CENTRAL POLICY REVIEW STAFF (Hansard, 10 February 1976)

§ Q3. Mr. Wrigglesworth
asked the Prime Minister if he will appoint an industrial relations expert to the Central Policy Review staff.

§ The Prime Minister
As I have made clear to the House, it is not the practice to appoint to the Central Policy Review Staff members with designated responsibility for particular subjects.

§ Mr. Wrigglesworth
In the light of that reply, will my right hon. Friend comment on the remarkable drop in the number 230 of days lost in industrial disputes over the last year? Do not those figures prove the wisdom of pursuing policies of co-operation and persuasion rather than policies of confrontation? Does my right hon. Friend further agree that they also prove the wisdom of our commitment, in the 1974 manifesto, to establish the Advisory Conciliation and Arbitration Service.

§ Mr. Speaker
Some hon. Members appear to believe that if they are called to ask a supplementary question, they have the right to put three such questions. That is not the general rule of the House.

§ The Prime Minister
I join with my hon. Friend in the tribute he paid to ACAS, which has handled about 2,250 disputes since it was set up, 294 cases having been referred for settlement by arbitration proceedings in the preceding 12 months. Because I take heed of your comments, Mr. Speaker, I shall not reply in detail to the other two supplementary points made by my hon. Friend. I have told the House that the figure last year represents a total of 75 per cent. compared with the year 1972. It is not for me to express appreciation, but it would be nice to receive one churlish little tribute from the Opposition Front Bench for what has been achieved following the ending of the Tory policy of confrontation.

§ Mr. Tebbit
Would not such an adviser be useful, even if only to sort out the steaming row between Sir Kenneth Keith and Lord Ryder over the latter's arrogant interference in the day-to-day running of Rolls-Royce?

§ The Prime Minister
That has nothing to do with the Question on the Order Paper. [Interruption.] It only indicates the hon. Gentleman's ignorance, shared, apparently, by the Opposition Front Bench, about the reasons for setting up the CPRS. It was not involved in the matter mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. I totally reject what he said about Lord Ryder in relation to Sir Kenneth Keith.

§ Mr. Flannery
Does my right hon. Friend agree that many more working days are lost because 1¼ million people are out of work than because of any number of industrial disputes in the last year?

§ The Prime Minister
Yes, Sir. This matter was fully dealt with in a recent debate. I do not wish to anticipate the statement that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer hopes to make in the House later this week. It has been my duty to warn some firms, as I did as recently as last Thursday, in my speech in Birmingham, that where the vulnerability of employment is so great it can only make that vulnerability me greater, and possibly lethal, if they persist in having unnecessary disputes, such as the recent dispute at Linwood.

§ Mr. Mayhew
if the right hon. Gentleman will not make this appointment to the Think Tank, will he assure the House that at least in future he will not defy the recommendations of that body as he did in the Chrysler situation?

§ The Prime Minister
The House has had a full opportunity to debate Chrysler and to take a decision on it. Indeed, the report of the CPRS was published and was available to hon. Members before that debate. I have nothing to add to what was said by my right hon. Friends in that debate and nothing to add to the emphatic vote carried against the Tory Party on Chrysler. I hope that the Conservatives will be as enthusiastic at the Coventry by-election in defending their vote for unemployment in Chrysler and British Leyland as they have been in this House.