PRIME MINISTER
Engagements
Q1. Mr. Dubs
asked the Prime Minister if she will list her public engagements for 4 June.
The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher)
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. This afternoon I shall be leaving for a visit to west Wiltshire and Bristol.
Mr. Dubs
Will the Prime Minister spend some time today considering the views expressed at yesterday's meeting of the National Economic Development Council by the TUC, the CBI, NEDO and the chairmen of the nationalised industries? When will her Government allow the nationalised industries to take advantage of all profitable investment opportunities?
The Prime Minister
If the nationalised industries were profitable they would find many investment opportunities. The real problem arises because the nationalised industries are not profitable. They do not get a good return on their resources. The vast majority, if they go to the market to borrow money, need a Government guarantee. Without that, they would be hopeless at getting the money.
Mr. Cyril Smith
Will the Prime Minister, in her discussions with Ministers today, consider the situation in the National Health Service whereby a woman registering the birth of a child is exempt from prescription charges, unless she is registering a stillborn birth in which case she loses her entitlement to exemption? Does not the Prime Minister agree that this anomaly should be put right?
The Prime Minister
I understand that the hon. Gentleman is correct in saying that expectant mothers and mothers with children under the age of 1 are exempt from prescription charges but that the exemption does not apply [column 1066]to the mother of a stillborn child. I shall certainly examine this situation. Without prejudice to the result I do so because I understand fully the traumatic experience that is involved for any family.
Mr. Beaumont-Dark
Does my right hon. Friend recall the moans and groans of the TUC and the CBI in November when the pound was at $2.42? Now that the pound has come back to $1.95, has she heard from the CBI and the TUC about the opportunities that this gives them to compete?
The Prime Minister
The answer to my hon. Friend is “No, Sir” . When the pound is high, it means that imports of raw materials are low. When the pound is low, it means that we are competitive in exports.
Mr. Foot
Can the right hon. Lady assist the House and the country by clearing up the apparent deep confusion, revealed on the front page of The Times, between the Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the important question of negotiations, or possible negotiations, with the EEC? Does she agree with the apparent view of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that there is little prospect of fundamental budgetary reform in the EEC? If so, does that not mean that Britain will remain the largest net contributor to the EEC for the foreseeable future and that the burden is likely to increase?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman asks me to clear up the confusion, and I do so immediately. Britain is not the largest net contributor to the EEC. Germany is by far the largest net contributor to the EEC. We are the second largest net contributor—a long way down from the German net contribution. I am glad to be able to clear up that confusion. There is no disagreement between the Treasury and the Foreign Office. I am the First Lord of the Treasury, I do most of the negotiations with Europe and I am not disagreeing with myself.
Mr. Foot
I well understand the right hon. Lady's determination not to leave the negotiations to her colleagues. Can she tell us whether in these negotiations—if she is indeed in charge of them—she will carry out the resolution unanimously passed by the House of Commons in November 1979, and on other occasions, which underlines the House's view that this country should not be a net contributor, as she has arranged under her negotiations so far?
The Prime Minister
I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman understands. Negotiations are negotiations. The record shows that the Conservative Party and this Government have done a jolly sight better than his Government.
Mr. Foot
When will the right hon. Lady carry out the resolution unanimously passed by the House of Commons—a resolution for which she voted?
The Prime Minister
We have done about £700 million a year better than the party opposite. That is not a bad start.
Mr. Onslow
Does my right hon. Friend expect to have an opportunity today to join the Leader of the Opposition in sending good wishes for a speedy recovery to the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn)?
The Prime Minister
I am sure that we would all wish to send a message to any right hon. or hon. Member of the House who is not well, and I do it to the “Bennth” degree.
[column 1067]Mr. J. Enoch Powell
Will the right hon. Lady have the opportunity today to consider whether there is any logical necessity, for the purpose of eliminating inflation, to attempt to reduce the real remuneration of those who are in public, non-commercial employment?
The Prime Minister
I understand what the right hon. Gentleman is saying. In strict academic logic, disregarding the numbers in the public sector, disregarding the need for capital expenditure, disregarding the need for equipment expenditure, disregarding the levels of taxation and of interest rates, in strict academic logic, the right hon. Gentleman is right. In everything else he is wrong.
Q2. Mr. Parry
asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 4 June.
The Prime Minister
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply which I gave some moments ago.
Mr. Parry
Will the Prime Minister consider when she can pluck up courage to visit Liverpool to see the unemployment situation? She has not visited Liverpool since she became Prime Minister. Is she aware that my constituency has 40 per cent. unemployment? The right hon. Lady did not have the courtesy to meet a small delegation of young unemployed who marched from Liverpool to London. Are not the Prime Minister and the Tory Government hypocrites who are not concerned about unemployment?
The Prime Minister
I shall, of course, consider visiting Liverpool as one of the many visits that I make. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government have tried to do everything possible to give greater help to Liverpool. There is an urban development corporation, an enterprise zone and a partnership agreement. It is a special development area. When Tate and Lyle closed recently, which I regarded as a tragedy, it gave a considerable grant to enable further development of small businesses. We have to encourage small businesses and the expansion of larger businesses, and to ask the most relevant question: why do so many people in this country reject the products of factories in this country?
Mr. Lyell
Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity today to point out the beneficial effects which the wise policies of restraint on spending and borrowing are having on our current rates of interest? Will she take the opportunity to confirm that it is her intention that those interest rates shall continue to come down for the benefit of our manufacturers?
The Prime Minister
If there were tremendous demands for increasing public expenditure and those demands were to be met in any way, that would have a bad effect upon interest rates. So far, interest rates are down from 17 per cent. to 12 per cent., and that has been of great advantage both to agriculture and industry.
Q3. Mr. Cunliffe
asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 4 June.
The Prime Minister
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply which I gave some moments ago.
Mr. Cunliffe
Does the right hon. Lady realise that the latest unemployment figures reflect a grave and fast deteriorating situation, which means more misery and distress for our people? Will she now consider, as the British people now demand, that she changes course, and [column 1068]embarks on a massive programme of house building, road and railways construction and so on, to bring back confidence and hope to the nation? Will she ally with that the early retirement proposals that she mentioned in a recent letter to me? Will she accord to our people the right to work, because if she does not she will drag the nation deeper and deeper into a morass?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman is asking for a substantial programme of increased capital expenditure. To many of us it would be very attractive, but unless it were financed from reduced current expenditure, it would put increasing burdens on public spending and on taxation—about which people are already complaining—and increasing burdens on interest rates. It would have exactly the opposite effect from that which the hon. Gentleman wishes. If there is to be extra public expenditure we need reduced current expenditure. Otherwise there will be a damaging effect on private sector business.
Mr. Whitney
Will my right hon. Friend find time today to arrange for the distribution to her Cabinet colleagues of an account of the budget planning and achievements of the American Administration, so that before the reported Cabinet discussions on the economy—should there be any need for them—her Cabinet colleagues may be convinced that public spending cuts are both possible and highly beneficial to the economy?
The Prime Minister
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I do not conceal my envy of the way in which the President of the United States has been able to get proposals for public expenditure reductions through his parliament.
Mr. Palmer
I think that the right hon. Lady said that she was going to Bristol. Is that to console her supporters who did so badly in the Avon county council election?
The Prime Minister
I expect to have an interesting visit to Bristol. If the hon. Gentleman does not wish me to go, perhaps he will let me know.
Q4. Mr. John Farr
asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 4 June.
The Prime Minister
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave some moments ago.
Mr. Farr
In view of the strife and difficulty that have been caused by the Civil Service dispute and the fact that the economic situation has changed greatly since the original offer was made, and as there is a steady downward trend in the cost of living, will my right hon. Friend have a chance today to consider whether the offer to the Civil Service unions should now be withdrawn for reappraisal by Government sources?
The Prime Minister
The Government have made an offer to the Civil Service which they believe is fair—indeed, it is a great deal more than people in the private sector are receiving. The Government hope that the vast majority of people in the Civil Service will consider it fair, accept it and return to normal working.
Mr. Spearing
Will the Prime Minister reconsider her reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Cunliffe) about a programme of public works? Does she recall that in the period between the wars President Roosevelt produced an imaginative scheme of public [column 1069]works, including the Tennessee Valley Authority scheme? Will she explain why that cannot be done here? Is it because of her political philosophy or a change in economic conditions?
[column 1070]The Prime Minister
No, Sir. It is a change in the regular level of public spending. Even through boom periods the level of public spending in Britain has been a high proportion of the national income. That is totally contrary to Keynesianism.