HC Deb 27 November 1980 vol 994 cc565-7
Q1.Mr. Winnick

asked the Prime Minister if she will state her official engagements for 27 November.

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.

Mr. Winnick

In view of the fact that the House was seriously misled—to put it mildly—by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Monday, will the Prime Minister tell her Cabinet colleagues that we expect full and correct information to be given to the House? We are still waiting for a statement and an apology from the Chancellor. Will the right hon. Lady say whether even her Cabinet knew about the employers' insurance surcharge? Does not this show that the Government's economic policy is in total confusion and disarray?

The Prime Minister

I totally reject the charge that my right hon. and learned Friend misled the House. The shape of national insurance contributions was laid down by the Labour Government in the 1975 Act. That Act provided for a review of the percentage contributions and the levels at which they are levied each and every year. In the first year, that review was made and announced to the House by Mrs. Barbara Castle in a written answer on 23 October 1975. In the second year, 1976, it was made and announced to the House in a written answer by the right hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals). In the third year, 1977, it was announced in a written answer by the right hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme). In the fourth year, it was announced in a written answer, also by the right hon. Member for Salford, West. Last year it was announced in a written answer by my right hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Prentice). This year, full details were given in a written answer last Tuesday. This year, the only percentage increases involved were those on employees. Some of the previous written answers have involved percentage increases on employers and employees. In the last few days we have had a show of sheer hypocrisy and humbug from the Opposition.

Mr. Grylls

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, if she is still looking for further cuts in public expenditure, she could stop the continuous spending by the NEB, which is still running at £50 million a year? Is she further aware that small business does not understand why that spending is allowed and why it is not halted?

The Prime Minister

I am always prepared to look for further ways of cutting public spending. I understand that there is a Bill before the House. Technically, the British Leyland expenditure still comes under the National Enterprise Board, and we have not yet decided on the future of its corporate plan.

Mr. Foot

Is the Prime Minister aware of what The Daily Telegraph called the "little matter of £386 million" and what the Daily Mail called "£572 million"? Will the right hon. Lady say whether those precise figures were before the Cabinet when it drew up the package and whether it was able to compare those increases in revenue with the possible cuts or non-cuts? Did she and the Cabinet also agree at the same time that those figures should be left out of the presentation of the package to the House? Will she also tell the House—[Interruption.] We gave the Government an opportunity of making a full statement, but they decided not to do so. Will she also say whether those figures were discussed during the meeting that she had a week before with Sir Terence Beckett of the CBI?

The Prime Minister

A full statement was made in accordance with precedent—[HON. MEMBERS: "No"]—by means of a full written answer on Tuesday, and it gave the full details. The only change to which my right hon. and learned Friend referred was an increase in the percentage contribution applying to employees. That was the only change. Absolute levels of contribution go up—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] I begin to wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition understands the question that he has asked. The Bill was passed when the right hon. Gentleman was Secretary of State for Employment, and written answers were made when he was Secretary of State for Employment and when he was Leader of the House. The absolute contribution—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] I prefer to give a full answer in my own way. The absolute levels of contribution go up every year for three reasons. First, earnings increase and somebody earning £70 last year—[Interruption.].

Mr. Speaker

Order. Unless right hon. and hon. Members listen to replies, we shall not reach Question 2.

The Prime Minister

Absolute contributions increase for three reasons. First, they may go up because earnings have increased. That has been taking place for a long time. Secondly, they go up because the limits increase. The limits increase every year, because they bear a specific relation to the single person's pension. Thirdly, the percentage may increase. Earnings and limits are dealt with every year by means of written answers. Usually, the percentages are also dealt with by means of a written answer. My right hon. and learned Friend dealt with the percentage, and the percentage increase—the only difference—attracted the extra £1 billion. The figures were before the Cabinet.

Mr. Foot

Does the last part of the right hon. Lady's reply confirm that the figures and exact increases were before the Cabinet? Which is the correct figure—the Daily Mail figure of £572 million or The Daily Telegraph figure of £386 million?

The Prime Minister

The figures before the Cabinet were those due to the change in the percentage—the £1 billion—on employees. The other ones have been dealt with in full, as is customary, in a written answer. The right hon. Gentleman asked me about specific figures for employers' contributions. The employer's contribution—the percentage—did not change. The right hon. Gentleman's Government changed the percentage of the employer's contribution, and they sometimes did so by means of a written answer. We have not done that. The increase in the employer's contribution arises either as a result of increases in earnings—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] I am trying to give the figures. If right hon. and hon. Members do not want them, I shall not give them. [Interruption.]

Several Hon. Members rose

—

Mr. Speaker

Order. If hon. Members wish to pursue points of order during Question Time, I must inform them that that is not our custom. I shall take points of order at the end of Question Time.