§ 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, including one with the Speaker of the Swedish Parliament.
§ Mr. StrawIs the Prime Minister aware that never before in this century have a Government in one Session of Parliament doubled the rate of inflation, forced 700,000 people on to the dole, wiped out the results of 13 years of industrial investment and brought such misery and disaster to this country? What is the Prime Minister's target date for restoring the rate of interest, inflation, unemployment and output to the levels at which she found them in 1979?
§ The Prime MinisterMay I add that in one Session of Parliament the inflation rate is falling fast, the balance of payments is well and truly in the black and there are now totally different attitudes to pay settlements, without the imposition of an official incomes policy.
§ Mr. Robert AtkinsWill my right hon. Friend find time today to send a letter to the Leader of the Opposition congratulating 614 him on being the first Leader of the Opposition since Hugh Gaitskell to be educated at a public school and expressing the hope that he, like his father, will encourage the Labour Party to provide the freedom of choice that his father provided for those who wish to attend independent schools?
§ The Prime MinisterMay I also add that I am a little sorry that the right hon. Gentleman had an accident. It was very unfortunate.
§ Mr. FootMay I thank the right hon. Lady for her kind words, but I return to more important questions. Since she seems so satisfied with the Government's economic performance, will she explain why that opinion is not shared by, say, the spokesman of the CBI? Has she had a chance to consider the matter raised by Sir Terence Beckett on the day before he visited Downing Street—a matter that is exclusively within her own authority—and will she now take the hint and introduce into her Cabinet someone with some industrial knowledge and experience?
§ The Prime MinisterI note that the Labour Party did not choose a leader renowned for his industrial experience. I spent some time yesterday seeing both Sir Ray Pennock and Sir Terence Beckett. After that, they described the meeting as magnificent.
§ Mr. FootMay I say to the right hon. Lady that I was not suggesting that I should join her Cabinet. I propose to form one of my own. As industrial production and manufacturing output have now fallen to the level at which they were in the days of the three-day week, when the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) presided over our affairs, has she considered inviting him to come to the rescue?
§ The Prime MinisterThe right hon. Gentleman need have no fear that he would be invited, so the question does not really arise.
Industrial production is down in this country and in a number of other countries as well, including West Germany, where it has fallen by 5 per cent. in the past year, and West Germany has not suffered, as we have, from excessive pay settlements over the previous two years.
§ Mr. LathamWill my right hon. Friend confirm that the last three Labour Prime Ministers have all sustained and supported Britain's independent nuclear deterrent, which was founded by Lord Attlee?
§ The Prime MinisterYes, I recall that, and I trust that that tradition will be maintained, in Britain's best interests.
Mr. J. Enoch PowellWill the right hon. Lady, if she gets any leisure today, reflect on the importance of distinguishing sharply between pay settlements in the private sector taking account of a prospective fall in the future rate of inflation, which we hope will continue, and, on the other hand, the inadvisability of attempting to force arbitrary reductions upon the real remuneration of public servants by ignoring the inflation which has already taken place, though it is largely not the fault of her Government?
§ The Prime MinisterWith due respect, central and local government are currently spending some 50 per cent. more on wages and salaries than they were two years ago, and in the last two years increases in the public sector have been substantially greater than inflation.
Increases in the private sector take account of many things as well as the rate of inflation, but in particular they take into account the capacity of the private sector employer to pay those wage increases, and it is reasonable that we should also take into account the capacity of the private sector to sustain the public sector.
§ Q2. Mr. Maxtonasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 13 November.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave a few moments ago.
§ Mr. MaxtonAs the right hon. Lady is in the mood to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, would she like to take the opportunity to congratulate him on the result of the opinion poll in today's New Standard, which shows that, after only four days as Leader of the Opposition, he is already more popular than she is? Is not this a remarkable reflection on her Government's economic policy?
§ The Prime MinisterGladly will I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman and say that it is not what happens after four days that counts.
§ Mrs. KnightWill my right hon. Friend take heart today that, in spite of attacks from some quarters, there is much grateful appreciation that her firmness and courage are paying off against inflation and bringing back realism to Britain, as evidenced by the pay settlements reported today of the miners and British Leyland?
§ The Prime MinisterI am grateful to my hon. Friend. I believe that I am quite capable of taking the attacks. If we are to do the things that will get Britain right, some of them will be painful, and there is no way round that.
§ Mr. WoodallWill the Prime Minister accept that Labour Members appreciate her sympathy extended to my right hon. Friend because he has his foot and ankle in pot? Will she, in return, accept our sympathy because her Government appear to be going to pot—[Interruption.]
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I think that the hon. Gentleman has a question to ask.
§ Mr. WoodallWill the Prime Minister confirm or deny that the Secretary of State for Defence intends to resign?
§ The Prime MinisterI have to disappoint the hon. Gentleman. My Government are in good heart and strength.
§ Q4. Mr. Butcherasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 13 November.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. ButcherWould my right hon. Friend care to comment on the disturbing conclusions of the recent inspectors' report on the Inner London Education Authority? Does she agree that unambitious teaching can sometimes negate the desired effect of increased resources in education?
§ The Prime MinisterI have read the report, which was widely published in the press. I agree with what my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science said 617 yesterday—that the quality of teaching is not to be judged by the amount of money spent upon it, nor specifically by the number of teachers.
To do justice to a number of the teachers in the Inner London Education Authority, the report was complimentary about the standards in nursery schools and primary schools, in a number of the older comprehensive schools and also in those which had been founded on grammar schools. It was very critical of some of the others and said that they were just not getting the best out of the children. It is our duty to see that children give of their best and are encouraged and stimulated to do so in the State education system.
§ Mr. David SteelWill the Prime Minister exlain how free collective bargaining, which she promised people at the last election, as against incomes policy, is now to operate in the public sector?
§ The Prime MinisterPerhaps I can best illustrate it by an example. [HON. MEMBERS:"The firemen."] Hon. Members obviously wish me to illustrate it by reference to the firemen. Very well. Last year, the cash limits in local authorities were 13 per cent. The settlement for firemen was 20 per cent. The average earnings for firemen were up by 24 per cent.
§ Mr. Kenneth LewisIs my right hon. Friend aware that the British people, and industry and business in this country, will put up with the hair shirt or the hair blouse for quite a period of time, provided that they can be assured that in due course there will be sewn into this hair shirt some silken lining? Will she try, in the next Session of Parliament, to get her Government to concentrate on some of the good things that are coming?
§ The Prime MinisterOne really must congratulate a considerable number of industrial companies on the fact that our exports are staying up magnificently and that this country still exports some 30 per cent. of its national income, which is more than in the United States, Germany or Japan. Our problem at the moment is that North Sea oil is not a passport to an easy life. Indeed, it is not that every cloud has a silver lining but that every silver lining has a cloud.
§ Mr. FootMay I refer the right hon. Lady back to the extremely serious statement that she made a minute or two ago about firemen's pay? Many of us hoped that she and her Government, having considered the matter afresh—as I trust they did at the Cabinet this morning—would come to the House and try to rescue the arbitration system in this country instead of inflicting such grave injury upon it. Is she aware that, at the time of the last election, Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg, who is a member of her Government, and who also happens to be my Member of Parliament—[Interruption.] Is she aware—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the name of the hon. Member instead of the constituency.
§ Mr. FootIs the right hon. Lady aware that the Conservative candidate for Hampstead said on behalf of her party at the last election that it was utterly false to suggest that any Conservative Government would try to go back on the agreement that was made with the firemen? Is it not the fact that the right hon. Lady's Government are engaged in a breach of faith and that this is bound to have the most serious effect on industrial relations not merely with the firemen but with a range of other individual settlements?
§ The Prime MinisterThe answer to the right hon. Gentleman is "No". This is not an arbitration. This is a negotiation in the National Joint Council. The Government are not a party to the negotiation. The local authorities do the negotiating. That is precisely why I gave the right hon. Gentleman the figures for last year. Last year, within a 13 per cent. cash limit there was a 20 per cent. settlement for the firemen. They finished up with an increase in average earnings of 24 per cent. This year, all that we have done is to fix a 6 per cent. increase in the pay bill as the Government's contribution to the rate support grant.
§ Mr. FootIs the right hon. Lady aware that the comment that her Government are engaged in a breach of faith with the firemen comes not only from the Opposition? It is a view that has been expressed by most commentators—for example, in the leading article in yesterday's edition of the Financial Times. 619 May I ask the Government once again seriously to consider all the industrial consequences of what is happening in the firemen's dispute? May I ask the Prime Minister afresh to consider the matter and when the House resumes to have a debate on the subject and, secondly, a debate on the 6 per cent. policy? I suppose that they are saying that they are not responsible for that one either. At any rate, when we discover what the Government are prepared to defend, let them come to the House and defend it and not try to sneak it in through the back door.
§ The Prime MinisterFacts never did bother the right hon. Gentleman. First, he gets them wrong. This is not an arbitration. Secondly, he gets the negotiation wrong. The Government are not a party. It is done in the National Joint Council. Thirdly, it is not a 6 per cent. pay limit on particular pay. It is a 6 per cent. cash limit for the total of the local authority pay bill in so far as the Government contribute to it through the rate support grant. Will the right hon. Gentleman get his facts right before he comes into the Chamber?
§ Mr. Peter BottomleyMay I raise a genuine point of order, Mr. Speaker? We have 15 minutes twice a week for Prime Minister's Question Time. One understands the enthusiasm of Leaders of the Opposition to ask four questions. Will it be possible to encourage the Leader of the Opposition to start his four questions towards the end of the quarter of an hour rather than taking up most of the time that is available?
§ Mr. SpeakerAs the House knows, I do not decide—I have no wish to decide—when the Leader of the Opposition rises in his place.
I have a brief statement to make—
§ Mr. Fauldsrose—
§ Mr. Harry EwingOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I put it to you that there is a very strong possibility that the Prime Minister, albeit perhaps inadvertently, has seriously misled the House? Will you guide the House, Mr. Speaker, on the events of last Friday in the National Joint Council, to which the Prime Minister has referred—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The contents of 620 the Prime Minister's reply cannot be a point of order for me. The right hon. Lady takes responsibility for what she says.
§ Mr. Fauldsrose—
§ Mr. Ioan EvansOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We are going into recess prior to the new Session. On Monday I raised with the Prime Minister the issue of the 6 per cent. limit. There appears to be a great deal of confusion. This was put in a written answer last week—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The hon. Gentleman cannot pursue that on a point of order.
§ Mr. FauldsI am fortunate, Mr. Speaker, to have caught your eye. Further to an earlier point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I ask you for a little guidance about the length of Prime Minister's Question Time? We now have Members on the Conservative Benches who are to a slight degree less part-time than they used to be. As a result, there is somewhat greater pressure on Question Time. Many of us who have been in the House—I speak personally now, and I have been here for 15 or 16 years—[HON. MEMBERS:"Too long".] No. not long enough. I have every intention of being here for another 15 or 16 years.
§ Mr. Robert AtkinsWhat about reselection?
§ Mr. FauldsReselection will merely ensconce my position. I have my general management committee's authority to say so—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. After that long preamble, I am pleased to know that the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) hopes to stay here for another 15 years. I think that the majority also wish to stay in this place for another 15 years. If he has one, will he come to his point of order?
§ Mr. FauldsI am very willing to do so, Mr. Speaker, as I have one. I think—which is more than most of my colleagues occasionally do—that there is general agreement on both sides of the House that there is increasing pressure from Members on both sides of the Chamber to get in on Prime Minister's Question Time. I shall not be so unkind, Mr. Speaker, as to tell you how 621 many times you managed to avoid catching my eye, or vice versa. I am not yet disheartened, but I am rapidly approaching that position.
Is there not a serious case for considering the question of the length of Prime Minister's Question Time, which takes place twice a week? There are many of us who have valid points to make and who rarely manage to get in. Could this matter be considered by whatever are the appropriate channels.
§ Mr. SpeakerI am sure that the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's point of order will be considered by those who are responsible. Like the hon. Gentleman, I do not know how many times I have failed to call him. However, I know that I have called him on six occasions for Prime Minister's questions.