NOTTINGHAMSHIRE
Q1. Mr. Tim Smith
asked the Prime Minister when he next intends to visit North Nottinghamshire.
The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan)
I have at present no plans to do so.
Mr. Smith
I am sorry that that is the Prime Minister's reply. He might have learned something to his advantage. In view of the fact that the National Union of Mineworkers conference last week rejected by a small majority a local pit-by-pit incentive scheme, will the Prime Minister support a national ballot on that subject? Following that decision what proposals does he have to increase the take-home pay of Nottinghamshire miners, either by reducing their tax or encouraging some kind of increased productivity?
The Prime Minister
There are unfortunate precedents for the Government declaring themselves on the question of the national ballots of trade unions. It would not be wise for the Government to indicate whether they support a national ballot on internal matters of the National Union of Mineworkers in that way. But certainly, speaking for myself, I know that there is among the Nottinghamshire miners a strong desire in favour of a productivity scheme. I regret that that did not find favour with all the members of the union. If there were any desire to return to it there would be no opposition from the Government. There would be support.
Mr. Roy Hughes
May I remind those who are not acquainted with the coal mining industry that due to history, let alone the arduous and hazardous nature of the operation, a lot of hard bargaining will be involved between the National Coal Board and the unions before such an agreement can be reached?
The Prime Minister
I think that there will be a great deal of bargaining going on. I understand that the NUM has set a target that it wishes to achieve. That [column 216]must have regard both to the level of output and the future of the industry. It is quite clear that during the past three years this Government have put more into the industry and given it a better chance and future—I am not drawing political comparisons—that it has ever had before. The industry has an assured future if it cares to take it. I hope that the miners will take that into account.
PRIME MINISTER
(ENGAGEMENTS)
Q2. Mr. Hoyle
asked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 12th July.
The Prime Minister
In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be holding meetings with ministerial colleagues and others.
Mr. Hoyle
I know that my right hon. Friend is not due to make a television broadcast today. Does he agree that when the Leader of the Opposition makes a television broadcast and talks about a confrontation with reality she should spell out what that programme means in terms of unemployment?
The Prime Minister
I do not think that I would want to offer the right hon. Lady any advice on these matters. However, I was pleased to see one comment of hers, which seems to indicate that she now, at last, agrees that the rate of inflation is likely to slow down during the second half of this year. I hope that I shall therefore be spared future questions on that matter.
Mrs. Thatcher
May I confront Mr. James Callaghanthe Prime Minister with one question of reality? Will he take time today to join with Fred Mulleythe Secretary of State for Defence to repudiate the report of the Labour Party committee on defence, which proposes yet further very large cuts in defence expenditure, which has led to the demoralisation of the Armed Forces? Will he repudiate that?
The Prime Minister
I have not noted any demoralisation of the Armed Forces, and I have had as much opportunity as anyone else of seeing them in recent weeks. As for the National Executive Committee's report—incidentally, I understand that it is not a report of the [column 217]NEC but a report by a study group—having looked through the names of the study group and the complete list of members, I have a feeling that if they all assembled there would be a majority against the findings of the study group, which I gather were endorsed yesterday by three votes to two. The Government's view was made quite clear by the Secretary of State for Defence. There is no need for me to gild that particular lily. The Government's policy is known and will be carried out.
Mrs. Thatcher
Does that rejection also extend to the two Cabinet Ministers who were members of the committee?
The Prime Minister
At the risk of jeers from the Opposition, I have to say that there is really no reason why I should answer questions about the work of the NEC of the Labour Party—[Hon. Members: “Oh.” ]—but in order to make the position absolutely clear, let me say that I thought that the statement made yesterday by the Secretary of State for Defence was perfect in every word, and that goes for every other Minister. I repeat again, although it is not, frankly, the business of the Opposition to expect me to reply to questions—[Hon. Members: “Oh.” ]. Not on this matter. It is a certain practice that has grown up recently in this House, Mr. Speaker, and I am under your guidance on these matters. As long as you permit the questions, I shall answer them. However, I want to make it absolutely clear, as I think it is clear already, that the Government's policy on defence is there and is well understood. If the NEC were to endorse this policy, it would have as much standing as any other statement by the NEC, but in this case it could not affect Government policy.
Mr. Madden
Does the Prime Minister expect the Leader of the Opposition and other members of the National Association for Freedom to tell Mr. Ward and his cronies inside and outside this House that in view of the verdict of the court they should now accept the recommendation of ACAS in regard to recognition of trade unions at Grunwick's?
The Prime Minister
This dispute has shown a great many weaknesses on a great many issues, and I do not want to take advantage of the judgment of the [column 218]court to try to heighten the temperature. It seems to me that there is now an opportunity for Mr. Ward to reconsider his position. He has, of course, certain legal rights. He can appeal if he wishes to do so, and he is entitled to do that. But I hope that he will consider the consequences of such an appeal. I would also urge APEX to reconsider what it has already said about picketing. It has said that it does not wish mass picketing to go on. I hope that it will emphasise that view again, so that there can be a drawing back on both sides, and that there will then be an acceptance of the verdict of the court.
Q3. Mr. McCrindle
asked the Prime Minister if he will state his public engagements for 12th July.
The Prime Minister
I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Hoyle).
Mr. McCrindle
In his anxiety to obtain the semblance of an agreement on pay with the TUC, will the Prime Minister take into account the interests of millions of people who are not members of a trade union? Will he, in particular, try to evolve a pay policy that will allow resistance to claims that would lead to further substantial increases in commuter fares, not to mention the cost of gas and electricity, which would fall on those sections of the community that are often not represented by trade unions?
The Prime Minister
Yes, Sir. The overcoming of inflation is a policy to the benefit of the whole community. That is why the Government have been so insistent on trying to achieve this. As for wage claims, I regard it as almost tragic, at this point in our history, when it is agreed on all sides and by all accounts that the rate of inflation is now about to turn down, that people should be talking of claims of the order of 20 per cent. If such claims were turned into reality in a vain attempt to recover the ground that was lost last year, the result would be that the Government could in no circumstances maintain their firm intention to secure, and their belief in securing, a return to a level of inflation that would be no greater than that of our major competitors. It would be tragic if we were to throw that chance away.
[column 219]Mr. Bidwell
Does my right hon. Friend agree—speaking philosophically—that in terms of the Grunwick dispute, which worries all of us on both sides of the House, it now behoves if not the Leader of the Opposition at least the Opposition's employment spokesman, Brother Prior—the right hon. Member for Lowestoft—to rise and support the view that the essence of this dispute is the right to belong to a trade union?
The Prime Minister
I am very willing to yield my answer to the right hon. Gentleman, but I have always understood that he took the view that there was a right to belong to a trade union. If he feels like echoing the plea that I made, that there should now be a cooling off, I am sure that he will rise and say so.
Mr. Prior
Is the Prime Minister aware that I agree very much with the remarks that he made in reply to an earlier question on this subject? Is he further aware that I issued a statement on 30th March which I think dealt with the point that has been at issue this afternoon? Is he further aware, though, that there are many people, not confined to the Opposition side of the House, who believe that there are a large number of conditions where the right not to belong to a union is as important as the right to belong to a union, which of course we accept?
The Prime Minister
I always took the view that there was a right not to belong to a trade union, when I was a trade unionist myself, and I take that view now, but that is not the same as insisting on certain conditions which the Conservative Party has in the past insisted upon in relation to the closed shop. I think that the Conservative Party's attitude on the closed shop is now much closer to that of the Government. That is a great improvement, and is likely to result in industrial peace.
Mr. Gorst
Is the Prime Minister aware that the consequence of the High Court's finding this afternoon is that there is no obligation whatsoever on ACAS to consult the majority of workers to whom an issue relates? Does he not feel, therefore, that there is a blemish in the law and that a change should be made?
The Prime Minister
Any blemishes in the law can be examined in a dispassion[column 220]ate way when this dispute is out of the way. What I hope the hon. Member will now do is advise those with whom he has been consorting to accept the verdict, so that this tiny dispute, which has been magnified out of all proportion, can be put in the background and that there can be proper negotiations between the union and the firm, which the Lord Chief Justice recommends, and then we can move on to consider anything else. If the hon. Member would do that he would be making as great a contribution as any that he has made in the past to industrial peace.
Mr. Pavitt
Will my right hon. Friend and the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) accept the thanks of many of us for the way in which they have been answering questions, as they have done over the last few weeks, in an attempt to get a reasonable mediation or compromise in this dispute? Will my right hon. Friend take it from me that nothing makes the law more of an ass in the eyes of the ordinary person than it being alleged to contain a blemish when it does not suit certain people using it? Now that the High Court has arrived at a decision, instead of having legal quibbles and long arguments we need a speedy resolution of this affair.
The Prime Minister
There are deep-seated feelings on both sides on this matter. Because they are so deep-seated, I think that there will be no settlement of this issue if there is a firm stand on what is regarded as absolute principle and absolute right. I know that APEX has called off the mass picketing. It says that it needs and requires and wishes only enough pickets to man the six gates. I hope that in the light of the decision it will feel able to withdraw the pickets if Mr. Ward will say that he accepts the verdict of the court. That would seem to me to lead to an honourable settlement for both sides.