§ Q1. Mr. Penhaligonasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 8 December.
§ 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 the House, I shall be having further meetings later today, including one with the United States Treasury Secretary, Mr. Donald Regan.
§ Mr. PenhaligonCan the Prime Minister explain what is happening at Windscale and why, despite all the inspection agencies and assurances from the industry, 25 miles of beach have been closed, radioactivite samples 1,000 times more than normal have been discovered, and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food refuses to release all the information that it is alleged to have? Can the Prime Minister initiate an immediate inquiry and let the House know when this fiasco will end?
§ The Prime MinisterAs the hon. Gentleman knows, people have already been advised to keep away from those beaches, but inquiries are under way — one by Sir Douglas Black into the incidence of leukaemia in the area, and the other by the proper authorities into any leaks from 460 Windscale and the effects that they may have. Both of those inquiries are already under way and there is no point in adding to them.
§ Mr. MontgomeryHas my right hon. Friend noted the disgraceful scenes at Brent council last night by a Left-wing "Rentamob"? Is she aware of its determination to stop a coalition of Conservatives and Liberals from taking control of that council? In view of the fact that last week the Leader of the Opposition took so long to condemn violence on the picket lines at Warrington, does she think that perhaps today the Leader of the Opposition will unequivocally condemn the violence that was committed last night by members of his party in Brent?
§ The Prime MinisterI saw reports of the disgraceful scenes, which really amounted to mob rule by the Fascist Left. That is what happens when they take power, and hope that the Leader of the Opposition will condemn it.
§ Mr. BellWill the Prime Minister, in the course of her busy day, refer to her statement yesterday that there would be no unilateral withdrawal of the British contingent from Beirut? Is she saying that there is a veto by the United States, France and Italy over British foreign and defence policy?
§ The Prime MinisterNo, Sir. The hon. Gentleman's two statements are not compatible. I said that we would not have unilateral withdrawal. This morning there has been a meeting between the four Foreign Secretaries who represent the countries in the multinational force. The MNF continues its good work in the Lebanon.
§ Q2. Mr. Fisherasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 8 December.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. FisherWill the Prime Minister give some time today to consider the problems facing the 9.2 million pensioners in this country? They received an increase in their pension of 3.7 per cent. last month, and many of them are anxious about how they will heat their homes this winter. Will the Prime Minister give a clear undertaking to pensioners that she will not increase gas prices this winter?
§ The Prime MinisterOn the amount that pensioners have, if one takes our record over the whole period—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"]—since the last of the Labour increases, the pension is 74 per cent. higher than it was then, while the RPI is about 70 per cent. higher. So, in real terms, it is higher than at any time under the Labour Government. There have also been generous fuel additions which, again in real terms, are higher than at any time under the Labour Government. That is not a bad record.
§ Mr. HannamIs my right hon. Friend aware of the tactics used by Left-wing Labour councillors in Brent to gag their opponents and ride roughshod over democracy? Is this not reminiscent of pre-war Fascist Germany?
§ The Prime MinisterI understand that, via a number of procedural devices, Conservative and Liberal councillors were effectively gagged in full council meetings. If that is correct, one can only totally and utterly condemn it as being contrary to every tenet of democracy.
§ Q3. Mr. Ashleyasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 8 December.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer the right hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. AshleyWill the Prime Minister agree that she has been arguing in Europe for the principle that the poorest members should not pay the heaviest burden. If that is so, how about applying that principle at home where she can implement it? We have 1,068,000 people who are longterm unemployed and who are being denied long-term supplementary benefit. That means that married couples are being robbed of £11 a week — a quarter of their income. Unless the Prime Minister acts on that principle, is she aware that she can be accused of double standards?
§ The Prime MinisterNo, I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman's accusation. The unemployed receive, in the first instance, unemployment benefit from their insurance. Over and above that they receive, as the right hon. Gentleman says, supplementary benefit. The two in total amount to about £5 billion. I think that the two are reasonable under the circumstances.
§ Mr. KinnockHas the Prime Minister yet had a chance to look at this morning's figures, which, sadly, confirm the fact that the 25 per cent. annual rate of increase in business failures is continuing? Can the right hon. Lady say which policies she will change to reverse this sad trend?
§ The Prime MinisterUnemployment, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, appears to have peaked. The number of vacancies is not increasing as fast as we would wish. There is very considerable interest in the new enterprise allowance. As he will have seen from "Social Trends", a record number of people are self-employed. This means that there is a great deal of interest in enterprise. The success or failure of a business depends not upon what the right hon. Gentleman or I say, but upon whether the business produces goods and services which people will buy.
§ Mr. KinnockI should be very glad to have further good news. I at least agree with the Prime Minister's view on competitiveness. Does she not concur with me when I say that it is extremely sad that, in the four years in which she has been Prime Minister, competitiveness has gone down by 30 per cent. and investment has gone down by 20 per cent.? Given the recovery about which she talks, is she aware that if the present "rate of progress" were sustained it would take 160 years to get back to the level that we enjoyed in 1979? Will the Prime Minister answer my original question and say whether the 160-year wait is part of a medium or long-term strategy?
§ The Prime MinisterAs the right hon. Gentleman is referring to 1979 and to industrial effort, I point out that output per head and output per hour now are 11 per cent. and 14 per cent. respectively above the previous cyclical peak of 1979. May I, on investment, refer the right hon. Gentleman to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's speech in the last full day's debate that we had on this subject, when he gave full details on capital and current expenditure and pointed out that when one has a true definition of capital expenditure it is about the same now as it was during the year 1978–79.
§ Mr. Geoffrey FinsbergWill my right hon. Friend find time today to talk to the Law Officers to see whether they can find a way to prevent authorities such as the GLC and Camden from spending ratepayers' money on Labour party propaganda?
§ The Prime MinisterI think that that would probably be, as my hon. Friend indicates, a matter for the district auditors or the Law Officers. I think that we would all deplore the expenditure of ratepayers' money on party political propaganda, particularly those hard-pressed ratepayers of London, including small businesses, who want rates to go down, not up.
§ Q4. Mr. Winnickasked the Prime Minister what are her official engagements for 8 December.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. WinnickWhile recognising that hardly anything has gone right for the Prime Minister in the past few weeks —I am sorry about that—was it not unjust to deprive the Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons of his job of co-ordinating Government policy? Why does not the Prime Minister, like the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Secretary of State for Energy, in their coded ways, recognise the fact that it is the Government's policies that are so damaging to Britain, not their co-ordination?
§ The Prime MinisterI note that the hon. Gentleman thinks that getting inflation down is very damaging for Britain—although our record is far better than his—and that the record of output per head is very damaging for Britain, although I think that it is very good. We have done far better on the National Health Service than the Labour Government — [Interruption.] The Labour Government actually reduced provision for the National Health Service in real terms in two of the five years —1976–77 and 1977–78—that they were in office. The fact is that the Conservative Government have been very good for Britain, as was recognised at the last general election.
§ Mr. TapsellWhen, later today, my right hon. Friend receives the United States Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Donald Regan, will she discuss with him the reasons why economic policies which can broadly, but fairly, be described as at least neo-Keynesian seem to have brought such beneficial effects to the United States economy? Before our next Budget is finalised, could the principles of British economic policy be rigorously re-examined with an open mind?
§ The Prime MinisterIn spite of what my hon. Friend said, a Budget deficit of this kind is causing high interest rates, which are extremely damaging to this and other European countries. Further, it is preventing us from getting the amount of investment that we should have in this country because much capital is withdrawing to the United States. The United States also has a fantastic balance of trade deficit in contrast to the figures for this country, where we have a £1.2 billion surplus so far this year. I would rather be in our position, which is sustainable, than in that of United States which, I believe, will cause great trouble within 12 months.
§ Dr. OwenHas the Cabinet yet been able to make up its collective mind on the question of breaking the solicitor's monopoly on house conveyancing? If it has not, will the Government continue merely to talk about competition policy while creating private monopolies and maintaining professional monopolies?
§ The Prime MinisterAn announcement will be made when the matter comes before the House shortly.