§ Q1. Mr. Marlowasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 28 February.
§ 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. MarlowWill my right hon. Friend tell the teachers that, however deeply they may or may not feel, a strike would be damaging not only to our children's education and to the respect in which teachers are held in the classroom, but to the status of teachers in society, and for that very reason their eventual remuneration?
§ The Prime MinisterAs I have said previously, we deplore the pursuit of a pay claim at the expense of the education of children. However strongly some teachers may feel, we do not think that anything can justify that action.
§ Mr. FlanneryIs it not a fact that by driving the teachers to this desperate measure in the same way as they did with the miners, the Government — by not paying enough money towards teachers' salaries — are the root cause of any curbing of children's education? The teachers want to continue teaching and to do their best. It is the Government's refusal to give teachers decent wages and conditions that is harming our children. Responsibility lies with the Government and not the teachers.
§ The Prime MinisterNo, Sir. The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to hear that I do not agree with him. Teachers' pay has kept pace with inflation since 1979.
§ Mr. John BrowneDuring my right hon. Friend's recent visit to the United States, did she note the enormous contribution to economic growth, new jobs, new technology and new revenues that has been generated by new and smaller businesses? Despite the valiant efforts of her Administration in Britain, does she not feel that planning and employment legislation still act to stifle new and smaller businesses? Will she please light a rocket to explode these shackles?
§ The Prime MinisterI agree with my hon. Friend that new jobs will come from new businesses and small businesses. That is where the vast majority of the 7 million new jobs in the United States over the past two years have come from. We are considering regulations with a view to diminishing their effect or repealing those which might prevent new businesses from starting up.
§ Mr. SteelNotwithstanding the action that the Prime Minister is taking following the Channel 4 programme, may I ask her not to close her mind to the setting up of a 461 permanent committee of Privy Councillors to oversee the security services and to deal with complaints about possible abuses from members of the public?
§ The Prime MinisterNo, Sir. That proposal has been put forward many times before and I do not think it a very useful one. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that since April 1980 the processes of interception have been subject to independent monitoring by senior members of the judiciary — first, Lord Diplock and, secondly, Lord Bridge of Harwich. They have been able to assure me in every one of their annual reports that they have satisfied themselves that warrants for interception have been applied for and issued in accordance with the procedures and criteria described in the White Paper on interception of communications, which was presented to the House in April 1980.
§ Q2. Mr. Hirstasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 28 February.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. HirstDoes my right hon. Friend agree, now that the majority of miners are working, with 61 coal faces, £120 million worth of equipment, £700 million of miners' pay and many jobs unnecessarily but permanently lost, that it can all be put down to one man and that the biggest enemy of the coal industry and coal miners is Arthur Scargill?
§ The Prime MinisterI agree that the strike has been highly damaging to the coal industry and to those whose future rests in that industry. It has lost customers and confidence, and the best way forward is for miners who are still on strike to take matters into their own hands and return to rebuild the industry which their leadership has shattered.
§ Mr. Home RobertsonHas the Prime Minister seen today's report of the Select Committee on Social Services, which says that any fool can close a long-stay hospital, but that it takes time and trouble to do it properly? Does she agree that the cruellest fool of all is the one who does that sort of thing while saying that the National Health Service is safe in her hands?
§ The Prime MinisterThe hon. Gentleman will be aware that there is a well-known procedure for the closure of hospitals. He will also be aware that the Labour party when in government closed more hospitals than we have closed, and that sometimes they are closed so that there may be better provision in newer hospitals. The hon. Gentleman will also be aware that under this Government the increase in expenditure on the NHS has reached 20 per cent. in real terms, after inflation has been taken into account.
§ Q3. Mr. Robert Atkinsasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 28 February.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. AtkinsDoes my right hon. Friend agree that the relative strength of the pound against the European currencies, especially as we are an oil producer, presents an ideal opportunity, in relation to the pound against the dollar, for us to be more competitive in our exports and therefore to do our GDP a power of good?
§ The Prime MinisterOne of the advantages of the strength of the dollar is that exporters have more chance to get more exports into the United States. Those who have never tackled that market before have a good opportunity to start to establish a position there, and then to keep it should the relative exchange values change.
§ Mr. KinnockHas the Prime Minister noted the concern expressed today by her friends on the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee at the Government's policy, as they put it, of making the gas, electricity, water and other industries pay off debt and finance all future investment from current charges? How can she defend a policy that guarantees large and unnecessary increases in water, gas and electricity bills, both for ordinary families and for industries that are striving to compete?
§ The Prime MinisterAfter last year's drought we thought it right to make increased investment in the water industry. In fact, a 9 per cent. increase in investment is being made in that industry; and if we have increased investment, it must be paid for. The right hon. Gentleman has a nerve to complain about electricity prices, bearing in mind that under the Labour Government they went up 2 per cent. every six weeks, whereas under this Government they have gone up by only 2 per cent. in two years.
§ Mr. KinnockThat is all very well, but again the right hon. Lady does not answer the question. Is she not aware that the policy she is operating means either substantial price increases so as to get investment, or lower price increases, with a consequent decline and decay in investment, with all the results of that on national economic prospects? Which does she want — higher prices so that we have some investment, or more stable prices so that we get economic decline?
§ The Prime MinisterIs the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that there can be increased investment without someone paying for it? If so, he is being absolutely ridiculous.
§ Mr. KinnockThe right hon. Lady used the instance of water in the Thames Valley. She will have to explain her theories to the chairman of that authority, appointed by her, who said that he could get higher investment and efficiency with a 3 per cent. increase. She forced a 9 per cent. increase on him. Is that what she means by efficiency?
§ The Prime MinisterWe have to look at the supply of water all over the country as a whole. Does he not?
§ Q4. Mr. Fallonasked the Prime Minister whether she will list her official engagements for Thursday 28 February.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. FallonHas my right hon. Friend had time to study the report in The Guardian that the Audit Commission has discovered that social services for the elderly could be improved by 20 per cent. without any increase in resources? Have not local authorities a duty to seek such savings?
§ The Prime MinisterYes, I noted the report of the Audit Commission. It is very good evidence to support the view that we have been taking for some time that instead 463 of concentrating on increasing expenditure we should be concentrating on getting more services for the present expenditure. That is what the Audit Commission says can be done in the social services departments.
§ Mr. WigleyOn the question of water costs, is the Prime Minister aware that the Welsh water authority has said that the cost of water would come down in real terms in the coming year but that, as a result of her Government's action, the cost will increase by a third of 30 per cent. over the next three years? Will she now admit that the costs that people are facing are a direct result of this Government's policy?
§ The Prime MinisterWe took a decision to increase, over the country as a whole, investment in water, reservoirs, pipes and everything else. I should have thought that that was in line with what I have often been urged to do—put extra resources into infrastructure. It was also necessary because of the drought. May I point out to the hon. Gentleman that, on average, water rates are about 20p a day. That is about the cost of a daily newspaper.