PRIME MINISTER
Engagements
Q1. Mr. Farr
asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 11 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 this House I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I shall attend a State banquet given by King Khalid.
Mr. Farr
In the midst of my right hon. Friend's busy day, will she have an opportunity to study the grave statement by the Leader of the Opposition yesterday in which he claimed not only that the Government had refused or declined to answer a letter from President Brezhnev relating to disarmament, but that a future Labour Government would enter into unilateral nuclear disarmament? Does my right hon. Friend agree that such statements are worrying to our national independence and security? Will she give them her urgent attention?
The Prime Minister
I noted the Leader of the Opposition's remarks. I did, of course, reply to President Brezhnev's letter. The fact of my reply was known. I replied in early April. I join my hon. Friend in wholly [column 542]condemning the Leader of the Opposition for suggesting that unilateral disarmament will be possible in some circumstances. That seems to me to be a way to reduce our capacity to defend our own people, while leaving intact the aggressor's capacity to attack us.
Mr. Foot
Perhaps the Prime Minister and the House would like to await the publication of the letter that I have sent. I am sure that the country wants positive action to be taken by Britain to help to stop the nuclear arms race. What I am concerned about is that the Government seem to show an inadequate response to the proportion of events.
Will the facts that prompted the Leader of House to say that we have not yet reached the bottom of the trough of the recession, and on which he based his speech, be before the Cabinet at the emergency meeting on the economic cisis next week? In the meantime, may the facts be presented to the House?
The Prime Minister
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman's first proposition. We do, indeed, want multilateral disarmament, but why should a country come to the table for multilateral disarmament talks when he has said that we will disarm unilaterally? That is the very circumstance in which there is no need to come to multilateral disarmament talks. It undermines any possibility that we might have of getting those talks under way, which we want to do.
There is no emergency meeting of the Cabinet. We hear that comment every time we embark on the new public expenditure review. We heard it last year, the assertion has been made this year and I expect that it will be made next year. In the meantime, we shall carry on as normal.
Mr. Foot
The Opposition would be happy to have a debate in the House on the nuclear arms race and how to stop it, as soon as the Government can find the time. We will then have before us all the documents that we shall have to present. We shall have our letter to Mr. Brezhnev, which is much better than any response by the Prime Minister.
To revert to the emergency meeting next week, is the Prime Minister really saying to the House and the country that next Wednesday, in the midst of the economic crisis, she will be discussing further expenditure cuts, which will only add to the horrific employment figures? Did not her own Leader of the House say that even when we reach the bottom of the recession the recovery will be slow and unspectacular? Does not that mean that unemployment will continue to increase year after year, to the end of the right hon. Lady's term of office?
The Prime Minister
We always begin the public expenditure survey, which must be carried out each year, with an economic assessment. That is common practice. There is nothing unusual about it. It is the right way to begin. With regard to the right hon. Gentleman's remarks about the economic position, two factors must be taken into account. First, there will be increases in unemployment, as I have said before, if for no other reason than the large number of school leavers who want jobs this year. It is a larger number than in previous years, with the exception of last year. The number will be large again next year. Secondly, on the question of the general state of the recession, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman noted the report in The Times of a European Commission report which said: [column 543]
“Signs of United Kingdom recovery now apparent.”
Mr. Foot
Is the Prime Minister aware that one of the most terrifying statements that she has made in Parliament—and that is saying something—is that she intends to continue with her present policy? Does she not understand that one of the purposes of the Cabinet meeting with her fellow Ministers is to enable them to underline the facts in the statement made by the Leader of the House, which directly conflicts with the Treasury statement and the statement that she has just made?
The Prime Minister
If the right hon. Gentleman looks for good economic news, he will find examples in the recent good orders that have been received by the shipbuilding and engineering industries. No doubt he will have observed that sales of cars in May were higher than in any other May, save for 1973. That is good news, and how the right hon. Gentleman hates it.
Mr. Renton
Let us not worry for a moment about letters to Mr. Brezhnev. What does my right hon. Friend think about the letter received by Mr. Kania and other leaders in Poland from Mr. Brezhnev hinting at Russian intervention in Poland's internal affairs?
The Prime Minister
We must make it clear once again, as we have done on many occasions—my hon. Friend underlines this—that it is the right of every country to determine its future in its own way, free from interference. We wish that view to apply to the Warsaw Pact countries, as well as to countries in the West.
Q2. Mr. Alexander
asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 11 June.
The Prime Minister
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave some moments ago.
Mr. Alexander
During the course of the day, will my right hon. Friend consider the threatened escalation of the Civil Service dispute and the resulting fear in the minds of the elderly and those in receipt of child benefit and other social security benefits? Will she ensure that if one old-age pensioner, one mother entitled to child benefit or one social security claimant is harmed because of the escalation, not only will Civil service honours for 1981 be scrapped, but the final settlement achieved will not, under any circumstances, be backdated?
The Prime Minister
It is true that because of militant action by a small minority of civil servants some people are in danger of not receiving child benefit or unemployment benefit. Some people are finding it difficult to obtain passports and a number are finding it difficult to obtain their VAT refunds or agricultural payments.
I join my hon. Friend in totally and utterly condemning those who wish to pursue their own ends by harming and damaging the interests of the public. I utterly condemn anyone who wishes to pursue his own selfish ends by wilfully harming the interests of the public, especially the weakest sections—[Interruption.] The vast majority of civil servants are staying loyally—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker
Order. Will the Prime Minister not fight to be heard? She is entitled to a hearing. The Opposition Front Bench should not be shouting.
The Prime Minister
Most civil servants are staying loyally at their posts, and many are working overtime to [column 544]ensure that benefits are distributed. I do not wish to harm them in any way, or to harm their interests. An offer of a 7 per cent. increase has been made. We must bear in mind that 98.5 per cent. of civil servants are on incremental scales which gives them another 2.3 per cent. This year's pay settlement starts from the beginning of the financial year, 1 April. Therefore, on average, the increase in civil servants' pay this year, based on the offer already made, would be 11 per cent. above their pay last year.
Mr. McNally
Is the Prime Minister not increasingly irritated with press speculation that she intends to renege on her clear commitment to pensioners? Has she read today's issue of The Guardian? In advance of the public expenditure review, will she repeat that she intends to stand by her pledge to keep pensions in line with inflation?
The Prime Minister
Yes, we have made that perfectly clear.
Mr. Body
Did my right hon. Friend see the report yesterday that officials of water authorities can claim a car allowance of £2.49 per mile? Does she consider that everyone in the public service should have the same allowance—be they civil servants, nurses or anyone else? Do not nurses make journeys that are as important as those made by water board officials?
The Prime Minister
I have seen that report today. I shall make inquiries about the matter. We must bear in mind that there is great public resentment at the level of water rates. We shall need to consider that figure carefully. Allowances are negotiated separately, as are our allowances. However, I shall consider my hon. Friend's point.
Mr. English
The Prime Minister mentioned the annual publication of a public expenditure White Paper and similar documents. Why was the first document that she produced reduced in content and information by 98 per cent.?
The Prime Minister
I did not refer to the White Paper. I referred to the public expenditure survey process, which begins now.
Q3. Mr. Moate
asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 11 June.
The Prime Minister
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave some moments ago.
Mr. Moate
Does my right hon. Friend agree that, however much the Leader of the Opposition chooses to forget about his responsibilities for administering Government pay policy, the House is at least entitled to know exactly where he stands on the issue of the Civil Service dispute? Does he condemn or support the proposed escalation of the strike action, which could harm the old and the sick? Will my right hon. Friend invite the Leader of the Opposition to make it clear to the House whether he will join us in condemning any such action?
The Prime Minister
That is a matter for the Leader of the Opposition. I unreservedly condemn cold and callous action towards people by militant members of the Civil Service, who should serve our people, not cause them harm or damage.
Mr. Foot
The words “cold and callous” come strangely from the lips of the right hon. Lady. If she thinks that she has such a good case on the Civil Service dispute, why is she so afraid to allow the matter to go to arbitration?
[column 545]The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman knows that the Government have also to reconcile what they pay their employees with what the private sector can afford to pay us all. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will recollect that he suspended pay research over a considerable period of his Government and will cast the beam out of his own eye first.
Mr. Foot
The right hon. Lady is trying to mislead the country once again. When we made the suspension there was a similar provision for the rest of the economic field. The right hon. Lady has taken out the reference of the Civil Service. She has torn up its system and refused to go to arbitration. The more that she comes to the Dispatch Box to read out her case on the Civil Service, the stronger becomes the case for referring the matter to arbitration.
Mr. Speaker
Order. The Leader of the Opposition is going to ask a question.
[column 546]Mr. Foot
May I ask the right hon. Lady to review the case again and consider what we said to her at the beginning of the dispute? We warned her of many of the dangers and difficulties. All those dangers and difficulties lie at her door because she neglected all our advice from the very beginning.
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman left the pay for the Civil Service in an appalling state. Civil servants were so far behind that the Government had to honour all the blank cheques that the previous Government had left and award the Civil Service increases in pay which, over the past two years, have amounted to 50 per cent. to pay for the damage that the right hon. Gentleman left. On top of that there is another offer of 7 per cent., which year-on-year will amount to 11 per cent. That is very good treatment by an employer of his valued employees.