PRIME MINISTER
(ENGAGEMENTS)
Q1. Mr. Shepherd
asked the Prime Minister if he will list his public engagements for Tuesday 11th July.
The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan)
In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be holding meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. This evening, I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen.
[column 1243]Mr. Shepherd
During the Prime Minister's undoubtedly busy day, will he pause to reflect that during the stewardship of this Labour Government consumer prices have risen by a staggering 91.1 per cent.—the worst of seven major OECD countries—and that food prices have risen by an enormous 99.8 per cent., the next but one to bottom in the same league table? Will he make abundantly clear to the people of this country the basis upon which the inflation figures that his Government will be putting out in the next few months are calculated, so that there can be no more misleading nonsense of the type of the Chancellor's 8.4 per cent. claim in October 1974?
The Prime Minister
I have explained to the House on many occasions, but I will continue to do so, that when the Government came into office we were faced with higher inflation than exists today. It was going up and would have continued to go up because of the indexing of wages which had been agreed under the previous Government. We have reversed that and the level of inflation is now lower than it was when we came to power. As for food prices, I wish that the hon. Member had been in the House when the previous Administration took us into the Common Market. Perhaps then he would have pressed upon his leader the necessity for negotiating a better deal than he got on the common agricultural policy.
Mr. Hayman
Will my right hon. Friend try to find a couple of hours this afternoon to pop up to Hatfield and hear how delighted the aircraft workers are at the Government's decision to go ahead with the HS146 and how determined they are to make the aeroplane a commercial success, for the benefit both of British Aerospace and of the country as a whole?
The Prime Minister
I know that my hon. Friend, in representing the aircraft workers, has made substantial representations on this matter to British Aerospace. It was British Aerospace's commercial decision, which it asked us to ratify, and we were very pleased to do so. It seems to me that there will be a good future for this plane. British Aerospace is being asked to make a commercial return on the substantial sums which are being invested. I am glad that it will [column 1244]provide employment for several thousand people.
Mrs. Thatcher
Has James Callaghanthe Prime Minister had time to consider today the latest evidence published yesterday on the people's attitude to further nationalisation? Is he aware that it showed that 80 per cent. of the people do not want any schemes of further nationalisation and that even the majority of those in the Labour Party take the same view? Why, then, do he and his party keep their commitments to extensive schemes of further nationalisation, both of whole industries and of major companies?
The Prime Minister
Yes, Sir, I always look at all polls in the newspapers—though I do not necessarily believe all their conclusions, the right hon. Lady will be relieved to hear. As for the particular poll to which the right hon. Lady refers, I am not unaware of the feelings expressed in this matter. That is why I believe that organisations such as the National Enterprise Board have a considerable role to play. I am very glad, because it will combine private and public enterprise and private and public funds. That is why I am glad to hear that the Conservative Party seems to be seeing sense now and, according to its latest document, or the latest speech, I understand, does not propose to abolish the NEB. That will come as a considerable relief to many hundreds of thousands of workers.
Mrs. Thatcher
As usual, the Prime Minister has inadvertently omitted to answer the question. Why do he and his party still stick to extensive commitments to further nationalisation of whole industries and of companies? Is his last reply the correct one—that for him nationalisation is never off the agenda?
The Prime Minister
When I gave the reply that nationalisation was never off the agenda, I was thinking of what the previous Government had to do in nationalising Rolls-Royce. When they are driven to nationalisation, it shows that even they must at times face the realities of the situation. We shall continue to do so as we face the problems of these industries, whether we handle them through the National Enterprise Board or through public ownership. I dare say, if the Opposition ever came to power [column 1245]again and were faced with another situation like Govan Shipbuilders or Rolls-Royce, that they would overcome their prejudices and nationalise once more, as they did last time.
Q2. Mr. Kilroy-Silk
asked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 11th July.
The Prime Minister
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I have just given to the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd).
Mr. Kilroy-Silk
Does my right hon. Friend accept that, although the Opposition seem to have nothing better to do than to stoop to personal abuse, he should instead give an assurance that he will concentrate upon policy and spend some time today outlining the Opposition's policy for increasing council house rents, increasing prescription, dental and optical charges, and imposing charges for people visiting the doctor and having to stay in hospital? The Leader of the Opposition's disgraceful suggestion——
Mr. Speaker
Order. I made it clear the other day that the Prime Minister—or any other Minister—cannot be questioned about statements made by those on the other side of the House but only about those things for which he is responsible.
The Prime Minister
I have noticed that the Opposition apparently will wish to keep public expenditure constant if they ever come to power. If that is so, in view of the large increase in the number of elderly people and the Opposition's proposals for additional defence expenditure, I do not see any escape from the alternative that they would have to charge very heavily for operations or for stays in hospital or for visits to the doctor. They must reconcile these things at some time.
As for personal attacks, I have noted what was said. I was reflecting on the Chancellor of the Exchequer's remarks last week, which I thought were a little unseemly. As regards the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw), it is not so much, when he attacks me, like being savaged by a dead sheep as being nuzzled by a friendly old sheepdog.
[column 1246]Mr. Watt
When the Prime Minister meets his Cabinet colleagues today, will he find time to discuss the many things that are happening in Britain's 200-mile economic zone? Is it not about time that he set up a ministry of marine affairs that will look after our fishing, our oil, our shipping and our mineral extraction? Is he aware that at present the Danes and the French are making away with our fish, the East Europeans are making away with our shipping, and the Germans, the Americans and the Italians are making away with our oil while we are non-starters in the race for the extraction of minerals?
The Prime Minister
As the hon. Member knows, I have considered setting up a ministry of marine affairs. It does not seem that these functions, which are so different, would be best reconciled through such a ministry, although there is a Minister who co-ordinates all these matters. The fishing problem was raised at Bremen at the weekend and I said that we were looking for a just solution to this problem. The Chancellor of the Federal Republic said that he hoped to achieve a solution during the period of the German Presidency—that is, between now and the end of December.
Q4. Mr. Freud
asked the Prime Minister whether he will publish his official engagements for 11th July.
The Prime Minister
I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd).
Mr. Freud
Will the Prime Minister bear in mind that today is exactly six months since the east coast floods and five months since the Government announced the criteria for paying the victims? Is he aware that no one, whether domestic, industrial or agricultural, has received a penny of any compensation or relief? Will he now set up a national disaster fund, which he might administer himself, so that people can get flood damage relief instead of promises?
The Prime Minister
I regret to hear what the hon. Gentleman says about no payment of compensation. I will ask the Secretary of State for the Environment to look into it. I understand that so far only four applications have been received from local authorities. It is not clear [column 1247]why this should be so, and we are waiting to see whether there will be further claims or whether local authorities are not claiming because they do not expect the expenditure to exceed a penny rate.
We have considered the possibility of a national disaster fund, but on balance we think it is preferable that each case should be taken on its merits, and we shall continue to act in that way.
Mr. MacFarquhar
Has my right hon. Friend in his busy day managed to read the stories about Bremen by economics correspondents in The Times and The Guardian today, apparently based on Treasury briefing? Will he say whether his own attitude towards the Bremen results is as hostile as is apparently that of the Treasury mandarins?
The Prime Minister
I do not have to take any responsibility, thank goodness, for what appears in the press. I noticed there there was a change in attitude, but I think that on the whole they reinterpret what they themselves have said originally, rather than ascribing any difference in attitude to me.
SECRETARY OF STATE FOR EMPLOYMENT
Q3. Mr. Wyn Roberts
asked the Prime Minister if he will dismiss the Secretary of State for Employment.
The Prime Minister
No.
Mr. Wyn Roberts
It is a bit late in the day to make changes. Will the Prime Minister explain why every Conservative Government since the war have left office with more people employed than when they came in and why every Labour Government since the war, without exception, have left office with fewer people in employment than when they came in?
The Prime Minister
It is pretty generally understood that the level of unemployment is related to the world recession. That is why the Government have endeavoured to use measures that would help industry, through such devices as the temporary employment subsidy—against the wishes of the Opposition. It is also the case that there are more people in employment today, as distinct from more people unemployed, than there were in [column 1248]1973. As to how we leave office, that will not be for a long time yet, so I do not think that the hon. Gentleman needs to worry. His memory is singularly short if he does not remember that when the last Conservative Government left office there was a three-day working week in operation.
Mr. Gwilym Roberts
Does my right hon. Friend accept that it is a reasonable statistical estimate that if all the proposals which the Opposition have supported in the House had been carried out there would be a million more people unemployed at present? Would he care to comment on that?
The Prime Minister
I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that if the policies advocated by the Opposition were put into effect there would be a substantial increase in unemployment. I do not think that they deny that.
Mr. Churchill
Rubbish.
The Prime Minister
It must be clear that the removal of grants and subsidies, which is the Opposition's policy, would lead to the collapse of a number of firms in the depths of the recession. Therefore, we believe that we should continue with these policies until the world economy picks up again.
Mr. Tim Renton
When the Prime Minister was in Bremen last week, did he notice the figures which showed that Germany's unemployment was at a four-year low in June? Does not that emphasise the tragic contrast between four years of private enterprise recovery from the oil crisis in Germany and four years of Socialist slump in Britain? Is it not because of that contrast that the German wolfhound bit the Prime Minister so hard last week?
The Prime Minister
On the contrary. It was not like a sheepdog but it was nearly as nice. Germany, like other countries, has suffered from an increase in unemployment to a considerable extent. There are now a number of countries, I regret to say, whose unemployment levels are higher than that of the United Kingdom.
Mr. Lawrence
Name them.
The Prime Minister
If the hon. Gentleman will table a Question, I will [column 1249]give him an answer. [Hon. Members: “Oh.” ] It is no use hon. Gentlemen shouting “Oh” . Everyone knows that this is true. There are, I am glad to say, other countries which we must try to emulate. What is certainly true is that this Government, through their measures to contain unemployment, have done much better than a number of other countries. I shudder to think what would happen if the Opposition came back to power and reversed those policies.
Mr. Radice
While I agree that the unemployment figures are far too high, particularly in the northern region, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he agrees that today's inflation figures are extremely encouraging, not only in terms of what happens to inflation this year and next year but in terms of what happens to unemployment this year and next year?
The Prime Minister
It is true that the wholesale price figures published yesterday show that there is likely to be a considerable steadiness in the inflation rate between now and the end of the year, which is as far ahead as I have always wanted to prophesy because so much depends on the next wage round. [Interruption.] Hon. Members opposite need not affect any surprise about this. So much depends on what happens in the next wage round and upon matters such as the strength of sterling, which is pretty stable at the moment, and similar issues. The lower the rate of inflation—this is what I have said 150 times and will say another 150 times—the more prospects we have of more competitive jobs and, therefore, of more employment.