§ Q4. Mr. Ashtonasked the Prime Minister when he next plans to meet the TUC to discuss the economy and inflation.
§ The Prime MinisterThere are no arrangements for a further meeting at present, Sir.
§ Mr. AshtonWould not a meeting be in order to discuss the TUC's request for a commission of inquiry into the hospital workers' strike? A commission of inquiry might find out, for instance, that a mortuary attendant who has to stitch together the bits of road accident victims or drain the bodies of people who have been drowned receives only £19.80 a week for doing a job like that. Should not such facts be made available to the public and the Government?
§ The Prime MinisterAs the TUC knows, it was invited to discuss the whole 235 of the pay code with the Government. The Chancellor of the Exchequer specifically invited the TUC to do that, and I have invited the TUC myself. The TUC has not accepted the invitation. The Government can take no responsibility for that. If the TUC had accepted the invitation, there was no aspect of the Price and Pay Code which it could not have discussed fully with us.
As for individual aspects, as the House knows full well they can be referred to the Pay Board. The Chairman and Deputy Chairman especially responsible, and the Secretary, are available already for references of this kind.
§ Sir Harmar NichollsWill my right hon. Friend note that what is happening at present seems to show that reasonableness is beginning to prevail and that it is not for one side or another to claim that they are getting a victory but to make certain that at the end of the day common sense is recognised on all sides so that the nation will not suffer?
§ The Prime MinisterYes, I agree very much with my hon. Friend that this is the situation. Very often, from the media, people at home and especially people abroad get an entirely wrong impression of the real position here. At a time when we have well over 20 million people working hard and every day, working increased hours with high earnings in an expanding economy, the numbers who are either on strike or carrying out disruptive action are very small.
§ Mr. LoughlinWill the right hon. Gentleman accept that hon. Members on both sides of the House are very pleased indeed to see his move away from his confrontation policy and, in that sense, that reasonableness should apply? We are all glad about that. Will not the right hon. Gentleman accept, however, that the only possible way that we can get a solution to the economic problems confronting Britain is for him to be a little more elastic and to try to persuade the TUC and its constituent unions to get around the table, instead of being just slightly offhand with the TUC, and to recognise that unless the TUC is consulted and has discussions the right hon. Gentleman will get nowhere?
§ The Prime MinisterThe hon. Gentleman's allegation is completely unjustified. In the talks which we had from July onwards until October, and again at the beginning of this year, I believe that in our relationship with the TUC and the joint discussions in depth we as a Government and I myself as Prime Minister have been closer than any other previous administration. At present we are carrying on discussions with the TUC over a very wide field of common interest. It is over the particular aspect of the prices and incomes policy and the invitation to discuss the Price and Pay Code that the TUC has not felt able to accept the invitation.
§ Sir Gilbert LongdenWill my right hon. Friend confirm whether or not an offer of another week's holiday for the miners would be within the counter-inflation policy and the code?
§ The Prime MinisterAt present the miners have two weeks' continuous holiday. I think that they have seven rest days, the public holidays and, in addition, five individual holidays. What the National Coal Board has offered them, which is entirely within the code, is that those five days should be made into a week's holiday, which would enable miners then to take three continuous week's holiday if they so desired. This is entirely within the code and that is what they have been offered.
§ Q5. Mr. John Smithasked the Prime Minister what recent discussions he has had with the Confederation of British Industry on the future development of the economy.
§ The Prime Minister1 met representatives of the CBI, accompanied by Lord Melchett representing the nationalised industries, on Thursday 15th March, to discuss the consultative document on the Prices and Pay Code. The CBI expressed its support for the objectives of the Government's counter-inflation policies and agreed that the Government's commitment to a high rate of growth was being fulfilled. The CBI emphasised that there should be no discouragement of efficiency or of the investment necessary to maintain growth. The Government undertook to consider very carefully the points which were made.
§ Mr. SmithIs the Prime Minister aware of the representations made by the CBI to the Government arguing that the regional employment premium should be continued until 1978? Is he also aware of the CBI's prediction that if REP is not continued there will be a loss of jobs in the development areas numbering between 20,000 and 50,000? Will the Prime Minister listen to the CBI on this occasion? If not, will he explain how Scotland will fare after £40 million has gone from its economy in 1974?
§ The Prime MinisterMy hon Friend the Minister of Stale, Scottish Office, saw the Scottish section of the CBI last Friday, when it put various points to him. I do not endorse the figures which the hon. Gentleman and the CBI have given. I see no reason why the Scots should have dramatic figures of that kind thrown at them. But we shall note the points raised by the CBI and examine them.
§ Mr. Wyn RobertsDoes my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister agree that the CBI has at least always been constructive at its meetings with him? Will he further agree that the TUC might be induced to be more constructive if he were prepared to discuss with the trade unions some form of no-strike bonus, possibly beginning with the nationalised industries?
§ The Prime MinisterI do not want to make any distinction between the CBI and the TUC on the basis of constructive contributions to the talks that we have had on a large number of occasions. I am not sure that the suggestion that my hon. Friend put forward has been examined. If the nationalised industries wish to deal with the matter it is open to them to do so. If the TUC or the CBI were to put it forward for discussion we should gladly take part in those discussions.
§ Dr. Dickson MabonIn his examination of the submissions by the CBI on REP will the Prime Minister take into account that there are other ways of achieving the benefits which all of industry has in the development areas? For example, in Italy there are reductions in the employers' contribution in certain areas and that is admissible under the Treaty of Rome. Is not that an alternative? Industry is worried that REP is 238 being withdrawn and that the Government are suggesting no replacement.
§ The Prime MinisterThe hon. Member is right when he says that there is a considerable number of ways in which the same result from the point of view of purchasing power can be brought about. It can be done on a regional basis and the hon. Member is right about the Community. It is necessary to emphasise that REP will not stop by the end of 1974 but that it will be phased out over a period, and we have undertaken to have discussions with the CBI and the TUC about the timing of that phasing-out.
§ Mr. BennDoes not the Prime Minister recognise that uncertainty about the future of REP is affecting investment decisions now and that unless companies know now whether REP will continue they are unlikely to site their factories in the development areas?
§ The Prime MinisterThere is no evidence that this aspect of REP is having any deterrent effect on investment in the development areas, but that does not alter the fact that we will have discussions as soon as possible about the phasing-out after 1974.