HC Deb 11 November 1976 vol 919 cc645-7
5. Mr. Michael Latham

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is now in a position to announce further economic measures.

Mr. Healey

I have nothing further to add to what I said on 11th October, in the debate on the state of the economy.

Mr. Latham

Has the Chancellor no idea of the deep sense of national humiliation that his policy of muddle and inaction has caused? Does he not realise that immediate and drastic measures are essential, even from this "lame duck" Government?

Mr. Healey

I have always noticed in my political career that those who foul their own nest at some stage in the game dislike the smell; and I know that is the experience of hon. Members opposite. However, I do not get the feeling from my own contact with the British people that they feel humiliated. They feel as proud and determined as ever to conquer the economic and other problems which face them.

Mr. Whitehead

Does my right hon. Friend agree that whatever future measures have to be announced they are the prerogative of the elected Government in consultation with the party—[An HON. MEMBER: "Which party?"]—The governing party. Does he therefore also agree that his remarks to my hon. Friend earlier, about the statement by Mr. Alan Lord, are a little dangerous, in that they tend to imply that civil servants can indulge in policy-making options—as, indeed, was the situation in the case of the allegations made by the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) recently—which become, in a sense, self-fulfilling prophecies for those policies.

Mr. Healey

I ask my hon. Friend to read both what I said and what Mr. Alan Lord said in the lecture to which we referred. If he does so, he will see that Mr. Lord was explaining a policy that has been adopted by the Government, by the Labour Party, by the Labour Party Conference, by the TUC, and by the CBI. This explanation of policy—powerful and cogent as it was—would do nothing but assist the attainment of the objectives that my hon. Friend has in mind.

Attacks on civil servants which are not based on an attempt to familiarise oneself with what they have said are deeply to be deplored.

My hon. Friend referred to the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe). I have been in correspondence with him about some remarks that he made on television the other day, and he has since admitted to me in a letter that he had no names at all in his possession, although he implied in his broadcast that he was not publishing names only because it would be improper to do so in public, and that he had no concrete evidence of any type to present me with to justify the remarks that he made.

Mr. Pardoe

Is the Chancellor aware that he has entirely misconstrued my letter, in exactly the same way as he just now accused my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe) of doing with statements that he had made? I have not admitted any such thing, and I do not admit it. I did not suggest that I had names in my possession.

Is the Chancellor aware that I specifically stated in my letter to him that this allegation was not mine alone and that it had been published within the last two weeks in The Guardian and The Times? Has he taken up my suggestion that he should investigate their allegations, as I asked him to do?

Mr. Healey

This is a fairly important matter. I think that all Members of the House would wish to guard the reputation of hon. Members as being responsible people, by ensuring that if accusations are made against unnamed public servants they should be justified or withdrawn. I do not think that this is the moment at which I should bandy words with the hon. Member for Cornwall, North. I hope he will agree that we should publish our mutual correspondence.

From the published correspondence the House will see that the hon. Gentleman's remarks were not based on any solid evidence whatever, and that in attempting to quote remarks made in recent weeks by journalists he in no way confirmed or corroborated his statement that a year earlier, on a visit to Washington, he had received evidence of this type of malpractice. I hope that after reading the correspondence the whole House will agree that the hon. Member owes it to the reputation of the House to withdraw the allegations immediately.

Mr. David Howell

If we may return to the Question, as tax increases are among the further measures that regrettably, have been suggested, does the Chancellor realise that today a married man with two children has to take a job at £77 a week if he is to make that job worth while? When will the Chancellor make it pay to work in Britain again?

Mr. Healey

I am concerned, as I said yesterday in a broadcast, that the burden of sacrifice now facing the nation falls disproportionately on those who are working rather than those who, for various reasons, are not in work and whose benefits rise automatically in relation either to prices or to earnings gross of tax. This is a matter to which both sides of the House would wish to address themselves. There are many ways in which the problem can be tackled, and all Members of Parliament will know, from their contacts with constituents, that it is a matter of great concern to many people.