§ Q10. Mr. Ewingasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his meetings with the TUC and CBI 867 regarding phase 3 of the Government's prices and incomes policy.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply to the Question by the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield), which the hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Ewing) will not have heard because his hon. Friend was not here to ask it.
§ Mr. EwingIs the Prime Minister aware that his reply is in the true tradition of our Prime Minister, and is somewhat obscure. Would it not be a good idea for him and his Government to lay before the CBI and the TUC clear and specific proposals on how much the Government are prepared to concede on things like rents, old-age pensions, and on the Industrial Relations Act, so that the country may know just how the negotiations are to be conducted and how much is available, especially to the TUC?
§ The Prime MinisterAt our last meeting with the TUC it was agreed that there were five particular areas affecting the economy, the social services, and industrial relations, which would be subjects of discussion between the TUC and the Government. The TUC then asked that there should be a break before the next meeting, during which, the subjects having been settled, it would prepare itself to come back to the Government and express its views about these items. That seemed to both sides the right way of going about it and that is what is now happening.
§ Mr. RedmondWhen my right hon. Friend last met the TUC and the CBI was there any discussion on the employment figures, with particular reference to the shortage of labour that has now appeared in many industries?
§ The Prime MinisterThe TUC naturally welcomed the reduction in the unemployment figures, which has again been emphasised today. It also accepted, at the instigation of the Government, that one of the subjects that we should study and discuss together was the best use of the national resources, particularly in those areas where shortages of particular skills are becoming evident.
§ Mr. Harold WilsonRecalling that last autumn and again earlier this year the Government refused even to contemplate 868 the use of food subsidies, on the ground that they felt that they would inevitably mean rationing—however wrong that view might be—do they now accept our view that food subsidies are necessary in this situation—a view shared by the TUC? Does the right hon. Gentleman still believe that food subsidies would mean rationing, or is he now prepared to consider them with an open mind?
§ The Prime MinisterFar from our having excluded food subsidies, the right hon. Gentleman will recall that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced certain specific food subsidies which the Government used. In particular, we used them on sugar and potatoes and one or two other items. The right hon. Gentleman must distinguish between those items where food subsidies can be used, where there is a surplus and in order to bring prices down still further for the housewife, and those items of which there is a world shortage and where prices would be pushed up still further by the system the right hon. Gentleman wants to introduce. The TUC recognises this.
§ Mr. WilsonAs the Prime Minister knows, the TUC is still pressing for food subsidies on those items where prices have risen most. I know that he would not wish to mislead the House about this. We are all capable of distinguishing between one food and another. The distinction made by most people is that those foodstuffs which have risen most in price are the ones that the Government have done nothing about. Does the right hon. Gentleman still argue, in those cases, that it would mean rationing, and is he prepared to think again and introduce food subsidies, or is he not?
§ The Prime MinisterThe foods whose prices have risen most are those which are in shortest supply in the world—that is, cereals and meat. As for the TUC talks, the situation is exactly the same as it was last summer and autumn; these matters can be fully discussed, as they have been already.
§ Mr. WilsonThe Prime Minister must answer the question. He always tells us that matters can be fully discussed—like the political things he ruled out for action last year, such as housing. Has he now ruled out anything for action? 869 Is he to deal with housing and food prices, or is he now saying that anything that is subject to world prices is not a matter on which he can introduce subsidies? Is he saying that, or not?
§ The Prime MinisterWhat I am saying is that we are fully prepared to discuss these things and to listen. The Government are just as entitled to express their view on these matters as are the TUC and the CBI That is accepted by both sides. A year ago these matters were not excluded. Housing and rents were not excluded, and they were all discussed.
§ Dr. Dickson MahonOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I raise a point about Question No. 5 to the Prime Minister? My hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield) was unable to be here to ask that Question for reasons which the Prime Minister may not be aware of. Is it proper for the Prime Minister, in replying to Question No. 10, to refer to the answer to Question No. 5, which we were not given because of the absence of my hon. Friend? [Interruption.] May I finish my point, Mr. Speaker?
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. No, because it is not a point of order.
§ Mr. William PriceIt should be.
§ Mr. SpeakerIf the House would impose upon the Chair the burden of censuring answers by Ministers, the Chair would, of course, do its best, but at the moment that is not the rule.
§ Mr. Harold WilsonOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Surely there is no precedent for this. If a Question is not put it is the duty of the Minister if it is subsequently put in a different or similar form on a later Question to give the answer which was originally sought.
§ Mr. SpeakerThat is not a matter for order. The content of an answer is entirely a matter for the Minister who made it.