§ Q3. Mr. Molloyasked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 19th July.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Corbett).
§ Mr. MolloyWhen the Prime Minister meets his ministerial colleagues this afternoon, will he discuss with them the fact that the prices of materials purchased by industry fell by 1 per cent. in May and by ½ per cent. in June? Does he agree that this is indicative of a reduction in the rate of inflation and that it should encourage sensible wage bargaining in the future?
§ The Prime MinisterThat is the sort of question that it is a delight to answer. My hon. Friend is correct in every respect. There is no doubt that the price of imported commodities is going down, and this is bound to have an effect that will work through in the general price index. I hope that this will encourage those who are about to embark on wage 1376 claims and show them that they will be operating in the next 12 months against a price index that will not be increasing as fast as on the last occasion when we had free collective bargaining.
§ Mr. PardoeWill the Prime Minister believe me when I say that I want to ask him genuinely about his engagements today? Could he be more forthcoming about his conversation with Chancellor Schmidt on the telephone this morning? Did the Chancellor tell him of his discussions with the American President about Germany's intention to emulate the example of the United States in meeting the growth targets that were recently set out at the Heads of Government conference?
§ The Prime MinisterNo, we did not discuss this aspect this morning. The telephone call was quite expensive.
§ Mr. Mike ThomasReverse the charges.
§ The Prime MinisterWithout going into details, we discussed the relationship between the United States and the Soviet Union on matters of détente and the Belgrade Conference. We also discussed the President's attitude to human rights. I have made a preliminary engagement to meet the German Chancellor during the recess—after August—and no doubt these matters will he raised then.
§ Q4. Mr. Skinnerasked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 19th July.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Corbett).
§ Mr. SkinnerIs the Prime Minister aware that the reason why we put down stereotyped Questions is that we are in danger of having them taken off on future occasions if they are not acceptable to the Prime Minister? [HON. MEMBERS: "No.") Yes, it applies both ways, at the Table Office or with the Prime Minister. He has made an agreement, but Questions can still be taken off. In view of the fact that I have a Question down that is about to be answered, will the Prime Minister trot along this afternoon, or at some other time, to the Guild of Master Craftsmen? If he does, he will find that the Leader 1377 of the Opposition is the Guild's patron—I do not know whether she is a saint—and the Guild's latest letter, under her name, says that genuine craftsmen should set themselves apart from the unskilled because they are "incompetent, unscrupulous and indifferent". Does the Prime Minister agree that this is the George Ward philosophy, and should he not ask the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw it?
§ The Prime MinisterI have looked very carefully at all the substantive Questions put down and I have accepted 90 per cent. or more of them, even when some of them seemed to me to fall on the wrong side of the borderline. I have done this in an attempt to make the new system work.
On my hon. Friend's particular question, this is more a matter for the Leader of the Opposition to comment on than for me.
§ Mr. ChurchillWill the Prime Minister find time today to reconsider his abject surrender on the Drax B power station? Will he confirm that every job saved on Tyneside will be a job less in Manchester, and in particular at Trafford Park, and that it is the height of irresponsibility for the Government to spend £30 per family in order to appease Mr. Arthur Scargill and the Secretary of State for Energy? Will he give the House an explanation for his action?
§ The Prime MinisterThis matter was discussed at length after Questions yesterday. [HON. MEMBERS: "The hon. Member was not here."] If he was not here, I can understand why he has to persuade his constituents that he is here now. It is not as simple a matter as the hon. Minister thinks. Indeed, it is a difficult issue. Obviously, I would have preferred that the restructuring could be agreed, but short of nationalisation—and I am not sure whether the hon. Member would support that—there is no way of compelling the restructuring of the industry in this way. This is particularly so as the two chief protagonists—I refrain from commenting on either of them—are quite unwilling to get together on any basis to provide a solution. In these circum- 1378 stances, the Government had to take a position on the matter. Although it will cost more, it leaves the way open—and both sides have given an assurance on this—for the necessary restructuring that must take place in due course if a good, decent industry with proper export potential is to be maintained.