PRIME MINISTER
Engagements
Q1. Mr. Hardy
asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 5 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 this House I shall be having further meetings later today, including one with a delegation from the National Pensioners' Convention.
Mr. Hardy
Does the Prime Minister appreciate that throughout the whole of our recorded history, Britain has never experienced such an increase in crime as has occurred since she was first elected to office on the platform of law and order? Is she further aware that the intensity of crime—which does seem to match the Conservative party's commitment to greed—is now at such a level that millions of our people, many of them elderly, have to live with gnawing anxiety as well as the financial hardship that they have experienced during the Prime Minister's tenure of office?
The Prime Minister
As the hon. Gentleman is aware, crime has been steadily rising, not only in this country but throughout the western world. That makes it all the more important for Governments to do what this Government have done—provided more police, better equipment, and supported them and the courts in their difficult decisions.
Mrs. Roe
Will my right hon. Friend find time during her busy schedule today to consider the news that at least three Labour-controlled borough councils are planning to [column 1024]increase their rates by 50 per cent.? Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that this will provide a substantial burden—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker
Order. The hon. Lady's question must be related to the Prime Minister's responsibilities.
Mrs. Roe
I did preface my question by saying that it was connected with the schedule of the Prime Minister's diary today. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this will prove to be a substantial burden, particularly for small businesses, which will definitely result in a loss of jobs?
The Prime Minister
Yes. That is one further piece of evidence that Labour is the high-tax party. I agree with my hon. Friend that high rates make it very difficult for small businesses to prosper in those areas and therefore affect the prospects for jobs.
Mr. Kinnock
Is the Prime Minister aware that because she broke the link between pension rises and average earnings, pensioner couples in Britain are now £11.40 a week worse off and single pensioners are now £7.20 a week worse off than they would have been if she had maintained the link? Will she restore that link since it is so obvious that some of the poorest people in Britain have been seriously deprived as a consequence of her policies? Or does she think that those people, desperately needing every penny that they can get, can afford to go on losing hundreds of pounds a year?
The Prime Minister
No, we will not restore the link to average earnings. We undertook that we would price-relate pensions and we have. Pensions have gone ahead faster than the increase in prices. If the right hon. Gentleman takes a true comparison he should compare the standard of living of pensioners today with the standard of living of pensioners today with the standard of living pensioners as a whole during the lifetime of the Labour Government. The fact is that between 1979 and 1985 the average weekly net income of pensioners has risen by 18 per cent. in real terms, more than twice the increase for the population as a whole. When one compares that with the record of the Labour Government one finds that it is an average increase of 2.7 per cent. a year compared with 0.6 per cent. a year between 1974 and 1979.
Mr. Kinnock
The Prime Minister know very well that the first set of figures that she quoted is attributable almost entirely to the inclusion of the state earnings-related pension scheme. She has a real cheek, as an individual and as the Prime Minister, in seeking to destroy that scheme. Is it not the case that with the losses sustained by pensioners as a result of breaking the link, the record of the Labour Government of a real terms increase of 20 per cent. compares favourably with the increase under the right hon. Lady of 4.5 per cent.? Will she not do her duty to the pensioners of Britain instead of letting the Chancellor give away money in a fortnight's time to people who do not need it when there are people in real need in this country?
The Prime Minister
What the right hon. Gentleman wants is for pensioners to have no income other than that which they get from the state. That is what he wants, basic pension and SERPS. I have given him the true figure for the standard of living. He says that it is totally related to SERPS. It is not. About 4 million people now have occupational pensions which on average nearly double the basic state pension. Many of them own their own homes. Pensioners' incomes from savings have increased by 7.3 [column 1025]per cent. per year in real terms. This is the real standard of living of pensioners, and it is far better than it was in his time.
Mr. Kinnock
If the Prime Minister believes all that will she answer two points? First, if she thinks that people should be independent of the state, why is that under her Government 2 million more pensioners have to rely on supplementary benefit because they have been pushed farther down into poverty? Secondly, if she really believes that pensioners are better off, why does she not go to them and ask them if they can afford to lose £11 a week because she has broken the link with earnings?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman is not getting it right. There is a basic pension in this country and there must be a second pension. Part of it is either the supplementary earnings-related pension from the state, or an occupational pension. Some pensioners have savings, some have houses and some have other sources of income. Which of the figures that I have given him does the right hon. Gentleman challenge?
Sir Paul Bryan
Is my right hon. Friend aware that her visit to Moscow will bring reassurance throughout the free world because of her standing as a leader, and a leader who can negotiate from strength?
The Prime Minister
I hope that we shall show in Moscow that this Government are prepared not only to stand up for freedom of speech, but, in action and words, for defence policy.
Mr. Steel
Yesterday, the Secretary of State for the Environment advised the young homeless in London to go somewhere else to find a home. Does that not contradict the advice given by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster that they should leave their homes to find a job? What advice does she give to the young jobless and homeless other than perpetual travel?
The Prime Minister
As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, a considerable number of council houses are empty all over the country. Indeed, in England 112,000 houses and flats are empty, of which 27,000 have been empty for more than a year. The Government have taken many steps to tackle homelessness. We have allocated the Housing Corporation an additional £20 million next year for a scheme under which housing associations can combine 30 per cent. grant from private finance to provide more accommodation for rent. The Government will also give local authorities the power to provide financial assistance to the private sector—up to 30 per cent.—for the cost of a new scheme to encourage the provision of rented housing. We have offered £4 million to the Department of the Environment's estate action programme to bring empty and run-down council homes back into use. That is to try to tackle the problem of homelessness. The right hon. Gentleman will be well aware that there are over 1 million more homes in this country than there were in the lifetime of the Government that his party supported.
Mr. Mates
As to the criticism in The Times today about the state of the British Army, will my right hon. Friend agree that, while real problems remain in equipping all three of our services and the conventional threat to NATO continues to grow, it is the massive increase in resources that we have made available in the last seven years that has enabled the Army, through pay and equipment, to continue to meet that threat professionally? [column 1026]Anybody who advocates, or even contemplates, putting the defence of this country in the hands of any or all of the Opposition parties needs their head examined.
The Prime Minister
Yes, Mr. Speaker, I agree with my hon. Friend. The Labour party does not have an effective defence policy for Britain. The Government have spent a total of £2,000 million more in real terms on the Army than if expenditure had been left at its 1978–79 level. We are carrying out a massive re-equipment programme for the Army, including main new battle tanks, new armoured personnel carriers, new artillery, defence missiles and new communications equipment. Furthermore, the Government have also implemented in full—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker
Order. I ask the House not to shout in this manner.
The Prime Minister
The Government have also implemented, in full, eight successive reports on service pay from the armed forces pay review body, with phasing for only a matter of months in just two of those years. That is an excellent record.
Q2. Mr. Jim Callaghan
asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 5 March 1987.
The Prime Minister
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
Mr. Callaghan
Is the Prime Minister aware that the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts is investigating the implementation of the 1981 Education Act, which deals with children who have special needs? Is she aware that, despite the valiant and superb attempts of teachers and local authorities to implement the Act, the experts tell us that, because of the total lack of Government funding, the Act is failing? Will the Prime Minister, therefore, instead of paying lip service to the needs of those children, who are blind, deaf or mentally and physically handicapped, direct her Chancellor in his Budget speech to transfer the tax hand-outs from the rich to those children who are in need of the extra money?
The Prime Minister
As the hon. Gentleman is aware, it is for local authorities to decide how they disburse their moneys. May I point out to the hon. Gentleman that spending per pupil is up by 19 per cent. in real terms in the lifetime of this Parliament, and that the pupil-teacher ratio is far better than ever it was. There are more teachers, they have fewer pupils and there is more money spent on each pupil. Beyond that, it is for local authorities to decide how they disburse the moneys available.
Q3. Mr. Patrick McLoughlin
asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 5 March 1987.
The Prime Minister
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some 10 minutes ago.
Mr. McLoughlin
Will my right hon. Friend take time today in her busy schedule to consider the prospects of a large rate increase that are facing my constituency? Last year, we suffered a rate increase of 26 per cent., imposed by the Labour-controlled county council. The Liberals wanted a 24 per cent. increase. Does my right hon. Friend agree that a rise such as this will only damage householders, depress job prospects in Derbyshire and do [column 1027]great harm to old-age pensioners, about whom the Opposition seem to care so much? Will she reaffirm her Government's intention to abolish the present rating system?
The Prime Minister
I agree with my hon. Friend that the increase that has been made by Derbyshire county council is indefensible. Derbyshire county council's rate is already 25 per cent. above the average for shire counties, and a further 26 per cent. increase on top of that must mean that it is planning a further massive spending increase, which will damage small businesses, at the expense of ratepayers in that area. I assure my hon. Friend that during the first Parliament after the election we shall be introducing our rates reform Bill for England and Wales.
Q4. Mr. Austin Mitchell
asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 5 March.
The Prime Minister
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
Mr. Mitchell
Will the Prime Minister take time in her busy day actually to read the letter on pay limitation in The Times today from Lord Morpeth, in which he announces that he is resigning his commission to protest against the Government's cuts in the Army, Navy and Air Force and says, inter alia, as they say in Grantham:
“Vehicles breaking down” ——
[column 1028]Mr. Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman must not quote please.
Mr. Mitchell
—in which he says that vehicles breaking down cannot be replaced, that the efficiency of the finest volunteer fighting force in NATO is being impaired and that vehicles purchased in the 1960s will still be being used at the turn of the century? Instead of giving the Army nothing but her excuses to fight with, will the Prime Minister send a message to Lord Morpeth saying— “Hang on. Labour's coming” —[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker
Order. We had better just hear the end of this.
Mr. Mitchell
Instead of cutting the conventional forces to buy Trident, Labour will build up our conventional strength so that a conflict does not escalate into a nuclear conflict straight away.
The Prime Minister
The Labour party does not have a defence policy worthy of the name for this country. The conclusion to be drawn from the hon. Gentleman's question is how very much worse things would have been had the Labour party been in power. It would have spent £2 billion less in real terms on the Army than we have and it would never, never have honoured all the pay increases from the armed forces pay review body, which we have. It should be thanking its lucky stars and the voters that they voted this Government into power.