CBI (Hansard, 10 March 1977)

§ Q3. Mr. Wrigglesworth
asked the Prime Minister when he next plans to meet the CBI.

§ Mr. Foot
I have been asked to reply.
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave him on 17th February.

§ Mr. Wrigglesworth
Will the Government discuss with the CBI the rate at which the switch of resources from the public sector into manufacturing industries will take place? Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is grave concern about this among Government supporters? What time scale does he envisage for the switch of resources into manufacturing industries that we have been promised?

§ Mr. Foot
This is a question that has been discussed between the Government, representatives of the CBI and others on NEDO over many months and, indeed, for a longer period than that. As my hon. Friend knows, this is a matter that it is easier to talk about than to achieve. It is not an easy transference to accomplish and it cannot be done solely by Government statements or consultations. But we shall be discussing it further in NEDO and other appropriate bodies.

§ Mr. David Steel
Will the Lord President indicate to the CBI whether he intends to seek the widest possible measure of agreement—to use his phrase 1631 on devolution—on legislation for industrial democracy? If he does so intend, will he assure the CBI that there is a chance of getting the Bill through and, if he does not, that there is no chance at all?

§ Mr. Foot
I hope that we shall have the support of the Liberal Party on the Second Reading of the Industrial Democracy Bill, as we did in the case of devolution, and that Liberal Members will be even more persistent in sticking to their principles than they were on devolution.

§ Mr. Alexander W. Lyon
Will the Lord President explain to the CBI why the Cabinet agreed to cut public expenditure last year on the basis of three assumptions, namely, the share of the GNP going to public expenditure, the increase in the domestic credit expansion, and the borrowing requirement—on all of which assumptions the Treasury now admits that the figures were wrong?

§ Mr. Foot
My hon. Friend has misconceived the undertakings and the understandings on which the measures were taken by the Government in December and at an earlier period. Those were some of the arguments that were deployed at the time, but the general case about them was put by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he mentioned them here. It is not the same case as that represented by my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon).

§ Mr. Michael Latham
Since the CBI is obviously interested in industrial harmony, will the right hon. Gentleman present it with and discuss with it a copy of the Underhill Report on the growing influence of Trotskyists in the governing party?

§ Mr. Foot
I do not think that that has anything to do with this Question, or with much else.

§ Mr. Dykes
Getting back to the subject of the CBI, does the Lord President agree with the suggestion made yesterday at Sheffield by the President of the CBI about 5 per cent. for the next round of wage increases and an additional 5 per cent. for tax cuts?

§ Mr. Foot
I do not think that it would be a sensible course to try to discuss 1632 across the Floor of the House now the exact details of how we should reach the next pay agreement. It will be discussed in the House at a later stage. It is a matter of great importance, but I do not think that public speeches are the best way to start the discussions on it. I hope that we shall have an agreement not only with the TUC but with the CBI. It would not help to secure that agreement if, at the beginning, the Government made a full declaration about what they thought the final result should be.