§ Q1. Ms. WalleyTo ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 1 November.
§ 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.
§ Ms. WalleyWhen the take-up of family credit is as low as one in three, how can the Prime Minister justify the sacking of 4,400 civil servants? Does she agree that those people would be best employed increasing the take-up of benefit in places such as my constituency of Stoke-on-Trent, North?
§ The Prime MinisterNo. The work of the social security officers in dealing with the unemployed has reduced substantially. I am sure that the hon. Lady is very pleased about that. That also applies to social security offices. There is no point in keeping on people who have no work to do. Where we need extra efficiency, we are trying to get it by improved use of all the latest office equipment. Where we need people to do specialist work we shall take them on, but we shall take on only a particular kind of person.
§ Q2. Mr. John TownendTo ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 1 November.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. TownendDoes my right hon. Friend agree that those who have benefited most from the substantial 817 reductions in income tax, particularly those on high incomes, should be prepared to accept the personal responsibility of paying for their own eye tests and dental examinations? Will she make it clear that it is not Government policy, it never has been and it never will be, to levy charges on children, the low-paid and the partially blind? Will she confirm that 20 million people will be exempt from such charges?
§ The Prime MinisterMy hon. Friend is correct in saying that some 20 million people—more than one third of the population—will be exempt from charges on sight tests and dental examinations. Most people can pay small charges for dental and eye examinations. They are very willing to pay small charges. They cannot pay the big charges for operations for cataracts, hip replacements and so on. [Interruption.] Small charges amount to a very considerable sum which enables us to have reductions in waiting lists, such as the initiatives we have had in the past. If we are deprived of those small sums, people will not be able to get the operations they really need as soon as they otherwise would. Many people would be quite put out if they were not allowed to pay—[interruption.]
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The Prime Minister has not finished answering the question.
§ The Prime MinisterMany people would feel that it was quite wrong if they were not allowed to pay the small sums which they can well afford, to enable substantial developments in the Health Service to take place.
§ Mr. KinnockThere is now conclusive proof that family credit reaches only 30 per cent. of eligible families. When a targeted benefit misses 70 per cent. of the people it is supposed to help, had the Prime Minister not better do something about her aim?
§ The Prime MinisterMy right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security has said that we shall have a major effort to get more people who are entitled to family credit to receive it. That will mean, among other things, a major programme of television advertising. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not then object to that expenditure.
§ Mr. KinnockIs the Prime Minister not aware that, at the outset of family credit, the Government budgeted for only 60 per cent. take-up? Actual take-up has been half that. Does that cause the Government and the Prime Minister any regret, or is it yet another attempt to ensure that money can be saved at the expense of the poor?
§ The Prime MinisterMore money is being spent on the poor and not on better-off people. The right hon. Gentleman is aware that people can claim family credit with a family of two up to an income of £9,300 a year. I would have hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would join in trying to get people who are entitled to family credit to go along and claim it. If he will not, why not?
§ Mr. KinnockI am rather more in favour of the poor getting money than is the Prime Minister, on the basis of her record. Last week the Government again froze child benefit. They spent £70 million on family credit. If the Prime Minister is so keen to provide money for the poor, why did she not spend the whole £206 million previously earmarked for child benefit on providing family benefit for 818 people who are most greviously in need of it as a result of the means tests that the Government have applied to them?
§ The Prime MinisterNever has more been spent on social security payments and the Health Service, because the wealth created by enterprise under this Government has enabled us to do that. Family income supplement, as it used to be, was introduced by a Conservative Government. Family credit—an enormous improvement which helps people on low wages—was also introduced by a Conservative Government. There have been no such things under Labour.
§ Mr. AdleyI welcome my right hon. Friend's continued support for the Channel tunnel project. Is she aware that there appears to be no co-ordination between the British Government through British Rail and the French Government through Societé Nationale des Chemins de fer Francais of the investment criteria governing the construction and development of rail services at each end of the line? Does my right hon. Friend think that this is necessary? If so, will she please arrange for the two Departments of Transport to meet soon to discuss the matter?
§ The Prime MinisterI would not necessarily accept that. I think that there is co-ordination. I think that my hon. Friend is probably referring to the fact that the French need the high-speed train in any event, whereas we do not have the same need for it on this side of the tunnel for services to London. I will, however, look further into the matter.
§ Sir Russell JohnstonIs the Prime Minister aware that those of us who struggle with tobacco addiction—it is some struggle, as I am sure the Leader of the Opposition agrees—are interested to read speculation that she is contemplating some legislation in this area? Is she aware that in West Germany for example, tobacco companies are compelled by law to print on cigarette packets the nicotine and carbon content of cigarettes, thus at least enabling people to choose the least injurious? Will she consider leaning on tobacco companies to do that voluntarily in the United Kingdom?
§ The Prime MinisterI am not aware of any further legislation. The health warning on the packet does not seem to have had very much effect. Persuasion is a far better weapon than legislation on this issue.