PRIME MINISTER
Newham
Q1. Mr. Tony Banks
asked the Prime Minister if she will pay an official visit to Newham.
The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher)
I have at present no plans to do so.
Mr. Banks
It is a pity that the Prime Minister will not be able to visit Newham, where she might see at first hand the devastating effects of her economic and social policies. There is an unemployment rate of 19 per cent. and 27,000 people are on social security. Sixty-five per cent. of tenants receive income support because of housing costs. If the Prime Minister cannot visit Newham, will she at least think, when she is eating her Christmas dinner—[Hon. Members: “Spam.” ]—no doubt including Spam—of those in Newham who cannot afford to keep warm? Will the Prime Minister express some remorse about those people and about the 44,000 who will die of hypothermia next year?
The Prime Minister
By what he said earlier, the hon. Gentleman gave evidence that those who are in need are [column 560]provided for. The pension is higher than previously, and under the Conservative Government pensioners get a Christmas bonus, which they did not always get under Labour. There is higher spending on the National Health Service and a record amount of help with fuel for those who need it.
Mr. Kinnock
The Prime Minister constantly emphasises the value of personal thrift. We were all brought up to respect and practise prudence. If the Prime Minister, after a lifetime of economy, or as a consequence of a small occupational pension, lost between £1 and £5 a week in housing benefit, how would she feel this Christmas?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman forgets that we now spend £3,400 million on housing benefit, which is received by one household in three. Further, the Opposition never mention the million pensioners who gained £1 when housing benefit was introduced. The majority of them will not be affected by changes next April, and no one on supplementary benefit will be affected by the changes in housing benefit.
Mr. Kinnock
The Prime Minister again refuses to answer the question. Will she admit that the rise in social security expenditure is almost entirely attributable to the demographic change, as a result of which there are now more pensioners, and to the vast increase in unemployment and under-employment, which is the result of her policies? How would the right hon. Lady feel if, for no other reason than the dogma of the Government and their obedience to unrealistic spending targets, she lost between £1 and £5 a week after scrimping and saving and showing frugality in order to provide for her old age?
The Prime Minister
Occupational pensioners will lose, especially through the taper. The amounts have been given in the reply to a question which the right hon. Gentleman has seen. Nevertheless, the taxpayers, through the Government, are giving housing benefit to one household in three. That money is not Government money. It comes from those who are already providing for their own housing costs and are also having to provide for the housing benefit of others. The right hon. Gentleman frequently asks about reductions in rates and taxation. He should accept that we need good management of resources and that we need to live within a budget.
Several Hon. Members
rose——
Mr. Speaker
Order. I remind the House that the question relates to Newham.
Mr. Spearing
Is the Prime Minister aware that, whatever happens in Calcutta, responsibility for the sick, disabled and handicapped in the London borough of Newham lies with the Newham health authority? Is she further aware that the Government are cutting the funds available to that authority by nearly £500,000 next year? How does she reconcile that with her well-advertised view to be like Mother Teresa?
The Prime Minister
I think that the hon. Gentleman does not accurately reflect the quotation, but then I do not expect him to do so. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the previous Labour Government reduced provision for the Health Service in real terms in two of the five years that they were in office. We shall not accept lectures from the Labour party on the National Health Service.
[column 561]Engagements
Q2. Mr. Eggar
asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 22 December.
The Prime Minister
This morning I shall preside at a meeting of the Cabinet and in addition to my duties in the House I shall be having meetings with ministerial colleagues and others.
Mr. Eggar
Is my right hon. Friend aware that the public have been immensely reassured by the increased number of police on the streets in central London in the past few days? Is she also aware that, on Tuesday, CND deliberately staged a public demonstration, thus taking many police officers away from street patrol? Could not the country and the House have expected a slightly more responsible attitude on the part of CND?
The Prime Minister
We should all like, especially at Christmas time, to put on record our thanks for the bravery and courage of the police, and especially to remember those families who will not have a loved one with them this Christmas because of the bombing last Saturday. I agree with my hon. Friend that it would have been a nice gesture if those who had planned demonstrations had cancelled them in favour of fighting terrorism and remembered that the police have an overwhelming job to do and are in the front line in that fight.
Dr. Owen
While wishing the Prime Minister a happy Christmas——
Mr. Boyes
Humbug.
Dr. Owen
—may I ask whether she is aware that 15 million people in Britain—that is the official figure—will be living at or below the poverty line this Christmas? Will she make a new year's resolution that, if the economy recovers next year, she will cut taxes by increasing child benefit? Is she further aware that if she were to concentrate a 1p reduction in the standard rate on child benefit that could increase the half-average family earnings by £3.90; that if she concentrated it on tax allowances those earnings would be increased by only 92p, and that if she concentrated it on the standard rate those earnings would be increased only by a miserable 35p?
The Prime Minister
I recognise the right hon. Gentleman's very studied question. Before I answer him, may I ask him which definition of poverty he is using to reach that figure?
Dr. Owen
It is the official Government statistic relating to the 3 million unemployed families, the 6 million families that are living on low wages and pensioners who face high costs for rented accommodation. If the right hon. Lady checks that total she will find that 15 million Britons are at or below the poverty line.
The Prime Minister
There is no Government definition of poverty. There are some 7 million people who live in families that are supported by supplementary benefit. There are many other different definitions of poverty, which is why I asked the right hon. Gentleman to say which definition he was using. Many of the low-paid on supplementary benefit have incomes about 40 per cent. above that level. They are wholly artificial definitions. The fact remains that people who are living in need are fully and properly provided for. As to the right hon. Gentleman's question, I am not sure whether he is arguing that taxation should be increased or reduced.
[column 562]Dr. Owen
Child benefit.
The Prime Minister
I am delighted to be able to tell the right hon. Gentleman that child benefit is now higher than it has ever been.
Mr. Fox
Although I want my right hon. Friend to have a relaxing holiday, will she take time during the recess to consider my Adjournment debate of this week on keeping the British £1 note? Does she agree that only as a last resort should the £1 coin be universally introduced? If the risk of forgery can be dealt with, is she aware that a plastic £1 note is acceptable?
The Prime Minister
I heard my hon. Friend on the radio during breakfast time this week. I rather share his views on the £1 coin. It is not very popular yet and I have reason to believe that the £1 note will be retained.
Mr. Tom Clarke
Will the Prime Minister find time today to attend the Adjournment debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) on shipbuilding in his constituency? If she does, will she reflect on the fact that the Minister of State's statement has caused a great deal of anxiety on Clydeside? The arrogance of its presentation has been distinctly unhelpful. Finally, will she accept responsibility as Prime Minister to intervene in this most delicate situation to save taxpayers the cost of maintaining 8,000 people on the dole who would prefer to be working for shipbuilding and their communities?
The Prime Minister
There will be no Government intervention. I share the hon. Gentleman's belief that it will be a tragedy if the workers go on strike, thereby doing themselves out of jobs. Shipbuilding orders are extremely difficult to get. There is a great deal of competition for them throughout the world, and when one has them it is a tragedy if people strike themselves out of jobs at a difficult time. I think that the Government have already shown how much they are prepared to do for shipbuilding. Since 1979 British Shipbuilders has received £850 million of taxpayers' money. Merchant shipbuilding has been subsidised by about £6,000 per job per year.
Q3. Mr. Straw
asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 22 December.
The Prime Minister
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
Mr. Straw
Does the Prime Minister believe that it is consistent with her duty of upholding the rule of law by ensuring that the judiciary is seen clearly to be independent of the Executive that senior Government officials, at ministerial behest, should have held a clandestine meeting to seek political advice from a senior judge, whatever his previously known political affiliations before his elevation? If that is consistent with her duty, why was so much effort made to keep secret the meeting that was held between Mr. Michael Quinlan and Sir John Donaldson?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman is aware that the judiciary is absolutely independent. The person who was going to be head of the Department of Employment sought the views of a judge on a certain matter. It is not a bad idea to know how legislation works out if one is thinking again of legislating. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that every meeting that is held under the auspices of a Department has to be public? If he is, he is bonkers.
[column 563]Mrs. Rumbold
At this Christmas time will my right hon. Friend join me in expressing sympathy to two of my constituents, Mr. and Mrs. Proctor, whose son Timothy was killed in a road accident last year? Does she agree that the House should think about introducing legislation for minimum sentencing when death results from such accidents so that the general public may know that their elected representatives in this place value human life?
The Prime Minister
I join my hon. Friend in expressing sympathy for her constituents and all others who have suffered similarly. It is very rare for us to have minimum sentences. If such sentences were to be introduced, there would have to be loopholes for the exceptional case. I think that we are making it clear that we believe in strong sentencing for offences that justify it. As my hon. Friend knows, we shall introduce legislation, which we hope will go through the House, which will enable certain sentences, if they are felt to be insufficient, to be referred to the Court of Appeal for that court to pronounce upon them. That would be guidance in future.
Mr. Craigen
In view of the Prime Minister's earlier reply, will she find time today to make a new year resolution to start doing things for Scotland? Will she get her Ministers to knock heads together over the Scott Lithgow yard, instead of wringing their hands in indifference?
The Prime Minister
In answer to the hon. Gentleman's question about Scott Lithgow, I gave the annual subsidy that has gone from the taxpayer to [column 564]merchant shipbuilding. If one translates that to the Scott Lithgow yards, it is equal not to £6,000 per year per employee, but to £13,000.
Billericay
Q4. Mr. Proctor
asked the Prime Minister if she will pay an official visit to Billericay.
The Prime Minister
I have at present no plans to do so.
Mr. Proctor
Is my right hon. Friend aware that she would receive a festive and warm welcome in Billericay from my ratepayers, if not my rate spenders? Is she further aware that 60 per cent. of rates come from non-domestic ratepayers who have no direct influence on local elections, and that only 35 per cent. of people eligible to vote in local elections actually pay full rates? In the light of that, does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government have an ultimate responsibility to protect business, commerce and householders from excessive rate burdens imposed by wildly extravagant local councils such as the Socialist Basildon district council?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is right in his conclusion that only a minority of the electorate pay rates. That is one of the very worrying aspects of that system. My hon. Friend is also right in thinking that many industrial and commercial enterprises are not represented in any way on the voting registers of those authorities to which they pay rates. I wholeheartedly agree that the Bill to cap rates is overwhelmingly popular among ratepayers.