§ Q1. Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 23 March.
§ The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher)This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall have further meetings later today. This afternoon I shall attend the opening by the Prime Minister of India of an exhibition at the Hayward gallery. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen. Later I shall attend a dinner given by the Indo-British Association.
§ Mr. HamiltonWill the Prime Minister take time today to read the Treasury reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) on the tax effects of the Budget on the average family? Will she confirm that successive Budgets have resulted in nine out of every 10 families in Britain paying substantially more taxes now than in 1979? Does not that give the lie to every pledge and promise made by the right hon. Lady and her hon. 792 Friends at the election? Therefore, should not she understand that not many people believe a single word that she is now saying?
§ The Prime MinisterThere is a detailed reply giving the precise effects of the combination of national insurance contributions and taxation, bearing in mind that the Government believe in covering the great majority of their expenditure by taxation and national insurance contributions and not, as the last Government did, by a great deal of borrowing, particularly overseas borrowing. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to have both towel taxation and lower national insurance contributions—
§ Mr. HamiltonThe right hon. Lady promised that.
§ The Prime MinisterIf the hon. Gentleman wishes to have lower taxation and lower national insurance contributions, he should state precisely where he would cut expenditure. In particular, if he wishes to have lower national insurance contributions, he should state where he would cut pensions and other benefits.
§ Mr. AncramHas my right hon. Friend had time to consider the Scottish unemployment figures today, which show a substantial reduction, not only in the unadjusted figures, but in the seasonally adjusted figures? Taken alongside falling inflation, falling interest rates and mortgage rates and growing order books in industry, does not that show that the Government's economic policies for the revival of the Scottish economy are now coming good?
§ The Prime MinisterThe fall in today's unemployment figures below 3 million was welcome, but on the whole the figures for Scotland were better than those for many of the other regions. That is extremely good news for Scotland. Last week we had an extra order for Scotland—[Interruption.] I notice that Scottish Labour Members of Parliament do not seem to think very much of their constituents obtaining extra orders. We think that that shows that Scottish industry is reviving. John Brown Engineering, Clydebank has a letter of intent for a gas turbine power station, which is worth about £50 million. British industry is competing in overseas markets. Today's news is good news.
§ Mr. HealeyI thank the Prime Minister for allowing the Treasury to admit that it has already broken the major promise on which the Conservative Party won the last general election—that of a reduction in taxes.
Now that the collapse of law and order under her Administration has led her to claim that she has no influence over the amount of serious crime in Britain, will she pluck the dagger out of the Home Secretary's back, tell her supporters in the Tory gutter press to cease inflaming hatred and fear on this issue, accept the advice of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food that unemployment is a major cause of the trouble over law and order, and do something about the unemployment figures, which are shown today still to be rising all over the country?
§ The Prime MinisterWith regard to the right hon. Gentleman's first point, I point out that this Government have had to repay a large amount of the overseas debt that was left by the Labour Government, under his disgraceful leadership as Chancellor. Secondly, no person has done more for the numbers of police, their pay and morale, than my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
793 Thirdly, with regard to unemployment, the news today is good. I am sorry that the Leader of the Opposition is not here to say that. Numbers are down to below 3 million and, when seasonally adjusted, United Kingdom unemployment increased by only 5, 000, which is the smallest rise since November 1979. I recognise that the right hon. Gentleman would prefer the news to be bad. We prefer it to be good.
§ Mr. HealeyI recognise that the right hon. Lady would prefer the news to be good, but she has had to admit that in terms of taxation, law and order and the continuing increase in unemployment, her Administration has broken—[Interruption.]—every promise on which they won the last general election.
§ The Prime MinisterI did not hear the right hon. Gentleman's question, but at least my Administration has not got the nation bankrupt, as his did.
§ Mr. Patrick McNair-WilsonHas my right hon. Friend yet had time to reflect upon the request of the Saudi Arabian Oil Minister and others that Britain should raise the price of North Sea oil? Will she reject this request and agree with me that the price of North Sea oil can be determined only by market forces and should not be used as a crutch to support the OPEC cartel?
§ The Prime MinisterIt is, of course, the British National Oil Corporation that has to determine the price of oil from the North Sea. As my hon. Friend knows, that is determined directly in relation to the market price.
§ Mr. William HamiltonLike gas.
§ The Prime MinisterThose are the terms of the Act left to us by the Labour Government. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is too soon to say what the price will be in the coming months. Many countries are using up their oil stocks at the moment, believing that they can replace them at a lower price. The price that we must follow is that which prevails on the world market.
§ Mr. David SteelReverting to the rising crime figures, will the Prime Minister take time to study the speech made in Glasgow, Hillhead by her predecessor, the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath), in which he said that if young people are hanging around streets, what can one expect but an increase in crime? Does she agree with him that that is part of the breakdown of society under the stress of unemployment?
§ The Prime MinisterI think that it is much too simplistic a reply to say that an increase in crime comes with an increase in unemployment. Certainly there is more crime today, but if the right hon. Gentleman's argument is right the figures would have been at their highest in the 1930s, when the proportion of the unemployed population was much higher than it is now. There has been a considerable increase in crime throughout a period of increasing prosperity, not only in this country but in other countries.
§ Q2. Mr. Skinnerasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 23 March.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. SkinnerWhen the euphoria about one month's unemployment figures has died down, perhaps the Prime Minister will bear in mind that today thousands of building 794 workers have been taking part in a march and a lobby on Parliament because 400, 000 construction workers are on the Tory scrapheap—the dole queue. Does she realise that it would not need anybody with a great deal of business acumen to use those construction workers to pile bricks of which there are 500 million in stock—on top of one another to provide homes for the 1.4 million families who need a home and for the 2 million houses that badly need renovating? If the Prime Minister does not have the ability or the will to carry that programme through, why does she not make way for an Administration that will rebuild Britain out of the slump?
§ The Prime MinisterIt is certainly true that we could spend a good deal more on capital account if we spent a good deal less on current. However, local authorities have spent right up to and over their current allocations and have underspent their capital allocations. Nevertheless, it will not have escaped the hon. Gentleman's attention that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor announced both a construction package and particularly a package to help labour-intensive construction, through special help for house improvement grants, particularly those that are notified this year.
§ Mr. MurphyDoes my right hon. Friend agree that criticisms from the Opposition Front Bench come ill from those Members—including the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang), who is unfortunately not in his place—who have reportedly advised civil disobedience? Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to condemn such speeches?
§ The Prime MinisterThose who advise civil disobedience cannot believe in parliamentary democracy.
§ Q3. Mr. Ashleyasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 23 March.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer the right hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. AshleyNow that there are 4 million on supplementary benefit, does the Prime Minister agree that the original concept of the scheme has changed from being a safety net for the few to being a poverty cage for the many? Is this an accurate reflection of the Government's philosophy, or is it an acknowledgement of their failure?
§ The Prime MinisterThe number of people on supplementary benefit has never been the few the right hon. Gentleman claims. They have always been considerable, both in the number of claimants and claimants' dependants. I should not disagree with the right hon. Gentleman's assessment that the number of claimants is near to 4 million. They were already 3 million in 1977.
§ Q 4. Mr. Stanbrookasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 23 March.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. StanbrookWill my right hon. Friend confirm that the £10, 000 compensation awarded to the four Walsall dinner ladies would not have been possible but for the passage of the Employment Act 1980? Is it not unjust that the ratepayers of Walsall should be called upon to pay this amount, considering that the Labour council of Walsall was said by the tribunal to have had no intention whatsoever of reinstating the ladies? Is it not true that the 795 Labour candidate at Glasgow, Hillhead voted in favour of the Labour Government's legislation strengthening the closed shop?
§ The Prime MinisterI confirm that the Walsall dinner ladies would not have received any compensation but for the passage of the Employment Act 1980. The Labour Government left legislation providing that people could be sacked from their jobs because they refused to join a closed shop, and left without compensation. It is certainly true that Mr. Roy Jenkins was a member of that Government and, I believe, voted for the passage of the Act that left such people with no compensation. I share my hon. Friend's view. I think it wrong that the ratepayers should have to pay this compensation. It would be for the 796 ratepayers to consult the district auditor to àscertain whether there were any other methods of meeting the compensation.
§ Mr. Harry EwingIs the Prime Minister aware that it is widely reported in the Scottish press today that one of the items that she was discussing with her ministerial colleagues this morning was a possible new power agreement to allow the Invergordon aluminium smelter to re-open? Was that matter discussed? If it was, will the right hon. Lady make a statement on the future prospects for the aluminium smelter?
§ The Prime MinisterDiscussions on the Invergordon aluminium smelter are continuing.