§ Q2. Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Prime Minister what plans he has for meetings with representatives of the Trades Union Congress during the Parliamentary summer recess.
§ Q4. Mr. Adleyasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement following his recent meetings with Trades Union Congress leaders.
§ Q5. Mr. Ashtonasked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on his recent official talks with the Trades Union Congress at Downing Street.
§ Q8. Mr. Meacherasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his latest meeting with the Trades Union Congress and the Confederation of British Industry concerning matters of mutual concern.
§ Q10. Mr. Clinton Davisasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his recent meetings with the Trades Union Congress.
§ Q11. Mr. Whiteheadasked the Prime Minister what consultations he had with Mr. Victor Feather and officers of the Trades Union Congress since 24th July, 1482 1972; and if he will make a statement.
§ Q12. Mr. Leslie Huckfieldasked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement about his most recent meeting with the Trades Union Congress.
§ The Prime MinisterI took the chair at a further meeting with the TUC and CBI yesterday. A work programme to be undertaken by the staff of the three parties was agreed, covering the practicability of action under two headings. The first is action by the participants in collective bargaining to improve the relative position of the lower paid, consistently with slowing down the rate of inflation. The second is action which could be taken by the parties to reduce the rate of increase in prices in the next twelve months. The work will also cover a number of factors which are relevant to these two objectives.
I am circulating the full text of the work programme in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
The arrangements for this work will be under the supervision of the Director-General of the National Economic Development Office and reports will be prepared for the next meeting of the three parties which will be held on 14th September.
§ Mr. HamiltonIs the Prime Minister aware that most of the House will be very glad that these talks are to take place? How much of the information or the papers prepared will be made public to the House and to people outside? Will the Prime Minister define more closely what is meant by "lower-paid workers"? Is it those on £20 a week, £25 a week, or what figure? How does the Prime Minister square the need for slowing down price increases with the provisions of the Housing Finance Act which, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has said, will probably increase rents on average by 14 per cent. per year?
§ The Prime MinisterOn the last part of the question, I do not accept the Leader of the Opposition's figures. He appears to have omitted the private sector of housing and the rent allowances in that sector.
The question of the lower paid is one of the matters which will be dealt with by the staff during the next four weeks 1483 so that the three parties can have before them a proposal on the definition of the lower paid to discuss at the meeting on 14th September.
The question of the publication of the reports has not yet been discussed by the three parties. I hope that as much information as possible will be made available, because I think that it will be valuable to the country as a whole, quite apart from its value to those taking part part in the discussions.
§ Mr. AdleyIn spite of the attempts by certain hon. Members opposite to sabotage all discussions between the trade unions and the Government, is it not encouraging that the Trades Union Congress has risen above this and that the Industrial Relations Act has brought it into direct discussion with the Government and the Confederation of British Industry?
§ The Prime MinisterIn fairness, it should be said that a considerable number of right hon. and hon. Members opposite want to see work of this kind done and believe that it is in itself valuable. I hope that the whole House will feel that in the three meetings that we have had we have made substantial progress. There is now a great deal of work to be done by those representing the three parties and then conclusions and decisions will be required in September.
§ Mr. MeacherSince shareholders profited from last year's rise in the price of ordinary shares to the tune of over £20 billion while wage earners gained only one-ninth as much in total wage rises, how can the Prime Minister seriously expect the ordinary industrial worker to forgo his just wage rise until the Government impose restraint on this colossal windfall stock exchange profiteering?
§ The Prime MinisterThe question of investment and the means of providing the finance for it is one of those which all three parties have agreed shall be on the agenda and the work will be done during the coming weeks.
§ Miss Joan HallHas the Prime Minister had an invitation from the TUC to speak at its conference, which will take place during the recess?
§ The Prime MinisterI have already made public my availability, but there is still no proposal to take advantage of it.
§ Mr. Clinton DavisIn order to make talks with the TUC meaningful, will the Prime Minister indicate what proposals he is to make to it about the Government's action to curb property speculation, which has been quite indecent in the last year or so? Will he also indicate to the TUC what proposals he has concerning the Housing Finance Act, since council tenants' increases in rent will not be 72 per cent., which was the figure he presented in his bogus statistics, but more like 13 per cent.?
§ The Prime MinisterThe hon. Gentleman is wrong. The TUC find these talks meaningful or they would not have continued them or agreed to the programme of work and the meeting on 14th September.
§ Mr. St. John-StevasI recognise the success of these talks, but would they not go even better if we could have an authoritative statement from the Leader of the Opposition repudiating the pernicious nonsense being peddled about by the Chairman of the Labour Party?
§ The Prime MinisterThe Leader of the Opposition might prefer the Chairman of the Labour Party to speak for himself.
§ Mr. WhiteheadAll of us want to see communications between the Government and the trade union movement, but may I draw the Prime Minister's attention to the recent article in the Sunday Press by Mr. Frank Chapple, who is by no means a militant in the trade union movement, saying that he and others like him have had their positions made impossible by the Industrial Relations Act and what has flowed from it? Can the Prime Minister not say to the TUC that there is some kind of timetable for the amendment or the withdrawal of the Act?
§ The Prime MinisterI am sure the hon. Member does not wish to exaggerate what Mr. Chapple said. He put forward specific proposals for amendments to the Act where he thought they would be justified. I have said that I cannot repeal or suspend the Act but that when it has had an opportunity to work, 1485 amendments to it can be considered. We have indicated directly to the TUC in these talks that if it would like to put forward proposals for amendment we would consider them.
§ Sir Gilbert LongdenDoes my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister see some real prospect that the higher paid and the rather higher paid will agree to a narrowing of the differential?
§ The Prime MinisterIt is too early to reach a conclusion about that, but obviously in dealing with the lower-paid and wage negotiations at a level which will not put an undue burden on the firms or industries concerned, the relationship between the lower-paid and the rest must be taken into account. This is one of the most difficult questions we have been discussing, but it has been discussed very seriously and further work will need to be done on it.
§ Mr. Leslie HuckfieldHas the Prime Minister seen the excellent contribution on this subject in the article in The Times yesterday by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme)? Does he appreciate that it represents far more accurately the feelings of people in this country than some of the sentiments expressed by Conservative back-benchers? What does he intend to do during the recess to come ashore and find out what people are thinking?
§ The Prime MinisterOf course I respect the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) but I cannot agree with the last part of the hon. Member's supplementary.
Mr. Edward TaylorWill the Prime Minister take the opportunity of discussing with the CBI the disturbing lack of control by certain trade unions over their members stemming partly from the activities of some employers who decline to meet wage claims made by responsible trade union leaders and then concede them two or three weeks later to militants?
§ The Prime MinisterThat specific question has not been discussed in the talks, but both the CBI and the TUC have been genuine in discussing difficult factors involved in wage negotiations and the means of dealing with them, particularly 1486 in the context of the lower paid and the possibility of threshold agreements.
§ Mr. Harold WilsonIn answering my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton), the Prime Minister seemed to suggest that my letter to him was nullified by the exclusion of private tenants. Does he not recall that when the question was first put to him about the CBI limit of 5 per cent., I asked him for an assurance that council house and new town tenants would not find their rents raised by more than 5 per cent.? Does he recall that he refused to give that answer? He said that the figures could not be calculated—and then he calculated them and sent them to me. Does he now accept that the question was about council house tenants? Does he disagree with the estimate in my letter of 13 per cent. [HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."]—It is too high, not too long. Does he disagree with my estimate that the increase would be of the order of 13 to 14 per cent. for council house tenants, which was how this exchange began?
§ The Prime MinisterWhat I am saying is that the right hon. Gentleman cannot separate one part of housing provision from the whole of housing provision in this context. If he is trying to do so he is concerned not with the housing problem but purely with a political manoeuvre. What matters surely is that the private sector will also get help and, indeed, many of his hon. Friends have pressed for that help to be extended to furnished accommodation. The Government have undertaken to look at that to see whether it can be done. The right hon. Gentleman must deal with the whole picture.
§ Mr. WilsonI asked the Prime Minister almost a month ago for an assurance that council house tenants' rents would not be increased by more than the CBI 5 per cent. He refused to give that assurance. Will he now do so? It is not for him to say what should be the parameters of the question he was asked to answer. The Prime Minister may dodge the question, as he dodges every other question. Will he now say whether he disagrees with the figure of 13 to 14 per cent.? If he wants to import into the question a matter which was not put to him concerning private tenants, is he not aware—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question."]—I can understand the sensitivity of Conservative 1487 Members. Will the Prime Minister now agree that by importing the private tenants into the picture—and there are five categories covered by the Act, only the first of which comes within the 12 months period. [Interruption.] Will he say whether his policies are within the 5 per cent. of the CBI, because he has been dodging the question for a month?
§ The Prime MinisterThe Leader of the Opposition's memory is failing him. I told him the first time he asked the question that I would give no such assurance, but I have given him a figure for the whole of the housing sector. He is on a bad wicket and the quicker he gets off it the better.
§ Following is the information:
§ Work Programme
§ At their first three meetings the Government, TUC and CBI have identified a number of problems which require further work. This will be undertaken by their staffs as a matter of urgency during the next few weeks. The results will be reported to the next meeting of the three parties.
§ 1. An assessment of the practicability of action by the participants in collective bargaining to improve the relative position of the lower paid consistently with slowing down the rate of inflation. This will include:
- (a) a consideration of the definition of the lower paid
- (b) ways and means of implementing a programme for the improvement of their relative status
- (c) a consideration of the relevance of threshold agreements in pay negotiations
- (d) an assessment of the expected relationship between the future movement of pay and conditions (compatible with such a programme) and the movement of unit costs during the relevant period
- (e) the implications for employment in the sectors mainly affected by the programme
- (f) the requirements for the implementation of the Equal Pay legislation
- (g) the implication of such developments for social security and similar arrangements including pensions.
§ 2. An assessment of the practicability of action which could be taken by the parties to reduce the rate of increase in prices during the next 12 months, having regard to:
- (a) the viability of any industries affected
- (b) the need for increased investment and the means of providing for it
- (c) the possible consequences for employment
- (d) the desirability of reducing speculation in land and building
- (e) the consequences for government expenditure/taxation
- (f) the consequences for the general balance of the economy.
§ The Director General of the National Economic Development Office has been asked to supervise the arrangements for setting these studies in train and the preparation of the reports for the next meeting of the three parties which will be held on 14 September.