PRIME MINISTER
Engagements
Q1. Mr. Dormand
asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 28 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. Dormand
What action does the Prime Minister propose to take following the pantomime in Brussels earlier this week? Does she agree with the Foreign Secretary's statement that the problems of the Common Market will be with us for several years? Is it not now abundantly clear that the political and economic shackles that this country has with such a narrow and introspective institution should be investigated? Will she publish a Green Paper setting out the alternatives to it for this country?
The Prime Minister
With regard to the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question, the answer is “No” . Secondly, I believe that it is in this country's interests to stay in the Common Market, particularly for those areas that are seeking inward investment and are likely to attract companies to their areas provided that we remain in the Common Market.
With regard to the problems of the mandate, we shall try to take the studies forward. As I said in my statement to the House, it is absolutely vital that we reach agreement on parts of all three chapters together and that we do not agree on any one matter without each and every country being satisfied that it has a reasonable deal.
Sir John Langford-Holt
Will my right hon. Friend take time to consider the plight of citizens of this country who have lost their jobs without compensation under the iniquitious trade union and labour relations legislation of 1974 and 1976, for no other reason than that they exercised their human rights and declined to join a trade union?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend rightly draws attention to the disgraceful legislation passed by the Labour Government, which meant that people could be sacked without compensation from jobs in which they had given satisfactory service for years merely because they refused to join a trade union. My right hon. Friend Norman Tebbitthe Secretary of State for Employment has considered this, especially following judgments on the matter, and has decided to introduce in his new Bill a provision to enable the Secretary of State to pay compensation to those who lost their jobs as a result of that legislation during the period of 1974 to 1980. I believe that that will be extremely welcome, not only to those who have suffered but to the vast majority of people in this country who will feel that justice has at last been done, and it took a Tory Government to do it.
[column 998]Mr. Foot
Will the Prime Minister say, rather than considering how to reply to planted questions, whether the Cabinet this morning gave any consideration to the plight of the unemployed, the number of whom has grown so huge under the Conservative Government? Will the Government restore the cut of £13 per week being imposed on the families of so many of the newly unemployed?
The Prime Minister
We had an excellent Cabinet this morning and a very useful discussion. The right hon. Gentleman will be interested to know that we considered that it would be right to continue with the broad strategy that the Government have followed hitherto, and in particular, that it was essential not to put at risk the object of reducing inflation as that is one of the best ways to achieve recovery and the prospect of new, genuine jobs.
With regard to the specific point raised by the right hon. Gentleman, I take it that it is related to earnings-related supplement, which ceased on 2 January in relation to new claimants. I remind the right hon. Gentleman, as I have pointed out before, that only one in five of the unemployed were entitled to earnings-related supplement.
Mr. Foot
As for the right hon. Lady's “excellent Cabinet” this morning, we shall await the usual leakages to see whether her claims are correct. Did the Cabinet study this morning's headline in The Times—[Interruption.]. I know that Conservative Members do not care about what is happening to the unemployed, but we do. The right hon. Lady and her Cabinet are responsible for the headline, which states:
“Benefit for jobless at 1951 level” .
In other words, the right hon. Lady has pushed down unemployment benefit for many of the unemployed to a lower level—compared with the wages of those in work—than at any time since 1951. When will she rectify that? If she cannot stop unemployment rising, can she not at least show some compassion for the unemployed?
The Prime Minister
Unemployment benefit is roughly double what it was in 1951. That is a fact. The supplementary benefit safety net remains to safeguard the position of the worst off.
Q2. Mr. Dubs
asked the Prime Minister if she will list her public engagements for 28 January.
The Prime Minister
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.
Mr. Dubs
Has the right hon. Lady seen the reports that the World Bank is to reduce its lending to underdeveloped countries as a result of the American Government's actions? Given the Prime Minister's statements in Ottawa, Melbourne and Cancun, will she convert those statements into action and increase our aid programme to underdeveloped countries, in order to make up for the World Bank's deficiencies?
The Prime Minister
The IDA No. 6 agreement, concluded in 1980, provides that any shortfall in the contribution made by the United States of America puts a corresponding limit on the use of contributions available from others. We have made our contribution in full, but only a proportion of it can be used during this period. We cannot increase our aid, because we have already made the full contribution to the IDA. Developing countries are anxious to have not only aid, but trade.
Mr. David Steel
Without entering into the political debates of a neighbouring State—[Interruption]—would [column 999]it not be appropriate, today, for the Prime Minister to express a word of appreciation to Dr. FitzGerald and his Government in Ireland for their constructive approach to relations between our countries? Would it not be appropriate to reaffirm that we are determined that that should continue, regardless of which Government are elected?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right in one respect. We continue to work with the Government of a country. We express no view as to the particular Government. We shall continue to work under the agreements that we have reached.
Sir Anthony Meyer
Will the Prime Minister find time today to congratulate the Italian Government on the brilliant operation that has resulted in the liberation of General Dozier? Was any help forthcoming from the Government?
The Prime Minister
I am happy to respond to my hon. Friend's invitation and to congratulate the Italian Government on the release of General Dozier after an excellent operation. I congratulate them, and we are all thrilled that he has been found fully alive—[Laughter]—and has been restored to his family. [Interruption.] I am sorry, but I do not regard this as in any way a laughing matter. It is a great relief that he has been found alive and has been restored to his family.
Mr. Pavitt
Will the Prime Minister's meetings with her ministerial colleagues include one with the Secretary of State for Social Services? If so, will she discuss with him the turmoil into which the medical profession has been put by the alteration of the Abortion Act by back-door methods? As a result, while consultants come under one order, the two general practitioners required to certify a case come under a different requirement. Should not that anomaly be resolved, and should not something be done to enable the Act to operate as originally intended?
The Prime Minister
I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's point, but I am not familiar with the details. I shall draw that issue to the attention of my right hon. Friend Norman Fowlerthe Secretary of State.
Mr. Winterton
Given that the Government's objectives in renegotiating MFA 3 have not been achieved within Europe, that the industry believes that that might cost some 30,000 jobs and that my right hon. Friend has a magnificent record on standing up for British interests in Europe, what action does she intend to take to ensure that the interests of the textile and clothing industry—which employs about 630,000 people—are preserved and that the United Kingdom's best interests are served within the context of our membership of the EEC?
The Prime Minister
As my hon. Friend knows, we have always fought strenuously for a new, good MFA in general terms and in relation to the bilateral agreements that would be reached under that. We shall continue to fight, because we fully appreciate that the textile industry must have some protection under such agreements.
Q3. Mr. Skinner
asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 28 January.
The Prime Minister
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
Mr. Skinner
Is the Prime Minister aware that, quite apart from the one in five of the unemployed who are [column 1000]losing earnings-related supplement worth about £13 a week, many disabled people, including the miners in hospitals in the Glasgow area, are losing their earnings-related supplement? Does the right hon. Lady realise that the nurses looking after those miners have been asked by the Government to take an 8 per cent. cut in wages? The Prime Minister should not tell us that there is not enough money in the country when the Duke of Westminster and his cronies can pick up a hospital site on Hyde Park Corner for £23,000, when it is really worth £20 million.
The Prime Minister
I shall respond to the hon. Gentleman's three questions. He referred to the coal miners and particularly, perhaps, those injured in the Cardowan colliery. Although miners injured in the accident will not be able to claim earnings-related supplement, the benefits of the industrial injury scheme are available to them in exactly the same way as they are to other workers. Injury benefit is payable for six months at the rate of £25.25 for a single person and after that beneficiaries can become entitled to long-term disablement benefit and the various supplements.
The nurses have put in a claim, which will be dealt with in the Whitley Council. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Government have paid the nurses money which, in a way, was withheld by the Labour Government because of the reference to the Clegg Commission. The Labour Government told them to refer their pay claim to the Clegg Commission. We honoured that agreement and, as a result, the nurses' pay bill is 76 per cent. above the bill when we came to power.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, for Health and Social Security, the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg) has already given a full answer about St. George's hospital. The whole site was allocated to St. George's hospital at a peppercorn rent for decades. It seems reasonable to honour an agreement to return it. Of course, the hon. Gentleman might not agree with honouring legal agreements.
Sir John Biggs-Davison
As we are to have £1 and 50p coins, will the First Lord of the Treasury spare a moment to suggest to those involved that we should restore or invent dignified names for them, in this land of sovereigns and crowns?
The Prime Minister
The proposition is very attractive in theory, and I look forward to receiving such suggestions from my hon. Friends.
Mr. Alfred Morris
Is the Prime Minister aware that DHSS Ministers have now ceased to operate the job release scheme in respect of employees, even disabled employees, in the Department? Is it not disgraceful that Government employees should be denied the advantages of a scheme that Ministers commend to other employers? Will the Prime Minister now instruct DHSS Ministers to reverse their decision forthwith?
The Prime Minister
Public employees are treated on the same basis as those in the private sector. The essence of a job release scheme is that a person aged over 62—as the age will be in February—can be released with an early pension on retirement, provided that his job is filled by a person on the unemployment register. That regulation applies to Government service staff as well as to the private sector.