PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS) (Hansard, 5 December 1978)

§ Q3. Mrs. Bain
asked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 5th December.

§ Mr. Foot
I have been asked to reply.

§ Mrs. Bain
If the Lord President has not already done so, will he look at reports in today's Scottish press of the concern among trade unionists in the whisky industry in Scotland about the continuing exports of malt whisky? In view of the failure yesterday of the NEDO to reach agreement on the question of voluntary restrictions on the export of malt whisky, will the Government step in to look at the international agreements that allow not only the continuation, but the expansion, of this industry, irrespective of the jobs involved in the bottling, packaging and printing industries in Scotland?

§ Mr. Foot
I am aware of the concern that has been expressed, some of which has been reported in the newspapers. The Government welcome the general analysis of the industry's problems which the group has undertaken in the NEDO report. We shall be studying the recommendations carefully. I am sure that the hon. Lady will appreciate that it is not possible for the Government to make a final judgment today. She and everyone else who wishes all considerations to be taken into account would not wish us to do that.

§ Mr. Heffer
Has my right hon. Friend had any telephone conversations with the Prime Minister about the report that has come out of the Heads of Government meeting that the salary of the so-called MPs in the European Assembly will be based on the national rate for the job? Is he aware that such an arrangement would be regarded by Government Back Benchers as a very good thing but that the salaries ought to be paid by national Governments so that the British taxpayer will not have to make a contribution towards German Members and others who will be getting two or three times the salary of British Members of the Assembly?

§ Mr. Foot
I have no doubt that my hon. Friend will put the same question to the Prime Minister when he returns, though I do not know whether my right hon. Friend will be able to make a statement on that subject tomorrow. It just shows how difficult it is to satisfy everybody.

§ Mr. Alexander Fletcher
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that removal vans have been extremely busy in Edinburgh today? The old St. Andrew's House has been virtually emptied into New St. Andrew's House, which is being emptied into another new St. Andrew's House, and the Inland Revenue departments are also being moved—all to accommodate the 1,000 civil servants and 150 Assemblymen who may be given a job if there is a"Yes"in the referendum, which I very much doubt. How can the Lord President justify that public expenditure long before the referendum and before he can be sure what the result will be?

§ Mr. Foot
The hon. Gentleman should not take his prospective defeat in the referendum so sourly. He should understand that the Government must make preparations. If we did not, there would be legitimate criticisms in other respects. Let us see who wins. It depends on what the people of Scotland say whether they get their Assembly. Most of us have absolute confidence that they will say"Yes"with a resounding voice and that all the preparations we have made will be fully justified.

§ Mr. Madden
Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that the general arrangements regarding salaries for Members of a directly elected European Assembly will be welcomed? Has there been any agreement on expenses for such matters as subsistence, travel, research and office expenses for Assembly Members?

§ Mr. Foot
I do not think that agreement has been reached on any aspect yet. Discussions on these matters have been taking place. I know that many of my hon. Friends and many other hon. Members are more immediately concerned about salaries in this House.—[HON. MEMBERS:"Hear, hear."]—I am glad to hear that hon. Members agree. I thought that that would command some applause. That is one reason why we are referring the matter to the Boyle committee as we promised in our debate a few months ago.

§ Mr. Evelyn King
Reverting to the case of the dismissed trade unionist, Mr. Thompson, while I fully accept the Lord President's view that he ought not to make a statement until the facts are established, 1224 may I ask him to give a firm undertaking that, when he has established the facts, he will make a statement to the House in the context of possible revised legislation on the closed shop, having regard to the brutalities that are now commonly occurring?

§ Mr. Foot
The hon. Member has completely misconceived the situation. The closed shop under which this person was originally excluded was created even before the Industrial Relations Act 1971. I believe that trade unionists, like everyone else, should use their powers in a liberal and proper manner. However, to a considerable degree the whole atmosphere in these matters was soured by what was done under the Industrial Relations Act. I do not believe and the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) can confirm this—that there is any proposal now for legislation by his party to ban the closed shop under its aborted proposals.

§ Mr. Kilroy-Silk
Does not my right hon. Friend agree that it would be a major national scandal if the research and development facilities of the new NEB-created microprocessor industry were to be located in Bristol? Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the expectations and promises that were made that those facilities would be located in an area of high unemployment—in an assisted area—will be fulfilled?

§ Mr. Foot
I do not think that the use of the word"scandal"in such a context is the right way to approach the matter. Many considerations have to be taken into account. Of course, those who come from areas of high unemployment, such as my hon. Friend and myself, believe that they have a strong claim, but there are other aspects to be taken into account.

§ Mr. Prior
Is the Leader of the House aware that we do not think that it is acceptable that the only right of appeal is to a TUC-nominated body, which is, in a sense, judge and jury in its own case? Is he further aware that there always ought to be a right of appeal to a totally independent court or tribunal? Nothing else would suffice to allay widespread public anxiety.

§ Mr. Foot
It is absolutely wrong for the right hon. Gentleman to describe the independent review body as judge 1225 and jury in its own case. That is a completely false account of the position. Moreover, that suggestion is shown to be false by the references that have been made to that body already. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman originally believed what was in The Daily Telegraph. I am glad that he now has that correct, and I hope that the House will reserve judgment until it knows the facts before passing any further comment.