Speeches, etc.

Margaret Thatcher

House of Commons PQs

Document type: Speeches, interviews, etc.
Venue: House of Commons
Source: Hansard HC [931/641-47]
Editorial comments: 1515-1530.
Importance ranking: Major
Word count: 2241
[column 641]

PRIME MINISTER

(ENGAGEMENTS)

Q1. Mr. Canavan

asked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 5th May.

Q5. Mr. Michael Spicer

asked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 5th May 1977.

Q9. Mr. Wyn Roberts

asked the Prime Minister if he will list his engagements for 5th May.

The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan)

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 welcoming President Carter on his arrival in this country.

Mr. Canavan

Will my right hon. Friend send an urgent message today to the Queen, warning her that her speech yesterday appears to have upset the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mrs. Ewing) and other loyalists in the SNP, who now appear to be intent on replacing the Monarch by another “Old Pretender” who has ambitions of becoming Winnie, Queen of Scots?

The Prime Minister

I am afraid that I cannot begin to compete with my hon. Friend, whose remarks seem to be as much in tune with the sentiment of this House as was the speech of Her Majesty yesterday.

Mr. Roberts

Among the Prime Minister's engagements today is his appearance at the Dispatch Box this afternoon. Does the letter from his secretary to the Clerk of the Select Committee on Procedure, on the matter of Prime Minister's Questions, mean that in future the right hon. Gentleman will be prepared to deal with Questions relating to important issues on foreign and defence matters but not with Questions relating to important issues in the domestic sphere? Do the Government accept the recommendation of the Select Committee? If so, do they have the intention of implementing it?

The Prime Minister

I thought it appropriate to wait for a few days before making a statement to the House on this [column 642]matter, I suggest that I may do so next Thursday, when I have received a response to the recommendations of the Select Committee. The hon. Gentleman will know, from the fact that I not only instigated the inquiry but made the proposals, that I shall not be unfriendly to the recommendations.

Mr. Donald Stewart

Is the Prime Minister aware, following the question from his hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan), that, speaking as a member of the House of Stuart who owes loyalty to Her Majesty, it is my opinion that there might be better claimants to the Throne than the one mentioned by the hon. Gentleman? Is it correct that it is a constitutional convention that Her Majesty's pronouncements in Parliament represent Government policy? If that convention still exists, does the Prime Minister accept responsibility for Her Majesty's address to the Houses of Parliament yesterday?

The Prime Minister

That is a question that I thought I might be asked, and I should like to give a considered reply to it.

Unlike the speech from the Throne, the Queen's reply to the Loyal Addresses was not a statement of Government policy. It was a personal response by the Queen, but it should certainly be regarded as having been made on the advice of Ministers, as are all Her Majesty's speeches. I saw it myself before it was delivered and I saw no reason to propose any alteration.

If the right hon. Gentleman cares to read it again, he will see that the speech specifically recognised the strength of feeling for the devolution of government to Scotland and Wales, and emphasised the benefits to all of maintaining the integrity of the United Kingdom. That is, and remains, the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Bryan Davies

As my right hon. Friend's duties today include a warm welcome to the President of the United States, will he be in a position to discuss with President Carter a most interesting, democratic idea put forward recently by the President, namely, that a member of the Press should be present at Cabinet meetings in the United States? Is not that [column 643]an idea that might usefully be employed in the United Kingdom as well?

The Prime Minister

Sometimes I wonder whether they are not. The answer to my hon. Friend is that although all of us are always in favour of as much open government as we can provide, there are, nevertheless, occasions when people want to discuss things quietly among themselves, without the all-intrusive eye of the Press being present. I can tell my hon. Friend what would happen if one did admit a member of the Press to Cabinet meetings. There would then be small conclaves in smoke-filled rooms where the Press was not present. It is far better that this should be done on a regular basis.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin

Is it part of the Prime Minister's open government that the report of the Review Body on Doctors' and Dentists' Remuneration should have been leaked to the medical Press this morning? Is he aware that he has had that report on his desk for more than a month? Is it not rather a shabby way to treat the profession to allow the matter to come out in this underhand way? What is in the report that the Prime Minister is so frightened of it?

The Prime Minister

I fear that the answer to all parts of that question is “I do not know” .

Mr. David Steel

May I revert to the Prime Minister's considered reply of a moment ago? Is he aware that it was very much preferable to many of his unconsidered replies? The sentiments that he expressed represent not just the policy of Her Majesty's Government; they are totally in accord with the views of the majority of the people of Scotland regardless of their political persuasion.

The Prime Minister

My answer to the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's question is that if there were not so many unconsidered supplementary questions there would not need to be so many unconsidered replies.

I agree with the second part of the right hon. Gentleman's question. The House gave a Second Reading to the devolution Bill by a substantial majority, and I think that it would be useful if the House could agree to make progress on the Bill, even if certain changes need [column 644]to be made to it, to meet the real demand of the Scottish and Welsh people. Then they can decide the matter by a referendum.

CBI

Q2. Mr. Tim Renton

asked the Prime Minister when he next plans to meet the President of the CBI.

The Prime Minister

I met some of the leaders of the CBI, including the President, on 15th February. Further meetings will be arranged as necessary.

Mr. Renton

When these further meetings are arranged, will the Prime Minister be discussing phase 3? Following the decision of the engineering workers' union yesterday, is phase 3 now dead? If so, should not the Prime Minister phase himself out and put the matter democratically to the test at a General Election?

The Prime Minister

I note the glee with which the Opposition meet every possible obstacle that is placed in the way of securing an incomes policy. I trust that the country will note, it too. I read this morning that the AEUW's rejection of a phase 3 yesterday was met by the rejection of a decision to go for a big and high wage claim.

If the Opposition really wish to help, I think that they can best do so by not attempting to drive wedges in a situation in which the whole economic future of the country is at stake. It would also help if we knew whether, if ever there should be a Conservative Government, at a moment like this they would be trying to secure an incomes policy, or whether it would be a free-for-all, with the sky as the limit.

Mr. Flannery

Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the Conservative Party had its way the economy would be in utter chaos? Will he, none the less, accept that phase 3 and the social contract are now severely in question, and that many members of the trade union movement and leaders of the trade union movement are finding themselves under tremendous pressure? The only way to meet this pressure is to move from the present policy towards partial reflation of the economy and to take into account the fact that bigger wage increases must be given, otherwise the project will burst wide open.

[column 645]

The Prime Minister

I agree with the first part of my hon. Friend's question—that the Opposition have no policy for dealing with the economic situation that confronts this country. It is that which gives me additional strength to pursue the difficult policy that we are following.

On the second part of my hon. Friend's question, I think, with respect, that he is repeating some of the things that I have said about the next phase of incomes policy. We all know the pressures that have built up on differentials and other matters, and I have indicated, as has the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that over the next two to three months we must try to work for a policy that will restrain these pressures, whilst recognising the real problems that ordinary people have in their daily lives.

The Government will be ready to reflate the moment our economic situation seems to put us in a position to do so. Things are going the right way. Our reserves are the highest ever. They were at a record level yesterday. Interest rates are steadily coming down. [Interruption.] The shouts from the Opposition cannot drown the fact that building society rates will also be coming down again soon. These matters are moving in the right direction, even though the Opposition do not care to admit it.

Mr. Tebbit

When the Prime Minister next sees the CBI, will he be kind enough to tell its members whether he thinks that it is the employers or the trade unionists in Britain who are not sufficiently responsible to be trusted with a return to free collective bargaining?

The Prime Minister

I should not dream of talking to either group about this in terms of responsibility or lack of responsibility, because that is not the best way to get an agreement. What is clear is that, because of the pressure of circumstances, employers are frequently tempted to offer high rates, and that is then followed by other employers in order to get labour. This is a difficult situation. We have all been trying to handle it. The Opposition have failed time after time. We have also failed in the past. Now the future of our country is involved, and we are going to make another effort at solving the problem.

Mrs. Thatcher

If James Callaghanthe Prime Minister is so pleased with his economic [column 646]performance, will he explain to the House why the only European country to have a worse record on inflation than ours over the period of the Labour Government is Iceland?

The Prime Minister

With respect, the right hon. Lady is selective in her choice of statistics. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies) should keep quiet after the untruth that he told about me yesterday. It would not come amiss if he were to apologise, and I hope that he will do so. [Interruption.] I hope that he will raise a point of order on this.

My reply to the right hon. Lady's question is that the truth is that if one takes the three years separately one sees that the rate of inflation has improved in the third year by comparison with the first and second years. The reason for the situation in the whole period which the right hon. Lady took is the increase in money supply, which worked its way through in the first 18 months of Labour Government. [Interruption.] It is no use the Opposition trying to dodge their responsibility for this. If the right hon. Lady were not so selective she would not take the period from March 1974, because she knows what happened then. She knows what happened to the money supply then. The truth—and I think that I know the figures from which the right hon. Lady is quoting—is in Hansard, in replies that I have given. [Interruption.] I know that the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) is the right hon. Lady's lap-dog and that he puts down Questions from which she draws the answers. I know that. I am bound to say to the right hon. Lady that, as she knows, if she looks at the third column of those figures she will see that the rate of inflation is improving and that she has selected the wrong instance.

Mrs. Thatcher

Why, the, were the Prime Minister and his colleagues claiming in the last election that they had inflation licked and that it was 8.4 per cent.? On that basis, it is now 19.9 per cent.

The Prime Minister

the figure of 8.4 per cent. was quoted over a period of three months. What I should like to hear from some responsible member of the Opposition—if, indeed, there are any [column 647]—is whether the Opposition deny the forecasts that are now being made that inflation will continue to come down in the second half of this year and the first quarter of 1978.