ISLE OF WIGHT
Q1. Mr. Stephen Ross
asked the Prime Minister if he will pay an official visit to the Isle of Wight.
The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan)
I have at present no plans to do so.
Mr. Ross
Is the Prime Minister aware that I am deeply disappointed that he will not be following the now monthly visit of official Opposition Members to my constituency? Is he further aware that in the Isle of Wight there are three prisons, two of which are in the top security category, and that prison officers on the island would very much like to meet him? Will he follow up the initiative on education and start a great debate on all aspects of prison life and sentencing?
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department has already answered the hon. Gentleman on some of those matters this afternoon. I am very satisfied with the way in which the matter is now being dealt with and I see no reason to intervene personally.
Mr. Heffer
Before my right hon. Friend visits the Isle of Wight, will he visit Liverpool, where there are now over 80,000 unemployed and where——
Mr. Speaker
Order. I must remind the hon. Gentleman that I ruled earlier this week and last week that supplementary questions should have some relationship to the Question, otherwise we can go round every city in the United Kingdom on the one question.
Mr. Heffer
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. [Interruption.] I do not care [column 604]what you say. We have over 80,000 people unemployed—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman did not mean to be discourteous. He was emphasising that he feels strongly about the matter. Perhaps he will ask a question and try to relate it to the Question on the Order Paper.
Mr. Heffer
It is possible that Plessey has a factory in the Isle of Wight——
Mr. Ross
Yes, it has.
Mr. Heffer
—although I am not aware of such a factory. However, before my right hon. Friend visits the Plessey factory on the Isle of Wight will he visit the Plessey factory in Liverpool, where 2,800 workers are likely to be put out of work in the next few months, adding to the 89,000 who are already out of work on Merseyside? Will my right hon. Friend recognise that Merseyside is now becoming a disaster area and that we cannot tolerate it any longer?
The Prime Minister
There is a Question on the Order Paper concerning an official visit to Kirkby, which is part of Merseyside. I was expecting and intending to make some observations in response to the supplementary questions that I assumed would be coming on that Question. Perhaps it will be more convenient if I make my observations in response to that Question.
Mr. Adley
Is the Prime Minister aware that both in the Isle of Wight and in my adjacent constituency there are many people who work at Vosper Thornycroft? Is he aware that Vosper Thornycroft accounts for 10 per cent. of the ship repairing capacity of this country? As the Government have now decided to remove the ship repairing companies from the nationalisation proposals, does he agree that the ship repairing capacity of Vosper Thornycroft should be offered the same life line?
The Prime Minister
I am not prepared to give an answer to that detailed question on this Question.
Mr. Gould
Is my right hon. Friend aware that many employees of Vosper Thornycroft in my constituency will be delighted by the fact that the Royal Navy has placed an order for a Type 42 frigate with the firm and that they will draw [column 605]comfort from that fact and will appreciate that they have nothing to fear and a great deal to gain from public ownership?
KIRKBY
Q2. Mr. Kilroy -Silk
asked the Prime Minister if he will explain why he has not yet made an official visit to Kirkby.
The Prime Minister
I visited Merseyside in September last, but there was insufficient time for me to go to all parts. I will bear in mind the possibility of going to Kirkby on a future occasion.
Mr. Kilroy -Silk
When my right hon. Friend visits Kirkby, he will be aware that it has the highest rate of unemployment in the whole of the United Kingdom and that the town will be further decimated by the announced closure of the Plessey factory. Will he look at this matter urgently? Will he look at the Post Office's ordering policy? Will he, in particular, look at the possibility of taking into public ownership the whole of the telecommunications industry?
The Prime Minister
I have considered this matter since it came to my attention this morning. I am glad to be able to say that, as the House may already know, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry has today appointed Professor Posner to review the latest Post Office ordering cuts. The terms of reference of his inquiry will be
“To consider the assessment which led the Post Office in November to reduce the future level of orders for telephone exchange equipment and to report.”
That seems to be the first step to take in this particular matter. The technical considerations which led to this position are fairly well known. I think that, in view of the seriousness of the situation, we should carry the matter a little further.
After consultation with my right hon. Friend today, I shall be asking the National Enterprise Board—[Hon. Members: “Oh.” ]—which has established a regional director in both the North-West and the North-East, to investigate the investment potential in both areas and to report to us on what can be done to offset any of the disastrous consequences which may ensue. I believe that to be the best way to tackle both the [column 606]Post Office side and alternative employment.
Mr. Grylls
If the Prime Minister goes to Kirkby, will he repeat what he said yesterday—that he will not be pushed out of office—and will he explain to the House and the country why he said that? Is it because he enjoys being Prime Minister or because he believes that his industrial and economic policies have been so outstandingly successful that he must stay on?
Hon. Members
Answer!
Mr. Ogden
I thank my right hon. Friend for the considerable interest that he has shown in the problems of Kirkby and of Sunderland and particularly of the Plessey organisation. Will he take one further action today, namely, use his considerable influence with the Plessey company to get an assurance that there will be no redundancies while consultations and all other efforts are taking place? I believe that he can ask for that assurance and that the Plessey company ought to give it freely.
The Prime Minister
Under the Employment Protection Act, which is one of the Acts passed by this Government, the company is required to give, and has, I understand, given, 90 days' notice before any redundancies can take effect. That should give us the time that we need to investigate these matters.
Mrs. Thatcher
Does James Callaghanthe Prime Minister recall that when Harold Wilsonhis predecessor visited Kirkby in 1972 and went to the employment exchanges he said that he felt a sense of shame at the then level of unemployment, which was just touching 1 million for Great Britain as a whole? I have no need to ask the Prime Minister whether he feels a sense of shame. I am sure that he does. But, on the third anniversary of the beginning of the Labour Government, will he now accept responsibility for the level of unemployment, which has increased by 700 for every day that his Government have been in office?
The Prime Minister
No, I do not accept that responsibility. [Hon. Members: “Oh.” ] If the right hon. Lady attempts to deceive her followers into believing that the Government can cure these matters, if she ever came to office [column 607]she would rapidly disillusion them. I do not think that the cause of democracy, to which the Opposition say they are attached, is strengthened by that kind of superficial approach to this problem. It is well known that the levels of world recession, coupled, as the Conservative Party's documents say, with the run-down of British industry over a period of 30 years, will take us a long time to recover from them. The right hon. Lady does not help by pretending that there are immediate and quick solutions, and she should stop doing it.
Mrs. Thatcher
Then I take it that the Prime Minister is prepared only to accept office but never responsibility.
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Lady is still showing her slip on these matters, and her preoccupation with office comes out in nearly every question that she asks. I am ready to accept responsibility for taking the harsh decisions necessary to achieve the industrial regeneration of the country and to put our economy on a sound foundation. That involves taking harsh decisions, not making idiotic quips.
Mr. Mellish
Is it not absolutely sheer humbug for the Conservative Opposition to moan and groan about unemployment when their policies, from what little we know of them, of massive cuts in Government expenditure would mean that there would be many more unemployed? What kind of humbug is it that we are getting from the Opposition Front Bench?
The Prime Minister
It is well known that the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), who has just taken over as Opposition spokesman on industry, believes that there should be much tighter control than we have now on sources of credit, money and public expenditure. It is quite clear that if his policy were carried out the right hon. Gentleman, as my right hon. Friend said—whom, in passing, perhaps I may be allowed to congratulate on his birthday—if he ever had the misfortune to stand here, would be presiding over a vastly higher level of unemployment.
Sir K. Joseph
Does the Prime Minister agree that my prediction two and a half years ago, which he attacked—that increased public spending under Labour would lead to increased unemployment—[column 608]has been proven right? My right hon. Friends and I still say that until public spending, interest rates and direct taxation are reduced, unemployment will continue to rise.
The Prime Minister
I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for confirming my analysis of his attitude and of the support that he is getting from the Benches behind him. [Hon. Members: “Answer.” ] Now we know that it is the policy of the Conservative Party Front Bench to cut public expenditure even more and, therefore, to increase unemployment, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will convey that policy to those on the Opposition Back Benches as well as to those on the Front Bench who in one and the same breath are calling for additional expenditure on arms and social security, great tax credits and, of course, the abolition of the rating system. How does he square all those?
CANNOCK CHASE
Q3. Mr. Gwilym Roberts
asked the Prime Minister if he will visit the Cannock Chase.
The Prime Minister
I have at present no plans to do so.
Mr. Roberts
If at some date in future my right hon. Friend visits this area, he will find a very strong community spirit. Does he accept that that community spirit is in danger unless urgent steps are taken to reduce unemployment and to provide local jobs and unless there is an expansion of public expenditure, which would enable urgently-required local projects, such as the Cannock Community Hospital, to be brought forward?
The Prime Minister
Yes, it is obviously a prime concern of this country, as of other industrialised countries, to return to full employment. I hope in my discussions with President Carter in Washington next week to make this a major item of discussion leading to the summit conference of the industrialised nations in May. The free world as a whole, as well as each individual country, must tackle this matter.
I am glad to say to my hon. Friend that industrial output has begun to move ahead, that less short-time working is being done, that there is more overtime [column 609]working and that the trends are moving in favour of more employment. But this is happening too slowly. As I have said before—and I say it again—I cannot see sufficient improvement yet.