TRADES UNION CONGRESS
Q1. Mr. Norman Lamont
asked the Prime Minister if he has received an invitation to address the TUC conference in September.
Q2. Mr. Rathbone
asked the Prime Minister if he has received an invitation to address the TUC Congress in September.
[column 225]Q6. Mr. Lawson
asked the Prime Minister whether he has received an invitation to address the TUC conference in September.
Q9. Mr. Stanley
asked the Prime Minister if he has received an invitation to address the TUC conference in September.
Q10. Mr. Adley
asked the Prime Minister if he has received an invitation to address the TUC conference in September.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson)
No, Sir.
Mr. Lamont
Since the Prime Minister is always accusing the Opposition of wanting to cause unemployment by cutting public expenditure, will he tell the TUC, if he receives such an invitation and accepts it, how he proposes to cut public spending next year when unemployment will be much higher than it is now?
The Prime Minister
The proposal was announced by my right hon. Friend. The House will know that unemployment, which is endemic in all advanced countries, for reasons of which the House is aware, is seriously affecting this country, but we are not prepared to accept the proposals of the Opposition which would greatly increase unemployment at this time.
Mr. Rathbone
If the right hon. Gentleman receives such an invitation, will he take advantage of the opportunity to explain to the TUC how he can reconcile his own commitment to more open government and to proper accountability by the British Government to the British people, as he expressed to the TUC last year, with his suppression of the Crossman diaries, with his lack of inclination to disclose—[Interruption.] I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but these interruptions come from the Prime Minister's own back benchers.
Mr. Speaker
Order. This supplementary question is a trifle lengthy.
Mr. Rathbone
I have three other points which I suggest the Prime Minister should marry up.
Mr. Speaker
Order. The hon. Member is wrong. He has only one more point to make, and that one shortly.
[column 226]Mr. Rathbone
You are entirely correct, Mr. Speaker. How can the Prime Minister reconcile those matters with his refusal to give the Ombudsman the necessary papers so that he can pursue the Clay Cross affair—[Hon. Members: “Court Line.” ]—I am sorry, the Court Line affair—it is easy to get mixed up with these various affairs of the Government—and the secrecy concerning the Government's reserve powers Bill?
The Prime Minister
It is quite clear that the hon. Member does not know his Court Line from his elbow. With regard to the Crossman diaries, the matter is currently before the courts and it would be wrong for me to make any comment in reply to the hon. Member. With regard to the Ombudsman and the question of Cabinet documents, this matter was debated in Parliament in 1965 on Government legislation and was fully explained to the House. The rules were laid down and have been followed by successive Governments. But if, after the totally mendacious and characteristic article in The Times yesterday, right hon. and hon. Members would like me to pursue this matter further, I shall be happy to make a statement in the House tomorrow and nail this once and for all.
Mr. Skinner
Would my right hon. Friend agree that the Government's central strategy of keeping down unemployment is, to say the least, more than a little confusing to the average trade unionist when one takes into account the fact that, having been elected to keep down unemployment, we are now witnessing a very large increase, rising to well over I million unemployed this year? Is he aware that the Government are making announcements to throw more people on the dole, as was shown in the statement on Norton Villiers Triumph last week and the possible statement on the steel industry some time this week, while at the same time talking about introducing a temporary unemployment subsidy to reduce the unemployment level? What precisely is the Government's strategy?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend says that our strategy is difficult to understand for the average trade unionist, but he is not an average trade unionist. For example, he does not support, as he showed a couple of weeks ago, the TUC and the vast majority of trade unionists [column 227]on the Government's anti-inflation policy. As far as unemployment is concerned, the world recession following the oil crisis hit every advanced country, many of which had higher unemployment figures than at any time for 30 years. Apart from the short-term consequences, the long-term problem we face is due to a lack of investment in this country and a failure to make better use of investment—I shall be fair about this—under successive Governments of different parties in this country.
Mr. Lawson
Is the Prime Minister aware that at his Press conference on 11th July—I refer not to The Times, about which he has this strange obsession, but to page 3/5 of the official Downing Street transcript—he stated categorically that the Government would publish the reserve powers Bill? Why has he now run away from that undertaking?
The Prime Minister
This was very fully debated in the House—[Hon. Members: “Answer.” ]—and it was fully answered by my right hon. Friend. I gave no commitment to publish the Bill before the debate——
Mr. Lawson
I have it here.
The Prime Minister
I have seen it. I have read that document and I remember what I said. I gave no undertaking. It was used by the Opposition Front Bench as an excuse for their total shambles in their approach to this matter.
Mr. Heffer
Assuming that the TUC accepts the argument in relation to the £6, can my right hon. Friend explain to the House what he will say, if invited to the TUC conference, in very concrete terms about how the Government are going to deal with rising unemployment and what steps will be taken by the Government to begin to bring down this level, especially as areas such as the one from which he and I both come now have one in eight men unemployed? Does he accept that we cannot stand any more unemployment?
The Prime Minister
I hope I am right in interpreting that question as meaning that my hon. Friend now accepts the TUC view on the counter-inflation policy, although that may not be so. When speaking about unemployment at TUC meetings I have repeated the warning I [column 228]gave a year ago when I last addressed the TUC conference.
Mr. Stanley
Will the right hon. Gentleman explain how the undertaking given by the Secretary of State for Energy on 6th November to the convener of shop stewards at Small Heath that, to use his own words, the Government were fully committed to securing the future of the motor-cycle industry in this country can be reconciled with the Government's decision to abandon the industry and allow it to collapse? Is it not clear that the undertaking was grossly misleading to the work force of NVT and their families, and is it not high time that the Secretary of State made a public statement on this matter and gave a public apology?
The Prime Minister
I do not know where the hon. Gentleman has been. This matter is to be debated later this week. I have seen a transcript of the recording of what my right hon. Friend said to the shop stewards and I have no doubt this will be stated to the House. I think it has been published in the Press. The hon. Gentleman should familiarise himself with it. It is a very clear statement involving no possible commitment by any Government in this respect.
Mr. Stanley
Here is the letter.
Mr. Sillars
How can the Prime Minister describe the current main policy as anti-inflationary when, in essence, workers are supposed to have their wages kept behind rising prices? Is he aware that this sort of kidology and phraseology will bring an enormous backlash from organised labour in about January or February next year?
The Prime Minister
I cannot remember offhand whether my hon. Friend supported the policy of the Government and the TUC in this matter. This is TUC policy, and the Congress has slightly more authority to speak for organised labour than has my hon. Friend.
Mr. Adley
Does the Prime Minister accept that trade unions have a unique position of power in our society? If so, does he agree that it would be very much in the national interest if, whenever possible, they were seen to be supporting the Government of the day, whatever their [column 229]colour? Assuming that the Prime Minister receives an invitation to address the TUC, will he suggest to its leadership that in future it would be helpful if it invited not only the present Prime Minister but also the present Leader of the Opposition?
The Prime Minister
I think that would be a very good idea. It would be highly educational for the right hon. Lady. One of the reasons for the troubles of the last few years has been that successive leaders of the Conservative Party have never understood organised labour or the TUC. They have had long meetings with them, but have sought to bully and organise confrontations with them. They have never tried to understand the minds of the trade union movement.
Mrs. Thatcher
Does Harold Wilsonthe Prime Minister accept that if he had taken action earlier to deal with inflation, the level of unemployment would have been a good deal lower than that which we shall have to endure next year? As the Government's last economic package clearly did not restore confidence, will he say whether he expects to specify any public expenditure cuts between now and the TUC conference or before the House returns after the recess?
The Prime Minister
When the right hon. Lady says that if we had acted earlier unemployment would be lower, she is totally wrong. She knows that countries which have tried to follow the sort of policies she advocates—in so far as they can possibly guess what they are—have had much higher unemployment than ours and it has come to them much earlier.
I do not accept the right hon. Lady's statement that our economic package has not carried confidence. We know that it did not carry confidence on the benches opposite. That is why they abstained—that was all they could do—on the main policy and voted against the legislation. She has been told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and myself in the economic debate that we are carrying through, as is normal at this time of the year, a searching probe into public expenditure which will be published at the proper time in relation to the Public Expenditure White Paper.
While the right hon. Lady is talking about this, she still has not, after all these [column 230]months, indicated—[Interruption.] I understand the anxiety that my words be not heard. I was always challenged when I was in her place to say what our policy would be. She has still not said what items of expenditure she would cut, except for food subsidies and housing subsidies, which would increase the rate of inflation.
Mrs. Thatcher
As the right hon. Gentleman knows that he will make public statements, can he specify the cuts, as Prime Minister?
The Prime Minister
The cuts were specified in the Budget Statement by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer this year. A £900 million cut was announced in the Budget. The next lot will be announced, as is always done, in the Public Expenditure White Paper. The trouble about our predecessors is that they announced the cuts and never carried them out.