PRIME MINISTER
Engagements
Q1. Mr. Fatchett
asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 13 November.
The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher)
This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I shall preside at a dinner in honour of President Koivisto of Finland.
Mr. Fatchett
I am grateful to the Prime Minister for that answer.
In her speech at the Guildhall last night the Prime Minister confessed that the rate of economic growth in the economy was not sufficient to cut the level of unemployment. Earlier in the day the Chancellor, in his autumn statement, offered no hope of any real cut in the level of unemployment. Are we to conclude from those statements that the Government have absolved themselves from responsibility for unemployment and for the plight of the unemployed?
The Prime Minister
No. If the hon. Gentleman looks in detail at what I said last night he will see that I pointed out that growth in Britain this year has been of the order of 2.5 per cent. It would have been 3.5 per cent. but for the coal strike. The 2.5 per cent. has been enough to create a considerable number of new jobs. But, because of the demographic curve that we have to face, it is not enough substantially to reduce, as we wish, the level of unemployment.
Mr. St. John-Stevas
Will my right hon. Friend take time in her busy day to have words with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is sitting not far away from her, and ask him whether he will have second thoughts about the proposed abolition of the £1 note? If she saves us from the imposition of the most unpopular coin in our history, she will have the support of virtually the entire country.
The Prime Minister
I cannot offer my right hon. Friend very much hope. The £1 note will have lasted for two years longer than might otherwise have been the case. During that time the £1 coin has become much more widespread in its use and much more accepted. As my right hon. Friend is aware, the £1 note lasts for only about nine to 10 months. A re-issue would cost some £3 million and we could find better use for that money.
Mr. Kinnock
The Government have cut overseas aid by £160 million in the past four years. Can the right hon. Lady tell us whether that cuts programme has now stopped, whether it is to continue, or whether, in the name of humanity, she will reverse that cuts policy, and reverse it now?
The Prime Minister
I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman any more information than is contained in this year's Autumn Statement, which he will notice is in precisely the same form as the previous statement in 1983. In other words, the budget for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, including the Overseas Development Administration, was given as a global sum. He will see that the two Departments have precisely the same budget as was anticipated in the White Paper. It has not been increased; it has not been decreased. The total [column 532]amount for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office was £1,800 million in 1984–85 and it will be £1,870 million in 1985–86.
Mr. Kinnock
The hunger has not decreased at all. Is the Prime Minister not aware that this country feels that it has a moral responsibility and wants to discharge it? She is still dodging, just as the Chancellor of the Exchequer dodged yesterday and as the Minister for Overseas Development dodged last week. She is the Prime Minister. Cannot she tell us straight exactly what that budget is to be spent on? Are there any cuts, or is she just too ashamed to say?
The Prime Minister
No, Sir. The global budget is done at this time of the year, and within that total budget separate provision is made by the Foreign Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman will recall that last year aid was up on the previous year. In 1983–84 the total Foreign Office budget was £1,683 million. I do not have the precise aid figures, but the figure for the total Foreign Office budget has increased from £1,683 million to £1,870 million this year. I should make it quite clear that that aid budget has allowed us to respond to Ethiopia. There is no question but that we shall be able to respond in the future with humanitarian aid in the same way as we have just responded to Ethiopia.
Mr. Kinnock
That is a shameful answer from the Prime Minister and I do not think that the public or those engaged in trying to help the hungry will forgive her for it. Will she now reverse the cuts programme and discharge the responsibilities of a rich country to the poor of this earth?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman is trying to detract from this country's excellent record of humanitarian aid. As he knows, this country led the world in providing aid to Ethiopia. He does not like that lead and is trying to detract from it. The budget for the Foreign Office will be quite sufficient to permit humanitarian aid of that kind in future.
Q2. Mr. Robert Atkins
asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 13 November.
The Prime Minister
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
Mr. Atkins
Is my right hon. Friend aware that the great majority of people in my constituency, in the rest of Lancashire, and probably in the country for that matter, support the retention of corporal punishment in our schools? Is she further aware that the old adage “Spare the rod and spoil the child” is as true now as it ever was? Will she do all in her power to ensure that that element of discipline is retained in our schools?
The Prime Minister
I assure my hon. Friend that we do not intend to abolish corporal punishment in schools. As he knows, we have to respect the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, which made it perfectly clear that where the convictions of parents were otherwise, those convictions must be respected. We shall introduce legislation to honour that judgment.
Mr. Steel
Why should we trust in the Prime Minister's belief that her present policies will lead to a fall in unemployment when only last December she told us of her belief that the £1 note would be retained?
[column 533]The Prime Minister
If the right hon. Gentleman reads exactly what I said, he will find that the £1 note will be retained for about two years longer than it would otherwise have been. Indeed, if he reads the very long letter that I wrote, he will find that—as I said in the House—
“there is no question of withdrawing the note for the time being. But equally, that may eventually be the right thing to do.”
I do not think it right to spend another £3 million on a special extra print of £1 notes to last only nine or 10 months when that money could be spent on several other things.
Mr. Lester
I listened carefully to my right hon. Friend's answer about the Foreign Office budget. Will she take time today to inquire about what machinery would exist to deal with an adverse rate of exchange which affected that budget, as there is a commitment in the Gracious Speech to a substantial overseas aid programme and it is widely supported in all parts of the House?
The Prime Minister
The Foreign Office budget, including that for aid, is substantial. Most aid expenditure is in sterling and does not therefore suffer from exchange rate movements. We determine our aid in sterling and it is denominated in sterling in those countries to which we give it. The only exception is aid given under the Lomé convention, when European currency is used. Payments to the World Bank are also denominated in sterling.
Q3. Mr. Pike
asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 13 November.
The Prime Minister
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
Mr. Pike
Only 35 per cent. of electricity was generated from coal in August and the CEGB has considerable additional costs. Can the Prime Minister say what those additional costs are? Can she give an assurance that they will not be passed on to the consumer, recognising that the dispute was provoked by the NCB, which did not use recognised procedures before proposing to close Cortonwood? Does she accept that the Government have taken no positive steps to help resolve this long dispute?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman is aware that the Government neither wanted nor sought the dispute and did everything possible to avoid it. Generous pay offers, generous investment, generous voluntary redundancy, a guarantee of future employment and very generous subsidies of taxpayers' money were involved. We are talking of far more generous terms for the coal industry than many people who have to find the taxes for the coal industry receive.
If the CEGB is to go back to the amounts of electricity once generated from coal, it must be sure of security of supply. Failure to achieve security of supply loses customers more than anything else.
Mr. Terlezki
The NUM has taken millions of pounds to America—perhaps it would have been more appropriate for the money to be taken to Cuba or the Soviet Union. Would it not be better if that money were used to help the families of striking miners or for Ethiopia, about which the Opposition shed crocodile tears?
[column 534]The Prime Minister
I can see my hon. Friend's point. I would take more notice of some right hon. and hon. Members of the Opposition if they did not support a strike to take an unlimited quantity from the taxpayer to support the coal industry.
Q4. Mr. Parry
asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 13 November.
The Prime Minister
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
Mr. Parry
Is the Prime Minister aware that further increases in gas, water and electricity prices will cause more hardship to pensioners and people on low incomes? Is she also aware that any further increase in prescription charges will deter people from seeking proper medical treatment, thereby causing more pain and suffering? Will the Prime Minister make it clear that she will totally oppose any cuts in overseas spending in the poorest countries, where millions are dying of starvation? If the so-called iron lady does not, she should be renamed the cruel lady.
The Prime Minister
I have nothing further to add about the aid programme. Electricity charges have gone up by 2 per cent. in the last two years. Under the Labour Government they went up by 2 per cent. every six weeks. I remind the hon. Gentleman that 70 per cent. of prescriptions are free and that the prescription charge covers only about one third of the cost of the average prescription.
Mr. Butterfill
Will my right hon. Friend comment on reports in The Standard tonight about the GLC granting employment contracts to temporary and part-time employees knowing that the posts will disappear, resulting in the payment of £90,000 in compensation—[Hon. Members: “Reading.” ] Should people be granted compensation when they were appointed on a temporary basis only last July?
The Prime Minister
The actions speak for themselves and are yet another reason for the abolition of the GLC.
Mr. Pavitt
Does the Prime Minister recall that during last year's less tragic Conservative party conference millions of television viewers heard her express concern about terminal cancer patients and the cost of prescriptions? How can she justify the rise in prescription charges last April to £1.60 each, or £26 a year for the long-term sick?
Will the right hon. Lady do something about the young woman with breast cancer who has to undergo chemotherapy? If the prescription charge rises to £2 she will have to pay that sum every three weeks, or about £30 a year for a season ticket, for the remainder of her life. Cannot the right hon. Lady do something about that rather than simply express concern?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman is aware of the answer to his question. There is no special arrangement for terminal cancer patients. An obvious reason is that it is difficult to tell the patient that the illness is terminal, and that in some cases it is difficult to know that it is terminal. If such patients come within the exempted group for other reasons, their prescriptions will be free of charge.