HC Deb 04 May 1971 vol 816 cc1166-9
Q2. Mr. William Hamilton

asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of the public speech which he made at Cardiff on Saturday, 3rd April, on Government policy.

Q5. Mr. Douglas

asked the Prime Minister if he will place a copy of his public speech at Cardiff on Saturday, 3rd April, 1971, concerning Government policy, in the Library.

Q7. Mr. Barnett

asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech in Cardiff on 3rd April on Economic policy.

The Prime Minister

I did so on 6th April.

Mr. Hamilton

Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that in that speech he referred to the Budget as allowing people to earn more and to keep more of what they earned? Was he referring to the unemployed, or even to the worker on £30 to £35 a week? Is it not the case that a worker like that, if one takes into account all the so-called tax concessions and all the charges which the Government have inflicted and will inflict in the next few months, will be considerably worse off than he was before the Budget?

The Prime Minister

In that speech I was, I should have thought, stating a fact—that the reductions in taxation give people greater freedom in their expenditure. If the hon. Gentleman wants to deal with any particular case, I will gladly send him the overall accounting for it.

Mr. Douglas

Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that passage in the speech in which he referred to restraining price increases by nationalised industries? Will he not concede that determining a nationalised industry's price policy is tantamount to determining its investment policy? Will he now take full responsibility for the confusion which has arisen in relation to the British Steel Corporation's future investment policy?

The Prime Minister

No, Sir; I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's conclusion. There are a number of actions which a nationalised industry, as any other firm, can take if it cannot increase its prices. The pressure on the private sector is always there, and it is pressure to greater efficiency and greater and better utilisation of manpower—

Mr. Hamilton

Why?

The Prime Minister

Because it operates in a competitive climate. If the hon. Gentleman does not realise that, he had better go to Scotland and see.

As for steel, the British Steel Corporation is still dealing with its investment programmes, and the Government are awaiting its final proposals. But hon. Gentlemen opposite have asked me constantly to carry out what we said we would do at the General Election, which was to intervene where we thought a nationalised industry was unjustifiably putting up its prices. That is precisely what we have done with the British Steel Corporation—at a stroke.

Mr. Barnett

Reverting to unemployment, since there must be a level beyond which even this Government are prepared to prevent it rising even further, is the righ hon. Gentleman's persistent refusal to give us such a level due to the fact that he prefers the fear of uncertainty, in the hope that it will depress wage claims?

The Prime Minister

No, Sir. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer explained that he had taken measures in his Budget to hold back the rise in unemployment, and he has explained constantly what the reasons are for the increase in unemployment.

Sir E. Bullus

Would my right hon. Friend place 290 copies of his speech in the Library so that every hon. Member of the Opposition can read and study it with profit?

The Prime Minister

It was well reported in the Press, but if any of those hon. Gentlemen had taken the trouble to make the usual inquiries in the Library they would have been told that the speech was there weeks ago.

Mr. Roy Jenkins

Did I understand the Prime Minister to say, in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Douglas), that, in his view, all private firms are operating in a competitive market, and that, therefore, there is no need for any further action to restrain their prices?

The Prime Minister

They are certainly operating in a competitive market, and, where they are not, it is possible for the Government to take—[Interruption.] They are operating generally in a competitive market, and if hon. Members were to study the figures of consumer expenditure over the past quarter they would see what is happening in a competitive market. Moreover, if there are examples of cases in which competition is not being maintained, the matter can be dealt with by the Monopolies Commission.

Mr. Michael Foot

Does the Prime Minister recognise that he has been completely misinformed about the situation in the steel industry, that it is not the case that the Government are waiting for the investment programme from the Steel Corporation but that the Corporation is, unfortunately, having to wait for the decisions of the Government? Does he understand that the Steel Corporation has to compete with Japanese steel and that, if the Government go on holding up the investment programme, it will not be able to compete?

The Prime Minister

I realise also that it will not compete if it follows the hon. Gentleman's advice of pushing up prices far further than British industry can cope with.

Mr. Foot

Would the right hon. Gentleman now take the trouble to find out the real facts about the situation of the Steel Corporation? Would he come to the House next week and state whether it is not the case, as I have said, that the Corporation is awaiting the Government's decisions on this matter? Does he think it right that the Corporation should have the power to go ahead with its £3,000 million investment programme? Does he think that interference with its prices will assist the Corporation in carrying out that essential investment programme? Or is it the case that this Government do not give a fig for the steel industry?

The Prime Minister

What I do know is that the interference with those prices will give the whole of British industry a better opportunity of competing in world markets. What I also know is that no one has done more than the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) to incite both wage increases and price rises against the national interest.

Mr. Foot rose

Hon. Members

No!

Mr. Speaker

Order. Dr. Gilbert, next Question.