Prime Minister
(Engagements)
Q1. Mr. Allan Stewart
asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 29 January.
The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher)
This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and held 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 have been invited to speak at a dinner given by the Pilgrims Society.
Mr. Stewart
In the midst of her busy schedule, has the Prime Minister had a chance to see the recently published Scottish Industrial and Commercial Property Review, prepared by Professor Mackay of Heriot-Watt university and other economists, which forecasts a continuing reduction in the rate of inflation and a steady economic upturn from late this year into the medium term? Does she agree that that reflects economic reality, and that in the midst of the recession there are increasingly positive signs for the future, in Scotland as elsewhere in the United Kingdom?
The Prime Minister
I agree with my hon. Friend that that was a most interesting and excellent report from the economists at the Heriot-Watt university showing that there is considerable hope that inflation is coming down and that we can expect an economic upturn. I warmly support my hon. Friend in saying that the report was excellent and objective. Scottish economists are very good. They started with Adam Smith, and I am delighted to see the tradition continuing.
Mr. Foot
Has the right hon. Lady had the chance today to examine the report—and can she confirm or deny it—that the Government's support for British Leyland is being submitted to investigation in Brussels by the EEC? Will she give an undertaking that this programme will go ahead whatever is said in Brussels?
[column 1071]The Prime Minister
I thought that the right hon. Gentleman was in the House when Sir Keith Josephmy right hon. Friend made his statement about British Leyland. He said during the course of that statement—I think that I am right, but a quick check can easily be made—that it would of course have to be referred to the EEC under the rules of the Commission, which applied to the previous Government as to this Government. I do not anticipate any difficulty with its final decision.
Mr. Foot
I did not myself recollect that the right hon. Gentleman said that to the House. If I am wrong, I shall happily put it right. But may I still press the right hon. Lady very strongly on this matter? We believe that it is essential that the backing for British Leyland should go ahead, and we believe also that the decision should be made by this House of Commons and not anywhere else.
The Prime Minister
I tried to cover that point. I do not believe that there will be any difficulty with the final decision of the Commission. I believe, therefore, that the backing for British Leyland will go ahead.
Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the fact that last year saw the lowest number of working days lost through strikes since 1941 shows the realism with which the British people are facing this recession? Does she agree also that, if we retain that realism when we come out of the recession, not only will our productivity improve, but we shall be better able to compete, and thus create more jobs?
The Prime Minister
I share my hon. Friend's view that that news was very welcome, that we have an excellent strike record that has not been bettered for 41 years. If we can get rid of the image of Britain as a strike-ridden country, it can only inure to the benefit of the many people who work in home trade and export industries.
Mr. Park
Arising from this morning's announcement of over 500 redundancies at Talbot in Coventry, does the right hon. Lady accept that that is clear evidence of the fact that for some people to remain in work an increasing number have to be put out of work?
The Prime Minister
Where there is considerable overmanning a firm may have to reduce its labour force in order to stay efficient, but I remind the hon. Gentleman that the penetration of the British car market last year by foreign imported cars was 57 per cent. That makes it clear that there is a big market for cars in Britain, and I hope that more and more companies that produce in Britain will fill that market with their products.
Mr. David Steel
Does the right hon. Lady recall that, in the current issue of Conservative News she has written that, in 1981, business should be looking up? Does she think that it will be helped to look up if the Government go ahead with the proposal to transfer the responsibility for the first eight weeks of sick pay to employers?
The Prime Minister
As the right hon. Gentleman will be aware, those small businesses and other companies that transfer their obligation will have a reduction in their national insurance contribution. A number of employers already take that responsibility, and my right hon. Friend will discuss these matters as the Bill goes through the House.
[column 1072]Civil Service Department
Q3. Mr. Bruce-Gardyne
asked the Prime Minister if, in view of the evidence given by the Secretary to the Cabinet, Sir Derek Rayner and others to the Treasury and Civil Service Committee, she intends to proceed with the reabsorption of the Civil Service Department into the Treasury.
The Prime Minister
I have studied the Treasury and Civil Service Committee's report on this subject closely, and shall be publishing the Government's response to it shortly. I can, however, tell my hon. Friend today that I have decided to strengthen and improve the existing organisation of the CSD rather than merge the two Departments.
Mr. Bruce-Gardyne
I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. In the light of that, can she tell us what we can do to restore to the Treasury that measure of control over good housekeeping by the great spending Departments of State which they lost when the Civil Service Department took charge of promotion at the top end of the Civil Service? Is it not less than coincidental that, since the establishment of the Civil Service Department, public expenditure has spiralled out of control?
The Prime Minister
I should not necessarily agree with the coincidence to which my hon. Friend refers. I started off being marginally in favour of merging the two Departments but came to the conclusion that if we were to do that, all concentration would go on reorganisation rather than on dealing with the true problem, which my hon. Friend correctly defines as the effective control of public spending. The Select Committee's report had some suggestions to make about that, and we hope to take up some of them, because it is vital that we have that control. As for promotion, the topmost appointments come to both the Secretary of State for the Department concerned and to the Prime Minister of the day. It is important that we put in charge of those Departments people who insist on proper control of public spending and effective value for money.
Mr. Skinner
Does that mean that “Yes Minister” has won again?
The Prime Minister
I do not think that “Yes Minister” refers to my Administration.
Mr. Wilkinson
As First Lady of the Treasury, does my right hon. Friend agree that the Treasury would be best pleased if the Ministry of Defence did not move 1,400 civil servants from London to Glasgow, at a cost of about £50 million, at a time when the Minister of Defence cannot for the time being support the development of the Jetstream 31 communications aeroplane in Scotland?
The Prime Minister
There are always conflicting interests in trying to move civil servants from London to other parts of the United Kingdom. We have taken the view that it is right, in view of Scotland's economy, to transfer some posts. I believe that there are good reasons for the transfer to go ahead. Although I accept my hon. Friend's point that it will mean some increase in public spending, it will also give some hope to the people of Scotland.
[column 1073]PRIME MINISTER
(Engagements)
Q4. Mr. Whitney
asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 29 January.
The Prime Minister
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave some moments ago.
Mr. Whitney
Will my right hon. Friend, in the course of her busy day, find time to look again at the Government's recent Green Paper on trade union immunities? Does she agree that the latest alarming developments, which have demonstrated the ability of a small group of trade unionists to manipulate the Labour Party, show the need for a thorough-going review and reform of the unique system of immunities that has been conferred on the British trade union movement?
The Prime Minister
I think that my hon. Friend's views on the role of the trade unions in certain leadership appointments are shared by people from a wide spectrum of political opinion. We are looking forward to consultations on the Green Paper on trade union immunities. My right hon. Friend James Priorthe Secretary of State for Employment has allowed a considerable period for that. I agree with my hon. Friend that the immunities of trade unions in this country are unique in their extent. The decision that we take about future legislation will depend a great deal upon the representations that we receive.
Mr. Heffer
Since the Tate and Lyle factory and its workers at Liverpool seem to meet the Prime Minister's criteria, in the sense that the factory is not overmanned, industrial relations are marvellous and productivity is increasing, can she explain why the factory is to be closed? Are her Government prepared to tackle the problem of the EEC, which is basically responsible for the closure? Is she prepared to help with Government money to keep the factory open?
The Prime Minister
I seem to remember that the closure of that factory is tied up with the increasing proportion of sugar that comes from beet and the reducing proportion that comes from cane. [Hon. Members: “The EEC.” ] I hear hon. Members murmuring “The EEC” , but I seem to remember—perhaps the hon. Gentleman will check the precise figures—that the quota for beet sugar under the last Government was slightly larger than that which obtains under this Government, which, if correct, seems to suggest that even more sugar would have been refined from beet and less from cane.
Mr. Myles
In view of the serious drop, of 24 per cent., in net farm incomes revealed in the agricultural review [column 1074]White Paper, will my right hon. Friend think carefully before taking any decision that might erode the competitive position of our farmers in Europe?
The Prime Minister
I know that my hon. Friend is always assiduous in putting forward the interests of his constituents in farming and that he is often successful in the degree to which he persuades Peter Walkerthe Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to give extra help to agriculture in his constituency. I am well aware of the contents of that White Paper. My hon. Friend will know that farming incomes vary greatly from commodity to commodity. He will also be well aware that, as the green pound is now, it gives farmers a good opportunity to export their products and to get a subsidy on those exports.
Mr. Crowther
In view of the fiasco a few minutes ago when my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) was told that the Government had no idea of how much unemployment was costing public funds, will the right hon. Lady today instruct her Treasury Ministers to find out? If they do not know, how can they justify their policy that it is better to pay people to be out of work than to put money into industry to keep them in jobs?
The Prime Minister
If one had to pay to put everyone into work, and if their wages were higher than the unemployment benefit, that would obviously be a greater cost. With regard to the specific cost, my memory off the cuff is that this year the national insurance fund, which pays out the unemployment benefit, has estimated that the cost to it of unemployment benefit will be about £1.1 billion. To that is added a sum for social security, which I think is about £1.2 billion. [Hon. Members: “What about tax?” .] I hear hon. Members asking “What about tax?” . If the Government have to pay people to pay tax back to them, there really is no benefit.
Mr. Foot
In view of the right hon. Lady's reply, and in view of the somewhat contradictory replies that were given earlier, will the right hon. Lady ensure that before we have the extremely important debate on unemployment next Thursday—I am grateful to her and the Government for having arranged it in response to our request—we shall have a Government statement giving the full details of the cost of unemployment?
The Prime Minister
If the right hon. Gentleman wants particular details, I am sure that if right hon. and hon. Members on the Labour Benches table the appropriate questions they will get all the statistics available. That is the customary way.