MINISTERIAL BROADCASTS
Q1. Mr Grylls
asked the Prime Minister when he next intends to make a ministerial broadcast.
The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan)
I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Madden) on 7th December.
Mr. Grylls
Will the Prime Minister accept that he should make another broadcast, because there is a lot of doubt in people's minds about the present farcical situation over the entente cordiale between the Liberal and Socialist Parties? For example, what is the Joint Executive Committee? Is it a secret talking shop? Does it have executive powers? Will its minutes be published? What has it decided about the petrol tax? People want to know. Will he tell the country?
The Prime Minister
After my two broadcast last week, which met with a generally favourable reception, I should of course be very happy to take up further invitations. However, having watched the two Budget broadcasts—the excellent one by the Chancellor and the feeble reply given last night—I am content to leave it to a judgment between the two teams. As for the other matters [column 569]that the hon. Gentleman has raised, I think that he has overlooked my Answer on this matter on Tuesday.
Mr. Spearing
If my right hon. Friend makes a ministerial broadcast in the near future, will he explain to the British public why the White Paper of the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) and every successive official Government publication concerning the terms of the Common Market have contained no mention of the claimed obligation to direct elections, yet we have a Bill on the subject? Will he explain this to the British public, who have been duped once already on the Common Market?
The Prime Minister
I do not think that there is any question of duping the British public on this matter. The commitment was quite clear. It is written into the Treaty. It has been well understood by everyone except my hon. Friend, who chose to ignore it in the course of his anti-Market campaign last year.
Mr. McCrindle
If the right hon. Gentleman broadcasts on the Lib-Lab pact, will he contradict the suggestion of the Leader of the Liberal Party that one of its benefits is that we shall not be having the nationalisation of the banks and the insurance companies? Will he confirm that that proposal was not in the Labour Party manifesto and that, therefore, we should not have had it anyway during the present Parliament?
The Prime Minister
I think that the hon. Member has overlooked the reply that I gave on this matter on Tuesday.
PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY
Q2. Mr. Aitken
asked the Prime Minister if he will list the responsibilities of the Patronage Secretary.
The Prime Minister
I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) on 29th March.
Mr. Aitken
Is the right hon. Gentleman not now feeling a little sorry for his Patronage Secretary, who, like everyone else, seems to have been taken for a complete ride by the increasingly dubious nature of the Lib-Lab alliance? [column 570]Is he aware that he himself has been had for a mug by one of the first fruits of this deal with the Liberals—namely, the document submitted to him by the Liberals which is the Liberal terms over devolution and which has today been discovered not to have been written by the Liberal Party at all? Did he know when he received this document from the Liberal leader that it was, in fact, a photocopy of a memorandum written by a pressure group known as the Outer Circle? Just who is kidding whom over this latest Liberal cock-up involving political plagiarism?
The Prime Minister
I think that the hon. Gentleman must have overlooked the reply that I gave on this matter earlier this week.
Mr. Speaker
Mr. Jack Ashley.
Mr. Ashley
rose—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker
Order. Will the hon. Gentleman begin again? He was speaking during the noise.
Mr. Ashley
Certainly, Mr. Speaker. I can appreciate the outcry. Do not the indignation and the anxiety expressed by Conservative Members about the arrangement made by my right hon. Friend with the Liberals indicate that it is very seriously damaging to them, and that, therefore, this is a powerful argument for continuing it, at any rate on a temporary basis?
The Prime Minister
I do not wish to answer questions of this kind on inter-party relationships.
Mr. Blaker
Is the Prime Minister aware that his answers this afternoon are simply not good enough? Will he now at least answer the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, East (Mr. Aitken)?
Hon. Members
Answer.
Mr. Heffer
Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us are not surprised that the Patronage Secretary has become somewhat confused because in Liverpool, for example, the Liberals seem to be much more concerned with an alliance with the Conservative Party against the Labour Party whereas in this House they seem to be more concerned about an agreement with the Labour Party against [column 571]the Conservative Party? Perhaps one day my right hon. Friend may get a really clear answer as to where the Liberals stand.
The Prime Minister
All that may be the truth, but I do not propose to discuss inter-party relationships in this House.
Hon. Members
Answer the question.
The Prime Minister
When questions are relevant, I shall answer them.
PRIME MINISTER
(ENGAGEMENTS)
Q3. Mr. Canavan
asked the Prime Minister whether he will list his official engagements for 31st March.
Q7. Mr. Skinner
asked the Prime Minister what are his official engagements for 31st March.
The Prime Minister
This morning I took the chair 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, including one with Mr. Cyrus Vance, the United States Secretary of State.
Mr. Canavan
Will my right hon. Friend find time today to tell the 33,000 unemployed school leavers what measures he intends to take to help them find jobs? Will he utterly reject the rather bizarre suggestion of the Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland to recruit them into some form of uniformed national service, because it would be reminiscent of Germany in the 1930s if we had an army of unemployed youngsters marching through the streets led by the Globtik Gauleiter of Cathcart?
The Prime Minister
In his Budget the Chancellor outlined that he was proposing to set aside £400 million over the next two years for the creation or maintenance of 150,000 to 200,000 jobs through such schemes as the temporary employment subsidy and job creation schemes of that sort, as well as assistance to small firms. The Government are awaiting a report from the Manpower Services Commission on youth employment which, I understand, we shall receive shortly. I am certain that when he speaks on employment this afternoon my right hon. Friend the [column 572]Secretary of State for Employment will have something further to say on this matter.
With regard to service in the Army, I believe that the kind of schemes proposed by the Government are far superior to anything like recruiting people into the Armed Forces against their will or, indeed, anything which remotely resembles that.
Mrs. Thatcher
Has James Callaghanthe Prime Minister this morning, or at any other time today, taken time to consider the consequences for those who have either sold or bought petrol since Tuesday if the Budget resolution were not passed on Monday evening? This is an important constitutional question and I hope that the Prime Minister will make clear what consequences will flow from that decision.
The Prime Minister
I shall certainly consider that matter, but we have put the resolution before the House and we expect it to be carried. There would be serious consequences if it were not.
Mrs. Thatcher
But the Prime Minister, on his own admission, is the head of a minority Government. He must have taken time to consider this before the resolution came before the House. We are engaged in the Budget debate, and he is First Lord of the Treasury. If he knows the answer now, he should tell us—or is it that he does not know?
The Prime Minister
The position will be the same as on any other vote. In other words, when the Government put down a motion they expect and hope that it will be carried.
Mr. Molloy
Is my right hon. Friend aware that he has a far more important task in correcting the impression given overseas, notwithstanding that the right hon. Lady takes every opportunity to delight in any difficulty afflicting Britain or the British people? Will my right hon. Friend see to it that he carries on with his very good work of giving people overseas a true picture of Great Britain and not the false one perpetrated by the right hon. Lady?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend will be comforted by the fact that the true position about Britain has got through to overseas, hence the great strength of sterling and the purchase of gilt-edged that has gone on as a result [column 573]of the Budget. I think that the position is well recognised. Of course, I understand that the right hon. Lady believes she would be able to conduct our affairs better—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.” ]—but I would be a little more convinced if I saw what the Opposition's policy was on about 17 different subjects.
Mr. Marten
Following the previous question about the Lib-Lab alliance, will the Prime Minister, when he sees ministerial colleagues later in the day, discuss with them the proposition that the Leader of the Liberal Party should be invited as a fraternal delegate to the Labour Party Conference?
Hon. Members
Answer.
Mr. Norman Lamont
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I fully appreciate that the content of ministerial answers is not a matter for the Chair—[Hon. Members: “Sit down.” ]—but we are in a situation where the Government are a minority Government and where they have made a deal, not a secret but a public arrangement, with the Liberal Party which states that Government policy must be modified. Therefore, surely the Prime Minister ought to answer questions about it.
Mr. Speaker
Order. It is not for me to tell the Prime Minister what to answer.
Mr. Thorpe
When the Prime Minister sees Mr. Cyrus Vance today, following the disappointing outcome to the strategic arms limitation talks in Moscow, will he assure the Secretary of State that this country would not wish the President in any way to water down, retract or retreat from his firm stand on human rights in order to get some agreement on defence and that, although we are naturally disappointed that the Moscow talks did not yield greater success, none the less we are 100 per cent. behind the President in his stand?
The Prime Minister
I am looking forward to hearing from Mr. Vance a summary of his visit to Moscow, which, frankly, is of far greater importance than most of the Questions I have been asked this afternoon. The President is aware of our support for his general stand on human rights. He has also made it clear to me that he does not wish the Belgrade [column 574]conference to be polemical in nature when it meets. With regard to the temporary breakdown, if that is the correct word, of the talks on strategic arms limitation, my own deduction would be, subject to what Mr. Vance has to say, that this is costing the Soviet Union so much in resources that it will not rush into a large new arms programme out of pique or because it disagrees with the President on any other matter. I shall therefore encourage Mr. Vance to persist in his current discussions, which will be resumed in May with Mr. Gromyko.
Mr. Corbett
Will my right hon. Friend put the proposition to Mr. Vance, which may make all the difference to the progress of the negotiations, that the Americans should include the Cruise missile in their proposals?
The Prime Minister
That has been a source of dispute because the Americans have indicated to the Soviet Union that they believe that the Backfire bomber should also be included in any reduction in strategic arms. This bargain must be struck. I believe that President Ford was in favour of excluding both the Cruise missile and the Backfire bomber from any agreement, but that does not seem to have been possible. However, I do not think that it would be right to ask the Americans to exclude their Cruise missile unless the Soviet Union did something equal in return.
Mr. Tebbit
Will the Prime Minister now make a better attempt to answer the question put to him by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition? Is it not right that the House should know, before it votes on the Budget resolution on petrol, what the effect of refusing to pass that resolution would be? Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware—[Interruption.] I wish that if the Liberals had nothing to say they would keep their months shut. Is not the Prime Minister aware that for two days people have been charging tax on petrol and that on Monday night the resolution may well not be passed? The Prime Minister must know the answer. Will he now give it?
The Prime Minister
As soon as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has finished his Budget Statement and the Budget resolutions are put, as has been the case [column 575]in all the years the hon. Gentleman has been here, the change takes effect. It is always subject to ratification by the House at the end of the Budget debate. That is the normal process that will be followed on this occasion.
Mr. Mates
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In replying to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont), you rightly said that you had no responsibility for what the Prime Minister said in his answer. [An Hon. Member: “Sit down then.” ] But as you have also told us on many occasions, Mr. Speaker, that you are the custodian of the rights of Back Benchers, and have also said from the Chair that the point of Question Time is the asking for and giving of information, to whom can we turn when the Prime Minister flatly refuses to give information on a matter of public concern at the only time in the week when we can question him?
Mr. Speaker
The House knows that Ministers are responsible for their replies or their non-replies.