PRIME MINISTER
Engagements
Q1. Mr. Beith
asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 19 January.
The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher)
This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, including one with the Netherlands ambassador. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today.
Mr. Beith
Is the Prime Minister aware of the enormous public concern that has arisen over sentencing in rape cases, following the failure of the Crown to proceed in the recent Glasgow case and unsympathetic police interrogation of victims, as was shown in a television programme last night? Will she add to the welcome statements of the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice an indication of the seriousness with which the Government view the matter? Will she say whether she is prepared to carry out a review of the application of the law in rape cases and whether she will encourage police authorities to set up special units to deal with this odious crime?
The Prime Minister
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this matter. It is vital that women should have confidence in the ability of the law to protect [column 150]them against this violent, detestable and—I use the hon. Gentleman's word— “odious” crime, and to ensure that persons are found guilty should they commit it.
I share the welcome that the hon. Gentleman gave to Lord Lanethe Lord Chief Justice's point on sentencing for rape. The hon. Gentleman will know that he said forcefully that rape was always a serious crime and, except in wholly exceptional circumstances, called for an immediate custodial sentence.
I also share the hon. Gentleman's concern about certain matters that were shown on television last night, and I understand that the relevant police authority accepts the warranted criticisms about the ways in which those cases were handled. Beyond that, it is best to leave Lord Hailshamthe Lord Chancellor to deal with these matters, and for William Whitelawthe Home Secretary to deal with police questioning, because there has been advice and that will be reviewed. We should leave the Lord Chancellor to deal with these matters in his inimitable and definitive way.
Sir Paul Bryan
Will my right hon. Friend find time today to consider the circumstances in which a Conservative Secretary of State has approved the findings of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, which insulate our lucrative retail banking system against competition and at the same time allow banks to use their profits to buy banks abroad in countries that believe in competition? In any event, has not this inquiry raised subjects of such importance that they should be decided by the Cabinet and not by some commission?
The Prime Minister
Clearly there was room for more than one view on the difficult issues raised by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's consideration of the bids for the Royal Bank of Scotland. The commission was itself divided on both bids. The decision rests not so much with the commission as with my right hon. Friend John Biffenthe Secretary of State for Trade. It is a quasi-judicial decision. He can consult other colleagues about it, but the final decision is his.
I understand that the commission did not believe that there would be any substantial contribution to competition in United Kingdom banking from either merger. There has been a considerable increase in competition from the number of banks that have come into this country. We welcome them into this country and I am aware that some of our banks have gone into the banking business overseas and taken over other banks. I emphasise that this decision applies to this particular case only and that the structure of banking in this country must not remain frozen.
Mr. Foot
As it appears that the country and the House may soon be confronted with the terrible total of 3 million unemployed, may I ask the right hon. Lady to ensure that the statement on this matter is made to the House next week, when the figures are to be announced? Will she also tell the House what changes in Government policy she proposes at the same time?
The Prime Minister
The statement will be made in the usual way, as it is always made, in the morning, from the Department of Employment, giving very full details of the figures. I shall be here, as usual, to receive questions.
Mr. Foot
As the right hon. Lady has indicated that the figures may be passing this terrible total, will she arrange for the statement on such a major matter to be made in the House? Will she also take into account the fact that, [column 151]speaking a week or two ago on this question, she said that there were some economic measures affecting these matters that she would like to have carried through were it not for Parliament restraining her? What were those measures? Would they have added to the total unemployment figures?
The Prime Minister
No, I have no present intention of changing the arrangements for making that statement. The right hon. Gentleman will be very much aware that on each occasion when the unemployment figures have risen—and they also rose, tragically, in his time, although not to the present levels—the statement was made in the same way, by announcement in the morning through the Department of Employment. The statement will continue to be made in that way. I have no other statement to make about this matter. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, there has been a major statement about help for work and training for young people. Some of those provisions came into operation on 2 January. Further changes are due to be made in the job release scheme in February, and the whole training scheme will come into operation gradually over the coming months and years.
Q2. Mr. Viggers
asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 19 January.
The Prime Minister
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
Mr. Viggers
Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity today to read press reports of plans approved by the Japanese Ministry of Trade and Industry for that country to take a massive leap forward in technology based on the increased use of computers and robots? Does she agree that in this country too much of our thinking is rooted in preserving the industrial practices of the past and that the way ahead to greater prosperity and greater employment in Britain is for all responsible leaders to encourage change, innovation and flexibility?
The Prime Minister
I agree very much with what my hon. Friend has said. It is essential for the prosperity of British industry, and for the future prospects for jobs, for British industry to adopt the very latest technology and to be ahead in doing so. It is notable that those countries that have clung to outdated working practices and outdated technologies have the higher levels of unemployment; those that have been among the first to embrace new technology have the lowest levels of unemployment and high measures of prosperity.
Dr. Owen
How much is it now envisaged will be spent on the Polaris rockets? Will the Prime Minister confirm that this sum will allow the life of the Polaris missile to be extended into the year 2000? Would not that be the best option, rather than proceeding with the extremely expensive Trident missile?
The Prime Minister
I am not quite sure which aspect the right hon. Gentleman is getting at. The Polaris weapon is being re-motored, as he knows. From time to time changes have to be made in this weapon system, and re-motoring is now being undertaken until the Trident is due to come into service. There is also another matter, about which the right hon. Gentleman will know. The cost of Chevaline was £1,000 million. These steps will extend the life of the Polaris and the submarines until Trident—which is a much more powerful weapon—is due to come into service later.
[column 152]Mr. Hordern
Has my right hon. Friend noted the figures published yesterday, which show that the numbers employed in the Health Service have increased by 67,000 in the last two years, and that the numbers employed in central Government have increased by 38,000 over the same period? Is my right hon. Friend's policy of reducing waste in the public sector and eliminating overmanning going according to plan?
The Prime Minister
I know that my hon. Friend's figures are absolutely impeccable, as usual, and that he will have taken them from some particular Government document. During that period the numbers in the Armed Services rose by some 20,000; the number of nurses rose by 21,000 and the number of doctors rose by 1,000. I am sure that my hon. Friend will approve of those increases. The numbers in the Civil Service bureaucracy, over the period that my hon. Friend mentioned, have dropped by 40,000. They have now dropped by 52,000. As we take out the area health authorities, the number of bureaucratic jobs in the Health Service will further be reduced.
Mr. Conlan
Will the right hon. Lady take time today to consider the announcement made by Marconi Radar yesterday to the effect that 700 people are to lose their jobs as a result of cancellation of contracts by the Ministry of Defence for the GWS-25 tracker radar? As the lightweight version is intended as a replacement, will she put an end to the indecision of the Ministry of Defence over the rival bids of a Dutch company and Marconi, so that the work can go to Marconi and thereby reduce and mitigate the full effects of these redundancies?
The Prime Minister
This question arises from time to time. We try to buy British, as far as we possibly can, commensurate with efficiency in British industry and with suitability for the task under consideration. The hon. Gentleman must take up the precise decision with my right hon. Friend John Nottthe Secretary of State for Defence.
Q3. Mr. Neil Thorne
asked the Prime Minister what are her official engagements for 19 January.
The Prime Minister
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
Mr. Thorne
I welcome the Government's determination to encourage concessionary fares for elderly people. Will my right hon. Friend take time today to consider again the possibility of granting tax relief to companies giving their staff season tickets for public transport? This would seem to be a much more sensible way of providing subsidies for public transport than the present ad hoc system.
The Prime Minister
As my hon. Friend will know, where employers buy or help with season tickets for employees, the employers will secure tax relief for that purpose, but there will be a charge, if it is a gift or a partial gift, on the tax of the employee. At present we have no plans to change that. It would be extremely expensive if tax relief were to be given for all travelling expenses, and no Government have embarked upon that. It is a personal choice where one lives, and that is one of the reasons why the present position has been adopted.
Mr. Les Huckfield
While the Prime Minister is talking to her right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport about concessionary fares, will she also try to find time to interest him in the railway dispute? Will she [column 153]try to get through to him the fact that pay and productivity issues in this dispute are entirely separate and distinct—[Interruption.]—as is amply evidenced and documented in the proceedings of the Railway Staffs National Tribunal and the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service? Will the Prime Minister also get the Secretary of State for Transport to appreciate that since it is the British Railways Board that has broken its agreement—[Hon. Members: “Rubbish.” ]—and since it is the British Railways Board that broke off the productivity talks, the only way to settle this dispute is for the British Railways Board to pay the 3 per cent?
The Prime Minister
I do not accept what the hon. Member has said. I believe that the parties are still with ACAS. The hon. Member will remember that it was as a result of the good services of ACAS that that arrangement was reached earlier in the year, and I believe that it is right that ACAS should resolve it. In the meantime, I call the hon. Member's attention to what Mr. Terry Duffy said about the strike in an article in one of the Sunday newspapers this week. Speaking about this particular strike, he said: [column 154]
“Their strike action has caused suffering to thousands of my members. Many factory workers, unlike office workers, do not get paid if they cannot get to work.”
Mr. Cyril D. Townsend
Will my right hon. Friend be discussing with the Chancellor of the Exchequer the call from a large section of British industry and many on the Conservative Benches for Government support for carefully costed capital projects in labour-intensive industries? Would not such help be a constructive and traditionally Conservative way of encouraging the free interprise system and getting the economy expanding rather faster than is at present envisaged?
The Prime Minister
Yes, and my hon. Friend will have heard me say many times that we have also to look at the total of expenditure. We have to get the total of expenditure either from taxation or from borrowing. That is really the only way to do it. Therefore, we must look at the total—[An Hon. Member: “Print it” .] Printing is a Labour device. I may say that it is usually overmanned as well. Many of us wish to make certain that current expenditure is kept as economical as possible and that wage claims are kept as moderate as possible so that there may thereby be room for that capital expenditure that my hon. Friend and I both want.