§ The Prime MinisterI refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some time ago now.
§ Mr. MoateHas my right hon. Friend seen the report that the losses of the National Coal Board are in excess of its reserves, which means that, by most normal standards, that industry is bankrupt? Is it not unacceptable that this great national asset should be a continuing liability to the taxpayer? Is it not necessary that the position should be remedied and that the Coal Board should be brought back to viability as a matter of urgency?
§ The Prime MinisterYes. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy announced, the National Coal Board is certainly insolvent although not, as I understand it, technically bankrupt. It is technically insolvent. Government support for the industry is huge. The total external finance for this year is set at £1,201 million and the grants for this year alone amount to £640 million. My right hon. Friend made an announcement that covered this year. It is a protected industry. It is an example of what happens to a protected industry and it is absolutely vital that it should return to viability. That would be very good news for the rest of British industry. When the price of coal is down because it is equated to productive pits, the price of electricity could come down and therefore we would start to save jobs and the rest of British industry would pay lower energy costs.
§ Mr. FootThe right hon. Lady talks of viability in the coal industry. Will she confirm that many Governments in western Europe subsidise their coal industries a good deal more than we do in this country and that many of them regard it as a good investment? Will she clear up the confusion caused by her statement last week to the effect that the cuts announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer were somehow not cuts? Will she confirm that £140 million was taken off the hospital and community health budget; that £30 million was taken off the education budget; that £57 million was taken from nationalised industries' finance; that £40 million was taken from the employment services; £20 million from foreign aid; £16 million from transport and £230 million from defence? Are those cuts or are they not?
§ The Prime MinisterWhere Government Departments, businesses or even ordinary households are overspending on their budgets, the budget has to be brought back within its total. The total budget published in February 1983 for this year is £119.6 billion. That is our target. We have reduced overspending to come down to that target.
§ Mr. FootIf those are not real cuts—I gather that that is what the right hon. Lady is trying to tell us—will she tell the Secretary of State for Social Services and the House how the cuts in the National Health Service can be made without cutting people's jobs? Is it not the case that the proposed round of cuts—or whatever she calls them —may involve the loss of about 20,000 jobs? How will she stop that?
§ The Prime MinisterI expect expenditure on the National Health Service as a whole to be no lower than that outlined in the public expenditure White Paper. It will be higher in real terms in 1983–84 than it was in 1982–83. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman judges the success of a service by the amount spent on it. If that is so, this Government and the last Government have done a great deal better than Labour Governments.
At the last count more than 1,003,500 people were employed in the National Health Service. They include 484,000 nurses and midwives — a number that has substantially increased under this Government — and doctors and dentists. I must also report to the right hon. Gentleman and the House that, much to my regret, the numbers employed in administrative and clerical sections increased during the lifetime of the last Government. On the ancillary side there are 209,000 people employed. There are, therefore, considerable areas for improved efficiency in manpower.
§ Mr. FootWill the right hon. Lady now say whether any jobs in the NHS will be lost as a result of the announcement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer a few days ago; and was that fact known before the general election?
§ The Prime MinisterAs I have indicated, there is already an increased number, even in the administrative and clerical grades — [Hoist. MEMBERS: "Answer."]— which figures we were pledged to reduce under the manifesto before last. We attempted to reduce those numbers by an Act of Parliament, with the aim of taking out a whole administrative layer from the Health Service, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services—
§ Mr. SkinnerCome off it.
§ The Prime MinisterOpposition Members may have short memories, but they will recall that my right hon. Friend announced in February, about four months before the election, that he had appointed Mr. Roy Griffiths to look into management in the NHS and had taken powers to control manpower targets. All that was done before the last election.