PRIME MINISTER
(ENGAGEMENTS)
Q1. Mr. Wyn Roberts
asked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 17th January.
The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan)
In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be holding meetings with ministerial colleagues and others.
Mr. Roberts
No doubt the Prime Minister will be devoting more thought to the steel situation. Does he agree that the [column 244]refusal of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry to supply all the available information to the Select Committee was not in accord with the Prime Minister's policy speech, made on 6th April 1976, when he talked about trusting the people?
The Prime Minister
I heard the exchanges in the House yesterday and I thought that my right hon. Friend put his point very fairly. He has offered to go back to the Select Committee and answer such questions as it may wish to put to him. That appears to be a perfectly proper thing to do.
Mr. Ron Thomas
Will my right hon. Friend, on a very busy day, spare a thought for the massive sums of money that the Government are doling out to private industry—almost £11 million per day—and arrange for the House to have an early debate to show how, without public enterprise and public support, the capitalist system in Britain would have collapsed long ago?
The Prime Minister
I think that it is pretty generally accepted, except when party passions are roused, that a mixed economy demands public support for private industry and that there is a growing number of areas in which, unless Government support is given and Government initiative is taken, the nation State is incapable of doing certain things that used to be done in the nineteenth century. I can think of a number of illustrations of that sort. It is important that we should look at the issue along those lines.
Mr. Gow
Will the Prime Minister reconsider his attitude towards the steel industry? Is it not scandalous that that industry should be losing £520 million a year and that action which needs to be taken is being deferred because so many steel mills are situated in marginal Labour seats?
The Prime Minister
It is, of course, true that the steel industry is losing a very large sum of money every year. So, indeed, are the steel companies in almost any country that the hon. Gentleman may care to enumerate—France, Italy, Belgium, Luxembourg, and the United States. All of these are countries in which substantial losses are being made. It is interesting to note, and this should [column 245]be put down to the credit of the British Steel Corporation, that according to the figures that I have been given, the loss per ton of the British Steel Corporation is lower than the loss per ton in some of the steel industries in those other countries.
That is important, because it shows that in the midst of a world depression it is not inefficiency on the part of the British Steel Corporation that has led to these figures. I ask members of the Opposition: what is it they are striving to do with the steel industry? Do they want to destroy it?
GWYNEDD
Q2. Mr. Wigley
asked the Prime Minister if he will pay an official visit to Gwynedd.
The Prime Minister
I have at present no plans to do so.
Mr. Wigley
Is the Prime Minister aware that the people of Gwynedd are extremely disappointed that, after four years, the Labour Government have failed to come forward with any proposals to help quarry workers who are suffering from silicosis? Since the Pearson Commission has now finished its report, can the Prime Minister give an assurance that the Labour Government will act to help these people who have so far been left out in the cold?
The Prime Minister
I shall certainly look into this matter again. I can give some assurances. The Welsh National School of Medicine and the Gwynedd Health Authority have just finished their researches into it. Although their final report has not been published, I have been told that in the course of the survey 69 men who are sufferers were advised that they could make a claim to the Department of Health and Social Security for industrial injuries benefit for pneumoconiosis. Thirty did so, and 28, I am glad to say, were successful. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services will study the final report, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that if there are others who can be included after he has studied it, they will be so advised.
Mr. Ioan Evans
Will my right hon. Friend look at the reply given by the [column 246]Secretary of State for Wales yesterday that he had received only two letters supporting the establishment of a Welsh Assembly? When he makes his regular visit to Wales, will he describe the tremendous financial recovery that, with the Government's efforts, has been made in our country in recent years, and outline proposals to deal with unemployment, which is the main issue concerning Welsh people today?
The Prime Minister
I accept that, but the Wales Bill to set up an Assembly will be debated in the House and I think it important that we should have those discussions at that time. Certainly, I find in Wales a considerable understanding of the need for the mixed economy and of the need for considerable Government intervention in order to secure lower levels of unemployment.
Mr. Powell
When the Prime Minister is next fortunate enough to visit the de-delightful land of Gwynedd, will he visit Caergybi or Holyhead and, in consultation with his right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes), assist the creation of a sea link between Anglesey and Northern Ireland, to the mutual benefit of the workers in both parts of the kingdom?
The Prime Minister
I shall consider the right hon. Gentleman's important and interesting suggestion. I should certainly need to take into account the views of my right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes), whose father-in-law was a sea captain who used to operate on this route.
SECRETARY OF STATE FOR ENERGY (SPEECH)
Q3. Mr. Michael Latham
asked the Prime Minister if the public speech by the Secretary of State for Energy to the annual dinner of the Labour Economic, Finance and Taxation Association in London on 12th December on the future programme of the Government represents Government policy.
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend's speech was not concerned with current issues of Government policy.
Mr. Latham
Does the Prime Minister realise that his failure to dissociate himself in any way from the Secretary of [column 247]State's very Left-wing speech on that occasion has ensured that at the next General Election the decisive issue will be whether the Secretary of State and those who think like him can be entrusted with the oil revenues of this country?
The Prime Minister
I suggest that the hon. Gentleman concerns himself more with our present economic recovery than with the phantasmagorial notions that he has about a forthcoming General Election.
Mr. Madden
Has the Prime Minister seen the full-page article that appeared in Sunday's Observer, based on the work of the Cambridge Department of Applied Economics, which showed that the effect of most new investment is to reduce employment and that unless the Government adopt radical, social and economic policies we shall face staggering unemployment in the early 1980s?
The Prime Minister
I did not see that article, but it would not be foreign to the thinking that I find is prevalent on this matter, that, especially in large-scale organisations, rationalisation and new investment frequently lead to a reduction in jobs. That is one reason why my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is now engaged quite successfully in work on encouraging the growth of small firms that can provide additional employment.
Mrs. Thatcher
But is James Callaghanthe Prime Minister aware that in that speech Harold Leverhis right hon. Friend referred to the dole queues being back again under the present Government? How does the Prime Minister account for the fact that unemployment is now worse in Britain than in the countries of all our main industrial competitors?
The Prime Minister
I should want to check the right hon. Lady's figures before answering. However, that does not remove the point that unemployment in this country is far too high, and far higher than I ever expected or wanted to see it. That is why we have taken a large number of measures—such as the temporary employment subsidy—the total impact of which, I am told, has been to safeguard over 600,000 jobs during the period in which they have been operating. We must continue to take measures of this sort and to stimulate the recovery that is now beginning as was shown in the [column 248]December retail figures. But with all these it will be very difficult indeed to achieve a substantial reduction.
Mrs. Thatcher
Is the Prime Minister aware that he will find the figures, from his own Department of Employment, at the end of Hansard for 11th January? Will he now answer the question why, as a result of some of his policies, unemployment is worse in Great Britain than in our industrial competitor countries?
The Prime Minister
I shall check the figures, as the right hon. Lady has now given her source. I can say that manufacturing employment is better this year. There is a 1.6 per cent. increase in the number of people employed in manufacturing industry compared with a year ago. That is in itself encouraging. Indeed, total employment is up slightly. The number of people who have come on to the register has increased the number of unemployed, but let us not neglect the fact that more jobs are being created.
Mr. Heffer
In relation to oil revenues, will my right hon. Friend ignore the advice from the Opposition Benches that there should be wholesale tax reductions, particularly for the higher income groups, and concern himself and the Government with the regeneration of British industry and the development of public expenditure, to ensure that we get our people back to work?
The Prime Minister
The Government are considering their policy on these matters and will publish a statement in due course. I have no doubt that a combination of such measures is needed. One that my hon. Friend did not mention, but with which I am sure he would agree, is the need to provide out of the oil revenues for a replacement for oil as a source of energy when the oil runs out. This, too, must have a high priority in anything that we do.
Mr. Kilfedder
With regard to Government policy in general, will the Prime Minister reply emphatically to the recent remarks of the Eire Prime Minister, telling him in no uncertain terms to take note of the utter determination of the Ulster people in no circumstances to be encompassed within an Irish Republic, and that if Britain should ever withdraw from Northern Ireland the Ulster people [column 249]are resolutely determined to stand on their own?
The Prime Minister
This matter does not arise from, and is very far indeed from, the original Question. On important matters like this I would sooner have notice and be able to answer them properly. However, I can say, on this issue—men's and women's lives are affected, and therefore I wish to choose my words carefully—that there will be no departure from the Government's policy, which I believe has received support on both sides of the House, that the people of Northern Ireland will remain in the United Kingdom as long as it is their desire to do so.
Mr. Fernyhough
May I revert to the original Question? Can my right hon. Friend say how much better off this country is because my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy renegotiated the licences with the oil companies, and how much more revenue and royalties we have received as a consequence of those negotiations compared with the sell-out by the Conservatives?
The Prime Minister
I think it fair to say that in this matter the Labour Government proved a much better custodian of the national interest than did our predecessors, who were willing to give away the oil revenues not only to British companies but to overseas multinational companies.
Mr. Rathbone
I welcome the figures which the Prime Minister gave for increased employment in manufacturing. The House will be aware that this has made little dent on unemployment as a whole. What are the Prime Minister and his Government doing to improve employment in the service industries, which earn so much of our foreign currency?
The Prime Minister
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will be considering this matter, too. Increasing employment in the service industries in the public services would require additional public expenditure, and we have been limited on this. We shall have to turn more and more to this area, because I do not believe that manufacturing industry, as such, will be able to provide the jobs that are necessary if we are to return to the levels of employment that I want to see.