§ Q3. Mr. Adleyasked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech to the National Union of Mineworkers at Scarborough on 7th July on economic matters.
§ Q4. Mr. Hurdasked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech on the economic situation to the National Union of Mineworkers at Scarborough on 7th July.
§ Q8. Mr. Aitkenasked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library of the House a copy of his public speech on inflation to the National Union of Mineworkers conference at Scarborough on 7th July.
§ The Prime MinisterI did so on the same day, Sir.
§ Mr. AdleyIs the Prime Minister aware that many people outside the Parliamentary Labour Party will welcome the way in which the executive of the National Union of Mineworkers has agreed not to try to sabotage immediately what many people have described as phase 4 of the last Conservative Government's incomes policy? Will he accept that he should be grateful that on this occasion Her Majesty's Opposition are not acting as Scargill's parliamentary fifth column, trying to destroy Her Majesty's Government regardless of the effects on the nation or inflation?
§ The Prime MinisterI rather formed the view, from reading a story, which I am sure will be denied by the Opposition Front Bench, about some motion that the Opposition were putting down on the Order Paper to reject the means of carrying out the White Paper proposals, that they were specifically identifying themselves with the fifth column of those who want to see the White Paper fail. I may be wrong. Perhaps that was for them just a rush of blood to the head after midnight. However, the motion certainly appeared on the Order Paper. If the Opposition are to vote against the Bill which is the legislative vehicle for the White Paper, which I am sure in general they wish to commend to the House, I believe that that would be an act of parliamentary sabotage.
§ Mr. BidwellWhen my right hon. Friend is speaking in the country, will he carefully explain that the aspect of wage restraint in the White Paper and in the Government's policy reflects only one side of TUC policy and that a lot of TUC policy has been rejected so far by the Government? Will he undertake to continue discussions with the TUC about the rest of its statement?
§ The Prime MinisterI am glad that my hon. Friend responds to the initiative taken by the TUC. He knows that this is the substantial majority view of the General Council and that since the General Council decision union after union has come into line with it. I am sure that in forming his view about the proposals before the House my hon. Friend will attach great weight to the fact that the policy has been agreed with the TUC. We discussed and debated in direct discussions with the TUC, at NEDC and at yesterday morning's meeting of the liaison committee all aspects of the TUC's proposals and wider issues of economic policy.
§ Mr. ThorpeAs one who hopes that the White Paper will be successful and who will be voting for it tonight, I hope the Prime Minister is aware that many of us who have grave reservations about details of the legislation to be debated tomorrow and the reserve powers which have not been disclosed believe that it would be very much better if they were disclosed to the TUC, the CBI and the House of Commons. Why are the Government so coy about telling us precisely what reserve powers they have in mind?
§ The Prime MinisterThe right hon. Gentleman has made clear his general support for the White Paper. He will have every opportunity to debate on the Bill later this week any anxieties he may have about the operation of the legislation before the House. As for the measure that we have said we must keep in reserve, hoping that we shall never have to introduce it but which we shall introduce if the general strategy is threatened, this was dealt with fully by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday afternoon.
§ Mr. HurdIn the speech to which the Questions refer the Prime Minister rightly 294 stressed the need for consent, and that obviously goes far wider than the miners. Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify the position of employers in the light of his answers today? After 1st August, will not employers be entering into commitments with their work force which might constitute a legal offence of which they have no knowledge, carrying a penalty of which they have no idea? Is not the only certainty that they will receive no protection if other people try to force them to break the law?
§ The Prime MinisterThe hon. Member has misunderstood the situation. There is no question of employers entering into commitments after 1st August which they might find retrospectively to be against the law. There has been a misunderstanding here and I understand why, but the hon. Gentleman need have no anxieties on that score.
§ Mr. Mike ThomasIs my right hon. Friend aware that he will find it much less pleasant to address the NUM in 12 months' time if the rate of inflation is still between 15 per cent, and 18 per cent.? Will he concede that there is a real prospect of that, given the increases in the pipeline from last year's and this year's wage round and from raw material price increases? Will he take action to tighten up the prices side of the package to try to make sure that this does not happen?
§ The Prime MinisterI agree that that would be the position in a year's time if what my hon. Friend predicts were to happen. No one realises this more clearly than the NUM and the other unions, and that is why they are taking such a robust line in support of the Government's policy. On the question of the Price Code, and this is to some extent involved in the legislation before the House tomorrow, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection—I do not think that Hansard is yet available with the full record of what she said—dealt fully with some of these matters last night. She made clear that apart from the specific measures she is proposing, some by way of legislation, it is not the case that the present level of profits in some of the key sectors of wholesale, retail and manufacturing are such that it will be 295 possible greatly to tighten them up without very serious effects, possibly on employment.
§ Mr. AitkenI welcome much of the Prime Minister's rather belated conversion to realism as demonstrated in his Scarborough speech. Will he explain why he spent so long blaming the problems of the economy on such bogies as wet hens running around the cocktail circuit and why he did not speak in blunt language to the miners and the other unions much sooner?
§ The Prime MinisterI did. I gave my view to the TUC last September. On the point about a quotation from a broadcast some weeks ago, this was because there was a concerted drive against sterling based on a lot of gossip at the very time when it was becoming clear that our balance of payments deficit was falling to one quarter of what it was a year ago. Since then successively we have had very good export and trade figures. In the first six months of this year we achieved a current deficit of less than £500 million—an annual rate of £1,000 million—against estimates of £4 billion and £5 billion last year. This is a remarkable achievement and justifies what I said about some who are selling sterling short.
§ Mr. Donald StewartAs the House and the people have been conned on several occasions into buying the gold brick of a statutory incomes policy, is it not sheer gall that we are presented with it once again, except that on this occasion the gold brick will not even pass before our very eyes?
§ The Prime MinisterI do not know about the gold bricks and the gall around here. However, the position was made clear by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the legislation which we are asking the House to pass to fortify the voluntary policy agreed with the TUC will be debated by the House tomorrow. Any other legislation will be in reserve only in case the strategy breaks down. The House would have the first opportunity of debating that legislation before it could possibly become law. As to what the legislation will contain, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer explained in 296 detailed terms yesterday what the Government have in mind.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. There are 75 hon. Members who wish to speak in the debate which is to follow.