ECONOMIC SITUATION (Hansard, 31 July 1975)

§ Q2. Mr. Tim Renton
asked the Prime Minister if he will arrange to meet the heads of the nationalised industries to discuss his statement of 11th July on the economic situation.

§ Q4. Mr. Rost
asked the Prime Minister if he will invite the heads of the nationalised industries to meet him to discuss his statement of 11th July on the economy.

§ Q5. Mr. Michael Latham
asked the Prime Minister if he will arrange to meet the leaders of the nationalised industries to discuss his statement of 11 th July on the economic situation.

§ Q8. Mr. Lawson
asked the Prime Minister if he will arrange to meet the heads of the nationalised industries to discuss his statement of 11th July on the economic situation.

§ Mr. Edward Short
I have been asked to reply.
My right hon. Friend discussed our intentions on pay limits with the heads of 21 public corporations on 10th July. They have assured the Government that they will support the new policy in every way and that they will operate strictly within the limits laid down in the guidelines. The Ministers concerned will continue to keep in close touch with the corporations on the implementation of the policy.

§ Mr. Renton
Will the Lord President remind the Prime Minister that the losses so far reported by the nationalised industries in one year amount to more than £14 per head of the population, with more to come? Is he aware that the people are fed up with the prospect of having to pay for these vast losses out of their straitened incomes? Are not prices for the products of nationalised 2044 industries rapidly moving out of the range of those who need them most?

§ Mr. Short
No, Sir. The deficits which are being announced reflect the degree to which the publicly-owned industries have been constrained in their pricing policies, under both the previous Conservative Government and the present Government, and, therefore, the extent to which the publicly-owned industries have been subsidising private industry.

§ Mr. Frank Allaun
To absorb a growing number of unemployed, is not a national recovery programme called for? Has not the Prime Minister rightly encouraged France and Germany to expand their economies, whereas we are being asked to cut back ours? How can it be inflationary for us to expand our economy if it costs little more to keep a man fully employed than to have him idle?

§ Mr. Short
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment will be making an announcement about this before the Summer Recess.

§ Mr. Rost
Why are the Government stubbornly pressing on with their further disastrous programme of nationalisation when it is clear to everyone except the prejudiced and blinkered Socialists that nationalised industries have failed the nation, that we cannot afford more nationalisation and that if we get more it will lead only to more unemployment and more inflation?

§ Mr. Short
That supplementary question from the hon. Gentleman was entirely predictable. It is on a level with all the supplementary questions he puts on this subject. The hon. Gentleman has not made a constructive comment on anything since he came to the House. The nationalised industries are the basis of our economy. For many years now they have been restricted in their pricing policy and, therefore, they have been subsidising the rest of our economy.

§ Mr. Latham
How much of the £6 a week permitted wage increase next year will be taken up by increased energy, rail and postal charges?

§ Mr. Short
I cannot answer that off the cuff. If the hon. Gentleman will table a Question we shall let him have a reply.

§ Mr. Heffer
Are not Opposition Members hypocritical about this matter? Does not private enterprise receive about £2½ million a day in various subsidies? Have not Opposition Members only this afternoon demanded subsidies for the fishing industry? It is apparently all right to have subsidies for the fishing industry and private enterprise, but not all right to have subsidies for nationalised industries. Is it not clear that the Opposition are a bunch of damned hypocrites?

§ Mr. Speaker
I deprecate that phraseology. Perhaps the hon. Member will put it differently.

Mr. Heifer
If I have gone beyond the bounds of parliamentary terminology, Mr. Speaker, I will withdraw the appropriate words, whichever they are.

§ Mr. Lawson
In the light of last night's meeting of the Parliamentary Labour Party at which the Environment Secretary's decision to accept a Lords Amendment to the "Clay Cross" Bill was overruled by a majority of 21, could the chairmen of the nationalised industries be told which of the Government's policies will in future be decided by the Cabinet and which by the Parliamentary Labour Party, on the advice of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)?

§ Mr. Short
Last night my right hon. Friend, in a democratic manner consulted his colleagues on a purely parliamentary matter. We are willing to accept the decision of our colleagues on this.