SECRETARY OF STATE FOR ENERGY (SPEECH)
Q1. Mr. Michael Latham
asked the Prime Minister whether the public speech by the Secretary of State for Energy at the School of Oriental and African Studies, London, on 24th January on public ownership represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan)
I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Baker) on 26th January.
Mr. Latham
Since the Secretary of State for Energy has told us that nationalisation is back on the political agenda, can the Prime Minister answer one simple question? Does he support the Labour Party's proposals for the nationalisation of building and building materials companies?
[column 1663]The Prime Minister
In reply to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, nationalisation is never off the agenda. I have only to cast my mind back over the sequence of events that began with Cammell Laird and went on through Rolls-Royce and Upper Clyde Shipbuilders and finished with Leyland to show that, whatever may be the views of the Conservative Party in opposition, when it is in power it has to face the facts of life.
On the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question, the Labour Party manifesto will be published in due course and I shall hope to satisfy him then. I do not think that anyone feels that the building industry is in a very happy situation or is very well organised at present. There is a case for reorganisation.
Mr. Skinner
Continuing the theme that my right hon. Friend has started, does he agree that private enterprise can exist across a whole range of consumer durables, such as cars and so on, only on the basis of receiving £11 million a day of taxpayers' money in one form or another?
As yesterday's decision by the miners was said by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to be wise and sensible, may we take it that the Prime Minister and the Cabinet agree that Mr. Joe Gormley 's statements that we must return to free collective bargaining if Labour is to win the next General Election are also wise and sensible words?
The Prime Minister
I do not think that, in his inscrutable eloquence at the school of oriental studies, my right hon. Friend dealt with that question. Perhaps I could have notice of the profound questions that my hon. Friend has put to me.
It is clear that the economy of this country will not work properly unless there is a proper balance between the private and the public sectors. This is recognised on nearly all sides, except when the Opposition get into a pre-election mood.
Mrs. Thatcher
Does James Callaghanthe Prime Minister recall that in his speech Tony Bennthe Secretary of State used a phrase about limiting unaccountable power? Bearing in mind that phrase, will he look at the report on Statutory Instruments which was published by the Select Committee yesterday? That report spoke of the Government having a cynical disregard [column 1664]for the rights of the subject. What remedies does the Prime Minister propose to apply?
The Prime Minister
I shall, of course, study that report with care. I do not wish a Government who have very great powers to behave cynically in regard to them. The Government should examine anything said by this small group of hon. Members—I do not disparage the remarks because they were made by a small group—and make a considered reply in due course.
It is also clear that, because the Government have a big influence on the economy, they must exercise power, be willing to accept the responsibility for so doing and account for themselves to Parliament. This Chamber is the centre piece and must, in the end, uphold the right of the citizen and, if it wishes, remove the Government. That is where I stand and where I have always stood.
Mrs. Thatcher
Does the Prime Minister not regard it as cynical to use discretion given for limited purposes in an unlimited way and for him to set himself up as the sole judge of the national interest?
The Prime Minister
The House of Commons gave its answer on that question on Monday. I understand that we shall have the opportunity to return to it on a Supply Day next Monday when the Opposition are proposing to discuss another misuse of Government powers in public contracts. At the end of the day, the House will have to deliver its verdict and judge between various areas. I am totally unrepentant about the powers that are being used and the purposes for which they are being exercised.
Mr. David Steel
May I return to this rather strange speech at the School of Oriental and African Studies? The Prime Minister knows that the Secretary of State for Energy talked about the limitations imposed by the minority position of the Government in the House and advised against following Liberal policies. Will the Prime Minister inform his right hon. Friend that the Government have become more successful and more popular since these limitations were imposed?
The Prime Minister
I rather take exception to this morbid interest in the speeches of my right hon. Friend. I am [column 1665]all in favour of my speeches being studied, but if this is the Leader of the Opposition's way of trying to get for himself the post of Secretary of State for Energy I have to disappoint him.
Mr. Bryan Davies
Would it not be helpful if the Opposition spent less time criticising British Steel—the losses of which are less than those of Bethlehem Steel, a private enterprise company in the United States—and identified those private enterprise companies which have the capacity for profitability demonstrated by British Gas?
The Prime Minister
Not only did the nationalised British Gas Corporation make a substantial profit but so did British Airways, the Electricity Council and the Post Office. What is more, a number of them have entered into the export field. British Rail, for example, have recently secured a valuable order in Kenya in the face of great and keen competition. As the Opposition have no intention of denationalising these industries if they come to power, they should stop running them down and stand up for British enterprise.
TWICKENHAM
Q2. Mr. Jessel
asked the Prime Minister if he will visit Twickenham.
The Prime Minister
I have at present no plans to do so, in view of the result last Saturday.
Mr. Jessel
I was not playing in the game myself. The Prime Minister's constituents and yours, Mr. Speaker, are always welcome in my constituency to watch rugby matches, especially as the crowds are better behaved than the spectators of some other sports.
Is the Prime Minister aware that in Twickenham there is an increasing risk and damage every year from the River Thames flooding? Is he aware that Professor Sir Hermann Bondi has warned that if the London Underground flooded it would be out of action for nine months and that the economic devastation of the country would be greater than that caused by the London blitz? Why have the Government delayed completion of the London flood barrier until 1982, thus accelerating the cost to £200 million?
[column 1666]The Prime Minister
I am aware that the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) takes a considerable and continuing interest in flooding in his constituency. He has asked a number of Questions about it. [Hon. Members: “Reading.” ] I came well prepared. The work is progressing according to a phased programme under which the GLC expects to commence building the flood defences for Twickenham in 1980. Flooding of riverside areas on this stretch of the river is well known and can be caused and aggravated by non-tidal factors. This will be taken into account in designing the further defences.
Mr. Kilroy-Silk
With the time that my right hon. Friend has saved by not going to Twickenham, would he care to reflect that, whilst we talk about cynical attitudes, the best exponent of cynical attitudes is the Leader of the Opposition, who tabled a motion for debate on Tuesday and then, during the course of the debate, said that she disagreed with it?
Mrs. Thatcher
indicated dissent.
Mr. Kilroy-Silk
It is in Hansard.
The Prime Minister
I followed with interest the interchange and the motion on the Order Paper. What was more interesting was the speech that the Leader of the Opposition made to the overseas bankers yesterday. She said that she would really prefer to see the Multi-Fibre Arrangement wound up. If that happened, we would have a flood of imports. I understand from the right hon. Lady's speech that she is also against export credits, which would destroy the exports that our firms are making. I understand that she at last agrees with her right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) that all grants and subsidies are harmful.
Hon. Members
“Oh!”
Mr. Speaker
Order. I think that the Prime Minister is about to conclude.
The Prime Minister
I wonder how many millions of jobs would be lost if the Tories got back to power.
Mr. Walters
The Prime Minister was near Twickenham this morning on his way to London Airport to meet President Sadat. Can he tell the House something about that meeting? Since the President's [column 1667]initiative seems to be faltering as a result of Israel's failure to respond, and bearing in mind the disastrous consequences for Europe if there were a breakdown, did he tell the President that the time had come for the European Community to play an active role?
The Prime Minister
I should be glad to spend a minute on this subject. President Sadat clearly went to the United States feeling that his initiative was faltering and feeling disappointed about the present position. As a result of discussions with President Carter, he feels that there is now a greater prospect that there was of resuming discussions with Israel. It is the Government's view that Israel should show flexibility in the negotiations but that Israel's security is paramount.
When I discussed this with President Sadat, I found that he recognised this. I hope that the Government and people of Israel will recognise that President Sadat is in earnest in trying to find a way of allowing Israel to live in peace and security. I propose to indicate that to Prime Minister Begin in a letter which I intend to send to him.
I discussed the role of Europe with President Sadat. At the moment, although public declarations can be made, I believe that private representations to both sides and a candid expression of opinion of where both sides can move is the best way to help these negotiations forward.
TUC AND CBI
Q3. Mr. Molloy
asked the Prime Minister when he will next meet the TUC and CBI.
The Prime Minister
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) on 2nd February.
Mr. Molloy
When my right hon. Friend meets the CBI, will he point out to the general secretary and the council that the majority of British people will expect them to act as responsibly as the National Union of Mineworkers when fixing prices and salaries, in particular salaries in the private sector? Will he tell them that they should take a lead from the NUM?
[column 1668]The Prime Minister
The miners believe that they have a powerful case for a higher figure than 10 per cent. but they intend to accept this view at present. The whole nation will be grateful that responsibility has shown itself, as I always believed it would. I thank the miners of Britain for what they have done.
Mr. Peter Bottomley
On the question relating to the TUC and the CBI, but especially the TUC, I understand that the activities of the trade unions are very significant to the increase in the future level of earnings. Will the Prime Minister launch a great debate immediately on the future levels of earnings after July, since most trade unions have their conferences in advance of the TUC conference and they cannot wait until July to hear what the Government propose?
The Prime Minister
There is a difficult problem in deciding how to handle incomes in a free society. It is one upon which, if I thought a substantial statement of policy would succeed, I would not hesitate to make it. But there is a certain coyness about this discussion. At the moment, I do not think I would want to take a public initiative on the matter, but I am in no doubt that the level of incomes next year will influence the level of inflation. I go on saying that privately and publicly.