PRIME MINISTER
Engagements
Q1. Mr. John Grant
asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 10 May.
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 the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
Mr. Grant
As the Prime Minister will doubtless be altering her diary for the next few weeks, may I ask if she will consider, before leaving office, popping up the road to the London borough of Islington and taking a firsthand look at the disastrous antics there of the extremist Labour council, one of the barmiest ever seen——
Mr. Skinner
It is doing a great job.
Mr. Grant
—and take the opportunity to explain to the people of Islington that what is happening is a gross betrayal of the two main pledges on which the right hon. Lady was elected, to cut taxation and cut the dole queues?
The Prime Minister
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is against extremism, and is against extremism as practised in Islington. Presumably he is against the very high rates there. We, too, are against them and will do everything possible to fight them.
Sir William Clark
Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in relation to public expenditure, the implementation of the overspending policies being advocated by the Opposition would mean the economy getting into a chaotic state, sterling collapsing and our probable recourse to the International Monetary Fund, which would be a disaster for this country?
The Prime Minister
Yes, I wholly agree with my hon. Friend. If the policies of the Opposition were put into effect—and they are the most extreme ever put before the electorate in modern times—they would be policies for inflation and enormous increases in expenditure, which would lead to corresponding increases in taxation, in borrowing and interest rates or the printing of money. They would be altogether disastrous.
Mr. Foot
As the right hon. Lady has had to clear up things in such an irresolute rush—against all her natural instincts, of course—will she tell us whether she has left behind in the pigeon holes that old Think Tank report which she and the Chancellor once favoured, which proposed attacks on the social services, and on higher education and the disruption of the National Health Service?
The Prime Minister
There is nothing irresolute about this Government—[Interruption.]—either in this Parliament or in the next. Indeed, what I think the right hon. Gentleman is really complaining about is that this [column 730]Government are too resolute, too decisive and too swift for his taste. Let him look at the manifesto and our policies on education. We now have record expenditure per pupil and a record number of teachers per pupil. Let him look at the manifesto and our record on the social services and the Health Service. Spending on the NHS, even allowing for inflation, is at a record level. Let him look at our record on pensions. They are higher than they ever were under Labour.
Mr. Foot
If the right hon. Lady takes such a pride in her resolution, may I ask her when the Secretary of State for Employment informed her of the likely unemployment figures for September? Were they not a major factor in making her cut and run, after all her promises? She tells us that she will protect the Health Service. Why, therefore, did she promise at the last election not to raise prescription charges and then increase them to £1.40?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman is not correct. If he looks at the full quotation from the press conference he will find a sentence, which I well remember delivering, to the effect that no responsible Government could ever promise not to increase prescription charges. I repeat that now. The important thing is that the exemptions remain.
Mr. Foot
I say this in the best spirit of good will: we should be pleased if she would publish in the Official Report all the promises that she made at the last election.
The Prime Minister
They are contained in the manifesto, which, I assume, the right hon. Gentleman read. There is no point in adding to bureaucracy by publishing them in Hansard, although, of course, the right hon. Gentleman likes to add to bureaucracy.
Q2. Mr. John Hunt
asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 10 May.
The Prime Minister
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
Mr. Hunt
Will my right hon. Friend proclaim from the rooftops today the fact that during the past three months private house building starts have been higher than at any similar period during the Labour Government and that home improvements are currently at their highest since 1974? Is that not a message of great hope and encouragement for the many young people who look increasingly to the Conservative party for a home of their own?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is right. Private house building starts for the first quarter of the year reached a record and home improvements, aided and abetted by grants, were the highest since 1974. The Government believe in owner-occupation, increasing it and making it available to all. It is a policy that we shall continue in the next Parliament.
Mr. David Steel
Although the Prime Minister has criticised the process by which trade unions will pay £3 million to the Labour party without reference to their members, we have not heard her criticise the process by which industry will give £20 million to the Conservative party without reference to its shareholders. Is she aware that, as the public know that he who pays the piper calls the tune, they might decide that the alliance is better value for money?
[column 731]The Prime Minister
I have never seen £20 million or anything like it. I should like to have £3 million handed to us on a plate in a single payment. We have never had that. With regard to the trade union political fund, the right hon. Gentleman knows that the present rule is that people have to pay unless they contract out. Shareholders can sell their shares or make their views known by voting against directors at the annual meeting, without any effect on their future employment.
Q3. Mr. Proctor
asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 10 May.
The Prime Minister
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.
Mr. Proctor
Has my right hon. Friend read the letter from the Opposition to the Kremlin—[Hon. Members: “Reading” .]—asking what its response would be to the United Kingdom doing away with its nuclear weaponry? Does my right hon. Friend——
Mr. Canavan
Speak up.
Mr. Speaker
Order. There is no excuse, even with all the excitement, for not allowing an hon. Member to speak——
Mr. William Hamilton
He should not read.
Mr. Speaker
Order. The sands of time are running out.
Mr. Proctor
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Soviet response would be to accept the Labour party's naivety in this matter and continue with nuclear weapons and, in addition, increase its nuclear capability?
The Prime Minister
I agree with my hon. Friend that the Opposition's defence policy is the most misguided and dangerous ever put before the British people. It puts in doubt our security and the defence of our traditional way of life. I hope that it will be firmly rejected. As regards the letter to Mr. Andropov, I notice that it was Mr. Andropov who was reported as saying:
“Let no one expect unilateral disarmament from us. We are not a naive people.”
Mr. Foot
If the right hon. Lady was so interested in discussing disarmament, why did she cut and run and abandon that debate? If we had had our way it would have been debated in the House today. It was the right hon. Lady and her Government who ran away from it.
The Prime Minister
Never has a party been more reluctant to enter a general election, having asked for it in the House month after month. I am only too delighted to discuss defence. There will be no more important subject for the next four and a half weeks and beyond.
Q4. Mr. Stanbrook
asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 10 May.
The Prime Minister
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
Mr. Stanbrook
Has my right hon. Friend seen that the CBI has called for the abolition of the GLC and the other metropolitan county councils, describing them as inefficient and overspending? Would not a single tier of multi-purpose local government be more efficient and closer to the needs of the people? Will my right hon. Friend therefore give it high priority in her second term of office?
[column 732]The Prime Minister
I am not convinced of the need for a wholesale shift to single tier authorities. I certainly agree with my hon. Friend and the CBI and GLC about some metropolitan counties. The GLC and ILEA are high-spending authorities. They place immense burdens upon the rates. We shall consider what the CBI and my hon. Friend have said about them.
Mr. Clinton Davis
Will the Prime Minister—instead of “Tebbiting” on consistently as she does about everyone else being responsible for unemployment except herself—take time today to tell the 1,040 youngsters in Hackney between the ages of 16 and 24, who are scrambling pathetically after 58 jobs, what they have to thank her for?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there is one way only to create new jobs.
Mr. Graham
Change the Government.
The Prime Minister
It is by producing good products at the right price, on time and with good services. When we can do that sufficiently well we shall have many more jobs. There is a need for greater co-operation between management and work force to ensure that we do not have restrictive practices, but a higher standard of industrial efficiency. One of the causes of unemployment is the fact that the hon. Gentleman and some of his supporters will not accept that.
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop
Has my right hon. Friend time today to read the transcript of a broadcast in English by Radio Prague, in a Communist country, commending the speech in Sweden by the Leader of the Opposition running down this country?
The Prime Minister
I have no knowledge of such a broadcast, but I make the point strongly that Michael Footthe Leader of the Opposition's defence policy would bring rejoicing only in the Kremlin.
Mr. Donald Stewart
Will the Prime Minister include in the items to be proclaimed from the housetops the failure to fulfil the promises to abolish rates, to reduce unemployment, to reduce public expenditure and so on, and, in the Scottish context, the promise made by her right hon. Friend Lord Home that he would produce better legislation for Scotland, coupled with her expression that devolution was not finished? All those promises have been broken during the period of office of the right hon. Lady's Government.
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman will not find in that last manifesto a promise to abolish rates.
Mr. John Evans
The one before.
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman may go to the manifesto, but he will not find it. We fought the last election on the last manifesto. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that, unfortunately, we lost the 1974 election. History might have been different had we won it. With regard to unemployment, the right hon. Gentleman knows the recipe and the strategy for jobs, but he consistently refuses to accept it. With regard to public expenditure, I rather thought that right hon. and hon. Members in the Opposition had been urging me to increase it. It is welcome that the right hon. Gentleman urges me to reduce it. With regard to Scotland, we have the best George YoungerSecretary of State for Scotland ever.