EUROPEAN ASSEMBLY
(DIRECT ELECTIONS)
Q1. Mr. Marten
asked the Prime Minister what discussions he has had with the Prime Minister of the Republic of Ireland concerning direct elections to a European Assembly.
The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan)
None recently.
Mr. Marten
Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly have a word with the Irish Prime Minister about the whole principle of the inflated salaries of about £25,000 and allowances of about £25,000 which it is proposed to pay to the Members of the European Assembly, if any? Does he realise that it would cause great umbrage among the British people if they received that amount? Could the surplus over and above the salary of British Members of Parliament be collected from them, paid into the Consolidated Fund and redistributed to us?
The Prime Minister
I have seen references in the Press to the proposed salaries but I do not know whether they are right. If they are right, I regard them together with the allowances as grossly inflated beyond the responsibilities of the work to be done. I shall take note of the hon. Gentleman's interesting and ingenious suggestion.
Mr. Spearing
When the Prime Minister next meets the Prime Minister of Eire, will he draw his attention to the fact that we are now paying a levy of about £50 a ton on imports of wheat from Canada? Will he ask him whether he supports that levy in view of the fact that the forthcoming Euro-elections are to be for direct rule, which will determine such levies as Britain might pay? Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the Leader of the Opposition would be wiser to allow her party a completely free vote, which my right hon. Friend has had the wisdom to give to those on the Government Benches?
The Prime Minister
I am sure that the Prime Minister of the Republic of Ireland [column 1734]will be interested to hear about our internal domestic arrangements. As for matters of legislation here, I have the feeling that he and I will be discussing rather different issues when we meet. He has already indicated to me—at least, he has already intimated publicly—that he will be seeking a meeting. As for the suggestion of my hon. Friend, it is not a bad idea, is it?
Mr. Dykes
Has the right hon. Gentleman noticed the ease, skill and rapidity with which the French have processed ratification of and legislation for European direct elections, despite a reputation for a high degree of nationalism? With the introduction of the Bill on Friday, does the right hon. Gentleman hope to emulate the French example?
The Prime Minister
I do not think that I shall be discussing the French example with the Prime Minister of the Republic of Ireland, nor many other interesting matters which arise out of the European Community. I do not really like the use of the word “process” in respect of legislation in this House, especially after what we went through yesterday.
Mr. Kilfedder
Whether or not the Prime Minister of Eire supports direct elections to the Common Market, will the right hon. Gentleman seek to persuade him to sign the European convention on extradition?
The Prime Minister
It has always been our view that it would be a good thing for States to sign the convention, and that remains our policy. Although I express that view, I do not think it would be a good thing to begin by impressing that point on a newly-arrived Prime Minister.
PRIME MINISTER
(ENGAGEMENTS)
Q2. Mr. Canavan
asked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 23rd June.
The Prime Minister
This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be holding further meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. This evening I shall be greeting Her Majesty the Queen on her arrival at Barry Docks.
[column 1735]Mr. Canavan
Will the Prime Minister find time to visit the Grunwick picket line to get a fairer assessment of the situation than the Tory Leader, who sends her lackeys and message boys to support a ruthless employer, or the other member of the Shadow Cabinet, the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), who does not have the guts to withdraw his unsubstantiated allegations about the Secretary of State for Employment using unfair, very foul and illegal methods to coerce people into joining trade unions?
The Prime Minister
I shall not visit the picket line at Grunwick. I understand, and I am very glad to hear, that the General Secretary of APEX has now decided—I think that I made the suggestion to him first—that he should identify pickets by arm bands or in some other way so that those who latch on to this in order to turn an industrial dispute into a political battle—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.” ]—that applies to the National Association for Freedom as well as to the International Socialists—can be kept clear of this industrial dispute. [An Hon. Members: “Identify the police.” ] I hope—I say this because I think that this situation is getting extremely serious—that legitimate pickets, properly identified, can be allowed to operate. Those who wish to demonstrate in support of the workers who have been dismissed at this factory should be separately organised into a demonstration and clearly distinguished from the pickets. That would make the job of the police very much easier in trying to sort out this dispute.
As regards the interjection about identifying the police, every police officer carries a number as a means of identification. [Hon. Members: “Not plainclothes men.” ] If there are complaints about their behaviour, they can be properly investigated through the new machinery which has recently been set up. That is the way to handle it.
Mrs. Thatcher
May I ask James Callaghanthe Prime Minister, arising out of the answer he has just given, whether he is really asking people not to join the picket lines—he recognises that numbers themselves can be intimidating and can obstruct—and that he wishes to give his full [column 1736]support to the police in the way in which they are carrying out their dangerous duties?
Mr. Flannery
They are hooligans we saw them.
Mrs. Thatcher
What action does the right hon. Gentleman propose to take to protect the right of the law-abiding citizen to go peacefully to work?
The Prime Minister
I notice that the right hon. Lady issued a statement to the Press last night, although it was totally unnecessary to do so. [Hon. Members: “Why?” ] It was another example of politicians latching on to this dispute. The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and his officers are in no doubt about the position and the Government's support. This is my reply to the right hon. Lady, because she may have overlooked the fact that her deputy leader asked a question about this on Monday and was given a clear reply about the support which was being given by the Home Secretary and by the Government to police officers.
I am glad to know, from the statement that the right hon. Lady issued, her indication of support for the Government's attitude in this matter. [An Hon. Member: “Now answer the question” .] I am answering the question by saying that the right hon. Lady, with her statement last night, was doing no more than repeating the statement which had been made by the Home Secretary. But now that she has intruded on this dispute which has been going on for 44 weeks, and now that she is supporting this matter, will she also make it clear that she gives total support to the view that anyone is entitled to join a trade union and should not be dismissed for doing so?
Mr. Mike Thomas
She is an opportunist.
Mrs. Thatcher
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the scenes which have been shown almost daily outside Grunwick have been and are most alarming to the public, and that so far we have had no total condemnation of intimidation and violence on the picketing lines from the Prime Minister—no condemnation at all? Will he now answer my question about what action he proposes [column 1737]to take to protect the rights of the law-abiding citizen to go to work peacefully? Will he also remember that, when he was asked about Ministers joining the picket line before, he did not condemn them for joining it but even invited other people to go as well?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Lady reinforces my view that she is trying to turn this matter into a political battle. I agree entirely that this is a most serious issue, and that is why I resent the politicians who latch on to it. As regards the members of the Administration who went on to the picket line, they were members of APEX, members of the union, at a time when the dispute was being peacefully conducted. Now, it is not being peacefully conducted, and I therefore believe that it is necessary to separate legitimate and authorised pickets from those who latch on to it. That seems to me the best way of doing it.
As regards protecting the citizens who want to go to work, it is the job of the police to do that and also to protect the right of peaceful picketing.
Mr. Adley
Without bottles.
The Prime Minister
Of course without bottles. Why does the hon. Gentleman make such obvious remarks? Does he think that it is necessary for me to stand here and defend the police from being hit over the head with bottles? [Interruption]. Hon. Members should try to calm this thing down. It could become extremely serious. I am not addressing myself to anyone in particular except, for the moment, those who are bellowing from the Opposition Benches. I have suggested that Mr. Grantham should try, with the Commissioner of Police, to limit the number of pickets in this matter, that they should agree who they should be, that they should be easily identified and that others should stay away or demonstrate in a different way. There is really no need to try to make this situation worse. It will get bad enough and we should try to keep the temperature down.
Mr. Pavitt
May I assure my right hon. Friend that, except for last Monday week, there has been a clear distinction between the six Gujerati pickets—girls of about 4 ft. 8 in.—and the large mass demonstration which exists on the [column 1738]other side of the picket lines? May I thank the police for their courtesy? When I and my colleagues seek to talk to the picket lines, we are permitted to do so and we do so and we come away.
May I also assure my right hon. Friend that we are most grateful for the fact that, when there was a breakdown of communications with the police last Monday week, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary was able to repair it and Mr. Roy Grantham was then able to speak to responsible officers, which he had not been able to do before that time? As a result, although there have been problems with the demonstration since then, the relations between the official union and the police have gone on very well in spite of the difficulties which both sides are suffering.
The Prime Minister
I am obliged to my hon. Friend, who knows a great deal about this matter and has not tried to exacerbate the issue in any way—in contradistinction to some others. I want to make it clear to him that the police have very clear instructions. They are carrying out their difficult task. Complaints will be investigated. If they are made in the proper form, they will be carried through.
On the general situation, it seems deplorable that after this dispute has been going on for 44 weeks, and on three occasions at least in the last few years people have been dismissed for joining a union, it has had to come to this before we could get people talking about it, as they have been doing this afternoon.
Mr. Brittan
Does the Prime Minister agree that one reason why this dispute has become violent, when it was not violent before, is that it has attracted a great amount of publicity? One of the reasons contributing to that publicity was the presence of three Cabinet Ministers on the picket line. In view of that, will not the Prime Minister agree in retrospect that the presence of those Ministers was most unwise?
The Prime Minister
No. Anybody is entitled to picket peacefully—even the hon. Member, the Leader of the Opposition or myself. I hope to hear from at least one hon. Member opposite this afternoon that the Opposition deplore what has happened in this factory, where [column 1739]workers who simply wanted to join a trade union were dismissed for that reason.
Mr. Skinner
I have been invited on two or three occasions to visit Grunwick at a time when very few people were taking much interest in the situation there. Does the Prime Minister agree that the fact that there are 1½ million people on the dole has not helped and that it is inviting people like Mr. Ward to recruit cheap labour? We passed the Employment Protection Act to deliver the basic freedom for people to organise. Is the Prime Minister aware that on 16th May this year the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior), who is Opposition spokesman on employment, issued a letter in which he urged acceptance of the ACAS Report at that time? The Leader of the Opposition should stand up today and announce that she agrees with the acceptance of that report—not five weeks ago, as her right hon. Friend did, but now, when the matter is most important.
The Prime Minister
I have already expressed my view. I have always felt that the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) had an understanding of industrial problems. I was not surprised when he issued a statement before the court case saying that in his view, ACAS should be recognised. Is there not one man to be found on the Opposition Benches who will stand up and say this this afternoon.
Mr. Speaker
Order. Before I call the Private Notice question—[Interruption.]
Mrs. Thatcher
Am I right, Mr. Speaker, in thinking that the ACAS Report is in dispute and that the matter is before the court and has been set down for hearing?
The Prime Minister
rose——
Mr. Speaker
Order. The right hon. Lady is quite correct. As I said in my ruling last week, any reference to the ACAS position would be out of order because the matter is sub judice.
The Prime Minister
Are you aware. Mr. Speaker, that the question that I asked the Leader of the Opposition was whether she supported the management of Grunwick in dismissing workers who join a trade union? That has nothing to do with recognition.
[column 1740]Hon Members
Answer!
Mr. Speaker
Order. Before I call the Private Notice Question, let me remind the House that it is concerned solely with the Post Office side.