§ Q2. Mr. Wrigglesworthasked the Prime Minister when he last met the CBI and TUC.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) on 2nd February.
§ Mr. WrigglesworthWhen my right hon. Friend meets the TUC and CBI, will he confirm that the Conservative Opposition are totally out of step not only with trade unionists but with the CBI with regard to incomes and economic policies? Will he remind them of the comments made by the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) in which he said that he was depressed by the Tory leadership at present following nineteenth century Tory free market principles that would lead only to squalor, slums and injustice in our society?
§ The Prime MinisterI would not like my hon. Friend to think that when I meet the CBI and the TUC we spend a lot of time discussing the Opposition. As regards the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker), I agree that he follows the line of people like R. A. Butler, Macmillan and Macleod who cared about one nation. The only difference is that they were then in charge of the Conservative Party, whereas the right hon. Member for Worcester has to speak in exile from below the Gangway.
§ Mr. FormanWhen the Prime Minister next meets the TUC and the CBI, will he strongly resist any calls for a return to protectionism through Government policies, bearing in mind that this would not be in the interests of British consumers? Also, if this is done through the EEC, it may well mean retaliatory action from the Americans, which would be very damaging to our prospects for recovery.
§ The Prime MinisterWe have, since the war, attempted to lower trade barriers. Now it seems that the tide could be turning the other way because of the growth of industrial unemployment throughout the Western world. For Britain this would be a serious reversal as 1221 21 per cent. of our gross national product comes from foreign trade. This does not mean that we cannot take selective action—and we have done. The United States has a great complaint against the EEC now in relation to agricultural products, and I have some sympathy with it.
§ Mr. Stan CrowtherWhen the Prime Minister next meets the TUC and the CBI, will he discuss with them the advisability of reducing the standard working week for manual workers and the retiring age for men? The development of technology means that manual labour will be reduced progressively. It is far better to pay men in their 60s a decent pension to retire than to have men in their 30s and 40s with families out of work.
§ Mr. CormackRetire!
§ The Prime MinisterI fear that, on that basis, about three-quarters of the present House of Commons would have to go—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The Prime Minister must not be personal.
§ The Prime MinisterI thought that all the cheers were coming from the younger generation. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther) has a serious point and one which will concern the industrial world increasingly over the next decade—the question of the extent to which the manufacturing industry can provide additional jobs. We have not yet solved this problem. Constantly I press upon the TUC the need to raise these matters within the European TUC, so that through the European Council as a whole action can be taken internationally, or at least on an EEC basis. We cannot make it impossible for this country to compete by increasing our costs unduly.
§ Mrs. ThatcherDoes the Prime Minister recall the industrial growth targets for manufacturing industry that were accepted by NEDC in the year of the economic miracle—in August 1976—after they had been presented by the Chancellor? The target was for a growth rate in manufacturing industry at an annual average rate of 8 per cent. over 1222 four years. What is the target for next year, since that target has not yet been revised?
§ The Prime MinisterI do not recall that particular figure. I really do not see why the Leader of the Opposition should expect me to come here charged with every figure in my head that the gang of four has sedulously fed her for Prime Minister's Questions. I would agree with the right hon. Lady that efforts to overcome inflation combined with the problems of the oil-producing countries have created a situation in which it has not been possible to grow. However, we have broadly overcome inflation—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I said "broadly". Perhaps I had better repeat the figures. When the Conservatives left office, inflation was running at 15.2 per cent. It is now 9.9 per cent. and steadily decreasing. I hope that the Chancellor, when he makes his Budget Statement, will be able to give the right hon. Lady a reply on the growth figures this year.
§ Mrs. ThatcherThe Prime Minister refers to the gang of four. The trouble here is the gang of one at the Treasury. This manufacturing growth rate, which the Prime Minister does not know, is the basis for what is known as scenario II, which is based on the assumptions of all the sector working parties. Is not the Prime Minister aware that his own industrial strategy has always consisted of pie in the sky tomorrow and an appalling performance today? Would it not be better to turn to an incentive strategy, instead of high taxation and no incentive for the individual?
§ The Prime MinisterI am obliged to the right hon. Lady for that information. I am always ready to receive it. However, it is a case not of giving information but of digesting and using it, and that is what I sometimes wonder about. As far as industrial strategy is concerned, I would suggest that the Opposition stop behaving in this Pavlovian way. Manufacturing industry—employers, managers and trade unionists—strongly supports the Government in trying to get a new approach to industrial strategy. They are working hard in the industrial working parties, and I hope that at some time the Opposition will pay tribute to what they are doing.