INDUSTRIAL POLICIES (MINISTER'S SPEECH) (Hansard, 7 August 1975)

§ Q2. Mr. Hurd
asked the Prime Minister whether the public speech by the Secretary of State for Energy to the Institute for Workers' Control in Sheffield on 20th July about the Government's domestic policies represented Government policy.

§ Q3. Mr. Tim Renton
asked the Prime Minister whether the Secretary of State for Energy's speech at the Institute for Workers' Control in Sheffield about industrial policies represents Government policy.

§ Q4. Mr. Pattie
asked the Prime Minister whether the Secretary of State for Energy's public speech at the Institute for Workers' Control in Sheffield on 20th July about industrial policies represents Government policy.

§ Q8. Mr. Blaker
asked the Prime Minster if the public speech by the Secretary of State for Energy to the Institute for Workers' Control at Sheffield on Sunday 20th July about industrial policies represents Government policy.

§ Q9. Mr. Adley
asked the Prime Minister if the public speech by the Secretary of State for Energy to the Institute for Workers' Control, in Sheffield on 20th July about industrial policy represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

§ Q10. Mr. Stanley
asked the Prime Minister whether the Secretary of State for Energy's speech at the Institute for Workers' Control in Sheffield on 20th July about industrial policies represents Government policy.

§ The Prime Minister
Yes, Sir.

§ Mr. Hurd
Did the Prime Minister see Press reports to the effect that in his speech the Secretary of State talked about the independent rôle which Cabinet Ministers would need to play in working out Labour Party policy? Can he confirm reports that under the Secretary of State's chairmanship the Labour Party is preparing yet another programme for control of British industry and financial institutions? Will he please call it off before confidence is entirely destroyed?

§ The Prime Minister
The only published quotations from the speech which I have seen in the national and local Press referred to the need to sustain and maintain the Labour Government—unexceptionable, and in the highest national interest—and to the need to develop party policy in parallel with the programme of the Government. This was done by the Conservative Party. During its period of office, in drawing up its policies it was naturally looking forward to what it hoped would be a continuing period in office. As for the question of the participation of Ministers in the National Executive or its committees, the situation has been made very clear by me. I welcome the fact that Ministers, constituency parties and others play their full part. I try to do so myself, but this does not and cannot mean—all Ministers are aware of this—that any Minister can dissociate himself from the policies and actions of the Government of which he is a member. Nor can any Minister appear to or purport to commit the Government in advance of their deliberations and decisions announced in this House.

§ Mr. Noble
Does my right hon. Friend not agree that the greatest danger to the Government's anti-inflation policy will arise from the disillusionment of workers because of increasing unemployment? If so, will he read carefully the report of last night's debate, in which there was virtual unanimity on the Government side of the House in the desire for import controls on textiles, footwear and clothing? Will he note that this unanimity is shared by the trade union representatives in those industries who came to the House on Tuesday?

§ The Prime Minister
I look forward to reading the report of that debate in full when it is available. My hon. Friend should be careful to distinguish between a general policy of import control, which would have very bad effects on this country as a big trading nation, and the cases urged again yesterday in the debate and at Question Time, in respect of unfair competition and dumping. We are considering a number of these cases and are seeking proof. We shall not hesitate to act. We have already acted in a number of cases, either within existing powers or by informal arrangements with the Governments 724 of the countries behaving in that way.

§ Mr. Tim Renton
With unemployment now rising at a tragic rate, might not work forces be tempted more and more, often by outside influences, to conduct illegal sit-ins or take control of their factories? What plans has the Prime Minister to deal with this? Will he assure us that all members of the Cabinet have a collective responsibility to see that these plans are fulfilled?

§ The Prime Minister
The answer to the latter part of the question is "Yes". The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the deep anxiety felt in factories that are facing closure as a result of what we all agree is the worst world-wide depression since the 1930s, and about which leaders of all parties warned in a number of speeches during the previous two elections and at times between and since. This point does not arise out of the speech referred to in the Question, as far as I am aware of the contents of the speech. On the wider aspect of the need to give more confidence, particularly to people who are anxious, the hon. Gentleman will have noticed the statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade on industrial participation, which seemed to receive a warm welcome from both sides of the House and the Press.

§ Mr. Heffer
Returning to the question of collective ministerial responsibility, is it not clear that at times the Labour Party conference and the NEC may take up one position while the Government take another? Does my right hon. Friend agree that this puts Ministers on the NEC, or in their position as ordinary party members trying to carry out conference policy, in an extremely difficult and embarrassing position? Apart from the fact that the Government should not move away from conference policy and manifesto commitments, is it not clear that it is a pretence to the whole world—and has been for a long time—that all Ministers accept definite policies of the Government? Is it not time we had another look at the whole question of collective responsibility, to try to bring the matter up to date?

§ The Prime Minister
I do not agree with my hon. Friend's statement at all. 725 He must be willing to draw a distinction between manifesto commitments and conference decisions from year to year, many of which are totally opposed to the manifesto commitments. It has often been the case—this happened in the 1960s, as my hon. Friend remembers—that there has been a sharp divergence between conference decisions and the policy of the Government. This is always unhappy. We try to take full account of the conference decisions, but they are not binding on an elected Government. As my hon. Friend will be aware, it may not always be the case that a decision of the conference necessarily represents a view of all Labour Party members and voters. I attended a conference at Islington earlier this year, and the clear decision of that conference was not shared by Labour voters when they had the chance to vote in a ballot.

§ Mr. Pattie
Will the Prime Minister explain the difference between workers' control and industrial democracy?

§ The Prime Minister
All these phrases have many definitions. The Institute of Workers' Control has one set of proposals and there have been some very forward-looking proposals from the TUC and CBI. In many of these matters, this country, under successive Governments, has lagged behind some of the best practices on the Continent. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade set up the inquiry in order that the House can legislate in the Session after next.

§ Mr. Blaker
One of the difficulties here is that I understand from the Library that no text of the speech made by the Secretary of State for Energy is available, but is the Prime Minister aware that it was reported in the Press, including The Times, a copy of which I have in my hand, that the Secretary of State put forward the view that because of the economic crisis Cabinet Ministers who are members of the NEC should be free to express an independent view? In view of that, does the Prime Minister stick to his original answer to these Questions?

§ The Prime Minister
I stick to my original answer. I have seen The Times report. If I am correct, it was reported second-hand, and the newspaper did not actually report the speech. It added up 726 a number of views of its own on the basis of what it assumed might have been said. There is nothing in that speech, as publicly reported or intimated to me by my right hon. Friend, which justifies the criticisms of the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker). My right hon. Friend was reported as saying that there must be the fullest possible support for the Government and their decisions. I hope the hon. Gentleman will see the wisdom of that advice.

§ Mr. Whitehead
In view of the fact that we should perhaps attribute 11 Questions on this speech to the unoriginality of the Opposition, is it not a fact that the enormous attention they are paying to the Institute of Workers' Control could be rewarded if they were to go along to the institute, enrol there and listen to the views of genuine working people?

§ The Prime Minister
I think my hon. Friend is absolutely right. We would like to see some members of the Opposition show a greater appreciation of the decision taken by the TUC for the first time last year. Throughout its history, when the Conservative Party is bereft of policies, it always goes in for bogyman hunts. There were the cases of Lloyd George and Aneurin Bevan, but the Conservatives reserved their supreme malice for Winston Churchill when he was not sitting on their Front Bench. This Benn-hunting is a pathetic example of their inability to think of anything constructive to say.

§ Mr. Adley
Is the Prime Minister aware that it is frightening, to say the least, that he accepts as Government policy the contents of a speech which he now admits he has not seen or read in full? Does he not accept that those parts of the speech that we have seen, and the remarks by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), are a continuing reminder to this country that the nation is dependent upon a Government who are seriously split on almost every major issue? Will the Prime Minister now shake off the habits of a lifetime and disown the Marxists and Trotskyists in his party?

§ The Prime Minister
On the hon. Member's first appearance on the Opposition benches in March 1974 he appeared 727 dressed as a comedian, and he has lived up to that rôle ever since. Nothing more justifies my view on that score than his obsession with this matter. The Press was present at this meeting, and I have studied the local Press. I have given a full account to the House of my interpretation of what is in the Press, and I am sure that if my right hon. Friend had said anything which would have provided pabulum to the Benn-hunters opposite, the Press would have reported it. It did not.

§ Mr. Stanley
Does the Prime Minister agree that there was an extremely important development in industrial policy last night, when an amendment was passed to the Industry Bill in another place, providing for the disclosure of information to all employees, not just to representatives of the trade unions? Does the Prime Minister agree that since this amendment has been supported by all five parties on the Opposition side of the House this would be the right moment for the Government to drop their wholly undemocratic approach to the question of disclosure, which makes those who are not members of trade unions second-class citizens in law?

§ The Prime Minister
It would be wrong and improper for me to comment on amendments which have been passed in another place but which have not been reported back to this House. When they are reported back, as with other amendments that this House receives from time to time, the Government will study them sympathetically. If we think they are of value, we shall recommend my right hon. and hon. Friends to join with others who may feel similarly moved to support them. We shall judge these and other amendments on their merits or demerits.

§ Mr. Blaker
In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.