Speeches, etc.

Margaret Thatcher

House of Commons PQs

Document type: Speeches, interviews, etc.
Venue: House of Commons
Source: Hansard HC [953/226-36]
Editorial comments: 1515-30.
Importance ranking: Major
Word count: 3573
Themes: Monetary policy, Pay
[column 226]

PRIME MINISTER

(ENGAGEMENTS)

Q1. Mr. Ashley

asked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 4th July.

The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan)

In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be holding meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. Later today I have a number of engagements with Chancellor Kreisky of Austria, including the opening of the new offices of the Anglo-Austrian Society, and this evening I shall be giving a dinner in his honour.

[column 227]

Mr. Ashley

Now that the Government have shown such concern for top-salaried people, will my right hon. Friend find time today to consider the plight of low-paid workers, especially homeworkers, and support the concept of a national minimum wage, which has been recommended by the TUC but rejected by the Government? Will he bear in mind that some homeworkers are receiving less than £10 for a 50-hour week and that the argument against a national minimum wage—on the ground that differentials would be reduced—is now quite bogus in view of the gains made by, and the claims of, many better-paid workers?

The Prime Minister

I understand that an announcement on homeworkers will be made tomorrow. However, the complications of incomes policy and pay cannot be discussed in a reply to a supplementary question.

Mr. MacKay

During the right hon. Gentleman's busy day, will he find time to comment on the speech made yesterday at Newcastle by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he said that the long-awaited economic miracle is within our grasp? Will he compare and contrast that with the CBI report, which forecasts that productivity will drop in the next four months? Which is right?

The Prime Minister

I never know about forecasts. That is why I always mistrust them when I am asked about forecasts of this sort, and I advise the hon. Gentleman to do the same. I am sure that my right hon. Friend made an excellent speech yesterday that will repay everybody's attention. I look forward to reading it. I noticed the CBI forecast this morning and gave it all the attention that I give to all the other forecasts that I see.

Mr. William Hamilton

Will my right hon. Friend take time today to study the recent proposals of the Highlands and Islands Development Board on land ownership in that part of the country, especially the taking of compulsory purchase powers for sporting estates? Will he remember that one of the most popular policies that could be put forward for that part of the country would be the nationalisation of all such estates?

The Prime Minister

I know that that has been a proposal that has found a [column 228]great deal of favour with a great many people over many years, and it would repay much study. I shall ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland to consider it.

Mrs. Thatcher

Although James Callaghanthe Prime Minister says that he does not make forecasts, he does become involved in forecasts, especially on inflation. Now that he knows that he has a year-on-year average increase in wages of 14 per cent. and virtually flat output, what is his forecast for inflation for next year?

The Prime Minister

I did not say that I did not use forecasts. I said that I always add caution to what I am told in the forecasts that I see. I am glad to see that a considerable amount of scepticism is now appearing, even in the columns of the newspapers, about some of the forecasts, and perhaps about some of the forecasts, and perhaps about some of the forecasters, who might be redeployed for more profitable work at some time.

As for next year's inflation figures, I do not think that we can go further than the end of this year. I think that that has been made clear to the right hon. Lady on a number of occasions. That figure can be pretty acurately forecast. We hope that it will remain within the region of 7 per cent. to 8 per cent., or round about that percentage. As for the figure next year, much depends, naturally, on the level of sterling, the price and cost of our imported raw materials and the level of wages. If the right hon. Lady can tell me the answers to all the questions posed by those factors, I will give her a figure.

Mrs. Thatcher

Does the Prime Minister recall that he was exact in the mathematics he used in his New Year's Day broadcast, when he said that if wage increases went up by 10 per cent. price increases would follow at 10 per cent. and that if wages went up by 30 per cent. price increases would follow at 30 per cent.? Does he accept that average wages have increased by 14 per cent.? What is his forecast for price increases?

The Prime Minister

There is a rough relationship between the two. [Hon. Members: “Oh.” ] That is why the Government were anxious to secure a 10 per cent increase this year to keep it within single figures. That it might turn [column 229]out much higher than that clearly worsens inflation.

I see no reason why the Opposition should cheer about that. I have never hesitated to point out to the country the consequences of this. I shall continue to do so, as I did in my speech to the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions last week. The Government will continue to work within the limits of a free society in which many bargains are struck on which the Government have no influence at all. The Government will continue to work for maximum moderation in order to prevent inflation returning to double figures.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Leader of the Opposition's argument, which she attributed to him, about the direct relationship between wages and prices can never be solved because wages constitute only a part of costs and that, therefore, there can never be a 10-to-10 or 30-to-30 relationship between the two?

The Prime Minister

That is correct. I said something to that effect during my New Year's Day broadcast. When one is broadcasting, it is right to get across the simplicities. The simplicity is that there is a direct relationship between an increase in wages and an increase in the cost of living. The Opposition can disentangle the question of whether it is exactly the same arithmetically. The people understand the relationship. They understand well that when wages went up by 27 per cent. the retail price index went up by about the same amount. They now see that the retail price index is much lower because the increase in wages has come down. That is not the whole element. Sometimes I really believe that I shall get that into the Opposition's heads.

Q2. Mr. Neubert

asked the Prime Minister whether he will list his official engagements for 4th July.

The Prime Minister

I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I have just given to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley).

Mr. Neubert

Why have the Government again today funked facing up to the problem of pay differentials by deferring yet another legitimate public service award until after the general election? [column 230]Does the Prime Minister realise that Britain's failure to achieve peak performance is attributable largely to ministerial cowardice in refusing to allow people to be paid what their skills, responsibilities and contributions deserve?

The Prime Minister

The hon. Member is entitled to his opinion that it was an act of cowardice to endeavour to keep people within the 10 per cent. limit when we have influence over that. But it is not usually regarded in that way. It is generally accepted that the Government are right. The jeers from the Opposition Benches to my last answer showed that there is a great deal of anxiety when the Government cannot succeed in keeping people within the 10 per cent. limit. That is what we are proposing to do for the Boards of nationalised industries and elsewhere. The Opposition should make up their minds whether they support that policy. From there we have said that we shall stage the increases that have been proposed in the following two years. I believe that in a difficult situation this will probably meet with considerable support.

Mr. Grocott

Will my right hon. Friend find time to explain to the people why we must spend three days of our time this week and public money considering Lords amendments to the Scotland Bill when the Lords speak for no one and represent no one and will be abolished next year anyway?

The Prime Minister

The only reply that I can give is that this is the way in which the constitution operates at present. I am bound to say that a number of the amendments that the Lords have proposed would not be accepted in Scotland or Wales and, I trust, will be removed by the House of Commons in due course.

INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CERTIFICATES

Q3. Mrs. Renée Short

asked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with co-ordination between the Departments of Industry and Employment in connection with procedures for issuing industrial development certificates.

The Prime Minister

Yes.

Mrs. Short

Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is part of the Opposition's [column 231]mythology that IDCs are difficult to obtain, especially in the West Midlands? But, if I mention firms such as Laystall Engineering, Lucas Aerospace and Bilston Steel he will be aware that in Wolver-hampton, as in other parts of the West Midlands, there is a considerable reservoir of skill and experience. Is there any possibility that the National Enterprise Board will set up new, modern industries in the West Midlands based on new techniques, such as micro-electronics?

The Prime Minister

During the past two years, few IDCs have been refused in the West Midlands. I believe that only one has been refused. That is because of the changing situation there. The National Enterprise Board is always ready to consider enterprises out of which productive improvement can take place, if the company is taken over and has a fresh injection of capital, or if there is a new feature, such as micro-processing, which can help the country.

Mr. Hugh Fraser

Is the Prime Minister aware that an IDC was refused in Stafford and that this led to the loss of 300 jobs, not only in Stafford but in the country as a whole? Will he examine the question of IDCs to see whether they serve a useful purpose today? Will he either abolish them and stop all the nonsense about co-ordination or, at least, raise the level to 20,000 sq. ft., especially in the West Midlands?

The Prime Minister

I am not sure to which company the right hon. Member is referring. No doubt he will table a Question about it since he has not mentioned its name. I have asked myself why it is necessary to keep this control when so few IDCs are refused. There is a case for saying that the Department of Industry needs to keep surveillance on the situation so that genuinely mobile new enterprises can be directed to areas with heavy unemployment.

Mr. Christopher Price

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many areas of inner London, which also have difficulty in obtaining IDCs, are in as bad a position in terms of attracting industry as many of the development areas? Will my right hon. Friend examine this problem, not only from Birmingham's point of view but from the point of view of London, particularly dockland?

[column 232]

The Prime Minister

I understand the problem. As was made clear in the White Paper on the inner cities, London—where partnership agreements exist—ranks immediately after the assisted areas for the issue of these certificates.

PRIME MINISTER

(ENGAGEMENTS)

Q4. Mrs. Bain

asked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4th July.

The Prime Minister

I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley).

Mrs. Bain

I am sure that the significance of today's debate has not escaped the attention of the Prime Minister. Will he reflect on the number of former dependencies that have been granted independence by the House and take this opportunity of joining the Scottish National Party in condemning the antics of the official Opposition in their attempt to destroy the Scotland Bill and his own anti-devolutionist Back Benchers who are hiding behind the skirts of Members of the House of Lords?

The Prime Minister

I hope that when the Bill comes back we shall have the support of the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mrs. Bain) and her colleagues in getting it through. I understand that we shall. But if the hon. Member had had her way with the votes that she cast with the Opposition there would have been no chance of getting the Bill on to the statute book.

Mr. Dalyell

Which Lords amendments does the Prime Minister wish to be removed from the Scotland Bill?

The Prime Minister

That will be made clear in due course.

Mr. Raison

Does the Prime Minister think that it will be satisfactory to have on the statute book a Bill which provides that Scottish Members may vote about education, housing and health in England but that neither English nor Scottish Members may vote about such matters as they affect Scotland?

[column 233]

The Prime Minister

These issues have been debated many times in the House. The House has reached a conclusion.

Mr. James Lamond

Has my right hon. Friend had any news today or recently from the United Nations, in particular with reference to whether it is to accept any of the excellent suggestions that my right hon. Friend made in his fine speech to the Special Session on Disarmament on 2nd June?

The Prime Minister

I am much obliged to my hon. Friend for his comments. The British contribution throughout the whole of this session has been extremely valuable and a number of proposals have been taken up. In particular, for example, one has resulted in France returning to the general disarmament discussions in a way in which it has not for some time, and there are other issues on which I believe we shall find considerable progress. Perhaps the most important is general acceptance of the proposition that no nuclear attack should take place in areas and countries which do not themselves possess nuclear weapons and which are not joined with others in an attack on countries which do.

Mr. Crouch

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Did you notice that today no fewer than 35 Members wanted to know what the Prime Minister was doing today? Do you not think that the time has come when this circus act should be changed and when the Prime Minister should not be asked to go through this ridiculous hoop? Should we not be able to ask the Prime Minister Questions directly without this preamble?

Mr. Skinner

rose——

Mr. Speaker

Is the hon. Gentleman rising on the same point of order?

Mr. Skinner

No, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker

Then may I deal with this point of order first?

Mr. Skinner

I was simply drawing your attention to the fact, Mr. Speaker, that yesterday you said that normally you took points of order after statements.

Mr. Speaker

Order. This point of order arises out of Questions.

May I tell the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) that it is up to the [column 234]House to decide on this matter. The present custom has developed to a very different scale in this Parliament. I have no control over the Questions on the Order Paper.

Mr. Ashley

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I want to know whether you can protect the rights of Back Benchers. In response to my supplementary question on Question No. Q1, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, in a display of arrogance, refused to answer the question. He brushed it aside. It is understandable that apart from the most enthusiastic party points, the Prime Minister may not wish to deal with critical points from the Government side, especially if they relate to the problems of low-paid workers. May I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that there is no point in Back Benchers putting down Questions if the Prime Minister is to act in this arrogant and ill-considered manner? May I therefore ask what you can do to intervene? If the Prime Minister is to be so patronising, we object.

Mr. Speaker

Will the hon. Member be kind enough to put a point of order with which I can deal? A protest is not a point of order, but if the hon. Member will make his point of order I shall try to deal with it.

Mr. Ashley

I was hoping to make a protest and a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My point of order concerns how you can protect the rights of hon. Members when they put questions. The second part of my point of order is that there is a growing tendency among Ministers who group Questions and thereby evade and avoid them. Although you are not responsible for ministerial answers, Mr. Speaker, are you aware that this practice is interfering with the rights of Back Benchers to receive information from Ministers? I therefore seek your guidance.

Mr. Heffer

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker, I should like to take up precisely the same point. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that he felt that it was wrong to reply to a question about top salaries or low pay in terms of income policy in the course of a supplementary answer during Question Time. I do not disagree with that, but since the Government are issuing a reply to a Written Question and are not [column 235]making a statement in the House on this matter, how, other than by questioning Ministers, are Back Benchers to get the opportunity to raise the matter? We try to question Ministers on the matter, but we are told that it is not possible for it to be dealt with in that way. This is a question for the House, not just for Ministers.

Mr. Speaker

I must tell the hon. Member, first, that I do not know whether the Government are answering Questions tabled for Written Answer. That is not within my knowledge. Secondly, the content of a Minister's reply is not my concern. Since I have been here, and I am sure long before that, there have been Members who have been dissatisfied with both the tone and content of replies that they have received.

Mr. Skinner

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the remarks by my hon. Friend the Member for Liver-pool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) I want you to consider a little further the problem of Back Benchers on matters of this kind when controversial issues are at stake but when there is no apparent variance between the views of the two Front Benches The Tory Opposition, it seems, agree with the general line taken by the Government in their statement last night, and they therefore do not attempt to ask suppementary questions on the matter. That means that Back Benchers—at least those who want to participate in the argument—are disfranchised in the sense that they are not permitted to raise the matter. That situation arises because the two Front Benches have agreed not to raise the matter, as witness the fact that the Leader of the Opposition did not choose to raise the matter. That has meant that we on the Back Benches have been denied the opportunity to deal with the issue.

Mr. Speaker

I am deeply conscious that a major part of my responsibility is to guard the rights of Back Benchers, but the hon. Member is aware that hon. Members may table their Questions on the Order Paper. No one is stopping them from doing that.

I call Mr. Judd—statement.

Mr. Adley

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

[column 236]

Mr. Speaker

I shall take this point of order, but I hope that that will be an end to the business.

Mr. Adley

The Prime Minister told us that he was meeting Chancellor Kreisky, but none of us was able to catch your eye to pursue the matter through supplementary questions. Does that not indicate that a solution to the problem might be to have two sessions of 15 minutes? In the first the House could deal with anything that anyone wished to raise. In the second we could ask questions relating to the Prime Minister's business.

Mr. Speaker

I am sure that if there was an allocation of an hour that would not be long enough in which to call everyone who wanted to be called. One of my weaknesses is that I cannot read the thoughts of hon. Members who want to ask supplementary questions.