Speeches, etc.

Margaret Thatcher

House of Commons PQs

Document type: Speeches, interviews, etc.
Venue: House of Commons
Source: Hansard HC [972/191-97]
Editorial comments: 1515-30.
Importance ranking: Major
Word count: 2287
Themes: Agriculture, British Constitution (general discussions), Parliament, Defence (arms control), Economic policy - theory and process, Industry, Monetary policy, Privatized & state industries, Pay, Public spending & borrowing, European Union (general), European Union Budget, Foreign policy (USSR & successor states), Labour Party & socialism, Media
[column 191]

PRIME MINISTER

(ENGAGEMENTS)

Q1. Mr. Canavan

asked the Prime Minister what are her official engagements for Tuesday 23 October.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher)

In addition to duties in this House I shall have meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty The Queen.

Mr. Canavan

Will the Prime Minister find time today to repeat her sister-bountiful speech—the first thing she has ever said with which I partly agree—because I, too, am thoroughly disgusted with her Government cutting expenditure on housing, health and education while dishing out £1 billion a year to the Common Market? Even if it means our getting out of the Common Market, will the Prime Minister take unilateral action, if necessary, to cut our contribution? Otherwise, she will end up like Old Mother Hubbard instead of sister bountiful.

The Prime Minister

I am glad to have pleased the hon. Gentleman with at least one of my speeches. As far as cutting our contribution unilaterally goes, we must observe the law, and I think that such a course would be outside the law. We shall try to negotiate these things at the Dublin summit but, believing in the rule of law as we do, we cannot go outside it. We must try to get change by agreement.

Mr. Kenneth Baker

Will my right hon. Friend today have another look at the speech made by President Brezhnev during the Summer Recess about the reduction of Soviet troops in Germany? Is she aware that if 20,000 Soviet troops were withdrawn from East Germany there would be 380,000 left, and that if 1,000 Russian tanks were withdrawn from East Germany there would be 6,000 Russian tanks left there? Therefore, was not her reaction in her speech to this recent rather token gesture of disarmament correct?

The Prime Minister

I wholly agree with my hon. Friend, and I am certain that the speech by President Brezhnev [column 192]must not divert us from modernising our theatre nuclear forces and from making a decision by the end of this year.

Mr. Leighton

I agree with the Prime Minister that we must obey the rule of law, but does not she agree that the rule of law of the United Kingdom is made in this place and that she has adequate powers to act unilaterally if she wishes?

The Prime Minister

The law of the United Kingdom is to observe the edicts of the European Court.

Mr. Renton

Anticipating many weasel words from the Opposition today, and in the months ahead, about the effect of stabilising public expenditure, may I ask whether the Prime Minister has had an estimate made of the extent to which income tax, VAT and rates would have to go up if all the Labour Party's pre-election promises were to be fulfilled and there were no public expenditure cuts?

The Prime Minister

The fact is that expenditure this year, on the same price basis as obtained under the previous Government last year, is slightly up. In 1978–79 the Labour Government spent £69,766 million. This year we plan to spend £69,796 million. Those figures are in the same real terms. Expenditure this year is therefore slightly up on last, which should give the lie to those who accuse us of savage cuts.

Mr. Straw

With reference to the answer which the Prime Minister gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton), is she saying, on the question of the Common Market budget, that there are no circumstances in which, no matter how obdurate the French and their colleagues are on the matter of our contribution, she would bring forward amendments to the European Communities Act?

The Prime Minister

I advise the hon. Member to be a little more patient. We shall try to achieve what we want to by negotiation. I do not make threats to break the rule of law, either national or internationally, since we believe that we should have no future if we did.

[column 193]

FRASERBURGH AND PETERHEAD

Q2. Mr. McQuarrie

asked the Prime Minister if she will visit the fish processing factories in Fraserburgh and Peterhead.

The Prime Minister

I have at present no plans to do so.

Mr. McQuarrie

I very much regret that it is impossible for my right hon. Friend to visit the fish processing factories in my constituency. However, will she press her Ministers to hold a meeting with those responsible for fishing in order to secure a negotiated agreement for the industry and remove the threat of unemployment that hangs over thousands of people as a result of high costs and lack of supplies? Is she aware that the industry has been asking for that for four years without success and that during that time almost every sector of the industry has had to apply for temporary employment subsidy to remain in business?

The Prime Minister

I know the problems that my hon. Friend is facing in this area. The overriding necessity is to conserve herring stocks, and until they have recovered there will be very little supply for that branch of the fish processing industry. My hon. Friend Peter Walkerthe Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and my right hon. Friend George Youngerthe Secretary of State for Scotland will be discussing the problem with representatives of the industry this week.

MINISTERIAL BROADCASTS

Q4. Mr. Freud

asked the Prime Minister what are her current criteria for making a ministerial broadcast.

The Prime Minister

There has been no change in the published criteria.

Mr. Freud

In view of the cuts, and rumoured cuts, in health, education and social services, and the proposed disappearance of foreign husbands from the hearths of English wives, does not the Prime Minister feel that it is about time she spelt out her programme for this parliamentary Session in a ministerial broadcast?

The Prime Minister

I think that the place to spell that out is in this House, and it will be spelt out each day. As [column 194]for the hon. Gentleman's comments about cuts in health and personal social services, last year the Labour Government spent—and these figures are corrected and are on the same price basis—£9,055 million on health and personal social services. This year the figure will be £9,109 million, which is an increase in real terms.

Mr. Adley

Will my right hon. Friend make as many ministerial broadcasts as possible so that we may all enjoy the sight of the Parliamentary Labour Party and the National Executive Committee of the Labour Party arguing about who replies?

The Prime Minister

I am not overmuch in favour of either ministerial or party political broadcasts. I think that people prefer to watch “Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy” .

Mr. Norman Atkinson

Will the Prime Minister take the opportunity of a broadcast to reassure the British people that she did not mean what she said in her bellicose response to the Soviet initiatives in Europe? Is it not true that the Foreign Office is privately saying that when she shoots from the hip on these occasions she betrays an immaturity in international affairs? Will she now welcome the detente which it is possible for her to take up and accept on the next occasion?

The Prime Minister

I think that the complaint of the Soviet Union was that I shot with deadly accuracy.

CBI

Q5. Mr. Latham

asked the Prime Minister when last she met the Confederation of British Industry.

The Prime Minister

On 9 July.

Mr. Latham

In view of some of the absurd wage claims that are apparently being lodged in the private and public sectors, will my right hon. Friend lose no opportunity to stress that excessive wage settlements will lead directly and inevitably to higher unemployment?

The Prime Minister

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. If excessive wage claims lead to excessive wage settlements a number of people will price themselves out of the market and there will be [column 195]higher unemployment. The alternative is that they take more money themselves at the expense of others, because we shall not increase the money supply to accommodate higher wages.

Mr. James Callaghan

Is it still the Prime Minister's view that a combination of a strict monetary control and a wages free-for-all, whether or not it leads to absurd wage claims, will reduce inflation and unemployment?

The Prime Minister

The way to reduce inflation, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, must be not to print more money. If we print more money, if we increase the money supply, that will be next year's inflation. Within the money supply we expect management and employees to be able to negotiate responsibly, and if they do not they must bear the consequences of their own action.

Mr. Callaghan

Are we to take it from that, then, that the right hon. Lady intends to stick to a policy of strict monetary control, irrespective of the effect on unemployment?

The Prime Minister

The alternative is to print money—[Hon. Members: “Answer.” ]—and to lead, as the right hon. Gentleman once said to his own party conference, to increased inflation and, thereby, to increased unemployment.

Mr. Callaghan

I am much obliged to the right hon. Lady for referring to my past speeches, but I wish that she would refer to her present policy. What is it?

The Prime Minister

Exactly as I have said. If we print money, that will lead to extra inflation and extra unemployment. Therefore, I can only urge people to realise that if they ask for pay settlements in excess of productivity they are leading either to extra inflation or to extra unemployment, and the extra unemployment would be their fault.

Mr. Speaker

Mr. David Steel.

Mr. David Steel

rose——

Mr. Callaghan

rose——

Mr. Speaker

Order. From time to time the Leader of the Opposition is allowed extra latitude. I said that in the last Parliament. Mr. James Callaghan.

[column 196]

Mr. Callaghan

Is not the conclusion, therefore, that this winter we shall have higher inflation and higher unemployment? When did the Prime Minister promise that in her election speeches?

The Prime Minister

We had both of those in very big measure under the previous Government, which is why I am changing the policy.

Mr. David Steel

How does the Prime Minister square her commitment to free collective bargaining with the letter sent by the Secretary of State for Industry to the chairmen of nationalised industries setting pay limits and asking for Government consultation on pay settlements? Surely the kind of pay policy that is private and applies to only one sector of the economy is the last kind that will work.

The Prime Minister

I think that the right hon. Gentleman has misinterpreted the letter. That letter said that we are setting cash limits—a system which relies on the nationalised industries to improve their productivity performance and to reduce real unit labour costs.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton

When my right hon. Friend met the Confederation of British Industry, did she discuss the future role of the National Enterprise Board? Was the view expressed that that body should have its role reduced and that it could act very well as a loan board for smaller businesses, enabling the Board to buy equity in a private company requiring funds for technological invention and for the company to repurchase that equity after a fixed period, thus allowing the private company to remain a private and free enterprise?

The Prime Minister

I did not discuss that matter with the CBI. As my hon. Friend knows, we are intending to change the role of the NEB, and we shall be publishing, or have published, a Bill accordingly.

Mr. Meacher

Will the right hon. Lady confirm that the Government intend to keep to their present public sector borrowing requirement ceiling? If so, will she indicate whether it is her intention, or merely the by-product of her policies, that unemployment will rise, according to The Economist, to 9½ per cent by the end of 1981?

[column 197]

The Prime Minister

We intend to keep to the public sector borrowing requirement ceiling. I have vivid memories of what happened when we did not in 1976, when we had to call in the IMF. On that occasion we had real cuts in public expenditure of some 6 per cent. from the level of the previous year. We intend to keep to the ceiling. The hon. Gentleman is inviting us to spend our way out of the difficulties that we are in now. That would lead only to increased inflation and increased unemployment.