REIGATE
Q1. Mr. George Gardiner
asked the Prime Minister whether he will pay an official visit to Reigate.
[column 756]The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan)
I have at present no plans to do so.
Mr. Gardiner
When the Prime Minister does come down our way, will he travel by British Rail, second class, in rush-hour conditions that he would not inflict on an animal—[Hon. Members: “Do you?” ]—yes—and explain to my commuter constituents why, after the so-called efficiency drives, they are being asked to pay a 16 per cent. rise in fares at the same time as they are being asked to restrict their own earnings to the region of 6 to 7 per cent.?
The Prime Minister
I have not been into this question in detail, and I suggest that the hon. Gentleman tables a Question to the Secretary of State for Transport. What is quite clear is that the railways as a whole, like other nationalised industries, will be restricting their increases to the level of inflation. That makes it doubly important that we should keep down the level of inflation.
Mr. Tim Renton
Is the Prime Minister aware that many of my constituents work in Reigate? [Interruption.] What is coming is not funny. In the light of the present firemen's strike, my constituents would very much like to know whether the Prime Minister now regrets his gross irresponsibility in backing the miners all the way throughout February 1974 in order to bring down the Conservative Government. Was it not from that time that there flowed three years of appeasement to the big unions from which the smaller unions, such as the firemen's, have suffered so much?
The Prime Minister
I do not believe that what I said in Aberdare in 1974 arises out of a possible visit to Reigate in the future. But I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he takes the following factors into account. First, he should read the whole of that speech, which I have done with great care. Secondly, he should recall that at that time the rate of inflation under a Conservative Government was beginning to soar. [Hon. Members: “What was it?” ] That, too, is contained in the speech at that time. Thirdly, Lord Barber had allowed the money supply to get wholly out of control. That, too, was contained in the speech. Finally, I objected very strongly [column 757]to the miners being called “extremists” , and it was against that background that I said that the former Prime Minister had little chance of succeeding.
Mrs. Thatcher
But does James Callaghanthe Prime Minister recollect that he actually referred to the rate of inflation in that speech and complained about it as being 12 per cent? This Government have now been in power for as long since 1970 as the Conservative Government. When has the rate of inflation been as low as 12 per cent. under a Labour Government?
The Prime Minister
I recall this very well. That was the point against which I was saying that inflation was steadily going up under the Conservative Government, and it continued to rise very steadily. Now, of course, the background is that inflation is steadily coming down. This makes a great deal of difference to the psychology and background of wage claims.
SECRETARY OF STATE FOR EMPLOYMENT
Q2. Mr. Michael Latham
asked the Prime Minister whether he will dismiss the Secretary of State for Employment.
The Prime Minister
I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle) on 8th November.
Mr. Latham
Is not unemployment the fatal electoral dagger at the heart of the Government? [Interruption.] It is no laughing matter. Is not the crude political reality of “Back to Work with Labour” that in February 1974 550,000 people were unemployed in this country, and that now there are 1.4 million out of work?
The Prime Minister
Whether or not it is an electoral dagger, it is a figure that is totally unacceptable to any Member in this House or anyone in this country—and that goes far wider than electoral considerations. That is why the Government's policies, both internally and internationally, are directed towards trying to get action that will reduce these figures. Internally, as the hon. Gentleman knows, we have taken a great many measures that have had the effect, even [column 758]at the present time, of saving more than 300,000 jobs.
I would say in conclusion that, with respect, it does not lie in the mouths of the Opposition Front Bench to attack us on matters of this kind when the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) says that all rescues and all subsidies do great harm, because if that policy were adopted the unemployment figure would be a lot higher.
Mr. Pavitt
May I, in complete opposition to the question asked by the hon. Member for Melton (Mr. Latham), ask my right hon. Friend to convey the thanks of the Government and Back Benchers to the Secretary of State for Employment and his Department for the way in which, quietly and determinedly, for 12 months he has dealt with the Grunwick dispute, and, secondly, to thank him on behalf of the people in the area for the efforts he has made to cool down and conciliate a very difficult situation?
The Prime Minister
Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend has done a great deal in everything that he has tackled in relation to the Grunwick dispute to try to get a fair and reasonable settlement of it. I think that what he has done commands the support of nearly everybody in the country, except, perhaps, some prejudiced Opposition Members.
Mr. Prior
How does the Prime Minister reconcile his statements now about increases in wages of over 10 per cent. leading to increasing unemployment with the reality of 1974–75 when wages were going up by 20 per cent. and 30 per cent. and when, apparently, according to the Government, that had nothing to do with the rate of unemployment?
The Prime Minister
That is not what has ever been argued on this matter.
Mr. Pardoe
I recognise that the Prime Minister is right in saying that the present level of unemployment is unacceptable, but does he recognise that there is a mood of defeatism about the level of unemployment throughout the Western economies? Has he considered President Carter 's proposals for changing welfare and unemployment benefits, which would mean that the Government would pay people to work rather than for unemployment? Does he recognise that the Governments [column 759]of Western economies, including the British economy, have to become the employer of last resort if unemployment is to be defeated?
The Prime Minister
I think it is the case that the leaders of the industrialised Western countries do not yet have a clear view of how to overcome the problem of 16 million unemployed, which I think is to a large extent caused by having large OPEC surpluses combined with a large and rapidly increasing Japanese surplus, both of which are having a seriously deflationary effect in the Western world. It is a problem to which we have to turn our attention, but it is easier to analyse than to prescribe a solution.
Mr. Heffer
Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us on the Government side—most of us, I think—feel that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment has done a first-class job within the limits of the policy of the Government in relation to these matters, and that my right hon. Friend, through the imaginative schemes for job creation and so on, has helped considerably to put people to work but that, nevertheless, that in itself is not enough? Can my right hon. Friend indicate what further steps the Government intend to take to bring down the levels of unemployment?
An Hon. Member
Give him a job.
The Prime Minister
No, that would not do it either—hardly at all. I agree entirely with my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) about the work of the Secretary of State for Employment. The Secretary of State for Employment has done a remarkable job. Indeed, the new training schemes have aroused a great deal of interest in other Western industrialised countries, especially the scheme to provide for young people to have either further training or further education. We shall continue to do what we can as regards the future levels of unemployment. As my hon. Friend knows, there has been an addition of public expenditure—with which I assume the Tory Party would not agree—of £400 million to help the construction industry. We shall continue to take whatever measures are necessary, consistent with reducing the rate of inflation.
[column 760]PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
Q3. Mr. MacKay
asked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements on 17th November.
The Prime Minister
This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be holding further meetings with ministerial colleagues and others.
Mr. MacKay
Bearing in mind the tragic deaths of which we have learned today, and bearing in mind, too, the chaotic and inadequate state of our fire-fighting services, will the Prime Minister spend a little time today considering whether he is still satisfied that the Home Secretary is capable of producing a quick and satisfactory solution to the negotiations with the firemen's union?
The Prime Minister
Negotiations with the Fire Brigades Union are being conducted by the local authorities, not by my right hon. Friend. They are acting within the pay guidelines which the Government have prescribed. Clearly, that is one of their difficulties. But I do not believe that all the figures about pay have yet got across, or, indeed, the figures of what would be received in gross pay by a number of firemen. That will have to be publicised pretty soon so that we have a better indication of how firemen compare with other industrial workers.
Mr. Spearing
Will my right hon. Friend, on his way back to Downing Street, call at the European Movement in Whitehall Place and tell it that its statement last year that the historic decision for direct elections represents the first step towards the creation of a United States of Europe is incorrect? Although he said that the Assembly would have the same powers as it has now, does not my right hon. Friend agree that it has increased powers since July over the budget and, therefore, his statement of last summer is perhaps not as correct as it might have been?
The Prime Minister
No, Sir; I do not intend to call at Whitehall Place on my way back to No. 10. I have a rather busy schedule. As regards the statements about the development of the European [column 761]Community, I think that I have made my position clear, including the statement I made at the Lord Mayor's Banquet last Monday.
Mr. Gordon Wilson
Will the Prime Minister take time today to read the evidence of the TUC to the Energy Commission disapproving of the over-rapid depletion of the offshore oil resources? Will he, as a consequence and in view of the remarks in that evidence, call a meeting with the Secretaries of State for Industry and for Energy to discuss the possibilities of using oil for petrochemical investment, since the international oil companies do not seem to be investing much in that direction at present?
The Prime Minister
The question of depletion is an important national question, and the Government have given a lot of consideration to the proper rate of depletion. For the first few years during which the oil will be flowing, the rate of depletion will be governed by agreements with the oil companies. That will take us up to a level of perhaps 100 million tons a year. After those first few years, it will be possible for us to review the rate of depletion and see whether it is better to keep more of the oil under the North Sea and import more, or whether we should seek to be self-sufficient or, indeed, over-self-sufficient. All these questions come up for decision during the discussions that we shall have during, I hope, the next few months. For the first two or three years, however, we are bound by the agreements already made.
Mr. Whitelaw
Reverting to the firemen's strike. if, alas, the strike is not settled by the negotiations, as I am sure that the House very much hopes it will be, will the Prime Minister discuss with his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary again the position of the equipment available to the troops? They are being asked to undertake a very dangerous and difficult job. We accept what the Home Secretary has said—that certain parts of the equipment probably cannot be used without training—but we question whether that goes for all the equipment, in particular the breathing equipment. Will the Prime Minister and the Home [column 762]Secretary look very carefully at this matter again?
The Prime Minister
Yes, Sir, most certainly. In fact, the Home Secretary and I and other Ministers have had discussions on this matter. There seems to be a difference of view about the breathing apparatus, because the information we have is that it is not easy to use without proper training. But, as regards other apparatus, we would have to balance two considerations. One is that the best equipment that is available in the fire stations should be used to stop an outbreak of fire or to bring it under control. On the other hand, if it seemed likely that we were on the edge—I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me—of a negotiated settlement, and the use of that equipment was likely to start the whole of the friction—[Interruption.] Perhaps the Opposition do not agree with that, but that at least would be my view about it. Perhaps they will allow me to state my view, whether Members of the Opposition agree or not. If we were on the edge of a negotiated settlement and rushing into fire stations and taking out a lot of equipment were to set back that settlement by two or three weeks, it would simply not be worth it. The Government must judge the matter on the basis of getting the best use out of the apparatus and getting a negotiated settlement.
Mr. Whitelaw
While I would not wish to argue with the Prime Minister about anything that might make the settlement of the strike more difficult. I wish to return to one point about the breathing equipment. There is no difference of opinion. I am asking the Prime Minister whether he and the Home Secretary will look again at the matter to make absolutely certain that the breathing equipment cannot be used. If it is proved that it cannot be used, we ought to know, but our troops deserve every possible protection that can be given.
The Prime Minister
I agree entirely with the right hon. Gentleman about that. I will certainly have another look at it with the Home Secretary to see whether breathing apparatus can be used by untrained soldiers. If it can, they should have it.