Prime Minister
(Engagements)
Q1. Mr. Heddle
asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 15 January.
[column 1138]The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher)
This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet. In addition to my duties in this House I shall be having further meetings with ministerial colleagues and others.
Mr. Heddle
Will my right hon. Friend take time today to consider the plight of industrial and commercial ratepayers, particularly those with premises in areas run by extravagant Labour-controlled councils? Will my right hon. Friend consider that perhaps local democracy might receive a much-needed shot in the arm if consideration were given to the reintroduction of the business vote at local government elections?
The Prime Minister
Where local authorities ignore the need for making economies, a very heavy burden rests on business, and particularly on small business men, many of whom feel that they have taxation without representation. It can also have a very bad effect on jobs, as small busineses move out to other areas with lower rates. My right hon. Friend has the rating system under review, and the aspect of the business and commercial people not having a vote is one that certainly needs to be looked at.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell
Now that it has been determined—thanks not least to the Prime Minister's own determination—that political status for any prisoners is inadmissible in Northern Ireland or elsewhere, will she take time to consider how best that status can now be withdrawn from the 350 prisoners in Northern Ireland who still enjoy it?
The Prime Minister
A number of us share the view of the Gardiner report that there should not be a separate category of prisoners and that there should be no such thing as special status. As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, both the previous Labour Government and this Government decided that no further people should be admitted to that status. At the present time, apart from anything else, there would be practical reasons why one could not withdraw the special status from the others, because there is just not enough cell accommodation. But I should not wholly rest upon that immediately. There are wide considerations relating to withdrawing retrospectively the terms on which those sentences are being served.
Sir William Clark
Will my right hon. Friend take time today to look into the after-effects of strikes? Is she aware that after the engineering strike in 1979, 130,000 jobs were lost, and that after the steel strike last year about 110,000 jobs were lost? What conclusions does she draw from that?
The Prime Minister
It seems to me that my hon. Friend has drawn the conclusions, almost by virtue of the question, that strikes lose jobs, and the sooner the lesson is learnt the better.
Mr. Beith
Will the Prime Minister find time today to read the speech last night by Sir Leslie Murphy, formerly the chairman of the National Enterprise Board, in which he particularly referred to the board as one of the victims of the battle between the extreme Right and the extreme Left in British politics? Is the right hon. Lady prepared to learn some lessons from that, or will she retreat further into a narrowing group of Right-wing Conservatives?
The Prime Minister
I rather thought that Sir Leslie Murphythat gentleman's speech condemned politicians carte blanche.
[column 1139]Q2. Mr. Bob Dunn
asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 15 January.
The Prime Minister
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I have just given.
Mr. Dunn
Does my right hon. Friend share the view that staffing levels in local government have increased partly because of the nature of the legislation that has been passed by successive Governments? Does she agree that local bureaucracies could be further reduced by repealing some of that legislation?
The Prime Minister
Over the years increasing burdens have been placed on local authorities. That alone has led to increased manpower. Indeed, over the past 30 years manpower has doubled. We have reduced some of the functions and statutory duties of local authorities by means of the recent Local Government, Planning and Land Act. The Community Land Act has been repealed and planning powers are no longer duplicated. In addition, there is a good deal of relaxation of capital controls. Two things are involved: a reduction in the number of functions and the scope to carry out existing functions more efficiently and economically.
Mr. Foot
During the right hon. Lady's study of speeches today, has she had a chance to study the speech by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury? From the very heart of the Government—I think that that is the description she approved of in The Times—could she tell us whether it is a good idea that the Financial Secretary should declare that, despite the fact that the two main pillars of the Government's economic policy—money supply and the public sector borrowing requirement—have crumbled, the Government will continue building the same old edifice?
The Prime Minister
If Nigel Lawsonthe right hon. Gentleman were to read the whole speech thoroughly—it is in the Library—he would probably agree with leader writers who, almost unanimously, called the speech “remarkably frank and intelligent” , “modest and intelligent” and so on. They said that it was intelligent.
Mr. Foot
I have had a chance to read the whole speech. Does the right hon. Lady agree with the proposition underlined in that speech—it has never before been so candidly admitted—namely, that the right hon. Lady's Government have increased the real burden of taxation? Is that part of the policy that the right hon. Lady is so determined to continue?
The Prime Minister
I cannot in any way disagree with that highly intelligent speech. The person who made it is a lot more intelligent and perceptive than some of his critics. I do not disagree that the total burden of taxation, for the time being, has increased. However, it has not been increased on personal incomes. Indeed, the burden has been shifted from personal incomes to indirect taxation. That was part of our manifesto, which we intend to continue to carry out.
Mr. Moate
On the controversial subject of the compulsory wearing of seat belts, may I ask my right hon. Friend to confirm that it is still the Government's policy to abide by the results of a free vote in the House?
The Prime Minister
The Government's policy has not changed.
[column 1140]Q3. Mr. Christopher Price
asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 15 January.
The Prime Minister
I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave some time ago.
Mr. Price
Given the right hon. Lady's recent interest in leaks and in briefing small groups of the Lobby, will she find time today to consider genuine open government? Will she tell the House why her Chief Whip has told all her Ministers to cancel their engagements tomorrow and to be on a parade at 2.30 pm? Will she assure the House that the reason is that they will be able to vote for my motion, which contains the recommendations of an all-party group and which seeks to make a modest increase in open government in relation to Select Committees?
The Prime Minister
Conservative Members will vote with or against the hon. Gentleman as they wish. [Interruption.] I think that I heard one of my right hon. Friends say that he would vote against the motion, and I believe that he will be followed by quite a number of my right hon. and hon. Friends. I understood that the objection of the Leader of the Opposition to the speech made by the Financial Secretary was that it was open.
Mr. Latham
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that in the fight against inflation it is important to ensure that the nationalised industries do everything possible to absorb price increases, rather than pass them on to the consumer?
The Prime Minister
I agree with my hon. Friend. There is a strong feeling that the private sector is much better at cutting costs than is the public sector. Over the past six years the increases in nationalised industries' prices, taken as a whole, have greatly exceeded any increases in prices in the private sector. [Interruption.] Opposition Members seem to be muttering “Gas” . When the revenue from gas is taken into account, about £3 billion of taxpayers' money still has to be paid to subsidise the nationalised industries.
Mr. John Home Robertson
Will the right hon. Lady reaffirm an undertaking that she gave in 1974 to the effect that the domestic rating system would be abolished during the course of a Parliament? If she does, she will certainly have my support.
The Prime Minister
I must consider whether I find that prospect tempting. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the manifesto issued during the last election. We did not undertake to abolish the domestic rating system during the lifetime of this Parliament. It has always been my view, and that of my right hon. and hon. Friends, that the rating system will have to be abolished at some time. It is thoroughly undemocratic and unfair. I stand by both of those descriptions.
Q4. Mr. Montgomery
asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 15 January.
The Prime Minister
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave some time ago.
Mr. Montgomery
Will my right hon. Friend find time today to remind people that while the latest figures show that the living standards of those in work rose last year, they did so at the expense of many jobs, because people priced their products out of the market? Is there not a lesson there for the seamen?
The Prime Minister
It is a tragedy that, by demanding wages that are far greater than can be borne by their [column 1141]productivity, people price themselves out of jobs. As a result, the jobs and businesses go overseas. Not only do people price themselves out of jobs, but they price others out of jobs, some of whom have been very careful not to demand large wage increases. With my hon. Friend, I hope that the lesson will be learnt. More strikes mean more unemployment.
Mr. James Hamilton
Given the point made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition about the Financial Secretary's speech in Geneva, does the right hon. Lady accept that that speech proved conclusively that consumer prices have risen faster than the tax reductions announced by the Government? If the right hon. Lady is uncertain, will she do what she did during the election? Will she go round shopping centres with her shopping basket and ask housewives what the situation is, and so get the true picture?
The Prime Minister
I am delighted that Nigel Lawsonmy right hon. Friend's speech is receiving so much publicity. I hope that everyone will read it. They will learn that before the last election prices were increasing at a very considerable rate.
[column 1142]Mr. Nicholas Winterton
During my right hon. Friend's busy day, will she seek a meeting with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry on the situation facing the textile industry? Will she consider asking him to allocate to the textile industry, in one form or another, about one-tenth of the aid that the Government intend to give to the British motor industry and to British Leyland? The textile industry employs many more people than does the motor car industry. One-tenth of the aid given to British Leyland would save tens of thousands of jobs in the textile industry, where strikes are unknown, investment is tremendous—second only to that in chemicals—and where the people traditionally back Britain in every possible way.
The Prime Minister
I am well aware of the essential truth of my hon. Friend's remark that far more people are employed in the textile industry than in some of the heavy industries, and that some of those jobs are at risk. As my hon. Friend knows, we shall require a very strong multi-fibre arrangement, which will be renegotiated soon. I support everything that my hon. Friend said about the people who work in the textile industry. We shall do all that we can to help in the renegotiation.