Nationalised Industries
Q1. Mr. Robert Hughes
asked the Prime Minister when he plans next to meet the heads of nationalised industries.
The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan)
I do not meet the heads of nationalised industries as a group, but I see them individually from time to time.
Mr. Robert Hughes
Will my right hon. Friend make a special effort to meet the chairman of British Shipbuilders to discuss how efficiency in the shipbuilding industry can be rewarded, not just in terms of wages but in security of employment? Will my right hon. Friend arrange to have discussions with the chairman of British Shipbuilders and Government Departments to see that orders are brought forward early in order to provide jobs which would help companies such as the excellent one in my own constituency, Hall Russell?
The Prime Minister
I shall convey the views of my hon. Friend to the Secretary of State for Industry. He is considering the corporate plan put forward by British Shipbuilders. As regards security for the future, shipbuilding industries all over the world face redundancies because of the shortage of orders. We have attempted to safeguard the position of workers in British shipyards as far as possible through our intervention funds.
[column 1478]Mr. McCrindle
Could the Prime Minister persuade the chairman of British Rail that, before large sums of additional money are spent on projects such as the high-speed train, something should be done to restore to the hundreds and thousands of London commuters a modest standard of civilised comfort?
The Prime Minister
I shall convey the hon. Gentleman's remarks to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. In trying to improve the conditions of commuters, which I hope is the constant preoccupation of those concerned, I hope that we shall not depart from recognising the great benefit that the high-speed trains provide. They are a good advertisement for British enterprise.
Mr. Lee
Will my right hon. Friend include among his visits to the nationalised industries a visit to the Governor of the Bank of England to discuss with him the unedifying aspects of the tap stocks and security lodgings on 22 February? Does my right hon. Friend agree that those matters were about as edifying as the Gadarene swine rushing to the Sea of Galilee?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is under a misapprehension. I am not proposing to visit the heads of nationalised industries. He has made that deduction, no doubt, in order to get in his supplementary question. As regards the conditions on the issue of the last tap stocks, many of us have felt for some time that there is a good case for reviewing the methods of funding the Government debt. The methods do not seem to be based on logic at present.
Mr. Farr
Does not the right hon. Gentleman recognise that the list of nationalised firms is over 14 ft long and consists of more than 1,000 firms? The sooner the list is abolished, the sooner the national economy will improve.
The Prime Minister
I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. I have the list before me and I note that a great many of the major concerns are able, as a result of their surpluses, to finance their own capital investment, to the tune of more than £2 billion a year. It seems an odd day for the hon. Gentleman to talk of reducing the list. The Opposition spokesman on shipbuilding has just announced that one of the first actions [column 1479]of a Conservative Government would be to abandon their plans to denationalise shipbuilding.
Trades Union Congress
Q2. Mr. Mike Thomas
asked the Prime Minister when he plans next to meet the Trades Union Congress.
The Prime Minister
I meet representatives of the TUC from time to time at the National Economic Development Council and on other occasions. Further meetings will be arranged as necessary.
Mr. Thomas
Those of us on this side of the House welcome, as does the TUC, the appointment of the Standing Commission on comparability which the Prime Minister announced yesterday, but is my right hon. Friend aware that an incomes policy for the next pay round will not work unless the work of the Commission is extended to consider private sector settlements, where the leapfrogging starts?
The Prime Minister
There has been a welcome for the establishment of the Standing Commission, except on the Conservative Benches where, as The Daily Telegraph said today, there was nothing but scorn. It would be helpful if the Opposition would tell us whether the Commission is one of the institutions which they propose to abandon if they ever get the chance of coming to office. That would influence a great many people in their approach to these questions.
On the general matter of the relationship of the Commission to the private sector, I think that we should wait and see how the Commission develops. I am certain that there must be a period of experiment first in order to see whether the Commission can establish the authority that I believe would introduce a much better atmosphere into the sectors of the economy that it will handle.
Mr. Cyril Smith
When the Prime Minister meets the TUC, will he discuss the pay of ambulance men? Is he aware that three services—the ambulance men, police and the fire brigade—are called to accidents? Does he agree that the pay of ambulance men should be considered by the Standing Commission on the basis that the ambulance service is [column 1480]an emergency service comparable to the other two?
The Prime Minister
It would be quite improper for me to do any such thing. The purpose of the Commission will be to examine all those sorts of arguments advanced by the ambulance men or others and to reach conclusions on them. There is no point in setting up such a Commission, only for hon. Members to ask me to declare myself on what should be the basis of its judgments.
Mr. Paul Dean
When the Prime Minister meets the TUC, will he explain why the nurses, who will not strike, are being offered the same pay rise as are employees who are prepared to use patients as hostages in their pay battle? Is that not another example of the Government conveying that militancy pays and dedication to duty does not?
The Prime Minister
That is an entirely false conclusion. I do not know that we should introduce, as a basis for fixing remuneration, the question whether people default on their duties.—[Hon. Members: “Why not” ?] Will hon. Members please hear me out? That matter should be dealt with by stopping the remuneration of those concerned when they strike. That is the way in which it should be done. The offer made to the nurses—and the House and the country should understand this—is worth more than £6 a week to an unqualified nurse, more than £7 a week to a qualified enrolled nurse and between £7 and £8 a week to the next grade up. In addition, an offer has been made that the nurses should go, without any reservations, and with the prior acceptance by the Government of any objective assessment, to the new comparability Commission. For anyone to suggest that such an offer is derisory is to lose touch with reality.
Mr. Noble
When my right hon. Friend next meets the TUC, will he discuss the trade deal with China? What assurances will he be able to give the TUC that, as a result of the deal, there will be no increased import penetration in sensitive industries such as textiles and footwear?
The Prime Minister
I cannot give any assurance today on those matters. It will clearly depend on the contracts that are entered into with China and I understand that they have still to be concluded. [column 1481]If we are to export, we must obviously import. Both sides of the equation go together, but we have taken action with selective import controls to protect some of our sensitive industries.
Prime Minister
(Engagements)
Q3. Mr. Shepherd
asked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 8th March.
The Prime Minister
This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be holding further meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, including one with the president of the European Commission.
Mr. Shepherd
Now that the Prime Minister has had a week to ponder on the results of the referendums and also had the opportunity of a full Cabinet meeting, will he be more forthcoming about his intentions concerning the orders to annul the Scotland and Wales Acts? If it is not his intention imminently to lay the orders before the House, will he explain fully his reticence?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman is right. There was a discussion this morning and we are continuing our discussions on the matter. The House need not fear. We shall not unduly delay the laying of the orders. There is no intention to do that, but as I said on Tuesday—and I have nothing to add to that—there is a need to take time for a proper reflection of the matter and not to rush into decisions.
Mr. Christopher Price
Could my right hon. Friend find time today to come to the London borough of Lewisham, where he once lived? Is he aware that if he did he would discover that, although there is general satisfaction in the rest of the country that the local authority manual workers' strike is finishing, unofficial groups have stepped up action in Lewisham to the point where labour is being withdrawn even from homes for spastics? Will my right hon. Friend make clear that we on this side of the House condemn that sort of action as much as does anyone else?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend was good enough to ring 10 Downing [column 1482]Street about this matter last night and I am glad to say that those who assist me followed up the matter. I understand that there is a meeting this afternoon between the people concerned in Lewisham and I certainly hope that they will bring their action to an end. There is no authority for it in the agreement made with the TUC and that agreement is, I am glad to say, being increasingly observed.
Mrs. Thatcher
May I press James Callaghanthe Prime Minister a little further on his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd)? Does the Prime Minister recall that when he was interviewed on “Panorama” last week about what would happen to the Scottish and Welsh Assemblies in the event of the 40 per cent. rule not being reached, he replied with words to the effect that he would answer the question next week when he knew what the voting had been. Here we are in next week. Why does the Prime Minister still shrink from laying the orders and allowing the House time to debate them?
The Prime Minister
The answer may not be satisfactory to the right hon. Lady, but at least I have given it. Even I did not see at that time that the result would be so close. [Interruption.] I am sure that all Opposition Members foresaw that. They get everything right. When we have a result that is as close at is was in Scotland, we face a serious issue and the House should not take it lightly. Our task is to preserve the unity of the United Kingdom and the unity of Scotland. I do not intend to delay unduly on this matter, nor do I intend to be pushed into action just because Conservative Back Benchers are shouting at me. I give the right hon. Lady the further assurance that there will be no undue delay on this matter. It is 10 years since the argument started and two years since legislation was introduced. It is not unreasonable to have a few weeks to consider what should be done.
Mr. David Steel
I invite the Prime Minister to look at what Mr. Gladstone said in 1890 on this matter. He complained that he had been endeavouring for four years to persuade the voters to accept Irish autonomy and pointed out that he had rolled the great stone up to the top of the hill only to see it roll [column 1483]down again. May I ask the Prime Minister not to let this matter rest for a few weeks without making any statement at all. The important thing is not whether the Act is repealed but whether the definition of a genuine form of devolution remains.
The Prime Minister
There is no doubt that the Government remain committed to a policy of devolution. How it is to be achieved is another matter. We are giving most earnest consideration to seeing how the matter raised by the right hon. Gentleman can be carried forward in the light of the majority that was secured in Scotland. I shall be ready to come to the House again after reasonable consideration. There will not be any undue delay. I ask the House to accept that. We shall come to the House and indicate what we think is the best way forward.
Mr. William Ross
Is my right hon. Friend aware that most Scottish MPs sitting behind him at least applaud his decision to take some time over this matter? Will he remind the Leader of the Opposition that the “Yes” side actually won? Can my right hon. Friend think of any major Act of Parliament in this Parliament or any other Parliament in the last 20 years that could withstand successfully a well and mysteriously financed campaign of misrepresentation so successfully put to the nation?
[column 1484]The Prime Minister
Yes, Sir. What my right hon. Friend says is true. There was a majority.
Mr. Andrew MacKay
Four to one against.
The Prime Minister
I am talking about Scotland. This needs to be taken carefully into account when the House decides what is the best way forward on this matter. It would be irresponsible to come forward at this stage when there is a majority and to say that all the wishes of that majority are to be flouted. That is why we need time to consider the matter and, if possible, to arrive at a conclusion. I would like a conclusion that was shared by the whole House, if such a thing were possible.
Mr. Donald Stewart
Since there was a clear majority for “Yes” , and in view of the firm commitment of the Labour Party to provide Scotland with an assembly, will the Prime Minister explain why there should be any further delay?
The Prime Minister
I dare say that the right hon. Gentleman has not overlooked the fact that Parliament inserted certain provisions into the Act which have not been fulfilled in the result that was secured. It is this matter which must be taken into account by hon. Members and by the House as a whole.