HC Deb 10 March 1977 vol 927 cc1632-4
Q4. Mr. Tebbit

asked the Prime Minister if he remains satisfied with the progress of his Government towards the objectives of lower inflation, lower unemployment, higher production and less borrowing.

Mr. Foot

I have been asked to reply.

I have nothing to add to the reply that my right hon. Friend gave the hon. Member on 18th January.

Mr. Tebbit

Does the Lord President think that the Prime Minister was living up to his usual standard of honesty at Question Time last Thursday when he refused to accept responsibility for the present level of unemployment but was anxious to claim credit for the improvement in the balance of payments?

Mr. Foot

To start with, the worst thing that I can say about the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) is that I think he was living up to his usual standards of honesty. The next worst thing that I can say about him is that I do not think that he asked this Question to seek information on the subject. What the Prime Minister said was perfectly well understood by the House.

Mr. Loyden

Will my right hon. Friend bring to the attention of the Prime Minister the question of the level of unemployment generally and the specific unemployment position on Merseyside and in the North-East, where the shock wave of the unemployment figures resulting from the Plessey closures and redundancies and, in addition, this morning's announcement about further redundancies at English Electric is such that there is a need for an urgent meeting of hon. Members representing constituencies there, who feel that the unemployment situation has reached a stage where they must say "Enough is enough"?

Mr. Foot

I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and other Ministers will be prepared to meet hon. Members from the whole area. As my hon. Friend is aware, the Prime Minister acted immediately after the announcement of the proposed Plessey closures. Thanks to the operation of the Employment Protection Act, there is some time available for discussions to take place, and the committee to which my right hon. Friend referred a few days ago has already started its work.

Mr. Grimond

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the borrowing requirement is now under target and, if so, what the estimate for it may be?

Mr. Foot

I would require notice of that question, and I am sure a great many others would as well. I cannot give the right hon. Member the answer without his putting down a separate Question on the subject.

Mr. Peter Walker

When the Government obtained agreement on phase 2 it was forecast that, as a result, the rate of inflation would come down to 7.5 per cent. As it now looks like being 17.5 per cent., is it not time for the Government to explain to the TUC and the CBI the discrepancy between the two figures?

Mr. Foot

I do not accept the right hon. Gentleman's figure of 17.5 per cent. Certainly it is the case that the desired reduction in the rate of inflation, upon which we secured the agreement last year, has not been attained. Everyone knows that. The reasons why have often been stated from this Dispatch Box in these last few weeks and months. This is one of the matters raised in the discussions with the TUC. The Government have given to the TUC and to the House their view of it and have explained why we were not able to attain that figure. Despite that, however, it is of the highest importance for the country that a new pay agreement should be reached.

Mr. Lee

Before we can be entirely satisfied with progress on controlling in- flation, is it not necessary that there should be no further integration of this country's agricultural policy with the lunatic CAP of the Common Market? Will my right hon. Friend say in what circumstances the Government would be prepared to use the veto, as this situation becomes worse and worse and more and more ludicrous as the months go by?

Mr. Foot

No member of the Government, no Member of the House, and no one in the country is satisfied with what has happened about the rate of inflation. We all know that it is much too high, and we want to get it down much quicker. One of the factors is the amount that we have to pay for food and other commodities. Those are matters that will be debated in the House next week, as I shall indicate when I announce the business for next week. There will be a full debate on those subjects. It has been evident over recent weeks that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food commands overwhelming support in the country for the stand that he has taken.

Mr. Whitelaw

Will the right hon. Gentleman now have a second go at trying to answer sensibly the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit), instead of making a rude and unnecessary reply—a reply that was rude merely to hide his own embarrassment at being a member of a Government with a record that he would have so utterly deplored if he had not been a member?

Mr. Foot

If the right hon. Gentleman is to make invocations for good manners, he might start with his hon. Friend the Member for Chingford.

Back to