§ Q5. Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his recent discussions with the Scottish Trades Union Congress.
§ The Prime MinisterI had no formal discussions, but I addressed the Congress and I had a number of informal talks with officers of the S.T.U.C. both on Scottish and on more general issues.
§ Mr. HamiltonWill my right hon. Friend say whether the Scottish T.U.C. approved the Government's regional policies for development in Scotland, and what it thought about the official Tory Opposition's policy of abolishing investment grants and reverting to industrial growth points, and the Tory plan to oppose the Government's attempt to keep the U.C.S. alive?
§ The Prime MinisterThe members of the Scottish T.U.C. did not go into all these questions with me because they, being realistic people, are concerned only with the policies of the present and likely future Government. On all that has been said by right hon. Gentlemen on investment grants, both attributively and non-attributively, their policy is a prescription for a great decline in development areas, making colliery closures and other questions worse. On Upper Clyde Shipbuilders, I saw a deputation of 100 shop stewards, and also discussed this question with members of the S.T.U.C. General Council. Our policy on this has been quite clear, and I am shocked to see reports that the Conservative Opposition are opposed to our policies for saving the Upper Clyde shipbuilding yards.
§ Sir K. JosephWill the Prime Minister acknowledge that the regional policy of Her Majesty's Opposition is firmly to keep a differential investment incentive in the development areas? Will he further confirm that the Trades Union Congress in its Economic Review this year urges more selectivity in the use of taxpayers' money in the development areas, just as the Opposition are doing?
§ The Prime MinisterThe right hon. Gentleman has spoilt his supplementary by an interview inThe Times Business Newsin February and an article in theSpectatormore recently—
§ Sir W. Bromley-DavenportGet on with the answer.
§ The Prime MinisterI am addressing myself not to the intellectuals of the Conservative Party but to the more obtuse minds on the Front Bench.
1064 The right hon. Gentleman has written these things. It would appear to be Conservative policy to get rid not only of investment grants but of R.E.P., on which there is a seven-year pledge to the business firms who went there. If the right hon. Gentleman denies that, he will no doubt get up and say so.
In regard to shipbuilding, the right hon. Gentleman can tell the House at any time convenient to him—I do not press him now—whether he supports the aid given by the Government to save Upper Clyde and the support given last week to save Cammell Laird.
§ Sir K. JosephWe agree with the Government—
§ Sir K. Joseph—that R.E.P. should be phased out after seven years. We also agree with the Minister of Technology that the taxpayer has now made his last grant or loan to Upper Clyde Shipbuilders.
§ The Prime MinisterThe right hon. Gentleman is now saying something very different from what has been said by the Conservative Party, because I understand that it was using investment grants for its tax remissions. If that is not so, if investment grants are to be maintained in development areas or are to be replaced on an equivalent basis by investment allowances, hon. Members opposite cannot claim a penny piece of investment grants for tax remissions.
I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman, since he has been so nice to us, that I did not answer his earlier question. He deludes himself if he thinks that the T.U.C. document about selectivity represents Opposition policy. The Opposition's selectivity is based on cutting down a great part of the help to development areas. The T.U.C. policy is to maintain all our general grants but to produce further specific grants over and above in areas of greater difficulty.
§ Mr. ShinwellNow that the official spokesman for the Opposition has made a public declaration of agreement with the Government on many items, could we have the General Election at once?
§ The Prime MinisterThese matters do not necessarily depend on a consensus 1065 between the Opposition and the Government. We have not yet a consensus on investment grants, investment allowances, infrastructure grants and other questions which are absolutely basic to Tory claims about taxation between the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) and the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling), and, of course, we have had total silence from the Leader of the Opposition.