§ Q3. Mr. McCrindleasked the Prime Minister if he will appoint a Minister to be responsible for the interests of the self-employed.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner) on 18th February.—[Vol. 886, c. 341.]
§ Mr. McCrindleIs it not incongruous that the Minister responsible for small firms and therefore for thousands of self-employed people should find himself located at the Department of Industry, whose Secretary of State has not always been seen to be the greatest friend of the self-employed? Will he think again and, as in Belgium, consider appointing a Minister through whom the self-employed may make representations on such matters 700 as the level of national insurance contributions and the threat to their continued existence from the capital transfer tax?
§ The Prime MinisterI hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept from me, because of my high regard for him, that some of these questions are now becoming as obsessive about my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry as, a generation ago, Tory questions were about Aneurin Bevan.
Referring to the Belgian situation, it is always a possibility in any country that a Minister should have these responsibilities. The Belgian system was first established in 1906. It has existed in its present form for over 20 years. The precedent was therefore well established in 1970 when the Conservative Government came into office, but they did nothing about it. Still, I notice the interest shown in the question.
§ Mr. TrotterIs the Prime Minister aware that the self-employed who are not members of this House have noticed the way which, under this Government, hon. Members of this honourable House have ceased to be self-employed? Will he give an assurance that he regards the self-employed as useful members of the community, that they deserve a fair deal, and that he believes that they are receiving that deal from the Government?
§ The Prime MinisterThe decision to make the change in the position of Members of Parliament was taken not by this Government, but by the Conservative Government of which I think the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) was then a consenting member. We have not yet heard whether there is to be retrospective dissociation on that matter, as on so many others. It was a decision taken by the Conservative Government. I have the greatest pleasure in saying that I think they were right, and we supported them.