Speeches, etc.

Margaret Thatcher

House of Commons PQs

Document type: Speeches, interviews, etc.
Venue: House of Commons
Source: Hansard HC [1000/998 -1004]
Editorial comments: 1515-30.
Importance ranking: Major
Word count: 2683
Themes: Defence (arms control), Privatized & state industries, Pay, Public spending & borrowing, Taxation, European Union (general), European Union Budget, Family, Foreign policy (USSR & successor states), Social security & welfare
[column 998]

PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Q1. Mr. Cryer

asked the Prime Minister what are her official engagements for Thursday 12 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.

Mr. Cryer

Will the Prime Minister find time to consider the reprimand by the Advertising Standards Authority to Saatchi and Saatchi for using misleading headlines? Does she accept that the most misleading case put by Saatchi and Saatchi was presenting the Tory Party as a family party? Does not the vicious Budget yesterday and the ending of the Rooker-Wise index-linking mean that she is turning her back on people with the lowest incomes? Does she agree with her hon. Friend—for the moment—the Member for Horncastle (Mr. Tapsell) that her policies are losing her the confidence of the City, the Cabinet, the Conservative Party at Westminister, industry and, most of all, the people of the country?

The Prime Minister

I should have thought that the fact that my right hon. Friend and learned Friend was putting up child benefit by 50p showed a deliberate preference in the Budget for families. It was a deliberate preference in the Budget for families. It was a deliberate policy. The hon. Gentleman should welcome the fact that, in spite of the difficulties, we are able to do something for the disabled. Moreover, I should have thought that he would welcome the statement by my right hon. Friend Hugh Rossithe Secretary of State for Social Services yesterday that there would be an increase of £2 billion for social services.

Mr. Rost

Will the Prime Minister remind the nation and the doom-mongers and critics around her that, if interest rates and inflation are to come down further, there must be a far more determined effort to cut Government borrowing and wasteful public spending?

The Prime Minister

I completely agree with my hon. Friend that one reason why we have to find so much in tax and borrowing is that we previously agreed such a high level of public expenditure. Indeed, the level of public expenditure for next year is higher in real terms than this year. That is why taxes and borrowing are high.

[column 999]

Mr. Foot

The right hon. Lady refers to public expenditure and she referred in her speech yesterday to extra public expenditure and to those who were not prepared to accept the consequences of the Government's action. Can she say whether we are to assume, as others have done, that she was referring to members of her own Cabinet?

The Prime Minister

I was thinking of right hon. and hon. Members on the Opposition Benches, who constantly urge increased public expenditure, day after day, and then attempt to deny the means to pay for it. I think in particular of the right hon. Gentleman, who should remember that every extra pound that the Opposition advocate in public expenditure has to come out of their constituents' pockets.

Mr. Foot

Is the right hon. Lady repudiating the suggestion, which appears, for example, in the Daily Mail and The Daily Telegraph, that she was referring to members of her own Cabinet? Is she aware that the Daily Mail says “Maggie Thunders at Wets” ? Does not the right hon. Lady think that she has been responsible for the biggest leak of the year, even from this leaky Cabinet?

The Prime Minister

I take up my time fighting right hon. Members on the Opposition Benches.

Mr. McCrindle

Would not the cost of indexing personal allowances have been approximately equal to the amount already paid out under the arrangements made by Professor Clegg and others for comparability in the public sector? Therefore, could not those in the public sector be said already to have received the benefit, whereas, as usual, it is those in the private sector who continue to pay?

The Prime Minister

As far as I recall, the cost of fully indexing personal allowances and thresholds in a full year would be about £2.5 billion, which is about the amount of the increase in pay in the public sector. I cannot emphasise too much that the more that we put up current expenditure, the less money there is for capital projects on which many of us would like to embark. The more that current expenditure goes up for people who are already in jobs, the less money there is for people to purchase goods and services and to relieve unemployment.

Mr. David Steel

Can the Prime Minister tell us of any Budget during her membership of the House that has been so universally condemned?

The Prime Minister

I most certainly can. Does not the right hon. Gentleman remember the Second Labour Budget, when the standard rate of income tax went up to 35p? Has he such a short memory?

European Security

Q2. Mr. Soley

asked the Prime Minister what response she intends to make to Mr. Brezhnev 's proposals concerning European security.

The Prime Minister

We are examining President Brezhnev's proposals with our Allies. I welcome any proposals that will lead to effective and verifiable measures of arms control, but I cannot accept proposals designed to give unilateral advantages to the Soviet Union at the expense of the West.

Mr. Soley

Does the Prime Minister believe that we have anything to lose by accepting the Soviet proposal to extend the area of notification for troop movements, [column 1000]including naval, air and large-scale troop movements, to the whole of the European part of the Soviet Union? If we have anything to lose, what is it? If we have not, will there be a quick and positive response?

The Prime Minister

As far as I understand and recall that aspect of President Brezhnev's speech, he said that he was prepared to extend confidence-building measures to the Urals, providing that the West would respond by extending them, rather beyond Europe. We want to know what that means.

Mr. Newens

Find out.

The Prime Minister

Indeed, we are trying to do exactly that. We already have the whole of Europe in those confidence-building measures. It would seem unwise to extend the measures to the United States.

Mr. Latham

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that genuine and balanced disarmament is a Western aspiration? If President Brezhnev has realistic proposals in that regard, can she confirm that the West will not dismiss them out of hand?

The Prime Minister

We all want genuine and balanced reductions in armaments. We cannot have reductions that put the West at a disadvantage in defending our way of life.

Mr. Hooley

Is the Prime Minister aware that the Russians expressed interest in the French proposals at Madrid for a European conference on disarmament and for confidence-building measures? Will the Government give full and unequivocal support to the French proposals so that we can advance the Madrid process further later this year?

The Prime Minister

It was the French proposal that suggested that confidence building measures should be extended to the Urals as the quid pro quo for having them in the whole of Europe. As I understand it, President Brezhnev wishes the West to go even further. If that is so, we shall have to consider going in the other direction, beyond the Urals.

Mr. Archie Hamilton

Does my right hon. Friend agree that talks on arms limitation with the Russians could be entered into with much more enthusiasm by the West once the Russians have withdrawn from Afghanistan?

The Prime Minister

I entirely agree. The same also applies to the Helsinki accord, once implemented.

European Community (Structures and Policies)

Q3. Mr. Teddy Taylor

asked the Prime Minister if she has made any special arrangements to co-ordinate the efforts of Her Majesty's Government aimed at reforming the structures and policies of the European Community in advance of the United Kingdom's presidency of the Council of Ministers.

The Prime Minister

The Government are as eager as my hon. Friend to achieve satisfactory progress on the restructuring of the Community budget, and this will be one of the main priorities of our presidency. The existing machinery for the co-ordination of policy towards the European Community is well established, and I see no need for additional special arrangements.

Mr. Taylor

Would it not strengthen the Government's position in seeking the major changes required in the [column 1001]interests of Britain and its people if we had a White Paper setting out the Government's negotiating aims, which could be debated and approved by the House of Commons? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it is the Government's intention to seek major structural reform in the CAP this year?

The Prime Minister

It is our wish and proposal to seek major reforms in the CAP, particularly those aspects of it which lead to substantial surpluses falling on the Community budget and those which lead to such a heavy burden on the Community budget as a whole. It is not our intention at present to publish a White Paper. I do not believe in publishing one's negotiating stance in advance. It is not in the best interests of the country. The Commission is due to publish its proposals on budget reform in June. We have made it clear that we believe that it should keep to that timetable. I believe that the proposals will be debated in the House before a decision is made.

Mr. Flannery

Does not the Prime Minister realise that the present structure of the EEC means that intervention is catastrophic, for instance, for the steel industry? Is she aware that in the middle of a terrible slump, with people being laid off all over the place, the EEC has issued a directive that we should cut down the amount of our money that we put into our steel industry and the amount of steel that we are producing, even though it is at rock bottom? Should we, not, therefore, come out of the Common Market, which is what the vast majority of our people want?

The Prime Minister

Rather special arrangements apply to steel. The arrangements that the Common Market made over the amounts of steel produced, which amounted to a carve-up of the steel market among Common Market countries, were beneficial to this country. I believe that the hon. Gentleman will find that the majority of the industry, including the trade unions, wishes the arrangements to continue.

Sir Anthony Meyer

Does my right hon. Friend accept that her Government's ability to negotiate the changes needed in the EEC depends on the conviction that she can convey of our intention to remain within the Community and to negotiate changes from inside?

The Prime Minister

I agree with my hon. Friend. We get a much better deal if we are seen to be loyal members of the Community. At a time when the world has tremendous difficulties, it is important that the democracies of Europe are seen to hold together and that Europe is seen as an area in which democracies co-operate.

Engagements

Q4. Mr. Cyril D. Townsend

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 12 March.

The Prime Minister

I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Townsend

Following a restrictive Budget and bearing in mind the ever-rising levels of unemployment, may I commend to my right hon. Friend the programme for national and economic recovery admirably spelt out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) in his speech yesterday?

[column 1002]

The Prime Minister

I remind my hon. Friend that the actual public expenditure is not restrictive; it is expansive. [Hon. Members: “Oh!” ] I pay attention to the facts, unlike hon. Members on the Opposition Benches. As Sir Geoffrey Howethe Chancellor announced in his Budget Statement, public expenditure will be slightly increased in real terms next year. I am at a loss to know how an increase in real terms can be described as being restrictive. I heard my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) on television today. He was excellent. He stated that he would back the Budget all the way, as one would expect.

Mr. Ashton

Will the Prime Minister find time today to read this morning's newspapers, which forecast a massive revolt within her own party against the 20p per gallon increase on petrol tax? If the Prime Minister cannot get a majority in the House for the 20p per gallon increase, what does she intend to so?

The Prime Minister

Many of us dislike particular aspects of taxation. No one has been more forthright in disliking heavy taxation than I have. However, the Chancellor, the Government and I have a problem. If a bill—expenditure—is already agreed, most of us accept that we must make the means available to pay it. Nothing is worse than agreeing to heavy expenditure and then not being prepared to meet, or disliking the thought of meeting, the bill when it comes. Let us see what happens on Monday night.

Mr. Cormack

Will my right hon. Friend allow me to tell my constituents that she will now reconsider index-linked pensions, because they cannot accept that increases such as 20p on petrol should be imposed on them while people are allowed to receive those index-linked pensions?

The Prime Minister

The Scott report has been published. People can now see exactly what its argument was and what it said about that matter. No doubt one day we shall have a chance, I trust, to debate it in the House.

Mr. Foot

Does not the right hon. Lady agree that the announcements made in her Budget, and the arrangements made before the Budget for the increases in taxation, are in plain defiance of what she said at the election?

The Prime Minister

I am the first to admit that public expenditure has risen and that it has risen for next year. The Government have agreed to that increase in public expenditure. We must therefore decide how much must be met by taxation and how much must be met by borrowing. If I agree to expenditure, I do not flinch from paying the bill.

Mr. Foot

Can the right hon. Lady now explain to the House and the country why she made widespread promises of reductions in taxation when she fought the election when she has now proved that she cannot control the economy of the nation?

The Prime Minister

The right hon. Gentleman—[Interruption]—has forgotten the time when under his Government—[Interruption]—the standard rate of tax was 35p——

Mr. Speaker

Order. The Prime Minister should not have to fight to be heard. She has a right to be heard.

The Prime Minister

The standard rate of tax was 35p. The right hon. Gentleman will recollect that it is now 30p in the pound. He might also remember when his own party [column 1003]put up VAT on certain things to 25 per cent. and, above all, when the pound plummeted to $1.56, and his [column 1004]Chancellor, following his policies, finished up where the Opposition would finish up now, namely, as supplicants to the IMF.