PRIME MINISTER
Secretary of State for Energy
Q1. Mr. Bidwell
asked the Prime Minister if she will dismiss the Secretary of State for Energy.
The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher)
No, Sir.
Mr. Bidwell
Will the right hon. Lady explain to the House why the Secretary of State for Energy did not make better use of his meeting with the leaders of the Trades Unions Congress, led by that nice man Mr. Willis? As the pound slumps, and as further industrial action is contemplated in relation to the mining dispute, will the right hon. Lady do what Energy Ministers do not seem to be able to do, and get negotiations under way?
The Prime Minister
I believe that my right hon. Friend Peter Walkerthe Secretary of State for Energy makes excellent use of all his opportunities. In particular, he never fails to explain what an excellent offer the National Coal Board has made to the National Union of Mineworkers. It is better than any previous offer. Both my right hon. Friend and I hope that more and more men will continue to return to work.
Sir Kenneth Lewis
Did my right hon. Friend notice that yesterday the Secretary of State for the Environment, after the National Economic Development Office meeting, said——
Mr. Speaker
Order. If the hon. Gentleman will consult his Order Paper, he will see that the question refers to the Secretary of State for Energy.
[column 900]Engagements
Q2. Mr. Parry
asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 10 January.
The Prime Minister
This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
Mr. Parry
Will the Prime Minister take time today to study the recent report by Dr. Alex Scott-Samuel, which suggests that hundreds of people are dying from causes related to mass unemployment, including 150 on Merseyside? What steps does the Prime Minister or her Cabinet intend to take to reduce unemployment and those horrifying figures? If the right hon. Lady had shown half as much commitment to reducing unemployment as she has to attempting to destroy the NUM, the picture today would be very different.
The Prime Minister
If we had fewer strikes, people might have more confidence in goods produced in this country and might place more orders. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the only long-term way to reduce unemployment is to produce goods and services that people in this country and other countries will purchase, and that is the aim and purpose of the Government's policies.
Mr. Fox
Will my right hon. Friend take time today to give her support to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education's excellent proposals to introduce assessment of teachers? Will she accept that this innovation would have the overwhelming support of the vast majority of parents, who want the education of their children to be improved?
The Prime Minister
Yes, I gladly respond to my hon. Friend's invitation. I believe that Sir Keith Josephmy right hon. Friend's proposals meet with great support, especially from parents and from all who are interested in raising the standard of education in this country.
Mr. Hattersley
Has the Prime Minister had time today to read the report submitted yesterday to the National Economic Development Council, which describes the chronic deterioration in Britain's infrastructure? Will the Government provide the money to remedy the increasing decay of our schools, hospitals, public sector houses and roads and thereby concentrate available funds on what every objective authority agrees is the best way in which to reduce unemployment—public sector capital investment?
The Prime Minister
That question comes from a right hon. Member who belonged to a Government who reduced and smashed capital expenditure in many Departments, especially on roads, housing and hospitals. The Government have put a great deal of extra expenditure into hospitals and roads. This year, for example, investment in major roads will be 27 per cent. greater in real terms than in 1978–79. We are also putting greater investment into the water industry this year. The purpose of making public investment is that we get a good return, or because certain investment is necessary. The Government have a good record on public investment. Moreover, fixed investment across the economy was running at an all-time record in 1984.
[column 901]Mr. Hattersley
The Prime Minister totally ducks the unemployment question, which is central to what I asked her. I therefore ask her again: does she, or does she not, accept the evidence that is now supplied to her, even by the Department of Trade and Industry, that by far the best way to reduce unemployment and create real jobs is through public investment in repairs and construction? Does she accept that evidence? If she denies it, or refuses to comment on it, we shall know what we have always suspected—that once more a Conservative Government choose higher unemployment because they have other priorities more consistent with the Conservative philosophy.
The Prime Minister
I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman, or with what he says about what other people say. Public sector investment remains at about the same real level as it was during the last year of the Labour Government. We also have a record amount in fixed investment across the economy. I do not accept the right hon. Gentleman's view that extra expenditure on infrastructure is the best way in which to increase employment. As the right hon. Gentleman is well aware, we spend £2 billion a year on special employment measures. That secures far more jobs than what he is proposing.
Mr. Cyril D. Townsend
Faced with the growing stocks of chemical weapons in the Soviet Union, will my right hon. Friend make it crystal clear today that Great Britain will keep to its permanent policy of improving its defences against chemical attack and seeking international agreement on the banning of chemical weapons, and will not resort to the manufacture of chemical weaponry in Britain?
The Prime Minister
The facts are that Britain abandoned its chemical warfare capability in the late 1950s. There has been no change in Government policy since then, nor is any change now proposed. However, as a responsible Government, we have a duty to keep defence policy under review in the light of what my hon. Friend said about the massive Soviet capability in chemical weapons. As my hon. Friend said, the Government are playing a leading part in the international negotiations in Geneva for a comprehensive, verifiable and worldwide ban on these weapons, and we tabled important initiatives in March 1983 and February 1984 on verification and challenge inspections. We abandoned our chemical weapons. Any criticism should be directed at the Soviet Union for keeping a massive chemical warfare capability.
Dr. Owen
I welcome back the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and salute his courage.
Can we expect that the Confederation of British Industry's request for £1 billion of capital investment in our crumbling infrastructure will be given a rather better hearing than it has received recently? Will the Prime Minister deal with the Institute of Fiscal Studies' estimate that £1 billion of capital investment would create 165,000 jobs and that the same amount of money in tax reliefs would create only 30,000 jobs?
The Prime Minister
I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman. As I said in reply to a previous question, the Government are spending, through the taxpayer, a considerable amount of money on infrastructure. This year, partly because of the drought, we are increasing [column 902]investment in the water industry—it is 9 per cent. up. Investment in major roads is 27 per cent. greater than it was under the Government of which the right hon. Gentleman was a member. I would not accept, and I do not know where he gets it from, that expenditure on infrastructure is the best way of increasing jobs. We get a far better deal for £2 billion expenditure on special measures, which, as he knows, helps 400,000 to 600,000 people.
With regard to alternative methods, I think that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned reductions in taxation. Reductions in taxation are one way of increasing net take-home pay without increasing industrial costs and therefore keeping competitiveness in industry.
Q3. Mr. Blair
asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 10 January.
The Prime Minister
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
Mr. Blair
If the Prime Minister is saying that these works of infrastructure are not to be done now, when will they be done? Is she aware that delay is making the cure costlier? Does she not agree, at the very least, that any room for manoeuvre on Budget day should be dedicated to measures that increase investment in the infrastructure and thus combine necessity, efficiency and employment?
The Prime Minister
I do not quite understand why the hon. Gentleman is not hearing what I am saying about the amount spent on public sector investment. Public sector investment remains at about the same real level as in 1978–79. It is £24 billion. The extra spending on infrastructure does not gain anything like the same number of new jobs as spending on special measures. We spend £2 billion on special measures. That includes a great deal of training. That training also helps young people to be equipped for some of the science-based industries of the future. That, I believe, is the right way in which to increase employment possibilities.
Q5. Mr. Proctor
asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 10 January.
The Prime Minister
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
Mr. Proctor
Will my right hon. Friend ensure that during 1985 the main economic target will be the continued control and reduction in the level of inflation, as this is likely to lead to the greatest number of people in employment and to a potential increase in employment?
The Prime Minister
Yes, Mr. Speaker. I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We shall, of course, maintain our objective of continuing to reduce inflation. I understand that that might even find support on the Opposition side of the House, as I recall the occasion in December 1978 when the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said:
“Our immediate intention is to hold the inflation rate at or about its present level. Our eventual aim is to reduce the figure to the level enjoyed by our most successful competitors, for unless we achieve our objectives none of our other policies—economic growth, lower unemployment, higher investment and improved services financed by public expenditure—can fully succeed.” —[Official Report, 13 December 1978; Vol. 960, c. 677.]
Mr. Alfred Morris
In December it was widely reported that the Prime Minister would be considering the [column 903]Stansted report during the recess. What is her reaction to it? Is she aware that a quick and definitive rejection of the inspector's recommendations is wanted by hundreds of us on both sides of the House, not least by those from the north, where even the thought of £1 billion-plus expenditure at Stansted excites not just outright opposition but anger?
The Prime Minister
I hope that many hon. Members had a very interesting recess, as I did, reading that report and that they will be ready to have a debate in the House. The right hon. Gentleman is well aware that I can say nothing whatsoever about it, for obvious reasons. We are committed to having a parliamentary debate before too long, I hope, before the Government make up their mind. By the time we have that debate, I hope that hon. Members will have read the report.
Q6. Dr. McDonald
asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 10 January.
The Prime Minister
I refer the hon. Lady to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
Dr. McDonald
Why, in the answers that she has given about public investment, has the Prime Minister consistently ignored the fact that the NEDC report talks about many million of pounds worth of repairs still to be carried out to roads, sewers and houses in particular?—[Interruption.] Why has she ignored housing and the fact that many people are living in gross discomfort in damp and dismal homes and that repairs to those dwellings [column 904]would make their lives far more comfortable and would provide many jobs—[Interruption.] Is she aware that a moderate spending of £1 billion a year would provide between 70,000 and 100,000 more jobs each year, and will she cease to dismiss this as unimportant?
The Prime Minister
In so far as I could hear the hon. Lady, I repeat that on public sector investment this Government are spending some £24 billion. There has been a switch of emphasis on housing—as people want—from public to private sector, and that reflects this Government's belief that most people wish to own their own homes. Owner-occupation rose by 1.7 million between 1979 and 1984, and the hon. Lady clearly criticises the Labour Government's housing record because the dwelling stock rose by 900,000 between 1979 and 1984.
Mr. Flannery
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker
I will take points of order after the private notice question unless they arise directly from Question Time.
Mr. Flannery
My point of order is about questions, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for the Prime Minister constantly to read all her answers instead of answering questions in a proper way?
Mr. Speaker
Everyone has his own method of dealing with questions in this House, and it is not a matter for me.
Mr. Flannery
She is cribbing.
Mr. Speaker
Order.