HC Deb 09 December 1975 vol 902 cc225-7
Q2. Mr. George Gardiner

asked the Prime Minister whether the public speech by the Secretary of State for Energy in Bloomsbury on 23rd November, on economic policy, represents the policy of the Government.

The Prime Minister

Yes, Sir.

Mr. Gardiner

How can the Prime Minister reconcile the call made in the speech by the Secretary of State for Energy, for higher priority for nationalisation, with the call of the Secretary of State for the Environment for less, or his attack on expenditure cuts in contrast with the speeches made by the Chancellor, or his attack on the financial system with the Government's own use of it? Do these contradictions within the Cabinet explain the current drift and indecision on so many urgent economic matters, from import controls right through to the expenditure programme?

The Prime Minister

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman feels better for having put that supplementary question. Public ownership was very clearly explained in the manifesto. We are following the manifesto. I am not sure whether the hon. Member supported us in the Lobby in fulfilment of that manifesto, which was approved at two General Elections.

As to financial policy, my right hon. Friend said: Financial orthodoxy solemnly presented by men like Sir Keith Joseph and embraced by the Conservative party and urged every day in the Press and on television, would lead to an unparalleled act of national self-destruction. He went on to say that Labour policy is based on realism as it is.

Mr. Lawson

While the Prime Minister is explaining the Government's economic policy, will he explain the intellectual process by which he himself has claimed great credit for the Government's policy to abolish gas and electricity subsidies while at the same time castigating the Opposition for recommending a similar fate for the subsidies on cheese and tea?

The Prime Minister

I draw some distinction between the latter items. It was certainly right for us to introduce food subsidies and rent subsidies if we were to get the agreement, which we got from the whole country. Indeed, it has been reinforced by the vote, yesterday, of the second biggest union in this country.

I think that all I have said as regards the public industries' prices is that the present Government said that they were going to do it. The previous Conservative Government announced it. They never did it. The cost of doing it escalated, in consequence. We have had to do what they said they would do.

Mrs. Thatcher

Is the Prime Minister aware that on economic policy we have been led to expect, for two or three weeks now, statements on import controls, on Chrysler and on expenditure cuts? Is he aware that in the absence of these, we have government by rumour, and now we have reaction by rumour? We seem to be making a new enemy just about every week. When may we expect these statements?

The Prime Minister

We shall certainly make a statement on import controls as quickly as possible. The right hon. Lady will recall that she was pressing the same kind of question on incomes and on counter-inflation policy in June and July. We thought it more important to get it right than to respond to her importunate questions.

With regard to Chrysler, I am sure that the right hon. Lady will realise that on a matter of this importance, where, as I have said previously, very devastating proposals have been made by the Chrysler company, it is right that the discussions should continue. They are now in a very important state. I would not like to forecast the result. But the House will certainly be told at the earliest possible moment—I hope later this week or early next week.