§ Q2. Mr. George Gardinerasked the Prime Minister, if he will relieve the Chancellor of the Exchequer of his duties.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) on 29th November.
§ Mr. GardinerHas the Prime Minister sufficient remaining confidence in his Chancellor of the Exchequer to endorse his statement to the House last week that no proposals for a wealth tax will be brought before this Parliament, or is this again a case of the Government's saying one thing to Parliament and another thing to the TUC?
§ The Prime MinisterIf there is any change in policy it will be announced to the House. In the meantime, I suggest that the hon. Member keeps his comments to himself.
§ Mr. Frank AllaunWill my right hon. Friend reject punitive terms from the IMF and tell it instead that as a first act we shall withdraw the British Army of the Rhine and thereby save £600 million a year? Will he explain to the IMF that British working people cannot tolerate further cuts in housing, health, education and social services which would further add to unemployment and actually increase the deficit on public spending?
§ The Prime MinisterI recognise that the House has a genuine interest in the discussions that are taking place. The Government will reach their own conclusions on these matters and will place them before the House in due course. In the meantime, I give no undertakings on any of the points raised by my hon. Friend.
§ Mrs. ThatcherDoes the Prime Minister recollect that in October 1974, after six months of Labour government, the Chancellor of the Exchequer claimed that the rate of inflation was 8.4 per cent.? Since, on the same basis it is now 19.7 per cent., is it not time that he changed either the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the strategy?
§ Mr. Nicholas WintertonResign.
§ Mr. John EllisInfiltrator.
§ The Prime MinisterOrder, order. In that statement the Chancellor of the Exchequer made it clear that he was referring to the position over the previous quarter. Since then the position has changed. It got worse and then became better. It is now at the stage where, having been brought down from a high level, it is on a plateau—too high a plateau—despite unprecedented restraints by trade unions in their attitude to wage settlements and despite the fact that even this year trade unionists are accepting wholly the agreement entered into by the TUC. I hope that the Opposition will recognise, when considering these matters, that in getting inflation down a national effort is needed. There is not much party advantage in a high rate of inflation.
§ Mr. RathboneOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it correct parliamentary practice to—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. Will the hon. Member please raise that point of order at the end of Question Time?
§ Mr. RathboneOn a point of order—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The hon. Member is only taking up time from Prime Minister's Questions. I shall deal with his point of order at the end of Question Time.
§ Later—
§ Mr. RathboneOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to ask for your guidance whether it was in order for the Prime Minister to deceive the House when referring to inflation by describing a steep incline of 1 in 4 as a "plateau".
§ Mr. SpeakerPerhaps I may tell the hon. Gentleman and the House again that the word "deceive" when applied to any right hon. or hon. Member is an unparliamentary expression, because it implies a deliberate act of deceit. The hon. Gentleman will know that the English language is rich enough for him to be able to express himself equally colourfully and yet to be in order.
§ Mr. SpeakerDoes the hon. Member wish to catch my eye?
§ Mr. RathboneI am sure, Mr. Speaker, that the Prime Minister wished only to mislead.