Speeches, etc.

Margaret Thatcher

House of Commons PQs

Document type: Speeches, interviews, etc.
Venue: House of Commons
Source: Hansard HC [963/245-52]
Editorial comments: 1515-30.
Importance ranking: Major
Word count: 2869
Themes: Employment, Privatized & state industries, Pay, Trade unions
[column 245]

Prime Minister

(Engagements)

Q1. Mr. Ashton

asked the Prime Minister whether he will list his engagements for 20 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. I shall also be opening the premises of the new Policy Studies Institute.

Mr. Ashton

Will my right hon. Friend find time today to look at a report of an interview in the Sunday Telegraph of last Sunday with the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior), who defended the closed shop and said that the CBI in general welcomed it, said it would be disastrous for the Conservative Party to fight an election on confronting the unions and added that the White Paper last week was not a boneless wonder but a step in the right direction? In view of the current Dr. Jekyll and Mrs. Hyde policy of the Opposition Front Bench, will my right hon. Friend ask ACAS to settle the dispute?

The Prime Minister

What my hon. Friend said illustrates what the country knows. This is an enormously difficult area in which to reach agreement and to take action. I am not surprised at the differences between the Leader of the Opposition and her foremost spokesman on these matters. I hope that the Conservatives will do more to throw their weight behind the agreement that we reached with the TUC, which is—as the right hon. Gentleman said—a step in the right direction. I hope to see many more such steps taken.

Mr. Prior

If the Prime Minister and his right hon. and hon. Friends wish to see many more such steps taken, perhaps they will take the advice of my right hon. Friend and myself and back up the start which the TUC has made by putting some teeth into it and by supporting all-party legislation in the House on the closed shop, picketing and secret ballots.

The Prime Minister

I think that I noticed what the right hon. Lady had to say about responding to an approach by her. It would be very useful if we could have all-party agreement on the basis of [column 246]what has been done between the Government and the TUC. But I suggest that if she really wants all-party talks to get some agreement, she might try to reach agreement with her own spokesman first.

Mr. Madden

Is my right hon. Friend concerned about the axe which seems to be hanging over BBC current affairs programmes which, if carried through, would deny the nation an opportunity of seeing the disarray that there is in industrial relations matters in the Tory Party, as revealed on last night's Panorama programme? Will he arrange for a rocket to be put under the Home Office study on how to finance the BBC so that we may have a scheme whereby the BBC is financed from the Exchequer? At a stroke that would relieve many old people and low-paid workers of the television licence payment and give the broadcasters adequate sums of money with which to do their job.

The Prime Minister

It would indeed be convenient and palatable to the public and those who think like my hon. Friend if they were relieved of the payment of the television licence fee, but the addition of that formidable sum to our public expenditure would mean that we should have to make cuts elsewhere. I would not think that right. That is my view.

Sir Timothy Kitson

Will the Prime Minister have a word with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and ask him how it is that neither he nor his predecessor, nor any of the junior Ministers in his Department, in the past four and a half years of the Labour Administration, have found time to visit, either formally or informally, Catterick camp, which is the second largest military establishment in this country? If they are unable to come, would the Prime Minister like to call there some time?

The Prime Minister

I should be very happy indeed to call. On the last occasion that I visited the headquarters of the Royal Armoured Corps I made a direct hit on a target from one of our tanks. I think that it was more luck than skill.

Mr. Burden

It was certainly the first that the right hon. Gentleman has ever made.

The Prime Minister

I shall make one on the hon. Gentleman if he is not careful. [column 247]

I wonder whether the hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Sir T. Kitson) is correct in his facts about Ministers visiting Catterick camp. I shall inquire into this. I am assured that he may be incorrect, so perhaps some check ought to be made.

Q2. Mr. Skinner

asked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 20 February.

The Prime Minister

I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I have just given to my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton).

Mr. Skinner

Is the Prime Minister aware that, according to Government statistics, about £20 million a day is going to the aid of private companies? He referred earlier to a study group. Will he ask for a study to be made not of the trade unions but of the correlation between the amount of money going to private companies and the financing of the Tory Party as a result of these large donations in the form of tax relief, grants, and so on? Is not the truth that the Leader of the Opposition is in favour of using public money only as long as it finishes in the Tory Party's pocket?

The Prime Minister

It is the case, as my hon. Friend says—although I have not checked his arithmetic—that a very large sum of money is going by way of grants and subsidies to private industry in this country, in order to promote employment, to promote exports, to help it with credit facilities, and in many other ways which are deeply appreciated. Rather than set in hand the study to which my hon. Friend refers, it might be more useful if we set in hand a study of what would happen if ever the Conservative Party came to power and removed this kind of subsidy. A study could be made of the adverse effect that it would have on employment in this country. That would be more to the point.

Mrs. Thatcher

As part of James Callaghanthe Prime Minister's new pay policy appears to be the doctrine of comparability, pending comparability studies between the private sector and the public sector may we know what the Prime Minister's definition of comparability includes? Does it include similar manning levels, a similar degree of job security, and a similar entitlement to inflation-proof pensions?

[column 248]

The Prime Minister

We are entering into discussions so that any body that is set up to examine these questions of comparability in the future, as review bodies have done in the past, will have an agreed set of criteria. Those that the right hon. Lady has mentioned would clearly be included among them, because they are of importance. There are other issues, such as pension rights and matters of that sort, all of which have to be taken into account when real comparability is assessed.

Mrs. Thatcher

I am grateful to the Prime Minister for accepting that these three things must be included in any comparability study. Does he agree with Mr. Frank Chapple that everyone knows that there is gross overmanning in the public sector? If he does, will he accept that the only way to meet increased pay claims is by job shedding?

The Prime Minister

It is not my responsibility to answer for the views of any trade union leader, however eminent, and however colourful his language. I am not required, therefore, to comment on what Mr. Chapple has to say. I have always found that he expresses his views in a forceful manner. I have no doubt that he will continue to do so. Frequently there is a large degree of truth in what he has to say, but not all truth is reposed even in him.

Mr. John Home Robertson

Will my right hon. Friend cast his mind back to the marathon task of putting the Scotland Act 1978 on the statute book? Is he aware that there are people, mainly in the Conservative Party, who claim to be convinced devolutionists and who are advising people to vote “No” in the referendum, simply because of minor shortcomings in certain sections of the Act? Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the Act is rejected by the people of Scotland it is unlikely that there will be another opportunity for radical constitutional reform in Scotland in his lifetime or in mine?

The Prime Minister

After the great efforts that the Government made, extending over two or three Sessions, with several White Papers and two or three Bills, before we finally turned this proposal into an Act with the assent of Parliament, I think that my hon. Friend is right when he says that if devolution were to be [column 249]rejected it would be a very bold Government who would pick up the issue again and try to put it through Parliament. That is why I regard the issue that is about to be decided as of first importance. I hope that everybody will vote. I hope that the people of Scotland and of Wales will vote “Yes” .

Mr. Alexander Fletcher

In view of that reply, will the Prime Minister take time today to ensure that the referendum broadcasts are apportioned in accordance with the question on the ballot paper and not on a party political basis? Is he aware that, despite the interdict granted in the Court of Session last Friday against the IBA, the BBC is at this moment considering going ahead with its broadcasts on a party political basis? Will he now take responsibility for ensuring that both the “Yes” and the “No” campaigns are given a fair and equal opportunity to present their case to the Scottish people before they make this important and irreversible decision?

The Prime Minister

These broadcasts are the responsibility not of the Government but of the parties. It was the parties which had the discussion with the BBC and IBA. It is for the parties, therefore, to take up these matters if they wish to do so. What the BBC does is a matter for the BBC. If I may express a personal hope, I trust that these broadcasts will go on. I do not see why the Conservative Party should seek to deny the people of Scotland or of Wales the fullest information that they can get.

Brigg and Scunthorpe

Q3. Mr. John Ellis

asked the Prime Minister if he will visit the constituency of Brigg and Scunthorpe.

The Prime Minister

I have at present no plans to visit Brigg and Scunthorpe.

Mr. Ellis

Will my right hon. Friend reconsider that answer? If he came to Brigg and Scunthorpe he would be able to talk to ordinary people. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend is aware that Humberside is one of the two areas with a new county council, the other being Avon. This has been resented by the people in the area. It was a disaster brought about by the former Conservative [column 250]Administration. When my right hon. Friend is considering the Government's proposals for organic change, will he have a word with his colleagues to ensure that more power is brought back to the smaller local authorities, rather than leaving it with the big nine?

The Prime Minister

From my visits around the country—and I shall be very happy to come to both Brigg and Scunthorpe in due course—I have found substantial dissatisfaction with the reorganisation of local government which took place as the result of legislation passed by the former Administration. I shall refer to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment what my hon. Friend has said about extending the powers further, but I think that we should start cautiously in this matter. What my hon. Friend has proposed has met with a great deal of consent.

Q4. Mr. Ashley

asked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 20 February.

The Prime Minister

I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton).

Mr. Ashley

Will the Prime Minister find time to consider the fact that many countries are not accepting a reasonable number of refugees from Indo-China, with very serious consequences for the refugees and for Hong Kong? Will he now consider a new British initiative, through the United Nations and the Commonwealth, to try to persuade many other countries to accept a fair quota of refugees from Indo-China?

The Prime Minister

I am aware of my hon. Friend's great concern in this matter, particularly since his recent visit to Hong Kong. I realise the strain that has been placed on the colony. It would not be fair to say that this country has not given a lead, both financially and in its willingness to take refugees—what are called the boat people. We have also represented to the Vietnamese Government that it would be as well if they would desist from permitting their officials to accept money in order to get people out of the country in this way. It is resulting in a corrupt traffic which, I believe, would be condemned by everybody.

[column 251]

Mr. Hooson

May I revert to the reference by the Leader of the Opposition to the job-shedding suggestion made by a certain trade union leader? Will the Prime Minister consider during the day that in areas such as my own, thanks to the co-operation between such bodies as the Rural Development Board, representing public investment, and private industry concerned with private investment, new industries and new jobs have been set up? Is not this a necessary corollary before we can consider large-scale job shedding in established or petrified industries?

The Prime Minister

I agree entirely with the hon. and learned Member. What is clear is that if we are to have additional productivity, which we need in a great many areas of our public and private sectors, there must be, side by side with that, stimulation and help from Government funds and Government subsidies so that new businesses can be created, as we have seen very much to our advantage in South Wales and, I believe, in mid-Wales. In my own constituency I have seen what great value can be achieved by this. That is why I believe that the statement by the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) that all grants and subsidies do harm is hopelessly unrelated to reality.

Mr. Whitelaw

Perhaps I may bring the Prime Minister back in his considerations today to the problem of broadcasting during the referendum campaign. Does not he agree that, in the very difficult circumstances that have now arisen, it would be far better to revert to the principle of two broadcasts for the “Yes” vote and two broadcasts for the “No” vote, a proposal which the Conservative Party has all along strongly supported?

The Prime Minister

I was not present at the discussions that took place on this matter. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman was present. However, I must say that there is some dispute as to his version.

Mr. Whitelaw

indicated dissent.

The Prime Minister

There is a dispute as to the right hon. Gentleman's version of what took place at those meetings. The right hon. Gentleman the Opposition Chief Whip was also involved in them. As to whether the Conservative [column 252]Party has taken that view, that is something on which I must reserve judgment. As to the future, I believe that the arrangements entered into by the parties at that time were correct, and I hope that they can be carried through.

Mr. Whitelaw

I put it to the Prime Minister that, irrespective of what happened at any meetings, the issue now is that a new situation has arisen because of the injunction in the courts, which has invalidated the agreements made at that time. In that situation, would it not be fairer to revert to the principle of two broadcasts for the “Yes” campaign and two for the “No” campaign, which, after all, would seem to be abundantly fair and would be in line with what the broadcasting authorities could do and were prepared to do?

The Prime Minister

If the right hon. Gentleman wants to have fresh discussions between the parties it is open to him to take that up, but this is not a matter of governmental responsibility. I thought at the time that the arrangements that the parties had made, which I believed met with acquiescence if not agreement, were probably right. However, I do not wish to see anyone denied access to this medium. The more people who hear the arguments, the more likely they are to vote “Yes” when the day comes.