TUC
Q1. Mr. Blaker
asked the Prime Minister when he next expects to meet the TUC.
The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan)
I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Mr. Ovenden) on 7th December.
Mr. Blaker
Since the TUC and the Prime Minister have each recently entertained pillars of the Soviet establishment in the form of Mr. Shelepin and Mr. Ponomarev, would it not be useful for them to get a different point of view by entertaining Mr. Bukovsky? Will the Prime Minister now improve on the equivocal answer that he gave me on Tuesday and say clearly that he will issue an invitation to Mr. Bukovsky, who I understand is in London today, to meet him so that he can hear from him at first hand how the Soviet Union is flouting the provisions of the Helsinki Agreement?
The Prime Minister
No, Sir.
Mr. Gould
When my right hon. Friend next meets the TUC will he indicate when interest rates will be allowed to fall substantially?
The Prime Minister
I shall not be able to give such an indication. I think that it will depend on a number of matters, including the sale of gilt-edged securities and other such issues. I expect to see—I think it is generally expected—a fall in interest rates over the next 12 months.
Mrs. Thatcher
Is James Callaghanthe Prime Minister aware how very disappointed we are with his peremptory reply? He will be going to Belgrade in 1977 to consider what has happened under the Helsinki Agreements, and one would have thought that it would help him very much to assess what has happened if he met a person who had had experience of living [column 1637]in Soviet Russia during the currency of those agreements.
I wish, in addition, to put a specific point to the Prime Minister. Is he aware that The Times was not published this morning because of the action of a number of printers who refused to print because they disagreed with the content of a report? Will he condemn that industrial action wholeheartedly, because it constitutes a censorship of the Press?
The Prime Minister
I understand, if the Daily Telegraph is correct, that the right hon. Lady had a rather coy meeting with Mr. Bukovsky to which no publicity was given. I suppose I am to join in this matter. I wonder whether the right hon. Lady, when she goes to China, will be associating with the sort of people whom her hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker) condemns.
I have no need to go on record about these matters. The Government's position on the Helsinki Agreement and issues relating to the Soviet Government are well understood. I do not have to meet anybody to get my views clear about them. [Hon. Members: “Humbug” .] Of course it is humbug, and we know it, but that is how the Opposition regard this 15-minute period.
On the subject of The Times, I do not set myself up as an instant pundit. The freedom of the Press depends on accurate reporting and printing and the capacity to print everything that is put, provided that it is accurate. Although The Times has not appeared—and so far as I know nobody knows the views of those who refused to allow it to publish, and I do not intend to judge the matter—I noticed that the Guardian managed to print the story and to comment on it in a way that met with general satisfaction.
Mrs. Thatcher
Is the Prime Minister aware that that is one of the most disgraceful and undignified replies ever given by a Prime Minister in this House? It was also in certain parts silly. I must tell the Prime Minister that I did meet Mr. Bukovsky and that it was an extremely interesting meeting, certainly not “coy” as the Prime Minister suggested—which was a stupid comment to make. I repeat that it was an extremely interesting meet[column 1638]ing. The Prime Minister would do well to see and hear first hand evidence of fact. I little thought that I would ever hear a Prime Minister uphold the censorship of the Press, because that is what he has done.
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Lady is wrong on all counts. I have no intention of pursuing publicity by seeing people if there is no need to do so. I am quite clear about and well aware of the position in the Soviet Union. I have probably done a little more than has the right hon. Lady to obtain the release of people from the Soviet Union. These matters are not always achieved—the right hon. Lady may one day find this out, although I am beginning to doubt it—by public gestures. They are best achieved privately, and there have been a number of illustrations of that fact.
As for The Times newspaper, if we are talking of the freedom of the Press and the freedom of the Press is thought to be in question, so is the freedom of the individual. Some of us who have suffered at the hands of the Press know what that means. Freedom of the Press apparently means, as I have had occasion to find out in the not-too-distant past, freedom to print inaccurate and totally false information, even though the Press is told beforehand that the information is inaccurate and false.
Before we go too deeply into this matter, let us find out the facts. As far as I am concerned, there is to be no censorship. If Opposition Members ever throw aside their party hats they will well know that there will be no censorship and that nobody will defend censorship. [Hon. Members: “You are” .] If Opposition Members believe that, I leave it to the country to judge, because I believe that my reputation will stand against theirs.
Mr. David Steel
Is the Prime Minister aware that some of us are genuinely puzzled by his tone in answering questions on these matters affecting the Soviet Union? Is he further aware that Mr. Bukovsky earlier today made to me the significant point that human rights in the Soviet Union do not involve just the occasional writer or dissident, or scientist, or musician, but affect the Soviet worker? Therefore, is there not a real rôle that the TUC could play in this regard, and [column 1639]could not the Prime Minister help in persuading it to do so?
The Prime Minister
That matter is not in issue, nor does it arise from the supplementary question that I was asked. I was asked whether I intended to see Mr. Bukovsky, and I replied on that point. I do not intend to see Mr. Bukovsky, although if the opportunity arose and it seemed purposeful, I would do so. But I do not have to meet Mr. Bukovsky to put my views on record. When we go to Belgrade, we shall be following up the Helsinki issues and agreements, as I have made clear in the House time after time. The Soviet Union knows where we stand on these matters. I do not need to meet any private individual to strengthen my own convictions.
CITY OF LONDON
Q2. Mr. Rost
asked the Prime Minister if he will pay an official visit to the City of London.
The Prime Minister
I have at present no plans to do so.
Mr. Rost
Is the Prime Minister aware that the City, our creditors, and the country would like to know how the Prime Minister's disastrous failure as a former Chancellor of the Exchequer qualifies him to assume responsibilities over the existing discredited Chancellor of the Exchequer? As the Prime Minister, along with everybody else, has lost confidence in the present Chancellor, should the right hon. Gentleman not now appoint somebody else rather than himself to do the job?
The Prime Minister
I hesitate to say so, in light of the atmosphere this afternoon, but the hon. Gentleman should not believe all that he reads in newspaper headlines, nor should he believe all the mischief-making articles that may appear on these matters. The situation is quite clear. Thanks to the Government's measures, the IMF loan, and the safety net, the frenetic attitude over sterling is now likely to disappear. Sterling will be much more stable over the next 12 months. Therefore, I wish to focus the country's attention not on the issue of sterling, which is not a real issue at this time, but on the question of the way [column 1640]in which British industry is to become as productive, efficient and export-minded as possible. To that end I have been invited to take the chair at the next NEDC meeting, and I shall do so. I intend to make a number of industrial visits, and I shall visit factories that are doing well in the export drive. The responsibility of Ministers is in no way altered or diminished, but I intend to try to focus attention on this real issue so that we may overcome inflation and unemployment. That is the story, and that is what it is all about.
Mr. Mike Thomas
Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the real world—a world which Opposition Members do not inhabit—his reply will be widely welcomed? Will he say what impact the repayment of the special deposits announced at lunchtime will have on the rates of interest paid by industrialists on their investments and on domestic interest rates paid by those who have mortgages?
The Prime Minister
The adjustment made today is a technical one. It is no particular indication of the future level of interest rates. I can only repeat what I said earlier, namely, that I expect to see this declining over the next 12 months. Mortgage interest rates would benefit from such a decline.
Mr. Cormack
Will the Prime Minister go to the City at the earliest opportunity and call at the offices of The Times, and there give a less equivocal statement in support of a free Press than he gave in the House a few moments ago? Does he not realise that a free Press implies freedom to print inaccuracies and to enable people to reply to them?
The Prime Minister
What I realise is that the Opposition are trying to pursue a party point.
SECRETARY OF STATE FOR ENERGY
(SPEECH)
Q3. Mr. Nicholas Winterton
asked the Prime Minister whether the public speech on the democratic process made by the Secretary of State for Energy on 10th December at Bristol University represents Government policy.
The Prime Minister
I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave to the hon. [column 1641]Member for Melton (Mr. Latham) on 11th January.
Mr. Winterton
Will the Prime Minister accept that the Secretary of State for Energy has defended the place of Marxists in the Labour Party, while the Prime Minister has on several occasions attacked extremist infiltrators in the Government party? Who are these infiltrators if they are not Marxists? Indeed, what are they?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman obviously did not hear the answer that I gave a little earlier. I shall repeat it. My right hon. Friend's speech raised no issues of Government policy.
Mr. Buchan
Can my right hon. Friend enlighten me to what aspect of Marx Opposition Members object? Is it the Right-wing philosophy of the German Hegel, the French sociology of Saint-Simon, or the labour of value theory of the British Adam Smith and Riccardo—both classic capitalist economists?
The Prime Minister
I thought that the Opposition were thinking of a combination of Harpo and Groucho Marx.