§ Q1. Mr. Dalyellasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 5 July.
§ The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher)This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, including one with the Prime Minister of Antigua and Barbuda. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen.
§ Mr. DalyellFor what reason, when he was in a negotiating position— [HoN. MEMBERS: "Ah".] — was the then Foreign Secretary not informed of the Prime Minister's decision when she contemplated the sinking of the Belgrano?
§ The Prime MinisterFor the reasons given in a full Adjournment debate on 12 May this year, and previously by my right hon. Friend the then Minister of State in a detailed reply on 29 November 1982. I have nothing further to add.
§ Q2. Mr. Jannerasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 5 July.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer the hon. and learned Gentleman to the rely that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. JannerWhen the right hon. Lady met her ministerial colleagues today, did she discuss with them the Chancellor's iniquitous proposal to reduce the real value of unemployment benefit? Does she not accept that such a proposal would lack compassion and common sense and that adding to the suffering of the unemployed is no solution whatever to the problems of unemployment?
§ The Prime MinisterThe decisions on the rate of unemployment benefit that will apply from this coming November to the following November were announced in this House by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services the other day in these terms:
We are restoring the 5 per cent. abatement made in 1980, and that means that in November the standard rates of unemployment benefit go up by over 8 per cent. to £27.05 for a single person and to £43.75 for a married couple." —[Official Report, 23 June 1983; Vol. 44, c. 163]The rates have been fixed and announced in the House, and I do not understand what the debate is about.
§ Mr. SpeakerMr. Andrew MacKay.
§ Mr. SpeakerI am sorry, but I have already called the hon. Member for Berkshire, East (Mr. MacKay).
§ Mr. Andrew MacKayHas my right hon. Friend had an opportunity today to study the consequences of the Italian general election, where, under a system of proportional representation, the Italian people will now suffer another chaotic minority coalition Government?
§ The Prime MinisterYes. I am afraid that a system of PR does not give clear decisive government but rather a long sequence of horse deals under which many people who fought the election on the basis of one manifesto must then compromise everything that they have said to do deals with other minor parties.
§ Mr. FootThe right hon. Lady said that she did not understand what the debate on unemployment benefit was about. Does that mean that she is now repudiating—as we would all wish her to do — her Chancellor's statement a few days ago that cutting the dole might enable people to get jobs? Does she not agree that the cuts in the dole that the Government have achieved so far have not had much success in getting any jobs?
§ The Prime MinisterThe point is simple. The precise rate of unemployment benefit that will be paid from this November to the following November has been announced to the House, and includes not only 3.7 per cent. inflation but restores the 5 per cent. that was previously cut. Therefore, the unemployment benefit from next November to the following November has already been announced. The question about the rate for the following November does not therefore arise until after the Budget next year, and probably until after the RPI figure is announced next June. It seems much better to defer the debate until then.
§ Mr. FootWill the right hon. Lady give us an absolute undertaking that the value of the benefit will be sustained after that date and after that benefit, and will she answer the question I put to her a second ago? Does not that mean that she is now prepared to repudiate the statement made by her Chancellor of the Exchequer? Does she agree that if the policy, defined by the Chancellor, of cutting unemployment benefit were carried out it would mean a further increase in the numbers of people forced on to means-tested supplementary benefit, payments of which are already at a record level?
§ The Prime MinisterIn our manifesto we pledged:
In the next Parliament, we shall continue to protect retirement pensions and other linked long-term benefits against rising prices.As the right hon. Gentleman knows, unemployment benefit is not a "linked long-term benefit", as we 152 explained. Therefore, no long-term pledge about price protection was given. As he is also aware, the amount paid out to the unemployed is this year to be about £5.5 billion, of which, as he implied, about £2 billion is paid out by way of unemployment benefit from the national insurance fund. The right hon. Gentleman can see the latest figures in the Government Actuary's report, which will be in the Vote Office today. The majority of the unemployed obtain, should they need it, extra benefit through the social security system, which is what that system is there for.
§ The Prime MinisterI have given the precise position. The relationship between unemployment benefit, social security benefit, minimum wages and wages that are paid is a source of great debate among academics, and the right hon. Gentleman will find that there are almost as many estimates as there are academics considering it.
§ Dr. OwenIs the Prime Minister aware that if the first-past-the-post system operated in Italy, on a number of occasions since the war there would have been a Communist Government? Is this the clear, decisive government that the Prime Minister wishes to see in one of our principal NATO allies?
§ The Prime MinisterThe existing system served the right hon. Gentleman well when he was Foreign Secretary.
§ Q3. Mr. Winnickasked the Prime Minister if she will state her official engagements for 5 July.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. WinnickHas the Prime Minister read the speech made last week by the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Pym), and will she be bearing his remarks in mind when deciding with her ministerial colleagues whether the real value of unemployment benefit is to be cut? Is the right hon. Lady aware that the remarks made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer about unemployment benefit were heartless and contemptible, even more so as so many of the jobless are the direct victims of the Government's disastrous economic policy.
§ The Prime MinisterI have read the speech and I have made the position on unemployment benefit abundantly clear. Perhaps there is one point that I did not sufficiently emphasise—with the November uprating the value of the benefit will be higher than when we took office.
§ Mr. St. John-StevasWill my right hon. Friend accept that her statement today on unemployment benefit is extremely welcome and has made the position clearer, because it would be unacceptable to many Conservative Members if the unemployed were to be further penalised?
§ The Prime MinisterI am grateful to my right hon. Friend, but in all honesty I should point out that I was only repeating the relevant sentences from the statement that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services made soon after the Gracious Speech.