Prime Minister
(Engagements)
Q1. Mr. John Hunt
asked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 6 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. Hunt
Will the right hon. Gentleman be taking the opportunity today to clear up the confusion that has been created in local government circles and within his Cabinet following his ambiguous remarks at the weekend on local authority pay settlements? Has he seen that Mr. Alan Fisher has already interpreted that speech as giving the green light for settlements up to 14 per cent.? [column 201]Is that so? If not, will he repudiate Mr. Fisher and give a firm pledge of his full support to local authority employers who will be standing firm against unreasonable and inflationary demands of that sort in the interests of their ratepayers?
The Prime Minister
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for asking me about that. I am sorry if my remarks on Saturday led to any confusion. They were intended to be a clarification on a firm basis. It is not the first time that that sort of thing has gone adrift. I said and meant that the Government have told the employers that they are prepared to finance their share of an offer of 8.8 per cent. through the rate support grant. I wish the House to know exactly what was in my mind when I went a little further. As an old negotiator I know that sometimes—[Interruption.] Hold it. We are talking about serious matters. I know that another 0.1. per cent. or 0.2 per cent. may bring a settlement that otherwise would not be achieved. A margin is needed at the negotiating edge. That is what I meant. Unfortunately, that is not what was interpreted. Some seemed to think that the sky was the limit. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity of making that clear.
Mr. Arthur Latham
Does my right hon. Friend agree that events now would seem like a holiday compared with what would occur if the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition and her friends inside and outside the House took over? Will he acknowledge that low-paid public service workers started a campaign months ago, held meetings, demonstrations, marches and even a lobby of Parliament? Does he agree that it appears that meaningful notice was not taken until they went on strike? Is not that a sad state of affairs? Cannot we have some early warning system and cannot notice be taken of these issues long before matters come to a head?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend foreshortens history a little. He will remember that I said at the Labour Party conference that, in view of what had been said at conference and elsewhere, there was a case for reviewing the special position of the low-paid. It was in January, long before there was action, that the Government came forward and said that they thought that there should [column 202]be a special position for the low-paid. The main element of that was an underpinning, which could be consolidated both into the bonus and overtime rates of £3.50. It is not right to say that we waited for industrial action before an improvement was made. It is that that helps to make up the 8.8 per cent. to which the hon. Member for Ravensbourne (Mr. Hunt) referred.
Mr. Charles Morrison
The Prime Minister was reported as saying in his speech on Saturday that no one should be reluctant to put forward new ideas or even ones that had been considered previously and rejected. When he said that, did he have in mind Cmnd. 3888 entitled “In Place of Strife” . If not, what did he have in mind?
The Prime Minister
I did not have a particular Command Paper in mind. There are a number of ideas that have been discussed in the past and rejected that in view of the present situation may be revived. At present we are engaged in some useful talks with the trade unions. It is important that they should have the opportunity of commenting on some of the ideas. Let us see what emerges from that. I am not without some hopes of advance.
Mr. Pardoe
Will the Prime Minister take time today to discuss with his colleagues the question of the by-election at Liverpool, Edge Hill, and its date? Does not he think it is time that the voters of Edge Hill had a democratic representative in this House, especially bearing in mind the serious economic problems facing that constituency? Now that the dirty tricks department of the Labour Party in Liverpool has failed so miserably there is no excuse for delaying the by-election any longer.
The Prime Minister
There is a convention in the House under which these matters are dealt with. I do not propose to depart from it.
Mr. Alan Lee Williams
Could my right hon. Friend, in spite of his current difficulties, spare time from his engagements today to plead for the life of the former Prime Minister of Pakistan, Mr. Bhutto? Does he not agree that it would be tragic indeed if Pakistan fell apart in civil war?
[column 203]The Prime Minister
Sentence was passed on Mr. Bhutto in March. After my visit to Pakistan last January and in view of my personal relationship with General Zia, I had personal correspondence with him on this matter, which has since continued. Today I have officially made representations to General Zia—I am sure that he will understand why—that he should as an act of clemency spare the life of Mr. Bhutto. General Zia is a wise man. The consequences of clemency will be more beneficial to his country than carrying out the strict application of the law.
TUC
Q2. Mr. Gow
asked the Prime Minister when he last met the Trades Union Congress.
The Prime Minister
I met representatives of the TUC yesterday and will meet them again tomorrow when I take the chair at a meeting of the National Economic Development Council.
Mr. Gow
Has the Prime Minister yet discussed with the TUC the offer of support from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and from this side of the House for new laws and new practices to deal with picketing, the closed shop and secret ballots before strike action? If not, why not?
The Prime Minister
These issues are being discussed with the trade unions at present. However, there is a difference between us as to whether the law is the best method of handling this situation on these matters.
The hon. Gentleman referred to “practices” . I assume he meant codes of practices as distinct from the law. There is a more fruitful avenue of advance. Certainly that is a matter for discussion between us.
Mr. Roy Hughes
Does not the Prime Minister agree that the real issue at present is not about the strength of trade unions or picketing but rather the fact that a high percentage of people receive very low wages indeed? Is not the answer to this problem to give these people a realistic wage?
[column 204]The Prime Minister
Both issues cause concern at the moment, especially the way in which members of trade unions are able to hold up the life of the community. That is a very serious matter. Secondly, there is public concern about the low pay of many public service and other workers. Hence the Government's offer to finance and increase the part of the contribution paid to the local authorities.
I conclude with the general statements that I have made on so many occasions. It will not advantage the low-paid workers in a free collective bargaining situation if those who are the strongest get the most.
Mrs. Thatcher
Will not James Callaghanthe Prime Minister now accept that recent events have shown that codes of practice on picketing are just not enough? If he has not already done so, will he take time to read the recent speech of the chief constable of Greater Manchester, who pointed out that the law at the moment is not sufficient to protect the right of the worker to go about his ordinary business without interference, that it is virtually unenforceable without the presence of the police on every picket line—they cannot do that—and that sweeping changes in the law are needed?
The Prime Minister
I promise the right hon. Lady that if the country went down that road we should be in no better case than we are today. I was putting the matter at its lowest. I beg the right hon. Lady to consider very carefully before she calls for sweeping changes in the law. I agree with her that the trouble with some codes that have been published has been, not that they were deficient, but that they were not observed. The right hon. Lady runs the danger that she might bring the law into contempt if it is not observed.
Mrs. Thatcher
The danger that the country runs is that the Prime Minister will do nothing about the situation. Does he not realise that if the law is unenforceable he must change it so that it is easier for the police to enforce? The chief constable of Greater Manchester says that the law is virtually unenforceable at present.
The Prime Minister never hesitates to use the law to increase the power of the unions both against other people and over their own members. Why does he hesitate to use it to redress present-day grievances?
[column 205]The Prime Minister
This argument will go on. I am glad that it will do so. I do not wish to see the country repeat the fatal mistake that was made with the legislation of 1971–72. Surely we have all learned from those experiences.
It is not enough to put the law on the statute book. We must make certain that there will be sufficient acquiescence not to bring the law into contempt. The better way to do this is the way that I intend to pursue. We must ensure, through the good sense of our fellow countrymen—I remind the Opposition that trade unionists are fellow countrymen, too—that they do not abuse the strength that they have through collective action but use that great strength with restraint. That is the better way and the more historic way for this country to proceed.
Mrs. Renée Short
Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the crude attitude of the Leader of the Opposition to the trade unions would mean that the present situation would look like a vicar's tea party compared with what it would be if she were ever in office?
The Prime Minister
It is always my hope that any institution, and certainly the trade unions, will accept whatever laws are passed by Parliament. That having been stated as a principle, we know that there must be assent for these laws. I beg the Opposition to consider the past in these matters and try to find a voluntary way forward. That will be better for our country in the long run.
EUROPEAN MONETARY SYSTEM
Q3. Mr. MacFarquhar
asked the Prime Minister when he next hopes to discuss the European monetary system with his European Economic Community colleagues.
The Prime Minister
I have at present no plans to discuss the European monetary system with Heads of Government of other European Economic Community countries. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.” ] I am glad to get a cheer from the Opposition.
But, if the European monetary system has not started by the time of the next meeting of the European Council in March, the issue may be raised then.
[column 206]Mr. MacFarquhar
When my right hon. Friend next talks about the system with his colleagues, will he confirm the spirit of his remarks in the House on 6 December that Her Majesty's Government regret and take no pleasure in the fact that a system could not be devised for full British participation? In view of the decisions by the Irish and Italian Governments since then to change their minds on going in, will he undertake, if the system gets off the ground, to reconsider the British position?
The Prime Minister
We should always look at the question of the European monetary system against the best interests of our own country. It was because we felt it was not in the best interests of Britain that we did not enter the system. We felt that there must be other adjuncts to the system, namely, a greater convergence in the economies of the various countries and also in the monetary backing that is given to developing regions and elsewhere. Until these things are done, it is very unlikely that we shall be able to change our minds on whether it is worth while for this country to enter.
Mr. William Clark
As the Prime Minister will not find time to discuss the European monetary system, will he utilise his time in discussing urgently with the Trades Union Congress the ineffectiveness of the emergency service under the ambulance system——
Mr. Speaker
Order. Even I cannot allow that.