Skip to main content

National Economic Development Council

Volume 892: debated on Thursday 22 May 1975

The text on this page has been created from Hansard archive content, it may contain typographical errors.

Q3.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will take the chair at the next meeting of the NEDC.

Q4.

asked the Prime Minister when he next expects to take the chair at the NEDC.

Q8.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will be taking the chair at the next meeting of NEDC.

Q10.

asked the Prime Minister when he next intends to take the chair at the NEDC.

I refer the hon. Members and my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, West (Mr. Horam) on 20th May.

Will the right hon. Gentleman now answer instead of evading the question which was asked of him by my hon. Friend the Member for Melton (Mr. Latham)? How does he expect strikers to believe that the Government cannot be forced into taking over their companies as long as he retains the Secretary of State for Industry as a member of his Cabinet?

I think that the hon. Gentleman is a little obsessive on this question. Indeed, the Conservatives all are, the whole lot of them. If only they would give a little more of their minds to forming a policy on industrial matters! Perhaps we shall get that this afternoon. I made it clear in January in my constituency, where there are many car workers, that we were not going to put money into the car industry in respect of continued strikes. I made that clear, and that is clear in the monitoring arrangements for British Leyland—the proposals for which the Conservative Party voted against last night.

As regards the Chrysler situation, I saw reports, and hon. Members saw reports—and I have now seen a further report—that there were some people—I am referring not to any individual shop steward but to some people of standing in the city's affairs—who looked forward to a certain situation being created, or who said that if the strike led to such a situation the Government would proceed to nationalise. I have made it clear that not one penny of Government money will go in to sustain a situation created by an unofficial strike of that kind.

Does the Prime Minister agree that if the NEB is to be more than a receptacle for "lame ducks" it needs to work within a carefully worked out industrial strategy, and a strategy that concentrates resources on those sectors which are most essential to our national survival? Does he accept that in this respect the NEDC, with all the planning work that it has done with representatives of both sides of industry, can play an important rôle?

Yes: I agree with what my hon. Friend said about the NEDC. As regards the NEB, the guidelines within which it should work, and its operations, these matters were set out in the White Paper which was published last year. I have made it clear that when the Bill emerges from Committee we shall go through it again and decide what, if any, amendments are needed on Report. However, it has an essential part to play in the regeneration of British industry. If I catch your eye this afternoon, Mr. Speaker—I am not canvassing you in any way—I hope to be able to deal with some of the points that have been made by my hon. Friend.

Assuming that the Prime Minister was not speaking in a personal capacity on Tuesday, will he confirm that it is the Government's joint view that it is desirable in principle for trade union elections to be conducted by postal ballots?

I have made clear that we have had no effective discussions on this matter since the events in the AUEW over the weekend. I understand that action is being taken within the union. It would be inappropriate for me to comment on the matter now. I have expressed my view and I am sure that it is the view of many hon. Members in all parts of the House.

In view of the infancy of democratic practices in the Conservative Party, when the next election takes place for the replacement of the present Leader of the Opposition do the Government plan to make funds available for the conduct of a postal ballot in the Tory Party?

There is no ministerial responsibility now or in the future for anything affecting the leadership of the Conservative Party. My hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Noble) seems to be a little out of date in his references to the infancy of democracy in the Conservative Party. I thought that last night, at a late hour, when I was in the House, there were signs of incipient democracy breaking out in the party.

In view of the overriding importance at present of containing public spending, will the Prime Minister give to the next meeting of the NEDC, and today to the House, a firm assurance that the borrowing requirement for this year is still—and will continue to be throughout the year—not more than £9,000 million, as estimated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and not £10,000 million, which has been said to involve unacceptable risks?

These matters are not usually debated at the NEDC in respect of the Budget. I have no information that it is likely to come up at the meeting which I shall be chairing. It will undoubtedly come up this afternoon in the House in the debate on the economy, and I have no doubt that we shall all be dealing with the broad questions of the economic strategy.

Before the Prime Minister gets too enthusiastic about postal ballots, will he cast his mind back to the days of the old ETU and to what happened when Communists gained control through irregularities in postal voting at a time when the Right Wing had control of the engineers through the ballot box? If it is acceptable for every hon. Member of this House to be voted in by personal visits to the ballot box, why should not the trade unions operate the same system?

I am sure that my hon. Friend and I are in total agreement that, whatever the system, we are opposed to the scandals which took place in the ETU some years ago, or, indeed, to any other scandals in any form of balloting, whether trade union or not.