§ Q2. Mr. Nicholas Wintertonasked the Prime Minister if the public speech by the Secretary of State for Energy in Bradford on 10th March 1978 concerning private ownership of farms, factories and banks, represents Government policy.
§ The Prime MinisterMy right hon. Friend's speech was more of a statement of philosophy than of policy, his theme being that democracy is the best safeguard of personal freedom and of values and that private ownership does not guarantee human freedom. He added that Socialism without democracy is no Socialism at all. These propositions seem to me to be borne out by historical experience and can be verified by current observation of the international scene.
§ Mr. WintertonWill the Prime Minister tell the House and the country in rather more principled terms why he allows the Secretary of State for Energy's repeated and very damaging calls for the nationalisation of banks, farms, land and factories to go unrebuked, particularly as the Prime Minister himself owns substantial land in Sussex? Is it not about time that the Prime Minister stood up and said that he opposes these pseudo-Marxist policies that are being pursued not only by his own party but within his own Cabinet?
§ The Prime MinisterThe hon. Gentleman clearly has not read my right hon. Friend's speech with the care that it deserves. I have studied it extremely carefully. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing it to my attention, because I thought that the way in which my right hon. Friend portrayed the philosophy of freedom and democratic Socialism was excellent. If the hon. Gentleman reads the speech he will find that he has translated a negative about private ownership into a positive. I suggest that he reads the speech again.
§ Mr. David SteelDoes the Prime Minister recall that the last time I questioned him about a speech of the Secretary of State for Energy he expressed the hope that we would take less of a morbid interest in the speeches of that right hon. Gentleman and more in his own? May I tell him that that advice appears to have fallen on deaf ears, since the only copy of this latest speech has disappeared from the Library? Without the benefit of the authorised version, may I ask the Prime Minister to confirm that so long as the Lib-Lab agreement exists none of these interesting ideas from the right hon. Gentleman is likely to see the light of day?
§ The Prime MinisterI understand that it is the desire of the right hon. Gentleman—which I fully appreciate and approve of—in due course to resume the full independence of the Liberal Party. I cannot anticipate that we are likely to have a united manifesto whenever the call to the people comes. We shall devise our own manifesto in due course. I am sorry to hear that the only copy of the speech is missing. It must be a little grubby by now, because on looking at the Order Paper I see that we had six identical Questions from the hon. Members for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), Burton (Mr. Lawrence), Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost), Chingford (Mr. Tebbit), Melton (Mr. Latham), and Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle). I suppose the hon. Gentlemen concerned passed it around among themselves.
§ Mr. AshleyNow that it is clear that long-term changes in technology can have far-reaching implications for future generations—and can result either in economic prosperity or mass unemployment—will the Prime Minister consider setting up a Royal Commission to look into these changes and ensure that we are properly equipped for the future?
§ The Prime MinisterThis is a very important question. A lot of us had our attention drawn to it by that very remarkable programme on BBC 2 last weekend which reviewed automation and micro-circuitry. There is no doubt that this will have—indeed, is already having—a profound impact on our employment prospects for the mid-1980s. I shall certainly consider the suggestion that my hon. Friend has made, because I do not 632 believe that either here or in the other countries of Western Europe we have devoted enough attention to employment prospects in the next decade.
§ Mrs. ThatcherWill the Prime Minister now answer the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) in his supplementary question? As the Secretary of State for Energy is known to want massive further nationalisation—and as Labour's programme includes demands for massive further nationalisation of banks, insurance, land, building, and many major industrial companies—will the Prime Minister say whether he accepts or rejects that programme?
§ The Prime MinisterThe right hon. Lady will be satisfied in due course—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."]—when the programme and policy of the Labour Party is published in full and the electorate is asked to decide on it. Until then, I suggest that the right hon. Lady waits in patience.
§ Mrs. ThatcherWhy does not the Prime Minister give a straight answer to a straight question? As he is Leader of the Labour Party, presumably that is his programme, unless he repudiates it. Does he repudiate it?
§ The Prime MinisterThe issues on which the election will be fought in due course—indeed, it seems to me that in some ways it has already started—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."]—will undoubtedly appear, be printed and be discussed. I am bound to say that for anyone who believes in a mixed economy—as I imagine a number of us do on the Government side of the House but not on the Opposition side—the one phrase that caught the imagination of the people of this country—and which has undoubtedly influenced their attitude to public ownership—was what the former Leader of the Conservative Opposition said about the unacceptable face of capitalism