PRIME MINISTER
Nationalised Industries (Advertising)
Q1. Mr. Eggar
asked the Prime Minister if she will seek powers to control the advertising expenditure of the nationalised industries.
[column 1002]The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher)
It is not my present intention to do so. Most nationalised industry advertising is of an ordinary commercial kind. The exceptions can be pursued through other channels.
Mr. Eggar
Has my right hon. Friend noted the disgraceful advertising campaigns mounted by the British Gas Corporation and British Rail, which clearly have political rather than commercial objectives? Is she aware that the British Gas Corporation's present campaign will cost £2 million? Does she agree that that is an unacceptable use of taxpayers' money and will she take steps to claw back that amount through the cash limits system?
The Prime Minister
I share my hon. Friend's distaste for some of the non-commercial advertising of both British Rail and British Gas, neither of which is commercial and which we believe in both cases was politically directed. My right hon. Friend Norman Fowlerthe Secretary of State for Transport has made his views known to the board of British Rail and my right hon. Friend Sally Oppenheimthe Minister for Consumer Affairs has made her views known to British Gas. I believe that this is a wrong use of public money.
Mr. Joseph Dean
Will the Prime Minister explain how she intends to advertise the sale and hiving off of the Royal ordnance factories to the private sector when they are the most important component of the logistics of our Army today? Are the Government seriously suggesting that the private sector of the arms industry can be trusted to keep our Army supplied if the hour of need comes again?
The Prime Minister
A considerable number of firms in the private sector supply defence requirement to our Armed Services. There would be nothing unusual in adding to that number.
Mr. Jessel
Does my right hon. Friend agree that, although it is entirely right for British Airways to advertise for custom against other airlines, it is entirely wrong for it to use money to campaign for a fifth terminal at Heathrow and in doing so to be clearly against Government policy, as the Secretary of State for Trade has clearly stated that a fifth terminal should not be built at Heathrow?
The Prime Minister
The vast majority of advertising is commercial and is not only justified but necessary to get the business into the nationalised industries. I agree with my hon. Friend that anything other than commercial advertising is most undesirable.
Mr. Flannery
Does the Prime Minister accept that on the way here on the wretched railway line from Sheffield to London there are huge advertisements in the fields, painted in black letters on a white background, proclaiming “Choose Corby. It works” ? Will she inquire who put those advertisements there—there are at least three of them—telling people to go to Corby because it works, when every hon. Member knows that the people of Corby are out of work and that the Government are doing nothing to put them into work?
The Prime Minister
Corby is an enterprise zone, and it seems to me that that is a legitimate advertisement.
Engagements
Q2. Mr. Chapman
asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 2 July.
[column 1003]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, including one with a delegation of Members of the Indian Parliament led by their Speaker.
Mr. Chapman
Will my right hon. Friend spend a little time considering the plight of those ratepayers in the Metropolis who will shortly receive supplementary demands? Is it not grossly iniquitous that London ratepayers should be required to subsidise the public transporting of millions of tourists who visit the City each year as well as hundreds of thousands of commuters from outside London who earn their living in the City? If the Government do not have the powers to stop these supplementary demands, will my right hon. Friend try to expedite alternatives to the rating system, which is a rotten iniquitous system?
The Prime Minister
I agree with my hon. Friend that it is absolutely wrong that London ratepayers should have to subsidise tours taken on London Transport by tourists or many other people who come into London but who do not belong to London. There is already a grant of about £105 million from the Government, and in addition a large grant from the GLC is financed through the rates. I believe that most people will strongly object to paying large increased amounts for people who come from outside the Metropolis.
As to finding an alternative system to the rates, my right hon. Friend Michael Heseltinethe Secretary of State for the Environment will, I hope, be producing a consultative document before the end of the year.
Mr. Foot
Has the right hon. Lady yet had a chance to study the speech of the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) and his suggestions that the policies of mass unemployment over which the Prime Minister presides help to breed crime and racial tensions? What does she think of that speech?
The Prime Minister
I did, of course, see reports of Edward Heathmy right hon. Friend's speech. I note that most of my fellow Heads of Government at the European Council agree with the policies that we are pursuing. [Interruption.] It is extraordinary that Opposition Members should interrupt, because they were not present. Many of the Heads of Government are pursuing the same policies, and most of them agree that lower inflation will lead to more jobs. The question is not about the scourge of unemployment—we all agree that unemployment is a scourge—but rather what effective remedies can be found. We believe that we are going the right way to finding them.
Mr. Foot
How does the right hon. Lady think that her colleagues in Europe can understand a policy which the right hon. Member for Sidcup describes as “incomprehensible” ? Does not the Prime Minister understand that she must answer to this House? What does she think of the right hon. Gentleman's statement? Following what the right hon. Gentleman and others have said on this subject, do the Government intend to proceed later this year with further public expenditure cuts which will lead to further unemployment, further racial hatred and further crime?
The Prime Minister
The Heads of Government in Europe understand the policy, because many of them are [column 1004]pursuing identical policies. In other words, their top priority is to reduce inflation as a means not only of getting inflation down but of establishing a firm base to secure competitive industry and good jobs in the future.
I also note that the chairman of the IMF made a speech about policies similar to those that we are following in which he referred to the importance of monetary policy and the correct balance between monetary and budgetary policy. That speech very much approved the kind of policy that we are following.
Mr. Foot
Not enough.
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman may say “Not enough” , but we are trying to reduce public expenditure—[Interruption.]—so that more finance is available for the private sector—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker
Order. I cannot hear the Prime Minister's reply, and, as I said earlier, we must try to maintain parliamentary standards.
The Prime Minister
That is precisely why Opposition Members find the policy incomprehensible—because they will not listen.
Mr. Foot
Will the right hon. Lady now say what President Mitterrand said about her policies?
The Prime Minister
President Mitterrand was the one person who was out of step—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman may not like it, but that is the case. As I reminded the right hon. Gentleman yesterday, President Mitterrand proposes to increase his deficit to an amount equal to 3 per cent. of GDP. Most of us, who already have deficits beyond that amount, could not possibly consider that policy. Our deficit is already 4½ per cent. of GDP.
Mr. Dykes
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the parliamentary rabble opposite have no recipes for Britain's economic revival? However, bearing in mind that we have an unprecedentedly large margin of spare capacity in men and material generally, and especially in the construction industry, is it not now possible to consider certain non-inflationary measures to revive the economy that would not lead to an increase in inflation?
The Prime Minister
I would dearly like to increase the proportion of public spending on public investment. Many of us would, because we think that that would be a far better way of spending some of the money than putting a good deal of it into increased pay. The fact is that the more that goes into increased pay without increased output the less there is to spend on public investment and the less there is available for more jobs. More pay without more output means more unemployment.
Dr. Owen
Is the Prime Minister aware that the selective expansionary proposals of the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) are recommended by many people in many parts of Britain, not least by the electors of Warrington—[Interruption.] If some hon. Members spent some time on the doorsteps of Warrington, they would discover that fact—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker
Order. The House must listen to points of view that it does not like. That is what it is all about in this place.
Dr. Owen
Does the Prime Minister accept that many people believe that there is an alternative and that there is a case for selective expansionary investment in Britain that [column 1005]has nothing to do with the hotch-potch of extravagant inflationary expansion peddled from the Opposition Benches?
The Prime Minister
Unlike the right hon. Gentleman and others who propose the creation of inflation on top of inflation, I happen to agree with John Maynard Keynes, when he said—[Interruption.]
[column 1006]Mr. Speaker
Order. I do not know why the House is so excited this afternoon. I remind hon. Members that the clock is moving on.
The Prime Minister
I happen to agree with Keynes. He said:
“There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose” .