PRICES AND INCOMES POLICY (WAGE INCREASES) (Hansard, 19 December 1968)

§ Q5. Mr. Ridley
asked the Prime Minister which Department is to answer Questions on the application of prices and incomes policy to wage increases.

§ The Prime Minister
Questions relating to increases in the public services and nationalised industries are normally answered by the Minister primarily responsible for the service or industry concerned, while those relating to agricultural pay are for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture. Other Questions should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State.

§ Mr. Ridley
As the First Secretary of State is responsible for saying whether a pay increase is or is not within the terms of the prices and incomes policy, should she not, in effect, submit herself to questioning on all such increases which she has passed, for whatever industry they may be?

§ The Prime Minister
I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern here, and I 1560 regret that, when he first tabled the Question, I was not quite clear about the problem which had arisen over the transfer of one of his Questions earlier to, I think, the Minister of Transport from the First Secretary of State.
In all these cases, what happens is that my right hon. Friend and the Minister in the responsible Department are in the closest touch; they usually meet the industry together, and there is full agreement and collective responsibility on the part of both Ministers. Clearly, when my right hon. Friend makes, or announces her intention to make, a standstill Order under the legislation, it would be right—as in the case of her statement yesterday—that she should answer questions about it. But in general I think that it will be for the greater convenience if the Minister responsible for the service or industry concerned answers the kind of Question which the hon. Gentleman has in mind.

§ Mr. Heffer
Will my right hon. Friend repudiate the rumours which are circulating in today's Press that agricultural workers' wages are likely to come under an Order, since we cannot do with any more so-called victories like the one we have had in relation to the building workers?

§ The Prime Minister
I know nothing about these rumours regarding agriculture. There is a wage claim being considered, but I am not aware of imminent action. I may be wrong; I am not responsible directly for that Department. As regards the building industry, I know well and understand my hon. Friend's feelings, but the matter was fully dealt with in a fairly long series of supplementary questions answered by my right hon. Friend yesterday.

§ Mr. Heath
The Prime Minister must be aware that there is now great public confusion as to what was agreed between industry and the trade unions at "Chequers" last weekend about the growth targets proposed by the Government? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the best way of clearing this matter up would be for the Government to publish the document which was discussed at "Chequers "? As there have been such extensive leaks—

§ Mr. Ellis
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I ask for your advice, Sir. Is 1561 this question in order? The matter which the Leader of the Opposition is now raising was fully dealt with during Questions to the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs earlier this afternoon. If the right hon. Gentleman had been here, he would have heard about it. Are we not now having valuable time consumed on a matter which was more appropriate for another Minister and which was dealt with today?

§ Mr. Speaker
That may be true, but the Chair gives the Leader of the Opposition some latitude.

§ Mr. Heath
I am not asking for any latitude, Mr. Speaker, since the Prime Minister has publicly announced that he is the Minister responsible for presiding over the N.E.D.C. and he was, there fore, responsible for last weekend's decisions.
My question to the Prime Minister is this. Should industry, the trade unions and the Government be parties to this discussion, and the House of Commons and the public have no opportunity to see the document or express views upon it?

§ The Prime Minister
I notice that the right hon. Gentleman takes a different view of the function of the N.E.D.C. from the one which he took when he was the Minister, but I shall be happy to answer his question nevertheless. The right hon. Gentleman referred to leaks. I am not aware of leaks from last weekend's discussions. I am aware that the Council meeting authorised the director-general of the N.E.D.C. to give information to the Press about the meeting and also gave him general instructions on what he should say. This was done, and as far as I know, it was reasonably and fairly understood and reported. The document to which the right hon. Gentleman refers is a planning document prepared for consultation with, first of all, the N.E.D.C. and then the "little Neddies". When it was presented to the N.E.D.C, we suggested that we first wanted to hear from the two sides of industry and the other N.E.D.C. members whether they felt that it was in the right form, had the right approach and was rightly balanced to form the basis of such consultations. We shall complete the consultations on 14th January at the next meeting of the N.E.D.C. We have 1562 already put on the agenda the question whether it should then be published as an interim document ahead of consultations. In this we shall be guided by the views of industry about it.
I well understand the right hon. Gentleman's concern. We have said that, for our part, we should be prepared to see it published, but they may want to suggest Amendments to it, and we must listen to industry on the point.

§ Mr. William Hamilton
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In reply to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Ellis), you said that you gave the Leader of the Opposition a certain amount of latitude. That we can understand, so long as it is understood by all of us that the latitude is related to the Question under discussion, and the right hon. Gentleman's question was wholly unrelated to Question No. Q5. If the right hon. Gentleman is to get that kind of latitude to ask a question completely unrelated to the one under discussion, we, as back-benchers, should have the same rights.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The Chair could not extend the same latitude. At Prime Minister's Question Time through history the Leader of the Opposition has had some latitude in the questions he puts to the Prime Minister.

§ Mr. Heath
Further to that point of order. I am prepared to take any latitude I am given. But on this question, the future of the prices and incomes policy must rely to a certain extent on the element of growth the Government believe will take place in the economy. Will the Prime Minister now say whether the official statement—

Hon. Members
That is not a point of order.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. With respect to the right hon. Gentleman, we are on a point of order.

§ Mr. William Hamilton
Further to the point of order, the right hon. Gentleman has not even read the Question under discussion. It is not about the prices and incomes policy. It is about Ministers answering questions related to the policy, which is quite a different matter. I repeat that if Mr. Speaker—[Interruption.]

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman is on quite a legitimate point of order.

§ Mr. Hamilton
In the interests of back benchers, we should get this point very clear. If the Leader of the Opposition is to have latitude, which means, on the interpretation we have just had, that he can ask a question completely unrelated to the one asked, back-benchers should have the same right. I ask for no more.

§ Mr. Speaker
There is a simple answer. The questions were not completely unrelated, though the amount of relation was probably a little narrower or a little scarcer than I would allow in the case of an hon. Member. But I must give both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, in the inter change of questions, a certain amount of latitude. Both of them do not hesitate to take it.

§ Mr. John Hynd
Further to the point of order, the Leader of the Opposition has claimed that the prices and incomes policy largely depends on the operation of "Neddy" and the rest. Does that mean that, since the success of the policy depends, for instance, on our military expenditure, it is in order to ask supplementary questions on military expenditure on this Question?

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I shall rule on the question as it comes.

§ Mr. Molloy
Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is the latitude you have extended to the Leader of the Opposition based on your chivalrous attitude to minorities in the House?

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. That is a most ingenious but most useless point of order.

§ Mr. Emrys Hughes
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Are you aware that we do not object to giving the Leader of the Opposition latitude, but that he takes too much longitude?

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. That has been said before. I even said it on one occasion.

§ Mr. Whitaker
Reverting to the Question, is my right hon. Friend aware that it is very difficult to argue the social justice of rigid wage restraint on the poorest sections of the community when shareholders have been very unlucky 1564 during the past 12 months if they have not increased the capital value of their holding by 33⅓ per cent.?

§ The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is wrong to use the word "rigid" in that context. He will be aware from both his study of the White Paper published nearly a year ago and of the Bill which became law last summer that very special criteria are relevant in the case of lower-paid workers. He will also know the position as regards profits and dividends. Dividends are now subject to statutory control.

§ Mr. Heath
Further to the Question, which has been widened still further by the hon. Gentleman, will the Prime Minister now say definitely whether the trade unions accepted the growth target in the document put forward by the Government?

§ The Prime Minister
The problem is that the discussions are confidential until there is a statement and publication.

Hon. Members
Why?

§ The Prime Minister
That was the view taken by the former Government when "Neddy" was formed. We have been much more informative about actions taken under "Neddy". I well understand the concern of the right hon. Gentleman. That is why the Government will be happy to publish the document, with such amendments as industry requires. On the last occasion of a similar publication, the industry complained that it had not been consulted effectively before publication. We are now going through the consultation, and at the earliest possible moment I should like to see the document published. That deals with the point the right hon. Gentleman has in mind. I am trying to give as fair an account of what happened as I can. The position on the growth rate is that the Government have made it plain, and the trade unions have accepted, that the balance of payments must have priority over other considerations. I think that that will be accepted by the right hon. Gentleman. We have therefore postulated for planning purposes, subject to consultation, a lower growth rate for the next four years than, for example, the trade unions are talking about for the coming year. But we have said that this is not a rigid figure. To the extent that imports improve further—and they have improved 1565 quite rapidly—a growth rate comparable to that which the trade unions are talking about should be possible, provided it was export-based and not based on home consumption, which would lead to inflation. I think that that is the fairest short answer I can give, but I recognise the desire of the House to have fuller information when the broad national consultations are completed in January.