§ Q2. Mr. Carterasked the Prime Minister if he will define the responsibilities of the Secretary of State for Employment.
§ The Prime MinisterPresident Bhutto is always welcome in London, but there are no current plans for him to come here.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder.
§ The Prime MinisterThe responsibilities of Ministers and their Departments are defined in a number of standard works of reference including "Britain, 1973", an official handbook published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office, copies of which are available in the Library of the House.
§ Mr. CarterIs it not obvious that conciliation in industrial affairs has been deleted from these responsibilities? Is it not for that reason that we have the worst strike figures for 40 years and a policy of confrontation throughout industry? Will the Prime Minister say when conciliation in industry will be restored and sanity returned to industrial affairs?
§ The Prime MinisterConciliation is used a very great deal by industry through 682 the Department of Employment at the present time. It is one of the major responsibilities of the Secretary of State for Employment, his Department and his conciliation officers, and the whole of industry knows that it is being very widely used.
§ Mr. Russell KerrRubbish.
§ Sir Gilbert LongdenAmong the Secretary of State for Employment's other duties, one is to maintain employment and to arrange for retraining. Has not unemployment fallen, and has my right hon. Friend not arranged for 100,000 people to be retrained? Is it not also the case that the Leader of the Opposition last Tuesday seemed to support my right hon. Friend's suggestion that the gasmen should put their case before the Pay Board now, but that nothing should be acted upon until phase 3?
§ The Prime MinisterThe whole House will welcome the great increase in training and retraining which is now going on. It is a steady increase. The House will also welcome the substantial further reduction in unemployment shown by the figures published today, with a fall of more than 200,000 over the last year.
§ Mr. PrenticeIn the Prime Minister's reply to the supplementary question to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Carter) he said that the conciliation rôle was still an important one. Will he therefore tell the House whether the Secretary of State for Employment is being inhibited by the Prime Minister personally, or by the Cabinet, in performing his traditional conciliation rôle in relation to the gas dispute, or can he go ahead and take the steps which would normally be expected of a Secretary of State for Employment in such a situation?
§ The Prime MinisterThe right hon. Gentleman understands, I think, that there is a standstill, which was laid down by Parliament. We are now asking Parliament for powers to move into the second stage on which the guideline has been laid down, and we shall ask Parliament for approval. Therefore, within the scope of that there is room for negotiation. As I understand it, however, the Gas Corporation has already offered the maximum under the guidelines. As for conciliation on other aspects of industrial 683 relations, of course, my right hon. Friend's Department is at the disposal of all of industry, whether employers or unions.
As for the present situation, which is the subject of correspondence between the Leader of the Opposition and myself, my right hon. Friend is inviting the unions so that they can discuss this with him.
§ Mr. Harold WilsonAs the Prime Minister omitted to reply to the second part of the question asked by his hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Sir Gilbert Longden) about my Question on Tuesday, will he now tell the House, instead of waiting for television tonight, that the letter he has sent me is a flat rejection of what I proposed on Tuesday, and that he must now bear full responsibility for the industrial disruption that followed that rejection?
§ The Prime MinisterThe letter will be published, and the House and the public will be able to judge for themselves. The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely, completely and utterly mistaken. I have said in the letter that we are setting up the Pay Board, that the nominations will he made and the men designated at the earliest possible opportunity, and that immediately they are nominated they will start work. What I have said is that for them to do the work, with the full staff, and to hear any submissions that any trade union or anyone else likes to make, it is not necessary to designate them as a Royal Commission for the next four or five weeks. They will be established, and they will carry out the task——
§ Mr. WilsonWhen?
§ The Prime MinisterImmediately they are established. We shall announce the appointments as soon as they have been settled——
§ Mr. WilsonWhen?
§ The Prime MinisterThe way in which the right hon. Gentleman constantly loses his temper is becoming rather monotonous.
If the Pay Board were set up as a Royal Commission it could not be set up any earlier than the announcement of members' appointments. They will be appointed at the earliest possible opportunity. The unit, under a deputy chairman, that is to concentrate on dealing 684 with anomalies will be set up at the earliest opportunity. It will be available to hear any submissions, or any evidence—[interruption.] It will have exactly the same possibilities and opportunities as a Royal Commission——
§ Mr. WilsonNo.
§ The Prime MinisterIt will, indeed. The union can make any presentation to it that it wants, as can the employers. They can put any information before it. It is a matter of four or five weeks before the actual Pay Board is established. Those members will then continue, and the work they have done will be continued with them.
§ Mr. WilsonThe Prime Minister says that those members will have the same powers as a Royal Commission. A Royal Commission, which the right hon. Gentleman could have recommended to the Crown in the past two days and announced today, would have had power to send for persons and papers. Until the Counter-Inflation Bill receives the assent of this House and another place, what powers will the nucleus—consisting, as far as I can see, of an establishment officer and two or three other people—have to send for persons and papers?
§ The Prime MinisterAny union or employer involved can go immediately—they can go at this moment—to the secretary and present the information. I see no difficulty whatever about the unit operating directly it is established. I said in my letter to the right hon. Gentleman that we were in a very great measure of agreement about the sort of consideration required, and that this would continue under stage 2, and that there would be the opportunity to deal with the anomalies under stage 3. All of these are matters on which we are agreed, and I welcome that. I have rejected nothing. I have said that the unit will immediately begin to operate.
If the right hon. Gentleman is saying that everything depends on calling the people concerned a Royal Commission, I can only say that he is completely mistaken, and that they will be able to do everything that is required—[Interruption.] Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the General Secretary of the TUC has said in public, and repeated in the 685 United States, that the trade union movement does not want a confrontation, and neither do the Government—[Interruption.] The General Secretary has repeated his view that the Government do not want a confrontation. I suggest that the views of Mr. Feather should be listened to instead of the disruptive—[Interruption.] But why should not I quote the General Secretary of the TUC? He has confirmed that the Government do not want a confrontation. It seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman is just trying to pursue disruptive tactics himself.
§ Sir Harmar NichollsOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in accordance with the high standards of the House that an ex-Prime Minister—the present Leader of the Opposition—should use the Dispatch Box to give a twisted version of a letter which has not been produced?
§ Mr. SpeakerThat is not a matter of order.
§ Mr. StonehouseOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As the Prime Minister has already answered Question No. Q3, although inadvertently, may I please be allowed to put my supplementary question to him?
§ Mr. SpeakerI am afraid not.
§ Mr. StonehouseOn a point of order. May I revert to the point I raised on Tuesday, Mr. Speaker, and draw your attention to the fact that out of a total of 29 Questions to the Prime Minister today only Questions Nos. Q1, Q2 and Q24 have been answered? How are back-bench Members to be allowed to pursue their Questions to the Prime Minister when we are allowed only 15 minutes or less to put them? May consideration be given to the Prime Minister's Questions coming on the Order Paper at a reasonable hour, perhaps at 3 o'clock?
§ Mr. SpeakerAs I have said before, that is not a matter for me, but rather shorter supplementary questions and a little less noise would help.
§ Mr. ThorpeFurther to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As it is a rule of the House——
§ Mr. SkinnerMr. 280 per cent.!
§ Mr. ThorpeThe hon. Gentleman will have to ask his Front Bench about that.
As it is a rule of the House—[Interruption.]
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I must ask the House to behave itself.
§ Mr. SkinnerWatch your pockets.
§ Mr. ThorpeIt sounds rather like Chester-le-Street.
As the same Question cannot be tabled twice in the Session, and as the Prime Minister has inadvertently answered the Question of the right hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse), are we to take it that the right hon. Gentleman cannot re-table the Question, which is one of considerable importance and interest?
§ Mr. SpeakerThe right hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse) was rather fortunate to receive an answer, because it was given in error. The asking of a supplementary question is a matter for me. I shall consider the point that the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) has just raised.
§ Mr. Maxwell-HyslopOn a point of order—
§ Mr. SpeakerThe hon. Gentleman has given me notice of his intention to raise a point of order. I shall be grateful if he will raise it at the end of Business Question time.