§ Q1. Mr. Pardoeasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement about his recent meeting with representatives of Churches and charities regarding the effect on them of the surcharge on the employers' national insurance contribution.
§ The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan)On 21st January I met a deputation from the Churches and the National Council of Social Services. The deputation urged that the National Insurance Surcharge should not be imposed on Churches or charities, particularly since they could neither pass the surcharge on nor set it off against tax. I undertook to consider their representations very carefully, and am now looking at the problem to see whether a solution can be found.
§ Mr. PardoeWill the Prime Minister confirm that part of his difficulty is his fear that any concession may be taken as a precedent for other interested groups and will be seized upon by other parties for political advantage? Will he accept, in his considerations, that the Liberal Party, at least, will guarantee to take no political advantage of any concession? Will he use this occasion to invite the Leader of the Conservative Party to give a similar guarantee, which will make things much easier for him?
§ The Prime MinisterI am not used to these generous offers. It is the case that the problem of repercussions is important in considering this concession, although I am not so certain, after the experience of my right hon. Friend in relation to the devolution Bill, just how far the Front Benches can commit their followers. Nevertheless, an expression of good will 254 is always welcome on matters of this kind. Having listened to representations from the Churches and charities about the difficulties that they are having, I am impressed and I would like to find a way of meeting them which would not involve a great deal of expenditure that would not be justified, perhaps on the same grounds, in other cases.
§ Mr. Christopher PriceHas my right hon. Friend read Lord Goodman's report on charities, which was issued recently? It fudged a large number of issues, among which was that of the charitable status of public schools. As the Labour manifesto of October 1974 spoke of withdrawing the charitable status of public schools, will the Government do something about this?
§ The Prime MinisterI did not discuss that matter with the deputation that I met, because that was not its purpose in coming to see me. I have not read Lord Goodman's report. If issues were fudged, I am not certain that I would derive a great deal of enlightenment from reading it, although I pass no comment on the clarity and logic of Lord Goodman's thinking on any matter. I shall seek advice on this matter, but I am chary about offering to introduce new legislation into the House in its present frame of mind.
§ Mr. Michael LathamIs the Prime Minister aware that it is all the more important to make this concession because the concessions that the Government made to the Churches and charities on the Community Land Act have proved profoundly unsatisfactory?
§ The Prime MinisterThere is the question of charges imposed upon the Churches, and there is the question of self-employment for the clergy. All of these add burdens. That is why I am genuinely seeking a solution to the problem. If the House can agree on a limited solution to it I shall certainly invite the Chancellor to see what can be done.
§ Mrs. ThatcherI do not understand what the problem is. The Prime Minister is likely to come under more criticism from the Opposition side of the House if he does not do it than if he does.
§ The Prime MinisterPerhaps I may be utterly frank with the right hon. Lady. I should like an assurance that if this 255 concession is made—it must be conceded on merit if it is made, and I fully accept that I do not want to strike any bargains—it will not be used, perhaps by the Liberal Party—I mention only that party, because it made the offer—as the foundation upon which to build demands for other logical but not necessarily equally worthy concessions.