PRIME MINISTER
(ENGAGEMENTS)
Q1. Mr. Barry Jones
asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 5 February.
The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher)
In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be having meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, including one with the British Independent Steel Producers Association.
Mr. Jones
Does the Prime Minister agree that last night's television programme on documents published by BSC indicate that the Secretary of State for Industry deliberately provoked the national steel strike, blocked a 14 per cent. pay rise and insisted on 52,000 steel redundancies? Will the right hon. Lady assert herself against the reactionary and totally wrong policies of her right hon. Friend? Is the Iron Maiden chicken, or will she sack her right hon. Friend and stop the brutal butchery of working-class communities?
The Prime Minister
I totally reject the hon. Gentleman's ridiculous and disgraceful allegations against Sir Keith Josephmy right hon. Friend. Some months ago my right hon. Friend, in conjunction with the industry, fixed a cash limit for next year of some £450 million, which the taxpayer [column 231]will find. Already we have a high level of tax in this country, and I think that it is as high as the taxpayer finds acceptable. We are not prepared to find more for operating losses.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton
Will my right hon. Friend ignore the Palladium antics of the hon. Member for Flint, East (Mr. Jones)? Will she find time in her very busy programme, to explain at somewhat greater length to the people of this country why our Olympic athletes should not go to Moscow? Will she explain to the people of this country that the future security of the world is more important than a few gold medals?
The Prime Minister
I have already made it clear that I think that if Olympic athletes go to Moscow that occasion will be used by Russia to indicate that either the countries which go or the athletes who go are, in some way, in favour of Russian foreign policy. I believe that that would be catastrophic. Because we know that the athletes have trained long and hard for that occasion we have asked, in the first place, for the venue to be moved to somewhere more suitable.
Mr. Foot
To return to the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mr. Jones), will the right hon. Lady undertake, if she has not already done so, to see last night's “World in Action” programme on the steel papers, since that programme indicated, among other things, that within BSC, long before Christmas, there were some who warned about the catastrophic effects of a steel strike and the likelihood that it would take place if they went ahead with what they themselves described as the zero offer to the steel workers?
Will the right hon. Lady tell us whether she has seen that programme? Will she undertake to do so, and will she undertake to return and report to the House on the interventions by the Government in the steel industry prior to 31 December?
The Prime Minister
I did not see the programme. I have more or less read the script, together with the radio script—[Interruption.] Yes, indeed, because I am not certain that it is accurate in every particular. I read the script, together with certain radio broadcast scripts at [column 232]lunchtime today. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the steel cash limit of £450 million for next year, following the £700 million for this year, was set by my right hon. Friend Sir Keith Josephthe Secretary of State for Industry. The only fetters upon it—if I may use that word—are that the £450 million should be used for a mixture of investment, working capital and redundancy payments.
It seems to us that it is perfectly reasonable to provide good redundancy payments for those who lose their jobs, having previously provided, and continuing to provide, the best investment and equipment so that those who stay at their jobs may have the chance to earn higher and better pay.
Mr. Foot
If the right hon. Lady says that she has more or less read the script, will she give us her comments on the warnings given to her and her Government from inside BSC way before Christmas of the catastrophic effects of proceedings as the corporation eventually did proceed? What support did the Government give to that and what intervention did they make? Will she give a full report to the House when she has read the whole script?
The Prime Minister
If I may respectfully say so, the argument is not so much about percentages as about how those percentages are to be met. There is plenty of prospect for considerably improved pay if people will properly use the excellent and latest equipment and machinery that has been provided by the taxpayer. In that way, their levels of productivity will reach those of many industries on the Continent.
Mr. Foot
Is the right hon. Lady aware that a deep sense of desperation is spreading throughout the country, for which she is responsible? When will she come to the House and say that she will take some action to stop the spread of paralysis throughout the country?
The Prime Minister
I am aware of a sense of desperation. There is a great sense of desperation when a whole people provide a whole industry with the latest and best equipment so that it may become the best and most efficient steel producer in the world, and those who work in the industry do not take the opportunity to use it but go on strike to [column 233]demand more from the taxpayer—the taxpayer who, in the same world, has to make a profit.
Sir John Eden
Does my right hon. Friend feel that she will be able to reassure the members of the British Independent Steel Producers Association that Ministers will in no way miss the opportunity of the passage of the Employment Bill through the House to ensure that, never again, are they made victims of the sort of strike action to which they are being subjected? Will she also make clear that if people wish to stop the damage that the strike is creating in the country and the steel industry, they must cease going on strike and resume negotiations?
The Prime Minister
I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend's last point. It is a cause of great sorrow to me that people who are on strike are not around the table negotiating again. The Employment Bill deals with secondary picketing, but of course it does not deal with secondary strikes. I do not believe that it can deal with such strikes at the moment.
Q2. Mr. O'Neill
asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 5 February.
The Prime Minister
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply which I have just given.
Mr. O'Neill
When will the Prime Minister recognise the Government's wider responsibility in the steel dispute? Will she assure the 12,000 workers in my constituency who are employed in the refractory brick industry that their jobs will not be put in jeopardy? Millions of pounds of public and private money have been spent on the firm to make it profitable, while the Government stand idly by.
The Prime Minister
Jobs are put in jeopardy because of a strike. The hon. Gentleman should direct his attention to those who decide to go on strike, stay on strike and extend that strike.
Mr. Mellor
Will my right hon. Friend give a warning today about the consequences of the removal of all safety cover at BSC plants? The effect of that action may well be to destroy jobs in that industry. Will she invite the Leader of [column 234]the Opposition—whoever that might be in reality—to join in the condemnation of the foolish threatened action?
The Prime Minister
I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. If the report is correct that safety workers are being withdrawn from coke ovens and blast furnaces, by so doing they are destroying their own jobs. I doubt whether some blast furnacemen would do that, but I believe that the management and staff would be able to keep the safety procedures going for some time.
Mr. Joel Barnett
In view of the Prime Minister's present position and the disastrous consequences to the national interest of what she is proposing, that is, to do nothing, will she willingly concede that, having said that she has fixed the cash limit only, by so doing she has fixed within it a wage increase? What is that wage increase that she assumed?
The Prime Minister
Of course, we have not fixed a wage increase. The right hon. Gentleman knows that the cash limit applies to three matters—investment, working capital and redundancy. The wage increase will depend upon the level of productivity, and that is what the argument is about.
Sir William Clark
Is my right hon. Friend aware of the deep frustration that is felt by many workers in the steel industry, particularly in the private steel industry, because many of them do not wish to strike but are afraid to defy the unions in case of victimisation? Will my right hon. Friend consider the advisability of introducing a one-clause Bill to provide that if 500 workers, or 10 per cent. of the work force, whichever is the lower, demand a ballot, that will be mandatory on the trade union leadership?
The Prime Minister
There have been times when I have believed that a one-clause Bill might be tempting. However, I must be candid with my hon. Friend. I doubt very much whether we could get a one-clause Bill through the House during the course of the strike. We have to get the strike settled first. There are provisions in the Employment Bill which will help considerably with the matter of the closed shop, to which my hon. Friend refers.
[column 235]Q3. Mr. Straw
asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 5 February.
The Prime Minister
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply which I gave earlier today.
Mr. Straw
Why has the Prime Minister evaded the questions that my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot) put to her? His central question was about what reply the right hon. Lady gave to BSC when it predicted a catastrophe if a 2 per cent. offer was made? I repeat, what reply did she make to BSC?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman cannot know about relationships between nationalised industries and Prime Ministers. In a properly-run Government, the matter does not come to the Prime Minister.
Mr. Higgins
Will my right hon. Friend take time today to examine a parliamentary answer which suggests that the Government will continue to lend money to the Russians at subsidised rates of interest to buy capital goods. As these goods can be used to make military equipment, will she stop that immediately and seek to persuade our European partners to do the same? If not, our protest against Russian aggression and events in Afghanistan will become a farce.
The Prime Minister
As my right hon. Friend knows, we are not continuing with the higher preferential credit terms which were previously negotiated and which terminate this month. However, we expect to continue with what are called “consensus terms” with national trade, which we are agreeing with our partners. We are trying to negotiate those terms with them.
Mr. Jay
Are the Government's industrial policies producing the results that the Prime Minister intended?
The Prime Minister
They are certainly giving people the opportunity to earn more. If they take that opportunity they will have the assurance that they will be able to keep a bigger proportion of their pay packet. If some people receiving considerable subsidies from the taxpayer strike because they want more, that is [column 236]their own viewpoint and responsibility. I will have no truck with them.
Mr. Foot
Does the right hon. Lady's reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) mean “Yes we have done it all on purpose” ?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman must be very much kept down when his right hon. Friend is here.
Several Hon. Members
rose——
Mr. Speaker
Order. I propose to call one more hon. Member from the Government Benches because I called two hon. Gentleman from the Opposition.
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop
Will my right hon. Friend remind the House and the country of the positive encouragement and reward given to the Soviet Union's aggression by the previous Labour Government when the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) was Prime Minister when he handed over to the Soviet Union the gold reserves of the independent republics of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania? They had been deposited for safe keeping with the Bank of England when Soviet Russia invaded and annexed those republics.
The Prime Minister
I remember the occasion very well and the great trouble that it caused among people who had previously been citizens of those countries.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I recognise—as I am sure every hon. Member does, the special position of the Leader of the Opposition, but may I put it to you that it cannot be right, in the interests of all Back Benchers, that the spokesman for the Leader of the Opposition in this case presumed on his position to intervene four times in question?
In no way do I seek to complain that you rightly give preferential treatment to the Leader of the Opposition, but I hope that you will accept, that he will accept and that all Members of the House will accept, that to preserve his special position he should manage it with restraint and with regard for other hon. Members.
Mr. Speaker
Order. The House knows that I have often said that special latitude is given to the Leader of the Opposition and to his spokesman. Today, because it was the last moment, I [column 237]called one hon. Member from the Government Benches after time because I thought it was the fair thing to do.