§ Q2. Mr. Proctorasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 12 April.
§ The Prime MinisterThis morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I hope to attend a dinner given by Her Majesty the Queen at Windsor.
§ Mr. ProctorIs my right hon. Friend aware that Basildon district council has increased the rate demand by 20 per cent.—more than four times the rate of inflation—has spent £3,000 of ratepayers' money on declaring Basildon a nuclear-free zone, and has made a £1,000 political contribution to the Billericay and Basildon branches of the CND, so placing in jeopardy jobs, defence and genuine services in my constituency? During my right hon. Friend's busy day, will she send a message to my constituents—ratepayers and voters—telling them to vote Conservative in the local elections in May?
§ The Prime MinisterI agree with my hon. Friend that most people want local authorities to give good value for money and to provide genuine local services, and that they do not want empty political gestures. I also agree that high increases in rates can jeopardise the future of small businesses and jobs. As to what he said about questionable expenditure, I remind him that the local auditors have the power to inquire into the expenditure of local councils. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's latter point.
§ Mr. FootWill the Prime Minister confirm, or deny, the report that she is proposing to appoint a Minister for the west midlands? Is this appointment belated recognition of the loss of 300,000 jobs in the past three years, which is one quarter of the total jobs available?
§ The Prime MinisterWhat has happened was announced in the House by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry during the Budget debate. The work on the west midlands, which is not an area for which regional policy benefits are obtainable, has been allocated within the Department of Industry to the Under-Secretary.
§ Mr. FootWhat about the 300,000 jobs? Are not these figures included in the NEDO report that was discussed at the meeting yesterday, at which some Government Ministers apparently proposed that the report should be suppressed? Will the right hon. Lady tell, the House whether she agrees or disagrees with the reports suggestion that there will be no increase in jobs in this decade, and will she tell us the reason for the suggested suppression?
§ The Prime MinisterI understand that my right hon. Friends who attended NEDO argued very strictly about the report, and so did the CBI. The CBI can see some improvement in the prospects for the future. It realises that there are new jobs coming from the new industries and it is very much aware that there is little future for anyone in this country if money is poured into protecting yesterday's jobs rather than helping to support new ones.
§ The Prime MinisterThe NEDO report was a matter for NEDO. It has not yet been fully published. Has the right hon. Gentleman read the report?
§ Q3. Mr. Kenneth Carlisleasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 12 April.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. CarlisleDoes my right hon. Friend agree that the zest and commitment of the employees of the National Freight Corporation show what can be achieved when an enterprise is freed from state control and when employees are given a stake in the business in which they work? Does not this success emphasise the folly of the Labour party's recent promise to nationalise huge chunks of industry?
§ The Prime MinisterI agree that the consortium has had an extremely successful start. It has made higher profits than during its last year of state ownership, and for the first time the people who work in that business have the right to a stake in it and own it themselves. That is a far better way to proceed than to make those industries state-owned. The way in which the Government are proceeding, of returning state-owned industries to the people who work in them and to the private sector, offers much better prospects for the future.
§ Mr. Roy JenkinsWill the Prime Minister tell the House why Mr. Geoffrey Chandler, the director general, was given such a rough time at NEDO in presenting an objective report? Is he to be made the Campbell Adamson of the next election?
§ The Prime MinisterMr. Campbell Adamson was the director general of the CBI. On this occasion the CBI was supporting the view taken by the Government. Obviously there is no similarity between the two.
§ Mr. DormandWill the Prime Minister tell the House what the essential difference is between the upturn in the economy that is being forecast by the Government and the three previous similar forecasts that did not materialise?
§ The Prime MinisterOne of the differences is that we appear to be getting an upturn in several countries simultaneously, which was not the case before. Britain's first upturn towards the end of 1981–82 occurred at the same time as the worst of the recession was hitting Germany. There are signs of a similar upturn in the United States, Britain and Germany. We do not believe that the upturns are merely a recovery from the rundown of stock.
§ Q5. Mr. Greenwayasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 12 April.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. GreenwayHas my right hon. Friend noted the oft-repeated remark, and indeed aspersion, of the Leader of the Opposition, to the effect that the Government are spending more on defence than on education? In a highly dangerous world, are not the Government right to give the highest priority to defence, and would not all our social services, including education, be at risk if that were not done?
§ The Prime MinisterYes, I totally agree with my hon. Friend. Our way of life is worth defending. We have to spend sufficient money on defence, both individually and as part of NATO, to ensure that it is not imperilled. Were we not to do so, all of our social services, housing and 665 everything else would be imperilled as, I believe, was once pointed out by the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey).
§ Q6. Mr. Thomas Coxasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 12 April.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. CoxIs the Prime Minister aware that a prospective Conservative parliamentary candidate has not been approved because, apparently, his wife has expressed opposition to fox hunting? Does the Prime Minister approve of that decision, and, if so, why? If she does not approve of that decision, will she condemn this deplorable action by a party that is always talking about the personal freedom of the individual?
§ The Prime MinisterI answer for many things from this Dispatch Box, but not for the selection of Conservative candidates. Local parties choose for themselves.
§ Q7. Mr. Adleyasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 12 April.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. AdleyIs my right hon. Friend aware that the Kremlin has lavished praise on the Labour party's new campaign document? Is my right hon Friend surprised about that and will she comment on it?
§ The Prime MinisterI have not read the sentences to which my hon Friend has referred. If one reads the document, there is not the slightest shadow of doubt that the Kremlin would lavish praise upon it, because it would severely weaken the defences of this country and NATO.
§ Mr. MeacherIs the Prime Minister aware that the latest official figures show that there are now 7 million people living in supplementary benefit poverty in this country and that that is an increase of no less than 60 per cent. since she came to power? Are we not seeing the ugly face of Thatcherite Britain, in which the rich have massive tax handouts showered upon them at the same time as one in eight of the population are reduced to means-tested poverty?
§ The Prime MinisterThe numbers of people on supplementary benefit have increased largely due to the increased number of unemployed. They are able to get—I am sure the hon. Gentleman thinks this is right—sufficient for their needs. That has been the policy under all Governments, including the Labour Government.
§ Sir Anthony GrantIs my right hon. Friend aware that the police in this country are held in much higher public esteem than some Left-wing cranks would have us believe? Will she confirm that if, in certain circumstances, 666 the police consider it necessary to use weapons to combat armed crime, they will have the wholehearted backing of the Government in so doing?
§ The Prime MinisterWe rely on the police as the first arm of the law to enforce order in this country and to bring people before the courts. Sometimes they have an extremely dangerous job to do. When they are likely to have to deal with people who are armed, under those circumstances and in accordance with the guidelines of the Home Office, they can go out armed. I believe that the overwhelming majority of people in this country support that action.
§ Mr. GrimondWill the Prime Minister find time today to order an inquiry into the price of petrol in this country? It cannot be in accordance with market economics, which her Government follow, that when the price of oil goes down the petrol companies propose to increase the price of petrol?
§ Mr. SkinnerThat is sharper than Jenkins.
§ The Prime MinisterIt remains to be seen whether the alleged increases will stick. I doubt whether they will, but of course the petrol companies have one problem—the changing value of the pound in relation to the dollar. Although the price of petrol can fall in terms of dollars, it can increase in terms of pounds because of the change in the value.