PRIME MINISTER
(ENGAGEMENTS)
Q1. Mr. Temple-Morris
asked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagement for Thursday 22nd June.
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.
Mr. Temple-Morris
Has the Prime Minister time today to answer a question unconnected with statistical entrails? May I put it to him that whether phase 3 ultimately succeeds or fails, it has definitely failed with regard to differentials and the skilled labour force? Is he aware that in this and in his other policies he has let down a large number of his own supporters? Does he agree that the only hope that those people have lies with the policies that will be put forward by the next Conservative Government?
The Prime Minister
I hope that the skilled workers will not have to wait as long as all that. It is true that when there are rigid systems of pay policy dif [column 704]ferentials suffer, as they have done on this occasion. I hope that in the succeeding rounds—in the yearly pay bargaining—this position can be improved. We must recognise skill as far as possible.
Mr. Roy Hughes
May I ask the Prime Minister, if not today, at any early date, to enter into negotiations with the trade union movement and the CBI over the practicability of introducing a 35-hour week throughout Great Britain, as a means both of increasing leisure hours and of significantly reducing unemployment, which, by common consent is far too high?
The Prime Minister
These matters will, of course, be for discussion with the trade union movement, but I do not think we should assume that there is an easy solution to our problems through adopting a 35-hour week unless a number of other factors go with it. Two factors, for example, would be the need to ensure that unit costs of production do not increase. The second would be to ensure that our European competitors—since we have to sell our goods abroad—would be following the same policy. Apart from that, I think that there is a good case for considering reductions in working hours, provided that they do not just result in more overtime payments.
Mrs. Thatcher
Now that school leavers are coming on to the employment register in ever larger numbers, may I ask James Callaghanthe Prime Minister whether he is still determined to go ahead with his 2½ per cent. extra tax on jobs?
The Prime Minister
As the right hon. Lady knows, the necessity for this surcharge arose from the amendments for which she voted. It was no part of the Government's original strategy to introduce this tax. We asked the House to reject the amendments which altered the balance of the Budget. However, we have to face the consequences. As to whether we go ahead, the amendments will be put forward when we debate the Finance Bill. The House will have to debate these matters in the usual way. I am sure that the right hon. Lady appreciates that.
Mrs. Thatcher
There seems to be some doubt whether the Prime Minister will go ahead with this. Does that mean [column 705]that he is prepared to listen to the CBI and the small businesses when they tell him that such a tax would knock jobs, exports and small businesses?
The Prime Minister
I wish the right hon. Lady had thought of all these things before she voted for the amendments. I would not need to stand here defending this impost if the Opposition had not unbalanced the Budget by their votes. As it is, we have had to find the best way possible——
Mr. Farr
The worst way.
The Prime Minister
—to restore the revenue that the Opposition have lost through their votes. I shall listen to any representations that are made. I must say that when I meet the CBI its members do not bay and shout at me as do Tory Members.
Q4. Mr. Wyn Roberts
asked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 22nd June.
The Prime Minister
I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris).
Mr. Roberts
In view of the impending sharp increases next month in youth unemployment, because of the number of school leavers joining the register, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Chancellor of the Exchequer's choice of a 2½ per cent. increase in employers' national insurance contributions is positively the worst choice that he could have made as far as the employment prospects of these young people are concerned? How will the Prime Minister justify this inflationary tax on jobs to his fellow heads of Government at the July Summit?
The Prime Minister
If we had really thought that it was the worst choice, I promise the hon. Gentleman that we would not have made it. There is a matter for a difference of opinion here. Because we are seeking to fight inflation, I was myself very opposed to raising value added tax, which was another alternative and which would have had a much more immediate effect than the national insurance surcharge will have, since it would have come into force immediately. [Hon. Members: “Ah!” ] [column 706]It is no use hon. Members saying “Ah” . We are about to engage in discussions with the trade union movement on what is to happen to pay next year.
In my view, it really would have been a worse choice to say to the trade unions “We are now going to increase VAT because of the votes in the House of Commons, and in doing so shall put up the cost of living immediately” . There is no good choice here, and Opposition Members must accept their full responsibility for the choice that we have had to make.
Mr. Molloy
During the course of the day, will my right hon. Friend make arrangements to meet the TUC and CBI in order to make very clear that the Conservative Party's interference with the Chancellor's Budget will mean that very well-off people will get more in tax relief than the amounts which some workers are asking for in order to meet the marginal costs in the rising standard of living? This will create a severe and sour atmosphere in industrial relations, and the CBI should state quite clearly where it stands and whether it will aid and abet the Conservative Opposition in their efforts to sour industrial relations.
The Prime Minister
There is a way out of this dilemma, if the Opposition will undertake to vote for amendments which will return income tax to the position where it was. Then we need not proceed with this national insurance surcharge. Which do they want?
DEPARTMENT OF MARINE AFFAIRS
Q2. Dr. Edmund Marshall
asked the Prime Minister whether he will establish a Department of Marine Affairs.
The Prime Minister
I am grateful for my hon. Friend's suggestion, but he may assume that I do not intend to make any changes in departmental organisation or responsibilities unless and until I make a statement to the contrary.
Dr. Marshall
When so many of our urgent political problems associated with the sea—problems relating to fishing, tanker disasters, oil development and hydrography—involve so many Government Departments and agencies, would [column 707]they not be dealt with more effectively within a single new Department?
The Prime Minister
It is a matter of judgment. I have considered the matter very carefully. In 1976, we made a thorough review of it. The fact that these activities extend so widely over a number of Departments means that they require co-ordination, which is done by the Lord Privy Seal at present. I am not yet persuaded that setting up yet another Ministry would add to the co-ordination, but I want to keep an open mind. If it seemed necessary to bring them together I would not hesitate to do so.
Mr. Grimond
Without necessarily setting up a new Department, will the Prime Minister look again at the chain of responsibility for dealing with pollution at sea to see whether there should be one senior Minister in ultimate control? What proposals are the Government making internationally to avoid the sort of disaster that overtook the “Amoco Cadiz” ?
The Prime Minister
The Lord Privy Seal has an overall responsibility for co-ordination where a number of Departments are involved, but basically, of course, this matter falls to the Department of Trade, which is now responsible for our marine interests generally.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the “Amoco Cadiz” and other disasters. First, I have asked that a full report should be prepared on the “Amoco Cadiz” disaster and the “Eleni V” incident—although “disaster” is probably better word to use—and when we have considered that report we shall consider whether the matter is best raised through the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organisation or through the European Council. Either might be appropriate.
Mr. Hooley
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the creation of a 200-mile exclusive economic zone creates a new situation and that the structure of government needs to be revised so that we as a nation can take advantage of the enormous riches below the sea bed which this possibility gives to us?
The Prime Minister
My previous answer covered that. I am not persuaded that it needs a new Ministry to [column 708]do this. When the 200-mile zone looked as though it were being extended, I reviewed the whole matter and gave an answer in the House, saying what steps were being taken to ensure that there was proper co-ordination so that we could make certain that our interests were properly safeguarded.
Sir Bernard Braine
Has the Prime Minister yet studied the Health and Safety Report on the terrifying risks of death and injury to which my constituents are exposed, including risks arising from the possible interaction of accidents to liquid gas, oil and chemical carriers and land-based hazardous installations? Has the right hon. Gentleman noted the lunatic proposal of that report that despite these risks oil refinery development on Canvey should be increased? Will he, therefore, take responsibility for these matters out of the hands of Departments which have hitherto been indifferent to the plight of Canvey and entrust them to a new Department?
The Prime Minister
I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern for his constituents, but I do not think that the establishment of a new Department of Marine Affairs would be likely to solve these problems. Perhaps he had better table a Question to the appropriate Minister.
FAMILY POLICY
Q3. Mr. Michael Latham
asked the Prime Minister whether he intends to take any further personal initiatives in the field of family policy, following his recent speech on this subject.
The Prime Minister
I have at present no general comments to add to my recent speeches on the importance of family life, but Ministers, in developing the broad range of their economic and social policies, will pay particular attention to the contribution that improved provisions for the family and protection of the family can make to a healthy community.
Mr. Latham
When the Prime Minister next speaks about family policy, will he remind his audience that when the Conservative Government left office the standard rate of income tax for working wives and working husbands was 30 per [column 709]cent., and that the first thing the incoming Labour Government did was to raise it to 35 per cent.?
The Prime Minister
All these facts are well known. The hon. Gentleman never fails to seize the opportunity to put them on record. But, to give a balanced picture, I should remind the audience, at the same time, of the considerable improvement in child benefits, which will go up to £3 in November and £4 in April; I should remind it that social security benefits have been substantially improved; I should remind it that there has been a larger increase in the married man's allowance than for the single person; I should remind it of the levelling up of the personal allowances for single parents; I should remind it that we have reintroduced free school milk. I should remind it that we have expanded the health visitor service; I should remind it of the improvement in nursery education. When I had done that, I think that it would have a balanced view of the whole picture.
Mrs. Hayman
When my right hon. Friend gives that long list of reminders, will he consider also reminding his audience of the broken Conservative pledges to increase family allowances in the past? More constructively, when considering initiatives in family policy, will my right hon. Friend look particularly at the needs of the under-fives and consider whether there could not be better co-ordination between the Departments involved in order to improve services for pre-school children?
The Prime Minister
There is a great deal that should unite the parties on this matter, and I should regret it if it became a matter of politicisation. The Campbell Adamson report and study set up under the Leverhulme Trust will be of great value. The debate introduced by the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Bottomley) in March, supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter -Jones), is worth reading by all of us, and there is a great deal that we should seek to preserve in the family in trying to put the family forward and amplifying its status in society—and that has nothing to do with politics.
Sir David Renton
As this is mental handicap week, may I, in a non-party spirit, ask the Prime Minister to do his [column 710]best to encourage all concerned, especially the Secretary of State for Social Services, in the efforts being made to get the older handicapped people out of large institutions and into living a more feasible life in the community?
The Prime Minister
I am much obliged to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for that suggestion. I shall convey it to my right hon. Friend and see that the right hon. and learned Gentleman gets a reply to it.
Mr. Sever
In the light of my right hon. Friend's probable reluctance to set up a separate Ministry to deal with these affairs, could he indicate to which Ministry he will wish to allocate further responsibilities for the development of his policy on the family?
The Prime Minister
Again, this is a matter of co-ordination, because, as I have indicated, the question of families, their responsibilities and activities, stretch over a number of Ministries. We cannot look to any single Minister to be responsible. It is a matter for the Cabinet and for Government co-ordination generally.
Mrs. Bain
In view of the Prime Minister's reference to the increase in child benefits, will he look particularly at the case of those lone parents who are totally dependent on supplementary benefits, and are less likely to benefit from the increases than those who are dependent on unemployment benefit and maternity allowances?
The Prime Minister
I understand the problem, but the Supplementary Benefits Commission must take into account income from all sources, and if child benefits are to be substantially increased, as they are, supplementary benefits must have regard to that. My right hon. Friend is looking into this problem, but I can give no undertaking.