§ Q4. Mr. Cyril D. Townsendasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 12 March.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. TownsendFollowing a restrictive Budget and bearing in mind the ever-rising levels of unemployment, may I commend to my right hon. Friend the programme for national and economic recovery admirably spelt out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) in his speech yesterday?
§ The Prime MinisterI remind my hon. Friend that the actual public expenditure is not restrictive; it is expansive. [HON. MEMBERS:"Oh!"] I pay attention to the facts, unlike hon. Members on the Opposition Benches. As the Chancellor announced in his Budget Statement, public expenditure will be slightly increased in real terms next year. I am at a loss to know how an increase in real terms can be descibed as being restrictive. I heard my right hon Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) on television today. He was excellent. He stated that he would back the Budget all the way, as one would expect.
§ Mr. AshtonWill the P'rime Minister find time today to read this morning's newspapers, which forecast a massive revolt within her own party against the 20p per gallon increase on petrol tax? If the Prime Minister cannot get a majority in the House for the 20p per gallon increase, what does she intend to so?
§ The Prime MinisterMany of us dislike particular aspects of taxation. No one has been more forthright in disliking heavy taxation than I have. However, the Chancellor, the Government and I have a problem. If a bill—expenditure—is already agreed, most of us accept that we must make the means available to pay it. Nothing is worse than agreeing to heavy expenditure and then not being prepared to meet, or disliking the thought of meeting, the bill when it comes. Let us see what happens on Monday night.
§ Mr. CormackWill my right hon. Friend allow me to tell my constituents that she will now reconsider index-linked pensions, because they cannot accept that increases such as 20p on petrol should be imposed on them while people are allowed to receive those index-linked pensions?
§ The Prime MinisterThe Scott report has been published. People can now see exactly what its argument was and what it said about that matter. No doubt one day we shall have a chance, I trust, to debate it in the House.
§ Mr. FootDoes not the right hon. Lady agree that the announcements made in her Budget, and the arrangements made before the Budget for the increases in taxation, are in plain defiance of what she said at the election?
§ The Prime MinisterI am the first to admit that public expenditure has risen and that it has risen for next year. The Government have agreed to that increase in public expenditure. We must therefore decide how much must be met by taxation and how much must be met by borrowing. If I agree to expenditure, I do not flinch from paying the bill.
§ Mr. FootCan the right hon. Lady now explain to the House and the country why she made widespread promises of reductions in taxation when she fought the election when she has now proved that she cannot control the economy of the nation?
§ The Prime MinisterThe right hon. Gentleman— [Interruption]—has forgotten the time when under his Government—[Interruption]—the standard rate of tax was 35p—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The Prime Minister should not have to fight to be heard. She has a right to be heard.
§ The Prime MinisterThe standard rate of tax was 35p. The right hon. Gentleman will recollect that it is now 30p in the pound. He might also remember when his own party 1003 put up VAT on certain things to 25 per cent, and, above all, when the pound plummeted to $1.56, and his 1004 Chancellor, following his policies, finished up where the his Opposition would finish up now, namely, as supplicants to the IMF.