SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SOCIAL SERVICES
Q1. Mr. Blaker
asked the Prime Minister if he will dismiss the Secretary of State for Social Services.
The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan)
I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) on 16th March.
Mr. Blaker
Is the Prime Minister aware that, as a result of a recent speech by the former Secretary of State for Social Services, there is now a conflict [column 231]of evidence between her, the present Secretary of State and Lady Falkender about the social security files of Mr. Norman Scott and whether they were destroyed or transferred to 10 Downing Street, and, if so, for what purpose? Does not this leave the present Secretary of State in an unsatisfactory position? How does the Prime Minister propose that the matter should be cleared up?
The Prime Minister
I thought that the hon. Gentleman was rising to apologise to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for not following up the fact that he had alleged that my right hon. Friend had intervened improperly to waive proceedings against a private individual. I am surprised that he has not seen fit to withdraw that allegation, which was repeated by the hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) after my right hon. Friend had given his denial. The hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington also owes my right hon. Friend an apology.
As to the particular circumstances, I have nothing to inquire into further. With these continuing questions, I am wondering whether the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker) is more concerned with governmental proprieties or with pursuing a personal vendetta against the former Secretary of State and my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson).
Mr. Ashton
Is my right hon. Friend aware that my wife will be delighted that he is not going to dismiss the Secretary of State for Social Services, because from today, along with a few million other women, she will be getting £2.50 a week in child benefit and she thinks that the Secretary of State is doing a marvellous job?
The Prime Minister
It is true that there is a substantial increase in child benefit payable from this week. I do not want to disillusion my hon. Friend's wife, but the sum she will get will be not £2.50 but £2.30 a week. However, I hope that this will not destroy her confidence in the Secretary of State.
Sir J. Eden
Is there not another reason for sacking the Secretary of State? Does the Prime Minister have any idea how long it takes to get a consultant in [column 232]the National Health Service? Is he aware that even in urgent cases in the Bournemouth area it can sometimes take 30 weeks or more? Does he care about this scandalous situation, and, if so, what is he going to do about it?
The Prime Minister
The situation in the Health Service is not as satisfactory as I should like. There are a great many people, more than 500,000, waiting for treatment, and that number has persisted, although it is rather higher now, ever since the formation of the NHS. We should improve the position as quickly as we can. But I find it odd that the Conservative Party should propose additional expenditure when all that its Members consistently do is to tell us that we should reduce public expenditure.
Mr. Dalyell
Far from dismissing the Secretary of State, will my right hon. Friend ask him to prepare legislation in the light of our debate on 3rd March to create conditions in which people can get kidneys for transplant?
The Prime Minister
I note my hon. Friend's views. I know of his concern and I am aware of his Bill. However, I am told that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State proposes to launch a new campaign tomorrow, which I hope will be taken seriously by the House and by others, to ensure that the transfer of kidneys after death can be made easier and to ensure that as many as possible follow the proposal that is made so that other sufferers may take advantage.
Mr. Blaker
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker
I ask the hon. Gentleman to wait for 10 minutes until the end of Question Time.
Mr. Blaker
In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, Mr. Speaker, I intend to give notice that I shall endeavour to raise the matter on the Adjournment.
Later——
Mr. Blaker
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If the Prime Minister will check the record, I believe he will find that I did not make the statement about the Secretary of State for Social Services which he attributed to me.
[column 233]Mr. Speaker
That is a matter for the Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister
I am ready to do so. But I hope that the hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley), who was associated with the dirty tricks brigade on this occasion, will make his apology, because I know that he said it.
Hon. Members
Withdraw.
Later——
Mr. Adley
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We realise that the Prime Minister does not like persistent questioning, and we also realise that if the Secretary of State for Social Services had made a statement, for which some of us have been asking, these allegations would not have arisen.
May I reply to the Prime Minister's insult—[Hon. Members: “No.” ]—by asking him, through you, Mr. Speaker, to let me have a letter containing his allegations, and I shall deal with them?
Mr. Speaker
Order. That is not a point of order.
Prime Minister
(Engagements)
Q2. Mr. Adley
asked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 4th April.
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.
Mr. Adley
When the right hon. Gentleman meets his ministerial colleagues, will he invite a representative from the TUC to join the meeting and thereafter to issue a statement deploring that any trade union should expel a member from a trade union merely on behalf of his political views or his membership of a political party, regardless of how obnoxious that party may appear to be? Does he realise that what the NUR did over the weekend could have serious complications if, for example, the National Union of Journalists were to do the same thing, resulting in some form of political censorship?
The Prime Minister
On the substantive question, I have learned from long [column 234]experience not to comment at the Dispatch Box on the actions of particular unions or other bodies until I am in full possession of the facts. Therefore, I make no comment on the National Union of Railwaymen. As regards the general proposition, I make clear to the hon. Gentleman and to the House that I would deplore utterly, and would not find it at all acceptable, that people should be dismissed from their employment because of their political views, however objectionable they may be. However, there are some limitations that have to be imposed—for example, in the case of employees in the Crown Service, and maybe in the police. Generally speaking, what I have said as regards the general proposition should be the rule, and I hope that everybody will accept that.
Mr. Litterick
As my right hon. Friend would appear to be having a quiet day, will he take time out to confirm or deny the factual content in the extraordinary broadcast made by Independent Television News last night to the effect that it is now Her Majesty's Government's policy to deploy the neutron bomb on British territory?
The Prime Minister
It may seem like a quiet day, but it is rather like the swan which looks calm on top but is paddling like hell underneath. Of course, I do not accept any responsibility for what appears in ITV news reports, on the BBC or in any of the newspapers. I am tempted to add “Thank heavens” .
I have already said to the House that as regards the neutron bomb it is a matter of weighing the substantial political disadvantages against whatever military advantage may be presumed to exist. I had general discussions with President Carter last week about the issue of disarmament, and I would be glad if my hon. Friend did not press me any further today on these matters.
Mrs. Thatcher
Will James Callaghanthe Prime Minister explain why, after four years of Labour Government, the level of unemployment in this country is now worse than in any of our major industrial competitors?
The Prime Minister
The last part of the right hon. Lady's question is not true, as I think she will realise when she [column 235]reads the figures. However, unemployment is far too high in this country, as it is throughout the Western industrialised world. It is my intention, with, I hope, the help of others in other countries, to ensure that there is a revival of world trade so that we can get our own people back to work. I add that as a result of the sacrifices made by the British people over the past two or three years it could be that next week's Budget will provide a stimulus, too.
Mrs. Thatcher
Does not the Prime Minister know that the figures I have given are true according to Albert Booththe Secretary of State for Employment and that the level of unemployment in this country is now worse than in that of any of our main industrial competitors by a quite considerable margin? Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why his policies have led to that result?
The Prime Minister
If I look at the figures that I happen to have in front of me, I see that the position in Canada is much worse. I take it that that would be a major competitor. I see that the position in Italy is much worse. I take it that that would be a major competitor. [An Hon Member: “What about Nicaragua?” ] From the reaction of the Opposition, it would seem that major competitors are only those that the Opposition select. However, I hope that the Opposition will accept that we are facing a world recession and that such a recession demands collective international action if it is to be overcome. It is to that that we should be bending our efforts, together with the stimulus that we ourselves can give as a result of the success of the Government's policies on inflation during the past 12 months.
Mrs. Thatcher
rose——
Hon. Members
No.
Mr. Speaker
Order. The House knows—I have said this before—that the Leader of the Opposition may take this course, which is a long-established custom in this House.
Mrs. Thatcher
According to a reply from the Secretary of State for Employment on 30th January, on a comparable basis the level of unemployment in Italy was 3.3 per cent. while in Great Britain it was 7.2 per cent. We are suffering [column 236]from the same world recession. The right hon. Gentleman's Government are doing worse than other nations, with the single exception of Canada, which has less than half the population of Great Britain. How does the right hon. Gentleman explain that result?
The Prime Minister
I can give the right hon. Lady the explanation, as I have done on many occasions in the House, but I cannot make her accept it. That is something that will have to be judged in due course. However, generally speaking, the country understands that, whatever may be said—I shall not rehearse the arguments against the Opposition's monetary policies in 1973 and 1974, which are well known, and if I may say so, better deployed at the hustings than in the House—about the Opposition's policies, they led in Government to substantial inflation during the following years which the present Government are now succeeding in overcoming. From that position, we can build our employment again. I hope that in due course the Opposition will accept that as being the accurate analysis.
Mr. Fernyhough
Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that when the Leader of the Opposition quotes the unemployment figures of our European competitors she forgets that unemployment in Germany is lower than in Great Britain because Germany has sent back 1 million migrant workers? Will my right hon. Friend assure me that, notwithstanding what the right hon. Lady may do if she is given a chance, he will not solve our unemployment problem in that fashion?
The Prime Minister
It is true that the German unemployment figure, which is now over 1 million, has been kept substantially lower than it would otherwise have been because migrant workers have been admitted on only a temporary basis. As I understand it, it is not the policy of any of the major parties in this country to do that, although there are some who hold the view that migrant workers should be returned. Generally speaking, both major parties are agreed on that issue. I emphasise that the one thing we must not do is create unnecessary uncertainties in people's minds.
As to the general level of unemployment, I have said before in the House, and I repeat, that those who believe in a [column 237]market economy should note that, whereas Britain's unemployment has increased twofold since 1973, German unemployment has increased fourfold since 1973.
Mr. Emery
Will the Prime Minister, on a House of Commons matter, insist with his Secretaries of State in future that any major new announcement on public spending, such as the £450 million to British Leyland this year, should be announced at the Dispatch Box on the Floor of the House so that the Minister may defend his statement and Members of Parliament may have their traditional right of cross-questioning such public spending? Does he accept that to make such an announcement by slipping it in through the back door of a Written Answer is really cheating and ignoring the House and ought to be condemned?
The Prime Minister
I think that whether a statement should be made at the Dispatch Box or answered by a Written Question is a matter for judgment on every occasion. But on this particular occasion as, I should hope, the hon. Gentleman knows, the issue about which he is speaking—Leyland—will be debated in the House. That will be his opportunity to express his view and, if the Opposition so wish, to vote against it and so reduce the West Midlands to an industrial wasteland.
QUESTIONS TO THE PRIME MINISTER
Mr. Heffer
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry to hold up the business of the House, but you will recall that before the recess a number of my hon. Friends—I personally did not raise the matter on that occasion, although I agreed with them—pointed out that, during the brief quarter of an hour that the Prime Minister was answering Questions, the Leader of the Opposition took not just one, two or three questions, but on occasion went beyond that. I understand that at the time you assured the House that there was nothing that we could do about it, except to encourage the Members concerned to be circumspect about this matter.
May I ask you, Mr. Chairman, that you go beyond that—[Interruption.] Mr. [column 238]Speaker happens to be the Chairman as well as the Speaker.
May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, that you go beyond that and have discussions with the Front Bench concerned, as many hon. Members on both sides of the House who have further Questions should be allowed to ask those Questions and supplementary questions rather than have the right hon. Lady monopolising the whole of the quarter of an hour, which can get worse because we are now in fact on radio?
Several Hon. Members
rose——
Mr. Speaker
Order. Let me answer that point of order first.
Mr. Faulds
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker
There is no further point of order on that matter. It has been the custom, ever since I have been in the House, that the Leader of the Opposition will from time to time come back on Questions at least three times. Hon. Members have it within their own memories, and I certainly——
Mr. Faulds
rose——
Mr. Speaker
Order. There is no further point of order on that matter.
Mr. Faulds
But there is, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker
Order.
Mr. Faulds
There is, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker
Order.
Mr. Faulds
There is an Early-Day Motion.
Mr. Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman must do the same as I do and count to ten.
Mr. Faulds
On another point of order, Mr. Speaker. Since the microphones are now off, and since my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) raised the point that I first raised on the Floor of the House, and since there is already on the Order Paper an Early-Day Motion standing in my name and the names of about 60 or 70 other hon. Members criticising the behaviour of the Leader of the Opposition during Prime Minister's Question Time, may I strongly endorse the argument advanced by my hon. Friend?