Speeches, etc.

Margaret Thatcher

General Election Press Conference

Document type: Speeches, interviews, etc.
Venue: Conservative Central Office, Smith Square, Westminster
Source: Conservative Party Archive: transcript
Editorial comments: 0930-1000.
Importance ranking: Major
Word count: 6790
Themes: Executive (appointments), Civil liberties, Conservative Party (organization), Defence (general), Employment, General Elections, Monetary policy, Privatized & state industries, Taxation, Foreign policy (Middle East), Foreign policy (USA), Foreign policy (USSR & successor states), Health policy, Labour Party & socialism, Religion & morality, Social security & welfare

Prime Minister

This morning, as you can see, we are proposing to make our main theme housing, and I think it would be better if I said straight away, that there will be a Press Conference at 11.00 by Norman Fowler on the document which I understand you have just got from another Conference, and you can question him directly on it. That Press Conference, which has just been handed to me, will take place at 11.00 here, and all those matters will be dealt with then. First of all then, I will ask John Stanley to deal with housing.

Stanley

Good morning. I think you have got a copy of the press statement that I have issued. I would like to say that I think we are going to the Election with a very strong record on our overall housing performance. We have one million more home-owners to-day than there were four years ago and that I believe is a social advance of most massive importance and of tremendous worth. We have private house building which is now at its highest level for ten years, we have home improvement which is also at its highest level for ten years. But I also want to stress that we have been just as concerned about those that want rented accommodation as those who wish to own their own homes. Public house building for rent is rising again after a long period of decline since 1975, this year, I would stress, as a result of the increased resources that we made available for the Housing Corporation, Housing Associations. This year Housing Corporation expects to have the highest level of completions of rented accommodation by housing associations ever. You will be aware of the very big initiative we have made [end p1] on hostel accommodation which meets the needs of those in the most acutest housing need and we currently have the highest level of the hostel programme again that there has ever been and as far as those who rent in the public sector are concerned, the Tenants Charter, which we have put on the Statute Book in 1980, that certainly gives all those who rent in the public sector a most important body on legal right and the most valuable body of legal rights that they have ever had, and as far as the private rent sector is concerned we have taken the most extensive steps for many, many years to try and increase renting opportunities in the private rented sector, we have introduced short-hold, we have introduced the newer sure tenancy scheme, and there are now seventy-one companies that have been approved to carry out new building for rent in the private sector under the Assured Tenancy Scheme. As far as the Election is concerned I believe there are some very significant issues that people want to consider on the housing front and particularly those people who are home-owners. We would estimate that the Labour Party's policies are going adversely to effect something in the order of 8 million existing home-owners or prospective home-owners. First of all there are the 7 million home-owners with mortgages and there is no way that the Labour Party economic policies based on much increased public expenditure and public indebtedness, there is no way that those policies could not produce a major rise in interest rates and of course therefore for mortgage rates, and so all existing home-owners with mortgages could with the Labour Government expect their mortgages to have to rise. Of those 7 million there are, of course, approximately ½ million who currently have the benefit of tax relief at whatever their marginal rate of tax is, [end p2] and the Labour Party's commitment as indeed is the Alliance commitment is to reduce the deductability of mortgage tax relief to the basic rate only and those 500,000 or so people who pay tax more than the basic rate are going to be hit quite severely, financially as a result of that particular commitment of the Labour Party and the Alliance. Those who have bought their council houses, of the 500,000 or so who have bought their council houses in the course of this Parliament, they are going to face a very serious problem from any advent of a Labour Government, because the Labour Government is commited to empowering to local councils to oblige those people who have bought their houses to sell them back to the local authority on re-sale. We believe that that is quite indefensible and a basic denial of a right of an individual home-owner, where he has been a previous council tenant or not, a basic denial of their right to sell their house to who they want at their own price. And lastly, making it up to 8 milion in all, there are those who would expect to be able to buy their council houses in the course of the next Parliament. With the Conservatives, the right to buy will continue. The Labour Party on the other hand is committed to repealing the right to buy, destroying the right to buy, and we would estimate that on any reasonable assumption, probably another ½ million people would be able to buy their homes under the right to buy in the next Parliament and those people are going to see their hopes of home-ownership dashed, and I would also like to stress as far as the right to buy is concerned that the Alliance too, there is no real hope, I believe for tenants who want to exercise their right to buy by supporting the Liberal/SDP Alliance because [end p3] the Alliance I think have taken up what appears to be a very dishonest position in its manifesto on the right to buy. It says on the one hand that they would retain the right to buy, and on the other hand they say that they wish to give the local authorities a greater measure of discretion and they hold the possibility of people having to go to the ombudsman in order to be able to secure the right to buy, and so we would say to all those who are existing home-owners and those who would want to exercise the right to buy in the next Parliament, one way of being certain of preserving your existing rights and opportunities will be supporting the Conservatives in this Election. In the next Parliament we are going to carry the right to buy further, we are going to give more help for long term tenants, those who have been tenants for more than twenty years, we are going to extend the discounts by 1%; a year taking the maximum discount up to 60%; which [word missing?] the older, long-term tenant to move into home-ownership. We are also going to extend the right to buy to help those who are on relatively low incomes to give them the opportunity of buying on a part-ownership, part-rent basis if they wish to do so, if they can't afford to buy outright. And that really will enable all local authority tenants, new town tenants and those tenants of housing associations who have the right to buy, it will enable really anybody who can demand a pretty modest mortgage to move into home-ownership if they wish to do so. And I would also stress for those who are not council tenants we are going to continue our full range of low cost home-ownership schemes, and I certainly would suggest we have the most extensive and comprehensive range of low cost home-ownership opportunities that have ever been made available. We have a [end p4] home-steading scheme, the building for sale scheme, the ability for cow slaughter sell [sic: councils to sell?], empty local authority houses, of discounts up to 30%; for first time buyers, shared ownership scheme and our new do it yourself shared ownership scheme which right now provides an opportunity for any first time buyer to buy a house or flat, whether a newly built house or flat or a existing house or flat under a shared ownership arrangement with a housing association, any first time buyer has that opportunity available to them now, and we are of course not forgetting those people who wish to rent. I believe that in the privately rented sector, the return of the Conservative Government will certainly give a new boost to shorthold, I expect to see a new expansion of assured tenancies under a Conservative Government, which again will create more opportunities for renting in the private sector, and in the public sector also, we are committed to a further extension of a Tenant's Charter and in particular to give councils tenants the right to repair their own homes and seek reimbursement from the Local Authority. Just to highlight the way in which we are going to be giving more attention and focusing the attention of the electorate on the housing dimensions of this campaign, you may like to be aware of this particular leaflet which we have produced, there are copies which are going to be made available to you as you go out and we shall be making a mass distribution of this particular leaflet which sets out the housing issues in the election that we see them in the course of the next few days. [end p5]

Prime Minister

Thank you. Questions on housing first, then we will open up—housing.

Question

(Unintelligible).

Stanley

On new bills, first of all, I repeat what I said at the very beginning as far as the private sector is concerned we have right now the highest rate of private house building staff there have been for ten years since 1973, as far as the public sector is concerned the decline in public sector house building which took place in every year since 1975 including the period of the previous Government that was reversed last year, it has been reversed again and has gone still higher in the first quarter of this year, and I would like to suggest that you should not just take this on the local authority side but also on the housing association side because as a matter of policy we have been making some transfer of funds from the local authorities to the housing associations. This year the Housing Corporation expects to complete the largest number of homes built for rent through the Housing Corporation ever. May I just add that through the life time of the Government we have increased the rented stock of Housing Associations by approximately 120,000 dwellings?

Question

(Unintelligible).

Stanley

Well, obviously we are considering the [end p6] position following the defeat we suffered in the House of Lords, having successfully got those provisions through in the House of Commons. We haven't reached any final conclusion as to whether we would restore that provision in an identical form. There are a number of other options which would be open to us, but we are certainly wanting to see whether we can give those tenants of charitable housing associations who want to own their own homes, if we can help them to move more easily into home ownership. They will of course benefit from our existing low-cost home ownership opportunities and we also want to see whether there may be other ways by offering them alternative Housing Association or Local Authority accommodation where the right to buy exists whether we can help those people to move into home ownership. We certainly wish to do so.

Question

(Unintelligible).

Stanley

No I don't, no that is not the case, we have at the moment a substantial rise in the Housing Association Programme which is taking place, we have a major expansion of the rented programme taking place of Housing Associations and if you look at the whole totality of the public rented sector it is quite evident that, apart from new bills, we have got to try and do more to get better utilisation of the existing stock and I mentioned for example that we have got something like 20,000 local authority dwellings that have been vacant for more than a year, rented dwellings.

Question

(Unintelligible). [end p7]

Stanley

Well, I don't think on what I have said we have put the stress any way exclusively on the private sector, in any way at all. I have been referring to Housing Associations, I have been referring to the rise in the public house building programme. No, we are certainly not wishing to get rid of the public sector at all, we see a continuing and important role for both local authority housing and housing association housing.

Prime Minister

Any other questions on housing? Right, open to all questions. Mr. Bevans and then at the back.

Question

(Unintelligible).

Prime Minister

May I point out that a number of people, very considerable number of people who having been Red and dead, not by natural causes? The point which I trust is not forgotten, which Solzhenitsyn is constantly referring to, and if ever you have seen people in Afghanistan as I have, some people in villages where they took refuge when the Russian troops came, and the irrigation system, the Russians found out poured oil down the whole irrigation system and fired it, no-one of course survived. I do hope that people will remember some of these things on occasions. Now I am sorry I didn't get the full significance of your point about the last.

Question

(Unintelligible).

Prime Minister

Polaris is a deterrent. If it is to be [end p8] a deterrent then the Russians must know that under certain circumstances it would be fired, otherwise it would cease to be a deterrent. As a deterrent, knowing that under certain circumstances it would be fired, it has kept the peace in part of the peace keeping system for thirty-eight years. It would cease to be a deterrent unless it could be fired under the circumstances for which it is intended.

Question

(Unintelligible).

Prime Minister

No, I do not. We find the policy of the National Front, totally and utterly repugnant. It has nothing in common with us, we do not wish to have their support in any way. We would rather do without it.

Question

(Unintelligible).

Prime Minister

Well, we differ. No, I make it perfectly clear …   . I am sorry … would you care to name names, I know of no other trouble …   . I am sorry you are talking about the one Mr. Finnegan about which …   . Well, there was, as you know, a full statement issued and he appeared on television and was questioned and the matter of that article, it was not an article, was cleared up. Would you like to deal with this?

Parkinson

Mr. Finnegan has made his position absolutely clear, and I hope that some of the people who were making allegations at this conference that he was still writing for the National Front newspapers, writing articles, when in fact [end p9] what he was writing was a demand that they retract the statement that they wrote about him, I hope that they will be as frank with their readers as he has been with the public.

Question

(Unintelligible—Mr. Waller).

Prime Minister

I am so pleased, how kind of you, have you read them all? I didn't see the selection they sent.

Question

(Unintelligible).

Prime Minister

Of course. Would you like some more?

Question

(Unintelligible).

Prime Minister

Yes, now, point number one—the answer I gave was in response to a question about people needing to see some good signs, and therefore the answer I gave was about good signs. It is well known and I can give you quotes from many, many statesmen, that unemployment is that last thing to respond after you have got recovery going. It is always the indicator that lags most, therefore I was not going to give you good signs with regards unemployment, because as yet, as you know, there are no goods signs on unemployment showing, but there are the other recovery signs, which will eventually lead to a fall in unemployment, and particularly we were out on Friday doing what I call a technology day where there were companies, some of them which did not exist a short time ago, taking on more people and having plans to take on more people, those don't yet show [end p10] in the global figures, because while you have got more people being taken on somewhere, you still have redundancies in the more traditional industries or in companies which, because they are putting in new technology, find that they can carry out the same amount of production with reduced people, so those are not showing in the global figures, although there are companies that are taking on people, and if you look at the Press Release which comes out every month on the employment figures you will find something like this. Just check it with the last press release and you will find that over 300,000 people came onto the register but over 300,000 people left the register so there is constant movement. It is not a static thing. Constant movement of people coming on and going off and I think something like 5–6 million jobs change every year, the people who do them change so there is constant movement. Now with regard to the suffering, the pain, the frustration, of course we realise that, all our policies to end that pain and frustration by having the best terms of economic recovery and the best chance of getting real and genuine jobs, and this is what the speeches that I sent you are all about. This is the best strategy for jobs that any party has got and it is a strategy which has fortunately just been confirmed by the communication at Williamsburg, not merely by the leader of one country, myself, but by the leaders of seven industrial countries and their finance ministers and their economic advisers, countries as widely different as Socialist France, Christian Democrat Germany, Japan, Republican United States as well as Britain, all off them confirm that that is the strategy which is most likely to bring a better standard of living for our people and above all more jobs, [end p11] and it is because we do know the terrible frustration, not only for the person themselves but the anxiety of their families, that we are sticking to that strategy because we believe and the seven Western industrialised countries believe—including Japan—that is the way, in their own words “for a better standard of living … Our discussion at Williamsburg gives new confidence in the prospects for a recovery. We have strengthened our resolve to be deal co-operatively with continuing problems so as to promote a sound and sustainable recovery bringing new jobs and a better life for the people of our own countries and of the world” . And as you read through the document you will realise this means low inflation, low interest rates, lower deficits, control of public expenditure, welcoming an acceptance of new technology, trying to lower protectionism. Keeping in mind the needs of the developing countries because we all depend on one another for trade and so on. It is practically the policy on one's own manifesto.

Question

(Unintelligible).

PM

Because we don't stop at just saying, yes, we feel strongly about these things, we realise it. Our whole policy is to say it's not enough just to say that. It's not enough to say that it is very very frustrating, demoralising. You eventually have to take action and action is being taken on a bigger scale than ever before and I think it is totally wrong of some of the other parties now to attempt to decry it and in particular attempt to decry the big training scheme which really will bring tremendous help and hope to many many young people.

Question

(about American economy, interest rates lowering, etc.). [end p12]

PM

Well, of course American interest rates are some 5 points down on what they were at earlier economic summits. Just let's bear that in mind. You will remember there was a time when they were up at 19–20%;. They are now of the order of 10%;. That of course is too high. Their inflation rate is just below ours. Ours is now down to 4%; and I expect it to come down a little further. And therefore from 4%; to 10%; is a very high real interest rate and as inflation falls so the pull on interest rates should be to come down. But it is a very very much lesser rate in current terms than it was, so they have in fact carried out some of their undertakings. Let me say this, the Administration, as you know, would like very much to get the deficit down by reducing expenditure but it has not been able to get all its plans through Congress and after all we have sometimes something of the same problem here. But it is not the fault of the Administration that the deficit is as it is.

Question

(about having a strong Opposition in the next Parliament).

PM

I think its utterly ridiculous, absolutely ridiculous. The policies we are fighting on are the policies in our manifesto. The only way to ensure that we have any majority of any kind at all is to support the Conservative candidate in each and every constituency. Any suggestion that you can afford not to would lead to an insufficient number of Conservative candidates being returned to form a Conservative Government. And everyone who has been in politics knows that.

Question

(about cutting unemployment benefit in real terms).

PM

I think it is utterly ridiculous. What I said was a pledge [end p13] to protect the purchasing power applies to pensions and long-term linked benefits. The unemployment is not a long term benefit. For those, as you know, who are on it for a long time and are near retirement age, they can go onto a long-term social security benefit and as you know those who are on unemployment for a longer period tend to rely for their standard of living not on unemployment benefit but on social security, which as you know has been very very beneficial indeed. Of the £5½ billion that unemployment costs this country—and I stress it is £5½ billion, those are the facts which are there—the greater part comes from the social security payments. I think it something like £2 billion comes from the National Insurance fund. For those who are on for a longer period they are topped up by social security.

Question

(about Victorian values and article in New Stateman).

PM

No, and the question is very ridiculous isn't it? Utterly ridiculous. Of course it is. Yes, we are familiar with your questions, Mr. Roth. But I would only—We have to hear quite a lot of them both when you have the floor and when you don't. Victorian values. As someone said on ‘Nationwide’ the other day when I enumerated them, the self reliance, personal responsibility voluntary help, being prepared to lend a hand to others, bring enormous improvements in conditions which you got during that time. Someone said those aren't Victorian values, they are eternal truths, and they are. They even apply to the present day. Yes, I do believe in self reliance, I do believe in personal responsibility, yes I do believe in voluntary help, yes I do believe in giving help personally and not just relying wholly on the State to do it and I do believe that those values are relevant today. I have to make a greater revelation, I have not read the New Stateman. I am so sorry. [end p14]

Question

(Unintelligible).

Prime Minister

I have not seen the document. You saw it come in, just to glance at it. I have not seen it and therefore am not answering any questions on it. It is a good thing not to answer questions on a document that you haven't seen. I noticed yesterday both Liberal and Labour were talking about what the communique from Williamsburg [said?] before it had even been agreed, let alone published. It is not a trap that I am going to fall in to, let me give you an answer about the National Health Service. I have no more intention of dismantling the National Health Service than I have of dismantling Britain's defences and if you look in the public expenditure White Paper's you will see the provision the coming years for the National Health Service. You will see over and above what has been spent now in the first year, extra £700 million, in the second year provision over and above that £800 million, in the third year provision over and those two years an extra £700 million, that is your answer and I regard this as a total scare. We have these sort of scares and smears during the last campaign. I have got a whole list of them. We had to turn round and deal with them then, they weren't true then and they are not true now. Last time, National Health Service, Labour alleged that the Conservatives would destroy the National Health Service, that was in 1979. And yet the record, we have improved the resources directly to the National Health Service from £7,750 million in 1978–9 to £15,500 million in 1983–4, an increase of about 17%; more than the increase in rise in prices over the same period. We had similar scares about pensions, we had similar scares. [end p15] They ran a scare-mongering campaign last time, I have taken the scares and done the record. These scares are cruel, they are calculated to put fear into the most vulnerable members of our society, the pensioners and the sick, they are cold and they are callous and they are without foundation.

Question

(Mr. Raphael).

Prime Minister

Mr. Raphael, I do not intend to reform a Cabinet here. I intend first to win the election, I hope with a good majority. To do that people have to vote. Conservative in every seat, to ensure that we get a good majority and a good majority of votes. May I point out that I don't know any Prime Minister who has constantly kept the same Cabinet over a long period of years? It would be wrong to do so, because we simply must give new young people the chance of coming up and you must keep an organic Cabinet. How in the world do you think a party would take it, if you said, now look, chums, this is a Cabinet we will stick with for five years, and you, you, and you haven't a hope of either being in the Cabinet or either being a Minister of State or a parliamentary secretary? You would be the first to say that it would be an absolutely stupid policy, you would be absolutely right, so therefore it is a policy which I do not propose to follow. The policies which I have set out are in the manifesto. You have seen me do things which perhaps you did not expect when British Leyland was in difficulty, because we knew the consequences for the West Midlands if it collapsed, we said right, we will help you, and we put an extra £1.2 billion into British Leyland. [end p16] We said we will help you provided you improve your efficiency. We have helped shipbuilding industries some £700 or £800 million. We have put money into steel to try to help those industries, but not to carry on as they were, but to come through to a viable future, and I think we have been both totally open and honest and persistent in the policies which we set out in our manifesto, but just at the moment we have not only our own recommendations but we have the endorsement of seven western industrialised nations, the seven most important, very different. Are the Labour and Social Democratic parties right and the whole of the seven industralised nations their leaders, their Chancellors of the Exchequer, their advisers wrong? I doubt it. What they want to do is to take us back to the polcies, the folly of which took us to the IMF and put us into debt up to here and which this Government is paying back and which still is like a millstone round the necks of our children. I trust I make myself clear. Next question. Mr. Cole.

Question

(Unintelligible).

Prime Minister

I am sorry, would you say that doubling that prescription charges …   . First, doubling that, Mr. Hattersley forgets that there were two rates of VAT under the last Labour Government, one was 12½%; which applied extensively to products, we increased it to 15%; doubling is not from 12½%; to 15%;, the arithmetic is wrong. You will also recollect that during the lifetime of the last Labour Government there was a time when VAT on certain products was 25%;, that on white goods, on televisions, on caravans and ships, and it very nearly ruined some of those [end p17] industries. 15%; is very much less than 25%; which Mr. Healey put on for a time. They are trying to give the impression that the rate of VAT for everything was only 8%;, that is not so. At the end of their period of office, a lot was 12½%;, they have therefore the three rates of VAT 0%; 8%; and 12½%; We went to one rate, we went to 15%; and we said in our Manifesto that it had been our intention to switch taxes from direct taxes to indirect, and we did it in our first budget. Secondly, on prescription charges, I said more than once at the forum in this room, no responsible Government could give an undertaking that prescription charges would not be increased. As you know, 70%; of prescriptions are without charge because people are in fact in one of the groups which qualify for relief, the other 30%; of the people pay prescription charges and on average those prescription charges are way, way below the cost of the prescriptions. I am utterly amazed that any Labour Government should actually refer to food prices, their record on food price increases is one of the most disgraceful ever seen in the history of this country. Food prices under them went up by 122%;, so a food basket that cost £10 at the beginning of Labour Government would cost, that same food basket, £22 at the end of that period of Labour Government. Ours have gone up by 35%;, very much less than their 122%;, so the food basket at the beginning of our term of office which cost £10 would now cost £13.50, too much, but we are getting better the whole time, indeed last time a food basket that cost £10 at the beginning of last year, would only at the end of last year cost on average £10.10p. Because food prices went up only by 1p in the pound last year. The answer is compare our record on food prices [end p18] with theirs. Theirs I think is just about the worst in British history. Now, what was the other one? BNOC, yes, of course, and it was part of our policy to de-nationalise, and we said so, and a very popular policy it is too and that is why we are going to do more of it.

Question

(Unintelligible).

Prime Minister

Now a lie is a specific thing, will you please [word missing] the allegation and I will give you the reply. We did not lie at the last election, give me an allegation and I will reply to it, I have just replied to four, give me a specific allegation. We had smears and smears and smears and in the middle week of the campaign I had to turn round and answer them. Interestingly enough the smears that were put up then, smears and scares, one after another, are very similar to the scares that are being put out now. In particular on pensions and health. I have given you the record on health. Let me tell you the same smear and scare we were getting about pensions, let me tell you on 19th April 1979 Mr. Hattersley said, “There can be no doubt that when Mrs. Thatcher talks about Tory cuts in public expenditure, the future level of pensions is an item high on her list.” That was the actual words of the scare in 1979, similar to the scares we are getting now. Let me give you the record, the retirement pension will have risen over four years up to November 1982 from £19.50 which Labour left us to £32.85 for a single person and from £31.20 for a married couple to £52.55 under Tory Government. This increase of 68%; compared with a rise in prices over the same period of 61%;. If you take it on the pensioners' [end p19] index, the rise is even greater. Because the pensioners' index has not in fact risen, because of our excellent record on food prices, as much as the retail price index. Our record is even better. I tell you, go and look at the scares they were giving in 1979, take them one by one and take the performance.

Question

(Unintelligible).

Prime Minister

No, I am sorry, they have not included the full quotation. It was here and I can tell you virtually the sense of it, I cannot give you the exact words, but I have had it out and given it in the House. “No responsible Government could ever give an undertaking that prescription charges would not go up.” It is a thing you heard me repeat here. I then went on to say “we have no-words to the effect of-immediate intention of putting them up.” Clearly said “no responsible Government could give a guarantee that they would not go up.” That sentence preceded, but, if you ask me, we have no intention to put them up, we had not at that time, but I could not and would not give a guarantee. Could someone perhaps get me the briefing it was in before? And I said it here twice.

Question

(Unintelligible).

Prime Minister

At the moment I cannot compare it with the increase in earnings. Can I have the Ennals' quote in the Campaign Guide, pensions? … I cannot give you increased earnings, we passed legislation through to price protect, there have been times, as you know, particular under Labour when prices [end p20] went up more than earnings and as you know the link with earnings was not absolute under Labour, it was the effect of the earnings increase had to be taken into account. Sometimes under Labour prices went up a good deal more than earnings, and sometimes the earnings went up more than prices. We say we gave no pledge that we would ever protect pensions with regard to an increase in earnings, we gave a pledge that we would protect pensions with regard to increase in prices. We have actually done more than that. Pensions have gone up more than prices. Actually for the 23½ million people in work, average earnings have kept ahead of the increase in prices. …   . the link was broken by legislation, but the link was not absolute. You know the quotation to which I am referring, it is in the Campaign Guide, Mr. Ennals. I have got the quotation from my last Press Conference. “It is not my intention to raise these charges, it is our intention to do the level best for the health service, but I don't know of any responsible Government that can in fact put a committment on every single thing for five years. It is our intention to have a better health service than at present and to use money better.” Mrs Thatcher you have answered the question on prescription charges, you have answered the question on raising prescription charges, you haven't answered the question possibly on two other things and then they went on to two other things. There is another quote which I have used in the House, which is the one which I have indicated. I now give you the quote from I think, Mr Ennals, on earnings. It is from Pensioners' Voice, Jan 1979: “There is a statutory obligation to take

[Gap in transcript] [end p21]

Question

… remarkable degree of miscalculation …

PM

No, we had hardly seen the books then. Can I remind you? First we had $22 billion worth of debt left to us by Labour. We have now got that down to $12 billion and that's through one of the worst recessions. We were facing very considerable problems but those prescription charges have gone up over a period of four years and we were careful never to give a guarantee that they would not go up. Indeed on the contrary I said we could not give a commitment on every single thing, and if you wish to go on I will tell you what I did give a commitment on and what I will still stand by, although you have not asked me, so it is a bonus. Umm, I was then asked whether I would give a commitment and I did give a commitment on two things, in contrast to prescription charges. You haven't answered the question, you say, which is perhaps not put to you on visits to hospital stays any charges there [sic]. Er, and we gave a commitment … “of putting on the charges that were attributed to, no intention whatsoever” and I repeat to you again and again our performance on the NHS in practice is far better than that Labour Government. It still is. But I gave an undertaking which I am quite happy to repeat that we would not put charges on stays in hospitals nor on visits to the doctor. I gave no such undertaking on prescription charges because as I indicated no responsible Government would ever do that.

Question

Mrs. Thatcher, on your earlier answer on unemployment benefit … in the next Parliament you would be putting long-term unemployed on the higher rate of supplementary benefit? [end p22]

PM

No, I was not. I was indicating that the fact is that at the moment if you are over sixty and have been on supplementary benefit and are unemployed for a year you then have a choice to go off the register and take the long-term supplementary benefit which of course is equivalent to the retirement pension. So if you are unemployed and over sixty and have been on unemployment benefit for a year, you go on to the long-term social security benefit. I was indicating therefore that is a longer term benefit that has as you know been price protected.

Question

… Sounder sixties who are long term unemployed would not …

PM

No, the pledge goes to pensioners and linked long-term benefits. The others as you know we have made certain changes in the time. We have, when we are looking at unemployment benefit, to look at the link with the poverty trap; the link with the “Why work?” syndrome. What I am also saying is that people who have been on unemployment and unemployed for a long time do not rely on unemployment benefit. This is the point. They do not rely on it. And in so far as that [has?] at times been 5%; below, in fact most of the long-term unemployed have taken up social security—and some of the short-term as well—rely for their income on unemployment benefit plus social security benefit which has been price protected.

Question

That level of supplementary benefit that they get … is not price protected.

PM

But I'm sorry, the social security benefit has been price protected. The social security benefit has been price protected. I think you are probably getting confused [end p23] with the … there was a long-term wage related unemployment benefit which no longer, which depended upon the contribution which was made to the national insurance system—in the previous eighteen months. That, as you know, was not continued, but we waited eighteen months, gave notice, because if you had contributed for it you were entitled to it, so we had to wait for the contributions to adjust. There were three things. There was the flat-rate unemployment benefit on national insurance, you then contributed for an extra wage-related unemployment benefit, which no longer is given, because we as you know legislated, neither to contribute nor to give it. Then there is the social security. But most people who have been on unemployment for quite a considerable time, or even some come on straight away, the flat-rate unemployment benefit, which is national insurance for which you contribute and then you get it topped up by social security which as you know is met by the taxpayer. As I indicate, and if you look in the Parliamentary Answers, and if you look in the Government actuaries report, you will find that by far the biggest outgoing on National Insurance is the pensions. It is something like £13 billion and I think you will find that the amount that goes out on unemployment benefit is of the order of £1.8–£2 billion from the National Insurance fund and the difference between the £2 billion and the £5½ billion that unemployment costs this country in outgoing and the £3½ billion is made up by social security. So the greater part tends to come from social security which has in fact been price protected.

Question

Are you saying that they are price protected now and will continue to be? [end p24]

PM

On social security benefit. Once they are on to social security benefit, yes they are. On social security benefit is price protected now.

Question

Given the dismal state of the Labour Party … main opponent in the election?

PM

Anyone who doesn't vote Conservative. If you really want to ensure that you don't get a Labour Government,—because I strongly believe that many people express their feelings and their views by saying “Look, we are anti-socialist,” for some people to express the negative is a way of expressing the positive and I feel that the overwhelming majority of people in this country are anti-socialist when they look at Labour's manifesto. Now, if you want to be anti-socialist there really is only one way to ensure that you do not get a socialist Government and that is to support the Conservative candidate. That is not to say that I expect everyone to do so, obviously, but there is only one way to make certain that you do not get a socialist government or a socialist government supported by a centre party, which is what we had before when the Lib-Lab pact came in at a time when it actually sees what socialism was like in practice, seen that it had to go to the IMF, seen the debt position it got us into, seen a point of time when under Mr Healey 's stewardship he could neither borrow a penny piece overseas, nor convince the country, and the published reserves fell to an all time low, fell to $4 billion. Eh, then there is only one thing to do and that is to support the Conservative candidate in the constituency, not anyone else. Look, I'm sorry gentlemen its 10.25. You have had a good go and you need to be back here by 11 to ask detailed questions to Tebbit.