The Downing Street Years, 1979-1990

To turn from the euphoria of election victory to the problems of the British economy was to confront the morning after the night before. Inflation was speeding up; public sector pay was out of control; public spending projections were rising as revenue projections fell; and our domestic problems were aggravated by a rise in oil prices that was driving the world into recession.

The temptation in these circumstances was to retreat to a defensive redoubt, adopting a policy of false prudence: not to cut income tax when revenues were already threatening to fall; not to remove price controls when inflation was already accelerating; not to cut industrial subsidies in the teeth of a rising recession; and not to constrain the public sector when the private sector seemed too weak to create new jobs. And, indeed, these adverse economic conditions did slow down the rate at which we could hope to regenerate Britain. But I believed that was all the more reason to redouble our efforts. We were running up the ‘Down’ escalator, and we would have to run a great deal faster if we were ever to get to the top.

THE FIRST QUEEN’S SPEECH

Our first opportunity to demonstrate to both friends and opponents that we would not be deterred by the difficulties was the Queen’s Speech. The first Loyal Address (as it is also called) of a new government sets the tone for its whole term of office. If the opportunity to set a radical new course is not taken, it will almost certainly never recur. And the world realizes that underneath all the brave new rhetoric, it is Business As Usual. I was determined to send out a clear signal of change.

By the end of the debates on the Address it was evident that the House of Commons could expect a heavy programme, designed to reverse socialism, extend choice and widen property ownership. There would be legislation to restrict the activities of Labour’s National Enterprise Board and to begin the process of returning state-owned businesses and assets to the private sector. We would give council tenants the right to buy their homes at large discounts, with the possibility of 100 per cent mortgages. There would be partial deregulation of new private sector renting. (Decades of restrictive controls had steadily reduced the opportunities for those who wished to rent accommodation and thereby retarded labour mobility and economic progress.) We would repeal Labour’s Community Land Act — this attempt to nationalize the gains accruing from development had created a shortage of land and pushed up prices. We removed the obligation on local authorities to replace grammar schools and announced the introduction of the Assisted Places Scheme, enabling talented children from poorer backgrounds to go to private schools. These were the first of what I hoped would be many steps to ensure that children from families like my own had the chance of self-improvement. We would, finally, curb what were often the corrupt and wasteful activities of local government direct labour organizations (usually socialist controlled).

When I spoke in the Queen’s Speech debate, two points attracted particular attention: the abolition of price controls and the promise of trade union reform. Most people expected that we would keep price controls in some form, at least temporarily. After all, the regulation of prices, wages and dividends had been one of the means by which, throughout most of the western world, governments sought to extend their powers and influence and to alleviate the inflationary effects of their own financially irresponsible policies.

But there was plenty of evidence, gathered by the Confederation of British Industry (CBI), that while price controls had a minimal effect on inflation, they certainly damaged industrial profitability and investment. One of our first discussions in ‘E’ Committee — the economic strategy committee of the Cabinet, of which I was the chairman — was whether we should press ahead with early and total abolition of the Price Commission. Some ministers argued that with inflation accelerating, the coming rise in prices would be blamed on the Commission’s abolition and therefore on the government. This argument had some force. But John Nott, the Trade Secretary, was keen to act swiftly; and he was right. It would have been still more difficult to abolish the Commission later in the year when prices were already rising faster. Perhaps the first time our opponents truly realized that the Government’s rhetorical commitment to the market would be matched by practical action was the day we announced abolition. We made public at the same time our decision to strengthen the powers of the Director-General of Fair Trading and the Monopolies and Mergers Commission to act against monopoly pricing, including prices set by nationalized industries.

I was also keen to use my speech in the debate to put an authoritative stamp on our trade union reforms. Jim Prior’s preferred strategy was one of consultation with the trade unions before introducing the limited reforms of trade union law which we had proposed in Opposition. But it was vital to show that there would be no back-tracking from the clear mandate we had received to make fundamental changes. Initially, we proposed three reforms in the Queen’s Speech. First, the right to picket — which had been so seriously abused in the strikes of the previous winter and for many years before — would be strictly limited to those in dispute with their employer at their own place of work; thus secondary picketing would become unlawful. Second, we were committed to changing the law on the closed shop, under which employees had effectively been compelled to join a union if they wished to obtain or keep a job, and which at that time covered some five million workers. Those who lost their jobs for this reason must in future be entitled to proper compensation. Third, public funds would be made available to finance postal ballots for union elections and other important union decisions: we wanted to discourage votes by show of hands — the notorious ‘car park’ votes — and the sharp practice, rigging and intimidation which had become associated with ‘trade union democracy’.

In retrospect it seems extraordinary that such a relatively modest programme was represented by most trade union leaders and the Labour Party as an outright attack on trade unionism. In fact, we would have to return — and soon — to the issue of trade union reform. As time went by, it became increasingly clear to the trade union leaders and to the Labour Party that not only did we have huge public support for our policies, but that the majority of trade unionists supported them too, because their families were being damaged by strikes which many of them had not voted for and did not want. We were the ones in touch with the popular mood.

This was my first major parliamentary performance as Prime Minister, and I emerged unscathed. Nowadays, prime ministers make relatively few speeches in the House. The most important are speeches, like this, which deal with the government’s legislative programme, speeches answering motions of censure, statements after international summits and debates which arise at times of international tension. This may be one reason why it is often difficult — over and above the moral blow of losing an election and leaving office — for prime ministers to revert to becoming Leaders of the Opposition, a job which demands more speech-making, but with less thorough briefing. Certainly, Jim Callaghan, who had never led his party in opposition, looked uncomfortable in that role. It was no surprise to me when he decided in October 1980 to step down from a position which his own left wing was making increasingly intolerable for him.

But it is Questions to the Prime Minister every Tuesday and Thursday which are the real test of your authority in the House, your standing with your party, your grip of policy and of the facts to justify it. No head of government anywhere in the world has to face this sort of regular pressure and many go to great lengths to avoid it; no head of government, as I would sometimes remind those at summits, is as accountable as the British prime minister.

I always briefed myself very carefully for Questions. One of the private secretaries, my political secretary, my Parliamentary Private Secretary and I would go through all the likely issues which might come up without any notice. This is because the questions on the Order Paper only ask about the prime minister’s official engagements for that day. The real question is the supplementary whose subject matter may vary from some local hospital to a great international issue or to the crime statistics. Each department was, naturally, expected to provide the facts and a possible reply on points which might arise. It was a good test of the alertness and efficiency of the Cabinet minister in charge of a department whether information arrived late — or arrived at all; whether it was accurate or wrong, comprehensible or riddled with jargon. On occasion the results, judged by these criteria, were not altogether reassuring. However, little by little I came to feel more confident about these noisy ritual confrontations, and as I did so my performance became more effective. Sometimes I even enjoyed them.

THE 1979 BUDGET

The next watershed in the Government’s programme was the budget. Our general approach was well known. Firm control of the money supply was necessary to bring down inflation. Cuts in public expenditure and borrowing were needed to lift the burden on the wealth-creating private sector. Lower income tax, combined with a shift from taxation on earning to taxation on spending, would increase incentives. However, these broad objectives would have to be pursued against a rapidly worsening economic background at home and abroad.

Britain’s rate of inflation was running at 10 per cent when we took office, and rising. (The three-month rate was 13 per cent.) This reflected the lack of financial discipline in Labour’s last years, when they broke free of the constraints imposed on them by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in 1976. There was also a pay explosion as powerful unionized groups rode roughshod over the remains of Labour’s incomes policy. And internationally, oil prices had begun to rise sharply, and were already about 30 per cent higher than six months earlier, as a result of the continuing turmoil in Iran after the fall of the Shah in 1978. This had an increasingly damaging effect on the international economy.

The oil price rise increased worldwide inflationary pressures. But it also had a perverse and, at least in the short term, damaging effect on the domestic economy because sterling was a petro-currency and it appreciated accordingly. Sterling was strong for other reasons too. Following the election there had been a general increase in confidence in the British economy. We were also pursuing a tight monetary policy, requiring high interest rates (interest rates had to go up by two percentage points at the time of the budget), and this attracted foreign capital. As a result of all these factors, sterling continued to rise.

We were perhaps better prepared for taking the required economic decisions than any previous Opposition. We had, every year, conducted our own internal public expenditure exercises, seeking to identify cuts wherever possible and putting figures on them. We had also, through the ‘Stepping Stones’ group of Shadow ministers and advisers of which John Hoskyns had been the main inspiration, worked out how to combine our policies to achieve the overall objective of reversing Britain’s economic decline.

But no amount of advance preparation could change the unpleasant facts of finance or the budget arithmetic. The two crucial discussions on the 1979 budget took place on 22 and 24 May between me and the Chancellor. Geoffrey Howe was able to demonstrate that to reduce the top rate of income tax to 60 per cent (from 83 per cent), the basic rate to 30 per cent (from 33 per cent), and the PSBR to about £8 billion (a figure we felt we could fund and afford) would require an increase in the two rates of VAT of 8 per cent and 12.5 per cent to a unified rate of 15 per cent. (The zero rate on food and other basics would be unchanged.) I was naturally concerned that this large shift from direct to indirect taxation would add about four percentage points onto the Retail Price Index (RPI).

This would be a once and for all addition to prices (and so it would not be ‘inflationary’ in the correct sense of the term which means a continuing rise in prices). But it would also mean that the RPI, by which people generally measured living standards and all too frequently adjusted wage demands, would double in our first year of office.[13] I was also concerned that too many of the proposed public spending cuts involved higher charges for public services. These too would have a similar effect on the RPI. I recalled at my first budget meeting with Geoffrey that Rab Butler as Chancellor in 1951 had introduced his tax cuts gradually. Should we do the same? Geoffrey stuck to his guns. We went away to consider the question further.

At our second meeting we decided to go ahead. Income tax cuts were vital, even if they had to be paid for by raising VAT in this large leap. The decisive argument was that such a controversial increase in indirect taxes could only be made at the beginning of a parliament, when our mandate was fresh. If we waited, hoping that either economic growth or cuts in public expenditure would do the job for us, we might never achieve the structural shift needed to boost incentives. We must establish the direction of our strategy from the start and do it boldly. By the end of that second meeting the shape of the budget which Geoffrey Howe announced on 12 June had effectively been set.

It was generally agreed to be a dramatic reforming budget even by those opposed to us, like the Guardian newspaper, which described it as ‘the richest political and economic gamble in post-war parliamentary history’. Its main provisions followed closely our discussions at the end of May: a cut in the basic rate of income tax from 33 to 30 per cent (with the highest rate cut from 83 to 60 per cent), tax allowances increased by 9 per cent above the rate of inflation, and the introduction of a new, unified rate of VAT at 15 per cent.

Apart from the budget’s big income tax cuts, however, we were able to reduce or remove controls on a number of areas of economic life. Pay, price and dividend controls had gone. Industrial Development Certificates, Office Development Permits and a range of circulars and unnecessary planning controls were also removed or modified. (Geoffrey Howe’s second budget in 1980 was to announce the creation of Enterprise Zones, where businesses could benefit from tax breaks and rate exemption to attract investment and promote employment in run-down areas.)

But I took greatest personal pleasure in the removal of exchange controls — that is the abolition of the elaborate statutory restrictions on the amount of foreign exchange British citizens could acquire. These had been introduced as an ‘emergency measure’ at the start of the Second World War and maintained by successive governments, largely in the hope of increasing industrial investment in Britain and of resisting pressures on sterling. The overwhelming evidence was that they no longer achieved either of the objectives previously expected of them (if in fact they ever had done). With sterling buoyant and Britain beginning to enjoy the economic benefits of North Sea oil, the time had come to abolish them entirely. They were duly removed in three stages — some at the time of the Budget, a few others later in July, and the remainder in October (with the temporary exception of controls relating to Rhodesia). The legislation itself stayed on the Statute Book until 1987, but no further use was made of it. Not only did the ending of exchange controls increase the freedom of individuals and businesses; it encouraged foreign investment in Britain and British investment abroad, which has subsequently provided a valuable stream of income likely to continue long after North Sea oil runs out.

But not every capitalist had my confidence in capitalism. I remember a meeting in Opposition with City experts who were clearly taken aback at my desire to free their market. ‘Steady on!’, I was told. Clearly, a world without exchange controls in which markets rather than governments determined the movement of capital left them distinctly uneasy. They might have to take risks.

We had also been distracted throughout our budget discussions by the worrying level of public sector pay rises. Here we had limited freedom of manoeuvre. Hard, if distasteful, political calculations had led us to commit ourselves during the election campaign to honour the decisions of the Clegg Commission on those claims which had already been formally referred to it. The issue was now whether to refer the unsettled claims of other groups to Clegg, or to seek some new method of dealing with the problem.

It was quite clear to me that in the longer run there were only two criteria which could apply to pay in the public as in the private sector. The first was affordability: ultimately, it was the taxpayer and ratepayer who had to pay public sector wage bills, and if that burden passed beyond a certain limit, the country’s economy would suffer. The second was recruitment: pay had to be sufficient to attract and retain people of the right ability and professional qualifications. However, the whole bureaucratic apparatus designed to achieve ‘comparability’ between public and private sector pay — not just the Clegg Commission but the Civil Service Pay Research Unit and other bodies — obscured these simple criteria.

We decided to submit evidence to the Commission about the necessity of keeping departmental budgets within reasonable limits and what that meant for public sector pay. But we also decided to keep the Commission in existence for the time being, and indeed refer new claims to it on an ad hoc basis. We thought at the time that the Commission might actually make lower pay awards than ministers themselves might have had to concede. But that turned out to be a highly optimistic assessment and, as a result, we underestimated the public expenditure cost of Clegg.

In retrospect, we made a mistake. Even at the time, the warning signs were evident. Geoffrey Howe told me that, allowing for some success in buying out restrictive practices, average pay could well be at least two to three percentage points higher than the recent June Forecast had assumed. In the end, it was not until August 1980 that we announced that Clegg would be abolished after its existing work had been completed. Its last report was in March 1981. The fact remains, however, that the momentum of public sector pay claims created by inflation, powerful trade unions and an over-large public sector was not going to be halted, let alone reversed, all at once.

CIVIL SERVICE REFORM

Whatever the short-term difficulties, I was determined at least to begin work on long-term reforms of government itself. If we were to channel more of the nation’s talent into wealth-creating private business, this would inevitably mean reducing employment in the public sector. Since the early 1960s, the public sector had grown steadily, accounting for an increased proportion of the total workforce.[14] Unlike the private sector, it actually tended to grow during recessions while maintaining its size during periods of economic growth. In short, it was shielded from the normal economic disciplines which affect the outside world.

The size of the civil service reflected this. In 1961 the numbers in the civil service had reached a post-war low of 640,000; by 1979 they had grown to 732,000. This trend had to be reversed. Within days of taking office, as I have noted, we imposed a freeze in recruitment to help reduce the Government’s pay bill by some 3 per cent. Departments came up with a range of ingenious reasons why this principle should not apply to them. But one by one they were overruled. By 13 May 1980 I was able to lay before the House our long-term targets for reducing civil service numbers. The total had already fallen to 705,000. We would seek to reduce it to around 630,000 over the next four years. Since some 80,000 left the civil service by retirement or resignation every year, it seemed likely that our target could be achieved without compulsory redundancies. We were, in fact, able to do it.

But the corollary of this was that we should reward outstanding ability within the civil service appropriately. The difficulties of introducing pay rates related to merit proved immense; we made progress, but it took several years and a great deal of pushing and shoving.

Similarly, I took a close interest in senior appointments in the civil service from the first, because they could affect the morale and efficiency of whole departments. I was determined to change the mentality exemplified in the early 1970s by a remark attributed to the then head of the civil service, that the best that the British could hope for was the ‘orderly management of decline’. The country and the civil service itself were sold short by such attitudes. They also threatened a waste of scarce talent.

I was enormously impressed by the ability and energy of the members of my private office at No. 10. I usually held personal interviews with the candidates for private secretary for my own office. Those who came were some of the very brightest young men and women in the civil service, ambitious and excited to be at the heart of decision-making in government. I wanted to see people of the same calibre, with lively minds and a commitment to good administration, promoted to hold the senior posts in the departments. Indeed, during my time in government, many of my former private secretaries went on to head departments. In all these decisions, however, ability, drive and enthusiasm were what mattered; political allegiance was not something I took into account.

Over the years, finally, certain attitudes and work habits had crept in that were an obstacle to good administration. I had to overcome, for instance, the greater power of the civil service unions (which in addition were increasingly politicized). The pursuit of new and more efficient working practices — such as the application of information technology — was being held up by union obstruction. In a department like Health and Social Security where we needed to get the figures quickly to pay out benefits, these practices were disgraceful. But eventually we overcame them. There was even a problem at the very top. Some Permanent Secretaries had come to think of themselves mainly as policy advisers, forgetting that they were also responsible for the efficient management of their departments.

To see for myself, I decided to visit the main government departments to meet as many people as possible and discuss how they were tackling their priorities. I devoted most of a day to each department. In September 1979, for instance, I had a useful discussion with civil servants at the Department of Health and Social Security. I brought up the urgent need to dispose of surplus land held by the public sector. I was keen that where hospitals had land which they did not need they should be able to sell it and retain the proceeds to spend on improving patient care. There were arguments for and against this, but one argument advanced on this occasion, which was all too symptomatic of what had gone seriously wrong, was that this was somehow unfair on those hospitals which did not have the good fortune to have surplus land. We clearly had a long way to go before all the resources of the Health Service would be used efficiently for the benefit of patients. But this visit planted seeds that later grew into the Griffiths[15] reforms of NHS management and, later still, the internal market reforms of the Health Service in 1990.

Similarly, on 11 January the following year, I visited the Civil Service Department (CSD). This was an enlightening, if not an encouraging, experience. The CSD was set up in 1968, following publication of the Fulton Committee Report, with responsibility for the management and pay of the civil service. To the nucleus of the Pay and Management Divisions of the Treasury were added the Civil Service Commission and the newly established Civil Service College. The CSD employed 5000 people, headed by Sir Ian Bancroft, the senior Permanent Secretary. Although as Prime Minister I was in overall charge of the civil service, the duties were exercised by a Minister of State and the CSD had always lacked credibility and power in Whitehall.

Not without cause. When I arrived at the CSD, many of my worst fears about the civil service were confirmed. I met able and conscientious people attempting to manage and monitor the activities of civil servants in departments of which they knew little, in policy areas of which they knew even less. Because the staff of other departments were aware of the disadvantages under which the CSD worked, they took scant notice of the recommendations they received from it. After this visit, the only real question in my mind was whether responsibility for the CSD’s work should be redistributed to the Treasury or the Cabinet Office.

Inevitably, my visits to government departments were not as long as I would have liked. There were other limits too on what I could learn on these occasions — particularly that senior civil servants might feel inhibited from speaking freely when their ministers were present. Consequently, after discussing the matter with Sir Ian Bancroft and having a word with Cabinet colleagues, I invited the Permanent Secretaries to dinner at No. 10 on the evening of Tuesday 6 May 1980. There were twenty-three Permanent Secretaries, Robin Ibbs (Head of the CPRS), Clive Whitmore, my principal private secretary, David Wolfson and myself around the dining-table.

This was one of the most dismal occasions of my entire time in government. I enjoy frank and open discussion, even a clash of temperaments and ideas, but such a menu of complaints and negative attitudes as was served up that evening was enough to dull any appetite I may have had for this kind of occasion in the future. The dinner took place a few days before I announced the progamme of civil service cuts to the Commons, and that was presumably the basis for complaints that ministers had damaged civil service ‘morale’.

What lay still further behind this, I felt, was a desire for no change. But the idea that the civil service could be insulated from a reforming zeal that would transform Britain’s public and private institutions over the next decade was a pipe-dream. I preferred disorderly resistance to decline rather than comfortable accommodation to it. And I knew that the more able of the younger generation of civil servants agreed with me. So, to be fair, did a few of the Permanent Secretaries present that night. They were as appalled as I was, and retreated into their shells. It became clear to me that it was only by encouraging or appointing individuals, rather than trying to change attitudes en bloc, that progress would be made. And that was to be the method I employed.[16]

PUBLIC SPENDING

Such an approach, however, would take years. We were dealing with crises on a weekly basis during the second half of 1979 as we scanned the figures on public spending and borrowing, against the background of an international economy slipping faster and faster into recession. Our first task was to make whatever reductions we could for the current financial year, 1979–80. Ordinarily, public spending decisions were made by government during the summer and autumn of the previous year and announced in November. Even though we were several months into the current financial year, we had to begin by reopening the public expenditure plans we had inherited from the Labour Government. We would announce our new public expenditure plans with the Budget. The scope for cuts was limited, partly because of this, partly because of our own election pledges, and partly because some changes we wanted to make required legislation.

We had promised to increase resources for defence and law and order, and not to cut spending on the National Health Service. We were also pledged to raise retirement pensions and other long-term social security benefits in line with prices — and to honour Labour’s promised pension increases that year. We might have taken cash from the contingency reserve, but if there was to be any cash to take we would have to resist extra claims by government departments — no easy matter. Another possible device would be to squeeze the volume of public expenditure by holding to the existing cash limits, even though inflation had risen since they were set by the previous government. But that in turn would mean holding the line on public sector pay — again, no easy matter. Receipts from privatization might help us to balance the books. But although government-owned shares in British Petroleum could be sold at once, the sale of state-owned assets on a really large scale would need legislation. Much of the work on public expenditure cuts which we had done in Opposition had been overtaken by events, the most damaging of which was the generosity of Professor Clegg. In short, we seemed to be boxed in.

But I was determined that we should make as vigorous a start as possible. I felt that the Treasury’s first proposals for cuts in the current financial year, 1979–80, did not go far enough. Indeed, I had a meeting less than a fortnight after entering No. 10 with Treasury officials at which I told them so very firmly. Accordingly, John Biffen brought forward revised proposals that cut a further £500 million off the total, and I made it clear to colleagues that that was the least we could do.

In the end we were able to announce £3.5 billion of economies along with Geoffrey’s Budget. In addition to the measures we were originally considering, we sought savings on industrial support, particularly regional development grants, on energy and on holding back projected spending on development land and public investment.

We also decided to raise prescription charges, which had remained at the same level for eight years during which time prices had risen two and a half times. (The wide range of exemptions would be maintained.) This had not been our first choice for savings from the DHSS budget. We had originally discussed extending the number of so-called ‘waiting days’ which must lapse before an applicant is entitled to sickness or unemployment benefit from three to six days. We decided not to press ahead with this, but nevertheless the idea found its way into the press in one of the leaks that were continually to bedevil our discussions of public spending.

No sooner had we agreed savings for the current year, 1979–80, than the still more difficult task was upon us of planning public expenditure for 1980–81 and subsequent years. In July 1979, when the crucial decisions were being hammered out, we had a series of particularly testing (and testy) Cabinet discussions on the issue. Our goal was what it had been in Opposition, that is to bring public expenditure back to the 1977–8 level in real terms. We hoped to achieve this by 1982–3. But, in spite of the reductions we had made, public expenditure was already threatening to run out of control. That in turn would have serious consequences for the PSBR, and thus for interest rates, in the longer term for taxation, and ultimately for our entire programme.

Nonetheless — or perhaps for that very reason — there was strong opposition from some ministers to the cuts. These were the so-called ‘wets’ who over the next few years took their opposition to our economic strategy to the very brink of resignation.[17] Some argued that the strategy had been overtaken by events; and indeed for those who had not heard that Keynes was dead, the prospect of reducing expenditure and curbing borrowing as we and the world sank into recession was undoubtedly alarming. Others put up a hundred and one reasons why any particular cut was out of the question. Defence, for instance, would not be able to achieve its sacrosanct target of 3 per cent growth a year. Or the DES would not be able to make economies in the time available (in spite of declining pupil numbers.) Or the Department of Employment would have to find money in response to the mounting jobless total. In the light of this opposition, I instructed a small group of key ministers to discuss with departments the proposals for reductions and report back to Cabinet.

Geoffrey Howe was superbly stolid in resisting this pressure. Later in July he set out for colleagues the precise implications of a failure to agree the £6.5 billion reductions he was proposing. He also dispelled some of the misunderstandings. Ministers had to recognize that we were not cutting to the bone, but merely reining in the increases planned by Labour and compensating for other increases that the deepening recession had made almost inevitable.

Labour’s previously announced plans would have increased expenditure in 1979–80 by some 2 to 3 per cent over the level of 1978–9, and in 1980–81 by some 5 per cent, on the transparently erroneous assumption that the economy would grow by between 2 per cent and 3 per cent a year. Not that Labour was unique in this. The Treasury used to produce a fascinating chart, the so-called ‘porcupine’, in which the forecasts of economic growth in successive public spending white papers shot ever upwards, looking a little like porcupine quills, while the actual course of economic growth stubbornly remained on an only gently rising gradient. This was a literally graphic illustration of the overoptimistic assumptions on which past public expenditures plans had been based year after year. I was determined not to add another set of spikes.

In this case, Labour’s plans would have involved expenditure of a further £5 billion in 1980–81 to be financed out of growth that was not happening. Moreover, this overshoot had been aggravated by a rate of pay increase in the public sector which was forecast to be 18 per cent, and which which would cost another £4.5 billion. To offset these increasing obligations we had to find substantial cuts. We had to make reductions of £6.5 billion in the expenditure plans for 1980–81, just to hold the PSBR in that year down to £9 billion. That figure was in itself too high. But the ‘wets’ continued to oppose the cuts both in Cabinet and in the indecent obscurity of leaks to the Guardian.

It was not until the end of July that the Cabinet brought itself to take the necessary decisions. The conclusions were extensively leaked. Even so, we decided the wisest course was to wait for the autumn before publishing the full figures in the Autumn Statement. We had made some tough decisions in those first three months. It was, however, only a start.

Over the summer the economic situation worsened. On my return from my first Commonwealth summit in Lusaka in August, Geoffrey Howe presented me with a general survey of the economy which he rightly described as ‘not very cheerful’. Unemployment was likely to begin to rise as the international recession deepened. Inflation was accelerating. Our competitiveness had worsened as a high pound and high wage costs put industry under increasing pressure. We became increasingly worried about the implications of pay rises for unemployment and bankruptcies. I asked that we should collect and circulate examples of excessive pay awards, which priced goods out of the market and destroyed jobs.

In September we again returned to public spending. We not only had to publish the conclusions we had agreed in July, but also our plans for the years up to 1983–4. And that meant more economies. We decided on a renewed drive to cut waste and reduce civil service numbers. We also agreed sharp increases in the price of electricity and gas (which had been artificially held down by Labour) that would come into effect in October 1980. Electricity would rise by 5 per cent, and gas by 10 per cent, over and above inflation.

The 1980–81 Public Expenditure white paper was duly published on 1 November. These public spending plans honoured our pledges to provide more resources for defence, law and order and social security (reflecting the year’s record pensions uprating). They would also hold the public spending total for 1980–81 at the same level as 1979–80. In spite of the fact that this reduction of some £3.5 billion from Labour’s plans was denounced as draconian, it really was not large enough. That was evident not only to me, but also to the financial markets, already concerned about excess monetary growth.

Here, too, we seemed to be running up the ‘Down’ escalator. On 5 November Geoffrey Howe came to see me. The money supply figures were well above target, principally because the PSBR and bank lending were both higher than expected. The PSBR had been affected by one strike which held up payment of telephone bills and by another which had disrupted VAT payments. Companies were borrowing to finance wage settlements they could not afford. Interest rates overseas were on the way up. And the public spending figures had also, as I suspected, proved too high for the markets. A financial crisis threatened. In the days of Denis Healey this would have elicited a fiscal package or ‘mini-budget’. We had no hesitation in rejecting this approach. Higher interest rates or lower public spending, not tinkering with fiscal demand management, were the appropriate response.

On 15 November we accordingly raised Minimum Lending Rate (MLR — the successor to Bank Rate) to 17 per cent. (Measured by the RPI, inflation at this time was running at 17.4 per cent.) Other measures to help fund the PSBR were also announced.

Of course, the Opposition had a field day, attacking our whole strategy as misguided and incompetent. The fact of the matter was not that our strategy was wrong but that we had yet to apply it sufficiently rigorously and get a grip on public spending and borrowing. That in turn was increasing the pressure on the private sector through higher interest rates. Keith Joseph had warned of this in Opposition in his Stockton Lecture in 1976, which was later published as a pamphlet under the title Monetarism is not Enough, in which he said:

Though, it is true, there is always talk of cutting public expenditure, it has remained almost entirely talk. Cutting public expenditure has come to mean juggling with figures… But whereas cuts in public expenditure rarely eventuate, squeezes on the private sector are ‘for real’. The interest rate is increased, bank lending is contracted, taxes are raised, other old-fashioned deflationary measures are used. The private sector is punished for the state sector’s profligacy.

I knew that we had to break this vicious spiral. We had to make further attempts to curb public spending and borrowing — no matter how difficult — because otherwise private enterprise would have to bear a crushing burden of public sector profligacy. Geoffrey and I accordingly decided that we had no alternative but to seek further spending reductions in 1980–81 and in subsequent years. He brought forward a paper, first to me and a small group of ministers and then to the full Cabinet, proposing an extra £i billion reduction in 1980 — 81, and £2 billion in each of the following years. From what I had seen of departmental ministers’ fierce defence of their own budgets, I knew that this would provoke trouble. But I also knew that the great majority in the Party were determined to see the strategy succeed. So I sought to take my case to them.

I had already told the Party Conference in Blackpool on 12 October:

Just before the November rise in interest rates, I had used the platform of the Lord Mayor’s Banquet to reaffirm that we would hold to our monetary policy in the fight against inflation:

I now made it clear that we would return to the attack on excessive public spending. The Party Leader’s speeches to the 1922 Committee are an opportunity to appeal directly for support for the Government’s policies. On Thursday 13 December, I told the ‘22 that we needed to ‘have another go at getting expenditure down’ and was well received. A little less than a month later, I agreed to be interviewed by Brian Waiden on Weekend World and said of public spending that ‘if we got a billion off, I would be quite pleased’. The atmosphere quickly became more propitious for a renewed drive against overspending.

In Cabinet on 24 January 1980 we returned to a discussion of public expenditure for 1980–81 and the years to 1983–4. Higher oil prices, almost no growth projected in industrialized countries in the coming year, and the steel strike[18] adding to the PSBR, formed a sombre background to our deliberations. I knew that these next two years would be crucial. We had to take the required action on inflation and public spending in that time: then as growth resumed, we would again be in a position to move towards lower taxes and lower interest rates. But the ‘wets’ launched a fierce attack on our policy and the theory underlying it. It was argued, for instance, that the PSBR should be allowed to rise during a recession. Our response was that it was a very different matter when the PSBR started out by being far too high — the legacy of a Labour Government which had doubled the national debt during its period in office. Individual ministers defended their bailiwicks. Jim Prior argued persuasively for a continuation of the special employment measures.[19] We agreed but decided that we would have to take another look at the the burgeoning social security budget.

A week later, Cabinet resumed its discussion — and focused closely on social security.[20] Both for public spending reasons and in order to deal with the ‘Why Work?’ problem (namely, the disincentive to work created by the small disparity between in-work and out-of-work incomes), we had already agreed to tax short-term social benefits as soon as possible. In the interim we decided to reduce these benefits — unemployment, sickness, injury, maternity and invalidity benefits — by 5 per cent. The so-called earnings related supplement (payable with certain short-term benefits) would be reduced from January 1981, and abolished in January 1982. We also decided to introduce legislation to deal with the vexed question of supplementary benefit for strikers’ families. This was not only expensive to provide; it shifted the balance of power in industrial disputes against employers and responsible union leaders. In future, assessments would assume that £12 a week was provided either from the striker’s own resources, or from union strike pay. We finally agreed a number of disparate savings on housing, on expenditure by the Property Services Agency, and from a rise in prescription charges to £1.

When Geoffrey Howe delivered his second budget on 26 March 1980,[21] he was able to announce that we had found over £900 million in further savings in 1980–81 (though part of that was absorbed by an increase in the contingency reserve). Overall, at current prices this was over £5 billion less than Labour had planned to spend. In the circumstances, it was a formidable achievement, but also a fragile one. As the economy sank deeper into recession, there would be fresh demands, some of them difficult to resist, for higher public spending on programmes like social security and the loss-making nationalized industries. In a paper he wrote for me in June 1979, John Hoskyns had used a memorable phrase about governments ‘trying to pitch [their] tent in the middle of a landslide’. As we moved into the 1980–81 public expenditure round and the forecasts worsened, I could hear the canvas strain and the ground rumble.

IRISH TERRORIST OUTRAGES

The second half of 1979, though dominated by economic policy and by the intense round of diplomatic activity,[22] was also a time darkened by terrorism. Barely a fortnight after entering No. 10 I had delivered the address at the Memorial Service for Airey Neave.[23] Not long afterwards, IRA terrorists struck another blow which shocked people around the world.

I was at Chequers for the Bank Holiday Monday of 27 August when I learnt of the shocking murder of Lord Mountbatten and, that same day, of eighteen British soldiers. Lord Mountbatten was killed by an explosion on board his boat off the coast at Mullaghmore, County Sligo. Three other members of his party were killed and three injured.

In an even greater defiance of civilized custom, the murder of our soldiers was even more contemptible. Eighteen were killed and five injured in a double explosion triggered by remote controlled devices at Narrow Water, Warrenpoint, near Newry, close to the border with the Republic. The IRA had exploded the first bomb and then waited for those who came by helicopter to rescue their comrades before detonating the second. Among those murdered by the second bomb was the Commanding Officer of the Queen’s Own Highlanders.

Words are always inadequate to condemn this kind of outrage: I decided immediately that I must go to Northern Ireland to show the army, police and civilians that I understood the scale of the tragedy and to demonstrate our determination to resist terrorism. Having returned to London from Chequers, I stayed there on Tuesday to allow those involved to deal with the immediate aftermath while I held two meetings with colleagues to discuss the security requirements of the province. That evening I wrote personally to the families of the soldiers who had died; such letters are not easy to write. There were, alas, to be many more of them during my time in office.

I flew to Ulster on Wednesday morning. For security reasons, the visit was given no prior publicity. I went first to the Musgrave Park Hospital in Belfast and talked to the injured soldiers, then visited the Lord Mayor of Belfast at City Hall. I had insisted that I must meet the ordinary citizens of the city, and since the best way to do so was to walk through Belfast’s shopping centre, that is where I went next. I shall never forget the reception I received. It is peculiarly moving to receive good wishes from people who are suffering. One never knows quite how to respond. But I formed then an impression I have never had reason to revise, that the people of Ulster will never bow to violence.

After a buffet lunch with soldiers of all ranks from 3 Brigade, I received a briefing from the army and then departed by helicopter to what is rightly referred to as the ‘bandit country’ of South Armagh. Dressed in a camouflage jacket worn by a female soldier of the Ulster Defence Regiment (a ‘Greenfinch’), I saw the bomb-battered Crossmaglen RUC station — the most attacked RUC-Army post in the Province — before running back to the helicopter. It is too dangerous for either security force personnel or helicopters to remain stationary in these parts.

My final visit was to Gough barracks, the RUC base in Armagh, followed by a return flight to the mainland at six that evening. It is difficult to convey the courage of the security forces whose job it is to protect the lives of us all from terrorism. In particular, members of the UDR, who do their military duty living in the community where they and their families are always vulnerable, show a quiet, matter-of-fact heroism which I have never ceased to admire.

Back in London, we continued our urgent discussions on security. There were two major questions. How were we to improve the direction and co-ordination of our security operations in the province? And how were we to get more co-operation in security matters from the Irish Republic? On the first, we decided that the difficulties of coordinating intelligence gathered by the RUC and the army would be best overcome by instituting a new high-level security directorate. On the second, we agreed that I would tackle the Irish Prime Minister, Jack Lynch, when he arrived shortly for Lord Mountbatten’s funeral.

Accordingly, we arranged a day’s talks with Mr Lynch and his ministerial colleagues at No. 10 on the afternoon of Wednesday 5 September. The first session was a tête-à-tête between the two prime ministers; then at 4 p.m. we were joined by our respective ministers and officials.

Mr Lynch had no positive suggestions of his own to make at all. When I stressed the importance of extradition of terrorists from the Republic, he said that the Irish constitution made it very difficult. Mr Lynch pointed out that under Irish law terrorists could be tried in the Republic for offences committed in the UK. So I asked that RUC officers — who would have to amass the evidence for such prosecutions — be able to attend interrogations of terrorist suspects in the south. He said they would ‘study’ it. I knew what that meant: nothing doing. I asked that we extend the existing arrangements by which our helicopters could overfly the border across which terrorists seemed able to come and go almost at will. He said they would study that as well. I sought more effective liaison both between the RUC and the Garda, and between the British and Irish armies. Same response. At one point I got so exasperated that I asked whether the Irish Government was willing to do anything at all. They agreed to a further meeting between ministers and officials, but there was a fatal absence of the political will to take tough measures. I was disappointed, though not altogether surprised. However, I was determined to keep up the pressure on the Republic. I could not forget that by the time of my visit to Northern Ireland 1,152 civilians and 543 members of the security forces had been killed as a result of terrorist action.

We also lost no opportunity to use the revulsion the killings provoked in the US to inform public opinion there about the realities of life in Ulster. The emotions and loyalties of millions of decent Irish-Americans are manipulated by Irish Republican extremists, who have been able to give a romantic respectability to terrorism that its sordid reality belies. As a result, there has been a continuing flow of funds and arms which helps the IRA to continue its campaign, whereas in 1979 we were faced with the absurd situation that the purchase of 3,000 revolvers for the RUC was held up by a state department review under pressure from the Irish Republican lobby in Congress.

I visited the province again on Christmas Eve. This time I met members of the Northern Ireland prison service as well as the security forces. For the prison officers, too, faced grave danger and worked often in appalling conditions. From March 1978 they had been dealing with the consequences of the so-called ‘dirty protest’[24] by over 350 terrorist prisoners, seeking ‘special category status’ and privileges. Seventeen prison officers had been murdered in the past four years, seven of them in the previous three months. It made the troubles of a political life seem very trivial.