PRIME MINISTER
(ENGAGEMENTS)
Q1. Mr. Viggers
asked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 27th July.
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. Viggers
As part of his duties today, will the Prime Minister explain why, in the debate on Tuesday, he took as his example a family man earning £75 a week when, as a result of his policies, there are trained and skilled industrial civil servants who are taking home £45 a week, and some are taking home as little as £30 a week and might even be better off unemployed?
The Prime Minister
There is a dispute going on because industrial civil servants, whose pay year starts on 1st July, have not accepted the offer that was made within the 10 per cent. guidelines for this current year. They are unfortunately at the end of the queue. There are meetings tomorrow on the matter between Ministers and the various national officials, and I think that we should see how those negotiations go.
Mr. Canavan
Will my right hon. Friend find time today to reconsider the granting of an export licence for the return of Chilean aero engines at East Kilbride in view of the real possibility that the Chilean Government may attempt to use force to remove the engines, with the resultant risk of physical confrontation with the trade union movement?
The Prime Minister
The Government's attitude to Chile and to the subject of human rights is well known, and we have made it clear not only by words but by our action in accepting a great many Chilean refugees. [column 1791]
The issue of the licence cannot be reconsidered. It was issued a week ago and cannot now be taken back. The removal of the engines is a matter of commercial concern between the Chilean Government and Rolls-Royce. I hope that no subterfuges will be entered into to try to remove the engines. Equally, I hope that the legal responsibility will be properly observed and that these engines, which now belong to the Chilean Government, when they are paid for, should be removed.
Mrs. Thatcher
Doubtless James Callaghanthe Prime Minister has had time to see Denis Healeythe Chancellor of the Exchequer today. Will he therefore confirm that the assumption on which his Government are working is that the figure for unemployment for the rest of this Parliament will be 1.55 million?
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has just told me that the figure has been revised downwards.
Mrs. Thatcher
The Prime Minister said that it had been revised downwards from 1.7 million last week. He did not give the figure to which it had been revised. If it is 1.55 million under Socialist policies, will he say so, bearing in mind that he inherited only some 600,000 unemployed and that the result of his efforts and those of his predecessor has been to add some 600 men and women to the dole queue every day his party has been in office?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Lady is, of course, right to focus on the problem of unemployment. Inflation and unemployment are the two biggest problems that the country has to face. Certainly there has been a substantial increase in unemployment, for reasons which have often been explained in this House. But, when I hear the cheers of the Conservative Party about these matters, I can only reflect that if the Conservatives had been in power and had adopted their own policies, with the abolition of grants and subsidies which has been so consistently suggested by the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), the misfortune that has fallen upon us as a result of the world recession would have been very much greater and there would have been far more people out of work. As the [column 1792]right hon. Lady knows—I have explained this before—an assumption in technical terms is not the same as a forecast. The Government's policy is to return to full employment as soon as we can.
Mrs. Thatcher
What is the revised working assumption? Will the Prime Minister answer the question?
The Prime Minister
The revised working assumption was published last May at 1.55 million, as I informed the right hon. Lady at Question Time a week ago.
Q2. Miss Joan Lestor
asked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 27th July.
The Prime Minister
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I have just given to the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers).
Miss Lestor
In his very busy schedule, will the Prime Minister find time today to contact President Carter to express to him the extreme disquiet felt by large numbers of us over any suggestion that sanctions against Southern Rhodesia will be lifted? Will he make it perfectly clear to him that this can happen only with the full agreement of Britain and all other countries involved when Southern Rhodesia is free and has a democratically elected majority Government?
The Prime Minister
The position about sanctions, as my hon. Friend indicates, is that they were imposed as a result of a decision of the United Nations, and they will be lifted in the same way. The United States Administration and the British Government are working closely together on this. President Carter and Secretary of State Vance are in no doubt about the general position, and, I think, broadly accept the way in which it was summed up by my hon. Friend.
Mr. Churchill
Has the Prime Minister forgotten the terms of the Anglo-American package presented to Rhodesia by Dr. Kissinger, and in particular the clause which stated that, on the establishment of the interim Government, sanctions would be lifted and economic aid would be provided? Where does the Prime Minister stand on that promise?
The Prime Minister
Those conditions have not been utterly fulfilled. There is no acceptable Administration in Rhodesia [column 1793]at the present time. If there were, we would not have a guerrilla war backed by many thousands of people. The purpose of British policy—backed, I believe, by a large number of Conservatives in this House—is to try to ensure that we can bring all the elements in Rhodesia into a settlement that will lead to peace.
Mr. William Hamilton
Will my right hon. Friend try to find time today in which to seek ways and means of publishing in the Official Report the editorial in the Daily Mirror today? Does he recognise that that editorial consists of all the comments of all the Tory press on the crass ineptitude of the Leader of the Opposition? Will he say whether he can recall a precedent when all the Tory papers in the land were unanimous in their condemnation of the behaviour of the leader of the Tory Party?
The Prime Minister
I noted that there was one exception. That was The Sun. Perhaps that was because it was not appearing. But let me say that I think we all have off days at times, and not too much should be made of that.
Mr. John Davies
May I recall to the Prime Minister his answer to the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill)? Is he seeking to say to the House that the fact that a war is being waged from outside a country's frontiers by guerrilla forces means that automatically there is a case for non-recognition of the Administration within those frontiers?
The Prime Minister
No, that was not what I said, and I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman would draw that deduction if he is making it as a general rule. If he is applying it only to Rhodesia at the moment, my answer would be “Yes, I am saying that.”
TUC Annual Conference
Q3. Mr. Madden
asked the Prime Minister if he intends to address the TUC annual conference.
The Prime Minister
The general council has invited me to address the TUC annual conference in September, and I have accepted.
Mr. Madden
When the Prime Minister speaks there, will he warn workers against any overtures from a new small but [column 1794]sinister organisation called the National Union of Tory Intellectuals, which is extremely vague on incomes policy, packaged by a PR firm which was, at least until Tuesday, advised by the former Conservative Member for South Angus?
The Prime Minister
I would be very happy to look into this interesting proposition. I thought that the Conservative policy was quite clear on pay: that those who are on low pay should have substantial increases, that those who are on high pay and skilled should get substantial increases, that the managers should also get substantial increases, and that it should all be done within 5 per cent. That, I thought was the policy that I heard on Tuesday.
Mr. Michael Marshall
When the Prime Minister meets the TUC, will he take it into his confidence on his views as to the future of nationalised industries? Will he not confirm that many of the problems faced by nationalised industries—for example, the difficulties they face over their profit figures in relation to different accounting systems—need to be looked at in the light of the Government's own White Paper, which is long overdue for discussion?
Will the Prime Minister undertake to play his part, and when he comes back to the House in October—[Hon. Members: “Yes, as Prime Minister.” ] Will the Prime Minister, when he comes back to the House, play his part as Leader of the Opposition in trying to resolve these problems?
The Prime Minister
The depreciation methods used by nationalised industries, I agree with the hon. Gentleman, are not satisfactory for them—or, indeed, for private industries and private companies, as many of them at the present time are calculating depreciation on a different basis. What the Electricity Council has done this year—which seems to reveal a reduced profit, but is, in fact, accounted for because of its new depreciation position—is probably a move in the right direction. Certainly the Government will continue to give more consideration to this, and I hope that we shall get some agreement from industry too.
Mr. Stoddart
Will my right hon. Friend also remind the TUC that under his Administration—a Labour Administration—the nationalised industries have [column 1795]been brought back into a position of profitability, whereas under the Conservative Administration they were losing huge sums of money? Will he tell that to the TUC, and also tell it to the Opposition?
The Prime Minister
Yes, it is the case that when the Conservative Opposition were in power they did not permit the nationalised industries to charge economic prices for the services they rendered, and they then had the effrontery to blame the nationalised industries for not making profits. The present position is far more healthy.
COMMISSIONER JENKINS
Q4. Mr. Marten
asked the Prime Minister when he next expects to meet Commissioner Jenkins.
The Prime Minister
I have at present no plans to meet Mr. Jenkins.
Mr. Marten
Until the Prime Minister does so, will he take the opportunity to re-read his letter to Mr. Ron Hayward last September and perhaps have a discussion with Mr. Roy Jenkins about that? Does the Prime Minister recall that in that letter he said quite clearly that we should develop greater parliamentary control over Common Market legislation? But nothing has been done. Will he have all-party talks so that we can get all-party agreement before the General Election, whenever that might happen, so that we are quite clear where we stand on this?
The Prime Minister
I do not think it is fair to say that nothing has been done. The Government gave an undertaking, through the Lord President, about the reference of some of these proposals to the Scrutiny Committee and about the action which Ministers should take. That undertaking has been faithfully carried out, to a scintilla. The Scrutiny Committee, I believe, is reconsidering the matter, and the Government will consider what further steps, if any, should be taken in due course. It would be quite wrong to suggest that the Government have not kept to their undertaking.
Mr. Heffer
Will my right hon. Friend stress the fact that the Labour Party is very much in favour of a looser type of Common Market organisation and that [column 1796]we believe that the Common Market's agricultural policy must be fundamentally changed? Will he say that, if we cannot get such fundamental change, we shall tell the Common Market sooner or later that if it goes on in this way we shall have to consider coming out?
The Prime Minister
I would not agree with the last part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question. The common agricultural policy is yielding to pressure, the pressure of inevitable results that flow from the fact that far too many resources are now being devoted to unproductive agriculture in Europe. That pressure will be sustained and will eventually transform the present agricultural policy into one which can be supported.