§ Q2. Mr. Atkinsonasked the Prime Minister if the public statement by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on a British Broadcasting Corporation programme on Wednesday, 9th June, on price increases represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
§ Q3. Mr. Clinton Davisasked the Prime Minister if the public statement made by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in a British Broadcasting Corporation radio programme on 9th June, 1971, on the question food prices represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
§ Q4. Mr. Skinnerasked the Prime Minister if the public statement by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 9th June on a British Broadcasting Corporation radio programme on food prices represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
§ Q5. Mr. Jayasked the Prime Minister if the public statement by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 9th June on a British Broadcasting Corporation radio programme concerning price increases represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
§ Q6. Mr. Barnesasked the Prime Minister if the public statement on a British Broadcasting Corporation radio programme on Wednesday, 9th June, by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and 1587 Food on price increases represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
§ Q7. Mr. Eadieasked the Prime Minister if the public statement by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Wood on a British Broadcasting Corporation programme on Wednesday, 9th June, on price increases represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
§ Q8. Mr. John Fraserasked the Prime Minister whether the public statement of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on British Broadcasting Corporation radio on 9th June, 1971, on price increases represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
§ Q9. Mr. Arthur Davidsonasked the Prime Minister if the broadcast statement by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on a British Broadcasting Corporation radio programme on Wednesday, 9th June, on price increases represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
§ The Prime MinisterYes, Sir; although the interpretations put on it by hon. Gentlemen opposite do not.
§ Mr. AtkinsonBy that answer, is the right hon. Gentleman now saying that the promises which were made at the last General Election should not now be taken seriously? In view of the fact that, since the election, prices have increased by 10 per cent. and, according to today's figures, unemployment has increased by 34 per cent., would he not agree that that was a pretty callous promise to make if the Government had no intention of doing anything about it? Second, does he agree with his right hon. Friend when he said that until wages are controlled there will be no reduction in food prices?
§ The Prime MinisterMy right hon. Friend did not say that promises should not be kept—exactly the reverse—[Interruption.]—and it is because this Government have kept so many of their promises that hon. Gentlemen opposite are so bitterly opposed to us.
§ Mr. Clinton DavisIs the Prime Minister aware that on the day he made that speech, 16th June, 1970, we were told
Heath puts his shirt on the housewivesbut that the very housewives on whom he put his shirt have seen through his mendacity—[Interruption.]—on that occasion, as is evidenced by the local elections— 1588 [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—and all the by-elections that have taken place? Is the right hon. Gentleman also aware—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."]—that he will never be taken seriously again? Incidentally, would he be kind enough—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I think that is enough. At least eight hon. Members are hoping to catch my eye to put supplementary questions. I ask the hon. Gentleman to curtail his supplementary question.
§ Mr. DavisWould the right hon. Gentleman explain how "at a stroke" he—[HON. MEMBERS: "Sit down."]—reduced the rise in unemployment?
§ Mr. Biggs-DavisonOn a point of order—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. Does the hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) wish to put a point of order to me?
§ Mr. Biggs-DavisonYes, Mr. Speaker.
§ Mr. SpeakerCould it wait till the end of Question time?
§ Mr. Biggs-DavisonYes, if that would be more convenient, Mr. Speaker.
§ The Prime MinisterI could not hear a thing the hon. Gentleman said.
§ Mr. John FraserWash the sea water out of your ears.
§ Mr. SkinnerIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that some of us, like Mrs. Dale, are getting a little worried about Jim, and we all remember what happened to him? [Laughter.] Is he further aware that the sacking of incompetent Ministers is no substitute for a General Election, at which the British people can have a chance to be serious?
§ The Prime MinisterThe hon. Gentleman has a Jim. He has every right to be worried about him. [Laughter.]
§ Mr. SpeakerIs it a point of order that can be left till the end of Question Time?
§ Mr. DavisNot really, Mr. Speaker. I gather that the Prime Minister did not hear my supplementary question. May I take the liberty of repeating it?
§ Mr. SpeakerI think not.
§ Mr. RidsdaleIs it not clear, bearing in mind the price rises that were in the pipeline, that the then Prime Minister ended his responsibility "at a stroke" and had the General Election in June, 1970, when he could have gone on governing for another year? Will my right hon. Friend please say how much of the short-term debt of £1,500 million has been paid off by the Conservative Government?
§ The Prime MinisterThose figures are, of course, published in the Bank of England Review. What my hon. Friend said in the first part of his supplementary question is quite correct. The former Prime Minister could have gone on for another year, but he suddenly terminated his responsibilities; but, then, it was all planned in April, 1966.
§ Mr. BarnesIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food introduced a further modification to his 16th June statement in the debate on Tuesday, when he said that the Prime Minister was, in fact, talking about reducing the rate of the rise in prices of a year earlier? Is he aware that his right hon. Friend is apparently now claiming to have achieved something by holding food price rises at the astronomical 10½ per cent. at which they have been rising since last June?
§ The Prime MinisterIf the hon. Gentleman wants prices to go on rising, he had better say so—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."]—and if he and his hon. Friends do not want S.E.T. to be halved, they had better be honest and say that as well.
§ Mr. EadieIf the right hon. Gentleman wishes to dispute what he said at the General Election, would he care to tell the Scottish people what he said on that occasion about unemployment? Is he aware that it has been announced today that the unemployment figures for Scotland have increased yet again—and this in summertime, which makes the position scandalous and disgraceful? Will he 1590 do the honourable thing and resign and go to the country? [Interruption.]
§ The Prime MinisterNot only am I prepared to deal with these matters in Scotland but in the last week I have discussed them with shop stewards from the Clyde and with the Scottish T.U.C., and I am meeting the Lord Provost of Glasgow and his colleagues this afternoon.
§ Mr. St. John-StevasWill my right hon. Friend help us further on the question of the election date—[HON. MEMBERS: "Sit down."]—and tell us how he reconciles the statement in the memoirs of the Leader of the Opposition—incidentally I trust that he has not been abducted—that the election date was fixed in 1966 with the statement of his never-to-be-forgotten though never-to-be-seen colleague the right hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman)—[Interruption.]—that the date was fixed before the rises in prices had caught up with the rises in wages?
§ The Prime MinisterThe right hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Cross-man) revealed what we had known all along, that the decision to have the General Election was taken at the moment when hon. Gentlemen opposite thought that wages increases were highest but had not worked through to price increases. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have been so annoyed because they failed in that manoeuvre. [Interruption.] As the Leader of the Opposition himself recently revealed, it enabled him on the night of Friday the 19th to sit down and work out the chapter headings for his memoirs, and then to fill them in. [Interruption.]
§ Mr. John FraserWill the right hon. Gentleman realise that there are over one quarter of a million unemployed people who are not interested in his smug repartee? [HON. MEMBERS: "Get on with it."] When he said on 16th June that unemployment would be "cut at a stroke"—[Interruption.]—was that to be taken seriously? If so, and if unemployment was to be cut at a stroke, when will the figures of unemployed stand at less than they stood when he made that statement?
§ The Prime MinisterIs the hon. Gentleman aware that tens of millions of people in this country are not amused by this sort of frivolous behaviour on the Order Paper—
§ Mr. John FraserLook who is talking !
§ The Prime Minister—frivolous behaviour which produces this sort of fracas on the benches opposite, from which I notice with interest that the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) has now contracted out.
§ Mr. Arthur DavidsonDoes not the Prime Minister consider it time for the Government to issue a revised list of promises — [Interruption.] — underlining those which should be taken seriously?
§ Mr. DavidsonMay I have an answer to my supplementary question.
§ The Prime MinisterI could not hear it.
§ Mr. Arthur DavidsonWill the right hon. Gentleman issue a revised list of promises underlining those which he considers the electorate should take seriously?
§ The Prime MinisterThe Government will pursue the policies we set out at the General Election. The fact that we have done so in foreign affairs, without the reform of industrial relations—[Interruption.]—the reform of the social services and the reform of the tax system will always stand to the record of this Government and succeed in defeating hon. Gentlemen opposite.
§ Mr. LongdenWould my right hon. Friend say what proportion of the rise in food prices is due to the rise in world commodity prices, over which no Government here can have any control?
§ The Prime MinisterIt is true that the price of basic commodities such as beef and butter have risen continually in world markets. It is also undoubtedly true that the increase in the price of steel, which we held back, has contributed to the rise in the cost of manufactured foodstuffs.
§ Mr. Roy JenkinsIs the Prime Minister aware that what the people of this country are now interested in is not the date of the last General Election but the date of the next General Election? Will the Prime Minister also state clearly whether he did or did not promise to reduce the rise in prices at a 1592 stroke, and how does he reconcile this with the rate of increase of 10 per cent. over the past year?
§ The Prime MinisterThe country wants to see the policies which we are operating carried through to fruition—[Interruption.]—and that is what it is going to get. We said that we would cut S.E.T. and stop the nationalised industries' prices rising as much as they wanted them to do, and that is what we have done.
§ Mr. JenkinsWould the Prime Minister please answer the question that I put to him? Did he or did he not say that the Government would reduce the rise in prices at a stroke, and how does he reconcile this with what has happened?
§ The Prime MinisterWhat we said was that we would cut S.E.T.—[Interruption.] I am glad to have confirmation that the party opposite does not want S.E.T. cut and that they do not want the nationalised industries—[Interruption.]
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I want to hear what the Prime Minister has to say.
§ Mr. Biggs-DavisonOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
§ Dr. David OwenOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) said that he wished to raise a point of order at the end of Questions. I wait to hear him.
§ Mr. Biggs-DavisonI could not hear you call me, Mr. Speaker. I am grateful to you for calling me on this point of order. It will be within the hearing of the House that the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis) accused the Prime Minister of mendacity. [Interruption.] As this is merely a pompous, legalistic latinism for lying—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—would you, for the guidance of hon. Members, particularly on this side of the House, who may wish to refer to the incredible speeches and statements from the Opposition side, rule whether that is a parliamentary expression? If it is not, will you ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw it?
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. It is a well established principle that the Chair rules 1593 on words which it has been able to hear. A great deal of noise may have advantages or disadvantages. I did not hear the remark to which the hon. Member has referred.
§ Dr. David OwenOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Since you rose on a point of order and the Prime Minister continued to speak, and the House, while you were standing on a point of order, failed to catch his words, will he answer the question, the reply to which the country has been waiting for a year to hear—why he has failed to fulfil his General Election pledge on rising prices? My point of order is that if Mr. Speaker rises on a point of order, surely that should apply to the Prime Minister as it applies to everyone else, and the House should now have the opportunity to hear his answer.
§ Mr. SpeakerThat is not a point of order. It is an observation on the fact that if there is a great deal of noise and if Members shout "Answer" very loudly without allowing the answer then to be heard, they must suffer the consequences.
§ Mr. OnslowAs a study of the Order Paper reveals clearly that there must have been some sort of childish conspiracy amongst eight members of Her Majesty's Opposition to table identical Questions and so seek to monopolise the time of the House at Question time, may I ask whether it will normally be your practice, Mr. Speaker, to allow supporters of Her Majesty's Government no opportunity to balance their contribution to the exchanges, either by reducing the number of supplementary questions you are prepared to call from the gang opposite to, say, no more than three, or at least to allow supporters of Her Majesty's Government an opportunity to ask supplementary question for supplementary question?
§ Mr. SpeakerI am grateful to the hon. Member for raising this point. I have no evidence at all of what he described as a conspiracy. Obviously, the Chair was placed in a certain difficulty by these Questions; therefore, I called three hon. Members from the Government side and interspersed them among the various hon. Members who had put down Questions.
§ Mr. AtkinsonFurther to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister 1594 said that Questions Q2 to Q9 were frivolous. As it is not possible under Standing Orders to put frivolous Questions on the Order Paper, are we to take it that the Prime Minister meant that the rise in prices and the rise in unemployment is the frivolousness of the Questions, or would he reconsider his words when he accuses hon. Members on this side of the House of putting down frivolous Questions on these important matters?
§ Mr. SpeakerThat is not a point of order.
§ Mr. KaufmanOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would you direct that it be recorded in the OFFICIAL REPORT that when my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) referred to the record unemployment figures for Scotland, there was laughter from the Government benches?
§ Mr. SpeakerThat is a frivolous question.
§ Mr. LawsonOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not a well established principle—to use your words—that when a Minister, even a Prime Minister, chooses to group a large number of Questions together, and that is his choice, those who have put down those Questions are enabled first to ask the supplementary questions? May we take it that you are now introducing a new rule into the House without consultation or discussion among hon. Members?
§ Mr. SpeakerNo. As was pointed out to me yesterday, I am a servant of the House, and I must be guided by, for example, the recent Report of the Select Committee on Procedure, which encouraged me on occasion not to permit an hon. Member to ask any supplementary question at all. So I think I have acted in accordance with a reasonable procedure. When there are eight Questions on the Order Paper from one side of the House, it is reasonable to allow a number of supplementary questions from the other side.