TUC
Q1. Mr. Gould
asked the Prime Minister when he next intends to meet the TUC.
The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan)
I met representatives of the TUC on 28th February. Further meetings will be arranged as necessary.
Mr. Gould
Will my right hon. Friend point out to the TUC that the one good feature of the secret Conservative report on confrontation with the unions is that it apparently gives the short shrift that it deserves to the belief of the Leader of the Opposition that a referendum would be a useful weapon in the Tory armoury? Is it not disturbing that the Conservative Party is apparently thinking in terms of confrontation when our own experience over the past four years shows that co-operation with the unions is not only possible but is very beneficial to the whole country?
[column 662]The Prime Minister
Unless and until the Opposition decide to publish this document, I have no particular knowledge of it. However, if it is true that it is pointing in the opposite direction, namely, that there should be no confrontation, it is high time that the Conservative Party revised its whole approach to trade unions. The great misfortune of British politics is that the Conservative Party seems to have come to the conclusion that it cannot beat the trade unions, but its distaste for them is such that it cannot co-operate with them, either.
Mr. David Steel
Is the Prime Minister aware that some of us are dismayed by the reception given yesterday to Mr. Weighell and Mr. Jackson at the Scottish Trades Union conference? Will he make it clear in future meetings with the TUC that the Government are determined to stick to a fourth phase of pay policy, preferably by agreement with the trade unions?
The Prime Minister
I am not yet in a position to discuss what happens when the present phase of pay policy is over. I note that Mr. Weighell and Mr. Jackson are in the public sector. In this sector the Government have a special responsibility and must take a view about pay. The comments that have been made—by Mr. Basnett, for example—emanate mostly from trade union leaders in the public sector. We should discuss these matters with them, but it would be wrong at this stage to do anything except to try to win through on the current pay round. Then we should be able, as we are now increasingly able, to present the trade union movement with the statement that inflation is going down, and will stay well in single figures, and that much will depend upon our being able to maintain it in single figures during 1979.
Mr. Terry Walker
When he next meets the TUC will my right hon. Friend discuss the implications of his “Buy British” speech at Huddersfield, with special regard to the news that British Airways wish to buy foreign aircraft? Will he make sure that the TUC and trade unionists are reassured by the fact that the Government will be influencing British Airways over this matter?
The Prime Minister
In reply to the general point, I, with my colleagues, have been giving a good deal of attention to [column 663]the subject of “buying British” . Although I am strongly in favour of that concept I must emphasise that the British goods must be in the shops and elsewhere if they are to be bought. Therefore, perhaps we should start with the relationship between suppliers and those who sell the goods. I hope to have more to say about that matter later.
As for British Airways, there is a great conflict of interest, which is probably threefold. I do not propose to be rushed into a statement, but the whole matter will be considered carefully and our conclusions laid before Parliament.
Mr. Hannam
When the Prime Minister meets the TUC, will he discuss the increasing shortage of young people coming forward for training in engineering skills? The Budget has done nothing to provide incentives for young people or anybody else to take up skilled training? Is this not related to our low level of productivity? When will he do something about the situation?
The Prime Minister
I am surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman make that comment, because I understood that the Engineering Training Board was carrying out a very good job and maintaining the level of training and engineering during this recession at a higher level than had been maintained earlier. However, I shall bring the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the notice of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment and I shall examine the matter further.
Q2. Mr. Robinson
asked the Prime Minister when he next plans to meet the TUC.
The Prime Minister
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I have just given to my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Gould).
Mr. Robinson
When my right hon. Friend next meets the TUC will he further remind it of the firm and courageous support given by the Government to British Leyland, which makes such an important contribution to the nation's economy, balance of payments and employment? Will he contrast the Government's attitude with the irresponsible and hypocritical equivocation of the Opposition who, despite their weasel words of support, [column 664]voted against the provision of finance on a sufficient scale as to ensure the success of this vital national asset?
The Prime Minister
I welcomed my hon. Friend's informed speech on this subject when we debated the order relating to British Leyland. It was in marked contrast to some of the other speeches that we have heard.
It is the case that the Opposition seem to be a little uncertain whether to support British Leyland. Indeed, at one stage they were not even certain whether they intended to vote against the order. However, I hope that they will clear up the uncertainty of their attitude towards this great firm and the industry that depends on it.
Mr. Michael Marshall
Did the Prime Minister have an opportunity to read the full report in The Times about the relationship between the TUC and the major parties? If he did, did he take in the remark from a senior Whitehall source, contained at the end of that report, that the TUC could probably count on a better relationship with Tory Ministers, since Labour Ministers treated it with contempt?
The Prime Minister
I saw that remark as reported. I thought that if that was typical of former civil servants' opinions, on which they advised the previous Administration, it was a jolly good job that those civil servants had now retired.
Mr. William Hamilton
Will my right hon. Friend discuss with the relevant union leaders in the National Health Service the consequences of the speech made by the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), who suggested the establishment of two Health Services, one private and one public—the public one dealing with all the less glamorous facilities, such as geriatric and mental health, and the other, presumably, with rich women wanting abortions?
The Prime Minister
I would consider discussing this matter with the TUC, but I have no doubt, without discussing it with its members, what their views would be, namely, that there should be one Health Service in this country and that good health is not something that should be denied to anybody because of poverty.
[column 665]Mrs. Thatcher
Does James Callaghanthe Prime Minister agree that although he is discussing problems of pay, the real problem in this country is low output, and that one of the limiting factors in the way of increasing output is likely to be an insufficiency of skilled labour? One of the reasons for that is that the differentials are not sufficient to give proper rewards for skill and extra responsibility? Will he discuss the matter with the TUC and tell the House what are his proposals to restore those differentials and give the TUC the freedom to negotiate to see that differentials are restored?
The Prime Minister
I agree with some part of the right hon. Lady's comments, although instead of saying that the problem is due to low output, I would say that it is more due to low productivity and that we need a higher level of productivity if we are to have a high wage economy.
The shortage of skilled labour has been discussed with NEDO on a number of occasions at National Economic Development Council meetings, and will continue to be discussed. The subject is under review by employers and trade unions, and I shall bring to their notice the right hon. Lady's observations.
Mrs. Thatcher
The Prime Minister is ducking the main question. He will not get sufficient people training for extra skills until the differentials are restored. Is he aware that skillcentres have vacancies for those who wish to take up engineering skills—vacancies that are not being filled by our workers are going instead to foreigners? [Hon. Members: “Oh.” ] Does he agree that until he restores differentials, the retraining programme will not be taken up by the unemployed for whom those places are meant?
The Prime Minister
I do not think that I would object to skillcentre vacancies that are otherwise not required going to foreigners, and I hope that the right hon. Lady would not do so. All our past experience shows that those trained in British factories who then return to their own countries tend to order from British firms and increase our future exports. On the subject of differentials, the right hon. Lady shows her incomplete understanding of the way in which bargaining systems [column 666]work. It is not for me to restore differentials; that is a matter for negotiation between trade unions and employers.
PRIME MINISTER
(ENGAGEMENTS)
Q3. Mr. Greville Janner
asked the Prime Minister whether he will list his official engagements for 20th April.
The Prime Minister
This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be holding further meetings with ministerial colleagues and others.
Mr. Janner
Will my right hon. Friend be speaking to President Carter today to congratulate him on his highly imaginative energy conservation programme? In view of the limited nature of our own North Sea treasures, is it not time that we had a similar programme here?
The Prime Minister
I shall not be speaking to President Carter today, but I am sure that he would not mind my telling the House that I spoke to him on this matter on Monday last. We had a very interesting conversation. I repeated the view that I have expressed to him privately—I know that he will not mind my saying it publicly—that I believe that the passage of the energy Bill by Congress would do more to strengthen the dollar, in the short term, than would any other single action by the United States. I hope that Congress will pass that Bill, if it is not improper for me to say so. I believe that it would strengthen world confidence and world output.
As for our own policy, I believe that the domestic insulation and industrial insulation conservation measures announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be a great help, together with the other measures announced in the White Paper on North Sea oil.
Mr. Churchill
The Prime Minister will be aware that since 1st April 1975 the pay of the Armed Forces has now fallen more than 30 per cent. behind average industrial earnings.
Mr. Ashton
Because they have such a lousy shop steward.
Mr. Churchill
Does he agree that it would be wholly wrong for members of [column 667]the Armed Forces to be penalised over the next 12 months merely because they had been badly treated over the past 24 months? Will he now confirm that he realises that if he were to give a pay increase of less than 30 per cent. he would be perpetuating an already grave injustice?
The Prime Minister
I note the hon. Member's views. I hope to make a statement on this subject next week. All these matters will be taken into account before then.
Mr. John Garrett
Will my right hon. Friend contact President Carter today to verify newspaper reports that the American Administration are rather concerned about the growth of racialism in this country, prompted by the leading figure on the Opposition Benches, because he believes that this detracts from the moral superiority of the West?
The Prime Minister
I discuss matters of substance, not the Opposition, with the President of the United States.
Mr. Gwynfor Evans
Has the Prime Minister had time today to reflect upon the major change to the Wales Bill that was made last night by the House, with the unexpected help of the Conservatives? Is the Prime Minister aware that this change, according to “Erskine May” , means that if the Bill becomes an Act it will become operative immediately without a referendum? What proposals has he to make in view of this situation?
The Prime Minister
I thought that this was very interesting. I went into it with some care and I believe that the hon. Member's interpretation is right. What the Conservative Party—which is opposed to devolution—has voted for is that the Bill should come into force immediately that Royal Assent is given without a referendum being held. The Opposition then have the infernal impudence to suggest that the Bill is a shambles. I agree. They made it a shambles.