§ Q7. Mr. George Reidasked the Prime Minister when he next proposes to meet the STUC.
§ The Prime MinisterI have no immediate plans to do so, although I hope to do so in the not-too-distant future. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland met representatives of the STUC on 10th October to discuss the Scottish economic situation.
§ Mr. ReidAs the right hon. Gentleman has no immediate plans to meet the STUC, will he assure the House that in any negotiations over the future of Chrysler (UK) the rights and jobs of workers at Linwood will not be sacrificed to ensure continuity of employment in Coventry?
§ The Prime MinisterWe are paying special attention to the problems of Linwood. I think that the whole House knows—and knew before there was an SNP member in the House—the importance of Linwood, not only to the immediately surrounding area but to a much wider travel-to-work area. We are certainly bearing that in mind as one of the high priorities in anything that we hope—I use the word "hope"—may come out of our discussions with the Chrysler Corporation.
§ Mr. BuchanDoes my right hon. Friend accept that the shop stewards at Linwood would strongly deprecate the kind of political remarks made by the hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Reid). The shop stewards and the STUC both stand solidly with the workers in the Midlands to fight these proposed closures. Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that they are not too keen that money should necessarily be wasted in propping up that corporation, but would much prefer that it be used to take it over?
§ The Prime MinisterI thank my hon. Friend for what he has said. I know he speaks not only for the trade union representatives and workers at Linwood but for all Chrysler employees. One of the factors in this situation, about which I warned last May, is that there have been a considerable number of disputes and man-days lost in the Chrysler Corporation, but it was not until last week that we learned there were Luddites on both sides—in the management and ownership as well as on the other side. However, it is only fair that I should say that, while the Linwood strike record was bad until a year ago, as was the record of Coventry, the situation at Linwood this year has been extremely good, and only a few hundred man-hours have been lost in the first 10 months of this year.
§ Mr. RifkindWill the right hon. Gentleman accept that the people of Scotland are getting fed up with the 1140 spurious attempts by members of the SNP to try to create grievances between the people of Scotland and those elsewhere in the United Kingdom? Will he ensure that any policy concerning Chrysler is based on the principle that it will be fair to all the people throughout the United Kingdom?
§ The Prime MinisterYes. As my last answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) showed, that should be our approach. The hon. Member does not need to get too worried about the party to which he referred. The House would wish it to settle its differences with the Orkney and Shetland Islands before its Members come here to speak with any authority, particularly on the question of North Sea Oil.
§ Mr. Les HuckfieldIs my right hon. Friend aware that his attitude of deep and serious concern over the Chrysler situation is infinitely preferable to the cheapjack politicking of the hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Reid)? We in Coventry have never advocated discrimination against any of the Chrysler workers, but does my right hon. Friend agree that the attitude of the hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire is just the kind of thing that might trigger it off?
§ The Prime MinisterI am grateful to my hon. Friend not only for his question but for the attitude he has taken on a matter which deeply affects many people in his constituency and surrounding constituencies. We do not impute motives in this House, but it is a fact that the SNP has made very little inroads, apart from one short and unhappy episode, in west central Scotland.
§ Mr. William RossNot for long.
§ The Prime MinisterNo doubt they are looking at these matters like carrion crows, hoping that there will be some pickings for them.
§ Mr. GrimondIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that the people of Orkney and Shetland are very pleased at the interest which a fellow islander is taking in their welfare? Will he come up there and assure us that we shall have a reasonable and effective power devolved to Scotland within the United Kingdom, so 1141 that we can take maximum advantage of the possibilities which oil opens up for us?
§ The Prime MinisterThe right hon. Gentleman has a later Question on the Order Paper, inviting me to visit part of his constituency. It may not be reached, as it is about No. 40. The right hon. Gentleman has made the point more than once that the Chairman of the SNP is, I understand, committed to the doctrine that the people of Orkney and Shetland should have the right to decide their own future, not excluding a Faroese solution. The statement from the right hon. Gentleman's constituency last weekend might have used more complimentary phrases when it spoke of "better the devil they know in London than the devil they do not know in Edinburgh". That made clear the hollowness of the pretentions of the SNP.
§ Mr. WhitelawWill the right hon. Gentleman tell us when the White Paper on devolution is likely to be published, as this is a very important matter? Will he also say, in view of the enormous constitutional importance of this question, about which many hon. Members on both sides are very perturbed, whether there will be in the White Paper an estimate of the costs of any proposals?
§ The Prime MinisterThe answer to the second part of the right hon. Gentleman's question is "Yes". Costs will be set out in terms both of finance and of manpower—something we introduced into Bills. I certainly hope, though I cannot give an absolute commitment, that the White Paper will be laid in the House before the end of this month.