PRICES AND INCOMES POLICY (Hansard, 2 March 1972)

§ LORD BESWICK
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOE)
My Lords, the Government's policy was made clear in our debate on January 31. Considerable progress has in fact been made in securing moderation in wage settlements in both the public and the private sectors. This is of benefit to the whole community. It remains our policy to ensure that the progress which has been achieved so far is not put at risk. In addition, my Lords, we have made it clear that we would welcome discussions on an agreed voluntary policy. That remains our position.

§ LORD BESWICK
My Lords, if the noble Earl thinks that the policy was made clear in that debate, he is the only one in the House who does. Is he aware that on Sunday last his Prime Minister made a broadcast in which he said, despite that debate, that he was prepared to discuss these matters with the T.U.C.? May I ask, therefore, if we are to understand that no approach has been made to the T.U.C. since Sunday?

EARL JELLICOE
My Lords, I think the noble Lord was referring to our Prime Minister rather than to any particular Party's Prime Minister, if I may say so. I am not quite certain what the inwardness of the noble Lord's second observation was, Would he repeat it?

§ LORD BESWICK
My Lords, for the time being we do not have a Prime Minister on this side, and I used the word "your" in the sense that I thought there would be some liaison between the noble Earl and the right honourable gentleman who is the Prime Minister of our country. The point I am making is that on Sunday last, subsequent to our debate, the Prime Minister said that he would be happy to talk with the T.U.C. on this matter. Are we to understand that approaches have been made to the T.U.C. since that invitation on the television, which, as the noble Earl will no doubt agree, was scarcely a personal invitation?

EARL JELLICOE
My Lords, I should have thought that that invitation was in fact an approach to the T.U.C. What I have just said in answer to the noble Lord's Question about the degree to which the Government would welcome discussions on an agreed incomes policy, or voluntary incomes policy, is a reiteration of that invitation.

§ BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER
My Lords, does the noble Earl not realise that my noble friend Lord Beswick's Question was about "an agreed and equitable" incomes policy? Would he not accept that the one factor which has been left out in the Government's policy is the factor of equity? Would he not further agree that unless we have an equitable policy which is also agreed the Government have no hope of defeating inflation, even at twenty strokes?

EARL JELLICOE
My Lords, I agree that the noble Baroness has read her noble friend's Question aright, but I would dissent from the conclusion she draws that the Government's policy in this field has been inequitable.

§ LORD DOUGLASS OF CLEVELAND
My Lords, may I ask whether the policy which the noble Earl is adumbrating at the present time—and I am speaking from experience of it—is simply to declare that there shall be no more than 8 per cent. advance in wages, and that this shall be applied in the nationalised industries and we must hope it will be applied in the private industries? Having regard to the varying increases in wages which have operated in the past three months, does he think that policy is a sound one?

EARL JELLICOE
My Lords, the policy which the Government are pursuing in this matter applies equally in the private as in the public sector. From what I have seen of the statistics available from the Department of Employment, it would seem that it has been equally successful in the private as in the public sector.

§ LORD BLYTON
My Lords, could the Minister say that with an incomes policy of the character he has depicted he can expect people in industry to accept an increase in wages which is 5 per cent. less than the 13 per cent. increase in the the cost of living that has taken place in the past twelve months?

EARL JELLICOE
My Lords, I am not certain to which settlement the noble Lord may be referring, but that certainly does not apply to any of the settlements that I personally have had anything to do with.

§ LORD BALOGH
My Lords, are we to take the noble Earl's declaration to mean that the policy of general pressures instead of an equitable and agreed incomes policy has come to the same lamentable end as the policy for "lame ducks" which has been given up with such panache?

EARL JELLICOE
My Lords, I would not agree with the noble Lord's conclusion on this or indeed on certain other matters.

§ LORD DOUGLASS OF CLEVELAND
My Lords, may I follow up the point I made about the difference in private and public industries so far as wage advances are concerned? May I ask the noble Earl whether he has heard of a tool-room settlement that was made that was well in advance of the figure the Government have laid down?

EARL JELLICOE
My Lords, there are, of course, exceptions in this field—I should not wish to argue to the contrary—but there has been a de-escalation as much in the private sector as in the public sector, and that statement of mine is based on a statistical foundation.

§ LORD BESWICK
My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl one further question, reverting to one of his supplementary answers to me? Does he really suggest that it is adequate for the Prime Minister to give an invitation out over the broadcasting 1180 system and not follow it up with any postal, telephonic or Telex communication?

§ LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY
It is because of the high price of postage, my Lords.

EARL JELLICOE
My Lords, I do not think that that is a correct inference to draw from my words.

§ LORD FERRIER
My Lords, would not the noble Earl my Leader agree that as the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, is based on the problem of a television broadcast, it is extremely important that political exchanges should, so far as is possible, be kept away from the television screen?

EARL JELLICOE
My Lords, I think I would.

§ LORD BERNSTEIN
My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl a question, because I should be very loath to withhold praise for what the Government have done? Could he publish as soon as possible the increases given in the private sector and the increases given in the public sector, in the first case taking perhaps the last fifty major increases that have occurred?

EARL JELLICOE
My Lords, I will certainly take careful note of the noble Lord's suggestion and ensure that it is conveyed to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment.

§ BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER
My Lords, would not the noble Earl accept that a wages policy is not an incomes policy, and that if we are to have regard to equity we must have a policy which affects all incomes, whether they are earned or unearned?

EARL JELLICOE
My Lords, it would take a rather long answer to deal categorically with the noble Baroness's question. This is a matter of considerable dimensions. We have already debated it at some length in your Lordships' House once or twice recently. I should certainly not be averse to a further debate on one of the most pressing issues of our time, in which I think complete success has eluded Governments of most political complexions. I would suggest that it might be easier and better to treat this subject by way of debate rather than by the admittedly and inevitably rather perfunctory question and answer method.