Speeches, etc.

Margaret Thatcher

House of Commons PQs

Document type: Speeches, interviews, etc.
Venue: House of Commons
Source: Hansard HC [38/127-32]
Editorial comments: 1515-1530.
Importance ranking: Major
Word count: 2272
Themes: Executive, Employment, Industry, By-elections, General Elections, Privatized & state industries, Energy, Pay, Public spending & borrowing, Taxation, Local government, Social security & welfare, Strikes & other union action
[column 127]

PRIME MINISTER

Bournemouth

Q1. Mr. David Atkinson

asked the Prime Minister if she will pay an official visit to Bournemouth.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher)

I have at present no plans to do so.

Mr. Atkinson

Is my right hon. Friend aware that Bournemouth was one of the few places in the country not to have been affected by the recent water dispute, quite simply because the employees of the Bournemouth and District water company are also shareholders in that company, and shareholders do not go on strike? Is not that a sensible formula to introduce into our strike-prone public service industries, where unions are so often prepared to place self before service, to the nation's cost and, ultimately, to their own?

The Prime Minister

My hon. Friend's constituents are fortunate. I agree with him that to have a personal stake in an industry is to have a personal stake in its success. That formula could well be copied among many of the other private water companies and among nationalised industries. I share my hon. Friend's dislike of the abuse of monopoly powers in some of the public sector industries.

Engagements

Q2. Mr. James Hamilton

asked the Prime Minister whether she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 1 March.

The Prime Minister

This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. Later I drove British Leyland's new Maestro car in connection with its launch today. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today, including one with a delegation from the National Pensioners Convention.

Mr. Hamilton

Will the Prime Minister find time to drive one of the Maestros to Lanarkshire in Scotland, where she will discover that 62 per cent. of our young people are unemployed—some of them have never even received their first job—that there are now more redundancies in the steel industry and that some of the factories are actually working a three or four-day week? Will she now change her policies, if not at the request of the Opposition, then at least in the name of God and in the interests of human dignity?

The Prime Minister

As the hon. Gentleman knows, securing more jobs means designing products that will sell, both in this country and overseas. There is absolutely no way round that. As the hon. Gentleman also knows, we are launching, from September, the biggest youth training scheme ever seen in this country. That will be the first time [column 128]that our young people, en masse, have been trained to be equipped properly for the world of work. May I remind the hon. Gentleman that most of the people who are unemployed are unemployed for a temporary period—[Hon. Members: “Oh” .] One million are long-term unemployed. The other two million will find jobs. Many, many jobs—something like 6 million—are found in the year as a whole.

Mr. John Townend

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that civil servants' pay is to be increased at a cost of some £250 million to compensate them for the tax they are to be charged on their perks? Does she accept that drivers of company cars, who are to be taxed on their petrol for the first time with little opportunity to get this tax reimbursed, will consider this another example of where the public servant is feather-bedded as compared with his counterpart in private industry?

The Prime Minister

No, I would not necessarily accept that. There have been some comments on the changes in taxation of the Civil Service allowances. I understand that the allowances are taxable in law, and taxing them when paid to civil servants merely ensures that private sector employees and civil servants are treated equally. It is proposed that the value of the allowance should be grossed up by Departments so that those receiving them are not worse off as a result of taxation. That also happens in the outside world. I am, nevertheless, having further inquiries made into the matter, because it does seem to me to be a rather bureaucratic way of achieving the result that is desired.

Mr. Foot

I understand that one of the Prime Minister's engagements today is a meeting with representatives of pensioners. What will she say to them about the break in the link between pensions and earnings? Is it not true that that break, which was engineered by her Government, costs a single pensioner £1.45 a week and a married couple £2.25 a week?

The Prime Minister

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, future pensions are usually the subject of an announcement in the Budget, so he must contain himself a little longer.

In the four upratings since the Government took office, from the last quarter of 1978 to the last quarter of 1982, pensions have increased by 68.5 per cent. During that same period the retail prices index rose by 61 per cent. and the pensioners' price index by 58 per cent. for a single pensioner household. Therefore, pensions are well ahead of the increase in inflation, especially on the basis of the pensioners' price index.

Mr. Foot

If the right hon. Lady will not answer my question, will she try to answer it when she meets the pensioners this afternoon? My question did not refer to the inflation rate. Was not the position of the pensioners under the Labour Government very much better protected? They had a 20 per cent. increase. Will she confirm my figures that the break in the link between earnings and pensions is costing a single pensioner £1.45 per week and a married couple £2.25 per week? When will she restore that loss?

The Prime Minister

The right hon. Gentleman cites figures. Has he forgotten—[Hon. Members: “Answer.” ]—that during our first year of office we had to make good his Government's failure in forecasting? Has [column 129]he also forgotten that he changed from the historic method to the forecast method, which cost the pensioners a sum equal to £1 billion in today's money?

Mr. Foot

The right hon. Lady is always running away from her responsibilities. Does she take responsibility for the breach in the link?

The Prime Minister

The right hon. Gentleman well knows that we changed the law. Nevertheless, the burden on the working population of increased contributions is considerable. There are now 9,040,000 pensioners, whereas when we took office there were only 8,400,000.

The right hon. Gentleman asked me for what I would take responsibility. In the four upratings since we took office, for which we take responsibility—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman does not like that because it shows how well pensioners have done, based on the retail prices index. Their pensions have increased by 68.5 per cent. During the same period, from the last quarter of 1978 to the last quarter of 1982, the retail prices index rose by 61 per cent.

Q3. Mr. Squire

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 1 March.

The Prime Minister

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

Mr. Squire

Has my right hon. Friend yet received a report on which of the very attractive and popular policies—according to the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn)—were most responsible for the result last Thursday in Bermondsey?

The Prime Minister

I simply think that the whole lot of the Labour party were rejected by the British people.

Mr. David Steel

Does the Prime Minister agree that actual polls are more important than opinion polls? Will she take note that in the past 12 by-elections the alliance scored more votes than the Government or the Opposition? Will she give the remainder of the country an early opportunity to register the same opinion?

The Prime Minister

The right hon. Gentleman will agree that actual polls on general election days are more important than polls on by-election days.

Mr. Gordon Wilson

Does the Prime Minister realise that more than 85,000 jobs in Scotland are dependent on oil-related activity? Why have the right hon. Lady and the Government taken no action to join the OPEC countries, Norway and Mexico to stabilise oil prices and thus retain employment in Scotland?

The Prime Minister

As the hon. Gentleman is aware, under the participation agreement that we inherited, the oil is purchased on the basis of the market price at the time. We were left with that legislation, which still exists. Therefore, the oil was purchased at a new, lower price of $30½. Far from taking no action, we did take action and the price was reduced.

Mr. Hannam

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Lewis-Merthyr colliery in South Wales is expected to lose £7 million this year? Is she further aware that its closure will not involve a single compulsory redundancy? Will she appeal to the south Wales miners to accept the National Coal Board offer of alternative employment within easy travelling distance?

[column 130]

The Prime Minister

My hon. Friend is correct. Alternative employment has been offered and is available for all men in that colliery who wish to transfer to other business. The pit is expected to make a loss of £7 million this year. Last year it produced 76,000 tonnes of coal at a loss of £84 a tonne. The subsidies to cover losses in Wales are running at £125 million a year—or more than £5,000 a head. That shows the tremendous support that there has been for collieries in Wales and the reasonableness of the National Coal Board in offering alternative employment when it closes a pit.

Q4. Mr. Geraint Howells

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 1 March.

The Prime Minister

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Howells

As it is St. David's Day, may I ask whether the Prime Minister holds the view that people living in Wales should pay higher water rates than those living in Birmingham and London?

The Prime Minister

At this stage, the hon. Gentleman should address his questions not to me but to the regional water authorities and to those who have recently done their level best to raise the water rates—supported by the Opposition.

Q5. Mr. Farr

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 1 March.

The Prime Minister

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

Mr. Farr

Was not the settling last Thursday of a wage claim by council workers at a rate of 4.8 per cent. a refreshing change from the attitude of the water workers, who held the nation to ransom, supported by the Opposition?

The Prime Minister

That is, of course, a much lower settlement than that achieved by the water workers. But some settlements, including the one referred to by my hon. Friend, are still a good deal higher than similar settlements in the public sectors of other countries with which we compete. For example, in the public sector in Japan—a major competitor—there will be no increase this year. Britain must compete with such countries in the world market.

Q6. Mr. Cunliffe

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 1 March.

The Prime Minister

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Cunliffe

How does the right hon. Lady explain the fact that since May 1979 there has been a 25 per cent. reduction in capital expenditure in our manufacturing industries and that it is expected that there will be a further 10 per cent. reduction by the end of this year? What measures will she suggest to her right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor to put that right in the Budget?

The Prime Minister

We provided for bigger capital expenditure both in nationalised industries and local authorities than took place. It is not provision from the Exchequer that is lacking in this regard.

Mr. Hill

May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the favourable recommendations of the policy [column 131]committee that was set up by the Chancellor to consider free ports? As, I understand, a statement on that subject is to be made in the Chancellor's Budget statement, would it be right for me to suggest that there should be at least six free ports, one of which should be in the south?

The Prime Minister

My hon. Friend must await the statement on free ports that arises from the report of that [column 132]committee. I think he will find that many of the services and advantages that are available in a free port are also available at the moment in enterprise zones. Some of those zones are in the south. Some, of course, are in the north—there are quite a few of them. It would be better if my hon. Friend awaited a full statement on the subject by Sir Geoffrey Howemy right hon. and learned Friend.