The Prime Minister
Ladies and Gentlemen you can see from the Ministers we've got with this morning, that we're intend to take a morning on the Welfare State, and in particular Social Security, and the Health Service. Norman Fowler will start by making an opening statement, I'll then ask Ken Clarke as usual if he would like to add somethings to it and then we'll go to questions. Norman.
The Rt Hon Norman Fowler—Secretary of State for Social Services
Well, Prime Minister, there are really two points that we're putting in what we've issued, the first is about our record in the Health and in the Social Security area, and the second point concerns the cost of the plans that Labour have put forward in their manifesto. If we can take the Health Service first, as the figures show we have increased spending on health and the result of this, is that we are now employing more nurses and midwives, more doctors and dentists. Up to now we've given figures as far as England is concerned, but perhaps the figures for Great Britain are even more striking, if you compare September 1978 with September 1982, we're now employing 56,000 more nurses and midwives and seven and a half thousand more doctors and dentists. And equally, the patient figures for Great Britain show that in 1981 we treated 650,000 more in-patients and 2,000,000 more out-patient and emergency cases than in 1978. Labour have made something of hospital closures, if they want to use this as a measure, the fact of the matter is, that twice [sic] and a half times more hospitals were approved for permanent closure in Labour's period of Government 1974–1979, than in the lifetime of the Government. Over the lifetime of the Government, our purpose has been to get the best possible value from the amount of money that the taxpayer is providing and that has meant a whole series of initiatives that we've taken such as the removal of one of the layers of administration and also the new regional review system which Ministers check upon the effectiveness of health delivery throughout the country. But perhaps the fundamental difference between the two Parties is that Labour is pledged to restrict and undermine the independent sector, it is lukewarm about the voluntary sector, and indeed it totally ignores the immense contribution the voluntary organisations make in this area, and in our view both the independent sector and the voluntary sector should be encouraged and we welcome and we want to encourage their contribution in that. The other major distinction between the Parties is that we are not prepared to make easy promises at election time, and it is one of our fundamental criticisms of the Labour Party, that they are making promises to pensioners, to the unemployed, to the disabled, which in their heart of hearts they know they simply cannot fulfil. We have been trying to get from Labour both their costing of their programme and the timetable for that programme itself, because in their manifesto, they have over thirty spending pledges in the Social Security area alone, and obviously a phased programme without any kind of timing put to it is meaningless. So what we have now got is Mr. Rooker the Social Security spokesman of the Labour Party putting a full cost £3½ billion price tag on the annual cost of their Social Security programme. In my view, there is absolutely no way that the programme set out in the manifesto can be carried out at £3½ billion a year. So what we want to know from Mr. Foot, is that if the £3½ billion is the cost of his proposals, which of those proposals does he intend to carry through? And we say that in particular, because only two months ago, Mr. Foot personally in his well publicised twelve point pension plan, gave a pledge on pensions, he suggested raising pensions for existing pensioners to one third of average pensions [sic] for a single [end p1] person and one half for a married couple. But although that was published in March, it doesn't appear to have made the manifesto. We would like to know whether he intends to stand by that pledge or whether it has definitely been dropped. Even if it has been dropped, £3½ billion a year is clearly insufficient to meet Labour's manifesto promises. Either the figures are bogus or the manifesto promises are bogus and we would like to know which.
The Prime Minister
Thank you, Kenneth ClarkeKenneth would you like to add to that?
Kenneth Clarke—Minister for Health DHSS
Only very briefly, Prime Minister, I think Norman has I hope finally answered the silly allegation that keeps being repeated that somehow we've damaged the National Health Service or that we intend to do so. I think we have a perfectly clear record that disproves that and one which contrasts very well with their's. Norman has given the figures for hospital closures, he also points out that when they were in office in 1976 they cut the National Health Service capital programme by a third, and caused serious delay to the new hospital building programme. We've steadily restored that, and at the moment there are 140 new hospitals being designed or constructed, as we've made up for the cuts the Labour Party made. And I think the only real threat, and the real non-imaginary threat that the Health Service faces, is from the irresponsible and reckless economic policies of the Labour Party. Because if they got back into the same difficulties that they did before, no doubt they would make the cuts in the Health Service budget that they've made before. We have a much better record which we can contrast with that.
The Prime Minister
Thank you, questions, yes.
Question
Why is the manifesto so bland——
The Prime Minister
I hadn't noticed it was bland but still.
Question
… as a heartless right-wing Government.
The Prime Minister
I don't think the manifesto is bland, I think it is an excellent manifesto, it sets out our record and it sets out the future, and it is not bland in any way, so I just don't accept the promise on which the question is based.
Question
Under your administration, prescription charges have gone up by over 600 per cent. Can you give us an idea of how much you would expect them to rise if you were to hold office again?
The Prime Minister
No responsible Government, nor any responsible politician, could every give an undertaking that prescription charges would not rise. I am very sorry I did not. I will correct you. I said just exactly then what I have said now and I looked it up recently, let me repeat it, no I don't see why I should, I think everyone else heard it.
The Rt Hon Norman Fowler—Secretary of State for Social Services
Is it also worth adding to that Prime Minister, that on the question of prescription charges, 70 per cent of those people of the public are in fact exempt from prescription charges, so we in fact, prescription charges are being paid by only 30 per cent of the population, it's the exemptions which is one [end p2] of the most important——
Question
Are you saying then that you wouldn't rule out prescription charges going up again——
The Prime Minister
No responsible Government, no responsible Opposition, no responsible politician could rule out the possibility that prescription charges will rise. So I wouldn't dream of ruling it out. It's your subject——
Kenneth Clarke—Minister for Health DHSS
That right, only this last year, we've only increased them in line with costs, and if you fail to do that, you simply starve the Health Service of funds which it otherwise can get. There's no reason at all why those people who pay for the 30 per cent of prescriptions which aren't exempt shouldn't make a modest contribution towards the cost of the service. But if you start, if any irresponsible Government starts giving pledges not to raise prescription charges, they're merely pledging not to raise a potential source of revenue for patient services and we only take them from the those who can afford to make a contribution.
Question
Mrs. Thatcher, can I ask you about your speech last night——
The Prime Minister
Well, can we just carry, are there, can we do the speech, the things on the Welfare State first, on pensions and health first, then if those questions are exhausted we'll go on to other things, although part of the speech last night was on the Welfare State. Yes.
Question
… Generic … The Secretary of State and the Minister of State have been very reluctant to accept the … of the report. Is there a reason why they don't want to move over to generic drugs.
Kenneth Clarke—Minister for Health DHSS
Well, it's the Greenfield Report for a start, and we're consulting upon it and we're also at the same time reviewing the pricing system that we have, which produces a formula base of prices for drugs for the National Health Service, and later this summer we will be producing the results of our review of the PPRS and our studied of the Greenfield Report. Obviously, we are anxious to make the Health Service cost effective and keep down avoidable costs, and we apply that principle to the costs of drugs as we do to anything else. But it's a highly complex issue, with a very complicated formula base for pricing and again we've got to get it right, we've got to get the costs to the Health Service down to the minimum, at the same time, we've got to make sure that the level of investment and research in the British Pharmaceutical industry, is maintained, and we hope to get that balance right when we reach our conclusions later in the year. Most of the comments on Greenfield made very simplistic assumptions about it and purported to put figures on the savings which generic prescribing or generic substitution might produce, none of which appear in the report, and most of which are very difficult to justify.
Question
Are you concerned about the fact that the that 40 per cent of Health Service workers are earning less than the Supplementary Benefit level?— [end p3]
Kenneth Clarke—Minister for Health DHSS
I don't know which supplementary benefit level you're talking, if I recall last year's battles, you'll probably be taking the supplementary benefit level for a married man with two children and so on. We believe we've reached a fair settlement of last year's dispute on pay, and one which is in line with what the economy can afford, and is reasonable and justified when you have a look at the kind of increases which people in equivalent occupations in private industry and elsewhere were getting. What we've now set up or are in the process of setting up, is a review body which will give us independent advice, on the right level of pay for nurses and midwives, some other professional staff, and we think that's a great breakthrough and points the way towards avoiding the repeat of industrial action in the Health Service and we're also going to start discussions with those who represent the main [word missing] of the staff about the way in which we negotiate their pay and I believe we've reached a fair settlement, and I think people realise with over million staff, we've got to deal fairly with our staff, at the same time we've got to keep within what can be afforded and not spend money at the expense of patient care and I believe that's what we're doing.
Question
Prime Minister, will you give any promise about not increasing the National Insurance contribution?
The Prime Minister
Not?
Question
… increasing the National Insurance contribution.
The Prime Minister
No one could give any promise about not increasing the National Insurance contribution, the whole of the pensions and social security, er, National Insurance system is on a pay as you go basis, the money that is paid out in pensions and benefits this year, is the money that goes in, in pensions, in National Insurance contributions this year. And as you increase the outgoing, so you have to increase the incomings.
The Rt Hon Norman Fowler—Secretary of State for Social Services
What you can say is that if anything remotely like the Labour Party's proposals were implemented, National Insurance contributions would absolutely go through the roof, and the imposition as far as ordinary working people in this country are concerned would be very, very considerable indeed.
The Prime Minister
Any other, yes.
Question
(inaudible).
Kenneth Clarke—Minister for Health DHSS
Well, we're very worried about deaths from smoking, we're very glad that the consumption of cigarettes in this country is falling, and we believe that a better public education, a better knowledge will reduce that consumption further. But we also believe that this is a free society and where people are entitled to the best possible information and advice about risks to their health, and then they make their own decision about how they conduct their own life, and we have actually been putting more money into the programmes of education, that the Health Education Council conduct, we've been doing more to improve the information available to the public. We have a voluntary agreement with [end p4] the tobacco industry, about advertising and sponsorship, and the main effect of the agreement which we negotiated is to make the health warnings of advertisements more prominent, bigger and clearer, so that everytime a product is advertised, also the Government's health warning is advertised as well and the purchasers are constantly reminded of the risks.
Question
Prime Minister, the Conservative Party used to be interested in unifying the tax and social security system. You no longer appear to be so why?
The Prime Minister
Do you want to take that?
The Rt Hon Norman Fowler—Secretary of State for Social Services
The tax credit scheme that Adam Raphael is talking about, we are still interested in it and concerned about it and obviously we are attracted to the idea about it, but the straight answer to your question is that, if was introduced on the basis that it was proposed in the early 1970s at a cost of £1.2 billion, it has now gone up to £5 or £6 billion, and we simply believe that in present circumstances, there are other social priorities, and we simply cannot make pledges of that kind of expenditure.
Question
Let me follow that up, can we assume that no win, … . why do you have to assume that basis if you think it is such a desirable report?
The Rt Hon Norman Fowler—Secretary of State for Social Services
Well, because we have always put it forward on a no-loser basis, you're entirely right. You can of course put it forward on a basis that many people, many millions of people will lose. That I think is an option which other Parties have put forward, I don't think that it is a very attractive option for literally millions of people. We will keep it under review, Adam, but we're not, we cannot make that kind of commitment to that kind of spending at this stage.
The Prime Minister
Yes, at the back.
Question
(inaudible).
The Prime Minister
We can't hear you, could you just speak up.
Question
(inaudible).
The Rt Hon Norman Fowler—Secretary of State for Social Services
Yes, … I hope that no one hear that [sic] closer partnership between the State and the private, and the independent sector in health. Well, in a number of ways, I may [sic] basically we, as far as the independent sector is concerned, we believe that everyone in this country has a perfect right to use their own money in their own way and to make choices of that kind. What we would like to see, is the private sector, the independent sector coming closure together in the Health Service. Now that can happen in a number of ways. It can happen for example, with the, it already does happen with the Health Service, contracting for beds in private hospitals, that happens, for example at the King Edward VII Hospital in Midhurst in Sussex, which I visited. It can happen in other ways, where the Health Service and the private sector come together to provide equipment. That has just happened last week with BUPA and its, the new machine that they have for kidney stones, for treating kidney stones, which is going to be sited in St Thomas' Hospital, but is going to [end p5] be used three quarters by the National Health Service. There are other areas as well, where that can be used, where the Health Service can use equipment which is in private hospitals. But could I make just one last point upon that, the, although we talk about the private sector, as though it was all private hospitals, in fact the characteristic of the private sector in this country is not the private hospital, it is the Nursing Home, the small Nursing Home, where again this partnership does take place. 20,000 of the 34,000, 35,000 beds in the private sector are in the small Nursing Homes, they are providing an invaluable source of care, and I don't believe that anyone can seriously argue against those, simply because they are provided within the private sector.
The Prime Minister
Mr. Oakley.
Question
(inaudible)
The Rt Hon Norman Fowler—Secretary of State for Social Services
Robin, on early leavers, em, we are quite determined to make progress in that area, early leavers as you know is the situation where someone leaves a job, transfers from one job to another, and at the moment, undoubtedly, unquestionably loses out on their pension arrangements. What I have said to the pensions industry is that we will be having a very early conference. It was planned before the Election, it will take place now, just after the Election. A number of proposals have been put forward, including a proposal from the National Association of Pension Funds, for a central fund. We'll have to look at that. We will also have to look at the proposal coming from the Occupational Pension Board to revalue our pensions, which are, remain in the, in the place of work in the original, with the original employer. But what I would like to make clear, is that if we cannot make progress, we would prefer to make progress by voluntary agreement, if we cannot make progress by voluntary agreement, we've already made it clear that legislation would be taken and legislative powers would be taken to protect the interests of the early leaver, so I can make that pledge absolutely unequivocal.
The Prime Minister
Yes.
Question
The Prime Minister said at the weekend that it would take some time to … (something about inflation).
The Prime Minister
Well, you've got to sustain it for quite a considerable period, after all Germany's been a low inflation country for a very, very long time and therefore all the thinking has got to penetrate and all the planning has got to take place on the basis. We shall continue to be a low inflation economy, we want it down well below 4 per cent. I believe that if we get in, we can sustain a low inflation economy and we can improve upon the present figures. Yes.
Question
… whether in your opinion the present Nationality and Immigration Act in Britain goes as far as are necessary, and if not, what changes would you expect your Party …
The Prime Minister
They, they, I believe they are right, we got them through Parliament, as you know, whenever you put up any of these proposals you have a problem in getting them through Parliament and at the moment we have no proposals [end p6] to change them. Yes.
Question
Prime Minister, you said in … a very easy and a very friendly … you said in an interview recently that in your opinion, …
The Prime Minister
Are we on the Welfare State?
Question
No——
The Prime Minister
Look, we're still on the Welfare State, well, just not quite, but, can I finish the questions on the Welfare State and then we go up to … Mr. Bevins.
Question
Could I ask whether you have any proposals, any further proposals, any new proposals for further privatisation of health and pensions …?
The Rt Hon Norman Fowler—Secretary of State for Social Services
The proposals that we have, first of all the old hoary accusation about privatising the Health Service in the sense of seeking to find a new way of financing it, but compulsory private health insurance, that we have ruled out, specifically ruled out and we have said on the Health Service, quite specifically that we intend to continue to finance it, to continue to be committed to it, we'll continue to finance it in basically the same way that it is done at the moment. We have got a number of proposals, I can't go through them all, but I mean for example, one of the proposals is the contribution which can be made by contracting out inside the Health Service, we have put that forward, as far as catering is concerned, as far as cleaning services is concerned, and services of that kind. What we want there is the equality of tendering between the outside contractor and the inside in-house operation, but what will determine the outcome there, is who provides the best value for money, where the best service comes from.
The Prime Minister
Any more Health questions, or insurance questions and then there's a rather large demand that we move to other things.
Question
A Health question, taking a parallel … would you also move for a proper commercial pricing of private facilities … in National Health Service hospitals? … . there is a lot of use made by doctors from part-time health doctors … are private patients in National Health facilities and not paying a charge for those facilities.
Kenneth Clarke—Minister for Health DHSS
Well, the whole point is that we do make sure that if any use is made of National Health Service facilities a proper charge is made and we recently, well, we recently chased up recalcitrant authorities that we thought were not doing so to make sure that they do, because again, the private practice that make use of some Health Service facilities is a valuable source of revenue for the Health Service. We raise something over £55 million a year that way, which would be threatened, if you somehow drove the private practice out of the Health Service. We think it's an example of perfectly reasonable partnership being taken closer, as the Secretary of State said, by this arrangement with BUPA and St. Thomas' whereby a lithotripter has been put in the hospital, and there's a knock for knock agreement between the two sides of the agreement, [end p7] whereby the Health Services save the capital cost and BUPA gets access to some of the Health Service facilities, but proper payment is made where payment is appropriate, and really as Norman Fowler has just been saying, we are getting tired of repeated ingenious ways of trying to suggest that our policy of partnership is a threat to the future of the National Health Service. When, as the Prime Minister has said last summer that the Health Service is safe with us, ever since we have gone very literally as Tories blue in the face, trying to find different ways of saying that, and each morning we get a fresh allegation that somehow we're secretly going undermine the basis on which the Health Service is financed. We financed it very well so far, we continue to regard its future as secure, and we believe both the threats of our opponents, are threats to its financing, coming from them and not from us.
The Prime Minister
Now I think we'll have to open up, Mr. Mathias had the first question.
Question
May I refer to your speech last night? Mr. Mortimer of the Labour Party has said that you have misrepresented the Labour Party manifesto, that they have no proposal … amongst other things …
The Prime Minister
Well, the Labour Party manifesto, as you know, refers to four other documents. Those also should be read along with the manifesto, although the manifesto is bad enough. Finance for Industry, takes you straight to another document called The Financial Institutions, which is only briefly referred to in the manifesto under which there'd be established a National Investment Bank. Mr. Fowler has with him the document, The Financial Institutions and also made a speech earlier about exactly what it says. Will you carry on?
The Rt Hon Norman Fowler—Secretary of State for Social Services
Well, the, under the National Investment Bank, you have to, as the Prime Minister has just said, read the manifesto with The Financial Institutions, and it's all set out, you only have to read the book, it says the bank provides a channel through which North Sea oil revenues and long term savings, collected by the pensions and life assurance industry, can be used for industrial investment. The NIB would be funded by borrowing from the long-term saving institutions, pension funds and life assurance companies, and so it's all set out in black and white in The Financial Institutions. And in case their policy should in some way not succeed, they have also put forward the proposal that they are going to take legislative powers to ensure that the controlling body of pension funds has 50 per cent trade union representation on them as well, and that is also in The Financial Institutions. So I think that Mr. Mortimer has to be asked, what precisely does The Financial Institutions mean, if it doesn't mean what it is quite obviously and evidently set out on the face of the document.
Question
They talk about funds being channelled by agreement.
The Rt Hon Norman Fowler—Secretary of State for Social Services
Well, I think that you only had, that is the fall back position as far as they are concerned is to get the 50 per cent representation on the pension, on the controlling bodies of the pension funds, and that is obviously what they, obviously how they intend to control that part of investment. [end p8]
The Prime Minister
I do stress that the four documents also referred to, in this manifesto and people should get all of those and read them as well, because the combination is quite devastating. Next, yes, I'm sorry I stopped you earlier.
Question
Prime Minister, you said in an interview recently that in your view the Centre of British politics, the middle ground of British politics is too far to the Left. What exactly did you mean by that? Would you explain what you mean by the Centre being too far to the Left?
The Prime Minister
The Centre had gone very, very far to the Left because of years and years of the Labour Party moving further and further to the Left. In this country, I think we have a greater proportion of industries, we had a greater proportion of industries in the public sector, a greater proportion of housing in the public sector than almost any other country, we are at last starting to pull some of those things back towards the Centre.
Question
Who is the Centre? Mr. Heath for instance? Who is the Centre?
The Prime Minister
Well, the Centre I should have thought was obvious, from my question. The Centre is the middle point between two points and because there had been proved further and further to the Left, we have to get the Centre back to something which was very, very much more reasonable.
Question
Could I possibly——
The Prime Minister
Yes at the back, Mr. Jenkins.
Question
Does the Prime Minister share our curiosity … . exactly where the Labour Party stands … on Polaris?
The Prime Minister
The Labour Party stands on Polaris just exactly where I think its manifesto says it stands, and the manifesto really is very clear and I notice that they are trying to go away from it, as fast as they possibly can. It says very clearly:
‘Labour's commitment, I'm on page 36, ‘is to establish a non-nuclear defence policy for this country. That means the rejection of any fresh nuclear bases or weapons on British soil, on British ships, and the removal of all existing nuclear bases and weapons. I would not accuse them of lack of clarity. In the manifesto. They may well be trying to retreat from it now, but this is what they have put in their manifesto, if they were get in, this is what the Left would claim they had a mandate to do. And it is set out there clearly. Labour's commitment is to establish a non-nuclear defence policy for this country. That means the removal of all existing nuclear bases and weapons. It also goes on, as you know, to say they would reduce the proportion of national income devoted to defence, which means of course, that the amount of resources to conventional would also be sharply reduced, because at the moment we do over [end p9] 5 per cent of GNP towards defence. They propose to go, to bring it down to the average of the other major NATO European countries, which is 3½ per cent. The difference is about £4½ billion. So I would not accuse them of lack of clarity in the manifesto on that matter. Yes at the back.
Question
(Inaudible).
The Prime Minister
Reasonable for The Times and excellent for The Times. Addressing themselves to the root causes of unemployment for the first time, and producing policies which have the greatest chance of increasing the properity and standard of living of our country and of producing the best prospect of jobs in the future, for our young people. Do you want me to go on?
Question
The National Institute doesn't seem to be quite …
The Prime Minister
I think if you look at the opening sentences of the National Institute, they have actually had to revise what their forecasts were and revise them upwards. Please look at the opening two paragraphs, it's in my briefcase somewhere, if someone can find it, which they've revised them upwards. If you look at the Times today, there is a most interesting collection of all the forecasts, to date. They are very, very different, partly according to who makes them, partly according to the methods they use, but you'll see wide differences, and I think the Times have done us a great service in setting out all of the summary of all of the forecasts. Look at the opening. Has anyone got my briefcase? The opening, just to show that I do do my homework, look its here now. (just admiring) Just admiring what? (… early in the morning) Very, very early in the morning, except that having said that, I'm not quite sure I've got it here. Has anyone got the National Institute? Right I can only refer you to … I've got the Times … I can only refer you to the first two paragraphs in that document. Yes.
Question
Prime Minister, I wonder if you'd shared my concern … that the Government of this country is spending less than its competitors, substantially less on education, training and research …
The Prime Minister
Well, we are in fact on education per pupil spending a record amount, per pupil, and we have a record proportion of teachers compared with pupils. So as far as the amount spent per pupil and the provision of teachers is concerned we are at an all time record for both. On research, we do certainly do put a good deal into defence research, but as you know, for years I think we've had one of the best research arrangements in this country, through the Research Councils, which are run through the Ministry of Education and in connection with Universities. There's always a demand to spend more on research.
Question
And can you be satisfied Prime Minister that you're [end p10] doing enough, because we're so far behind our competitors as the reports say in spending on research and development.
The Prime Minister
Yes, but you see, it is not that this country has been lax in research in any way, particularly the amount we have spent on fundamental research. We after all got first, the first jet engines, we led on nuclear, we got the first, the fundamental research on the new cloning done at the Molecular Biology in Cambridge, we've never been short on having firsts in research, particularly firsts in fundamental research. What has happened is that we have not been very good at translating that research and technology into industrial success, and that I believe, is where we should really concentrate, and that's why, now we've got this new scheme of collaboration between industry, Government and Universities on the next generation of electronics. The tragedy I think of the last thirty or forty years is that we've had the invention, we've done the breakthrough on research, but other people not having done that, have taken it up and have somehow have got their prosperous industries from it much more quickly than we have. I suppose one of the classics was that we used to lead in nuclear and we really had, we kept that lead. I think we would have had cheaper electricity than we have now. France, I think, has got the lead on nuclear, because she took one particular design and said now we're going to build forty-four of those stations, and as you know her electricity is cheaper than ours. So it's not I think from shortage of achievement in research, but it is in this country, some of our best brains, having done the research, don't go on to the enterprise to translate that into profitable industry, and that really is why I would very much like to concentrate our effort, because our University research is superb. Next, yes.
Question
Prime Minister, going back to pensions, you promised at the last election to abolish the earnings rule for pensions. How soon under the next Conservative Government will that pledge be made?
The Prime Minister
Do you want me to deal with that?
The Rt Hon Norman Fowler—Secretary of State for Social Services
Well, Prime Minister, Robin Oakley is quite right, we did promise that at the last election we would have liked to have done it over the last four years. We haven't done it yet, but we will do it as soon, as soon as we can. As far as I am aware, the Labour Party are in no way committed to doing it at all, indeed, I think Jeff Rooker had made it quite clear on the radio interview that I referred to, that was no way a priority. It is a priority of ours, but I can't give you a specific date.
The Prime Minister
I, can I just go back to a previous question? I have actually taken this out, the National Institute, out of my briefcase, actually believing there might be a question on it. Revisions of the National Accounts have altered our picture of last year, original estimates show the brief upturn in the second half of 1981, followed by stagnation. Current estimates show a continuous, though very gradual upward tendency in output since the middle of 1981. This seems to have strengthened in the first quarter of this year. I'm sorry, I was a little bit more prepared than I had thought. Right, we're seven minutes past ten, Mr. Dimbleby. [end p11]
Question
Do you want to read out the passage about output in 1984 and unemployment figures in——
The Prime Minister
I'm quite happy to do so, but please note the point is that they've had to revise their wrong forecasts. I wouldn't necessarily now, make it clear, believe any particular forecasts, there is such a wide range of them, all set out in the Times today. What the forecasters are saying, and they give you what the Treasury is saying, the National Institute, the London Business School, the Cambridge Econometrics, the Henley Centre, Philips and Drew, Simon and Coates, James Capel, City University, Liverpool Research Group, CBI and OECD. I think that that should be enough to keep you going and a big enough choice to choose from.
Question
… Labour say that …
The Prime Minister
I'm so sorry, what was the question?
Question
Going back to the political spectrum, Labour says that if you are re-elected, you will be the West's most Right-wing Government. Do you accept that, and if not who will beat you?
The Prime Minister
We are elected, we shall be elected on our manifesto. I may point out, as I pointed out earlier, there, we still have more things in the public sector, including housing, than most other countries in Europe. I'm sorry that's a question directly related to the amount of influence of the public sector on policies. You are still down there Mr. Roth, you are not yet up here. Now, you're almost as are [sic] following Parliamentary practice by interruptions from a sedentary position. It is now eight minutes past ten, we shall meet again tomorrow and have a new group of Ministers for you. Thank you.