§ Ql. Mr. Meacherasked the Prime Minister, if she will list her official engagements for 12 February.
§ 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 this House, I shall be having further meetings later today, including one with the Prime Minister of Mauritius. This evening I shall preside at a dinner given in his honour.
§ Mr. MeacherWhy does the Prime Minister continue to refuse to reflate on the ground that it always leads to worse inflation, when in fact all previous reflations—with the exception of the disastrous Barber reflation—have not led to a surge of inflation or to higher unemployment? Does not the right hon. Lady see that what the country desperately needs now is not an ever greater squeeze on credit leading to ever-increasing unemployment, but an expansion of credit provided that such expansion is channelled into public as well as private investment, that would cut unemployment without being inflationary.
§ The Prime MinisterIf we were to reflate on top of the present level of inflation it would lead to hyperinflation and unemployment. There is no doubt about that.
§ Mr. David SteelWill the Prime Minister reconsider the cost of unemployment that she gave in her speech last Thursday? This morning, an article in The Times "Business News" suggested that the total direct and indirect cost to the Government of unemployment-based on Treasury figures—was £5,000 per worker.
§ The Prime MinisterWith respect to the right hon. Gentleman the two things are wholly different. I gave the cost of unemployment benefit coupled with social security benefit. Those figures are accurate. The right hon. Gentleman has given figures that show how the Exchequer would benefit if everyone were in work. If everyone were in work, producing goods and services that some one else could buy without subsidy, there would be no problem.
§ Mr. Michael HamiltonAs the Leader of the Opposition was good enough to send a message of good will and congratulations last week to the Salisbury branch of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, will the Prime Minister find time today to send a similar message of good will and congratulations to the Duke of Edinburgh, on his outstanding speech on Monday?
§ The Prime MinisterI am sure that in elevated situations people share the Government's thoughts that, although we wish nuclear weapons had never been invented, the potential aggressor has a large stock, and a particularly great supply of SS20s. Any Government who wish to defend their people must ensure that there are sufficient nuclear weapons to deter an aggressor.
§ Mr. FootMight it not be the case that the late Lord Louis Mountbatten knew even more about war and nuclear weapons than the Duke of Edinburgh? Might I put another question to the right hon. Lady? Since the Leader of the House stated in a notable speech that the Government are in the right frame of mind to recognise reality and to acknowledge mistakes, will the right hon. Lady reconsider the serious reply that she gave me on Tuesday about the coal industry? Does she not accept that she appeared to wash her hands of the whole issue? Will she not look afresh at the matter, recognise the seriousness of the situation, and promise that the Government will intervene?
§ The Prime MinisterWith regard to the three matters that the right hon. Gentleman has raised, the late Lord Louis Mountbatten was never a unilateralist, nor would he ever have been. He had too much regard for the liberties of this country to lay down any weapons unilaterally. With regard to the speech by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, I wholly agree that there is excellent stuff in it. For example
An attack on inflation is an attack on unemployment, and the most enduring safeguard against unemployment would be the elimination of inflation.
§ The Prime MinisterI could go on—it is such a marvellous speech. The right hon. Gentleman invites me to go on. I am ready to accept that invitation.
We must not abandon the long-term strategic approach in which we believe,and so on.With regard to the third part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, I gave him the figures—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman asked three questions, and I intend to answer three questions. It is the Government's duty to negotiate with the chairman of the National Coal Board the amount of money for the year. This year it is £834 million. Next year it will be £882 million. Those considerable sums are paid on top of the prices paid for coal and they are sums which give coal an excellent future.
§ Mr. FootIs the right hon. Lady seriously saying that in this critical situation she will refuse to call the tripartite meetings which we had on the coal industry and which saved the coal industry following the experiences of 1974? When we came in then, we had to call those tripartite discussions to deal with the matter. That is what the right hon. Lady will have to do on this occasion. Will she not decide to do it now instead of being forced to do it later?
§ The Prime MinisterNo, Sir, and I am not forced to do many things.
§ Mr. MellorDoes my right hon. Friend agree that the adoption by the Labour Party of unilateral disarmament, the increasing number of Labour Back Benchers who seem to be apologists for Soviet imperialism and the increasing 980 number of Trotskyists being adopted to fight GLC and parliamentary seats under the Labour Party banner pose one of the greatest threats to democracy in Britain today?
§ The Prime MinisterI wholly agree with my hon. Friend. I am sorry that the Labour Party will not be ready to defend the benefits which it enjoys under democracy.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer the hon. Gentlemen to the reply which I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. AltonHas the right hon. Lady had time to read The Times report this morning that the Government intend to drop their new sickness benefit scheme? Is that the case? Does she realise that if it is, the news will be received with great joy by many small businesses?
§ The Prime MinisterThe answer is "No". It will not appear in a Bill which is due to appear immediately. New proposals have arisen which match more closely the sums which will be paid out under the scheme with the amounts which would be returned under the scheme and we are considering those further before putting them into legislative form.
§ Mr. TapsellDoes anyone think that Poland would today be facing a serious threat of invasion by Russian forces if it possessed its own independent nuclear deterrent?
§ The Prime MinisterI think that the answer must be "No". I must make it quite clear that, while the policy of unilateralism may be espoused on the Opposition side of the House, it is totally and utterly rejected on this side.
§ Mr. WigleyWill the Prime Minister find time today to read again the report of the Silver Jubilee Committee on Access for Disabled People, particularly the main recommendation that there should be legislation to strengthen the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970? Will she undertake that the Government will facilitate such legislation?
§ The Prime MinisterI cannot undertake to facilitate any extra legislation at the moment. I can only say that I am anxious that local authorities should provide access for the disabled, and I congratulate my own local authority on its record in this respect.
§ Sir William ClarkWill my right hon. Friend find time today to look again at the Scott report? Does she agree that there is a glaring unfairness between public and private pensions, because, despite what the Scott report says, private pension schemes cannot possibly afford to fund inflation-proofed pensions?
§ The Prime MinisterI wholly agree with my hon. Friend that private pension schemes could not possibly afford inflation-proofed pensions on the scale on which they are provided for the public service. I hope that we shall have time to discuss the Scott report thoroughly. It suggested at one point that the Government could provide a cut-off point for index linking, but no one has thought to pursue that for the time being until matters are further discussed in this House.
§ Q4. Mr. Gordon Wilsonasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 12 February.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply which I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. WilsonWill the Prime Minister take time today to study closely the havoc which the closure of the Linwood car factory will cause to the economy of Scotland? Does she recall that when she was elected it was pointed out that her Government represented the South and the South only? Will she therefore look at what has happened in the car industry, which has been supported by the Government through British Leyland and allowed to continue at Coventry while the Scottish car industry has been smashed into the ground?
§ The Prime MinisterScotland has a number of opportunities in connection with the oil industry which are not available elsewhere. Although I share the hon. Gentleman's concern about the closure at Linwood, I doubt very much whether the people there would begrudge their fellow car workers a reasonable future in the plant at Ryton.
§ Mr. Anthony GrantWill my right hon. Friend find time today to consider relations between Britain and Canada? Is she aware that the Canadian Prime Minister is insisting publicly that she undertook to impose a three-line Whip to put through this House his proposals on patriation of the constitution? Will she confirm that that is not correct? Will she also confirm the view of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs that the duty of this House is to consider the wishes of the Canadian people as a whole and not the diktat of Mr. Trudeau?
§ The Prime MinisterThree-line Whips or any other Whipping are not decided upon until some 10 days before the business of the House, when we know exactly what the position is and exactly what the request is that we may have to honour. I wholly confirm what I have said previously on this matter. We have not received any request from the Canadian Government. When we receive a request, I believe that it is our duty to deal with it as expeditiously as possible.
§ Mr. ParryWhen the Prime Minister meets the Prime Minister of Mauritius later today, will she discuss with him the implications and the possible effect that the proposed closure of the Tate and Lyle factory will have upon ACP countries? Will she also reconsider her decision about meeting an all-party parliamentary delegation to discuss this matter, because we all believe that a Government initiative could save the refinery?
§ The Prime MinisterI fully expect that the Prime Minister of Mauritius will raise the question of sugar refining, although I understand that an undertaking has been given to refine most of the sugar under the ACP agreements. I believe that the hon. Gentleman represents the constituency in which the Tate and Lyle factory is found. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food flew back from Brussels to receive a delegation. I do not think that I can duplicate his receiving that delegation. I will always see the hon. Member himself in whose constituency a factory closure is about to occur.
§ Mr. SpeakerMr. Allan Stewart.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I have already called the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, East (Mr. Stewart). I shall call the Leader of the Opposition afterwards.
§ Mr. Allan StewartWith regard to Linwood, will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Secretary of State and Department of Industry will now do everything possible to put to Nissan-Datsun the fact that it could be in that company's best commercial interests to reconsider going to a green field site and intend to build on the site at Linwood, using the skilled work force there?
§ The Prime MinisterLinwood is, of course, located in my hon. Friend's constituency. I understand that Nissan is studying the feasibility of coming to a green field site in this country. I do not think that there is any possibility of dissuading it from that, because that is what it wants.
§ Mr. FootI thank the right hon. Lady for the generous reply which she made a few minutes ago. Will she be dealing with the correspondence herself, or will some Minister be put in charge of these requests? Will she undertake to publish each week in the Official Report the requests from all my hon. Friends to visit the factories that are due to close? May I immediately request to her to come and look at the closures in my own constituency? Will she publish her diary in the next week?
§ The Prime MinisterAs usual, the right hon. Gentleman has got it wrong. I said that I would see the Member of a constituency in which a main factory closure occurs. A large delegation must always go to the Minister concerned, just as the main delegation went to see my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I personally shall see the Member. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman greets such a courtesy so churlishly.