TUC
Q1. Mr. Robinson
asked the Prime Minister when he last met the TUC.
Q4. Mr. Gould
asked the Prime Minister when he last met the TUC.
The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan)
I refer my hon. Friends to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Mr. Ovenden) on 7th December.
Mr. Robinson
At that meeting did my right hon. Friend discuss with the TUC how many jobs would be lost and how many industries would face collapse, especially in the West Midlands, if the Tory proposal that is quite explicit in the so-called “The Right Approach” —namely, to scrap the NEB—were ever to come to fruition?
The Prime Minister
It is clear that the National Enterprise Board is performing a valuable function. Having had some serious discussions with members of the NEB during the past fortnight, I think that the idea of instant opposition, in which it is supposed to be abolished, will need further reflection by the Opposition. At present the NEB is responsible for about 300,000 workers. I believe that the total output of the companies for which it is responsible is about £3 billion. I ask the House to accept that this institution, which started off in a certain wave of criticism, is performing a valuable function. I believe that it will be of great use in supporting the industrial strategy.
Mr. Gould
Has the Tory Opposition offered any support for the industrial strategy? Was the progress of that strategy discussed with the TUC when my right hon. Friend last met its leaders?
The Prime Minister
Whatever the views of the Opposition, or their ignor[column 1694]ance, both the CBI and the TUC take the industrial strategy very seriously. The 39 or 40 sector working parties have produced reports that would repay careful study and debate in the House if that were possible. I do not know what view the Opposition take, but I suspect that it is no industrial strategy, no industrial democracy, no incomes poicy, and no social contract. I am not sure that they can even agree on what they do not want.
Mrs. Thatcher
When James Callaghanthe Prime Minister talks to the TUC will he bear in mind the actual record of his Government, which is a loss of 750,000 jobs and an increase of 1 million in the number brought into paying tax? Will he also bear in mind that there are many trade unionists as well as a majority of others, who would prefer the Tories' actual record of more jobs and lower taxes?
The Prime Minister
I shall certainly raise these matters with the TUC, but I wonder what answer the right hon. Lady received from the leaders of the TUC when she met them recently and asked them whether they would prefer a Government led by her. My understanding is that they were not wholly convinced, despite her lures and wiles.
Mr. Madden
Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Opposition confirmed in the House only last Friday that if they were returned to power they would scrap the NEB? Does he not agree that the 300,000 jobs that are dependent upon the National Enterprise Board would be put in jeopardy if the Opposition were returned to power?
The Prime Minister
Yes, I think that there is no doubt about that. The Opposition were totally opposed to the funding of Leylands. If Leylands went, that would in itself destroy a couple of hundred thousand jobs. The Opposition cannot escape from their responsibility. I trust that they will become a little more responsible about the maintenance of jobs in the West Midlands in this important enterprise and about the National Enterprise Board itself.
Mr. Pardoe
When he next meets, the TUC, will the Prime Minister care to ask its leaders why trade union leaders are so determined to maintain control [column 1695]over industrial democracy instead of relying on real democratic participation? Will he care to comment on the fact that the other side of industry, the CBI, would get far more thanks and sympathy from the rest of the community in its criticisms of the Bullodck Report if it had ever shown any encouragement of industrial participation in its whole lifetime?
The Prime Minister
There are many differences of view. For example, when I hear the Tory Party and Mr. Arthur Scargill condemning the same report, I begin to wonder what kind of holy alliances we are seeing growing up.
The plain truth is that this is a most important proposition that will not go away. It has to be solved. The Government intend to embark upon consultations with the TUC based on the majority report and its analysis of the situation is the hope that we can get some agreement so that we may legislate. It is our intention to legislate, because in this matter we have now fallen behind some of the advanced countries in Europe, including those which, on other matters, are approvingly referred to by the Opposition. Therefore, we intend to find a solution to this problem.
Mr. Bidwell
Does my right hon. Friend agree that endemic in the thinking of some sections of the Tory Party is the belief that there should always be a measure of unemployment, but that it has certainly never been within the orbit of Socialist thinking? Is not the growing rate of unemployment far too high and should we not set about sharing the work available?
The Prime Minister
I agree with my hon. Friend about the level of unemployment. I take no pleasure from standing at this Dispatch Box facing questions on this matter every week. [Hon. Members: “Resign.” ] The reason that I do not resign on this matter is that, if the Tories came to power, they would double the numbers of unemployed. Their proposals for cutting public expenditure by several billion pounds would undoubtedly have that effect. We must stick at this present policy under which we are attempting to get rid of inflation, under which inflation is in fact going down, and under which we hope to get another agreement with the trade union movement on pay for another 12 months. That, com[column 1696]bined with the emphasis which is being placed on the industrial strategy and exports, is the only way to see this country through.
Mr. Prior
Does not the fact that the Prime Minister has to stand at that Dispatch Box every Tuesday and Thursday and try to defend his record on unemployment destroy completely any industrial strategy that the Government put forward? Does not the fact that when he says that unemployment would be 300,000 higher if it were not for the NEB and 200,000 higher if it were not for other measures which the Government have taken mean that the true unemployment figure is nearly 2 million? What kind of unemployment policy and industrial strategy is that?
The Prime Minister
I am glad to say that because those who are actively engaged in industry take a rather more realistic view of the situation the industrial strategy has not been destroyed. The series of reports that have been produced are the result of the combined work of trade unionists, employers and managers. They are setting for themselves new targets for exports and new targets for productivity. They deserve to be encouraged, not constantly disparaged. by this House.
Poverty And Homelessness
Q2. Mr. Peter Bottomley
asked the Prime Minister if he will now appoint a Minister with particular responsibility for poverty and homelessness.
The Prime Minister
The questions of poverty and homelessness are clearly related and I have accordingly considered the hon. Member's proposal. I reach the conclusion that the appointment of a single Minister would cut across the functions of other Ministers and would not improve matters.
Mr. Bottomley
I thank the Prime Minister for that reply. May I continue to tempt him away from the divisiveness and confrontation which he has seen earlier and ask whether he will support the move in this House to set up a Select Committee to examine housing problems and the link between social security and the tax system and the incomes policy so that, as far as possible, a bi-partisan [column 1697]approach can be brought forward, which would be more successful than the policy we have seen in the medium and long-term past?
The Prime Minister
I shall certainly look into that series of propositions. I know that the Chancellor is considering one of the propositions to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
There is one other development that I commend to the House, having looked into the question. I hope that the Bill that the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) will shortly be producing will receive serious consideration by the House. As I have not studied the Bill, I cannot say whether it should be totally supported. It is an attempt to deal with homelessness, and the Government would like to see the Bill proceed.
Mr. Wrigglesworth
Is my right hon. Friend aware that some Labour Members are getting anxious about the non-publication of the report on housing finance? Will he have a word with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to see whether it can be published rapidly?
The Prime Minister
The matter is being considered in the Cabinet at the moment. I shall certainly have a word with my right hon. Friend to see how quickly the report can be published.
Mr. Hannam
Does the Prime Minister agree that the one way not to cure homelessness is to destroy the construction industry? Is he aware that his policies are resulting in unemployment in the construction industry in the South-West in excess of 30 per cent.? What action will he take to avoid destruction of the industry and to create homes for people in that region?
The Prime Minister
The construction industry should undoubtedly be doing more than it is at present. I have been looking into the numbers of housing starts. For the year 1976 it looks as though they will be the highest since 1969 in the public sector. Private starts—I have only the figures up to the end of November—will almost certainly be higher than in 1974 and 1975. This morning I was glad to see references to the effect that private starts look as though they, too, are about to move upwards.
[column 1698]House Of Lords
Q3. Mr. Gwilym Roberts
asked the Prime Minister what progress he has made in his consideration of the position of the House of Lords.
The Prime Minister
The Government are continuing to keep the position of the House of Lords under review.
Mr. Roberts
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the removal of the House of Lords in anything like its existing form is a necessary advance towards democracy? Does he accept that this matter must be tackled by the next Labour Government if not by this one?
The Prime Minister
I certainly agree that the House of Lords is not the epitome of the democratic system, but I think that we had better undertake one constitutional change at a time.
Mr. David Steel
Does the Prime Minister recall that one of his predecessors said that the reform of the House of Lords would brook no delay? As that was Mr. Asquith in 1910, does he agree that there has been quite a lot of brooking since then? As long as the House of Lords goes unreformed, will the Prime Minister give it some constructive work to do and get it started on the Bill for European elections?
The Prime Minister
I am happy to give their Lordships some constructive work to do. It might turn their idle hands from the mischief they have done to the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill. The Liberal Party has had many opportunities since the date mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman to tackle this particular problem. If he can promise me the full support of his party on this matter without wavering or quavering, I might be tempted to look in his direction.
Mr. Michael Stewart
In the course of the Government's review of this subject will the Prime Minister study a valuable Fabian pamphlet on it written some years ago by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy?
The Prime Minister
I always study the writings of my right hon. Friend with the greatest care.
[column 1699]Mr. Fletcher-Cooke
Is it the policy of the Government to go for a one-chamber system of government, or is it merely the policy of the Labour Party?
The Prime Minister
Yesterday morning the National Executive decided that it should go on record as being in favour of the abolition of the House of Lords. I cannot see why anybody should defend it in its present form. But, as I have said, a number of issues have to be settled and a number of hurdles have to be jumped before that legislation actually appears.
Mr. Kinnock
Does my right hon. Friend agree that we could more profitably advance democracy by spending this year abolishing the House of Lords and reforming the House of Commons than multiplying bureaucracy in the form of devolution?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend was not a Member of this House when I had some experience of this matter. I should want a full guarantee of his total support and that of a great many others before I embarked on it again.