§ Q1. Mr. Terry Lewisasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 13 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.
§ Mr. LewisWhat forecast has the right hon. Lady made of a reduction in unemployment, and when is such a reduction likely to take place?
§ The Prime MinisterI follow the example of successive Ministers and Prime Ministers in not making forecasts about the rate of unemployment.
§ Sir Anthony KershawHas my right hon. Friend noticed that an order for the biggest oil rig ever to be built has been obtained on Clydebank? Is it not true that that has happened because the firm concerned has had a 12-year strike-free record? Is my right hon. Friend aware that, as a result, the firm will now be able to take on 500 men?
§ The Prime MinisterI have noted that the oil rig order has gone to that shipyard. I congratulate the yard on its record and on winning the order. I hope that others will take the hint that strikes destroy jobs and that a good working record wins new orders.
§ Mr. HattersleyFirst, may I welcome the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury back to his place on the Treasury Bench? The right hon. Gentleman represents — indeed, personifies — the triumph of democracy over terrorism. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
Secondly, may I ask the Prime Minister whether she has read the three surveys published today, including one based on the Treasury's own model and one from the London Business School, previously the fount of all economic wisdom? Those surveys prove that increases in public investment are by far the most effective way of reducing unemployment. Will the right hon. Lady now respond to the demands from both sides of the House and accept that whatever additions can be made to public expenditure in the spring will be used not for cutting taxation but for reducing the wholly unacceptable level of unemployment?
§ The Prime MinisterNo, I do not accept some of the findings of those three reports or the right hon. Gentleman's specific description of them. Other findings point to other conclusions. As the right hon. Gentleman will know, we realise by now that one cannot spend one's way out of recession. That has been tried before. It leads to higher inflation and ultimately to higher unemployment. There are some 12 million taxpayers with an income of £8,000 a year or less. They, too, have a right to look to the Government to raise thresholds so that they pay less tax. They will never get equity from Labour; they will get it only from us.
§ Mr. HattersleyIt should be obvious even to the Prime Minister that money invested directly in the United Kingdom is more likely to create jobs than money devoted to increasing consumption, which, by its nature, is likely to result in higher imports and to create jobs abroad. On the Labour side of the House and, I believe, widely throughout the country, it is understood that the right hon. Lady's obsession with a cut in direct taxes is matched and mirrored by the increased indirect taxation that has more than compensated for the reduction in that particular over the past five years.
Most important of all, as the Prime Minister has chosen the high unemployment option, are we to be relieved from now on of the lowered voice and the bogus compassion? The truth is that the Prime Minister and the Government choose high unemployment. That is the message that should be given to the country.
§ The Prime MinisterThe right hon. Gentleman is not correct. Increasing infrastructure is not a cost-effective way in which to increase the number of jobs. The cost per job through increasing infrastructure can vary from £35,000 to £55,000. It is an expensive method, which tends to lead to a lot of hire of plant but not much hire of men. Reduction of tax can lead to extra jobs, as it leads to extra demand. The right hon. Gentleman's thesis that investment always leads to purchases from home sources while reduction of tax leads to purchases from abroad is not correct. In an age of specialisation, much of the investment in equipment and machinery goes abroad.
§ Mr. Maxwell-HyslopIn her worthy enthusiasm for reducing unemployment, will my right hon. Friend concentrate on the unincorporated sector of the self-employed and bring home to many of her Ministers the fact that it is not just reducing tax rates but reducing the burden of non-productive administrative work—dealing with tax returns such as VAT and national insurance — that discourages them from taking on new employees?
§ The Prime MinisterMy hon. Friend is absolutely right. There are still many restrictions that inhibit the self-employed from taking on more employees and inhibit small businesses from taking on extra people. Each of them raises difficult issues, but we are examining the regulations. My right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department of Trade and Industry hope to bring proposals before the House.
§ Dr. OwenWe on the alliance Benches also welcome the Patronage Secretary, although he will understand our not wishing him great success, as we hope that the rebellions will continue at the pace that has been set during the past few months. The Prime Minister is rumoured in the press now to be contemplating increased expenditure on the community programme and a restructuring of employees' insurance contributions. Why should we wait for the Budget? Many hundreds of thousands of people want action, and now. Why not action this day?
§ The Prime MinisterI should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would know that there is a time for public expenditure surveys and a time for the Budget. I confess that there are many occasions when I wish that they happened together so that the choices that have to be made were more clearly put. Of course, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment and my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister without Portfolio are seeing whether we can better spend the £2 billion that we spend on special employment measures.
§ Q2. Mr. Budgenasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 13 December.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. BudgenIn the discussions about the BBC's licence fee, will my right hon. Friend recognise that introductin of advertising would change the nature of the BBC? Will she also examine carefully the recent introduction of early morning television and BBC local radio stations? Will she please ask the BBC why it cannot concentrate on those things that are most important to it?
§ The Prime MinisterI think that a number of people will agree with my hon. Friend and wonder why the BBC has to take on so many new programmes when their needs can be fulfilled by other programmes. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has to take into account the fact that the BBC licence fee is a sort of compulsory levy on the television viewer, irrespective of whether he watches BBC programmes a great deal. He will wish to balance the needs of the BBC with the interests of the licence fee payer. For that, he will need to take many things into account, but I doubt whether, this time, he will consider the introduction of advertising, although, in the longer term, we might have to consider other methods of raising the requisite revenue for the BBC.
§ 3. Mr. Ron Daviesasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 13 December.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. DaviesIs the right hon. Lady aware that her Parliamentary Under-Secretary at the Department of Transport has written a letter to all Conservative Members of Parliament promising them preferential treatment from himself, his Department and his civil servants in dealing with parliamentary inquiries — [Interruption.] — from their constituents? Has that letter been written with the authority or knowledge of the Prime Minister? If so, does it mark a change of policy, in that the Government are prepared to use Government funds to advance the cause of the Conservative party?
§ The Prime MinisterI do not know of the letter to which the hon. Gentleman refers, and there seems to be a good deal of dissent in the House to the interpretation that he gave of it. Inquiries from all Members of Parliament are dealt with expeditiously and courteously.
§ 4. Mr. Marlandasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 13 December.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. MarlandIs my right hon. Friend aware that some of our Common Market partners are seeking to use bogus methods to prevent our exports penetrating their markets? Will she take this opportunity to reassure our exporters, be they in industry, agriculture or commerce, that she will use her best offices to make sure that our exporters can compete in Europe on equal terms?
§ The Prime MinisterI am grateful to my hon. Friend. That is the purpose of the Dooge committee of the Common Market. We are urging the completion of the internal market. The Common Market treaty prohibits barriers to trade, and my hon. Friend will have special reason to know of the success of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in getting rid of the barriers to the importation of whisky by Italy—something on which he is to be congratulated.
§ 5. Mr. Tony Lloydasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 13 December.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. LloydKnowing that the Prime Minister places a high priority on conforming to the letter of the law, will she join me in condemning the Conservative-controlled Trafford borough council, which is refusing to conform with both the spirit and the letter of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act by not providing adaptations for handicapped people until July next year? Will she have a quiet word with the Secretary of State for Social Services and ask him to use his powers to make that council conform?
§ The Prime MinisterI seem to remember that in that Act there is a good deal of discretion as to how it is applied. It is not absolutely mandatory. Any question arising from the case to which the hon. Gentleman referred would not be for me but would be a matter for the courts to decide.
§ Mr. JesselDoes my right hon. Friend recall that Mr. Justice Glidewell, the inquiry inspector into the fourth terminal at Heathrow, said that if permission were granted for that it would be essential for the Government to reiterate that there would be neither a fifth terminal nor any other major expansion of Heathrow? Do the Government accept that Mr. Justice Glidewell was a distinguished inquiry inspector, whose views should carry at least as much weight as those of Mr. Graham Eyre?
§ The Prime MinisterI recognise my hon. Friend's very special interest in this matter. He will also recognise that, as the inspector's report is in front of us, I am unable to do other than note his question.
§ Q6. Mr. Fisherasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 13 December.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. FisherIn respect of the right hon. Lady's reply to me on Tuesday, does she agree that she gave a very good answer to a question that I did not ask? Will she now answer that question and say whether she thinks it sensible and reasonable to include in the costs apportioned to pits when they close costs that will continue for years afterwards, whether or not a pit closes? Will she be good enough to answer that question?
§ The Prime MinisterI am not an expert on accountancy—[Interruption.]—and neither, I believe, is the hon. Gentleman. It is not for me or for him to distinguish between, or pontificate upon, different specific methods of accountancy. The National Coal Board cost taxpayers £1.3 billion last year. That is not a matter of accountancy, but something that taxpayers have to find. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that there is no need for a subsidy for the coal industry, his remarks are most welcome.
§ Q7. Mr. Proctorasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 13 December.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. ProctorIs my right hon. Friend aware that one of the most unpopular acts that the Government can commit is the transfer of additional resources to the European Community, with the loss of sovereignty that such an act would entail?
§ The Prime MinisterThe decision to join the EC was made many years ago. I believe that it is and remains in the interests of the United Kingdom to remain part of that 1208 Community and to make a great success of it. It gives us tremendous opportunities in trade, and, when the internal market is complete, it will give our financial and insurance services greater opportunities than they have now.
§ Mr. Ron DaviesOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I shall follow my usual practice. In the interests of the whole House, I shall take points of order now only if they arise directly from questions.
§ Mr. DaviesOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will have heard the answer to the question I put to the Prime Minister when, in effect, she denied the existence of the letter to which I referred. Can you advise me how I can pursue this matter? I believe that it is clear that the rules of the House have been breached by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport. Preferential treatment has been promised to Conservative Members in a matter of vital importance to all hon. Members in the discharge of their parliamentary duties. Will you, Mr. Speaker, advise me how that matter is best pursued?
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I have not seen this letter. I cannot be responsible for letters that Ministers write to hon. Members.
§ Mr. Willie W. HamiltonFurther to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As the Prime Minister seemed to indicate in her reply to my hon. Friend that the letter might be capable of different interpretations, would it not clear the atmosphere if she and the Government gave authority for it to be printed in Hansard?
§ Mrs. DunwoodyFurther to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May we ask you how we can protect the House when there is a clear indication that the facilities of a Ministry are being used in a specific political way? As the Leader of the House is present, may we ask him to make a statement about whether it is now the intention of the Conservative party to use all the facilities of the Civil Service to promulgate its own highly individual and extremely prejudiced views?
§ Mr. Robert AtkinsFurther to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. When you consider this matter, can you also advise the House how I and other Lancashire colleagues can raise the fact that the Labour-controlled Lancashire county council is spending £134,000 of ratepayers' money—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The House can go on for ever on a subject such as this. It is plainly not a matter for me.