TUC, CBI AND NEDC (Hansard, 14 October 1975)

§ Q3. Mr. Lawrence
asked the Prime Minister when he will next be meeting the TUC.

Q4. Beith
asked the Prime Minister when he next expects to take the chair at a meeting of the National Economic Development Council.

§ Q5. Mr. Cyril Smith
asked the Prime Minister what recent consultations he has had with representations of the TUC and the CBI.

§ Q6. Mr. Ashley
asked the Prime Minister how many times he met the TUC and the CBI during the recess; and if he will make a statement.

§ Q8. Mr. Tebbit
asked the Prime Minister if he has met the TUC during the recess.

§ The Prime Minister
I am frequently in touch with leaders of both the TUC and the CBI at NEDC and on other occasions, and meetings are arranged as necessary. I shall be meeting the TUC 1129 at the Liaison Committee on 27th October and, as the House knows, I shall be taking the chair at the next meeting of NEDC at Chequers on 5th November.

§ Mr. Lawrence
Will the Prime Minister confirm on 27th October the words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer recently that the Government have not the faintest idea what their borrowing requirements will be for the forthcoming year, and explain what implications that will have for the Government's future anti-inflation strategy?

§ The Prime Minister
I do not know what will be on the agenda on that occasion. My right hon. Friend has followed the practice of every Chancellor of the Exchequer, to make forecasts of these matters at the appropriate times in the House, but under successive Governments there have always been changes which have falsified some of the estimates.

§ Mr. Ashley
In view of the fact that words used by Conservative spokesmen, and by journalists who support them, have been devoted to the wishful thesis that the concordat on the £6 pay policy between the Government and the trade union movement is a bogus public relations exercise, will my right hon. Friend say whether that claim is true or whether it is itself a bogus public relations exercise?

§ The Prime Minister
I am very happy to feel that in the bracing air of Blackpool, over two weeks, not only have some hon. Friends of mine, who voted against the procedures, now accepted the Government's policy, but that Her Majesty's Opposition, who abstained on the vote and on the legislation, have now, I understand, at least from the speech of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition at Blackpool—[Interruption.] This is a very serious matter. I am referring to the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw.) He, at any rate, stated at Blackpool that his party—or whatever section of it he represents—supports the policy of the Government on which the Opposition sat on their hands when Parliament had to decide.

§ Mr. Beith
Will the meetings which the Prime Minister is to have with both sides of industry include discussion of the continuation of some form of incomes restraint beyond the £6-a-week period, especially now that he has gone so far 1130 as to accept the view we pressed on him that incomes restraint was necessary? Will he take note that in the pursuit of this policy, and any further policy beyond the end of the period of the £6 limit, if last night's voting figures are anything to go by, he need not fear even the most purposeful and determined opposition from the Conservative benches?

§ The Prime Minister
I missed the last few words. I hope I got the drift of it. I do not fear anything from that lot, anyway. On the whole, it seems that their absenteeism is more purposive than their abstention.
Concerning the serious part of the hon. Gentleman's question, it has been said by my right hon. Friends and myself—and by leading trade union leaders—that clearly during the next 12 months starting with the acceptance by Parliament of the legislation, or well before the end of that period, we shall have to consider the legislation for the next year and for succeeding years. It is premature to start to speculate about that at this time.
I might tell the hon. Member, on a wider economic issue than those raised—this does arise out of the Question—that I have invited both the TUC and the CBI to meet me before the meeting of Heads of States and Governments on the international economic situation takes place in Paris on 15th November. The TUC and the CBI have both accepted that invitation and will be meeting separately with me in order to give me their views.

§ Mr. Atkinson
Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge that the Government have now accepted totally the bankers' advice, knowing full well the effects that that advice will have in raising the level of unemployment? Does he agree that the Government's intention over the next two years is to cut the public sector borrowing requirement by £3,500 million, and that by raising the bank rate by 1 per cent. they are also cutting the private sector borrowing requirement? Will he now appoint advisers who can put before him some of the alternative solutions, making it possible to bring down the rate of price inflation, while at the same time taking measures to reflate the economy immediately, and so start to do something about the unemployment in this country?

§ The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is quite wrong in saying that this is a question of accepting any sectional advice of any kind. What we have done in these matters, both on the anti-inflation policy and on unemployment, is to act responsibly and announce our policy to the country. It has not been universally accepted, but I think that my hon. Friend, or the group of which he is a member, has now accepted—

§ Mr. Atkinson
No.

§ Mr. Skinner
No.

§ The Prime Minister
I am very sorry to hear it. It looks as though my hon. Friend's public relations is not as good as it used to be. At any rate, there is now a wide acceptance of our policy by a very large proportion of the country, unanimously at the Labour Party conference and now, we understand, by the Conservative Party conference—and it very large numbers of people. The policy against which my hon. Frends voted in August is now acceptable to the Labour Party conference and, indeed, to the Conservative Party conference—and it is not against the manifesto either.

§ Mr. Tebbit
When he next sees the TUC, will the Prime Minister establish just what this agreed policy is, and will he tell the House whether the £6 is a limit, up to which negotiations may take place, or whether it is, as the TUC and many of his hon. Friends maintain, a universal flat-rate entitlement for all wage earners?

§ The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman, like a number of others—not only in his own party—is becoming utterly pathetic in trying to pretend that there are disagreements where there are not. [Interruption.] I can contain my side as long as the Conservative Front Bench can contain theirs. Concerning the question, the answer was given in the White Paper, approved by Parliament. The Conservative Party did not vote on that approval and abstained on the legislation. The answer is to be found there. The answer is that the £6 is a pay limit.

§ Mr. Tomlinson
Will my right hon. Friend agree that, now that the decision of this House has received the overwhelming endorsement of both the Trades Union Congress and the Labour Party 1132 conference, he really ought to be spending his time in trying to drag out of the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition exactly what her priorities for public expenditure cuts would be?

§ The Prime Minister
There will be plenty of time for that in the weeks that lie ahead. We know that the Conservative Party is committed to heavy cuts in public expenditure. Apart from cuts in food and housing subsidies, which would increase the cost of living, it has been totally unspecific. Now that we have all benefited from the bracing air of Blackpool, I hope that the House of Commons will be told of the cuts in expenditure to which the Conservatives are committed in order to realise the target set by the right hon. Member the Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer at Blackpool.

§ Mrs. Thatcher
Are we to understand from what the Prime Minister said that he has absolutely no plans for further cuts in public expenditure? Bearing in mind that the interest rate rose on the day that the Labour Party conference ended, how much further must it rise before the Government moderate their spending?

§ The Prime Minister
Before I answer the Question, I hope that the right hon. Lady, will allow me for one moment to express our congratulations—[Interruption.] There used to be courtesy before the Conservative Party became so split. I am sure that the whole House would wish me to express, with retrospective effect, our congratulations on her birthday, yesterday. I hope it was a very happy birthday.
As for the paint problem, the answer is to try turps—

§ Mr. Rost
Cheap!

§ The Prime Minister
Yes, it is very cheap! I could not understand why she did not buy any.
Concerning the very serious question about public expenditure, before the recess I told the House, in answer to a Question—I think by the right hon. Lady—that, in relation to the normal consideration of a five-year rolling programme of expenditure, we are now hard at work on the expenditure estimates. Those for the coming year have been announced, and even the right hon. Lady would not 1133 want to cut public expenditure at a time of world-wide trade depression and cause more unemployment. We are looking at this matter for the later years, and the figures will be announced to the House in the proper manner at the proper time.
I am not quite clear what point the right hon. Lady was trying to make concerning interest rates. She will know that these matters are determined by the financial authorities, and she will know the particular circumstances which led to that decision.

§ Mrs. Thatcher
The Prime Minister knows full well that the Government are having difficulty in borrowing money, because of their spending programmes. What I think the right hon. Gentleman has just said is that he would rather print money or let interest rates rise than reduce his expenditure programme.

§ The Prime Minister
That rendering of what I said was about as perverse as the right hon. Lady's reference at Blackpool to what I had said about Labour being the natural party of government, when she attributed all kinds of arguments which had never been considered by any of us. [Interruption.] There are one or two who might be a little unhappy about that, I agree. But I said what I did because we were in office in 11½ years out of 15 years, and that is a pretty good argument to support what I said. The right hon. Lady is quite wrong to say that I said that we would print money instead of dealing in a responsible manner with public expenditure. She knows from her own experience when in government—she cannot go on running away from responsibility for it—that these matters must be planned two or three years ahead and that if there are cuts in a given year they are usually totally uneconomic. In this case, if that is all that the right hon. Lady is pressing for, it would lead to vastly increased unemployment.