TUC AND CBI (TALKS) (Hansard, 2 May 1974)

§ Q2. Mr. Pardoe
asked the Prime Minister when he next expects to meet representatives of the TUC.

§ Q4. Mr. Norman Lamont
asked the Prime Minister when he next plans to meet the CBI and the TUC.

§ Q8. Mr. Skinner
asked the Prime Minister what plans he has to meet further with groups of trade union leaders; and if he will make a statement.

§ The Prime Minister
I have no immediate plans to meet the TUC and the CBI, both of which I met at the end of March. I also met representatives of the TUC and the CBI when I chaired the NEDC on 3rd April. Discussion on individual aspects of our social and economic policies are being held with both bodies by the responsible departmental Ministers.

§ Mr. Pardoe
In the light of his discussions with the TUC, will the Prime Minister be helpfully forthcoming about the social contract, or compact? Does he consider that on behalf of the public interest he has done his share in delivering his side of the contract? If not, what further steps does he intend to take? While we are all prepared to do our bit towards honouring our side of the contract, before having to make further payments in advance, such as £10 million or so, we should like an exchange of contracts. When does the right hon. Gentleman expect to put the contract document in the Library of the House?

§ The Prime Minister
I am not at all certain that the hon. Gentleman and his party have done all they could have done to help the agreement on a voluntary policy. As to the Government's fulfilment of their side of the contract—[Interruption.] I did not spend three days trying to organise a coalition with them. With regard to the fulfilment by the Government of their contributions to a voluntary policy, I think that they have gone a very long way in that direction. 1317 The hon. Gentleman asks me to be more forthcoming about the TUC's response; I anticipated his question in a very full speech I made in Margate to a trade union audience last Sunday, a copy of which speech I placed in the Library immediately afterwards. The hon. Gentleman can study it if lie wishes. With regard to the £10 million, I also dealt with that subject in my speech. It is only the chivalry of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, who is trying to make "an honest woman" of the Conservative Front Bench and its promises. As for the Liberals, they voted with us on 23rd March 1971 and are now going to vote against us.

§ Mr. Lamont
Did the Prime Minister notice that the recent remarks of his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, when announcing his amnesty for illegal immigrants, included a reference to the extreme undesirability of retrospective legislation in taxation matters? Since this is exactly what the Government are introducing in refunding the amounts paid to the trade unions, should not the Prime Minister require the resignation of the Home Secretary?

§ The Prime Minister
In those circumstances I have drawn the distinction that retrospective legislation to put right a wrong in the interests of the taxpayer is different from retrospective legislation imposing a burden on people who previously were not liable for tax. In this case it is incumbent on the present Government to fulfil the obligation that was entered into by the Conservative Government.

§ Mr. Skinner
When my right hon. Friend meets the trade union leaders and, most probably, discusses the question of the sensible Cabinet decision to hand back the proposed £10 million to the provident funds of the respective unions, will he also make a point of contrasting the position of the 11 incorruptible trade union members of Clay Cross, who are giants of the Labour movement compared with some of those concerned in the shabby dealings that we have been seeing and hearing about lately?

§ The Prime Minister
In my discussions with the TUC its representatives have not raised the question of Clay Cross with me. Should they do so, I shall consider anything they may have to say. I find 1318 it interesting that my hon. Friend is supporting the line taken by the then Secretary of State for Employment in 1971. I am even more fascinated that from not one Conservative Member today have we heard reference to their favourite bogey figure, Mr. Hugh Scanlon. I was wondering why they had not referred to him.

§ Mr. Arthur Jones
Is the Prime Minister of the opinion that the absence of copies of the OFFICIAL REPORT in the Vote Office is due to an industrial dispute? Is he also aware that HANSARD was not available until 1 p.m. yesterday, and that when a member of the Vote Office staff inquired earlier today about the delay in its receipt in the Vote Office he met with a cagey reply?

§ The Prime Minister
There is no need to be cagey. There is a printing dispute. It has happened in the past, and certainly happened under the Conservative administration.