PRIME MINISTER (SPEECH) (Hansard, 8 June 1972)

§ Mr. Lipton
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Speaker
This is supposed to be the time for the Prime Minister's Question time.

§ Mr. Lipton
This point of order must be raised now, Mr. Speaker, as you will see in a moment. There are eight Questions on the Order Paper addressed to the Prime Minister about a speech he made on 16th May. The slightest effort on the part of any of the eight hon. Members would reveal that the speech has been gathering dust on the shelves of the Library since 17th May. Therefore, is it not an abuse of the time of the House to put these Questions?

§ Mr. Speaker
That is not a matter for me, Mr. Huckfield.

§ Q1. Mr. Leslie Huckfield
asked the Prime Minister whether he will now place in the Library a copy of his speech to the Confederation of British Industry on 16th May on the interests of the community.

§ Q2. Mr. Wiliam Hamilton
asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of the public speech he made on Tuesday, 16th May, to the Confederation of British Industry in London on the economy.

§ Q4. Mr. Duffy
asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech at the annual dinner of the Confederation of British Industry in London on 16th May on conciliation in industrial disputes.

§ Q7. Mr. Skinner
asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech on 16th May to the Confederation of British Industry on industrial relations.

§ Q8. Mr. Redmond
asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech to the annual dinner of the Confederation of British Industry on 16th May on the subject of inflation.

§ Q11. Mr. Wyn Roberts
asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech on the economy at the annual dinner of the Confederation of British Industry on 16th May.

§ Q13. Mr. St. John-Stevas
asked the Prime Minister whether he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech to British industrialists, on the subject of the economy in London on 16th May. 1972.

§ The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Reginald Maudling)
I have been asked to reply.
My right hon. Friend did so on 17th May.

§ Mr. Huckfield
I thank both the right hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) for that information. Does the right hon. Gentleman honestly believe that the Government are acting in the interests of the community by going through a deliberate exercise in brinkmanship with the railway unions? Does he believe that the Government are acting in the interests of the community by doing nothing about rising food prices? Does he think that the Government are acting in the interests of anyone but themselves?

§ Mr. Maudling
I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's description of our policies which are designed to serve the interests of the public generally.

§ Mr. Hamilton
What did the Prime Minister mean when he said he was taking a lively interest in an independent form of conciliation, and what progress has been made in that direction? Does he regard the Chancellor of the Exchequer's forecast of growth this year as being currently on target, in view of the recent pessimistic forecasts?

§ Mr. Maudling
My right hon. Friend meant what he said. He has taken a close interest in suggestions from the CBI and the TUC about conciliation. The point he was making was that an effective system of conciliation must also have regard for consumers' interests. On the second point, the National Institute's forecast is a little on the gloomy side, but in the past I have sometimes known it to be a little wrong on that matter.

§ Mr. Redmond
Will my right hon. Friend place in the Library a copy of the speech made at the same function by Sir John Partridge, in which Sir John asked for some tangible sign from the trade unions that they were willing to help in the fight against inflation? Does he also realise that I have received a letter today from a firm in my constituency which says that wage/cost rises are taking them to the Rubicon and that they do not want to cross it?

§ Mr. Maudling
It is clear that every section of the community has a part to play in dealing with the problem of cost inflation.

§ Mr. Duffy
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Prime Minister also said on that occasion that he welcomed the development of new voluntary conciliation machinery on a proper basis? Does he not think that the early willingness of the trade unions to become involved is crucial? Will he explain how the present grasping obstinacy of the Government in denying the railwaymen every last penny of their claim will help the trade unions to co-operate?

§ Mr. Maudling
I thought the last penny was being demanded rather than refused. On the broader question of conciliation generally, it is clear that the whole House and the country would welcome a system in which conciliation was more effective, in which the TUC and CBI take part and in which the consumers' interests are also clearly represented.

§ Mr. Roberts
In view of the present uncompromising attitude of the unions, will my right hon. Friend assess the likelihood of the CBI extending its period of price restraint beyond July?

§ Mr. Maudling
I do not think it would be wise to try to reach an assessment. We all hope that a proper solution can be found. Clearly the ability of employers to maintain stable prices depends on what happens to their costs.

§ Mr. Skinner
Would the right hon. Gentleman clear up one small point? The Prime Minister in that speech referred to pay awards, conciliation protecting the consumer and so on. If the Prime Minister can get a pension of £7,500 per year, which is non-contribu- 700 tory and is backdated to 1st April, 1972—an increase of £3,500—why cannot the railwaymen have their pay increase of just over £2 per week backdated to 1st May?

§ Mr. Maudling
I thought that in the case of ministerial and parliamentary salaries there was an acceptance of an impartial decision. In the case of the railwaymen there has not been an acceptance of an impartial decision.

§ Mr. St. John-Stevas
Is not the immediately important point about conciliation that it should be used to the full, in the intervening five days before the threatened go-slow on the railways, to promote a compromise settlement?

§ Mr. Maudling
Yes, I gather that discussions are taking place and in the circumstances I would not like to say anything at present.

§ Mr. Prentice
May we have an assurance that Ministers are now urgently considering what initiative they can take to promote a compromise settlement in the railway dispute, a compromise which they should have promoted some weeks ago? Will they recognise that the results of the ballot, which they themselves initiated, have created a situation which can only be solved by some compromise formula of this kind?

§ Mr. Maudling
I do not want to enter into argument with the right hon. Gentleman about the merits or demerits of what has happened in this dispute. All I can say is that everybody recognises that it is extremely important to get this solved, and it should be possible to solve it. If I were to answer a question on this matter today, I feel that it would not be likely to contribute to the possibility of a helpful solution.

§ Mr. Ridsdale
What discussions have taken place with the CBI and the TUC on the effect of the demand in the Community to raise steel prices and also the effect of the demand to establish a minimum wage? Are not these questions far more important than the demand to raise rail wages since they will have far more effect on the country at large than will the other matter?

§ Mr. Maudling
These are extremely important questions which often come up 701 in the course of regular contacts between the Government and the TUC and CBI.

§ Mr. Pardoe
I welcome the Government's conversion to the consumer's interest, but will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House at what stage the Conservative Party, when in Opposition, supported the then Labour Government's attempts to bring consumer interest to bear on wage restraint? Will he not agree that the Conservative Party supported the more disreputable elements in the Labour Party in sabotaging any attempt to bring about a prices and incomes policy?

§ Mr. Maudling
I thought that a somewhat impolite supplementary question. We supported the Labour Government when we thought they were talking sense.

§ Mr. Harold Wilson
A polite supplementary. Since the right hon. Gentleman did not answer the question put by his hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale), will he undertake that a Minister who knows, or who can find out the answer, will make a statement to the House on this important question next week? Secondly, since the right hon. Gentleman, most unfortunately and uncharacteristically, is following the Prime Minister in giving the same answer that inflation is due to wages, will he explain how far wage demands are responsible for recent increases in the price of meat, houses and land?

§ Mr. Maudling
On the first point, I would answer certainly, yes. On the second point, obviously the volume of money involved in increases in incomes is by far the most important element in the inflationary situation generally. [Hon. Members: "Oh!"] It is sheer mathematics. As for the price of beef, one knows that this arises partly from international conditions and partly from the lamentable record of the Labour Government in encouraging beef production. Since we are being blamed for the high price of beef, I think we should be praised for the low price of butter.

§ Mr. Wilson
Since the right hon. Gentleman cannot do better than repeat what was said on Monday by, of all people, his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, will he come back to the question of the high price of housing and land, which he 702 blames on the amount of money in circulation, namely wages of £20 per week? As a former Chancellor of the Exchequer of great distinction, as we recognise since we had his inheritance as well as the previous one, would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that an increase in money supply at the rate of 20 per cent, might have some effect on the amount of money in the country—[Hon. Members: "Ask a question."] It is a question, though I do not expect an answer. Secondly, does not the right hon. Gentleman feel that recent budgetary changes have led to a great deal of speculation in housing and land?

§ Mr. Maudling
The right hon. Gentleman, as a distinguished statistician, will recognise that the cost of labour is an important element in the cost of building houses, as indeed was SET.

§ Mr. Wilson
Will the right hon. Gentleman, as a distinguished statistician, retired or reformed, tell the House how an increase of 21 per cent, in new house prices can be explained by wage increases amounting to much less? Secondly, will he say how far an increase of 20 to 30 per cent. in the price of second-hand houses, which is in no way based on present wages, is explained by wages?

§ Mr. Maudling
I do not claim to be a statistician. If I may say so, it is a great mistake to do so—it is better to be correct. I know that if there is a much greater volume of purchasing power, prices go up.