§ Q1. Mr. Robinsonasked the Prime Minister when he last met the TUC.
§ The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan)I refer my hon. Friends to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Mr. Ovenden) on 7th December.
§ Mr. RobinsonAt that meeting did my right hon. Friend discuss with the TUC how many jobs would be lost and how many industries would face collapse, especially in the West Midlands, if the Tory proposal that is quite explicit in the so-called "The Right Approach"—namely, to scrap the NEB—were ever to come to fruition?
§ The Prime MinisterIt is clear that the National Enterprise Board is performing a valuable function. Having had some serious discussions with members of the NEB during the past fortnight, I think that the idea of instant opposition, in which it is supposed to be abolished, will need further reflection by the Opposition. At present the NEB is responsible for about 300,000 workers. I believe that the total output of the companies for which it is responsible is about £3 billion. I ask the House to accept that this institution, which started off in a certain wave of criticism, is performing a valuable function. I believe that it will be of great use in supporting the industrial strategy.
§ Mr. GouldHas the Tory Opposition offered any support for the industrial strategy? Was the progress of that strategy discussed with the TUC when my right hon. Friend last met its leaders?
§ The Prime MinisterWhatever the views of the Opposition, or their ignorance, 1694 both the CBI and the TUC take the industrial strategy very seriously. The 39 or 40 sector working parties have produced reports that would repay careful study and debate in the House if that were possible. I do not know what view the Opposition take, but I suspect that it is no industrial strategy, no industrial democracy, no incomes poicy, and no social contract. I am not sure that they can even agree on what they do not want.
§ Mrs. ThatcherWhen the Prime Minister talks to the TUC will he bear in mind the actual record of his Government, which is a loss of 750,000 jobs and an increase of 1 million in the number brought into paying tax? Will he also bear in mind that there are many trade unionists as well as a majority of others, who would prefer the Tories' actual record of more jobs and lower taxes?
§ The Prime MinisterI shall certainly raise these matters with the TUC, but I wonder what answer the right hon. Lady received from the leaders of the TUC when she met them recently and asked them whether they would prefer a Government led by her. My understanding is that they were not wholly convinced, despite her lures and wiles.
§ Mr. MaddenIs my right hon. Friend aware that the Opposition confirmed in the House only last Friday that if they were returned to power they would scrap the NEB? Does he not agree that the 300,000 jobs that are dependent upon the National Enterprise Board would be put in jeopardy if the Opposition were returned to power?
§ The Prime MinisterYes, I think that there is no doubt about that. The Opposition were totally opposed to the funding of Leylands. If Leylands went, that would in itself destroy a couple of hundred thousand jobs. The Opposition cannot escape from their responsibility. I trust that they will become a little more responsible about the maintenance of jobs in the West Midlands in this important enterprise and about the National Enterprise Board itself.
§ Mr. PardoeWhen he next meets the TUC, will the Prime Minister care to ask its leaders why trade union leaders are so determined to maintain control 1695 over industrial democracy instead of relying on real democratic participation? Will he care to comment on the fact that the other side of industry, the CBI, would get far more thanks and sympathy from the rest of the community in its criticisms of the Bullodck Report if it had ever shown any encouragement of industrial participation in its whole lifetime?
§ The Prime MinisterThere are many differences of view. For example, when I hear the Tory Party and Mr. Arthur Scargill condemning the same report, I begin to wonder what kind of holy alliances we are seeing growing up.
The plain truth is that this is a most important proposition that will not go away. It has to be solved. The Government intend to embark upon consultations with the TUC based on the majority report and its analysis of the situation in the hope that we can get some agreement so that we may legislate. It is our intention to legislate, because in this matter we have now fallen behind some of the advanced countries in Europe, including those which, on other matters, are approvingly referred to by the Opposition. Therefore, we intend to find a solution to this problem.
§ Mr. BidwellDoes my right hon. Friend agree that endemic in the thinking of some sections of the Tory Party is the belief that there should always be a measure of unemployment, but that it has certainly never been within the orbit of Socialist thinking? Is not the growing rate of unemployment far too high and should we not set about sharing the work available?
§ The Prime MinisterI agree with my hon. Friend about the level of unemployment. I take no pleasure from standing at this Dispatch Box facing questions on this matter every week. [HON. MEMBERS: "Resign."] The reason that I do not resign on this matter is that, if the Tories came to power, they would double the numbers of unemployed. Their proposals for cutting public expenditure by several billion pounds would undoubtedly have that effect. We must stick at this present policy under which we are attempting to get rid of inflation, under which inflation is in fact going down, and under which we hope to get another agreement with the trade union movement on pay for another 12 months. That, combined 1696 with the emphasis which is being placed on the industrial strategy and exports, is the only way to see this country through.
§ Mr. PriorDoes not the fact that the Prime Minister has to stand at that Dispatch Box every Tuesday and Thursday and try to defend his record on unemployment destroy completely any industrial strategy that the Government put forward? Does not the fact that when he says that unemployment would be 300,000 higher if it were not for the NEB and 200,000 higher if it were not for other measures which the Government have taken mean that the true unemployment figure is nearly 2 million? What kind of unemployment policy and industrial strategy is that?
§ The Prime MinisterI am glad to say that because those who are actively engaged in industry take a rather more realistic view of the situation the industrial strategy has not been destroyed. The series of reports that have been produced are the result of the combined work of trade unionists, employers and managers. They are setting for themselves new targets for exports and new targets for productivity. They deserve to be encouraged, not constantly disparaged, by this House.