CBI AND TUC
Q1. Mr. Lawson
asked the Prime Minister when he will next be meeting the CBI and TUC.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson)
I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) on 25th January.
Mr. Lawson
When the Prime Minister meets the TUC and CBI will he tell them, if he can still remember, what happened at Rambouillet, apart from the disastrous encouragement that the venue gave him to try to play the poor man's de Gaulle in Rome? In particular, will he say whether the Heads of Government did or did not endorse the use of import controls by the United Kingdom?
The Prime Minister
I have reported to the House on Rambouillet, and the [column 1925]TUC and CBI know the principal conclusions that came out of that meeting. The Heads of Government were not asked to endorse or disendorse our policy on import controls, because we are still studying the matter. There will be international consultations when our studies are complete.
Mr. Noble
Does my right hon. Friend accept that when he met the leaders of textiles unions recently, the TUC General Council listened very carefully to him saying that a statement on import controls would be made in days not weeks? Does my right hon. Friend accept that there is now a grave danger that imports will be greyhounded into this country in anticipation of such a statement and that, whatever the statement says, delay is extremely dangerous?
The Prime Minister
This was one of the risks of public discussion and questions on this matter. We are working hard on the problem and, although there are certain difficulties about proceeding immediately, we intend to proceed with very great urgency.
INDUSTRIAL STRATEGY
Q2. Mr. Wyn Roberts
asked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with the coordination between the Secretary of State for Industry and the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the subject of industrial strategy.
The Prime Minister
Yes, Sir.
Mr. Roberts
As the Chancellor of the Exchequer's stated policy is to reduce public expenditure and the Government's deficit borrowing to make room for investment, will the Government not seriously reconsider their nationalisation programme? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that public ownership in itself is not productive investment? It can be inflationary and it will certainly increase Government debt.
The Prime Minister
I have little hope of seeking to educate the hon. Member in these matters. I refer him to what I said on this specific question in the debate on the Gracious Speech.
Mr. Mike Thomas
Will my right hon. Friend attempt to continue the education [column 1926]of hon. Members opposite by explaining to them that there are differences between good public expenditure and bad public expenditure? [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker
These noises may be very good for the lungs, but they take up time.
Mr. Thomas
Will my right hon. Friend wipe the smiles off the faces of Opposition Members by explaining that on the Government side we are quite clear there will be no cutting of good public expenditure for the sheer ideological sake of it?
The Prime Minister
There is no difference between Government money provided in subsidies to the shipbuilding or aircraft industries when they are privately owned and the same money being supplied under public ownership. [Hon. Members: “Compensation.” ] If hon. Members opposite want to make a case for lower compensation, they are free to do so.
This is a matter which the House must debate in detail in dealing with the legislation. My hon. Friend is absolutely right on the general issue that he raised. Those who talk about cutting expenditure generally have the duty—I have been pleading for them to exercise it for a year—to tell the House what they would cut.
Mrs. Thatcher
When are we to have more details about the industrial strategy? At the moment all we know is that it is not a strategy but an approach, and no one is being very industrious in working it out. At the NEDC meeting yesterday the Government were asked for more details about the strategy, so when may we know—or has it already gone the way of the National Plan?
The Prime Minister
Apart from the little crack at the end, the right hon. Lady is being perfectly fair. She may recall that when the original statement on the NEDC meeting of 5th November was made to the House we said that in December we would carry the matter further—that was done this week, under the chairmanship of the Chancellor of the Exchequer—and that we would begin to identify the various sectors at the meeting in January. I know that the right hon. Lady is a little impatient on this matter, but I am sure that she will be satisfied that progress is being made, particularly since nothing was done on [column 1927]this subject in the three and a half years before we came into office.
MINISTER OF STATE, CIVIL SERVICE
Q3. Mr. Jasper More
asked the Prime Minister if he will dismiss the Minister of State for the Civil Service Department.
The Prime Minister
No, Sir.
Mr. More
Will the Prime Minister tell us what the present position is in respect of personal advisers appointed by or to Ministers in his Government from outside the ranks of the Civil Service? How many such appointments have been made since the present Government took office? Have any been made from those people previously associated with the National Union of Students? What justification is there for saddling the public purse with expenditure in excess of £200,000 annually in aid of an exercise which, patently, is providing “jobs for the boys” ?
The Prime Minister
We are followby the rules which were recommended by the Fulton Report on the Civil Service. That was exactly what was done by the last Conservative Government on these matters. I do not remember the hon. Member asking questions about these matters then. He would do better to table Questions on a particular appointment by a particular Minister to the Minister concerned.
Mr. Wrigglesworth
Is my right hon. Friend aware of the deep concern in the Civil Service over the deliberate campaign of misrepresentation and distortion that has been levelled at it in recent weeks? Is he further aware that the proportion of civil servants per million of the population is half the figure in Germany? Does he realise that the average level of Civil Service pensions, which has been so much under attack, is £17.50 a week, as opposed to some of the way-out figures quoted by Conservative Members?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend has put a perfectly fair question. As he said, there is a campaign at present about this issue. Manpower in the Civil Service, like Government expenditure, follows [column 1928]policy decisions taken by this House. Those who say that they want to cut either expenditure or manpower should have the courtesy to tell the House what they would cut.
Mr. Pardoe
Will the Prime Minister confirm that the Minister referred to in the Question is responsible for an organisation called the Civil Service Pay Research Unit, and that that alone is sufficient reason for his instant dismissal? Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that this unit is responsible for the grotesque and indecent increases in Civil Service pay over the last few years, and will he ensure that the reports of this extraordinary body are made available for hon. Members, so that they may see how it reaches its disgraceful conclusions?
The Prime Minister
The appointment of this unit goes back to the Report of the Royal Commission in the 1950s. It has existed under successive Governments, and it is, I believe, of great value. It does a dedicated job. It tries to establish comparability with workers in private employment, so that civil servants are, broadly, paid the same rate for doing the same job. Over all these years the public service has usually lagged behind private industry. That is what the Priestley Commission was dealing with.
On pensions, I do not know whether the hon. Member raised this question at the time they were introduced. I do not remember his doing so.
REFERENDA
Q4. Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson
asked the Prime Minister what recent consideration he has given to using referenda as a means of discovering the views of the general public about relevant questions of the day.
The Prime Minister
None, Sir. As I have made clear on many occasions, the Government regarded the holding of a referendum on our continued membership of the European Economic Community as a wholly exceptional procedure for a unique occasion—a procedure which even its former critics now recognise to have been fully justified.
Mr. McNair-Wilson
Will the Prime Minister consider a referendum on capital punishment? Since 1965 the House has [column 1929]voted on the subject no fewer than seven times. I speak as one opposed to hanging, but I should like the British people to express their view, because we must come to a conclusion on this matter.
The Prime Minister
I recognise the hon. Member's record in this matter. This is a most serious issue, which the House will be facing in the near future—I think it will be next week. Every hon. Member has to take up his own position on it, and I would very much deprecate any suggestion—which I am sure the hon. Member was not making—that hon. Members are not capable either of representing their constituents on the matter or of fully representing, in debates and in the Division Lobby, their own considered judgments.
Mr. William Hamilton
Since it is clear that we are not to get legislation on devolution on to the statute book this Session, and since it took a comparatively short time to conduct a referendum on the EEC, will my right hon. Friend seriously consider whether it would be desirable to have a separate and distinct referendum in Scotland, among the Scottish electorate, on the question whether they want complete separation, as advocated by the SNP?
The Prime Minister
I am sure that they do not. My hon. Friend has always expressed himself vigorously and correctly on this matter. There would be great opposition in this House to a devolution referendum held purely in Scotland. Certainly such a referendum would have to cover Wales and England as well. Everyone in the United Kingdom has the right to be represented.
I repeat that when hon. Members seek election they seek the right to speak on behalf of their constituents in these matters. That is what we all try to do, in our different ways. Since I have referred to the United Kingdom I should make it clear that, exceptionally, and quite apart from the Common Market issue, successive Governments have, in my view rightly, used the referendum on constitutional issues within Northern Ireland for Northern Ireland.
[column 1930]LOCAL GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURE (PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECH)
Q5. Mr. Graham
asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library of the House of Commons a copy of his public speech on local government expenditure to the Joint Local Government Conference at Eastbourne on 20th November.
Q10. Mr. Bean
asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech to the Local Government Conference at Eastbourne on 20th November on local government expenditure.
The Prime Minister
I refer my hon. Friends to the reply that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Thornaby (Mr. Wrigglesworth) on 25th November, Sir.
Mr. Graham
In his speech my right hon. Friend drew attention to the increase, over the last 10 years, in the number of people in local government—an increase from 1.5 million to 2.5 million, or 67 per cent. Bearing in mind the imperative need to maximise the use of national resources, will my right hon. Friend tell us of any ways in which effective steps are being taken to monitor the use of labour in local government services?
The Prime Minister
The figures have certainly risen. It is only fair to say that just as expenditure depends on policy, so manpower depends on policy. Successive Governments have loaded local authorities—in my view, rightly, to a large extent—with very important social duties. I am concerned, as the House is, with the ratio between those who are doing the job and the administrative controllers—the chiefs and Indians question. The real control, however, comes through finance, and the House will shortly be debating the rate support grant, on which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment made a statement very recently.
Mr. Michael Latham
How did the Prime Minister dare to go to Eastbourne and lecture local government about chiefs [column 1931]and Indians, when the national Civil Service, for which he is directly responsible, expanded by 11,000 between July and October this year?
The Prime Minister
The increase in the Civil Service over the past few years, under successive Governments, has been much less than the increase in local government. I also informed the conference of the policies concerning a review of Civil Service employment. The hon. Gentleman will know that there is some difficulty about comparability of the figures. The increase to which he referred was partly because there were many vacant positions in the Civil Service which had not been recruited when we took office. Some of those have been filled. The hon. Gentleman will also be aware of the way in which the figures were—how shall I put it?—presented, as a result of transferring a number of services which were previously in the Civil Service such as the Manpower Services Commission, to outside, and then claiming credit for a reduction in the numbers employed.