§ Q4. Mr. Tim Rentonasked the Prime Minister what subjects he proposes to discuss with the National Economic Development Council when he next takes the chair at its meeting.
§ Mr. FootI have been asked to reply.
My right hon. Friend hopes to take the chair at NEDC from time to time, but has no specific date or subject in mind at present.
§ Mr. RentonDoes the Lord President see anything to please the British taxpayer in £20 million of the taxpayers' money being invested in the Fairey Engineering Group, when there was a valid bid for these enterprises from the private sector? Will he ask the Prime Minister to discuss at NEDO this unacceptable extension of the business empire of civil servants and politicians?
§ Mr. FootI do not think that there is anything unacceptable about it. It has always been made clear that the National Enterprise Board would be willing, in suitable circumstances, to invest in profitable industry and to intervene in such a way. Therefore, this case is no departure from the principles previously laid down. I know that some objections have been raised by, I think, Mr. Victor Matthews of Trafalgar House. I wish only that Mr. Victor Matthews would spend more time trying to save the quarry which he owns in my constituency, rather than trying to buy up something else.
§ Mr. SkinnerIn view of my right hon. Friend's well-known opposition to a statutory policy on wages—although it has been having a rough time lately, as we all appreciate—how does he look forward to the ideas expressed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer this morning of statutory pay policy phases 9, 10 and 11?
§ Mr. FootI repudiate any suggestion not merely that my right hon. Friend made any reference to statutory pay policy phases 9, 10 or 11 but that he referred to any statutory pay policy phases 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 or any intervening number, either. Let my hon. Friend not have any misapprehension on the subject. I am still opposed to any statutory policy of that nature. I think it would be absolutely wrong. It was the insistence on such a statutory policy, with all the apparatus of penal clauses and penal offences, which led to the three-day working week and the catastrophe then. I certainly do not want any repetition of that, nor does any other member of the Government.
§ Mr. AitkenReverting to the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton), is the Leader of the House aware that many private enterprise companies wishing to bid for parts of the Fairey empire were denied access to the accounts by the receiver, apparently because the National Enterprise Board was putting in a bid? How can it be right for taxpayers' money to be spent in this way before all the bids from other companies have been considered?
§ Mr. FootIt has been made clear from the start that the National Enterprise Board was not set up solely for the purpose of assisting in dealing with industries that might be in difficulties. The Board was given a greater freedom than that, and we believe that to be absolutely right in the interests of the nation as a whole. It was on that basis that the Act was passed, and the hon. Gentleman should understand that, too.