Speeches, etc.

Margaret Thatcher

House of Commons PQs

Document type: Speeches, interviews, etc.
Venue: House of Commons
Source: Hansard HC [925/222-28]
Editorial comments: 1515-1530.
Importance ranking: Major
Word count: 2524
Themes: Industry, Trade unions
[column 222]

Prime Minister

(Engagements)

Q1. Mr. Ovenden

asked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 1st February.

The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan)

In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be holding meetings with ministerial colleagues and others.

Mr. Ovenden

Will my right hon. Friend hold discussions with the Leader of the House about the Scotland and Wales Bill? If he does, will he arrange for a statement to be made afterwards clarifying the Government's position on the question of representation of Wales and Scotland in this House?

The Prime Minister

The question of the representation of Scotland and Wales in this House is not related to the Scotland and Wales Bill. It can be settled only by this House, and, in accordance with precedent, would be settled only following a Speaker's Conference. I have no doubt that some hon. Members might want to use arguments deriving from the passage of the Scotland and Wales Bill to support such a change, but that would be an entirely separate matter.

Mrs. Thatcher

As one of James Callaghanthe Prime Minister's engagements on Tuesdays is to answer Questions in this House, will he take the opportunity to resolve an apparent inconsistency between his statement on the Bullock Report and the statement by E. Dellthe Secretary of State for Trade? Will he say whether, in his view, he has an obligation under the social contract, regardless of consultation, to legislate for the central proposal of the Bullock Report, which is to put trade union nominees on to company boards?

The Prime Minister

The obligation that the Government entered into with the people at the last General Election was to introduce a measure of industrial democracy. That we shall do, and, as we have already said, we shall enter into those discussions, as might be expected, on the basis of the majority report of Bullock. [Interruption.] There would be a great deal of complaint if one normally entered discussions on the basis of a minority report. There will now be a [column 223]period of consultation, and the Government's legislative proposals will in due course be laid before the House. There is no conflict between anything that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade has said and what I have said on this matter.

Mrs. Thatcher

The right hon. Gentleman's proposals are not for industrial democracy but for industrial apartheid. Has he decided to exclude the right of non-trade union members either to choose who goes on the board or to be chosen to go on the board themselves?

The Prime Minister

When the right hon. Lady refers to what she calls “the right hon. Gentleman's proposals” , it shows clearly that she has neither read nor understood what has been said so far. If she disagrees, perhaps she will tell me why. The only proposals so far have come from the Bullock Committee in the form of a majority report and a minority report. The Government have said that they will enter into consultations on the basis of the majority report. When we have had those consultations, we shall bring forward our legislative proposals. I hope that the right hon. Lady can understand that it is a perfectly simple proposition. With regard to her particular phrases, I would welcome it if on some occasions she would condemn apartheid in the country where it really occurs.

Mrs. Thatcher

But E. Dellthe Secretary of State for Trade has said that he is consulting on the basis of the minority report as well. Is that so, or is it not?

The Prime Minister

The Government's consultations are on the basis of the majority report. I have received a letter from the CBI in which it indicates that it will want to put forward certain proposals to me. It may well want to discuss the minority report. We shall, of course, be ready to discuss the minority report and, indeed, any other ideas that may come forward. That is what consultation is about.

Mrs. Wise

Will my right hon. Friend find time to call on the Chairman of the Health and Safety Commission and tell him that the Government have decided to bring in the early implementation of the safety representative provisions after all? Does my right hon. Friend agree [column 224]that any serious extension of industrial democracy also depends on the implementation of these regulations?

The Prime Minister

It is not often that I can give an answer that satisfies my hon. Friend, but in case she was not present earlier I can tell her that the Under-Secretary of State for Employment announced that the Government will bring forward the health and safety regulations forthwith to be implemented on 1st October 1978. Of course, if voluntary arrangements are made earlier that will be so much the better. There is nothing to prevent that from happening, once the regulations are on the statute book. With regard to the connection with industrial democracy, I also agree with my hon. Friend that this is part of industrial democracy and should be seen as such.

Secretary of State for

Industry

Q2. Mr. Dykes

asked the Prime Minister if he will dismiss the Secretary of State for Industry.

The Prime Minister

I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) on 20th January.

Mr. Dykes

With phase 3 of the Pay Code now being discussed, does the Prime Minister agree that higher wages can be financed only out of higher production? With the latest available production index at 102.6, compared with 103.3 in February 1974, during the so-called three-day working week recession—about which Labour Members complained so bitterly—will the right hon. Gentleman say how high he will put that on the list of the Secretary of State's biographical notes when, in due course, the Prime Minister fires him later this summer?

The Prime Minister

I shall take the serious part of the hon. Gentleman's question. As he probably knows, manufacturing industry production is already starting to move up slowly. I entirely agree that until we have got a higher level of production we cannot do many of the things that we wish to do, including increasing public expenditure on necessary things like housing and health. [column 225]

What is important is that we should not resume a higher level of production if it will mean higher inflation. That is the problem with which the Chancellor and others are wrestling at the moment. That is why the Government's efforts are bent on export-led growth. I am glad to be able to tell the House that our exports in 1976 were 12 per cent. higher in volume in the last quarter than the average in 1975.

Mr. Rooker

Does my right hon. Friend believe that industrial production will increase when accidents decrease? As Question No. 21, in my name, was not reached, will he confirm that it was a slip of the tongue when he said, earlier, that the reactivation of the health and safety provisions will take place in 1978? Did my right hon. Friend not mean 1977?

The Prime Minister

No, it was not a slip of the tongue. I said 1978 and I meant 1978.

Mr. Heffer

My right hon. Friend must be joking.

The Prime Minister

I am not joking at all. I promise my hon. Friend that I do not joke about these matters. The matter has been carefully discussed, and the regulations will be laid immediately. They will come into legal force on 1st October 1978, but it will be for employers and trade unions, if they wish—and a number will wish to do so—to introduce them earlier. My understanding is that they will want to get on with it.

Mr. Gordon Wilson

Is the Prime Minister aware that the abolition of the regional employment premium, without notice and consultation, is causing repercussions within Scottish industry and is affecting jobs? Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why the premium has been retained in Northern Ireland and why these changes are made without either planning agreements or any other sort of consultation?

The Prime Minister

These matters have been debated on previous occasions and I have nothing to add to what has been said before. I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman, nor is there much evidence, that this is having a profound effect on industry. In many cases we [column 226]must be able to make changes from time to time in order to ensure that the level and direction of Government support is applied where it gives greatest benefit. The regional employment premium was a very successful medium about 10 years ago, but had begun to outlive its usefulness because the amount of the premium was so small in relation to wages.

By contrast, some of the instruments that our predecessors provided and some that we are providing are enabling us to direct assistance where it is really needed. I assure the hon. Gentleman that this is by far the better way of doing it.

Mr. Kinnock

Will my right hon. Friend accept that the great virtue of the regional employment premium was that it discriminated in favour of those parts of the country with chronic, deep and long-term weaknesses in industrial terms? Both the CBI and the TUC have made representations to the Prime Minister and his right hon. Friends asking for a reversal of this policy so that we can encourage a shake-out of industry in order to provide new jobs for people who have been waiting for them for decades.

The Prime Minister

Yes, but the nature and type of unemployment has changed since REP was introduced about 12 years ago. Some of our large cities, including the inner cities—as I have seen for myself—have problems that are equal to those in the development areas. It is for this reason that we must keep up to date in the way in which we use Government assistance.

Mr. Churchill

How does the Prime Minister explain the scandalous fact that since March 1975 industrial production in two out of every three months under a Socialist Government has been lower than during the three-day working week at the time of the miners' strike? Is it not time that the right hon. Gentleman changed some of his Socialist priorities?

The Prime Minister

I can only say that after careful study I can see nothing better than the policy that we are following in order to try to overcome inflation and increase exports. In their secret hearts Members of the Opposition know that.

[column 227]

TUC

Q3. Mr. Adley

asked the Prime Minister when he last met the TUC.

Q4. Mr. Ridley

asked the Prime Minister when he last met the TUC.

Q8. Mr. Marten

asked the Prime Minister when he last met the TUC.

The Prime Minister

I refer the hon. Members to the reply that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Mr. Ovenden) on 7th December.

Mr. Adley

Is the Prime Minister aware of the current dispute at the BBC, where the Executive Committee of the NUJ has tried to impose a strike on the unwilling majority of NUJ members who are affiliated to the TUC? Does the Prime Minister agree that it is essential that the opportunity of a ballot be offered to workers, be it on the question of trade union membership or the closed shop? Will he take this matter up with the TUC and see if it will agree to include in future, as a recommendation to the member unions, the right to ballot on all these questions?

The Prime Minister

I shall examine the hon. Gentleman's question, but I do not want to give a reply this afternoon. With regard to the dispute between the BBC and the journalists, I believe that I am right in saying that this has now gone to ACAS. If so, ACAS should be allowed to arbitrate or conciliate on the matter, as seems to be necessary.

Mr. Ridley

When the Prime Minister next meets the TUC will he tell it that he prefers the views of his own Secretary of State, who, after all, is accountable to this House, and who seems to be veering towards the minority report, rather than the views of Mr. Len Murray, who does not even seem to speak for the TUC now?

The Prime Minister

It would be far better if the hon. Gentleman allowed us to begin the process of consultation. If we were to announce our decisions forthwith there would be an awful howl from the Opposition. What we are doing is to [column 228]announce the basis on which we shall consult. In due course, if the House will give us the time and the opportunity, we shall come forward with our proposals.

Mr. Marten

May I make a helpful suggestion to the Prime Minister? When he next meets the TUC, will he discuss with it the proposition that wage settlements in the major public sector industries should all be arrived at on one day—in other words, synchronised—to avoid the damage done by the leapfrogging of wage settlements?

The Prime Minister

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment is present on the Treasury Bench, and I am sure that he heard what the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) said. For myself, I can see great practical difficulties, however desirable this might be in theory. If we could work towards it, I should want to encourage it, but I do not think that it is likely to happen in next year's wage round.

Mr. Spearing

When my right hon. Friend next meets the TUC, will he discuss his recent welcome statements about the redevelopment of our inner cities? Is he aware that it would be possible to redevelop a great deal of East End dockland without disadvantage to the development areas and without increasing Government expenditure, simply by moving some of the development capital from the South-East into the East London area and away from the new towns? Is he aware, further, that if he answers this question and it is published in the local Stratford Express, it will be printed in Milton Keynes?

The Prime Minister

That is a great temptation to answer it. But we had a very useful discussion on this matter last weekend at the local government conference of the Labour Party. There is growing concern about the problem of our inner cities. I repeat what I have said already. As soon as resources become available, this is one of the priority problems that we must tackle. But we have to make resources available. The Government find themselves under considerable pressure from a great many sides to reduce public expenditure. That is what we have done. But we must deal with this problem as soon as we can.