way in which I or my right hon. and learned Friend could comment on his thinking on tax matters. However, it is true to say that probably no other industry has a closer dialogue with the Government than the oil industry. The various representations made both within the industry and the House are carefully noted.

    The future prospects for the North Sea are extremely bright. The seventh round was probably the most successful that we have had, and we expect great enthusiasm for the eighth round of licensing. The fact that the North Sea is in such a politically stable area is encouraging to the private sector.

    Mr. Douglas

    Why, then, are the Government selling Britoil?

    Mr. Chapman

    I appreciate that any estimate of oil and gas reserves must be rough, but have such estimates been revised upwards or downwards in the past three years in the light of new or no discoveries?

    Mr. Gray

    The Brown Book, which contains most of the North Sea activities and predictions, is revised on an annual basis.

    Mr. Hooley

    Is it correct that we are rapidly moving to the production of 50 per cent. more oil than we need for domestic purposes? If so, is not that a dangerous depletion policy?

    Mr. Gray

    I do not think so. That reflects the success of exploration in the North Sea. The hon. Gentleman should always bear in mind that if we reversed this policy and restricted development in the North Sea that could have a serious effect on many jobs.

  • John Tilley – 1982 Parliamentary Question on Lead-Free Petrol

    John Tilley – 1982 Parliamentary Question on Lead-Free Petrol

    The parliamentary question asked by John Tilley, the then Labour MP for Lambeth Central, in the House of Commons on 15 November 1982.

    Mr. Tilley asked the Secretary of State for Energy what information is available to him as to the capacity of the oil industry to provide lead-free petrol.

    Mr. Gray

    The oil industry would have no difficulty in producing lead-free two-star petrol. It is engaged in a very large investment programme to enable the lead in four-star petrol to be reduced to 0·15 grams per litre.

    Mr. Tilley

    Will the Minister encourage the industry to provide lead-free petrol for motorists who wish to use it? Does he agree that, as well as increasing consumer choice, which the Conservative Party is said to support, it will reduce health risks to children in inner cities?

    Mr. Gray

    It must not be forgotten that the Government’s decision to reduce the lead content from 0..4 to 0·15 grams per litre by 1985 is the most major step that could have been taken in the short term. The industry is prepared to co-operate. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the forthcoming Royal Commission report on environmental pollution will be studied carefully. All points of view will be taken into account.

    Mr. Waller

    Does my right hon. Friend agree that a change to lead-free petrol, rather than a reduction in the lead content to which the Government are committed, would lead to a severe increase in the use of scarce fuels? Does he also agree that, because existing engines cannot run on lead-free petrol for a long time, we should need twice as many petrol pumps as we now have? As there is no proof that airborne lead is damaging to health, does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government’s attitude is extremely responsible?

    Mr. Gray

    My hon. Friend is correct. It is worth pointing out that no more than about 10 per cent. of the 15 million petrol-driven vehicles now on our roads could use lead-free petrol, if it existed.

  • Richard Page – 1982 Parliamentary Question on Whether Arthur Scargill Should Resign

    Richard Page – 1982 Parliamentary Question on Whether Arthur Scargill Should Resign

    The parliamentary question asked by Richard Page, the then Conservative MP for South West Hertfordshire, in the House of Commons on 15 November 1982.

    Mr. Richard Page

    If my hon. Friend lost three consecutive votes in the House, I know that he would resign. Why does Arthur Scargill not do the decent thing and resign and leave the representation of the workers in the coal industry to those who care about coal and not personal politics?

    Mr. Moore

    We are not involved in the detailed management of the National Union of Mineworkers, for which we have no responsibility. I hope that all who are committed to coal and are interested in its future will welcome the result of the ballot, for the sake of the miners, the industry, and the industry’s customers, let alone for Great Britain.