CBI (Hansard, 9 December 1976)

§ Q6. Mr. Brittan
asked the Prime Minister when he last met the CBI.

§ The Prime Minister
I refer the hon. Member to the reply which my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council gave on my behalf to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) on 30th November.

§ Mr. Brittan
Did the Prime Minister, when he last met the CBI, tell it that he did not propose to carry out his obligations under the Industry Act over the disclosure of information and that when 624 asked about it in the House he would reply in a cavalier fashion, showing that he was not concerned about maintaining his obligations under the law to give the disclosure required by the Act?

§ The Prime Minister
The answer to all parts of that question is "No, Sir".

§ Mr. Skinner
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that probably not too many members of the CBI live in bedsitters? Does he agree that many of the people who do live in bedsitters vote Labour? Will he confirm that many of those in bedsitters who vote Labour and who are members of the Labour Party have not been lucky enough to be rewarded by that Labour Party to the extent of finding themselves with a seaside bungalow, a country cottage and a town house? Does he agree that if there are any infiltrators into the Labour Party, some of them are in the House of Lords, put there by the former Prime Minister, and that they never vote Labour when they get the chance?

§ The Prime Minister
I do not know whether that is a Roland for an Oliver, or a Skinner for a Taylor. I thank my hon. Friend for his helpful question, which I am sure has given a great deal of comfort elsewhere. I suggest that we have some talks about this privately. [Interruption.] We will not meet in a bedsitters, but in the House of Commons—[Interruption.] We will not meet in the House of Lords. I do not think that my hon. Friend would go there anyway.—[Interruption.] He would not go there, because he is a man of principle. Therefore, I suggest to him that we should have discussions on these matters, which are of concern to all members of the Labour Party and must be thrashed out but which only give a certain amount of childish glee to the Opposition when they are raised in this House.

§ Mr. Michael Latham
In view of the CBI's great interest in public expenditure, will the Prime Minister express his total support for the Chancellor's proposals to cut public expenditure, rather than leave him twisting in the wind while the Cabinet gossips to the newspapers?

§ The Prime Minister
I think that the hon. Gentleman will be disappointed next Wednesday, when he hears the statement.

§ Mr. Crawford
In the context of industrial development, will the Prime Minister inform the CBI and people in Scotland what proportion of the revenues from Scotland's oil has already been mortgaged to the IMF?

§ The Prime Minister
If the hon. Gentleman will put down that question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he will get a reply.

§ Mr. Kinnock
Does my right hon. Friend recall that earlier this week the CBI, in typical fashion, came forward with begging bowl in mailed fist to ask my right hon. Friend simultaneously somehow not to introduce major deflation but, on the other hand, to introduce major public spending cuts? Will he take the advice of Labour Members and, indeed, of the Labour Party, and bring about not the deflation of major spending cuts but changes of policy which will result in increases in production and investment, and again not profit those who have no interest in the real future of this country?

§ The Prime Minister
I take note of my hon. Friend's views. The Cabinet has reached its conclusion on the matter and it will be published in due course. What my hon. Friend said has been the subject of considerable discussion. One reason why I have not hurried these discussions to a conclusion is that they are of great importance. They go beyond even our own party interests. [Interruption.] I do not expect the Opposition to be serious about anything on these matters. I am talking not about the Opposition, but about the country generally.
What is at stake here, as my hon. Friend correctly pointed out, is the question how we can reduce public expenditure without at the same time heavily increasing unemployment or interfering with social security benefits. Frankly, these questions have engaged the Cabinet for a very long period. We shall produce what we think is the best possible result in the interests of all. I must ask my hon. Friend and the House to wait until it is published.