§ Q4. Mr. Carterasked the Prime Minister if he intends to have further meetings with Mr. Henry Ford to discuss the effects of industrial investment decisions on employment and economic growth in the United Kingdom and if he will make a statement on the discussions already held.
§ Q12. Mr. Sheldonasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his recent meeting with Mr. Henry Ford 1670 to discuss the Government's economic measures.
§ The Prime MinisterI would refer the hon. Members to the answer I gave to a Question from the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) on 18th March. There are no plans for further meetings with Mr. Ford..—[Vol. 813, c. 396-7.]
§ Mr. CarterWhile thanking the Prime Minister for that reply, may I ask whether he agrees that Mr. Ford's intervention in this dispute merely had the effect of delaying today's announcement of the basis for settlement? Does he agree, further, that external interference of this kind in Britain's domestic affairs is not called for?
§ The Prime MinisterThe question of the specific Ford dispute was not discussed at my meetings with Mr. Ford and Mr. Leonard Woodcock. But, in general, I think that any head of a company with a factory in this country is entitled to speak his mind.
§ Mr. SheldonIs not it a pity that the Ford dispute was not discussed, in view of the bearing that the recent nay award has had on the Government's policy? Is not the Prime Minister aware that his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in his Budget speech on Tuesday that the Government's policy of de-escalation was succeeding? Will the Prime Minister let us know what level of de-escalation he regards as successful, and what level of pay settlement he would regard as showing that his policy is succeeding?
§ The Prime MinisterThe actual dispute is handled by the Ministers responsible. The basis on which I had a discussion with both Mr. Ford and Mr. Woodcock was that this particular dispute would not be discussed or dealt with. That has been the case in all my discussions, either with industrialists or with trade unionists. The same is true of my discussions with the T.U.C. and the Scottish T.U.C. There was no difference at all. We have not yet had time to study the present proposals in detail, but I must make this general point—that if a company can accommodate a settlement of this kind without increasing its prices and thereby 1671 increasing unemployment, it may well be able to justify it, but that is an outlook which must concern the firm itself.
§ Mr.GryllsWould my right hon. Friend not agree that the threat by the Labour Party to nationalise Rolls-Royce —[Laughter.]—is hardly likely to be helpful to investment in Rolls-Royce?
§ The Prime MinisterWe may be getting a little far from the original Question. We did not discuss the question of Rolls-Royce with Mr. Ford.
§ Mr. John MendelsonIn connection with the Prime Minister's discussions with Mr. Henry Ford, did he by any chance hear Lord Stokes on "The World at One".today, when he protested bitterly about the exaggerated stories being spread about this country being always on strike, and pointed out that, during recent visits abroad, he had found that these exaggerated stories were doing great harm to Britain's export prospects? Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore himself refrain from making these exaggerated statements and instruct his Ministerial colleagues to refrain likewise?
§ The Prime MinisterI did not hear that programme, because I was giving lunch to the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland in order to have an official discussion—
§ Mr. MendelsonRead the text of the broadcast— The Prime Minister: As for Lord Stokes, I recollect occasions in the past on which he caused acute embarrassment to the Leader of the Opposition, the then Prime Minister, and the Labour Party by his remarks about the consequences of industrial unrest in British Leyland.
§ Mr. Harold WilsonWhen the right hon. Gentleman studies the transcript of what Lord Stokes said today, will he also study the transcript of what he said after the Downing Street agreement in June, 1969, when he welcomed it as the best way of handling industrial relations?
§ The Prime MinisterPerhaps the right hon. Gentleman will study very carefully the consequences which followed from that announcement.
§ Mr. AtkinsonOn a point of order. I did not want to interrupt the Prime Minister while he was answering, but why 1672 is he deliberately discriminating against members of the A.U.E.W.?
§ Mr. SpeakerThat is not a matter for the Chair.
§ Mr. AtkinsonFurther to that point of order. My Question, No. Q17, which is identical with No. Q12, was removed from the Order Paper by whoever takes instructions from the Prime Minister and then put back again, but it was put back as No. Q17. I should have thought it reasonable to expect that my Question would be answered with Questions Nos. Q4 and Q12.
§ Mr. SpeakerI do not think that that is a matter of order for the Chair.
§ The Prime MinisterMay I follow that point of order? I followed the normal procedure, which was established by my predecessor, that, when Questions appear late in the list, one does not couple them with earlier Questions, since that could lead to hon. Gentlemen putting down Questions at the last moment and still having them called.