PRIME MINISTER
(BROADCASTS)
Q1. Mr. Canavan
asked the Prime Minister how many Ministerial broadcasts he has made since his appointment.
The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan)
One.
Mr. Canavan
Does the Prime Minister remember making in his broadcast on 5th April a reference to the fact that he could not promise any real improvement in living standards for some time? Can he elaborate on that? Can people [column 551]on low incomes expect any improvement in living standards before the next General Election, particularly in view of the Labour Party's manifesto promise that there would be an irreversible shift in the balance of wealth in favour of working people and their families?
The Prime Minister
The events on 5th April will be constantly in my mind and I doubt that I shall ever forget that day. The Budget was intended to protect families, especially this year, against the fall in the standard of life which this country is enjoying—if that is the proper word to use. That is an essential condition for getting us back into the position where the country will be able to enjoy an improved standard of life. Our first task is to ensure that sacrifices are fairly borne among all sections of the community.
Mrs. Thatcher
Does James Callaghanthe Prime Minister recollect that in his last ministerial broadcast he said that he would root out injustices and seek to put them right wherever he could? Will he tell the House whether he approves the sequence of events which led the Government to have a majority on Standing Committees, when they have only a minority in the House?
The Prime Minister
I have been studying “Erskine May” while sitting here listening to questions, and it is an interesting document. I understand that we are to have a debate on the matter, although my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will no doubt want to discuss that later. There is one consideration which needs to be taken into account. If the House has made a decision on Second Reading and therefore on the principle of the Bill, what does the House think should be the composition of the Committee set up to carry through the principles which the House has approved?
Mrs. Thatcher
In that case, is the Prime Minister aware that he is totally repudiating what Michael Footthe Leader of the House said just before Easter, when on 13th April he said that in future Committees must reflect the numbers in the House of Commons? Is the Prime Minister repudiating that?
The Prime Minister
I am not repudiating it: I am adding to it. There is more than one principle at stake here.
Mr. Tebbit
Twister.
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Lady has not addressed herself to [column 552]whether she believes that the details of a Bill which has been given a Second Reading by the House should be examined by a Committee to enable those principles to be carried through.
Mr. Ward
Will my right hon. Friend take an early opportunity not only to explain to the public in a ministerial broadcast his intention to carry on doing the job for which we were elected, to 1979 if necessary, but to deal with the growing public disquiet about the admission by British Petroleum that it made payments to political parties in Italy?
The Prime Minister
I hope that the question of a General Election is put at rest for the time being. If the Government were unable to govern, and if they were unable to get their legislation through, a different situation would clearly arise. Therefore, we shall just have to see how we go.
The question of BP is a serious matter, although the matter is obviously not limited to BP. I have been giving consideration to it with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I hope that in due course a statement will be made about it.
Mr. Thorpe
Having regard to Standing Order 62(2) I am surprised to note that the Prime Minister is not well aware of it, so perhaps I may elucidate for his benefit: it deals with the regard which the Committee of Selection must have to the composition of the House when it is making appointments to Standing Committees. Are we to take it from the Prime Minister's earlier answer that he believes that that Standing Order—and three seconds ago he was apparently asking what it was—has been complied with by the events of yesterday? Is he aware that the doctrine he enunciated would mean that many people who might wish to support the Second Reading of a Bill would not do so if they thought that the Committee stage thereafter would be rigged?
The Prime Minister
The Government have no influence on, and have played no part in, the decision of the Committee of Selection. [Hon. Members: “Rubbish.” ] My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Delargy), who has been a Member for 31 years, is responsible for what is done in that Committee. I understand that a debate will be arranged later, [column 553]and then it will be for my hon. Friend to indicate the Committee's position and for the Government to indicate theirs. In the meantime, I suggest that the Opposition get over a little of their synthetic indignation.
Mr. Whitelaw
Is the Prime Minister aware that in six years as Opposition Chief Whip and two years as Leader of the House I never heard the principle that he has just enunciated? The Standing Order to which the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) referred has always been the principle of the Committee of Selection. I hope that the Prime Minister will not start to introduce a totally new principle which has never been discussed through the usual channels.
The Prime Minister
I suggest that the House waits to hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock has to say. My right hon. Friend the Lord President will no doubt be making a statement about future business in due course. I repeat—and the right hon. Gentleman had better accept it from me—[Hon. Members: “Oh.” ]—if there are to be the relations between us in the future that have existed in the past—[Hon. Members: “Oh.” ]—that the Government have played no part in the work of the Committee of Selection. It is for the Chairman of the Committee to indicate its position. Now will the right hon. Gentleman please withdraw any reflections of that kind?
Mr. Whitelaw
Is it not reasonable to suggest that the right hon. Gentleman is seeking to intimidate me? If that is his purpose, he will find that it is a very unwise course for him or anyone else to pursue. I do not withdraw one word. What I said was perfectly simple—that the right hon. Gentleman was producing a new principle of which I had never heard before. Of course, I accept that the Chairman of the Committee of Selection is entitled to tell us why he did what he did. But I am equally entitled to tell the Prime Minister that he has introduced a new principle, without my being told that I am to be intimidated.
The Prime Minister
I have rarely met anyone who is less capable of being intimidated than the right hon. Gentleman, even in his most offensive moods. I do not expect to do that. What I am [column 554]telling the right hon. Gentleman—and I think that he has accepted it—is that the Government have played no part in this. If that cannot be accepted, it will be a bad thing for relations between the two sides of the House. Therefore, I hope that it is accepted.
On the question of the principle, it seems to me an extraordinary failure to understand the common elements of democratic practice to suggest that when a Bill has been given a Second Reading on principle, it should not be allowed to go through Committee.
TUC AND CBI
Q2. Mr. Blaker
asked the Prime Minister when he next expects to meet the TUC and the CBI.
Q6. Mr. Adley
asked the Prime Minister when he next intends to meet the TUC and CBI.
The Prime Minister
I hope to meet representatives of both the TUC and the CBI at the next meeting of the National Economic Development Council.
Mr. Blaker
Whilst we all admire the Prime Minister's ingenuity in finding new principles, will the right hon. Gentleman explain to the TUC and CBI, for which it is very relevant, how the Secretary of State for Energy can abstain in the National Executive Committee of the Labour Party on the Government's spending plans, with all the effect on international confidence that that has? Does not the principle of collective responsibility apply?
The Prime Minister
I am not finding new principles. I am restating old ones when I suggest that when the House has given a Bill a Second Reading, the Bill is supposed to be allowed to proceed in Committee. A similar principle applies to the doctrine of collective responsibility—that is, collective responsibility includes all Ministers, who must be willing to defend the Government's policies at all times.
Mr. Heffer
My right hon. Friend rightly said earlier that sacrifices should be fairly borne. Does he not agree that in the last period the trade unions have [column 555]fallen over backwards to accept sacrifices? Will he now clearly indicate that the other side of the coin is an extension of egalitarian principles and of public ownership—[Interruption]—and that the Opposition and their supporters in the country—big business—should also make their sacrifices?
The Prime Minister
I have repeatedly said—and I at once say again, despite the Opposition jeers—that the trade union movement is playing a most remarkable part at present. It ill behoves anyone on the Opposition Benches to jeer at what is being done.
On the rôle of the trade unions, it is true that the people of this country and trade unionists have accepted sacrifices, but these sacrifices—and this is why we stand where we do—are in the best interests of securing a new base from which we can build a productive economy. Only on that base would my right hon. Friends and I feel free to ask the people to make those sacrifices. That is why we shall endeavour to carry through the programme laid down in our manifesto.
Mr. Adley
If the TUC rejects the 3 per cent. pay limit, which the Government have said is imperative, will the Government cut by a similar percentage the proposed tax concessions? If they do so, will they tell the 10 million trade unionists who are members of the trade unions affiliated to the TUC whose fault it is that they are having their tax concessions cut?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman, as usual, is being helpful and I am grateful to him for the way in which he puts his remarks. We should first wait to see how those discussions turn out. The trade unions are trying to carry their members into a situation in which they will freely and voluntarily accept a level of wage increases this year that is inconceivably low by comparison with the situation a year ago, when nobody would have thought that possible. What I am anxious to do, as I hope is the whole House, is to help the trade unions to achieve that.
Mr. Spriggs
What special steps are the Government prepared to take to help school leavers, particularly in view of [column 556]the fears about unemployment in the Merseyside area, to obtain jobs in the next year?
The Prime Minister
As the House knows, the Budget Statement contained a doubling of the temporary employment subsidy. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment has been looking especially at the subject of school leavers, not only as to the situation on Merseyside, but in other respects. I believe that he is now undertaking discussions on this matter.
Mr. Pardoe
Will the Prime Minister reconsider what he said a few moments ago? Is he aware that nobody in any part of the House will doubt that the trade unions are playing a considerable part at present? What some of us are concerned about is the part played by Parliament. What proposals have the Government to restore the power of representative parliamentary democracy?
The Prime Minister
It would be open to Parliament, in the light of any voluntary agreement reached by the trade unions, to overturn it if it were foolish enough to do so. What the Opposition have totally failed to understand is that in these matters of Budget judgment for the year ahead the level of earnings is one of the central features to be considered. No Chancellor of the Exchequer can afford to ignore it when deciding on the other balancing factors in his Budget. Therefore, if a sensible agreement were reached with the trade unions, it would be foolish for anybody to seek to overturn it, because that would throw out the balance of the Budget as a whole.
Sir David Renton
Although I understand the Government's reasons for entering into these wage negotiations with the TUC, may I ask the Prime Minister who, if anybody, is representing the interests of those who will have to pay the wage increases?
The Prime Minister
Obviously, it will be for employers to decide what can be paid at the end of the day after negotiations with the trade unions. That is not a new principle but an old one. Last year some employers were unable to pay the full amount that had been agreed, but this is a process of collective bargaining.