HC Deb 25 November 1980 vol 994 cc316-8
Q1. Mr. Nicholas Baker

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 25 November.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher)

In addition to my duties in this House I shall be having meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, including one with the President of the Cyprus House of Representatives. This evening I shall be presiding at a dinner for the Prime Minister of Luxembourg.

Mr. Baker

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, despite the welcome announcement yesterday by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer of a reduction in next year's rate support grant, there is great concern that that will lead to unjustified rate increases? Will my right hon. Friend remind county and district councillors of their duty to cut staff before services and to examine rigorously the functions which those authorities perform?

The Prime Minister

It is vital that local authorities reduce the costs of their operations by the 3 per cent. economy announced by my right hon. and learned friend yesterday. After all, many companies in the private sector are having to economise to a far greater extent than 3 per cent. They cannot afford to have increased rates put upon them and they would bitterly resent it if they were. Local authorities are now reducing their staffs. The reports for the last quarter showed the biggest decrease that we have ever had. They must continue to look at the efficiency of their operations and to see whether a considerable number of them can be performed more efficiently by the private sector.

Mr. Foot

Is it not a fact that the measures announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday on behalf of the Government can only add to the terrible and shameful figures of unemployment announced today? What were the calculations on increased unemployment as a whole contemplated by the Government when they accepted these measures at a Cabinet meeting last week?

The Prime Minister

The measures were necessary to try to liberate resources for the private sector. In view of the vastly increased borrowing, which was mounting up, it was not possible to contemplate reducing the interest rate unless we made it clear that we were determined to reduce the borrowing for the next financial year. We hope that the reduction in interest rates will give new confidence to private industry, and to farming, arid will enable them steadily to expand and plan to increase stocks and investment.

Mr. Foot

Will the right hon. Lady now answer the question? What was the figure for increased unemployment involved in these measures as a whole which the Cabinet had before it? Was it not in the range of about 100,000? Is not that a proper reckoning of the extra unemployment which the Government intend to force on these already appalling totals? Is it not the case that every time the Cabinet meets in Downing Street it adds to the unemployment totals?

The Prime Minister

Unemployment has been occurring far more in the private sector than in the public sector. It was therefore vital to try to get interest rates down in order to give confidence to the private sector, because that is where the new businesses will start and where new jobs will occur.

Mr. Foot

Since the right hon. Lady will not answer our questions on unemployment properly, will she ensure that every month when the unemployment figures are announced it is done by the Secretary of State for Employment in the House, so that we shall be able to get answers to our questions?

The Prime Minister

No. They will continue to be announced as they have been announced for a long time and as they were announced when the right hon. Gentleman was Secretary of State for Employment. He knows the distress of increased unemployment. After all, during the period when he was Secretary of State, unemployment rise by 100 per cent.

Mr. Foot

Does the Prime Minister appreciate that we shall go on fighting for proper statements on these matters so that the House can deal with unemployment? We shall demand a debate on the the subject every month. Does she understand that the difference between her Government and the Labour Government is that we fought to bring the figures down and she means to put the figures up?

The Prime Minister

The right hon. Gentlemen will demand whatever debates he chooses and will use his own days for whatever debates he chooses. Perhaps I was unduly kind to him, because unemployment during his period as Secretary of State for Employment rose by more than 100 per cent.

Sir Paul Bryan

My right hon. Friend will have heard after the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement yesterday the recommendation of the previous Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), that the MLR should go down by 4 per cent. and the public sector borrowing requirement should go up to £18 billion. Will she comment on the effect of those joint measures on future unemployment?

The Prime Minister

I thought that that recommendation was one of the rashest statements that the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) has ever made. It lost him and his party all credibility.

Mr. David Steel

Will the Prime Minister tell us what the Secretary of State for Industry meant when he said in his weekend speech that the Government had lost the first year? Have we any guarantee that the Government will not lose the second year as well? Now that output is below the level achieved during the three-day week, has she not succeeded in putting the country on a two-and-a-half-day week?

The Prime Minister

The statement by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday made clear that we are determined to take firm action to continue to bring the rate of inflation down and therefore to provide the only sound basis for expansion. With regard to the reduction in the level of output in manufacturing industry, it was also going down over a large period of the previous Government's term of office. It is not unknown for the level of employment in the service industries to increase while that in manufacturing goes down, often because of better technology and reduced overmanning.