PRIME MINISTER
Engagements
Q1. Mr. Alton
asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 21 January.
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.
Mr. Alton
Is the Prime Minister aware that it is six months since the disturbances in Liverpool, and that there is every sign that tensions are growing in the city again? What action will be taken to reduce the high level of unemployment, running at nearly 50 per cent. in my constituency, and what can be done to restore the £23½ million of Government funds that have been lost to Liverpool city council in the past two years?
The Prime Minister
Substantial progress has been made by my right hon. Friend Michael Heseltinethe Secretary of State for the Environment and his task force in securing the co-operation of private companies to help him in redeveloping the inner city. I understand that commercial business training centres have been set up, sponsored by the financial institutions and Unilever, in Liverpool, Birkenhead and Huyton. More than 11,000 YOP traineeships have been made available by local industry. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will take up the question of rate support grant allocations with my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Greenway
Has my right hon. Friend had time during her busy day to read the remarks reportedly made by the magistrate at Highbury court to a teacher—Miss Puttock—who was attempting to bring an action for assault against a parent? She was told that she could expect to be similarly assaulted at least six times in the next 20 years. Does not my right hon. Friend think that that is disgraceful and that the remarks should be withdrawn immediately, otherwise the whole system of school discipline will be undermined?
The Prime Minister
I saw the report to which my hon. Friend refers. Frankly, I found it so utterly astonishing, as did my hon. Friend, that I thought that the first thing to do was to find out the facts. The Lord Chancellor's Department has therefore sent officials to seek to find out precisely what was said, and I think that we should withhold comment until we find out.
Mr. Foot
Has the right hon. Lady had a chance of raising with the Cabinet the question that she raised in her new year broadcast, when she said that she had only been restrained from adopting tougher measures of public expenditure by her colleagues and Parliament? Will she specify to us some of those measures and the effect that she thinks they would have had on the level of unemployment?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman asked a similar question last week, and I will give him the same answer that I gave last week. If one wants more capital expenditure, as a number of us do, it can be obtained only by restraining current expenditure and, in particular, by ensuring that more and more money does not go to increased pay awards in the public sector for the same [column 411]amount of work. Otherwise, the only way to get extra capital expenditure is to increase tax or the interest rate on borrowing, neither of which is desirable.
Mr. Foot
It is true that I put the same question to the Prime Minister on Tuesday, but I did not get an answer and I have not had one yet. The right hon. Lady suggested that there were tougher expenditure cuts that she would like to have introduced. Is she really suggesting that the non-introduction of them is the cause of our economic difficulties? If she had cuts in mind, what were they?
The Prime Minister
I have just mentioned one. It is absolutely vital to keep down pay in the public sector, otherwise more money goes to the public sector for the same amount of work—money that could easily go to ordering equipment and capital goods to create more, not fewer, jobs.
Sir Russell Fairgrieve
With regard to the recent report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission on the Royal Bank of Scotland, does the Prime Minister appreciate that there are wide and respected sections of Scottish commercial opinion that are gravely worried about the content, calibre and recommendations of the report, and which believe that it should have been rejected by the Government because of the damage that its implementation will do nationally for Scotland and internationally for the United Kingdom?
The Prime Minister
I am well aware that there are differing views about the report. As I pointed out to the House on Tuesday, the Monopolies and Mergers Commission itself differed on its recommendations. My right hon. Friend John Biffenthe Secretary of State for Trade has made his decision, and it must stand. I therefore make it absolutely clear that this decision is not a precedent for anything else. It refers only to this application and must not be taken as applying to any other similar applications in Scotland or elsewhere. It is unique to this application. I fully understand my hon. Friend's point, but we need competition and the benefit from it.
Q2. Mr. Frank Allaun
asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 21 January.
The Prime Minister
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
Mr. Allaun
In the course of her busy day—to coin a phrase—will the Prime Minister reconsider her Government's plan to raise council house rents compulsorily by £2.50 a week, in addition to two previous increases? While it may seem nothing to the eight millionaires in the Cabinet—[Interruption.] There were 10, but the right hon. Lady got rid of two. Is she aware that for most of the 6 million council house tenants and their families it means going without something else and that it can bring heartbreak and domestic tragedy to them?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that when we took office council house rents met only 47 per cent. of council housing costs. That meant that 53 per cent. had to be found from elsewhere, and a great deal from rates, which also fall on all householders. It seems reasonable that those who are in council houses should pay a reasonable rent, and I am sure that most of them would not wish to rely on others to meet subsidised rents. Housing rents have indeed been raised, but at present they do not constitute more than 10 or 11 per cent. of average earnings.
[column 412]Mr. David Steel
Is the Cabinet currently considering again the Trident missile project? If so, can the Prime Minister confirm that the estimated costs have now greatly exceeded the figure of £5 billion that was originally reported to the House? If that is so, will the Cabinet take on board the fact that, in addition to the re-motoring of Polaris, that is bound to have a distorting effect on public expenditure in general, and on the conventional defence budget in particular?
The Prime Minister
We took a decision to go for Trident. The question now is whether we should take a decision to go for an even more advanced Trident. So far, no further decision has been taken. As my right hon. Friend John Nottthe Secretary of State for Defence has said, the expenditure of this money secures a far greater degree of deterrence than expenditure of the same amount of money on ordinary conventional armaments. My right hon. Friend has frequently used that argument at this Dispatch Box. The expenditure would be roughly the same as for the Tornado programme.
Sir Derek Walker-Smith
Reverting to the case of the woman teacher, will my right hon. Friend confirm that any such proposition, if corroborated, is wholly contradictory to the principle of the rule of law? Drawing on her previous distinguished practice at the Bar——
Mr. Skinner
Annie's Bar.
Mr. Derek Walker-Smith
—and her recollections thereof, will she confirm, for the comfort and reassurance of the teaching profession, that a citizen in such circumstances is not left without remedy, because it is possible to make a direct application to the Divisional Court for a writ of mandamus to compel a hearing?
The Prime Minister
I obviously cannot improve on my right hon. and learned Friend's legal maxims. I am making no comment on that proposition—on its truth or otherwise. I can only say that any such proposition would be wholly and utterly repugnant to British law. Everyone is entitled to the protection of the law and anyone who flouts it must be brought to justice.
Mr. John Grant
May I refer the Prime Minister to her two answers relating to Highbury magistrates' court, which is in my constituency? The incident about which there have been complaints also took place in my constituency. It was an extraordinary incident. When the Lord Chancellor investigates it, will he also take into account the overall record of decisions of Highbury magistrates' court? It has a curious record, particularly in granting legal aid.
The Prime Minister
My right hon. and noble Friend Lord Hailshamthe Lord Chancellor is rightly finding out all the facts. I shall, of course, draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to his attention.
Q3. Mr. McNally
asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 21 January.
The Prime Minister
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
Mr. McNally
Will the Prime Minister find time today to consider her approach to the rail dispute? I understand her reluctance to indulge in “beer and sandwiches” industrial relations, but does she not consider that there [column 413]comes a time in an industrial relations dispute when she could use her personal influence to try to relieve the British people of their suffering? Will she intervene?
The Prime Minister
No, I shall not intervene. ACAS remains fully engaged in discussions with the unions concerned and with British Rail. It is vital that we have an efficient and flourishing railway industry. The Government have allocated about £930 million in external financing for the railways this year, but in an efficient industry we must expect to have modern practices and reduce overmanning. It must be galling for some of those industries—such as the steel industry in the North-East—which have reduced their overmanning and become efficient to find that their products cannot be moved by British Rail because the drivers will not similarly update their working practices.
Mr. Onslow
Will my right hon. Friend also find time now to commend the ingenuity, determination and relative good temper with which many people have managed to travel into London in spite of the rail strike—including, incidentally, a gratifyingly high proportion of civil servants and other public employees? Does she not agree that many of those people are unlikely freely to return to [column 414]rail travel unless the strike ends soon? Is it not a fact that the longer the strike goes on, the more chance the ASLEF membership has of cutting its own throat?
The Prime Minister
I agree with my hon. Friend that the longer the strike goes on the more business British Railways will lose. The strike will put other people's jobs in jeopardy in British Rail, as it is already affecting other people in other industries. I gladly join my hon. Friend in congratulating people on the way in which they have grappled with the strike and managed to get into London, starting very early. Perhaps I should also congratulate my right hon. and hon. Friends on the arrangements that they made for parking in the Metropolis.
Mr. Wigley
Will the Prime Minister find time today to study the incredible case of the bugging of a public telephone kiosk in my constituency? Is she aware that the two men who were caught red-handed planting the device in the kiosk were travelling in a car on the protected list of the Home Office? Will she therefore arrange for an inquiry into the matter and for a statement to be made in the House?
The Prime Minister
I do not make any statements about these matters, but I take note of what the hon. Gentleman said.