PRIME MINISTER
Engagements
Q1. Mr. Montgomery
asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 15 March.
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. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen.
Mr. Montgomery
Has my right hon. Friend noted the recent demands of the so-called alliance for the complete abolition of the national insurance surcharge? Does she not think that these demands come strangely from the SDP—most of whose members, as Labour Members, voted for the introduction of the 2 per cent. surcharge in 1976—and from the Liberals, who voted for an increase from 2 to 3½ per cent. in 1978?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend should not be surprised at the inconsistencies from the party below the Gangway. May I be fair to the Liberal party—[Hon. Members: “Oh” .] I shall be fair to the Liberal party, which voted against the introduction of the national insurance surcharge in 1977, promptly entered into a pact to shore [column 126]up the Government who had introduced the surcharge and voted for the increase of that surcharge in 1978. Its spokesman then said:
“This is not a tax on employment, … but a tax on spending” .—[Official Report, 5 July 1978; Vol. 953, c. 502.]
He lost his seat at the next general election.
Mr. Roy Jenkins
Can the Prime Minister say whether it is now deliberate Government policy to announce the main lines of the Budget in advance to the Sunday newspapers or whether Cabinet secrecy has just become unprecedently lax?
The Prime Minister
Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman has not appreciated that we have, by request, introduced an autumn statement with details of the options. Anyone who studied it clearly and seriously could come up with all sorts of things that may or may not be true.
Mr. Ancram
Will my right hon. Friend confirm today that she will yet again be demonstrating her interest in, and concern for, Scotland by attending the Conservative party Scottish conference in May, in sharp contrast to the disdainful absence of the Leader of the Opposition from the Labour party Scottish conference this weekend?
The Prime Minister
Yes. I assure my hon. Friend that I shall, of course, be attending the conference at Perth in May. I look forward to it.
Q2. Mr. James Hamilton
asked the Prime Minister whether she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 15 March.
The Prime Minister
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
Mr. Hamilton
Will the right hon. Lady say once and for all whether it is her intention to make Scotland an industrial wasteland? Is she aware that a further 721 redundancies have been announced at the British Steel works in Lanarkshire? For a change, will she tell Mr. MacGregor to forget about Ravenscraig, which is doing well, and to concentrate investment on putting a Concast plan in the Clydesdale works to ensure that the works will continue to be viable and competitive?
The Prime Minister
I believe that the hon. Gentleman is referring to redundancies announced yesterday, to which I understand reference was made in the House yesterday. The redundancies announced are a direct result of the end of the boom in the United States oil exploration industry. BSC's decision means that the numbers now will be back to where they were at pre-boom levels just before 1981. [Interruption.] These were peak boom levels for the tubes division. The Government have not received any proposals on Ravenscraig from the British Steel Corporation. I understand that a great attempt is being made to secure extra orders for Ravenscraig. That is, of course, what keeps a factory going—not speeches or requests to keep it open.
Mr. Best
Does my right hon. Friend agree that a military solution can never provide a firm and final formula for peace, and that, in the absence of reciprocal measures, one-sided disarmament is just as much a military solution as one-sided aggression?
The Prime Minister
One-sided disarmament is dangerous for the future of democracy, freedom and [column 127]justice, which we are determined to protect and defend. I agree with my hon. Friend that we must keep defence forces that are strong enough to deter, if we are to keep the peace.
Q3. Mr. James Lamond
asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 15 March.
The Prime Minister
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
Mr. Lamond
Did the right hon. Lady hear her economic mentor, Professor Milton Friedman, the other night, when he said that wage increases were not a factor in inflation? If she agrees with that, why will she not stop attacking every reasonable wage claim that is made by workers in this country? Why has she cut the miserably small award made by the wages council to the shopworkers?
The Prime Minister
Because wage increases are a factor in unemployment. The higher the wage increases, the fewer the jobs. We have learnt that lesson time and again.
Q4. Mr. Temple-Morris
asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 15 March.
The Prime Minister
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
Mr. Temple-Morris
Has my right hon. Friend had time to study the index of industrial production figures out today, which show that manufacturing production is 2.5 per cent. up in January, as against December? Is that not another sign, which should be welcomed by both sides of the House, that the policies of Her Majesty's Government are succeeding?
The Prime Minister
Yes, I saw the figures that came out earlier today. They are indeed welcome figures, although they are for only one month. They tune in with a number of hopeful figures that are coming from the United States, where, like here, there is an increase in manufacturing production, good news in the car industry, good news in the construction industry, good news on inflation, good news on lower interest rates, and good news on retail sales. That is a very good background to the statement that we shall receive later today.
Mr. Foot
Has the right hon. Lady had a chance also to consider the latest crime figures that have been published? Does she see any connection between the record crime figures and the record unemployment figures that have been achieved by her Government?
The Prime Minister
The crime figures are disturbing, and the situation would probably be even more difficult if this Government had not put extra resources into providing extra police and equipment. In answer to what the right hon. Gentleman says about a link with unemployment, I understand that there is research that does not link crime statistics with unemployment. If the right hon. Gentleman studies the increases in figures over the years he will find that the year-on-year increases in statistics of recorded offences went up by about 10 per cent. in 1974, when unemployment was only just over 500,000, about the same amount in 1977, and the same amount this year. That does not seem to show a link with unemployment.
[column 128]Mr. Foot
What has become of the promises that the right hon. Lady made about law and order and how she would deal with rising crime? Will she at least give an undertaking, particularly in the light of the statement by Lord Salmon about the infringements of liberty that are involved in the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill, that she will now take urgent steps to withdraw the parts of the Bill that involve those infringements?
The Prime Minister
I have read those comments, but the provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill are based on the recommendations of the Royal Commission on criminal procedure. The Bill does not give the police carte blanche to search for and seize confidential information from innocent citizens. Indeed, it rules out entry to homes or any premises unless a judge has reason to believe that the evidence needed would otherwise be disposed of. The consent of a judge is required.
Mr. Foot
Does that mean that the right hon. Lady agrees with Lord Salmon's proposition that the proposals in the Bill are monstrous?
The Prime Minister
I can hardly agree with that proposition when the Bill contains proposals that were based on the recommendations of the Royal Commission on criminal procedure.
Q5. Mr. Hal Miller
asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 15 March.
The Prime Minister
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
Mr. Miller
Does my right hon. Friend accept that there will be a warm welcome for the undertaking given by the Spanish Government in Brussels yesterday to introduce tariff quotas for cars as a recognition of the justice and strength of our case? Does she further accept that there is still a long way to go before parity of tariff treatment is achieved and, in particular, that discrimination still exists on a wide scale against smaller cars, which are those sent to this market and in which we are particularly interested?
The Prime Minister
I agree with my hon. Friend that the arrangements that have been made represent a great improvement on what existed before. Obviously one cannot get everything one wishes, but it is an advance, and I hope that the car industry in this country will take advantage of it. In general, we are nearly in balance in our trade with Spain. The difference this year is slight. We exported £959 million worth of goods to Spain, and we imported £1,002 million worth of goods. So the balance is adverse only to the extent of £43 million. It is good news for the west midlands that we have substantially increased the export of components for motor vehicles to Spain over the past two years. We can do it, and I think that the new agreement is a chance to increase exports.
Q6. Mr. Ioan Evans
asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 15 March.
The Prime Minister
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
Mr. Evans
Bearing in mind that the Labour Government had to import oil at a cost of £7,000 billion to £8,000 billion each year, and that this Government have had the benefit from North Sea oil of about £40,000 billion, what is the Prime Minister's attitude to the new [column 129]OPEC arrangement of confining production and limiting the price? Did she accept the OPEC decision, or does she believe in Milton Friedman's market forces?
The Prime Minister
Of course, OPEC is hardly a market force, as the hon. Gentleman knows. I think we would take the view that is taken by most countries that, in general, the fall in the price of oil that has occurred will benefit the world economy, but that too sharp a fall would be damaging, because of the uncertainty that it would cause. I think that that would be the view taken generally. We are not members of OPEC, and sooner or later we have to follow the market price, as it emerges.
Mr. Wigley
Has the right hon. Lady had time to study the employment policies of Norway, where it was announced on 22 February that because unemployment there had reached the unacceptable level of 4 per cent. it was introducing a crash programme of jobs in local government and doubling apprenticeships? When can we look forward to reaching 4 per cent?
The Prime Minister
The special employment measures here, all told, from September this year—in fact, during this year—will be of the order of £2 billion a year, of which half goes to special training measures. Unemployment in other European countries is similar to [column 130]ours, especially taking into account the fact that some of them sent their guest workers home and that a number of them also have permanent conscription.
Q7. Mr. Chapman
asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 15 March.
The Prime Minister
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
Mr. Chapman
On the question of law and order, so properly raised by the Leader of the Opposition, does my right hon. Friend accept that many Londoners are grateful that there are 4,000 more Metropolitan policemen on the beat in parts of the metropolis? Does she further accept that there is increasing concern that so many thousands of hours are wasted by those policemen in having to control political demonstrations? Will she ask her right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to look into that aspect?
The Prime Minister
I am sure that we are all grateful to my right hon. Friend William Whitelawthe Home Secretary for increasing the number of policemen in the Metropolitan police force to undertake various forms of policing. There are more policemen on the beat and there is much closer contact with the community. I agree that if the police have to devote their time to too many demonstrations, especially at the weekends, they cannot fight crime in the areas from which they come. That can create difficulties, particularly in some of the London constituencies.