PRIME MINISTER
(ENGAGEMENTS)
Q1. Mr. Hordern
asked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14th February.
The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan)
In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be holding meetings with ministerial colleagues and others.
Mr. Hordern
Will the Prime Minister ask Mr. Moss Evans to come to see him this afternoon and talk to him about his radio interview this morning? In view of the importance of the social contract and of the industrial strategy, will the right hon. Gentleman explain to Ford and to every other company whether they should take advice of Mr. Moss Evans or that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
The Prime Minister
I did not hear the interview, and I shall not be inviting Mr. Evans to come to see me.
Mr. Madden
Will my right hon. Friend find time to urge the Leader of the Opposition to devote a Supply Day debate to the subject of immigration? Does he believe that this would allow the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) and the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) further to expose the weasel words of the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) on immigration and enable her to rebut the charge that she is more anxious to exploit the fears and uncertainties of some people on immigration than to come here to defend and explain her policies on immigration?
The Prime Minister
I understand that there is a Supply Day likely to be available next week and also that a further Supply Day will be available in the following week. There will be plenty of opportunity to discuss this matter, therefore, if the Opposition wish to raise it.
If I may express a view, I hope that the Opposition will do so because, as I said a week ago, I am anxious that there should be, if possible, a national approach to this problem, which can [column 236]otherwise distort our community with hatred.
Mrs. Thatcher
Is James Callaghanthe Prime Minister aware that we shall take a Supply Day when we wish and not at the goading of Government supporters? Meantime, does the right hon. Gentleman recall that the purpose of the 1971 Immigration Act, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling) introduced and which I supported, was to end further large-scale immigration and to permit future immigration only in strictly defined cases? Does the right hon. Gentleman remember that he and his party voted against that Bill on Second Reading not merely once but three times? Is he aware that I support the intention of that Act? He did not, and he does not. What is his intention?
The Prime Minister
I recall a number of these matters because I happened to be leading for the Opposition at the time. I well recall the argument that took place about patriality, upon which there was a great difference which was thrashed out in Committee, some times overnight, between the Opposition and the Government, and it had nothing to do with immigration as such. But I agree with the right hon. Lady that it is for her to choose when she will debate this matter, and it is only for me to indicate that there are opportunities available. As the Government have very firm principles on this matter, I hope that the Opposition will choose to debate it soon. But I repeat my request that we should, if possible, try to evolve a national approach to this issue.
Mrs. Thatcher
We did not evolve a national approach when the legislation was before the House. Do I understand from the Prime Minister's reply that he now supports an Act which at the time he opposed vigorously?
The Prime Minister
Since 1974—that is, for four years—the Government have been operating under the 1971 Act, which was drawn up, of course, by the previous Cabinet and introduced by the previous Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Chiping Barnet (Mr. Maudling). We have also been operating under the Conservative rules which derive from the Act in 1973.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with it?
[column 237]The Prime Minister
We are administering it. Perhaps the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) does not understand that. I hope that the Opposition understand that what is taking place on immigration today takes place under their Act and their rules and that it is now the law of the country.
I make a proposal—[Interruption.] I try to deal only with adult questions, not infantile questions. What I am about to say will not be accepted by the Opposition, but I should like to put it, and we shall see.
If the Opposition are as concerned about trying to avoid hatred and tension in our society as the right hon. Lady said they were last Sunday, let me make this proposition, which I shall think out and discuss with her. Why do not the leaders of the three parties sit down together with the Home Secretary, the Shadow Home Secretary and, if the right hon. Lady wishes, the former Home Secretary whose Act it was and see whether we can evolve a national approach which will avoid racialism, distortion and hatred which will otherwise enter our affairs? I make that offer to the right hon. Lady. I am willing to discuss it and sit down with her, recognising that each of us has very firm principles. However, the national unity of the country is more important than either of these.
Mrs. Thatcher
Will the Prime Minister now answer the Question? Does he now support the intent——
Mr. Faulds
Will the Leader of the Opposition answer the Prime Minister's suggestion?
Mr. Speaker
Order. The hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) really must control himself.
Mr. Faulds
She must answer the Prime Minister's proposition.
Mr. Speaker
Order. If the hon. Member for Warley, East continues, I shall have to ask him to leave the Chamber.
Mrs. Thatcher
Does the Prime Minister now support the intention of the Act to which he led the opposition?
The Prime Minister
I divide my answer into two parts. The general intention of the Immigration Act has always been supported. However, on the issue of [column 238]patriality there has always been a difference between us, and I understand that the Opposition themselves are now dissatisfied with the way in which it is working and that that is why they are calling for a review of future citizenship of this country. That is a clear answer to the Leader of the Opposition.
Would she care to think about my suggestion? I do not ask for a reply now, because I know that it is an important matter. Perhaps she could let me have an answer in due course.
SELECT COMMITTEES
(MINISTERIAL WITNESSES)
Q2. Mr. Moonman
asked the Prime Minister what guidelines he offers to his ministerial colleagues on the type and extent of information which they may provide when appearing before parliamentary Select Committees.
The Prime Minister
Ministers follow the conventional practice in this matter.
Mr. Moonman
In view of the recent tensions between Select Committees and members of the Government about certain key witnesses, will the Prime Minister define rather more clearly the relationship and the amount of information that can be given by Ministers to Members of Parliament? Does he think that Select Committees are a waste of time?
The Prime Minister
I do not think that Select Committees are a waste of time. They can do a very useful job, provided that the working assumptions as to the responsibilities of Select Committees and the Government are observed. The general understanding is that Ministers should always observe them and should be as helpful as possible to Select Committees in trying to satisfy their requests for information. It is well known to both sides that there are difficulties from time to time about this in matters of commercial interest. This has arisen because of a recent dispute; I shall not pronounce on that now. Generally speaking, Ministers know that when they go before Select Committees they go to give all the help they can.
Mr. Blaker
Has the Prime Minister's attention been drawn to the book “The Pencourt File” ? Is he aware that there are serious allegations in that book against the Secretary of State for Social [column 239]Services, acting in his official capacity—namely that the Secretary of State used his influence in 1976 to conceal the existence of a file on Mr. Norman Scott when there is clear evidence that such a file existed? Is not this a suitable matter for investigation by a Select Committee? Why has not the Secretary of State made a statement, issued a writ or resigned?
The Prime Minister
I read extracts from the book in the Daily Mirror, but I cannot pretend that I have read the whole book, I am glad to say. As for breaches of security or anything of that nature, this has all been thoroughly investigated and I have nothing to say about it.
Mr. McNamara
The House will appreciate that, although it does not always agree with what the Prime Minister has said about commercial confidentiality and State security. Can he explain the reluctance of Ministers to explain the mechanics of government?
The Prime Minister
I think I can, but not now. If my hon. Friend is referring to the manner in which the Cabinet conducts its affairs and the systems it sets up, I would defend that. Having gone into it very carefully, I do not think that we need to expose officially—I know it is sometimes done unofficially—all our workings and doings to the public at large.
Mr. Ridley
Is the Prime Minister aware that in “The Pencourt File” there are allegations that the Secretary of State for Social Services deliberately waived the payment of insurance contributions, either by the employer or by the employee, for Mr. Norman Scott? These are serious matters which the Prime Minister must take seriously. Will he set up an inquiry and report to the House whether these allegations are true, otherwise the scandal will have to be presumed true in view of the lack of a denial?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) is operating at about his usual level. [An Hon. Member: “It is a very high level.” ] If he really wishes this matter to be taken seriously, I suggest that he puts down a Question instead of trying to tack a supplementary question on to a totally unrelated Question. If he puts down a Question, he will get an answer.
[column 240]Mr. Woodall
Is the Prime Minister aware that a publication called “Billy's Weekly Liar” is sold pretty widely on the promenade at Blackpool? Will he advise Opposition Members to read something worth while for a change?
The Prime Minister
I hope that my hon. Friend is not referring to the colloquial title of the “Conservative Weekly News” .
Mr. Michael Latham
Is it not clear that the golden rule for Ministers in the face of a hostile report from a Select Committee is “If in doubt ignore it, or abuse the Labour Members on it” ?
The Prime Minister
That is not necessarily true; it would depend on the occasion. I should be governed by the words of my predecessors, among whom I note are the right hon. Members for Knutsford (Mr. Davies) and Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) and the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), and say that it is important that the Government should retain the right to keep confidential the advice offered to them when they consider it proper to do so. I suggest that the hon. Member looks at speeches made on 22nd January 1973 and 15th March 1972, one relating to Govan Shipbuilders and one relating to the Select Committee on Science and Technology.
Mr. Ridley
In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.