§ Q2. Mr. Atkinsonasked the Prime Minister when he next proposes to meet the TUC.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Lamond) on 11th February.
§ Mr. AtkinsonCan my right hon. Friend say whether yesterday he had a chance to read the Cambridge Economic Review which set out its case for rejecting totally deflationary policies? Did he also notice in that report that the case was made for the imposition of import controls, which is in line with the policy now being developed by the TUC, has been stated by every trade union which has as yet issued an economic report and is, indeed, supported by no fewer than 100 Members on the Labour back benches?
§ The Prime MinisterI did not read that until today. From the time the Government came into office we have made 1106 it clear that we reject deflationary policies as a means of solving problems caused to a considerable extent by the oil price situation. To embark on deflationary policies and bring about a diminution of world trade would be bad for us as a major trading nation. The same is true of the use of import controls.
§ Mr. Peter MorrisonDoes the right hon. Gentleman think that the social contract is fair when those who settle within its guidelines have to pay for the excessive wages of those who settle outside them through increased costs of coal and electricity?
§ The Prime MinisterThese matters were fully dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment in the statement he made recently. I entirely agree with what he said. If the hon. Member is referring to the mineworkers' settlement, to which my right hon. Friend referred, I hope he and other hon. Members will recognise that no one in this country, perhaps not even the Tory Party, wants to go back to the confrontation of a year ago. [Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) does, but no one else does. The hon. Member may not have noticed what my right hon. Friend said, namely that this was a major restructuring agreement. Conservative Members will be aware of the need for more coal-face workers. They will also know that we cannot go on—it would be wrong to go on—with the situation in which, through inadequate recruitment to the mines, we have to use that odious practice of underground mining contractors—the lump. What has been agreed is calculated to enable us to solve these structural problems.
Mr. R. C. MitchellThe Prime Minister has been having meetings with the TUC and the CBI on these matters. Will he also have similar meetings with the new national consumer authority so that the voice of the consumer can be heard?
§ The Prime MinisterMy hon. Friend is quite right. The previous Government scrapped any semblance of consumer representation in this country. We have restored it, at a high level. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection has made it clear that she will have the closest connection with the new authority. So will I.
§ Mr. PriorWill the Prime Minister now answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Mr. Morrison): whether he considers it is fair that those who make settlements outside the guidelines of the social contract should have those settlements paid for by others who must meet increased prices? Will he further say whether he thinks that a settlement such as that which has been reached by the miners falls within the social contract?
§ The Prime MinisterThat question was answered by my right hon. Friend I agree with him. On the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman I would refer him to the statement—I will send him a copy of it if he has not seen it—made by the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) to the effect that the Government were right not to interfere in the negotiations between the NUM and the Coal Board and that the miners had always been a special case. I have the full text here if the right hon. Gentleman would like to read what he said on that occasion. I am interested to hear the language he is now talking, because he was not talking it a year ago.