House Of Commons
Thursday 18th May 1978
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
Prayers
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Messages From The Queen
Double Taxation Relief
The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported Her Majesty's Answers to the Addresses, as follows:
I have received your Addresses, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Singapore) Order 1978 and the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Ghana) Order 1978 be made in the form of the drafts laid before your House.
I will comply with your request.
I have received your Address praying that on the ratification by the Hungarian People's Republic of the Convention set out in the Schedule to the draft Order entitled the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Hungary) Order 1978, which draft was laid before your House, an Order may be made in the form of that draft.
I will comply will your request.
Private Business
Greater London Council (General Powers) Bill (By Order)
Order for consideration, as amended, read.
As amended, to be considered upon Wednesday next at Seven o'clock.
Oral Answers To Questions
Agriculture, Fisheries And Food
Forestry
1.
asked the Minister of Agriculture Fisheries and Food what is the total acreage of land under silviculture in the United Kingdom.
The total area of woodland in the United Kingdom is estimated at just over 5 million acres.
Is the Minister aware that that is a small percentage in comparison with that of most European countries and that it is serious when regarded in the light of our known requirements in the future? What further encouragement can the Minister give to private woodland owners to plant small parcels of scrub and derelict land with trees, so as not to use up more good agricultural land for forestry?
With particular respect to the hon. Member's concern about small areas of derelict land, I think that he will welcome the Government's introduction of the small woods scheme. Further, the increased rates of grant which came into operation last October should lead to some increase in private planting.
Does the Minister appreciate that compared with countries of similar population and development, such as France and Germany, we have less than one-third of what they have in forestry? With a timber import bill now of over £2,000 million, surely something drastic must be done in relation to our forestry.
Certainly we should like to see an increased acreage of forestry, but I think that the hon. Member will surely recognise that we have some very substantial areas of productive agricultural land which it would be quite inappropriate to plant with trees.
Will my hon. Friend confirm that the present Government are not pursuing the policy that was established by the Conservative Government in 1972, which assumed that there was no economic future in forestry? Does he agree that the long-term interests of this country suggest that silviculture should be encouraged very strongly indeed?
I agree with both of my hon. Friend's observations. In this connection, I know that he will welcome the long-term study which has been carried out by a group set up by the Forestry Commission and which is now being circulated as a consultative document for comments.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not be too defensive about this matter. He is not being attacked. But does he agree that for a nation such as ours to be content to produce less than 10 per cent. of its timber requirements is really very dangerous and quite unsatisfactory?
I am deeply grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for assuring me that neither he nor his colleagues are attacking me in any way. I certainly agree that we want to increase timber production. Indeed, leaving aside the planting programme, actual production ought to increase in the near future. But, of course, the right hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the fact that we still produce less than 10 per cent. of our total requirements of timber.
9.
asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will next meet the chairman of the Forestry Commission.
Neither my right hon. Friend the Minister nor I have any plans at present to meet the chairman of the Forestry Commission.
Will the Minister take the opportunity to read the recent report prepared by the Forestry Commission? Will he make it clear to the House what proposals in the report he intends to recommend to the Government? Does he want to keep the forestry industry as it is, or does he want to increase it by 1,000 hectares or 8,000 hectares? Will the Minister advise the House of the position?
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has drawn attention to that important report. He may be aware that the Forestry Commission is treating it as a consultative document and is inviting comments from all interested parties. It will then put the issue to Ministers.
When the Minister meets the chairman of the Commission, will he discuss with him the Scotland Bill, in the light of the amendment made in another place to exclude forestry from the subjects to be devolved? Will he discuss with him shedding any political prejudices in the light of what will be in the best interests of Great Britain as a whole in future forestry policy?
The Government have made clear that they will be giving careful consideration to all the amendments carried in another place.
Fishing Industry (Statutory Bodies)
2.
asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will set up a review of statutory and public bodies responsible for the regulation of the fishing industry and fishing grounds.
A first round of consultation about the future of the White Fish Authority and Herring Industry Board has been undertaken. The Expenditure Committee has recommended that the functions of Sea Fisheries Committees should be reviewed when the common fisheries policy has taken definite shape, and my right hon. Friend is considering the recommendation.
Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that we may have to wait a long time for the common fisheries policy to take any logical shape and that there is a state of some confusion in the inshore fishing grounds? Is he aware that as well as his Department and the Scottish Office operating off the coast of my constituency there are three other public bodies, namely, the Sea Fisheries Committee, the Water Authority and the Tweed Commissioners; that all of them operate their own patrol vessels and all deal with the inshore section of waters? Is there not much scope for review even before a conclusion is reached on the common fisheries policy?
Knowing the hon. Gentleman's interest in the fisheries around his part of the coast, I think that he will be aware of the role of these authorities, especially the sea fisheries committees. Before knowing about the regulation and enforcement provisions of the revised CFP it would be premature to take any action. The revision of regulation and enforcement provisions is most important and must have priority, but I shall take the hon. Gentleman's comments into account.
Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the fishery protection service that comes under his jurisdiction and that of the Secretary of State for Defence is doing an adequate job of patrolling and ensuring that EEC boats are using nets with the right size of mesh?
I can repeat the assurance that has been given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and others about enforcement. At present we are satisfied. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the matter is kept under review.
If the right hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friend went to Brussels and reached an agreement on the common fisheries policy which was later upset by a vote in this place, which agreement would remain valid, the Minister's or the decision reached by the House?
I remind the hon. Gentleman, as I told the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), that we have to know what the policy is before we go into some of these aspects. I agree that the matter is urgent.
Green Pound
3.
asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will now propose a further devaluation of the green pound.
No, Sir.
Is it not vital for the safeguarding of the future of British agriculture that negotiations be speeded up to try to bring about an amelioration or an effective reduction in the monetary import subsidies? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that one of the most effective ways of promoting negotiations towards that end would be for the Government to propose a further devaluation of the green pound?
There are about three things wrong with the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. First, Governments do not propose green pound devaluations. I am not being pedantic. It is for the Commission to propose green pound devaluations. The Commissioner has said in the course of the very many days of recent meetings of the Council that only in the most exceptional circumstances would he propose green pound devaluations, apart from price fixings.
Secondly, British agriculture, with the Budget concessions that Government after Government were asked to give for over 30 years and which the present Government have given—and bearing in mind the price negotiations and the 7½ per cent. devaluation—is in better shape to meet the challenges that it faces than it has been for many years.Really?
The hon. Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills) has knowledge of the weather. That does not come within my Department.
Will my right hon. Friend resist invitations endlessly to take steps to increase the price of food? Is it not the case that the 7½ per cent. green pound devaluation that was forced on the Government by the Conservative Opposition and other parties will be responsible for far more price increases than the price settlement that was recently negotiated? Is it not true that the Conservative Opposition's policy of abolishing the green pound could cost British families, on average, an extra £50 a year on their food bills?
As for price fixing, the 2·25 per cent. increase in average prices is the lowest since we joined the Community and represents an increase of one halfpenny in the pound on the retail food bill. The 7½ per cent. devaluation, even phased to protect the Community, worked out at a cost of about 1½p in the pound, about three times as much. The Opposition's most recent proposal was that all MCAs should be equalised out. On the present wrong basis of accounting, that would lead to an increase of 10p in the pound.
Regardless of the partnership that the right hon. Gentleman may enjoy with his hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Corbett), does he accept that his hon. Friend is not the best spokesman on the Opposition's agricultural policy? Am I not right in thinking that the French pressed for and were quite readily granted a special concession on the devaluation of the green franc in respect of pigmeat? Why did the right hon. Gentleman not do the same here, knowing, as he does, the special difficulties of our pig industry and the pigmeat processors?
The French special concession followed the 7½ per cent. devaluation, especially for pigmeat, until August, that the United Kingdom was granted in January. I agree that part of its effect was deferred until after the price fixing. However, the concession to the French is more apparent than real. It involves the French having to catch up on every commodity within a given time—in other words, much what we did, but over a slightly longer period. Had we followed the French—I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will understand me—we would have been committed to devaluing the green pound on every commodity up to whatever figure it might be, in 1979, not knowing what the circumstances might be at that time. That is what would have happened if we had followed the French. I do not think that that would have been a very good example to follow.
Pigmeat Monetary Compensatory Amounts
4.
asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the current level of pigmeat monetary compensation amounts.
8.
asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the latest position adopted within the EEC towards his proposals for ensuring that the British pig industry does not continue to be subjected to unfair competition within the EEC.
16.
asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the current state of negotiations with regard to the basis for the calculation of pigmeat monetary compensatory amounts.
20.
asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is satisfied with the progress being made towards a recalculation of pigmeat monetary compensatory amounts.
The rate for bacon sides is now £256·30 per tonne. The change in the basis of calculation which I announced last week, which will be implemented once the Opinion of the European Assembly has been received, will cut the monetary compensatory amounts by a further 8 per cent. I have also secured an undertaking that the coefficients used for calculating MCAs on processed pigmeat will be reviewed in the coming months. This should mean further reductions.
Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the 16 per cent. MCA reductions still leave a £235-per-tonne competitive advantage to importers, which is £43 per tonne greater than in February? Given these figures, does he feel that he has achieved anything near the desperately needed and substantial drop required by United Kingdom producers and manufacturers?
If we are to consider these matters correctly, we shall have to review the position on Monday, when the new marketing year fully takes effect. On Monday, as the hon. Gentleman must be aware, the new marketing year comes in and all the effects will then have worked themselves through. I think that he will find that the position will be better. I had better not say by how much it will be better on Monday compared with the present position, as matters of speculation are involved. However, the position should be better than it is at present. I take the hon. Gentleman's general point that we have not succeeded in getting the full recalculation that we wished. In that respect I agree with him. The position will be helped by the promise to reassess the coefficients. In the first instance that will help the processors, or, as the hon. Gentleman called them, the manufacturers. I think that that is right. As for the producers, the present price of pigmeat is firm. I hope that it will continue to be so for some time. However, I agree that we have a long way to go.
rose—
Order. I shall call first those hon. Members whose Questions are being answered.
I applaud the efforts made by my right hon. Friend in this sphere, but is it not a fact that Danish farmers still enjoy a price advantage in the MCAs on bacon which is exported to this country? Does that not illustrate the totally unfair basis of the negotiations on the MCAs which still remain? Will he take note that there is considerable support among efficient pig farmers for any further action that he deems necessary on this issue?
I agree with everything said by my hon. Friend. This is a useful step in the direction of avoiding thoroughly distorted competition. I do not intend to let go of it. I was a little disappointed that the French and the Italians did not come all the way with me at the Council, but it does not matter. We are on the way, and I do not intend to let the matter go.
Why did the French and Italians suddenly reverse their earlier support for the Minister?
I am not qualified to speak for the French and the Italians, any more than my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Corbett) is qualified to speak for the Opposition. If I am asked why, I should say that it was because they have a slightly different problem from ours. Our problem is mainly concerned with Danish bacon. On the whole, very few Italians and Frenchmen eat bacon.
In view of the disastrous effect that our entry into the Common Market has had not only on consumers, but on workers in the bacon curing industry, will my right hon. Friend give urgent consideration to copying the example of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and taking unilateral action in whichever way is best to protect consumers, the industry and the jobs of workers in the industry?
I had not appreciated fully that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport took such an active interest in pigs, but if my hon. Friend tells me so, I shall certainly talk to him.
My hon. Friend may recall that I took unilateral action last year. It had some effect, but not as great as I wanted. It is better—I think that my hon. Friend will agree—to get the whole basis of the pigmeat MCAs recalculated, and that I intend to keep on doing.Will the Minister comment on those voices coming from Brussels which suggest that he failed to make common cause with the French and the Italians on the pigmeat MCAs and that he would have made a great deal more progress had he done so?
I do not know to what voices the right hon. Gentleman is referring. From the beginning to the end, I said that I required a minimum reduction—that was the Commissioner's original suggested proposal, but it never got to the table—of 15 percentage point. But when the French and the Italians decided to settle—after all, this is a package, and the Mediterranean is an important area for them, but not so important for us, except in payment, and they may have had their reasons—I insisted that the coefficients should be examined with a view to their being cut. If that is so, we can get exactly the same effect. However, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that we have not gone nearly far enough.
Whatever the Minister may say, we have to look at the track record of the Socialist Government on the pig industry, and the fact is that the industry is slowly dying. In fact, there has been less production and more people unemployed in the pig-meat industry. Will he redouble his efforts to ensure that the industry does not continue to die?
I do not think that pig producers are in a difficult position at the moment.
They are.
They are not, because the price is firm at the moment. The pig cycle, which we are all aware exists in the pig industry from time to time, has been multiplied by our going into the Common Market. That has had an effect. The difficulty is that there is overproduction of pigs in Europe as a whole. The hon. Gentleman should know that. What I might have been able to do in other circumstances to protect our pig industry I am no longer able to do, and the hon. Gentleman knows that perfectly well.
Carnations
5.
asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will take steps to assist carnation growers of the United Kingdom who are being forced out of business by the excessive importations of inferior products.
Carnation imports have been much higher over the past winter than last year, but they were generally of a quality commanding a premium price. Our growers are already protected by a high tariff and are being helped to improve their efficiency, but bad weather has been holding back home supplies.
The hon. Gentleman will not expect me to agree that imported carnations are superior to those grown in my constituency. Does he accept that the amount of land put under glass for carnations has decreased by nearly half over the past 10 years, that the returns to local growers have gone down by 4p per bloom this year, and that if it goes on like this—
The EEC.
Not the EEC. The situation is due to imports from Israel, Turkey and Columbia. Will the Minister deal with that problem? Will he also have a word with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and suggest that he should take VAT off flowers?
It is true that the increase is substantially accounted for by increased imports from Israel. It is also true—I hope that this will help to improve the situation—that from the beginning of next month there will be a significant increase in the tariff, because we are now coming into the summer season.
Is my hon. Friend aware that some carnations imported into Britain and on sale during the past week were priced at only four-sevenths of the break-even price of blooms produced in the Lea Valley? Is there not a strong argument for some action to be taken, at least during the main growing season from May to October, to protect our extremely good and efficient producers, who have much better conditions for their employees than prevail in some other countries?
As I said, the higher tariff applies from June to October. I shall look into my hon. Friend's observations. My advice is that imports are commanding a higher price than home-produced carnations. I shall certainly pursue the point that he has made.
Will the Minister also consider the plight of the raspberry and soft fruit industry, which is faced with bulk subsidised East European—
Order. We can go all round agriculture.
Council Of Ministers
6.
asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will next meet the Council of Agriculture Ministers of the EEC.
The Council will next meet on 19th and 20th June.
Will the Minister discuss with his colleagues the level of FEOGA grants? Is it not necessary to get these useful grants reviewed, in view of the decision by the British Treasury that capital allowances in Britain should be reduced by an identical amount?
The question of FEOGA grants is almost certain to come up at the June meeting. If the hon. Gentleman has a specific point that he wants to make—it sounds to me as though he has—I shall be grateful if he will write to me about it.
When my right hon. Friend meets his EEC counterparts, will he make clear to them his unalterable opposition to the importation of the sheepmeat regime in the EEC? Does he realise that if he does he will have the unqualified support of Mr. Muldoon, the Prime Minister of New Zealand, who has expressed grave misgivings about this matter? Does he also realise that most hon. Members would support his action in helping the British housewife and the New Zealander?
The sheepmeat regime is still, to my mind, rather premature. We have not yet got down to discussing it. My hon. Friend is right in saying that it appeared in the price negotiations, but it was not discussed. The real point is that, whether we have a regime or not, three essential factors must be maintained. First, we must protect New Zealand imports into this country—
Hear, hear.
secondly we must safeguard the interests of our own producers. Thirdly, we must safeguard the interests of our consumers.
We have a low-priced reasonably well paid sheepmeat trade in this country, and we are dependent on and look for many other reasons to New Zealand for those imports. Therefore, whether we have a regime or not, we must protect those three factors.When the Minister next attends the meeting of the Council will he draw attention to the unprecendented confusion and uncertainty in the potato industry? Will he further draw attention to the fact that growers in this country, for the first time for a long time, have been planting potatoes having no idea of what the price will be? Very few contracts have been signed and, above all, there is no idea what is to be the future of the Potato Marketing Board. Will the Minister treat this as a matter of extreme urgency?
I agree with the hon. Gentleman. This is a very difficult matter, especially for growers. We try to give what guidance we can, but the position is uncertain. The sooner we can settle the matter to the advantage of our potato industry, the better.
Is my right hon. Friend aware that on the matter of sheepmeat, it is vital to protect our interests and particularly the interests of ports such as Liverpool, which will be most badly affected by the drying up of the New Zealand trade? Ships would be put out of commission, dockers put out of work and shipping workers of all kinds affected, apart from the effect on the imports of sheepmeat that we require.
My hon. Friend is right. These are additional reasons, together with a natural kinship and affection for New Zealand and the interests of our own consumers, why we have to watch the matter, and I intend to do so.
Although the Minister seems pleased with the results of the negotiations in Brussels last week, is it not a fact that the three products that received the largest amount of price increase, namely, beef, sugar and milk, are also the three products in greatest surplus in Europe? Will he say whether, at the next meeting of Ministers, the Government will produce constructive plans for reducing surpluses and for containing the structural difficulties without necessarily always reducing farmers' prices?
Milk, sugar and beef—in that order—are the commodities in greatest structural surplus in Europe, though the hon. Gentleman has forgotten cereals, perhaps intentionally. There was a very small increase in the price of cereals. If the hon. Gentleman considers the matter, he will realise that the increases in the support prices are not only very small but reflect a drop in real prices, to the extent that I have had some criticism from certain farming interests on the ground that I did not sufficiently increase the support prices. I believe that the House and the country were well satisfied with what is the lowest increase since we joined the Community.
Common Agricultural Policy
7.
asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress he is making on the renegotiation of the Common Agricultural Policy.
I refer my hon. Friend to my statement to the House on 12th May describing the outcome of the meetings of the Council of Ministers during last week.
That was a widely welcomed statement. As the Minister said at the time, it marked an improvement in the CAP. He has just emphasised that. Is it not still the case that the EEC prices for some of the commodities, to some of which he has referred, are several hundred per cent. above world prices? Therefore, with the growth of food mountains, not only on the Continent but in this country, we have passed beyond the stage at which there can be an improvement. Has not the time come for the Minister to denounce root and branch the whole idea of the common agricultural policy and prepare to get out?
The time has come—I have been working on this basis—so to change the CAP as to get away from the difficulties to which my hon. Friend has referred. Primary amongst these difficulties are the structural surpluses, which are a disgrace to the Community. One best tackles the problem at the price end. However, to expect one to be able to get an answer in one year, let alone in five weeks, is asking too much, even from my hon. Friend. Give us time and we shall do it.
As part of the Minister's renegotiation of the CAP, will he consider the plight of the raspberry and soft fruit industry and the problem of highly subsidised East European imports into the EEC? Will he reassure us that he is aware of the importance of these industries to Scotland and that he will closely watch the situation?
If I was not previously aware of the importance of the industries mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, I am now. I shall keep the matter well in mind and I shall be glad of any information that the hon. Gentleman can give me.
The question that I want to put in congratulating my right hon. Friend for defending the interests of the British housewife and protecting the daily pinta is this: does he agree that it is time that the other Common Market Agriculture Ministers realised that as food prices in the EEC are so much higher than world prices the present policy cannot continue?
It will take some time fully to convince them of that, if only because I am the only Minister at the Council of Agriculture Ministers who is a Food Minister as well. However, I believe that the other Agriculture Ministers are aware that there is some degree of British determination to get prices to a proper level, and that this degree of determination is something new and refreshing.
Is the Minister aware that successive Ministers of Agriculture have been saying just what he said—"I have only been here a short time and have not had time to do much about it"? However, the desire to restructure the CAP has been prevalent for 11 years. Is not the truth of the matter that there are so many vested interests on the Continent that the policy will never be changed?
It is being changed, but not as dramatically or as quickly as I wish. Reductions in the price level from 9·6 per cent. to 7·7 per cent. and to 3·9 per cent. last year—which was the lowest until then—and now down to 2·25 per cent., illustrate a change. There is at least a reprieve of a number of British institutions, such as the Milk Marketing Board. We will, I hope, be able to preserve a certain amount of importations from third countries. However, that is not enough. We have to do a great deal more, and I am aware of it.
When considering changes in the CAP, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that any reduction in imports of sheepmeat from New Zealand will have serious effects on Tilbury, which contains the largest refrigerator/cold storage facility in the world, designed specifically for trade with New Zealand?
I will bear that in mind and bear in mind the effects on New Zealand, which I believe to be very important and near to our hearts.
Now that the Minister has got over his self-congratulatory phase, will he comment on statements made by Mr. Roy Jenkins and Mr. Gundelach that neither the Milk Marketing Boards nor the daily pinta were ever in the slightest danger during current negotiations?
I prefer self-congratulation to sour grapes. There is all the difference in the world between saying that we accept the principle of Milk Marketing Boards—for about 15 months I have told the House that the Commissioners said that—and introducing conditions which make it impossible for the boards to continue. That is no different, in effect, from saying
The right hon. Gentleman is apparently advocating, with the Commissioner concerned, that we should have had a reprieve until 1983. I was not satisfied with that. I wanted a permanent reprieve."Thou shalt not kill; but need'st not strive Officiously to keep alive".
Animals (Exports)
10.
asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received calling for a ban on the export of live food animals; and if he will make a statement.
Following publication of the report by officials, my right hon. Friend the Minister is having discussions with representatives of the welfare interests and with those of the producers and exporters. He hopes to make a statement when he has considered all representations.
Is my hon. Friend aware that 102 Members on the Government Benches have immediately signed an Early-Day Motion asking
Will he bring whatever pressure he can to bear on the Leader of the House so that we can have an early debate on this matter and express in the Division Lobbies our complete opposition to this indefensible trade?"that the export of live farm animals for slaughter or further fattening should cease"?
I had noticed the striking indication of the strength of feeling on the part of Members on the Government Benches on this issue.
Does the Minister agree that he produced the report because there was obviously a need for it? Does he also agree that because it has been produced and because of its importance, Government time should be allowed in the near future for a debate on the report? A debate is urgently needed. The report should not be left on the shelf for a considerable time.
I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no question of the report's being left on the shelf. As he knows, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is giving consideration to the question of a debate.
Does my hon. Friend accept that it is pleasant to hear a voice from the other side of the Chamber agreeing with us on this matter? Does he also accept that we have immense pressures from farming communities, even on those hon. Members representing working-class areas in the cities? Is he aware that the feeling throughout this country runs far ahead of what the farmers feel? We want something to be done because we believe that the vast majority of people throughout the country feel deeply on this subject.
It is because of this concern that my right hon. Friend set up the working group. He is giving careful consideration to all points of view, in-eluding those of the welfare interests and my hon. Friends.
Can it be established clearly that there is nothing inherently cruel in the transportation of animals over the water?
The hon. Gentleman will recognise that there is a great divergence of opinion on the whole question of the appropriate safeguards and regulations in this matter and on the extent to which one can reasonably expect them to be applied throughout the Continent.
National Dairy Herd
11.
asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the current size of the national dairy herd.
The provisional result of the latest census undertaken by my Department indicates that the size of the United Kingdom dairy herd at December 1977 was 3,322,000 cows. The results of the March census conducted in England and Wales only will be published shortly.
Does the Minister of State agree that there is a worry about the size of the milk lake as a result of the intervention fund? What are he and his Department doing to make it more attractive to farmers to switch to beef production?
The hon. Gentleman will realise that new confidence in the production of the dairy herd has been given in light of the future of the Milk Marketing Boards and because milk production is at record level, as are artificial inseminations. The prices for cows in milk are high and the future of the industry is one of increasing confidence and expansion of the herd size.
Despite the renewed confidence in milk production, can my hon. Friend tell me why, in a recent reply, he has stated that the EEC is willing to pay more than £23,000 to a farmer with a 70-head dairy herd to get out of milk, and to pay him even more if he transfers to beef production? Why has this regulation been made and how much does my right hon. Friend expect to pay out in this country?
My hon. Friend will be aware that we have always said that those countries in the Community which have efficient producers should be encouraged; and we have new encouragement for our milk industry in that respect.
Prime Minister (Engagements)
Q1.
asked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 18th May.
This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be holding meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. This evening I hope to attend a reception being given by President Seretse Khama of Botswana.
If my right hon. Friend finds time to consider last night's televised tour of the archives by the Conservatives, will he agree that it was a lament for the past by a party which offers old, simple solutions for new, complex problems and that, although incentives may be important, there is a danger that if they are peddled as a panacea, as they are being peddled by the Opposition, the incentive society may become the insensitive society, as many of us have good reason to believe?
I regret that I did not have the good fortune to watch this broadcast. I am not sure whether the commercialising and packaging of party political views is in the best interests of the party concerned, but that is for it to judge.
If the Prime Minister did not have time to see the broadcast last night, which I completely and totally accept, has he had time to look at the report issued by the Treasury yesterday, which shows that wages are going up faster here than elsewhere and that the growth in output has seldom been worse? Does he accept that this makes us much less competitive than similar industrial nations and that that is the result of his economic policies over the last four years?
The right hon. Lady is correct to call attention to these facts, some of which are good and some of which are not so good. It is good that earnings should be going up faster than prices, because that will improve the standard of life of our people. What is not so good is if production does not increase correspondingly. I am glad to say that there are signs of improvement there. I am told that the increase in industrial production in the first quarter of 1978 over the last quarter of 1977 was 1· per cent.
However, I agree with the right hon. Lady that we should call attention to these factors. They are saying no more than I consistently say at the Dispatch Box. We shall endeavour to keep production, inflation and wage levels in line so that this country can be as competitive as anyone else.Does my right hon. Friend realise that some rents are going up much faster? Could he find time to look into his duties and responsibilities as an ex officio Church Commissioner? Does he realise that the Church Commissioners are inflicting unacceptable rent increases on many tenants in my constituency? Does he not find it embarrassing, as a nominal member of the Church Commissioners, that they should increasingly behave more like Freshwater and less like Christians?
I fear that the duties of Church Commissioner do not take up as much of my time as perhaps they should. I shall certainly see that the matter is looked into, even though I am only ex officio.
Has the Prime Minister had a chance to reflect today on his recent meeting with the President of Turkey? If so, will he give the House his view of the effect on NATO of the continued United States arms embargo on Turkey, which is our partner?
No. I would not want to give my views about that because it is not the responsibility of the Government; it is the responsibility of the American Administration. The Turkish Government have asked whether it is possible for some European countries to assist them in their armaments programme, but most of the conversation between the President of Turkey and myself, which did not take place today, was concerned with the problems of Cyprus. I asked the President to be more flexible in his approach.
Will the Prime Minister amplify his earlier remarks about keeping earnings in line with output? Does he accept that earnings are bound to rise by about 14 per cent. over this pay round, that output cannot possibly rise by more than 3 per cent., and that the balance must be paid either by inflation or unemployment? What will he do to bring the two things in line for phase 4?
A little more help from the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) would not come amiss. What I intend to convey is that all these matters must bear a relation to each other, not that they should be strictly in line with each other, which, clearly would not be accurate. The hon. Member knows my views about this almost to the point of boredom.
I recognise that my right hon. Friend has little time to read the speeches of the Leader of the Opposition, but could he find time to read the speech that she made in a church in the City of London recently, and an article which she wrote in The Daily Telegraph? Is it not clear from that speech and the article that the right hon. Lady and her friends intend to undermine the National Health Service, to impose charges and to undermine the whole concept of the Welfare State as we understand it?
It is not part of my responsibilty to read these speeches or article, but I did read the article in The Daily Telegraph. The right hon. Lady's emphasis on and concern for the welfare of the family was set out in that article and I found that I was largely in agreement with it. It is a theme that I have taken up because it is of great importance. For that reason I am deeply sorry that the Opposition should find it necessary to make a party matter of it.
Cbi
Q2.
asked the Prime Minister when he last met the CBI.
I met representatives of the CBI on 6th February. Further meetings will be arranged as necessary.
Against the background of rising industrial output and rising investment owing to the success of many of this Government's policies, what conversations will the Prime Minister be having with the CBI to get it on the side of making it easier for small businesses to be set up and for those in business to expand in order to provide many of the new jobs which are so urgently needed?
The Government's policy towards small firms is well known. As the small firms recognise, the Budget made a number of improvements, including improvements in value added tax limitations, capital transfer tax, capital gains tax and corporation tax. All these have been of great assistance to small firms. I find that members of the CBI appreciate this.
Does the Prime Minister consider that his dinner with the CBI the night before last was a useful meeting? Does he remember that the president of the CBI then said that it was the CBI's aim to drop the phrase "the two sides of industry"? What is the Government's view of that initiative?
The hon. Member was there and he enjoyed the dinner as much as I and many other hon. Members did. I thought that I gave an adequate, full and acceptable reply on that occasion.
Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the CBI next week is due to receive a high powered trade delegation from the Soviet Union headed by Academician Kirillin? Will he express the deep disgust and distress of this House at the travesty of the trial of Yuri Orlov and the savage sentence imposed? Will he point out to the Russians that this is the worst possible way to achieve either detente or improved relations between our countries?
The whole House will agree that if the sentence has been passed on Mr. Orlov in respect of his attempt to monitor the Helsinki agreement, there can be no justification for a sentence on that account. The Government's view has been and will be made entirely clear on that matter. Certainly I shall lose no opportunity of making it so.
At the same time, I also wish to make clear, because there must be good State relations, that, whilst I am strongly in favour of individual groups and hon. Members such as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) making their passionate distaste and dislike of this type of thing clear, we must not cut off relations with the Soviet Union. I know that my hon. Friend was not suggesting that. But, sometimes, not what my hon. Friend says but what others say seems to shade off into that. This is one of the two great States of the world. We either live with her or we die with her. State relations must be conducted on a different basis from that of hon. Members and individual citizens in this country, who properly express their disgust at what is taking place.When the Prime Minister next meets the CBI, will he explain to its members why he believes that it is in the interests of trade unions, let alone the nation, that neither the nationalised industries nor British companies should be allowed to compete in the international market with the best management available because of the high tax rates that rule in this country?
The CBI has expressed its views to me abou this. We discuss it from time to time. I shall consider whether it should be on the agenda at the next meeting.
Aberdeen
Q3.
asked the Prime Minister when next he intends to visit the Aberdeen area.
I have at present no plans to visit the Aberdeen area.
I regret that the Prime Minister has no immediate plans to visit the oil capital of Europe which makes an inestimable contribution to our balance of payments. But, when he does visit the area, will he ensure that his staff route him by rail, air or sea from the central industrial belt of Scotland to Aberdeen so that he does not have to travel on the most congested and important single carriageway road remaining in the United Kingdom?
I am not sure that I fully understand the import of that question. But I do not intend to walk; I can promise the hon. Member that. If he is saying that there is need for a substantial improvement in the road communications, that may well be so. With respect, I wish that Opposition Members, including the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Fairgrieve), would not constantly press for additional public expenditure, on the one hand, and seek to reduce taxation on the other.
When the Prime Minister next goes to the Aberdeen area, will he try to find out what has happened to the declaration of Perth?
I fear that the Conservative Party is losing itself in the Scottish mist over devolution. I think that they will suffer retribution for it.
When my right hon. Friend visits the fair city of Aberdeen, will he make it clear to the people of Aberdeen that Members of the Scottish National Party went into the Lobby with Members of the Tory Party in order to give massive handouts to the wealthy people in our community at the expense of the sick and elderly and the mass of working people?
Yes. I have already noticed in my postbag and other communications that it has not gone unnoticed in Scotland and elsewhere that the Scottish National Party voted with the Conservatives on that issue.
Is the Prime Minister aware that what has not gone unnoticed in Scotland, particularly in the North-East where the oil and gas is coming ashore, is that the local community is having to pay for the roads and services without adequate help from central Government? Will he reconsider this position and reprimand the Secretary of State for Scotland for failing to take action?
The hon. Member is not correct. A substantial sum of public expenditure has rightly been made available to Scotland for a great many functions, including the saving of jobs. That is well appreciated by the Scottish people.
When my right hon. Friend goes to Aberdeen, by whatever means other than Shanks' pony, will he ruminate on the fact that not only the people of Aberdeen and Scotland but the people of England, Northern Ireland and Wales will all suffer as a result of what happened this week when the Opposition tried to take £1,100 million from the ordinary people to give to their wealthy friends? Will he underline the message that if the Opposition had their way they would have a disastrous effect on the economy?
There is a growing understanding in the country that there must be a balance between public expenditure and taxation. People understand that a great deal of public expenditure has helped to save jobs in industries which, although they are efficient, are suffering a temporary recession because of the world recession. I believe that the country understands that and that that is why there is growing support for our Government.
Is the Prime Minister aware that, in addition to the real advantages brought to the North-East of Scotland by oil, there have been problems for indigenous industries which have emphasised the need to broaden the industrial base of the area in order to prepare for when the oil comes to an end? In those circumstances, was it defensible to reduce the industrial development status of the area?
The Aberdeen area unemployment rate has been well below the national average for some time, and it therefore seemed appropriate that the status should be altered. However, I agree with the hon. Gentleman's analysis that we should use oil revenues not to reduce taxation, as his party wishes to do, but to provide the alternative sources of energy that will be required, and to regenerate Scottish and British industry. The Scottish Development Agency is engaged on that task now.
Lord Selwyn-Lloyd
Right hon. and hon. Members have learned with deep sorrow of the death of Lord Selwyn-Lloyd, my immediate predecessor as Speaker of this House.
I wish on behalf of all parties and of each and every hon. and right hon. Member to pay tribute to the memory of one of the most outstanding parliamentarians of our generation. Both in peace and in war, Selwyn Lloyd proved his utter devotion to our country. It fell to him to carry the burden of some of the highest offices of State and he never spared himself in fulfilling his responsibilities. When he became Leader of this House he very quickly earned both the unqualified respect and the abounding affection of hon. and right hon. Members in all parties. He was a doughty fighter for the rights of Back Benchers, and we shall always be in debt to him for the reforms he helped to initiate. Selwyn Lloyd was a man incapable of malice. He enjoyed the remarkable blessing of never nursing a grudge. His patent integrity and his massive loyalty both to our country and to all with whom he worked marked him out as a man of noble quality. He was always the quintessence of courtesy in his dealings with those with whom he disagreed. His five years as Speaker of this House are fresh in our memory. His compassion, his patience, his humour and his strength of character ensured that he will always have an honoured place as one of the greatest Speakers in our history. In saluting Selwyn Lloyd's memory, we thank God for his life of selfless service and extend to his family our heartfelt sympathy in their sorrow.Business Of The House
May I ask the Lord President the business for next week, please?
The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 22ND MAY—Supply [16th Allotted Day]: a debate on the pay of the Armed Forces, on a motion to reduce the salary of the Secretary of State. Motion on the Financial Assistance for Industry (Increase of Limit) Order. TUESDAY 23RD MAY—Remaining stages of the Home Purchase Assistance and Housing Corporation Guarantee Bill. Motion on the European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (No. 4) Order. WEDNESDAY 24TH MAY—Motion on EEC document R/3245/77 on liner conferences. The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed Private Business for consideration at 7 o'clock. THURSDAY 25TH MAY—Supply [17th Allotted Day]: a debate on the Army, on a motion for the Adjournment of the House. Motion on the Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts (Continuation) Order. FRIDAY 26TH MAY—The House will adjourn for the Spring Holiday until Tuesday 6th June.I have two questions for the Lord President. First, he will know that there have been many developments in foreign affairs that the House would wish to discuss at some length. Will he therefore arrange for a debate soon after the recess? If he thinks fit to make it a two-day debate, we shall gladly give one of our days towards it.
Secondly, is the Leader of the House aware that it is not possible for us to ratify the international convention against pollution by oil from ships until we have had a new merchant shipping Act? That was promised in the Gracious Speech, but it has not yet been introduced. We can hardly criticise other nations for not observing these matters when we drag our feet on our own legislation. When does the Leader of the House expect to introduce that Bill?On the first matter, I thank the right hon. Lady for her offer of a Supply Day and make clear our immediate acceptance of such generosity. Of course I agree that it would be a good idea for the House at an early stage soon after the recess to have a two-day debate in the light of that suggestion.
On the second point, we indicated that we wished to introduce a merchant shipping Bill in this Session if possible, or at any rate as soon as possible. As the House is well aware, a Bill is fully prepared for introduction as soon as we have the chance. However, we cannot bring it forward in this Session, but we shall bring it forward in the next Session.Am I right in supposing that in Tuesday's business what my right hon. Friend called the European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (No. 4) Order amounts to the ratification of direct elections to the EEC? If it does, will my right hon. Friend say whether that is a motion which the House can debate and on which it can divide?
I doubt whether I would describe the order as a ratification, but it certainly carries further the procedure of direct elections following upon the passage of the European Assembly Elections Act.
There is an explanatory note on the schedule, although I must admit that the note is not as elaborate as some might wish. I am therefore making arrangements that an explanatory memorandum on the explanatory note is to be placed in the Library. I hope that that will assist my hon. Friends. The motion will be one to approve the order, and the House will therefore be able to give its decision on the matter.If, as I believe to be the case, all the major parties in the House are in favour of increased representation for Northern Ireland, will the Government introduce immediately, as a matter of justice and fair play to the people of Northern Ireland, legislation to increase the representation before the next General Election?
The exchanges that have already taken place on this matter have made clear that I should like the Bill to be introduced. Whether that happened in this or the next Season, it could not be introduced before the next General Election in any case. Therefore I do not have anything to add to what was said by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister a few weeks ago, when he made the announcement about the acceptance of the principle of the Speaker's Conference.
Has my right hon. Friend had time to study the three Early-Day Motions on the Order Paper—Nos. 315, 427 and 429—signed by hon. Members of all parties, about the proposal to close the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital? Will he try to arrange for a debate so that this deplorable decision can be further considered? Will he discuss with his right hon. Friends the possibility of a public inquiry?
[That this House welcomes the overwhelming support shown by national and local organisations including trade unions, during the consultative procedure on the future of the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital; draws the attention of the Secretary of State to the fact that his predecessor accepted the necessity for the continuation of this unique facility; therefore urges him to make resources available to enable this hospital to resume normal service on its present site, at least until such time as a satisfactory alternative arrangement can be made; and in view of the demoralising protracted delay in reaching a decision on this matter, urges the Secretary of State to make his views knows as early as possible.] [That this House rejects the decision of the Secretary of State for Social Services to close Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital in July; and calls on him to reverse his action in the light of the needs of women patients as expressed by everyone who works and is treated in the Hospital, all the unions concerned, the patients themselves and the generalpublic, and the unanimous vote of the Labour Women's Conference at Southport that the Hospital should be kept open.] [That this House notes with regret that the closure of the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital was announced outside the House of Commons in direct breach of an undertaking given to the honourable Members for Camden, St. Pancras North, Camden, Holborn and St. Pancras South and Camden, Hampstead; and that notification of such closure was not given to the honourable Members mentioned beforehand and that such closure is in direct contradiction to the statement of the Secretary of State and his predecessor that no closure would take place until such a unit were to be satisfactorily situated within a district general hospital in the same area.]I have taken note of the motions on the Order Paper on this matter, and in particular the question of the manner of the announcement. It appears that there is some serious misunderstanding in this matter. I shall make inquiries into that aspect of it. On the general question, I cannot promise a debate, but I recognise the strength of feeling in many parts of the House, and we shall have to see whether further discussion can take place on it.
Will the Leader of the House take the opportunity to correct what I think was a slip of the tongue in his reply to the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder)? He said "introduced" when I think he intended to say "effected".
Has he received any approach from the official Opposition with a view to arranging a debate at an early date upon the subject, of which he acknowledged the importance last week, of the past and future consequences of New Commonwealth immigration, or is the interest of the official Opposition in this subject to remain a brief and embarrassed interlude?On the first matter, I must thank the right hon. Gentleman for his correction of my statement. He is quite right. On the second matter, I do not think that I or anyone else could improve on the language that he has used to describe the situation.
Will the Leader of the House arrange a short debate on the European Communities working document No. R 497/77 concerning Community action in the cultural sector most of which is very good stuff. But is he aware that the section dealing with public lending right is quite unacceptable and that the House should have an opportunity to express its view on this matter and other matters touched upon in the document?
I shall look into the possibility of a debate on this matter. In doing so I shall take account of the recommendation of the Scrutiny Committee.
On the general question of the Public Lending Rights Bill, we believe that the best way to proceed—certainly far better than anything proposed by the EEC—is to get through the House the Bill which the Government presented on this matter and which still remains our policy.I return to the question raised by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. Jeger). I ask the Leader of the House to give more attention to the breach of faith that is represented by the closure of the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital. Many hon. Members feel that they were deceived about this matter. Will the Leader of the House ensure that the Secretary of State comes to the House to answer questions instead of hiding behind a planted written Question?
I do not accept the term "breach of faith" and I would have thought that the answer that I have already given to the House indicates how seriously I take the motion on the Order Paper. I believe that we must examine this matter, and that it is better to aproach it in that way, rather than commenting upon the hon. Member's words.
Will the Leader of the House give a date for further discussion in this House on the Scotland Bill so that we can repair the damage that has been done in another place?
Secondly, in view of the disgraceful decision to detrunk the A92 and the Government's failure to invest adequately in roads in Northern Scotland, will the right hon. Member allow us to debate this matter urgently in the near future?
I repudiate what the hon. Member says in the second part of his question.
On the first part, of course, when the Scotland Bill comes back to the House, the Government will examine all the amendments that were added in another place. We shall examine these most carefully and present our considered views to the House. I have no doubt that there are a considerable number of amendments that this House will not be prepared to accept.In view of the fact that the report of the Select Committee on European Legislation on Community document No. R3245/77 on liner conferences has not yet been published, and is unlikely to be published until some time next week, will the Leader of the House look at the desirability of debating it on Wednesday? We took a great deal of evidence in the Select Committee and the House should have an opportunity to see that before coming to any conclusion.
I shall look into this. I hope that we shall make some progress with the document on Wednesday, but I shall look at all the considerations.
The Leader of the House will be aware of the answer to the Private Notice Question yesterday about the position of British subjects in Southern Zaire at present. The situation seems to have deteriorated since then. If the Leader of the House is not in a position to say something now, will he arrange for a statement by the Foreign Secretary early next week to assure us that we are in at least as good a position as the French, the Belgians and the Americans for evacuating British subjects who may be involved disastrously in events in Zaire?
The Foreign Secretary and the Government are very much concerned about the situation in Zaire and are doing everything they can to protect British citizens in this situation. I will consider whether a statement should be made at the beginning of next week.
In view of the fact that the business on Tuesday night appears to be to ratify the Act of the Community of 20th September 1976 on direct elections, would it not be more appropriate to lay this as a later order, after both the salaries of MPs to that Assembly are agreed and the boundaries, which have been announced provisionally, are finally agreed or published by the Boundary Commission?
I know that those matters were discussed in the House before, but that is not a reason for holding up this order. There will be a later stage when some of those other matters can be discussed.
Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to ensure that when we come to the Report stage of the House of Commons (Administration) Bill, hon. Members will not be inhibited in tabling amendments on matters that are strictly the concern of the House? An example is the scope of amendments on inclusion in the estimate provided by the House of Commons Commission on Members' secretaries' salaries.
That would carry the Bill considerably further. I shall look at that point, but I am doubtful whether that is the best way of dealing with it. The Services Committee report, which will be presented to the House very soon, is a better way to approach Members' secretaries' salaries. I am doubtful whether that further question could be introduced into the House of Commons (Administration) Bill.
Will the Leader of the House arrange for a full debate on unemployment as soon as possible? In view of the difficulties experienced in bringing industry to Merseyside, will he investigate the allegations of the Government's demand for a forward commitment to 1982 on pay policy, because this will discourage completely the establishment of industry and new jobs on Merseyside and in other areas?
I do not believe that my hon. Friend should jump to the conclusion that the second matter he raised will have the effect that he describes. Discussions are still proceeding and they could reach a conclusion beneficial to both Merseyside and the country as a whole.
On the first matter that my hon. Friend and other hon. Members from Liverpool have raised—that we should have a debate on unemployment in Merseyside at an early stage—we are considering how best to approach a fairly early date for discussions on unemployment generally.The Leader of the House will recall that last week I mentioned that recently it had been revealed that 40 Argentinians had been occupying Thule, a British territory in part of the Falkland Islands dependency. Last week, in a Written Answer, the Foreign Secretary confirmed that the British Government had known about this since December 1976. Surely it is the duty of any Foreign Secretary, when an infringement of British sovereignty takes place, to come to the House and inform us of the situation and tell us what action he will take.
The hon. Member has put this matter to me in a most reasonable manner. There are Oral Questions down to the Foreign Secretary on this subject next week. That is the best way to proceed. I understand the desire of the House to put questions on this issue, and I assure hon. Members that the Foreign Secretary has no desire to avoid them.
Miss Richardson: I welcome my right hon. Friend's undertaking that he will try to reopen discussions on the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital. I hope that he will not close his mind to the possibility of a debate on the Floor of the House to give us and the public an opportunity to hear the views of the unions, the staff, the patients and the public against the closure.I cannot promise a debate in the immediate future. There are other opportunities for raising such matters in a debate which some hon. Members may wish to take in the near future. I suggest that first of all I should carry out the undertaking that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras South (Mrs. Jeger) and see how we can proceed from there.
Could the right hon. Gentleman explain why we are not to have a debate on the report of the Select Committee on Immigration and Race Relations before we rise for the Spring Recess? As the Home Secretary has made it clear that the Government are not prepared to accept that report, would he at some time explain to his new-found ally, the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), that it is not from the Opposition Benches but from the Government Benches that the opposition to that report comes?
One reason that we are not having a debate on that subject is that the official Opposition have not asked for it.
On the question raised by the Leader of the Opposition about a new merchant shipping Act, may I call my right hon. Friend's attention to Early-Day Motion No. 419 on the restriction of the size of oil tankers, signed by myself and some of my hon. Friends? Before further misery occurs and further destruction of the environment, may we have a debate on this whole subject so that people all over the country know that we feel deeply about it and are trying to rectify the situation? Will my right hon. Friend look very closely at the content of that Early-Day Motion?
[That this House, deeply aware of the recent horrific effects on both British and Northern French coasts of oil pollution from oil tanker disasters, calls on the British Government speedily to initiate a major campaign to bring about international agreement on restricting the size of oil tankers, to ensure that any future catastrophes will be correspondingly smaller and less dangerous to the environment.]I certainly undertake to do exactly as my hon. Friend has asked and to consider that motion carefully. I entirely understand and share the concern expressed by all those who have signed the motion about the recent oil pollution on the coast of East Anglia. It is important not to exaggerate the scale of this incident—the extent of the pollution is in no way comparable with that resulting from some earlier disasters—but that is no reason for not paying the greatest possible attention to what has occurred. I promise that I shall do so.
Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham (Mr. Luce) is entirely unsatisfactory? Does he not realise that one of the main points here in connection with the Falkland Islands is why the Government have kept this matter dark for 18 months? It is not good enough to say that because they have kept it dark that long, it does not matter if it waits another week.
What I am saying to the hon. Gentleman, as I said to the House as a whole, is that I fully accept that the House has an interest in the matter. I said, as I think the hon. Member for Shoreham (Mr. Luce) accepted, that the best way to proceed now is with the Oral Questions which can be put to the Foreign Secretary next week. No doubt my right hon. Friend will give a considered reply to any hon. Member who raises that question then.
Has my right hon. Friend yet addressed himself to the unfortunate situation which arose last week, when six Members of this House were prevented from voting in the European Assembly because they had to be here? If he has so addressed himself, has he evolved any plan to obviate that situation in future?
My hon. Friend not only raised the matter but came to discuss it with me in, as everyone would expect, a most courteous manner. As I had to explain to him, part of the difficulty arises from the fact that the House of Commons has decided that its Members for a considerable period shall operate in two different Assemblies. That gives rise to considerable difficulties. I am sure that we must seek to ensure as far as we can that the proper respect and supremacy of this House shall be sustained.
Bearing in mind today's savage sentence of seven years' hard labour imposed by the Soviet authorities on Dr. Yuri Orlov and the fact that hon. Members in all parts of the House are concerned about great abuses of human rights in the Soviet Union, is it not high time that the right hon. Gentleman arranged for the House to debate the problem of human rights in the Soviet Union and elsewhere?
I certainly share without qualification the horror at the individual case which the Prime Minister expressed earlier today. I am sure that is the feeling of the vast majority, if not the almost unanimous opinion, of people in this country. Of course this is an important aspect of foreign policy. The Prime Minister put the matter in perspective. I think that it will figure in the debate on foreign policy which I expect we shall be having fairly soon after our return from the recess. It obviously enters into that debate.
May I urge my right hon. Friend to give an early reply—possibly next week at Business Question Time—to the request for a debate on foreign affairs in general? Is it not becoming more and more obvious that, because of the many items concerning the Common Market that the House has to debate, the impression is given that Britain has almost no other international relations at all? Since we are now approaching the special United Nations session on disarmament, will my right hon. Friend make an announcement before we adjourn on this matter?
As I said in response to the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition, I think that there should be a debate on foreign affairs at an early stage. That, under the arrangements that we have been suggesting, would be a two-day debate, which would give plenty of opportunity for wide discussion. It is certainly not the Government's view that the important questions concerned are solely European affairs. There are great issues in Africa. There are great questions of our association with the United States. There are important questions, above all perhaps, about our approach to disarmament in different forms. That is one of the reasons that, at the forthcoming meeting of the United Nations, the British Government will be making a major statement on the subject.
Will the right hon. Gentleman elucidate his replies to the hon. and right hon. Members who sit for the county of Down? Do the Government intend, or do they not, to legislate in the present Session or in this Parliament to implement the recommendations of your Conference, Mr. Speaker, on increasing the representation of Northern Ireland in this House?
I certainly think that it is possible that we could have legislation on that subject in this Parliament, but what has already been indicated is that it would be extremely difficult to have that legislation in this Session.
Will my right hon. Friend give time in the near future so that we may give further consideration to the Private Members' Bills introduced by our hon. Friends the Members for Darlington (Mr. Fletcher) and Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) to amend the Employment Protection Act? As my hon. Friend knows, this is of great concern to the TUC.
I certainly accept that those two of my hon. Friends and my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) have introduced Bills of considerable importance to the country as a whole. I should like to see all those Bills upon the statute book, but I do not have any fresh statement to make now about their progress. I believe that when we return after the recess those matters will have to be considered further.
Reverting to the Scotland Bill, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us when we may expect that rather bedraggled measure back again? Since many of the amendments made in the other place were on matters which were not properly debated in this House because of the guillotine, will the hon. Gentleman give an absolutely firm assurance that there will be proper time to debate them, and no guillotine?
The House must consider the Bill when it comes back from another place. I think that the House may also wish to take note of the fact that another place managed to discuss the whole Bill in slightly less time than this House took to discuss the Bill under the timetable motion. That is a factor which might be taken into account.
Some of the amendments made in the other place, I believe, would not be acceptable to this House, but we shall consider them all carefully. What the Government are determined to do is to see that that Bill gets through this House and on the statute book in this Session. We have no doubt that in doing so we are carrying out the pledge we made to the people of Scotland and are responding to the mood of the people of Scotland, which has been sustained consistently from that time to this.Will my right hon. Friend accept that some of us are anxious to debate the Select Committee report on immigration, from the Indian subcontinent in particular, precisely because it brings no consolation to the right hon. Member for Down, South, (Mr. Powell)—or, as we would try to show, to the Leader of the Opposition? In fact, it is not the case that the Home Secretary has replied to that report. He has replied to three parts of it, about one of which he was totally unclear, and the other two of which he seemed to reject. However, the Home Secretary himself believed that we should have a debate, so may we have it as soon as possible?
I understand my hon. Friend's desire and the desire of many other hon. Members that the House should debate this subject. I am not saying that such a debate would not be desirable, but there are many competitors for debate. I cannot accept my hon. Friend's comment about the statement which was made by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. I think that it was most valuable from the point of view of the community of this country and for good race relations that my right hon. Friend's statement was made at an early date so that some matters which seemed to be obscure could be clarified.
rose—
Order. I shall call only those hon. Members who have been rising to their feet.
Will the right hon. Gentleman have a word with the Secretary of State for the Environment to find out why he is sitting on the report of the review of the Rent Act, and will he bring forward to the House before the Summer Recess either a Green Paper or a White Paper—or certainly a report?
I shall certainly have a word with my right hon. Friend, but I cannot promise that I shall make a statement in the form which the hon. Gentleman seeks. I accept the invitation that I should have a conversation with my right hon. Friend on the subject.
May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to Early-Day Motion No. 422, which calls for an inquiry into hormone pregnancy test drugs? The motion is signed by hon. Members in all parts of the House, some of whom have constituents with children who have been born seriously deformed following the prescribing of pregnancy test drugs to their mothers. Does he agree that an urgent inquiry should take place into this matter? The Secretary of State for Social Services, for reasons best known to himself, has refused an inquiry. Will my right hon. Friend the Leader of of the House provide time in the House for a debate so that we may discover why the right hon. Gentleman will not agree to such an inquiry? Failing that, perhaps in private conversation with the Secretary of State for Social Services the Leader of the House could persuade him to change his mind.
[That this House notes that children have been born with serious deformities due to hormone pregnancy test drugs; that no official warnings were issued about these drugs until eight years alter the first reports indicating the possible dangers; that some doctors continued to prescribe the drugs for pregnant women after official warnings of the Committee on Safety of Medicines; that the Department of Health and Social Security have continuously rejected requests for an inquiry into these matters; and now calls upon the Secretary of State to set up an independent public inquiry.]My hon. Friend is aware that this matter has been fully discussed in parliamentary Questions and in correspondence with my hon. Friend and others. I am sure that the Ministers concerned are not withholding any of the relevant facts on the alleged connection between these tests and congenital abnormalities, nor in regard to the way the matter was handled from 1967 onwards.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services is doubtful whether there would be any purpose in having such an inquiry as has been suggested, but I shall take account of what my hon. Friend said and see whether there is any other way in which further progress can be made. I cannot promise a debate at the moment.On the subject of the liner conference directive, does the right hon. Gentleman agree, as he has already half indicated, that it is impossible for hon. Members to undertake the necessary documentary preparation on this weighty and important matter? Will he give earnest reconsideration to the point made by the hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Roper)? Does he agree that he still gives the impression that he wishes to deal with EEC items in a cavalier and haphazard way, not giving sufficient attention to the timing and preparation of such documents as they come forward from the Scrutiny Committee? Will he also guarantee that he will give adequate time to discuss the directive on doorstep selling when it is presented to the House, in a debate lasting at least three hours?
As I promised earlier, I shall examine the position on that document, although I still hope that we shall be able to have the debate at the time I have suggested. I think that we are in accord with the recommendation made by the Scrutiny Committee. I must inform the hon. Gentleman, who knows a great deal about these matters because he has accorded them special attention, that I repudiate the idea that the Government have dealt in a cavalier manner with these matters. I always acknowledge that there are difficulties in dealing with them, but on each occasion when the all-party Committee has examined the subject, so far from its Members saying that we have treated the matter in a cavalier manner, they have congratulated us on the consideration we have given to these matters. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we constantly give our attention to them. I do not say that we have by any means a perfect system, but that arises from the nature of the difficulty and not from any carelessness on our part.
Is there any possibility of a statement being made to explain how, without his previous knowledge or consent, my right hon. Friend's name was attached to a threat of legal action against me for defamation and how invoked in that threat were also the names of the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Home Secretary, the Attorney-General, the Solicitor-General, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Bishop of London and many others, including you, Mr. Speaker? Is it not quite improper that attempts should be made, in the names of the Church Commissioners, to silence an hon. Member of this House in his criticism? Will my right hon. Friend take steps to achieve the dismissal of the employees responsible?
I shall examine the proposition made by my hon. Friend at the end of his remarks. As he is fully aware, there are a number of members of the Government who are ex officio Church Commissioners, but that does not mean that in any sense of the word they have had any responsibility for the operation of these matters. It may be that there should be a reorganisation of the whole way in which the Church Commissioners operate on their account and for other reasons. My hon. Friend is also aware—and I have had recent correspondence with him on the subject—that I hope that these maters can be dealt with without resort to legal action. I did not think that that was the right way to proceed, and I hope that the matter will not be dealt with in the courts. I think that these are matters for political debate.
Now that we have had a firm ruling from the Government that the salaries of directly elected Members of the European Assembly, if any, are subject to United Kingdom tax, before the debate on Tuesday night, whether or not the House ratifies the Bill, will the Government assure the House that they will resist in the Council of Ministers any proposal by the European Community that these salaries should be free of tax? We should like a firm assurance before ratification that the Government will oppose any such idea.
General indications have been given to the House on the subject of these salaries and how they should be settled. I very much doubt whether that question arises in the light of Tuesday's debate. The hon. Gentleman has given us due warning and we must take account of it.
When do the Government intend to publish their long-awaited and long-trailed White Paper on industrial democracy, and will the right hon. Gentleman say whether it will be debated before the House rises for the Summer Recess?
I very much hope that there will be a statement to the House next week on publication of a White Paper on the subject. It is an important document, and the House will wish to consider how next it wants to proceed.
Orders Of The Day
Supply
15TH ALLOTTED DAY— considered
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[ Mr. Bates.]
Newspaper Industry
4.7 p.m.
The subject of debate today is "Industrial relations in the newspaper industry". I think that it points to the wisdom of the Opposition that they have tabled this matter for debate on a Supply Day. This is emphasised by the spate of comment in the national Press and on radio and television since the announcement was made last week. I believe that the problems go much wider than simply those that beset Fleet Street, although I suspect that a large part of this debate will concentrate on Fleet Street's problems.
The loss of papers in 1976 amounted to 72 million and in 1977 to 101 million. In the first three months of this year we lost 32 million copies of national daily and Sunday papers, and in the first four months of this year we lost 60 million. This is not only a problem for the capitalist Press, because I was interested to see that Tribune, in its special May Day edition, when it was hoping above all to be able to print large numbers of May Day greetings messages, found itself facing production difficulties. A notice in Tribune said:This is a fairly widespread problem and is obviously a serious situation for the country. It is a situation that was unheard of a few years ago. It has always been one of the acceptable facts of British life that the papers were there on the breakfast table and that one could always rely on getting the paper of one's choice early in the morning. It is only in the last few years that people have come to realise that they now do not know whether they will receive their paper. Therefore, it is right that the House should debate this subject today. I believe that it should be a considered debate and that we should try to reach the maximum degree of agreement in all parts of the House. I begin by quoting something that the Leader of the House said in 1974 when he was Secretary of State for Employment. He said:"We very much regret that because of production difficulties at our printers, over which we have no control, this week's special May Day issue has to be severely curtailed."
That was said nearly four years ago, and the situation today is certainly a good deal more serious than it was then. There is the whole question of the financial loss of those who work in the industry. There is a loss of the profits which could be put into new investment by management and companies and there is a loss of pay which could, in certain circumstances, have gone to the people who works in the industry. Secondly, there have been considerable losses for the wholesale and retail newsagents, commonly called the CTNs—confectionery, tobacco and newsagents. These have been going out of business, not entirely for these reasons but partly because of them, at the rate of about 200 a week. Their numbers in the past four to five years have fallen from around 34,000 to about 27,000. The people who run those shops are important in our society. They open their shops at all hours of the day or night and they perform an extraordinarily useful service to the community. We must try in every way we can to help them run their businesses. They have made strong representations to me and, I have no doubt, to all hon. Members. There is an employment factor involved here, because if the CTNs go out of business at the present rate we shall be adding even further to our unemployment problems. That is something of which we must not lose sight. There are also many implications for advertising. I have received a number of complaints over the past few days about the effect that the uncertainty over the printing of newspapers has on the whole advertising industry. It is a lucky thing that at the moment the television companies are fairly full of advertising, otherwise, national newspapers would be suffering a great deal more than they are. The newspapers are suffering, and this in itself has a considerable effect on industry and commerce. If a company cannot plan an advertising campaign with the launching of a new product and be certain that the advertising will be available at the right time, this disrupts the selling of the new product and means that companies tend to go to the medium with which they can be certain of getting advertising space. The position is even more damaging than that. People from overseas who have looked at this country and admired not only our free Press but the miraculous way in which we have distributed our newspapers over a long time see the present situation and regard it as symptomatic of our malaise. By inference, that damages the reputation of our country and its ability to compete. For all these reasons, it is right that we should debate this subject. There is no shortage of analyses of the problems. Most of the problems are familiar. A leading trade unionist said to me this week "Fleet Street is in a mess because both sides have made it so. Bad management has been chiefly responsible, but the unions have lost control at national level and union leaders have been stripped of their authority." I put that statement to a leading manager in Fleet Street and he agreed with every word of it. This is not a situation in which we can say that there is a lack of analysis or diagnosis of the problem. Is the present situation inevitable? Is it getting worse? Where will it end? I do not believe that the current position is inevitable. Other industries facing technological change are doing so without the trauma affecting Fleet Street. What is more—and we must be clear on this point—a lot of people are having to accept technological change who are a lot worse off and who have been offered much worse compensation than some of 'the Fleet Street printers. I do not believe that it is inevitable that we should have got into this situation. Is the current position getting worse? I think that for the moment it is. It is getting worse because, perhaps, management is at last starting to stand firm. Trade union leaders, trade unionists and Labour Members who know about this subject will know how important it is that when management has made a decision it should stick to it. I have had a good deal of evidence this week from trade union leaders to the effect that nothing has undermined their position so much as managers saying that they will do one thing and, 24 or 48 hours later, when they were frightened about losing circulation to some other newspaper, changing their mind and undercutting the position which the union leadership was trying to take in support of management. When I say that the situation is getting worse and that we are losing a larger number of papers because management is starting to stand firm, I must make another point. One of the circumstances of union ill discipline has been the changing pattern of newspaper ownership. About 20 years ago newspapers were small companies run by private individuals, and even if a publicly owned company was involved it was usually narrowly based on newspapers and treated by the newspaper proprietors as a private company. Now, individual companies have been steadily eliminated. Kemsley, Cadbury, Aitken and Astor have gone and, instead, newspapers are small parts of large, in some cases multinational, companies. There are Trafalgar House, Atlantic Richfield, the Thomson Organisation, Reeds, Pearson and so on. Because of the nature of control and because of the wealth of the parent companies, the top boards are not concerned so much either about ownership of newspapers or about the losses that standing up to strikes would involve for them. This will have the effect—it is already having such an effect—of more companies having the financial muscle to resist claims. The most obvious examples of this are The Observer and the Daily Express, where neither David Astor nor Max Aitken had the money to face strikes in the way that perhaps the present management is starting to do. This is an example of where union intransigence has brought its own reaction in terms of more powerful proprietors. Whether this is in the long-term interests of the Press is open to dispute. Whatever might be said about individual proprietors, they knew all about the freedom of the Press. We shall have to wait and see whether the present proprietors know quite so much."I agree that disputes which lead to frequent and persistent stoppages in the newspaper industry have a special significance, in the sense that they touch upon the free flow of opinion. If such disputes were to persist in the way that some people forecast, they could drain away the life blood of democracy in this country."—[Official Report, 21st November 1974; Vol. 881, c. 1531.]
I accept entirely what the right hon. Gentleman is saying, and I find it absolutely fascinating that he should develop this vital point of view. Would he not agree that one of the central problems is the fact that in the Fleet Street papers a great number of casuals are employed? The question of casual employment has always bedevilled every industry and has led to serious problems. The people who really want to solve the difficulties in Fleet Street should be thinking seriously about how to get away from casual employment in the industry.
This is obviously an important point. The casuals are very much part of the Sunday newspaper scene. They are people who have earned a pretty good screw during the week and want to pick up an extra £50 on a Saturday night by working for the Sundays. This is a general point, too. One of the things that has happened is that people no longer have a loyalty towards their papers. As a result, regrettably, the sort of situation to which the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) has referred tends to occur.
I draw the attention of the House to an extract from an excellent publication entitled "Programme for Action" which deals with the report of a body on which management and union leaders sit. There was full agreement on this report. Referring to the future of the industry and the programme's package, it says:That is the view of the joint standing committee for the national newspaper industry, which met to consider this problem. What advice and help should the House give? We all have a deep interest in the maintenance of a competitive free Press, giving a wide choice in political attitudes, analysis of the state of the nation, highbrow or lowbrow, sport or entertainment—the whole gamut. We have a deep interest in all of that. Certainly this "Programme for Action," drawn up by the joint standing committee, points the way to the solution. I believe that a renewed effort should be made to gain its acceptance. Perhaps an attitude survey of shop-floor reaction, sponsored by management and unions, could show how better to get the message across. I want to look at the management side for a minute. I believe that the management of newspapers has been subject to less influence in industrial relations than perhaps the editorial columns have exerted on nearly every other interest in the country. I cannot help thinking to myself sometimes that, if only the management of the newspapers had subjected themselves to such editorial advice as we have been subjected to in the House or industry generally has been subjected to on various matters, they might not be in quite the mess that they are. There are one or two things that one can say. I believe that there is not enough involvement and participation at shop-floor level. There must be more down-the-line personnel involvement. It seems to me that too often when something goes wrong it is to the top man that people go, whereas in industry that sort of thing would not happen. There would be much more managerial content the whole way down the managerial line. There is nothing more damaging in industrial relations—I suppose that we all learn this the hard way—than strong words which are followed by weak action or sometimes by no action at all. That is a lesson that needs to be learnt by management too. On the union side—"To adopt this package is not therefore to accept the soft option. But rejection of it would result in titles continuing to fail as newspaper economies forced them out of business. The inevitable consequences would be compulsory redundancy with little or no advance warning to workers and unions. No Government aid would be available to workers and unions. New forms of printed communications utilising the new technology, if necessary, printed abroad, could compete more and more successfully with a diminishing range of British national newspapers."
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Is not the hon. Gentleman going to take part in the debate? If he is, he had better make his own speech.
Union leaders must reassert their undoubted authority. They must use their strength, and, if necessary, they must get together in order to do so. They cannot go on saying, as I think they are inclined to do at present, "We are so fed up with Fleet Street that we're washing our hands of what happens there", because it is far too important. What happens in Fleet Street is vital nationally. Therefore, they must take a personal interest in what happens. I believe that union leaders have adopted a responsible attitude. I do not want to praise them, because if I did so I should do them no good. I think that they have adopted a responsible attitude, but I hope that they will exert all their pressures to make certain that they can achieve the necessary discipline. In this respect, what is absolutely vital is a proper disputes procedure. The disputes procedure laid down on pages 28 and 29 of the "Programme for Action" seems to me vital. It is a first-class document, one which should be followed. We cannot afford the constant disruptions. I think it is true to say that there has not been an official dispute in Fleet Street for some while. All the disputes have been unofficial. Next, I want to say a word to the workers and to quote to them words which were said to me the other day: "Unless there is an industry, there is nothing to fight about. If they go as they are at the moment, there will not be anything to fight about." The vast majority of printers, as we all know them—we in this House probably know them better than most other people do—are decent people. What we see is the influence of the few being allowed to sway the many. It is not an unusual state of affairs where management has been weak. Those weaknesses can be exploited. There is no point in talking about holding pistols to the heads of these people or anything of that nature. I have tried to analyse the various problems dispassionately. I hope that a message can go out from the House today that we do not like what is going on. We recognise how damaging it is from the point of view of the industry, those who work in it and a free Press. We expect to see authority restored and common sense prevail. We are telling the industry, all sections of it, to get round the table again and sort it out, and sort it out quickly. I turn to another matter, which is much more a question for the provincial and magazine Press than for Fleet Street, but is also a matter of considerable concern. I refer to the whole question of the National Union of Journalists and the control it tries to exercise or might try to exercise were it to have a closed shop. I should like to put the matter in this way. One understands the problems of young journalists. One sees that in a number of provincial papers they have been badly paid. They see the much greater pay and much greater strength that perhaps the linotype operators have gathered for themselves, and they say to themselves "If they can do that as a result of a strong union, why can't we have the same?" There is no doubt that in many respects a number of journalists in a number of newspapers have been badly paid, and they look to the closed shop as a means of giving them the collective strength that they feel they otherwise lack. I understand that, but there are too many examples now where a closed shop certainly could be used, and would be used, as a means of controlling what was published. In this respect I should like to quote from a leading article in The Times some months ago:That is why we on the Conservative Benches have stated that any Press charter should be firm about the right to join or not to join a union. What has happened to the Press charter? When does the Secretary of State expect to be able to bring a charter before the House? I now have a further suggestions to make to the right hon. Gentleman. The Government have recently stated—at any rate, they have come out in the Press—the conditions for union membership agreements within certain Civil Service unions. I do not like closed shops, but if one is to have a closed shop the union membership agreement must be drawn in a certain way to give freedom to individuals to decide whether they will pay union dues, pay to a charity or use some other means of paying. It seems to me that the conditions that the Government are laying down for union membership agreements for their own employees in the Civil Service are perfectly reasonable and suitable for the conditions of a union membership agreement, for example, in the newspaper industry, because it would give that freedom for the individual journalist to decide whether he wished to join a union. If he did not wish to join, he would not be subject to the pressures of discipline which the union might try to exert if he was writing material with which it disagreed. I believe, therefore, that the Government have another way out of this situation now, not just through the Press charter but through stating that they would support union membership agreements with the sorts of provision that they have discussed themselves and which we have been talking about for some time. That is another thing on which I believe that the Govenment should now give a lead."Rigid application of the closed shop in journalism creates an unacceptable risk of restraint upon liberty. Effective control of what is or is not printed would be put in the hands of a single politically active organisation. The NUJ would be able to decide who wrote for the press and to require its members to write in a particular way on pain of effective exclusion from their trade. The union's present leaders may be fully determined never to exploit the powers that a closed shop would give them. But the political currents in the union are strong and it is impossible to be certain that the same will always be true."
Will the right hon. Gentleman tell me the source of the document from which he was quoting a few minutes ago?
I was quoting not from a TUC document but from the well-inspired sources last week on what conditions the Government were seeking—
I am sorry, but perhaps I misled the right hon. Gentleman. A few minutes ago he quoted someone about closed shops in journalism. I did not catch the source of the document.
I quoted a leader from The Times of some months ago.
I turn now from the question of preserving the freedom of the Press, which means a good deal more than ensuring that all journalists have access to the Press. I am sure that no one in this House would defend any newspaper which refused to publish a letter from one of its readers purely on the ground that it objected to his or her political or union affiliation. This would rightly be condemned as a most dangerous form of censorship. As recently as 4th May, however, the editor of the Evening Standard found that he was unable to publish a drawing which a reader had submitted with a letter. The editor was unable to publish the drawing because the Press and process workers' union, SLADE, refused to handle the picture. A joint SLADENGA directive forbids the processing of work other than that done by a trade union member. When the unions demanded to know whether the reader was a member of a union, the editor refused to answer. In that evening's edition he restated his paper's policy that the editorial columns should be kept open to any contributor irrespective of union or political affiliations. Of course, the editor of the Evening Standard must surely be right. I defy anyone in this House, including those on the Government Benches, to say to the contrary. Yet, as a result of action by the members of SLADE, no picture appeared. If hon. Members are interested, I point out that on page 28 of that edition of the Evening Standard there is a blank space. The caption says:Perhaps it is as well that the picture was not in. But there is a blank space where it should have been. SLADE members there demonstrated their ability and determination to censor a newspaper, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Dodsworth) has given me details of a circular send round by the NGA and the NUJ combined stating that members of those unions should not permit the publication of certain material which had racialist overtones. I hold no more brief than they would for anyone who sought to stir up racialism in Britain, but I would defend to the last the right of a newspaper to print that material if that was what the editor wished to do. It is not for any part of the trade union movement, whether it be the NUJ, SLADE or whatever, to start saying what can or cannot be printed. Other activities of SLADE have also—"Wonderful Wapping—but this is a wasteland."
Would the right hon. Gentleman care to comment upon the employer or manufacturer who instructs his agency not to take space in a paper because he identifies that paper with a certain political view to which he or the person buying the space objects? Would the right hon. Gentleman condemn him equally in such a case concerning, for example, Tribune or Labour Weekly, in which certain agencies refuse to take space because they are political papers? Or does the right hon. Gentleman think that these freedoms should extend right across the board?
That is a totally separate case in every possible way. It bears no relation to the point I was making. In the case that the hon. Gentleman is talking about, presumably a commercial consideration is involved. It is an advertisement, and an advertiser has the right to decide in which papers he will advertise. There is no connection there at all. What I object to very strongly is the fact that the NUJ and the NGA or SLADE are in a position to say what should or should not be printed in a newspaper, and I believe that that is entirely a wrong use of union power and one that we should bring out into the open and resist to the last breath.
Like the proprietors.
The hon. Gentleman says "Like the proprietors", but there is a wide variety of publications throughout the country. There is plenty of scope in the provincial Press and in the national Press for a wide variety of views to be expressed, and anyone who does not believe that does not know what goes on in journalism.
Other activities of SLADE have also given rise to considerable concern to many people in this House, in the country and throughout the trade union movement. Last June, we initiated a debate on the recruiting methods and techniques of SLADE because of this widespread concern. In particular we were concerned at SLADE's failure to consult workers when it wished to recruit and its frequent demands not only for recognition by the employer but for a closed shop. These activities were particularly serious in various art work studios and advertising agencies. During that debate, the Minister of State expressed the hope that consultations between representatives of the employers and SLADE, held through the good offices of the TUC printing industries committee, would help to improve matters, although only last month he stated, in reply to a Question that I put to him,I gather that further talks are planned, but our information is that SLADE's attitude has not changed all that much. As a recent article in The Sunday Times by Eric Jacobs showed, several thousand people have effectively been coerced into membership of the SLADE Art Union. Why should these people now not be able to leave the union if they so wish, free from the threat of blacking or the secondary boycott? Indeed, at this moment members of the SLADE Art Union are demonstrating outside the SLADE annual delegate conference at Scarborough because, although the SAU comprises about one-third of the total SLADE membership, its members are not represented at conference. They are also worried that members of the SAU will not be able to vote in any ballot of SLADE members on the proposed merger between SLADE and the NUJ. It is no wonder that they are worried. On the one hand, SLADE said that it would abide by the letter and spirit of the recent High Court judgment in which temporary injunctions were imposed on it, yet, on the other hand, its general secretary says that members of the Art Union are now in limbo. It is hardly surprising that the banners at Scarborough today say "Shame on SLADE" and refer to members of the Art Union as second-class citizens. SLADE's attitude and behaviour has been quite inexcusable. It is not as if the union was driven to such extremes by an unreasonable approach on the part of the employers—not that the tactics used by SLADE could ever be justified in any circumstances. But, in an effort to reach a joint understanding, the employers are willing to recognise as appropriate unions any one of four unions, including SLADE. They are happy that representatives of the unions concerned should meet and put their point of view to their employees, and they are ready to recognise a union for bargaining purposes where a substantial proportion of employees or groups of employees belong to one of those unions. In return, all that is asked by the employers is that the individual employee has the right to choose whether to join a union, free from the threat of blacking or secondary boycott. I cannot believe that anyone in this House can take a different view from that. All this seems to me to be very fair and reasonable behaviour, and I am certain that that is the view that we all ought to take. I suspect that that is the view with which many people in the trade union movement—in fact, nearly all the trade union movement—would agree, and even, perhaps, the majority of the NGA and SLADE as well. I hope that in any further talks on the principles involved a sensible accommodation can be reached. I very hope also that both SLADE and the NGA will be ready to renegotiate on the issue of the pre-entry closed shop when the new agreements are negotiated with employers this summer. I hope that the message of this House today to Fleet Street will be to accept the "Programme for Action" and make it work. I hope that the message to the NUJ will be that the privilege of a free Press is of greater importance than a press-ganged union membership. I hope that the message to SLADE-NGA will be to stop bringing the whole of the trade union movement into disrepute. The greater the degree of unanimity we show, the more likely we are to succeed. A free Press and democracy go hand in hand. That is a stand that this House has to take."I very much regret that as yet as I have seen little evidence that the situation has significantly changed."—[[Official Report, 3rd April 1978; Vol. 947, c. 51.]
4.42 p.m.
The newspaper industry has been responsible for the publication of a good deal of criticism of industrial relations in other sectors of the country. In fact, editorials on this subject are frequently excellent examples of the pan calling the kettle sooty-bottomed. It is therefore a little ironic that the Opposition have sought, in a Supply Day debate, to bring forward a subject that reflects adversely on industrial relations in newspapers.
Nevertheless, having said that, I very much appreciate the spirit in which the subject has been introduced by the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior). I agreed with a number of things that he said. Even where I disagreed with him, I felt that he introduced the matter in a constructive way, which can lead to a debate on the issue, which can serve a useful purpose. The problems of industrial relations in the newspaper industry at this time are the more critical because they coincide with a period when the newspaper industry is facing one of the most significant periods of change in the history of printing. There may be a relationship between the two. It may be that the new technology of computerised photocomposition in place of the old hot-metal methods is the cause of part of the industrial relations problems. It is not surprising that a change of this magnitude should give rise to differences between management and unions. But a newspaper industry, which thrives on reporting the conflicts and challenges in our society, must itself meet the challenge of new print technology and resolve the conflict that this produces in a way that does not bring the presses of this country to a halt. The joint standing committee which emerged from talks between unions and management in the first half of 1976 published the proposals, designed to accommodate the introduction of this new technology, under the heading of the publication "Programme for Action"—the document to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. A great many of the recommendations of the ACAS report were embodied in the "Programme for Action". These proposals were commended by the printing unions but were rejected by their members in a ballot in the spring of 1977. I believe that the union leaders are the people best qualified to judge the reasons for this rejection by their membership, to reflect those reasons in further negotiations with management and proprietors on this issue, and to convey to their own membership the scope, the opportunities and the limitations which they believe that the new technology will bring to employment in the Press. In the absence of agreement on new national machinery to deal more effectively with these issues, many newspaper publishers are now undertaking negotiations with trade unions to bring about the advance of the introduction of the new technology. The Mirror Group is probably the one which has made the most progress towards this goal, but even there it would seem that several problems still remain to be ironed out. Most other Fleet Street managements are already engaged in discussions of a similar kind, although some plans are more ambitious than others. I believe that what has to be recognised is that unless these changes are introduced it is highly unlikely that the industry will be able to maintain reasonable employment levels, and the future of Fleet Street itself, with its present range of titles, will be at risk over this problem. There is no immutable law which requires national newspapers any longer to be printed in London. This is an issue, therefore, which is of concern not only to proprietors, to editors and to those who work in the industry, but rightly also—as the right hon. Gentleman said—to those who live by retailing newspapers. It is an issue that should properly concern this House and all who are concerned with the dissemination of news and opinion through the medium of the Press. Any publicity that we give to disputes in Britain tends to sustain the myth of the "British disease". It is worth recollecting, therefore, just for a moment, that Press industrial relations problems are not by any means unique to this country. Recent major disputes in the Federal Republic of Germany and in Denmark have been very much rooted in exactly these problems in this kind of area. These countries have experienced difficulties in the introduction of new technology in the Press. In West Germany, union resistance to certain employer proposals for the introduction of new technological developments led to an almost total shut-down of German presses during the middle of March, when the negotiations had broken down, and the employers instigated a lockout in retaliation for some selective strike action which took place at that time. Within the last 12 months Denmark has also seen a major stoppage over new technology and changed manpower requirements in the Press. It is relevant to point out, particularly in view of some things that have been said recently in industrial relations debates in the House, that in Denmark legal sanctions were used against those who took part in strike action in the Danish Press, and that this seems to have exacerbated the ill-feeling of the dispute to the point where it actually spilled over into violence. For a long time in this country the number of days lost due to disputes in the newspaper industry compared very favourably indeed with the position in other industries. Statistics published by my Department for the number of days lost due to industrial disputes in the industry in 1976 show that the figure is below the average for all manufacturing industries. The statistics for the previous five years, which were published in the ACAS report, show that in most years the figures for the national newspaper industry were better than those for the paper, printing and publishing industries as a whole. Indeed, in some years the national newspaper industry had a lower figure for the number of days lost due to strikes than did the provincial newspapers. Having said that, I nevertheless accept very much of what the right hon. Gentleman said about the nature of disputes in the newspaper industry at present. It is the case that in the early part of this year many more copies had been lost than previously. Judged by that criterion, industrial relations in the Press have worsened. I do not contend that the figures that we publish for days lost due to industrial disputes are necessarily the best criteria of the damage that is done in this industry as a result of bad industrial relations and forms of dispute.I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned that point. I hope that he will emphasise the fact that when one has a situation in which a handful of 10 or 20 men can stop a whole newspaper, or half an edition of a newspaper, the number of copies lost are overwhelmingly the indicator by which one has to judge the prosperity or prospects of the industry.
I fully accept that point. If it will help the House I shall develop it just a little. Our figures for days lost at an establishment do not include the total days lost as a result of a dispute. That is particularly relevant in this industry. The printing process is such that a stoppage by even a few workers can result in a total loss of production. Therefore, I am at one with the hon. Gentleman in his contention that if we are to judge the effects of disputes in relation to the ability of the industry to perform its task, we must look at the losses of production which result, or the failure to deliver newspapers, possibly more than we look at the number of hours or days lost in actual dispute.
The reference to figures of publications lost, of more than 50 million, may not tally exactly with the various counts made, but that is not of importance. What is of importance, if we accept this way of judging it, is that there has been a massive loss of tens of millions of copies in the early part of this year. That is a serious matter. Having said that, we must look more closely at the reasons for some disputes which are peculiar to Fleet Street. In doing so I feel obliged to say that many of the roots of Fleet Street's problems lie in the policy of management, or the absence of management policy, in industrial relations. Those managers who concede to unofficial demands things that they denied to official union representatives only a few days previously do nothing but undermine the authority of unions in an area where the authority of unions is of considerable importance if we are to have industrial peace. Most disputes—in fact, almost all disputes—which have taken place in Fleet Street this year have been unofficial disputes. By definition, they are disputes that have been caused as a result of a failure to use procedures for the resolution of the problems that have arisen.Can my right hon. Friend tell the House what is the present situation regarding efforts being made to resolve the dispute at The Observer, which clearly has important implications? Can he say whether any approaches have been made to the Department or to ACAS to assist in that dispute. Can he say what efforts are being made to resolve it?