PRIME MINISTER
(ENGAGEMENTS)
Q1. Mr. Tim Smith
asked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2nd March.
The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan)
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. Smith
Has the Prime Minister noted the apology offered to the House on Tuesday by the Secretary of State for Employment for using incorrect international unemployment comparisons? Since the Prime Minister has joined the Secretary of State for Employment—[Hon. Members: “Reading.” ]—in quoting bogus unemployment statistics will he also give the House an apology? In addition, will he now concede that the Government are using unfair comparisons and that our unemployment is [column 657]higher than that of any of our international competitors?
The Prime Minister
No, Sir. My right hon. Friend took a table out of Hansard and found that he used an incorrect basis. He then wrote to the hon. Gentleman who had raised the matter with him, and he apologised. He then made a full statement in the House. There is really no more to be said than that.
Mr. Norman Atkinson
Has the Prime Minister had time to read the statement made yesterday by the Chancellor to a meeting of Neddy in which he said that he thought he would not be able to reflate the economy at a sufficient speed to restore full employment and higher wages in this country for fear of sucking in an import boom? Does it appear to the Prime Minister that we are now to sacrifice full employment and higher wages for the dubious benefits of free trade? Will he therefore discuss internationally the whole question of the world planning of trade in order that the Chancellor of the Exchequer can do something about the restoration of full employment?
The Prime Minister
The Government are extremely active internationally in trying to reconcile the different objectives of a number of Governments. For example, the German Government believe that the maintenance of the present rate of inflation is their prior commitment. The American Government want to see a faster rate of growth despite the effect on the dollar. These international matters are causing a loss of confidence, as I have constantly said, among industrialists in the Western world. The sooner that we can resolve them, the better.
Mrs. Thatcher
To return to James Callaghanthe Prime Minister's previous reply on unemployment, may I ask whether he now accepts that the Labour Government's record on unemployment is worse than that of most of our industrial competitors? I think that he must, because I believe that his right hon. Friend Albert Booththe Secretary of State for Unemployment does, and that was really the point of his apology. If so, does the Prime Minister agree that the countries which have put competitiveness at the top of their lists of priorities have done better on unemployment than we have, because they have fewer people [column 658]out of work and they have got both our customers and our jobs? What is his policy for enabling British industry to become more competitive?
The Prime Minister
I notice that the right hon. Lady now uses the word “most” . In fact, our biggest competitor in Western Europe has a comparatively worse record on unemployment than we have. I refer to Germany, where unemployment has increased by four times since 1973. [Interruption.] That is the prime exemplar——
Hon. Members
How many?
Mr. Speaker
Order.
The Prime Minister
Whatever may be said, I promise you, Mr. Speaker, that it does not disturb me in the slightest. Germany, of course, is the prime exemplar of the market economy to which the right hon. Lady refers. Its unemployment record is much worse than ours by comparison. [Hon. Members: “Give the figure.” ] If hon. Members want the figure, they should put down a Question. If they insist on pressing me, allow me to continue. In 1973 it was 0.8 per cent. in Western Germany and it is now 3.5 per cent. This deterioration is much worse than that experienced by this country. No shouting by hon. Members can alter that figure.
It is all very well for the Leader of the Opposition to shed tears about unemployment. Every aspect of Conservative policy would add to that. What is more, the Opposition have even had the effrontery to complain that redundancy payments are paid when people lose their jobs.
Mrs. Thatcher
It is because we put down Written Questions and got Written Answers that I use these figures to ask the question. On 4th October 1977 the German unemployment rate was 3.5 per cent. and the comparable rate in Britain was 7.2 per cent. in the same circumstances of world trade. Will the Prime Minister answer the original question? Does he accept that those countries that have concentrated on being competitive have taken our customers and our jobs? When will he accept the blame for this situation, which is due to the country having a Labour Government for four years?
[column 659]The Prime Minister
I do not think that the right hon. Lady even believes what she is saying. It is, of course, correct that the total numbers unemployed in Germany and Britain are now closer together than they were. That is to say, the figure is rather over 1 million in Germany and under 1½ million in this country. The figure for Britain is now going down. As to the creation of jobs, it is precisely because of the need for the industrial strategy to make this country more productive when it has been less productive than Germany in the last 20 to 25 years that I would at some time invite the Opposition to consider calmly and quietly how they can help us in this task.
CHELSEA
Q2. Mr. Pattie
asked the Prime Minister if he will pay an official visit to Chelsea.
The Prime Minister
I have at present no plans to do so.
Mr. Pattie
When the Prime Minister does go to Chelsea, will he go to the Chelsea Barracks and talk to the soldiers who are waiting to see the report of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body? Will he allow the Review Body to make a genuine recommendation about comparability and leave the decisions to the Government, or will he let the Review Body hide behind the skirts of the Government's so-called pay policy?
The Prime Minister
I suppose that the question of Army pay could arise on a visit to Chelsea. My understanding is that the Review Body is free to report in any way that it thinks fit. Then the Government will have to take the appropriate decision.
Mr. Ashton
Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Leader of the Opposition lives in Chelsea? If she were to invite my right hon. Friend to tea together with the Leader of the Liberal Party to discuss immigration policy, would the Prime Minister then pay an official visit?
The Prime Minister
I should prefer an unofficial invitation for this purpose. I should inquire who would be present at tea. I hope that I should not be there among the Gang of Four.
[column 660]Mr. Neubert
If the Prime Minister goes to Chelsea, will he go by water? Is he not concerned at a second Select Committee report about the uneasy relationship between a Minister and a nationalised industry? Does this mean that the Government are losing their enthusiasm for public ownership?
The Prime Minister
I remind the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Neubert) that Moses parted the waters of the Red Sea. He did not walk on them. The Select Committee to which the hon. Member refers has a wonderful reputation. However, people who sit on the side of the pitch always believe that they can play the game better than those in the middle of it.
Mr. Skinner
In view of the Tory Party's policy, in more general terms, of being in favour of non-intervention in industry, can the Prime Minister say how many letters of complaint he has received either from people in Chelsea or from the directors of the firms which financially support the Tory Party, who now say that they do not want taxpayers' money to intervene in industry? Does he accept that intervention to private enterprise is running at £11 million a day?
The Prime Minister
A growing number of firms are receiving State aid. I do not recall a single letter from any of them asking me to withdraw State aid in order to reduce public expenditure on the lines that the Opposition are always asking us to do.
GOVERNMENT LEGISLATION
Q3. Mr. Michael Latham
asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on the progress in implementing the proposals in the Gracious Speech.
The Prime Minister
Good progress has been made in implementing the main proposals in the Gracious Speech.
Mr. Latham
Is the Prime Minister satisfied with the less-than-dramatic progress that is being made on the invisible Electricity Bill? Will he find out from the Liberal Party why its Members blacklisted it?
The Prime Minister
If it comes forward, the Electricity Bill will be concerned with compensation for Drax B [column 661]and with reorganisation of the Industry I should be very happy indeed to see both these matters go through. If the hon. Member for Melton (Mr. Latham) can give any undertaking to me about his vote, that might influence our attitude.
Mr. Ashley
When considering these proposals, did the Prime Minister notice that the Leader of the Opposition seems to be obsessed with the need to find scapegoats, whether they are unemployed people about whom she talks and then calls scroungers or black people whom she calls coloured immigrants? Does my right hon. Friend accept that after the next Election, if the Tories are defeated, the Leader of the Opposition will be called a scapegoat by the very people who are now supporting her?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friends should not become obsessed with the Leader of the Conservative Party. The electorate will judge for themselves at the General Election. [Hon. Members: “When?” ] The electorate will judge outside of the scaremongering that is going on at present. Every one of my hon. Friends will be able to be proud of the record that we shall have had over the last four or five years.
Sir David Renton
Since the speediest return to full employment and a sustained growth in output was described in the Gracious Speech as the Government's main objectives, and since neither of them is being fulfilled by the Government, what is the Prime Minister going to do about it?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D . Renton) knows perfectly well of the measures that have been brought forward by the Secretary of State for Employment as recently as the beginning of this week. He knows that we have made arrangements to ensure that every young person between the ages of 16 and 19 shall receive further training or education. We have done more about this world problem than has been done by any other single Government in the whole of Western Europe.