PRIME MINISTER
(Engagements)
Q1. Mr. Winnick
asked the Prime Minister if she will state her official engagements for 27 November.
The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher)
This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be having further meetings with ministerial colleagues and others.
Mr. Winnick
In view of the fact that the House was seriously misled—to put it mildly—by the Chancellor of [column 566]the Exchequer on Monday, will the Prime Minister tell her Cabinet colleagues that we expect full and correct information to be given to the House? We are still waiting for a statement and an apology from the Chancellor. Will the right hon. Lady say whether even her Cabinet knew about the employers' insurance surcharge? Does not this show that the Government's economic policy is in total confusion and disarray?
The Prime Minister
I totally reject the charge that Sir Geoffrey Howemy right hon. and learned Friend misled the House. The shape of national insurance contributions was laid down by the Labour Government in the 1975 Act. That Act provided for a review of the percentage contributions and the levels at which they are levied each and every year. In the first year, that review was made and announced to the House by Mrs. Barbara Castle in a written answer on 23 October 1975. In the second year, 1976, it was made and announced to the House in a written answer by the right hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals). In the third year, 1977, it was announced in a written answer by the right hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme). In the fourth year, it was announced in a written answer, also by the right hon. Member for Salford, West Last year it was announced in a written answer by my right hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Prentice). This year, full details were given in a written answer last Tuesday. This year, the only percentage increases involved were those on employees. Some of the previous written answers have involved percentage increases on employers and employees. In the last few days we have had a show of sheer hypocrisy and humbug from the Opposition.
Mr. Grylls
Is my right hon. Friend aware that, if she is still looking for further cuts in public expenditure, she could stop the continuous spending by the NEB, which is still running at £50 million a year? Is she further aware that small business does not understand why that spending is allowed and why it is not halted?
The Prime Minister
I am always prepared to look for further ways of cutting public spending. I understand that there is a Bill before the House. Technically, the British Leyland expenditure still comes under the National Enterprise Board, and we have not yet decided on the future of its corporate plan.
Mr. Foot
Is the Prime Minister aware of what The Daily Telegraph called the “little matter of £386 million” and what the Daily Mail called “£572 million” ? Will the right hon. Lady say whether those precise figures were before the Cabinet when it drew up the package and whether it was able to compare those increases in revenue with the possible cuts or non-cuts? Did she and the Cabinet also agree at the same time that those figures should be left out of the presentation of the package to the House? Will she also tell the House—[Interruption.] We gave the Government an opportunity of making a full statement, but they decided not to do so. Will she also say whether those figures were discussed during the meeting that she had a week before with Sir Terence Beckett of the CBI?
The Prime Minister
A full statement was made in accordance with precedent—[Hon. Members: “No” ]—by means of a full written answer on Tuesday, and it gave the full details. The only change to which my right hon. and learned Friend referred was an increase in the percentage [column 567]contribution applying to employees. That was the only change. Absolute levels of contribution go up—[Hon. Members: “Answer the question.” ] I begin to wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition understands the question that he has asked. The Bill was passed when the right hon. Gentleman was Secretary of State for Employment, and written answers were made when he was Secretary of State for Employment, and written answers were made when he was Leader of the House. The absolute contribution—[Hon. Members: “Answer the question.” ] I prefer to give a full answer in my own way. The absolute levels of contribution go up every year for three reasons. First, earnings increase and somebody earning £70 last year—[Interruption.].
Mr. Speaker
Order. Unless right hon. and hon. Members listen to replies, we shall not reach Question 2.
The Prime Minister
Absolute contributions increase for three reasons. First, they may go up because earnings have increased. That has been taking place for a long time. Secondly, they go up because the limits increase. The limits increase every year, because they bear a specific relation to the single person's pension. Thirdly, the percentage may increase. Earnings and limits are dealt with every year by means of written answers. Usually, the percentages are also dealt with by means of a written answer. My right hon. and learned Friend dealt with the percentage, and the percentage increase—the only difference—attracted the extra £1 billion. The figures were before the Cabinet.
Mr. Foot
Does the last part of the right hon. Lady's reply confirm that the figures and exact increases were before the Cabinet? Which is the correct figure—the Daily Mail figure of £572 million or The Daily Telegraph figure of £386 million?
The Prime Minister
The figures before the Cabinet were those due to the change in the percentage—the £1 billion—on employees. The other ones have been dealt with in full, as is customary, in a written answer. The right hon. Gentleman asked me about specific figures for employers' contributions. The employer's contribution—the percentage—did not change. The right hon. Gentleman's Government changed the percentage of the employer's contribution, and they sometimes did so by means of a written answer. We have not done that. The increase in the employer's contribution arises either as a result of increases in earnings—[Hon. Members: “Answer the question.” ] I am trying to give the figures. If right hon. and hon. Members do not want them, I shall not give them. [Interruption.]
Several Hon. Members
rose——
Mr. Speaker
Order. If hon. Members wish to pursue points of order during Question Time, I must inform them that that is not our custom. I shall take points of order at the end of Question Time.
British Subjects (Iran)
Q2. Mr. Latham
asked the Prime Minister what progress is being made in bringing about the release of the British subjects detained in Iran.
The Prime Minister
We take every opportunity to make representations to the Iranian authorities about the [column 568]four British subjects who are being detained in Iran without having had charges preferred against them. We are in regular touch with the Iranian chargé d'affaires in London. The Swedish ambassador in Tehran, who now acts on our behalf, is pursuing the matter vigorously with senior Iranians. We have recently been able to pass clothing to Miss Waddell and have heard that she and Mr. Pyke are well.
We are also making continuing efforts to seek the assistance of intermediaries who may be able to help. Sadly, we have so far made little obvious progress. But our efforts will continue until we succeed in securing the release of all those detained.
Mr. Latham
Although the House understands the exceptional difficulties involved in dealing with Iran at present, will my right hon. Friend given an assurance that the fate of those British subjects, who include three Christian missionaries, will remain an important priority for Her Majesty's Ministers? Will my right hon. Friend also give an assurance that every opportunity is being taken to secure their release?
The Prime Minister
I am happy to give my hon. Friend those assurances. We take every opportunity to secure their release directly, indirectly, or through intermediaries with whom we are in touch.
Mr. Dalyell
Has the sanctions policy been effective or helpful to the hostages?
The Prime Minister
In many ways, the sanctions policy has been effective. The hon. Gentleman can judge as well as I whether it has been helpful to the hostages.
Prime Minister
(Engagements)
Q3. Mr. Ancram
asked the Prime Minister, if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 27 November.
The Prime Minister
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave earlier.
Mr. Ancram
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that during the last month the number of working days lost through industrial disputes was the lowest since 1966 for the month of October? Given that the number of new disputes during the third quarter of this year was the smallest since the war, does it not show that at last there is a growing public awareness that we cannot strike our way to prosperity?
The Prime Minister
Yes. I am happy to confirm that those figures were published. They are extremely encouraging and show signs of greater realism and moderation in pay claims and settlements. It also shows a greater realisation that we must improve productivity if we are to stay competitive.
Mr. Faulds
Will the right hon. Lady today seek permission from her husband, when she next has a free weekend, to spend it with me in Smethwick, where I can assure her she would appreciate my attentions and where she could have a long rest from such convoluted non-answers as we have heard from her this afternoon; and where she could also see some of the many factories that she has silenced in my constituency and where I could introduce her to some of the many thousands of people whom she has made unemployed?
[column 569]The Prime Minister
The direct answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is:
“No, no, a thousand times no”
etcetera.
Mr. Cyril D. Townsend
Will my right hon. Friend make clear that, whatever British Rail's financial or over-manning problems may be, neither her constituents in Greater London nor mine will be virtually confined to base after 7.30 at night?
The Prime Minister
I understand that recent statements have arisen because British Railways are trying to cut costs by reducing the number of trains which, they say, are lightly loaded. They must consider the loading of each train so that they can keep down costs. Apparently, there will be times when trains will stop at stations and when people will be able to get on them. However, there will not necessarily be ticket collectors or staff at the stations. That will not prevent people from travelling on the trains.
Mr. David Steel
Since Tuesday, has the Prime Minister discovered from the Secretary of State for [column 570]Industry what he meant by the observation that he made at the weekened to the effect that the Government had lost the first year?
The Prime Minister
I have not had contact with Sir Keith Josephmy right hon. Friend on that point. If I were asked to hazard a guess, I think that he would say that had we cut public expenditure more during the first year, interest rates would have been lower. I point out to the right hon. Gentleman that in cutting public expenditure we have not enjoyed much help from him.
Sir Graham Page
Will my right hon. Friend make time today to express publicly her anxiety about the activities in Liverpool of a group called the Broad Militant Left and about the possible violence that may result from a rally to be held in Liverpool on Saturday at which the chief rally rouser is to be the Leader of the Opposition?
The Prime Minister
I am not in any way responsible for the activities of the Leader of the Opposition. I hope that there will be no violence. I doubt whether the march will do any good, particularly in view of the fact that yet again we are having trouble at Halewood.