PRIME MINISTER
Engagements
Q1. Mr. Dalyell
asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 5 July.
The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher)
This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, including one with the Prime Minister of Antigua and Barbuda. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen.
Mr. Dalyell
For what reason, when he was in a negotiating position—[Hon. Members: “Ah” .]—was the then Foreign Secretary not informed of the Prime Minister's decision when she contemplated the sinking of the Belgrano?
The Prime Minister
For the reasons given in a full Adjournment debate on 12 May this year, and previously by my right hon. Friend the then Minister of State in a detailed reply on 29 November 1982. I have nothing further to add.
Q2. Mr. Janner
asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 5 July.
The Prime Minister
I refer the hon. and learned Gentleman to the rely that I gave some moments ago.
Mr. Janner
When the right hon. Lady met her ministerial colleagues today, did she discuss with them the Chancellor's iniquitous proposal to reduce the real value of unemployment benefit? Does she not accept that such a proposal would lack compassion and common sense and that adding to the suffering of the unemployed is no solution whatever to the problems of unemployment?
[column 151]The Prime Minister
The decisions on the rate of unemployment benefit that will apply from this coming November to the following November were announced in this House by my right hon. Friend Norman Fowlerthe Secretary of State for Social Services the other day in these terms:
“We are restoring the 5 per cent. abatement made in 1980, and that means that in November the standard rates of unemployment benefit go up by over 8 per cent. to £27.05 for a single person and to £43.75 for a married couple.” —[Official Report, 23 June 1983; Vol. 44, c. 163.]
The rates have been fixed and announced in the House, and I do not understand what the debate is about.
Mr. Speaker
Mr. Andrew MacKay.
Mr. Foot
rose——
Mr. Speaker
I am sorry, but I have already called the hon. Member for Berkshire, East (Mr. MacKay).
Mr. Andrew MacKay
Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity today to study the consequences of the Italian general election, where, under a system of proportional representation, the Italian people will now suffer another chaotic minority coalition Government?
The Prime Minister
Yes. I am afraid that a system of PR does not give clear decisive government but rather a long sequence of horse deals under which many people who fought the election on the basis of one manifesto must then compromise everything that they have said to do deals with other minor parties.
Mr. Foot
The right hon. Lady said that she did not understand what the debate on unemployment-benefit was about. Does that mean that she is now repudiating—as we would all wish her to do—her Chancellor's statement a few days ago that cutting the dole might enable people to get jobs? Does she not agree that the cuts in the dole that the Government have achieved so far have not had much success in getting any jobs?
The Prime Minister
The point is simple. The precise rate of unemployment benefit that will be paid from this November to the following November has been announced to the House, and includes not only 3.7 per cent. inflation but restores the 5 per cent. that was previously cut. Therefore, the unemployment benefit from next November to the following November has already been announced. The question about the rate for the following November does not therefore arise until after the Budget next year, and probably until after the RPI figure is announced next June. It seems much better to defer the debate until then.
Mr. Foot
Will the right hon. Lady give us an absolute undertaking that the value of the benefit will be sustained after that date and after that benefit, and will she answer the question I put to her a second ago? Does not that mean that she is now prepared to repudiate the statement made by her Chancellor of the Exchequer? Does she agree that if the policy, defined by the Chancellor, of cutting unemployment benefit were carried out it would mean a further increase in the numbers of people forced on to means-tested supplementary benefit, payments of which are already at a record level?
The Prime Minister
In our manifesto we pledged:
“In the next Parliament, we shall continue to protect retirement pensions and other linked long-term benefits against rising prices.”
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, unemployment benefit is not a “linked long-term benefit” , as we [column 152]explained. Therefore, no long-term pledge about price protection was given. As he is also aware, the amount paid out to the unemployed is this year to be about £5.5 billion, of which, as he implied, about £2 billion is paid out by way of unemployment benefit from the national insurance fund. The right hon. Gentleman can see the latest figures in the Government Actuary's report, which will be in the Vote Office today. The majority of the unemployed obtain, should they need it, extra benefit through the social security system, which is what that system is there for.
Mr. Foot
What about this talk of cutting benefits as a means of getting jobs?
The Prime Minister
I have given the precise position. The relationship between unemployment benefit, social security benefit, minimum wages and wages that are paid is a source of great debate among academics, and the right hon. Gentleman will find that there are almost as many estimates as there are academics considering it.
Dr. Owen
Is the Prime Minister aware that if the first-past-the-post system operated in Italy, on a number of occasions since the war there would have been a Communist Government? Is this the clear, decisive government that the Prime Minister wishes to see in one of our principal NATO allies?
The Prime Minister
The existing system served the right hon. Gentleman well when he was Foreign Secretary.
Q3. Mr. Winnick
asked the Prime Minister if she will state her official engagements for 5 July.
The Prime Minister
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
Mr. Winnick
Has the Prime Minister read the speech made last week by the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Pym), and will she be bearing his remarks in mind when deciding with her ministerial colleagues whether the real value of unemployment benefit is to be cut? Is the right hon. Lady aware that the remarks made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer about unemployment benefit were heartless and contemptible, even more so as so many of the jobless are the direct victims of the Government's disastrous economic policy.
The Prime Minister
I have read the speech and I have made the position on unemployment benefit abundantly clear. Perhaps there is one point that I did not sufficiently emphasise—with the November uprating the value of the benefit will be higher than when we took office.
Mr. St. John-Stevas
Will my right hon. Friend accept that her statement today on unemployment benefit is extremely welcome and has made the position clearer, because it would be unacceptable to many Conservative Members if the unemployed were to be further penalised?
The Prime Minister
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, but in all honesty I should point out that I was only repeating the relevant sentences from the statement that my right hon. Friend Norman Fowlerthe Secretary of State for Social Services made soon after the Gracious Speech.
Trades Union Congress
Q4. Mr. Madden
asked the Prime Minister when she intends next to meet the Trades Union Congress general council.
[column 153]The Prime Minister
I have at present no plans to do so.
Mr. Madden
If the Prime Minister meets the TUC general council, may I ask her to be aware that there will be considerable concern about the plight of the unemployed? Will she reassure trade unionists and others about the position of a married couple with two children, whose basic unemployment benefit is £41.05, which is a low income, because there is no way in which such families could bear cuts in their benefits this year or next year?
The Prime Minister
I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can have listened to the reply that I have just given, which is that the unemployment benefit, when the increases announced after the Gracious Speech are in place, will be slightly higher than it was in real terms when we came into office. In so far as that is insufficient, there is, and should be, extra supplementary benefit available. The hon. Gentleman will also be aware that when child benefit is increased in November to the level announced in the last Budget, that also will be at a record level.
Mr. Marlow
Does my right hon. Friend share the lack of confidence of the leader of the SDP in the SDP, because if that party were to overtake the Labour party in the next four years it would do far better under the existing system than it would under a system of proportional representation?
Mr. Speaker
Order. I must point out to the hon. Gentleman that the question is about the Trades Union Congress general council.
Mr. Nellist
Taking the Prime Minister's remarks today, and previously, about unemployment benefit and the amount of food for which that would pay, together with the fact that the Cabinet sat down on 21 June to a meal costing £23.50 per person, could the Prime Minister explain to the House what it feels like to eat a meal that cost 90 per cent. of a single person's dole payment?
Mr. Speaker
Order. That supplementary question had nothing to do with the question either.
Engagements
Q5. Mr. Tim Smith
asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 5 July.
The Prime Minister
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
Mr. Smith
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the latest encouraging figures, both for retail sales and housing starts, provide further evidence that there is plenty of demand in the economy and that the recovery is unmistakably under way?
The Prime Minister
Both of these figures were good news and the housing starts have provided many extra jobs. My hon. Friend is right, there is a good deal of [column 154]demand, but we must make certain that our goods are so well designed and efficiently produced that they meet that demand in preference to imported goods.
Mr. Wareing
Will the right hon. Lady take time to have a word with her right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) and ask him why it was that he took no action on the warnings given by the public examiners over the Merseyside structure plan in July 1980, 12 months before the Toxteth riots? Does she agree that those warnings were known to the Central Policy Review Staff and will she now reconsider her decision not to make public that report, as it is a matter for urgent public inquiry?
The Prime Minister
No, I shall not reconsider that decision. Few Central Policy Review Staff reports have been published, and that has been so under all Governments. I point out to the hon. Gentleman that the record of this Government in putting extra money into Merseyside is a good one, but equally some of the problems cannot be solved only by extra money. Somehow, the people themselves there have not been involved sufficiently in trying to rejuvenate the centre of their own city.
Mr. Latham
Will my right hon. Friend find time today to meet the chairman of the TUC and other leading trade union figures who yesterday strongly condemned unilateral disarmament?
The Prime Minister
I noticed that excellent statement, which was both realistic and patriotic, and of the kind that could be expected from that source.
Mr. Wigley
Further to the answer that the Prime Minister gave to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) a moment ago, will she assure the House that she knew nothing from any source whatever about the Foreign Secretary's discussions of the Peruvian peace plan at the time the Belgrano was sunk?
The Prime Minister
Yes, and that has already been revealed in many answers given in the House. The rules of engagement were changed and the attack was made, and made successfully——
Mr. Dalyell
Did you know?
The Prime Minister
—before any news of possible peace proposals reached London.
Mr. Dalyell
Did you know?
Mr. Bill Walker
Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to study the press reports on the unofficial inquiry that is going on in Scotland into the proposed Trident base at Coulport? Is she aware that the inquiry was begun on the basis of misleading and false information? Does she accept that it is a ghastly waste of taxpayers' and ratepayers' money?
The Prime Minister
If my hon. Friend has any information that is different from our information we shall naturally consider it with the greatest possible interest.