Speeches, etc.

Margaret Thatcher

House of Commons PQs

Document type: Speeches, interviews, etc.
Venue: House of Commons
Source: Hansard HC [18/398-402]
Editorial comments: 1515-1530.
Importance ranking: Major
Word count: 2157
Themes: Employment, Industry, Energy, Foreign policy (Africa), Law & order, Social security & welfare, Transport, Strikes & other union action
[column 398]

PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Q1. Mr. Geoffrey Robinson

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 18 February.

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, including one with a delegation from the National Pensioners Convention steering committee.

Mr. Robinson

Is the right hon. Lady aware that there will be widespread agreement throughout the House with her statement, which I think appeared in last Sunday's edition of the Sunday Telegraph, that we all depend on the prosperity of manufacturing industry? Will she tell us plainly how she can square that statement with the figures that were published at 2.30 pm today by the Department of Industry, which show that investment in manufacturing industry is the lowest since the early 1960s and that the probable outcome for 1981, a full year of her Administration, is zero or even negative net investment for manufacturing industry? Will she admit that that must be seen as a disaster for Britain's future prosperity?

The Prime Minister

The prosperity of manufacturing industry depends first, upon its staying competitive; secondly, on its producing the right designs for people to buy; thirdly, on deliveries; and, fourthly, on all the people working in the industry leaving sufficient in it for sufficient profits with which to make investment.

Mr. Thornton

Following British Rail's climb-down in its dispute with ASLEF, will my right hon. Friend give the House an assurance that, unless improvements in productivity and reductions in over-manning are implemented in the near future, there will be no further investment in British Rail? Will she make it clear that the inevitable consequence of that will be further reductions in services and more jobs lost?

The Prime Minister

I think that it is too early to judge the result of the railways dispute. Both sides have now to go into negotiation. If that is not successful, we shall await the arbitration. I agree with my hon. Friend that for there to be a future for British Rail it has to be modernised in its labour practices and productivity has to be increased. If we get that increased productivity, there is a future for increased investment.

Mr. Foot

I refer to the meeting that the right hon. Lady is having later in the day with the National Pensioners Convention steering committee. Will she confirm that what her Government did last year was to cut by 3 per cent. the real value of the pension? Will she be giving the assurance to the steering committee that she will be restoring the value of the pension in the forthcoming Budget?

The Prime Minister

No, I will not confirm what the right hon. Gentleman has said, any more than he would [column 399]necessarily confirm that the last pension increase that was made by the Labour Government of which he was a member left the pension well below what it had been. Following that increase it was 1.9 per cent. below what it had been in real terms. I have given the pledge—the Government stand by it—that the value of the pension will be retained in real terms. We have already announced that in so far as it was less one year it will be increased the following year, and in so far as it was more in one year, it will be smoothed out the following year. On the whole, the value of the pension will be retained in real terms.

Mr. Foot

Will the right hon. Lady study the figures properly before meeting the pensioners, because they know the figures? Will the right hon. Lady confirm that the cuts made by her Government last year mean that, for the first time since 1970, there had been a cut in the value of the pension?

Will the right hon. Lady confirm to the pensioners that she will do something about the appalling increases in fuel charges? Since May 1979 the standing charge on electricity has gone up by 80 per cent., and that on gas by 300 per cent. What will she do about that? Does she think that it is a good idea to try to cure inflation by making old-age pensioners freeze?

The Prime Minister

The right hon. Gentleman raised two points. In answer to the first, in the first year of this Government the increase in pensions was greater than the increase in inflation, and in the second year it was slightly less. Therefore, we have agreed that we shall make up the shortfall in the second year so that the pension will retain its value in real terms. I should be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman would accept those facts.

With regard to the second point, about what we spend on fuel, for those on supplementary benefit and family income supplement the amount is greater in real terms than that under any previous Government, including his own.

Mr. Foot

The pensioners know the figures even if the right hon. Lady does not. I suggest that she should publish in the Official Report the figures from 1970 of the real value of the pension. She will discover that what I am saying is right, and that the pensioners are right.

The Prime Minister

The right hon. Gentleman heard my reply. Which of the facts therein does he disagree with?

Hon. Members

Answer.

Q2. Mr. Alan Clark

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 18 February.

The Prime Minister

I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Clark

Has the Prime Minister seen the report in The Times today stating that the figures for muggings for certain inner cities are up by 50 per cent.? Did she know——

Mr. Canavan

The Tories are mugging the pensioners.

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) must try to control his remarks when hon. Members are addressing the House. These interruptions from a sedentary position are becoming impossible. I have had a flood of correspondence from the [column 400]public about the noise in the House during Prime Minister's Question Time. I hope that they will write to their constituency Member and not to me.

Mr. Clark

Has my right hon. Friend also read the assertion by the police that these offences are becoming increasingly brazen, with gangs of up to 50 young blacks looting in broad daylight? As it is widely believed that both the deterrence and prosecution of these offences is inhibited by what are loosely termed community relations, would she have a word with the newly promulgated Minister with responsibility for race relations—who has said in the press that his door is always open—and suggest that he makes contact with those who suffer most—the victims?

The Prime Minister

I recognise my hon. Friend's concern about the increase in mugging and other crimes, particularly in London, revealed this morning. My hon. Friend will know that there has been a considerable increase in the number of police in London, but they are not up to full establishment; they are about 1,500 short. Further recruitment will continue, because it is important to have sufficient police to deal with this problem. That is the first thing. If that is not enough, we shall have to consider increasing the establishment.

Mr. David Steel

Has the Prime Minister seen today the report allegedly prepared by Treasury and Department of Employment officials, which puts the latest public cost of unemployment at £96 per head per week? Can she confirm that the present public expenditure cost of unemployment is running at £15,000 million a year?

The Prime Minister

That depends on the assumptions. What I can tell the right hon. Gentleman is that in this year the cost of unemployment, judged by the amount paid out in unemployment benefit, social security and rent and rate rebates is about £5 billion.

Mr. Geoffrey Robinson

What about the tax that is lost?

The Prime Minister

The hon. Gentleman speaks of lost tax. What he is assuming is that everyone has a thriving and flourishing job in the private sector. If they had that, we would buy more British goods perhaps, or we might still buy imports, and tax would come in. If it is so easy to produce thriving, flourishing jobs in the private sector, I am amazed that Labour Members do not go out and start up businesses to create employment. Of course, they find it easier to talk.

To return to the question. I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way to an interruption from a sedentary position. The whole matter was dealt with a week last Friday in a detailed speech, going into the figures and the assumptions, by my right hon. Friend Leon Brittanthe Chief Secretary. I commend that speech to the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Stoddart

Has the right hon. Lady seen the announcement by British Gas of the swingeing and cruel increase of 22 per cent. in gas prices during the current year? Is she aware that this will cause a great deal of hardship to pensioners and others, who are already frightened to use domestic appliances in case they will not be able to meet the bill? Will she now, as an act of compassion, withdraw the instruction to the gas board that it must increase prices by 10 per cent. above the rate of inflation?

[column 401]

The Prime Minister

British Gas has been selling gas to the domestic consumer at or below cost, with profits largely coming from industrial sales. That will not be surprising to the hon. Gentleman, who will know that his Government deliberately tipped costs towards industry and allowed domestic gas to be sold at a lesser price. Even with this year's increase British Gas will break even only on domestic gas. United Kingdom domestic gas prices are now considerably lower than those of France or Germany. The price of industrial gas has been frozen for one year.

With regard to fuel subsidies, the hon. Gentleman heard what I said previously. The Government, through the taxpayer, are providing a larger amount for fuel subsidy than any previous Government.

Q3. Mr. Myles

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 18 February.

The Prime Minister

I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Myles

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many British citizens have substantial assets in Zimbabwe which they cannot now realise and then retire to their homeland? Will she take measures to correct this situation?

The Prime Minister

My hon. Friend is correct. Zimbabwe has an exchange control system, which it inherited from the previous Administration, and has left in place. From time to time the Government have made representations about its effect on people who wish to return here, but who are unable to get their assets out. This is a matter for Zimbabwe. I note that many Labour Members wish to have an exchange control system here.

[column 402]

Mr. Ashley

Was the Prime Minister disturbed to learn today of the report by the Institute of Fiscal Studies, which demolished the Conservative myth that people are better off on the dole than in work? Now that it is confirmed that the unemployed are not only very poor but are forced to be unemployed as a direct result of Government policy, will the Prime Minister call off her attack upon the unemployed and the so-called work-shy and be a little more generous than she has been in the past?

The Prime Minister

Most people would think it right that those who are in work should be better off than those who unfortunately cannot find work. If they cannot find work, they will receive unemployment benefit, social security, rent rebates, rate rebates, free school meals for children and so on. Many people will agree with the report from the Institute of Fiscal Studies.

Mr. Edward Gardner

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the train strike has made it obvious that the time has come when the chairman of British Rail and his board should learn how to express an agreement reached with the unions or anyone else in such clear plain language that no one can later pretend that he does not understand what has been agreed?

The Prime Minister

I agree fully with my hon. and learned Friend's contention that an agreement is not an agreement unless it is expressed and everyone understands its meaning.