PRIME MINISTER (BROADCASTS)

HC Deb 29 April 1976 vol 910 cc550-4

Q1. Mr. Canavan

asked the Prime Minister how many Ministerial broadcasts he has made since his appointment.

The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan)

One.

Mr. Canavan

Does the Prime Minister remember making in his broadcast on 5th April a reference to the fact that he could not promise any real improvement in living standards for some time? Can he elaborate on that? Can people on low incomes expect any improvement in living standards before the next General Election, particularly in view of the Labour Party's manifesto promise that there would be an irreversible shift in the balance of wealth in favour of working people and their families?

The Prime Minister

The events of 5th April will be constantly in my mind and I doubt that I shall ever forget that day. The Budget was intended to protect families, especially this year, against the fall in the standard of life which this country is enjoying—if that is the proper word to use. That is an essential condition for getting us back into the position where the country will be able to enjoy an improved standard of life. Our first task is to ensure that sacrifices are fairly borne among all sections of the community.

Mrs. Thatcher

Does the Prime Minister recollect that in his last ministerial broadcast he said that he would root out injustices and seek to put them right wherever he could? Will he tell the House whether he approves the sequence of events which led the Government to have a majority on Standing Committees, when they have only a minority in the House?

The Prime Minister

I have been studying "Erskine May" while sitting here listening to questions, and it is an interesting document. I understand that we are to have a debate on the matter, although my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will no doubt want to discuss that later. There is one consideration which needs to be taken into account. If the House has made a decision on Second Reading and therefore on the principle of the Bill, what does the House think should be the composition of the Committee set up to carry through the principles which the House has approved?

Mrs. Thatcher

In that case, is the Prime Minister aware that he is totally repudiating what the Leader of the House said just before Easter, when on 13th April he said that in future Committees must reflect the numbers in the House of Commons? Is the Prime Minister repudiating that?

The Prime Minister

I am not repudiating it: I am adding to it. There is more than one principle at stake here.

Mr. Tebbit

Twister.

The Prime Minister

The right hon. Lady has not addressed herself to whether she believes that the details of a Bill which has been given a Second Reading by the House should be examined by a Committee to enable those principles to be carried through.

Mr. Ward

Will my right hon. Friend take an early opportunity not only to explain to the public in a ministerial broadcast his intention to carry on doing the job for which we were elected, to 1979 if necessary, but to deal with the growing public disquiet about the admission by British Petroleum that it made payments to political parties in Italy?

The Prime Minister

I hope that the question of a General Election is put at rest for the time being. If the Government were unable to govern, and if they were unable to get their legislation through. a different situation would clearly arise. Therefore, we shall just have to see how we go.

The question of BP is a serious matter, although the matter is obviously not limited to BP. I have been giving consideration to it with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I hope that in due course a statement will be made about it.

Mr. Thorpe

Having regard to Standing Order 62(2) I am surprised to note that the Prime Minister is not well aware of it, so perhaps I may elucidate for his benefit: it deals with the regard which the Committee of Selection must have to the composition of the House when it is making appointments to Standing Committees. Are we to take it from the Prime Minister's earlier answer that he believes that that Standing Order—and three seconds ago he was apparently asking what it was—has been complied with by the events of yesterday? Is he aware that the doctrine he enunciated would mean that many people who might wish to support the Second Reading of a Bill would not do so if they thought that the Committee stage thereafter would be rigged?

The Prime Minister

The Government have no influence on, and have played no part in, the decision of the Committee of Selection. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Delargy), who has been a Member for 31 years, is responsible for what is done in that Committee. I understand that a debate will be arranged later, and then it will be for my hon. Friend to indicate the Committee's position and for the Government to indicate theirs. In the meantime, I suggest that the Opposition get over a little of their synthetic indignation.

Mr. Whitelaw

Is the Prime Minister aware that in six years as Opposition Chief Whip and two years as Leader of the House I never heard the principle that he has just enunciated? The Standing Order to which the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) referred has always been the principle of the Committee of Selection. I hope that the Prime Minister will not start to introduce a totally new principle which has never been discussed through the usual channels.

The Prime Minister

I suggest that the House waits to hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock has to say. My right hon. Friend the Lord President will no doubt be making a statement about future business in due course. I repeat—and the right hon. Gentleman had better accept it from me —[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—if there are to be the relations between us in the future that have existed in the past—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—that the Government have played no part in the work of the Committee of Selection. It is for the Chairman of the Committee to indicate its position. Now will the right hon. Gentleman please withdraw any reflections of that kind?

Mr. Whitelaw

Is it not reasonable to suggest that the right hon. Gentleman is seeking to intimidate me? If that is his purpose, he will find that it is a very unwise course for him or anyone else to pursue. I do not withdraw one word. What I said was perfectly simple—that the right hon. Gentleman was producing a new principle of which I had never heard before. Of course, I accept that the Chairman of the Committee of Selection is entitled to tell us why he did what he did. But I am equally entitled to tell the Prime Minister that he has introduced a new principle, without my being told that I am to be intimidated.

The Prime Minister

I have rarely met anyone who is less capable of being intimidated than the right hon. Gentleman, even in his most offensive moods. I do not expect to do that. What I am telling the right hon. Gentleman—and I think that he has accepted it—is that the Government have played no part in this. If that cannot be accepted, it will be a bad thing for relations between the two sides of the House. Therefore, I hope that it is accepted.

On the question of the principle, it seems to me an extraordinary failure to understand the common elements of democratic practice to suggest that when a Bill has been given a Second Reading on principle, it should not be allowed to go through Committee.