§ Q1. Mr. Tim Rentonasked the Prime Minister whether he proposes to make any further Cabinet changes.
§ The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan)The hon. Member may assume that I do not intend to make any changes in ministerial appointments or responsibilities unless and until I make a statement to the contrary.
§ Mr. RentonThat was an extraordinarily hypothetical answer. Is the Prime Minister really satisfied with the way in which the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection is discharging his responsibilities in relation to bread, and, if so, why?
§ The Prime MinisterMy right hon. Friend made a very bold effort to try to meet the views of the Opposition about reducing prices. He should be stimulated in these matters and not discouraged by the Opposition's criticism.
§ Mr. David SteelWill the Prime Minister try to ensure the inclusion of someone in his Cabinet who is sensitive to the needs of manufacturing industry? Is he aware that, whatever may have been the case for phasing out the regional employment premium, its sudden cancellation caused total havoc with forward pricing and contractual arrangements in manufacturing industries in the development areas?
§ The Prime MinisterThe total number of measures taken concerning manufacturing industry do not, I think, warrant the general condemnation implied by the right hon. Gentleman. There is great sensitivity, as I try to show constantly at Question Time and in my meetings with the CBI—which, incidentally, take place regularly and are not held simply now and again—about these matters.
As regards the regional employment premium, I know about the impact of it and I have heard about some of its effects. But it had become so small in relation to the total wage bill to be much less significant than when it was first introduced.
§ Mr. RobinsonIs my right hon. Friend aware that in the person of his economic adviser he already has someone in the Cabinet who is sensitive to the problems of manufacturing industry and that, moreover, we would regret to see any change in the very constructive rôle that he is playing in the Meriden negotiations?
§ The Prime MinisterI know that I have often had occasion to thank my right hon. Friend for the services which he has given in a great many directions. I have no hesitation in saying that he is worth every penny that we pay him.
§ Mrs. ThatcherMay I take it from the Prime Minister's first reply that in his new capacity as economic supremo, therefore, he stands four square behind the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whose first objective is now to reduce the level of income tax, rather than behind some other members of his party who seem to want to increase public expenditure?
§ The Prime MinisterThe Government's policy in relation to both public expenditure and taxation is very clear. I am not so sure about the attitude of the Opposition on matters of public 628 expenditure. Despite their protestations at the Dispatch Box, they do not seem to reproduce them in Committees upstairs.
§ Mrs. ThatcherApparently the Prime Minister's answer to my question is that he does not stand four square behind the Chancellor in his first objective of reducing income tax.
§ The Prime MinisterI was saying that it is not simply for the right hon. Lady to make these protestations about cuts in public expenditure at the Dispatch Box, but also to see that what happens elsewhere in this House is in accordance with her public protestations here. As she knows, that is not happepning in the Committees of the House.
As for rates of taxation for next year, I fear that I cannot anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget Statement.