PRIME MINISTER
Further Education Pupils (Financial Assistance)
Q1. Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
asked the Prime Minister what plans Her Majesty's Government have to increase financial assistance to pupils remaining at school after they are 16 years old.
The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher)
We have no such plans at present.
Mr. bennett
Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to congratulate all state schools on the excellent job that they do and dissuade her ministerial colleagues from continuing to attack them with policies such as the voucher scheme? Will she persuade her Ministers to put all their energies into extending opportunities of choice for 16-year-olds who would like to stay on in sixth forms but who do not have the financial means to do so?
The Prime Minister
I am always congratulating those who are doing an excellent job and I am happy to respond to the hon. Gentleman's invitation. As to the Child Poverty Action Group, to which I believe the hon. Gentleman was referring, its scheme would cost £500 million a year. Most of that would be spent on those who would stay on in education anyway. There has been a significant increase in recent years in the number of 16-year-olds who are staying on in education, which is very good news.
Mr. Peter Bottomley
Will my right hon. Friend consider examining whether the pattern of financial assistance for those of school-leaving age and above is what she believes to be rational? Will she come forward with proposals—preferably after she has had success at the next election—for a more rational scheme than the present one?
The Prime Minister
We have considered the scheme and the varying grants that are available across the board. It is not easy to make changes without introducing more anomalies. That is the problem.
Mr. Hardy
Will the Prime Minister consider the fact that, in this year of grace, we are spending more on locking up young people than on providing for their further training and employment?
The Prime Minister
We are spending a large amount on providing for their further training and employment. As the hon. Gentleman knows, a new scheme will be introduced in September, which will cost about £2 billion, for training young people. We would hope that by the age of 16 young people will either stay on in education, have a job, or have some training, so that unemployment is not an option.
Mr. Fry
Is my right hon. Friend aware that it pays some 16-year-olds who have left school, and for whom places are available at work centres, to stay at home because the cost of transport to the centres has to be taken from their supplementary benefit payments? Will she ask her right hon. Friends to consider removing this disincentive so that more of our 16-year-olds may spend their time on worthwhile employment rather than sit at home doing nothing?
The Prime Minister
Yes, I shall do that, but I believe that special travelling allowances are provided for journeys to some skill centres.
[column 799]Mr. Foot
Will the right hon. Lady be kind enough to confirm to us that it is a £2 billion scheme? We are gratified to learn that she is moving in the direction that we have been advocating. I hope that she will confirm the figure here and now. We shall certainly welcome it and show our usual generosity in doing so.
The Prime Minister
The amount has not been increased. The scheme will cost a great deal over a long period.
Engagements
Q2. Mr. Tom Clarke
asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 22 February.
The Prime Minister
This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today.
Mr. Clarke
Is the Prime Minister aware that a number of countries are deserting monetarist policies? Will she accept that she, too, has a splendid opportunity to respond in that way by accepting the recommendations of the second report of the Brandt commission? Will she, therefore, offer hope to 4 million unemployed in this country and those in the developing world, who are suffering from starvation?
The Prime Minister
As the hon. Gentleman will know if he has looked at the many communiqués from the economic summits, their top priority is to keep inflation down and to try to get interest rates down as a means of increasing employment in all our countries as well as making us competitive in goods that we send to the developing countries. He will also know that the London Business School's recent studies concluded that reflation is little help on jobs and that it could result in putting up the numbers of people out of work as well as vastly putting up the level of inflation.
Sir Timothy Kitson
During the course of the day will my right hon. Friend send a sharp note to those responsible for buying the food for the British forces in the Falklands and tell them that we have a “Buy British” campaign? Is she aware that when the Select Committee on Defence was in the Falklands last week it was surprised to find that the apples were from France, the bacon from Denmark, the pork from eastern Europe——
Mr. Canavan
The corned beef from Argentina.
Sir Timothy Kitson
—the beef from Uruguay and the tinned beef from the Argentine? We found some cabbages from Lincolnshire, but surely Britain can do better than that?
The Prime Minister
Having helped to launch the Food from Britain campaign, I shall certainly see that my hon. Friend's strictures are brought to the attention of the appropriate people and hope that British food firms will be urged to put in competitive tenders to feed British soldiers.
Mr. David Steel
May I return to the question that I asked the Prime Minister a fortnight ago, now that she has the facts of the case? Does she intend to intervene with the Allied Corporation of New Jersey to stop the transfer of a profitable subsidiary company in high technology from this country to Germany, with the loss of 500 jobs?
[column 800]The Prime Minister
I assume that the right hon. Gentleman means the Linotype company in Cheltenham——
Mr. Steel
indicated assent
The Prime Minister
He did not, in fact, mention it. I understand that no financial inducements were offered by the state of Hessen, but, as the right hon. Gentleman will probably have heard at lunchtime, my right hon. Friend Patrick Jenkin the Secretary of State for Industry is meeting the management of this company to see whether anything can be done. I should also point out that we do have a great deal of inward investment. Indeed, last year inward investment provided some 10,000 jobs.
Q3. Mr. Winnick
asked the Prime Minister what are her official engagements for 22 February.
The Prime Minister
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
Mr. Winnick
Is the right hon. Lady aware that the information given in parliamentary answers shows that most people, particularly those on the smallest incomes, are paying considerably more in income tax and national insurance than in 1978–79, while the most wealthy are paying substantially less? Does the right hon. Lady believe that a few pre-election tax bribes in the Budget will help to disguise the fact that her Government have been dedicated to helping the rich at the expense of the rest of the community?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman is correct on one thing. We certainly did reduce the level of tax on top earnings to 60 per cent. It was an overdue reform, as we depend so greatly on management if we are to be competitive in future. With regard to the level of income tax and national insurance, the Labour party is always urging me to spend more or to increase pensions, unemployment benefit or sickness benefit. By how much would the hon. Gentleman increase taxation? By how much would he increase national insurance, or, alternatively, by how much would he reduce public expenditure?
Mr. Mark Carlisle
Has my right hon. Friend had the opportunity today to see reports in the paper to the effect that the Labour group on the GLC is apparently proposing to give a grant of £50,000 to the “Troops Out” movement? Will she take this opportunity to condemn it, not only as an abuse of the spending of ratepayers' money, but as an affront to the whole of our nation?
The Prime Minister
Yes, I wholly agree with my right hon. and learned Friend that this is an abuse of ratepayers' money. I believe that it is an insult to our security forces, the army and the police, whose job it is to protect the weak and the innocent—a task which they are carrying out magnificently.
Mr. Meacher
Is the Prime Minister aware that, according to recent Government publications, living standards under her Government have fallen by no less than 8 per cent. since the fourth quarter of 1979? Is she also aware that, contrary to all her election promises, the tax burden on the average family has increased under her Government by no less than 15 per cent.? Does this not suggest that her Government have not only been a catastrophe for the unemployed but pretty much a disaster for those still in work?
[column 801]The Prime Minister
I note that the hon. Gentleman is always careful to take the last quarter of the Labour Government. If he considers real personal disposable income, he will find that it dropped substantially in 1975, in 1976 and in 1977 and that for the greater part of our time——
Mr. William Hamilton
Wriggle, wriggle.
The Prime Minister
—it has been well above what it was during the lifetime of the Labour Government. With regard to taxation, perhaps the hon. Gentleman would give me a list of the expenditure that he would reduce.
Mr. Skinner
Not doing very well today.
Q4. Mr. Robert Atkins
asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 22 February.
The Prime Minister
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
Mr. Atkins
Is my right hon. Friend aware that none of the other parties in the House has any policy for the developing technologies, which are providing new jobs and will continue to do so? Knowing, as I do, my right hon. Friend's commitment to these developments, does she think that even the fourfold increase that her Government have given to these developments—as compared with that of the Labour Government—is enough?
The Prime Minister
We have increased expenditure under the Science and Technology Act 1965 in real terms by 50 per cent. In specific areas, such as information technology—we have to be specific on this, because general increases in Government expenditure will not necessarily help—we have increased it from £50 million in 1979 to a target of £200 million in 1983.
[column 802]Mr. Foot
Since the right hon. Lady is so eager to clear up these questions of taxation and her own promises in the matter, may I ask how much a person has to earn per week to get tax relief under her Government, and how that compare, with the pledges that she made at the last election?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman has concentratedare on increases in taxation. Yes, there have been increases in taxation for many people. It is absolutely essential. If one is to have public expenditure, one must cover it largely by taxation. I can only ask the right hon. Gentleman, again and again, if he wants taxation to come down, as I do, to say precisely where he will cut public expenditure. Will it be only in defence?
Mr. Foot
Can the right hon. Lady point to one occasion on which she told the country what the tax reliefs were to be and when she said that the tax reliefs would be confined only to the top people in the country?
The Prime Minister
That is not so. The standard rate of income tax was 33p in the pound—it is now 30p.
Mrs. Shirley Williams
Is the Prime Minister aware that the police support unit of the Greater London council is recommending a grant of £50,000 to the “Troops Out” movement? Will she, in an effort to improve Anglo-Irish relations, confirm that her Government have no intention of amending the Ireland Act 1949 to disfranchise Irish citizens resident in Britain?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Lady asked two questions. I understand that the GLC police committee will today consider the grant. As to her second question, I have no announcement of any sort to make.