| Previous Section | Home Page |
Mr. Riddick : I am extremely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. The serious point-- [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) should not throw stones if he is living in a glass house. I hope that his driving lessons are going well. I have a serious point for the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) which I do not believe the Opposition Benches have addressed. Why is the right hon. Member for Yeovil so ready to reject the very serious objections to the social chapter by the CBI, the engineering employers and all the other employers? That is a very serious point. Why does the right hon. Gentleman reject those objections?
Mr. Ashdown : The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is that I believe them to be wrong in this matter. It is as simple as that. Let me explain this to the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick). Throughout Europe, this issue is not seen in the terms in which the Government have persuaded some members of industry to see it. It is not seen as a threat to jobs. If it is such a threat to jobs, why is it that this
Column 645
country over the past four years, without any of those social provisions, experienced the highest unemployment in the European Community? Comments from the Conservative party about unemployment come ill when the Government have presided over the largest rise in unemployment that we have ever seen.Mr. Michael Colvin (Romsey and Waterside) : Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Ashdown : I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, but this will be the last time that I will give way until I have made some progress.
Mr. Colvin : Which is the biggest threat to Westland--the social chapter or the 50 per cent. cut in defence expenditure advocated by the right hon. Gentleman's party?
Mr. Ashdown : As someone who has worked in Westland, who knows the company and lives among it, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that Westland has nothing to fear from the social chapter because Westland, as a good employer, already far exceeds the terms of the social chapter. That is one of the reasons why that firm and its products have been such a success.
We now see revealed the truth of this matter. The purpose of the opt out was, of course, nothing to do with Britain and everything to do with the divisions in the Conservative party. That is the truth which is now revealed. The Prime Minister returned from Europe with a piece of paper which he hoped would provide peace in his time in a party riven by civil war. However, the Prime Minister has learnt that appeasing those who oppose him only encourages them further. He now has a party which is so riven by civil war, so infected by its own internal enmities, that frankly it can no longer provide the effective united Government which this country needs.
Therefore, we are asked today to give the Government our confidence. We are asked to give them confidence when they have so comprehensively failed to provide leadership, not just to the country, but also to Europe in respect of the crucial issue of Bosnia. We are asked to give confidence to a Government who yesterday, from the mouth of the Prime Minister, said that they were not prepared to take action to prevent Sarajevo falling into the hands of the Serbs. I dare say that what is happening in Bosnia today will have more effect on the shape of Europe than the entire Maastricht treaty which we have been negotiating for the past six months. The Government have totally failed to provide that leadership. We are asked to give confidence to a Government who have betrayed their election promises less than a year after they made them. We are asked to give confidence to a Government who have sought to close down the coal industry.
In addition, we are asked to give confidence to a Government who have been revealed as indulging in duplicity and deceit on a grand scale on the issue of Matrix Churchill. We are asked to give confidence to a Government over whom hangs the odour of decay and, I am bound to say, of sleaze. We are asked to give confidence to a Government who have damaged not only themselves and their own reputation, but the reputation of politics and the institution of our democracy.
Let the Prime Minister be under no illusions. When he forces his colleagues into the Division Lobby this
Column 646
afternoon to vote for his motion and for him, they will not be expressing confidence in him ; they will be expressing no confidence in their capacity to hold their seats under his leadership. At the end of the day, that is the fact of this afternoon's vote and that is the fact which will return and, in the end, do for him.11.15 am
Sir Peter Emery (Honiton) : It is intriguing that the support for the Liberal Democrats seems to come more from the extreme members of the Labour party than from anyone else--
Mr. Terry Lewis (Worsley) rose--
Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) : Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir Peter Emery : No, just sit down-- [Interruption.]
Mr. Frank Cook (Stockton, North) : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I ask you to rule on a Chairman of the Select Committee on Procedure who commenced his address to the House by speaking to the wall opposite and who then turned round, and spoke directly across the Floor of the House, neglecting the fact that you are presiding over these proceedings from the Chair--
Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. I need no help from the hon. Gentleman or from any hon. Member in respect of whom to call and how they address the Chair.
Sir Peter Emery : As you will know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I do not speak very often in the House. I speak only when there is someting that has to be said. What we have to say today is that the Government Benches absolutely and completely support the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister's Government and the Prime Minister's policies. That has to be said and clearly understood.
As it is perhaps the right thing to do according to the traditions of this House, I will refer to the speech made by the previous speaker, the leader of the Liberal Democratic party, the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown). The right hon. Gentleman suggested a criticism on Bosnia. I ask him directly across the Floor of the House now whether he is suggesting that we should today put troops into Bosnia to be shot at by all three sides and come back in British body bags. Is that what the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting?
Mr. Ashdown : The right hon. Gentleman may have overlooked the fact that he already has troops in Bosnia to be shot at by all three sides. They are being shot at by all three sides and, as the weeks and months pass, he will see that they will be in an increasingly dangerous position. I have said, and I continue to believe, that what we should have done and what we should now do, is put sufficient forces into Bosnia to make them capable of doing the job which I believe they should be there to do. They would be much safer if that were the case.
Sir Peter Emery : That means that the right hon. Gentleman would put British troops in to shoot at Serbs, Croats or anyone else who is behaving in a way of which the right hon. Gentleman does not approve. That is what he is really saying and the country should understand that properly.
Column 647
In the same way, we need to understand from the speech made by the right hon. Member for Yeovil that he believes that the Westland aircraft company in his constituency would benefit from the social chapter. He referred to his experience with that company. However, I must tell him that that is not what the management says today. The right hon. Gentleman is out of date, as he always is, with regard to what is happening in the country as a whole.The right hon. Member said that the social chapter does not seek economic decline. Of course that is right. However, the economic decline comes along because people are looking further than the immediate effect of the social chapter. It is not their wish for economic decline ; it is because of some of the social structures that would have to be imposed on industry that that economic decline would come about.
We find it very strange that the leader of the Liberal Democrats suggests that he is still in favour of Maastricht when he had the simple opportunity last night to vote for a motion which would have ensured that Maastricht would go forward and be signed. He cannot in any way defend the situation that he tries to put forward in the debate today.
Mr. Riddick : Does my right hon. Friend agree that one bonus that came out of yesterday's events is that the Union has been strengthened? The Ulster Unionists actually voted with the Conservatives on those two votes yesterday and will do so again. Is it not time that we stopped pandering to Dublin? Is it not time that we stopped pandering to the Social Democratic and Labour party, which, of course, always votes against us in the House? Is not that a real bonus for the Union as a whole?
Sir Peter Emery : I do not need to go further than make it absolutely clear that the Procedure Committee, under my chairmanship, has recommended for some time that Northern Ireland should have a Select Committee dealing with its affairs.
What is such a shame about today's debate is the knockabout speech from the Leader of the Opposition. He is able to make a much better speech than that which he made today. He treated the House to nothing but a series of jokes that were prepared last night while burning the midnight oil. They do not cure the problems that the House is dealing with--the social chapter and the effect on the economy.
I never expected that today's debate on the confidence motion would actually have to be brought by the action of some of my own colleagues. That is a depressing and despondent factor. I find it very strange I have seen some people on my side over the past months negotiating nearly in public with the Opposition Deputy Chief Whip in order to defeat the Government. That is something which I never expected to see from Conservative Members. That has to be recorded absolutely.
Mr. David Alton (Liverpool, Mossley Hill) : Will the right hon. Gentleman give way.
Sir Peter Emery : I have given way to the Liberal Democrats once, so the hon. Gentleman can let me get on.
Column 648
What we have to see absolutely clearly in the House, and which cannot be repeated enough during today's debate, is that there are only two options that--Mr. Lewis : Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir Peter Emery : If the hon. Gentleman would like to sit down and let me finish the sentence, I might think about it.
What is clear beyond peradventure is that there can be one of only two outcomes : Maastricht without the social chapter or Maastricht with the social chapter. There is no alternative. My hon. Friends must understand that. If they cannot see that today's debate has only those two options, they cannot see anything about the problems that the House has to deal with.
Mr. Lewis : Has the right hon. Gentleman finished his sentence?
Sir Peter Emery : I give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Lewis : It was a bit remiss of the right hon. Gentleman to link my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and myself with the Liberal Democrats.
However, the serious matter is that the right hon. Gentleman has raised the matter of the Select Committee for Northern Ireland. As a distinguished Member and Chairman of the Procedure Committee, will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House where he obtained that information?
Sir Peter Emery : I have only repeated what is known fact which has been on the record on more than one occasion. The Procedure Committee has recommended a Select Committee for Northern Ireland.
Mr. Lewis : Has it made a decision?
Sir Peter Emery : That is not what I said. The hon. Gentleman must listen. I have said only that that is indeed what we have recommended.
I now turn to one aspect of the social chapter that has not been considered, and that is the effect on small industries. In my constituency, the vast majority of employment is provided by companies with fewer than 20 employees. It is those people who would be most affected by the regulations that would come from the social chapter. It is those smaller industries, which in time become big industries, which would most oppose the regulations in order to go forward in their own way.
It is interestinst the creation of jobs. It is to ensure that more jobs, not fewer, are available for the benefit of working people. It is not, after all, just the industrialists. They, strangely enough, are the people who help to create jobs. They are the people who are likely to be able to provide employment. They are the people who are saying that the social chapter will not allow them to do what they want in creating expansion.
Therefore, it is also for working people to realise that the social chapter, although it might provide--let us be quite clear--some extra conditions in the long term for the benefit of people at work, will certainly not go further than
Column 649
the regulations that we already have. In most aspects, we are well ahead of most countries in Europe, and we see European countries backing off madly from their initial agreement to the social chapter. Let us make certain that we do not have an extra millstone or burden around the neck of small businesses and small industry.As an aside, I was interested to hear one of my colleagues last night say that all this would not have happened and that it would have been all right if we could have had a referendum. I thought that that issue was dead. I thought that both Houses of Parliament had buried it some time ago. In my constituency, we have really had a referendum. At the election, there was a candidate who stood with only one policy, and that was that Maastricht should be defeated. I am delighted to tell the House that he not only lost his deposit but only just defeated the raving loony green giant candidate.
Mr. Nick Harvey (North Devon) : Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir Peter Emery : Other hon. Members want to speak, but I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Harvey : Did not the right hon. Gentleman go around his constituency at the election telling people that he was opposed to a federal Europe ? Did he not tell the listeners of Devon Air only this week that he is in favour of the Maastricht treaty precisely because it will create a federal Europe ?
Sir Peter Emery : No, I did not. One has only to look at me to know that I am not in favour of a federal Europe, and the hon. Gentleman knows that as well as anybody else. [Laughter.] I am interesting, but many hon. Members want to speak.
The criticism of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister by the leader of the Liberal Democrats and the leader of the Labour party is unjust. We have seen firm decisions and firm decision making. We have seen a Prime Minister who has stood all the criticism that was made when we had to get inflation down. We must think of the criticism at the time that that policy should be abandoned--that policy which is now the launching pad for our growing economy at this moment at the end of recession. If there ever was a quick, sound and sensible decision, it was that which was made yesterday--when we did not obtain what was wanted--that we should discuss this motion today to get Maastricht settled and to go forward. This is a matter of sound, sensible and firm government from the Prime Minister, whom I am delighted to be able to support.
Today, it is necessary to ensure that we have a resounding vote in support of the Prime Minister's motion and a resounding defeat of the Labour party amendment. The Conservative party will then be able to leave for the summer recess with its tail up, in the knowledge that it is beginning to-- [Laughter.] The Opposition may not like that. That is not what they want, of course. They do not want to see economic recovery that will bring success to this country, because that will lead to a success for the Conservative party.
We are set on a policy of success for the country--a success which will reflect properly on the success of the policy that the Prime Minister and the Government have pursued. I am proud to support it.
Column 650
11.30 amMr. Tony Benn (Chesterfield) : When the speech of the Prime Minister and that of the right hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) are read and considered for the study of history, they will rank with some of the greatest speeches ever made in the House.
Sir Peter Emery : Thank you for that.
Mr. Benn : For example, when a Bill was introduced to abolish the practice of sending boys up chimneys in the 19th century, exactly the same speeches as those from the right hon. Gentleman were made. It was claimed that the Bill would destroy employment for young boys, who were doing a very good job going up chimneys.
When Samuel Plimsoll, who was a Member of Parliament, introduced legislation to put an end to the coffin ships by introducing the Plimsoll line, the then Prime Minister could have quoted "The Shipping Gazette", which described Samuel Plimsoll as a terrorist. That was the word used by the employers about any suggestion that social provision should be introduced to try to prevent thousands of sailors from dying in unsafe ships.
One could argue that the social chapter began with the Lloyd George Budget, which introduced national insurance. That was seen as a direct threat to employers, and right-wing Conservatives said that they would not stick the stamps on their domestic servants' cards because that practice threatened the women who worked for them. I am looking forward to studying with great care the speeches that have been made on this issue, because they will rank with some of the most reactionary statements ever made.
Although I am not here to talk about the merits of the matter, it never seems to have occurred to the Prime Minister that if people are paid better wages, they buy goods from other people and that creates jobs.
Sir Peter Emery : Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Benn : No, I will not give way. The right hon. Gentleman bumbled on so ineffectively that he must allow me to develop my argument.
One man's wage increase is another man's job. That is what improved conditions would provide.
Mr. Hurd rose --
Mr. Benn : If the Foreign Secretary is about to intervene, I look forward to another radical intervention in the best 18th century style.
Mr. Hurd : I am not sure how far the right hon. Gentleman would carry his argument about chimney sweeps. Does he, for example, feel that it is all part of the righteous march of social progress to have a working time directive that would prevent boys from delivering newspapers in the morning? Would he regard that as an inexorable part of his objective?
Mr. Benn : The eight-hour day was introduced as a result of a campaign by the Trade Union Congress 100 years ago. By his casual intervention, the right hon. Gentleman has demonstrated that he is still living in the 19th century.
The TUC objective was eight hours for our work, eight hours for our sleep and eight hours for our recreation. Nowadays, it is thought that trade unionists must not,
Column 651
under any circumstances, have any role in deciding working conditions. We are told that we should listen to Sir Denys Henderson and all the employers of Europe telling us what to do. That is the most extraordinary example of the class war, but I will not go into it now because I am considering another issue today.The issue before us is that if the House approves the motion, the Maastricht treaty will be ratified--for all I know, over the weekend. That will be achieved by telling certain Conservatives and others such as the leader of the Irish, the right hon. and devoted Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux), that if they do not go along with that, the Prime Minister will go to the Queen and destroy Parliament. There will then be an election.
I ask myself whether that is a credible threat. The Prime Minister boasted that he received the biggest popular vote of any general election. I do not know whether he is right, but I presume that he would not have said it if his officials had not given him the figures.
The Government are 15 months old. Does anyone really believe that the Queen would say to the Prime Minister that he could destroy Parliament because of a difference over the social chapter? Does anyone believe that? It is not a credible threat.
Mr. Benn : No, it is not. I shall cite some helpful examples in a moment because I have had a bit of experience of a Prime Minister who threatened to resign. Harold Wilson did just that, and I shall tell the House exactly what happens when a Prime Minister is so foolish as to threaten.
If the pro-federalists are right, we are discussing how we will be governed in Europe for hundreds of years to come. That will be decided on the question whether there will be an election on some marginal improvement in social conditions. I do not believe that the social chapter amounts to very much. The hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) made that clear.
The Prime Minister is threatening the destruction of an elected Parliament- -and I must now describe that right hon. Gentleman as a Euro rebel because he is rebelling against the vote of the House last night ; the Euro rebel sits at No. 10--and threatens the destruction of his party to stop the social chapter getting through. The consequence will be that the European union will come into effect. I do not want to offend anyone in my speech, and the point I want to concentrate on is whether the means adopted represents the right way to decide how Europe should develop. There are people who are passionately in favour of the Maastricht treaty and I respect their view. Some think that it represents a defence against socialism. Other colleagues in the Labour party believe that it might advance socialism. Some believe that the result will be a federal, centralised Europe, while others believe that subsidiarity will flow from it.
There are many different interpretations of the social chapter. Some are in favour of it ; some are against it--all for different reasons. Some people do not like foreigners. I am a European. I was born a European and I will die a European. I do like foreigners. I could hardly do anything else. My wife is an American and my son has married a woman who is half Jewish and half Bengali. I have two
Column 652
little part Bengali grandchildren, so I find it difficult to take what one might call the "Wolverhampton" view that foreigners start at Dover and that some have already got a bit too close for comfort. If I were a Frenchman, a Belgian or a German, I would be just as passionately opposed to the Maastricht treaty because it strips all of us, not just the people of this country, of the right to sack the people who make the laws. That is what it is all about. Why should Jacques Delors listen to a word that is said to him by anyone in Europe when he cannot be removed in a general election? That is the key issue.I am a democrat. I have always seen this issue as a democratic issue, not a nationalist one. Having discussed for two years how Europe should be governed, is it not now clear that, today, we are discussing how Britain should be governed? I want to discuss the Maastricht treaty in terms of the light it has thrown on the way in which the British constitution works before we ratify that treaty. What is the relationship between the people, Parliament and the prerogative? Those are the three ingredients in our constitution. People will be aware that the Queen in Parliament is sovereign. That is the jargon that we are still expected to accept. Let us examine what role Parliament and Government believe that the people should have. The answer is absolutely none.
At the time of the general election, the Maastricht treaty had not been published in English, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) has told me that the social chapter has never been made widely available. There is a view--I am afraid that it is shared by those on my Front Bench, which I greatly regret--that the people have no right whatever to have anything to do with deciding whether we are governed in a new way under the European union.
I have asked many Ministers, including, quite properly, the Foreign Secretary, about the right of the people to decide. "Oh no," he said, "it is for Parliament to decide". Parliament did decide last night against the Government ; otherwise we would not be having today's debate. The House knew full well that was at stake. Conservative Members who voted against the Government last night knew exactly what they were doing. But what has happened? When Parliament does decide, the Prime Minister pulls out his final weapon, the prerogative of dissolution. Not only have the people and Parliament been kept out of the decision-making process, but now the Queen has been wheeled out. I intend to say something about the Queen because she is part of our constitution. When people read today's Hansard, they will find that the jocular exchanges between Front-Bench speakers are not as interesting as those parts of the debate that explain to future generations how Britain went into a union.
Mr. Hurd : The right hon. Gentleman is surely making the speech that he would have made if the House had come to a resolution last night and the Government had, in some way, decided to invoke the prerogative to overrule that or go against it. That is the thesis which he contests. But, of course, what happened last night was quite different. The House did not come to any conclusion.
Mr. Benn : Of course the House came to a decision. That was why the Cabinet met at 7 o'clock last night, to
Column 653
consider what would happen when the Government were defeated. Earlier this morning I quoted what the Prime Minister said in yesterday's debate. He said :"The treaty in the Maastricht Bill--the European Communities (Amendment) Bill--is now law, as the House well understands. Royal Assent has been given to the Act, so the treaty will be ratified."-- There is no question about what section 7 says--
"Seventy-one separate votes in favour of the Bill should not be frustrated by one parliamentary motion expressing an opinion to the contrary."--[ Official Report, 22 July 1993 ; Vol. 229, c. 526.] The Prime Minister made it absolutely clear that if it all went wrong he would simply ratify. After the vote last night, in the traditional statement after a Government defeat, the Prime Minister announced a vote of confidence, which meant, "I will go to the Queen and ask the Queen to destroy the Parliament."
I am genuinely trying to illuminate rather than exacerbate the argument so that people reading Hansard may know how we got into this position. The answer is simple. The Maastricht treaty was signed under the royal prerogative. The Government decided to keep secret the treaty's provisions, which could have been distributed to every household, as they were in Denmark, during the election.
The Whips operate through the royal prerogative of patronage. My hon. Friends who were in the Whips Office know that there are Labour ways of twisting arms. In most Whips Offices it is clear, I understand--it never happened to me--that the prospect of promotion to the Front Bench is inhibited if one is not always in the Government Lobby. That is because of the royal prerogative of patronage. Older Members--again, not me--who are waiting for peerages are made to know that peerages are not so readily available to those who decline to support the Government.
Patronage is a cancer in our democratic society, and everybody knows it. Having got the Bill through the House of Commons, the Government sent it to the House of Lords, and everybody got there by the royal prerogative ; one cannot be made a peer without letters patent. Then they brought in peers from foreign hideouts. Did anybody honestly think that a House made up like that would be in favour of elections or in favour of the social chapter? I believe that yesterday the Lords voted in much the same way as they voted on the chimney boys 100 years ago. They were not prepared to give their estate servants better conditions.
Mrs. Currie : Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Benn : I am developing an argument and I should like to finish it. I shall give way to the hon. Lady in a moment with such pleasure that she will be suprised.
Another person whose authority comes from the royal prerogative is Lord Rees-Mogg, who has never been elected by anybody. He is a Conservative peer. He has decided to go to the judges. How did they get there? They got there by the royal prerogative. Lord Rees-Mogg rang me up, and I hope that I am not breaking any confidences when I say that I have doubts about what he told me. He said, "I, Lord Rees-Mogg, am protecting Parliament from the prerogative." I hope that his call was not secret. If it was, I should apologise, but I doubt whether I will.
As I have said, after yesterday's vote the Prime Minister made the massive statement, "We are going to ratify." How do we ratify? We ratify by the royal prerogative. The Prime Minister has said, "If you don't do what we say we
Column 654
will dissolve Parliament by the royal prerogative." I shall complete my next sentence, and then the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) can come in and muddy the waters and I shall do the best I can to clear them up.This whole story has revealed not only the nature of the European union but the fundamentally undemocratic nature of the way that this country is governed by a Crown, a Prime Minister with Crown powers, a House that depends on Crown powers and on the patronage of those with Crown powers, and the threat of elections. If the hon. Lady understands that, I shall be happy to let her intervene.
Mrs. Currie : I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. As he knows, all treaties are signed and ratified by the royal prerogative. What does he think makes this treaty so different ? The Ponsonby rules mean, and have done for the whole of this century, that treaties are not ratified until they are approved by the House. Many of the 70 votes that we have had on this have already done that, and today's vote will do the same.
If the right hon. Gentleman is so alarmed and concerned about privilege, how come he accepted the great honour of membership of Her Majesty's Privy Council and exercises the additional honour that that gives him in the House of being called in debate before the rest of us ?
Mr. Benn : The hon. Lady might have considered that, as I am the longest serving Opposition Member, I may have caught the Speaker's eye. One of my grandchildren who saw "Jurassic Park" said to me, "What do you call a dinosaur with one eye ?--Doyathinkhesaurus". That is the question that every hon. Member must consider when he looks towards the Chair. I asked to be excused from taking the Privy Councillor's oath, but when it was explained to me that if I did not I could not perform the function of Postmaster-General, I capitulated, as we all did.
When I took the oath at the beginning of this Parliament, I said, "As a dedicated republican, I solemnly swear ". My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) said, "I solemnly swear that I will bear true and faithful allegiance to the Queen when she pays her income tax." There are some concessions that we have to make, and everybody should know that.
Let us examine the final prerogative of dissolution. The Prime Minister was very careful not to say that the Queen had agreed. Perhaps the Foreign Secretary has had later news from "Buck Pal" than I have. The Prime Minister said that the Cabinet would decide to seek it. In 1969, when Harold Wilson was Prime Minister and "In Place of Strife" got into some difficulties, he announced that he would be off, like the present Prime Minister, to dissolve Parliament. There was some discussion in the parliamentary Labour party as to whether that was the final word. Douglas Houghton, who was the chairman of the parliamentary Labour party, said, "If Harold goes off to the palace, I will follow him in a taxi to say that we have another candidate." That was Jim Callaghan. When the news reached Harold that Douglas Houghton would be on his way, Harold decided not to go.
If the Prime Minister went to resign, what would the Queen say? She would say, "My dear Prime Minister, I read your speech with great interest. You had the greatest popular vote in the whole of history 14 months ago. Isn't there somebody who could take on the responsibilities that you regard as so burdensome? What about that nice man
| Next Section
| Home Page |