TUC (Hansard, 13 January 1977)

§ Q1. Mr. Blaker
asked the Prime Minister when he next expects to meet the TUC.

§ The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan)
I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Mr. Ovenden) on 7th December.

§ Mr. Blaker
Since the TUC and the Prime Minister have each recently entertained pillars of the Soviet establishment in the form of Mr. Shelepin and Mr. Ponomarev, would it not be useful for them to get a different point of view by entertaining Mr. Bukovsky? Will the Prime Minister now improve on the equivocal answer that he gave me on Tuesday and say clearly that he will issue an invitation to Mr. Bukovsky, who I understand is in London today, to meet him so that he can hear from him at first hand how the Soviet Union is flouting the provisions of the Helsinki Agreement?

§ The Prime Minister
No, Sir.

§ Mr. Gould
When my right hon. Friend next meets the TUC will he indicate when interest rates will be allowed to fall substantially?

§ The Prime Minister
I shall not be able to give such an indication. I think that it will depend on a number of matters, including the sale of gilt-edged securities and other such issues. I expect to see—I think it is generally expected—a fall in interest rates over the next 12 months.

§ Mrs. Thatcher
Is the Prime Minister aware how very disappointed we are with his peremptory reply? He will be going to Belgrade in 1977 to consider what has happened under the Helsinki Agreements, and one would have thought that it would help him very much to assess what has happened if he met a person who had had experience of living 1637 in Soviet Russia during the currency of those agreements.
I wish, in addition, to put a specific point to the Prime Minister. Is he aware that The Times was not published this morning because of the action of a number of printers who refused to print because they disagreed with the content of a report? Will he condemn that industrial action wholeheartedly, because it constitutes a censorship of the Press?

§ The Prime Minister
I understand, if the Daily Telegraph is correct, that the right hon. Lady had a rather coy meeting with Mr. Bukovsky to which no publicity was given. I suppose I am to join in this matter. I wonder whether the right hon. Lady, when she goes to China, will be associating with the sort of people whom her hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker) condemns.
I have no need to go on record about these matters. The Government's position on the Helsinki Agreement and issues relating to the Soviet Government are well understood. I do not have to meet anybody to get my views clear about them. [HON. MEMBERS: "Humbug".] Of course it is humbug, and we know it. but that is how the Opposition regard this 15-minute period.
On the subject of The Times, I do not set myself up as an instant pundit. The freedom of the Press depends on accurate reporting and printing and the capacity to print everything that is put, provided that it is accurate. Although The Times has not appeared—and so far as I know nobody knows the views of those who refused to allow it to publish, and I do not intend to judge the matter— I noticed that the Guardian managed to print the story and to comment on it in a way that met with general satisfaction.

§ Mrs. Thatcher
Is the Prime Minister aware that that is one of the most disgraceful and undignified replies ever given by a Prime Minister in this House? It was also in certain parts silly. I must tell the Prime Minister that I did meet Mr. Bukovsky and that it was an extremely interesting meeting, certainly not "coy" as the Prime Minister suggested—which was a stupid comment to make. I repeat that it was an extremely interesting meet 1638 ing. The Prime Minister would do well to see and hear first hand evidence of fact. I little thought that I would ever hear a Prime Minister uphold the censorship of the Press, because that is what he has done.

§ The Prime Minister
The right hon. Lady is wrong on all counts. I have no intention of pursuing publicity by seeing people if there is no need to do so. I am quite clear about and well aware of the position in the Soviet Union. I have probably done a little more than has the right hon. Lady to obtain the release of people from the Soviet Union. These matters are not always achieved—the right hon. Lady may one day find this out, although I am beginning to doubt it—by public gestures. They are best achieved privately, and there have been a number of illustrations of that fact.
As for The Times newspaper, if we are talking of the freedom of the Press and the freedom of the Press is thought to be in question. so is the freedom of the individual. Some of us who have suffered at the hands of the Press know what that means. Freedom of the Press apparently means, as I have had occasion to find out in the not-too-distant past. freedom to print inaccurate and totally false information. even though the Press is told beforehand that the information is inaccurate and false.
Before we go too deeply into this matter, let us find out the facts. As far as I am concerned, there is to be no censorship. If Opposition Members ever throw aside their party hats they will well know that there will be no censorship and that nobody will defend censorship. [HON. MEMBERS: "You are".] If Opposition Members believe that, I leave it to the country to judge, because I believe that my reputation will stand against theirs.

§ Mr. David Steel
Is the Prime Minister aware that some of us are genuinely puzzled by his tone in answering questions on these matters affecting the Soviet Union? Is he further aware that Mr. Bukovsky earlier today made to me the significant point that human rights in the Soviet Union do not involve just the occasional writer or dissident, or scientist, or musician, but affect the Soviet worker? Therefore, is there not a real rôle that the TUC could play in this regard, and 1639 could not the Prime Minister help in persuading it to do so?

§ The Prime Minister
That matter is not in issue, nor does it arise from the supplementary question that I was asked. I was asked whether I intended to see Mr. Bukovsky, and I replied on that point. I do not intend to see Mr. Bukovsky, although if the opportunity arose and it seemed purposeful, I would do so. But I do not have to meet Mr. Bukovsky to put my views on record. When we go to Belgrade, we shall be following up the Helsinki issues and agreements, as I have made clear in the House time after time. The Soviet Union knows where we stand on these matters. I do not need to meet any private individual to strengthen my own convictions.