CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (SPEECH) (Hansard, 15 February 1972)

§ Q2. Mr. Skinner
asked the Prime Minister whether the public speech at Leeds by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 28th January on prices and incomes represents Government policy.

§ Q6. Mr. Joel Barnett
asked the Prime Minister if the public speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer at Leeds on 28th January on unemployment represents Government policy.

§ The Prime Minister
Yes, Sir. I would emphasise particularly my right hon. Friend's conclusion that price and pay moderation are two of the preconditions for the sustained improvement of living standards and for rising employment.

§ Mr. Skinner
Is the Prime Minister aware that that kind of intransigence has led to the national disaster which now faces the Government? Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that, having marched with 20,000 miners and their wives today, I can say that whatever this prices and incomes policy may mean to the Government, as far as they are concerned, it must represent about £5 for face workers and £9 for those underground if this disaster is not to engulf him and the establishment which he represents?

§ The Prime Minister
In that case, it happens to be something shared by the establishment opposite as well, because price and pay moderation were two of the pre-conditions which were emphasised in every White Paper produced by the Labour Party when in Government, and particularly by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) when he was Chancellor of the 239 Exchequer. Any particular matters concerned with the present dispute are for the inquiry.

§ Mr. Barnett
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry told us last night that the methods used to meet the present economic chaos and massive unemployment were carefully planned last November? So that we can learn the lessons from this, would the right hon. Gentleman consider publishing a White Paper to show the economic costs of this carefully laid plan by comparison with the likely cost of settling this strike before it had even started?

§ The Prime Minister
What my right hon. Friend said—I heard him say it—was that so far as industry was concerned, there had been criticisms that no arrangements had been made until last week for the means by which, if it were necessary, power supply would be rationed. He pointed out that there had been long consultation with industry as to how this could be done and that, in any case, it would not have been possible to send out notices to 20,000 different firms if the allegations were true.

§ Mr. Onslow
Would my right hon. Friend agree that this Question provides an opportunity for the Leader of the Opposition to remedy the fact that, yesterday, his Front Bench spokesmen dodged the question whether they believed that the miners should return to work pending the inquiry and that it would be in the public interest if this deficiency were now made good?

§ The Prime Minister
Yes, Sir. I believe that that is a fair question to put to the Leader of the Opposition. I should have hoped that he and his Front Bench spokesmen would have answered it unequivocally—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where were you?"] I was here for the opening speeches. I would have hoped that, in view of his experience in Government, when he made the same appeal himself, the right hon. Gentleman would have made an appeal on this occasion to the N.U.M.

§ Mr. Harold Wilson
Has the right hon. Gentleman studied what I said in Saturday on this point? [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I made it clear then that there should be an immediate return to work—

§ Mr. Onslow
Why did not the right hon. Gentleman's Front Bench spokesmen say that?

§ Mr. Wilson
—on the understanding that the Prime Minister on Saturday should have intervened with both sides, got the issue settled over the weekend and saved a week. Is he aware—[HON. MEMBERS: "Yes or no?"] I have already said it—on Saturday. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I said on Saturday that the miners should return to work but that a prior condition was that the Prime Minister should start work first?

§ The Prime Minister
In his speech the right hon. Gentleman asked me to intervene to ensure that the court of inquiry was speedily convened and got on with its work. In fact, the court of inquiry had by then already been set up and was already at work. On Sunday it was at work, and announced that it was prepared to see the parties yesterday, so there was no reason for me to intervene to speed up the court of inquiry.