§ Mr. Arthur Lewisasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will publish in the Official Report detailed lists of the groups of workers who have received salary and wage increases in the past 12 months where any Government or Treasury money has been paid directly or indirectly and the actual or average amounts of such increases; and to what extent these increases have, or have not, fallen within the Government's 10 per cent. guidelines.
§ Mr. Robert SheldonI regret that this information could only be collected at disproportionate cost.
§ Mr. Michael Lathamasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon what date he took steps to impose sanctions upon S. Redfern of Manchester, Reynolds Tanker Services of Lydney, Gloucestershire, and J. W. Spencer Engineering of Redhill, Surrey; what form of hearing took place before he took this action; whether the firms concerned were represented by counsel at the hearing; and whether these three firms are part of the total of 11 announced by the Financial Secretary on 28th November.
924Win Scotland and other regions of the United Kingdom in each of the past three years.
§ Mr. Denzil DaviesThe following is the information:
§ Mr. Joel BarnettThe exercise of discretion is an administrative action and not formalised in the way the Question suggests. The three firms named were in breach of the pay guidelines in round 2, and one was also in breach of the round 1 guidelines. They are amongst the total of 11 announced by the Financial Secretary on 28th November.
§ Mr. Michael Lathamasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) Official Report, 1st December, column 322, he considered refusing Government investment assistance to the Ford Motor Company for setting up its new plant near Cardiff; and upon what criteria he rejected this course of action, in the light of the decision of the company to break the voluntary pay code.
§ Mr. Joel BarnettIt is normal practice for the Government to look at all forms of existing or proposed discretionary assistance when a firm breaches the pay guidelines. The decision whether or not to modify, withdraw or refuse such assistance is taken in the light of all the circumstances of the particular case.
925W
§ Mr. Michael Lathamasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the statements of Government policy involved, he will publish in the Official Report the correspondence between the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and the hon. Member for Melton, dated 9th November, 22nd November and 24th November, about Government sanctions for alleged breaches of pay policy.
§ Mr. Joel BarnettYes. The correspondence was as follows:
From Michael Latham, M.P.
House of Commons
London, SW1A 0AA
9th November 1977
Dear Joel,
I have seen the usual copy of the Written Answer which you gave me yesterday to my Question about the black-listing of firms from official contracts, in which you refused to give the information for which I had asked. I am afraid that I find your Answer totally unsatisfactory. You stated that the question of sanctions is a matter between the Government and the firm. Why then did the Department of Trade issue a Press Statement on the 23rd September listing the sanctions which had been imposed on James Mackie & Sons Ltd? If this has been done for that firm, I fail to see why you cannot give the information for other firms. Indeed, I consider it a deplorable breach of the public interest that you have refused to do so.
I would ask you to reconsider your decision forthwith. I consider it most unreasonable.
Yours,
Michael Latham.
Rt. Hon. Joel Barnett M.P.
House of Commons.
Treasury Chambers, Parliament Street
SW1P 3AG
22nd November 1977
Mr. Michael Latham MP
House of Commons
London SW1A 0AA
Dear Michael,
I am replying to your letter of 9th November, in which you ask me to reconsider my Reply to your Question of 8th November in view of the public announcement of sanctions against James Mackie and Sons Limited.
During the weeks before the Government decided to withhold export credit guarantee from James Mackie and Sons Limited, there was a good deal of public speculation about the case, particularly in Northern Ireland. We thought it best in the circumstances to clear matters up by making an official announcement once the decision was taken.
I cannot rule out the possibility that a similar set of circumstances will arise again. However, to publish such information as you have suggested as a general rule is not likely 926W to be helpful in persuading the firm concerned to re-negotiate the excessive settlement in question. Indeed, as you mention the question of public interest, I am bound to tell you that in my view, what you suggest would definitely not be in the best public interest.
Yours faithfully,
Joel Barnett.
From Michael Latham M.P.
House of Commons
London, SW1A 0AA
24th November 1977
Dear Joel,
Thank you for your letter of the 22nd November about James Mackie & Son Ltd., and the sanctions issue generally.
I must say that I find it impossible to understand your reasoning when you say that publication of the names would prevent the re-negotiation of settlements in excess of the guide lines. Since, by definition, firms subject to sanctions would have refused to renegotiate, I cannot see that any public purpose is served by keeping the matter secret.
I shall now have to pursue the matter through other Parliamentary channels.
The Rt. Hon. Joel Barnett M.P.
Chief Secretary to the Treasury,
Treasury Chambers,
Parliament Street,
London S.W.1.
§ Mr. Michael Lathamasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether pursuant to the replies by the Chief Secretary to the hon. Member for Melton on 8th November and by the Financial Secretary to the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) on 28th November, he will now state how many of the 11 firms subject to sanctions allegedly broke (a) stage 1, (b) stage 2 and (c) the present arrangements.
§ Mr. Joel BarnettFive firms were in breach of both stage 1 and stage 2; five were in breach of stage 2 only; and one in breach of stage 3 only.
§ Mr. Peter Walkerasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action he is taking to see that the details of any sanctions he is taking against firms who have violated the Government's guidelines on incomes policy are communicated to trade unionists involved in those firms.
§ Mr. Joel BarnettThis is a matter for the firms concerned.