§ Q1. Mr. Foulkesasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 2 April.
§ 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. FoulkesIs the Prime Minister aware that if pensions were still linked to earnings increases, under Labour's formula a single pensioner would be £6 a week better off? If Britain's economy is as good as the Prime Minister pretends, why is it that a single pensioner will get only a measly 80p next week?
§ The Prime MinisterHad Labour been in power Britain would have gone broke long ago, and many of her contracts with pensioners with it. As it is, we have honoured our pledge to keep the pension more than in line with inflation. We have got inflation down. People's incomes from savings and pensions are greatly up, and people can look forward to a future with security.
§ Mr. Michael MarshallAfter me right hon. Friend's forthright talks in Moscow, will she undertake to continue the same process with Tokyo?
§ The Prime MinisterWe have embarked upon forthright discussions with Tokyo. Just before I came in 1 received a letter from Mr. Nakasone saying that the matter of Cable and Wireless was being considered, and, as my hon. Friend probably knows, we are laying today an order under the Financial Services Act.
§ Mr. KinnockHas the Prime Minister's attention been drawn to the figures obtained from the Treasury last week, which show that the direct tax burden on families of half average, average and one and a half times average income has increased significantly, and in some cases savagely, under her Government? Is that what she meant eight years ago this month when she promised that under her Government
taxes must and taxes will be cut"?
§ The Prime MinisterI am delighted that the Labour party is now so concerned about reducing income tax that it has reversed its previous policy and now supports us. Real take-home pay for a married man on average earnings—[Interruption.] Real net take-home earnings—which is what people are interested in—for a married man on average earnings have risen by 21 per cent. since 1978–79. They barely increased under Labour.
§ Mr. KinnockThe right hon. Lady is in some danger of misleading the country with those figures. In her comparisons with the Labour Government, is she aware that the rise in the burden under her Government has been twice as big as it was under the Labour Government? Is she aware that, far from her claims relating to people on average, below average, and above average income, the family on £114 a week is in real terms £5 a week worse off because of the direct tax take, and that the family on average earnings of £227 a week is £6-odd worse off because of total tax increase? Will she answer the real question? Is that what she meant when she said that she would cut taxes?
§ The Prime MinisterThe right hon. Gentleman forgets that average earnings have gone up enormously, and with them net take-home pay. [HON. MEMBERS: "Tax".] Yes, right, let us talk about tax. We removed the national insurance surcharge, which the Labour party shoved on 1213 jobs. We took it off. Had we left that on, income tax could have been 3p lower than it is. We did not approve of a tax on jobs, so we took it off. The right hon. Gentleman quotes figures. If we had kept Labour's income tax and national insurance regime as it was, a married man on average earnings, with two children, would now be paying £4.85 a week more in income tax and national insurance contributions.
§ Q2. Mr. Andrew MacKayasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 2 April.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. MacKayCan my right hon. Friend confirm that one of the many benefits to accrue from her visit to Moscow is that she has brought back orders and letters of intent to the value of £400 million to British industry? Is that not good news for the country and for the jobless?
§ The Prime MinisterYes, Mr. Speaker. I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The Soviet Prime Minister proposed, and I accepted, an annual target of aggregate trade between the Soviet Union and this country of £2.5 billion by 1990. That means putting up our present trade, but we are going in that direction, because while I was there contracts to the value of £400 million were signed, including a very good one with GEC—[HON. MEMBERS: "Letters of intent."] Letters of intent—[Interruption.]
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder.
§ The Prime MinisterThere was a letter of intent, a memorandum of understanding, between GEC and Simon Carves for a very big sum for electronic equipment, and also a major one for John Brown, the construction firm, to construct a polypropylene plant, which will bring jobs very much where they are needed. It is very good news. I am so sorry that the Opposition, who are always complaining about unemployment, have not the guts to admit it.
§ Q3. Mr. Skinnerasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 2 April.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. SkinnerOn the subject of human rights, now that they are very much in vogue, and the question of sacked miners in Britain, in view of what British Coal has had to say today whereby 300 sacked miners are still not to be allowed to return to work, will the Prime Minister—as she professes to practise what she preaches— call on British Coal to see to it that those 300 miners are treated properly? Why is it, if they cannot get their jobs back, that miners should be treated differently from swindling Tory Members of Parliament?
§ The Prime MinisterThe hon. Gentleman is well aware that the case that he raises about miners is a matter for the National Coal Board. While the hon. Gentleman is talking about human rights, may I point out that many miners wanted freedom from intimidation when they insisted on going to work during the coal strike.
§ Mr. BurtAs we are 10 minutes into Question Time and it has not formally been done, may I offer the Prime Minister a very warm welcome back after her quite remarkable visit—[Interruption.]
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The hon. Gentleman should ask a question.
§ Mr. BurtWhile my right hon. Friend was away, dealing with the rather marginal issues of peace, security and human rights, she may not have noticed that the Opposition were dealing with the really nitty-gritty problem facing society and were litigating over nursery rhymes and party political broadcasts—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I do not think that that is the Prime Minister's responsibility. I gave the hon. Gentleman an opportunity. I cannot keep on giving these warnings. The hon. Gentleman must keep his question in order.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. Mr. John Cartwright.
§ Q4. Mr. Cartwrightasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 2 April.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. CartwrightHas the Prime Minister had time, since her return from Moscow, to see the report of the Royal College of Nursing, which suggests that a combination of high housing costs and low pay has resulted in as many as one in four nursing jobs being left unfilled in London hospitals? Does she share the view of the Royal College of Nursing that if something is not done urgently patients will be put at risk? What action will her Government take to tackle this problem?
§ The Prime MinisterNurses' pay has increased by 23 per cent. over and above inflation since the Government came into office. The number of nurses and midwives has risen by 60,000 since 1979. 1 understand that there are reports on staff shortages in London. Expenditure on health services in London has risen by 10 per cent. in real terms since 1979, and the National Health Service management board has commissioned a report to look at any particular problems over the recruitment of nurses in London. A study team expects to report by late spring and the board will then consider what action may he required.
§ Mr. ForthFollowing the establishment of a unique and valuable rapport between my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the leader of the Soviet Union, will my right hon. Friend be bringing to our friends and allies in NATO and the West the benefit of that relationship which she has established, and can she therefore give us hope for a more secure future based on that relationship and the work that she has already done?
§ The Prime MinisterYes, we are in touch with all our NATO colleagues about the results of my visit to Moscow. It is our intention to follow up all matters closely, because we believe that it is essential to create greater friendship, trust and confidence if we are to get the benefit of reductions in nuclear and other weapons.
§ Q5. Mr. Tom Coxasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 2 April.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. CoxIs the Prime Minister aware, when she talks about health services in London, of the hospital closures that have taken place during the eight years of her 1215 Government, of the effect that that has had on local communities and that we are now facing in London something that is called "hot-bedding", which means that in-patients have to vacate their beds during the day so that day patients can make use of them? Is that not an indictment of the attitude of the hon. Lady and her Government towards health services, not only in London, but up and down the country?
§ The Prime MinisterAs the hon. Gentleman is aware, day surgery is on the increase and it is very welcome. Many people wish to get home as soon as they can after surgery and it means a far greater and better use of doctors' and nurses' time. As far as London is concerned—[Interruption.]
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder.
§ The Prime MinisterAs I said a moment ago, expenditure on health services in London has risen—[Interruption.]
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. This is a matter of great interest to many London Members, of whom I am one.
§ The Prime MinisterExpenditure on health services in London has risen by 10 per cent. in real terms, over and above inflation, since 1979.
The hon. Gentleman and I are both London Members and we are both aware of the policy of allocating greater increases in resources to other areas. It seems to me that that is a policy with which he heartily disagrees and that 1216 he would propose not to put as much into Scotland, the north-east, the north-west, the south-west and Wales as we are doing.
§ Q6. Mr. Nicholas Bakerasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 2 April.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. BakerIn the light of the dire threat to many of our youth and employment training schemes, will my right hon. Friend reaffirm her Government's commitment to such schemes, because the dire threat, according to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), is that a Labour Government would not contemplate them?
§ The Prime MinisterYes, I confirm that we shall continue the youth training scheme, which, as my hon. Friend knows, has been increased to two years and gives excellent training opportunities to young people, which will help them to get better jobs than they might otherwise have had. My hon. Friend will also be aware that we have just launched a new job training scheme which will be for six months and will soon be training about 250,000 young people a year, particularly for jobs where employers find it difficult to find people to fill vacancies. I understand from the Labour party that it would like a similar scheme. When we introduce such a scheme the Labour party calls it fiddling the figures. If it were to introduce such a scheme, it would call it proper training.