HC Deb 20 October 1966 vol 734 cc398-402
Q7. Mr. Edward M. Taylor

asked the Prime Minister why he refused to meet a deputation representing the Scottish trade unions to discuss the economic situation in Scotland.

The Prime Minister

I did not refuse to see them but suggested that in the first instance they should meet my right hon. Friends the First Secretary of State, the Secretary of State for Scotland and other Ministers from the Board of Trade, the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of Technology. This meeting took place on 30th September and was, I think, regarded as helpful by those present.

Mr. Taylor

Will the Prime Minister accept that his speeches on the economic situation at the seaside and elsewhere have given us in Scotland the impression that he has little if any idea of what is happening there, where we have mounting unemployment and a stagnant and declining programme of school and house building? Would it not help for the Prime Minister to show a little courtsey and to hear direct from the S.T.U.C. the facts which his advisers are obviously hiding from him?

The Prime Minister

I am glad to see that now he is in opposition the hon. Member is paying so much attention to the Scottish T.U.C. because I have had the privilege of addressing its conference several times both in opposition and in Government. The members of the Scottish T.U.C. will be aware, if the hon. Member is not, of the progress which is being made in industrial diversification and the improvement in employment prospects in Scotland compared with the situation two years ago.

Mr. Noble

Does not the Prime Minister realise that in the past the S.T.U.C. has asked for and been given access to the Prime Minister on many occasions, if not annually, when they were really worried, as they are at the moment? Does he not realise that, after meeting his right hon. Friends, they expressed their disappointment that on this occasion the Prime Minister had refused to see them?

The Prime Minister

There is no question of refusing. I have in fact met them since we came into Government earlier this year and I have made it plain that I should be very happy to see them, but I thought on this particular occasion it would be right for them to see my right hon. Friends. After that, if they still feel it would be useful to them to have a further meeting with me, I would of course be pleased to see them.

Mr. Heath

Does the Prime Minister recall that when he last met the S.T.U.C., as he has just told the House, in April he gave them a firm undertaking that the Government would not try to solve their problems by means of unemployment, but as unemployment since June in Scotland has gone up by 15,000 and is now 3 per cent., showing that Scotland has not been shielded from the Government's measures, does he not feel under an obligation to meet the S.T.U.C. and explain the position?

The Prime Minister

I should be delighted to see the Scottish T.U.C. I think that its members will understand some facts which the right hon. Gentleman obviously does not, because in fact unemployment today in Scotland is lower than it was when the right hon. Gentleman as President of the Board of Trade left office. Unemployment in Scotland today is 20,000 fewer than when the right hon. Gentleman assumed office as President of the Board of Trade. Unemployment in Scotland today is even lower than it was when he left the Ministry of Labour, though the figures at that time were temporarily improved by the 1959–60 election boom.

Mr. Heath

Will the Prime Minister also recall that the improvement is due to the action taken through the incentives provided during those five years between the time when I was Minister of Labour and President of the Board of Trade? Will the Prime Minister still return to the pledge which he gave the Scottish T.U.C. that there would not be an increase in unemployment? There has been an increase of 15,000. Will he explain that?

The Prime Minister

The right hon. Gentleman will be aware now that he has left Blackpool and is in the House of Commons. He will also be aware that that might have been the one place where he could get away with, but not here, the statement that everything good that has happened in the last two years is due to the things he left us with. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I was asked three questions. I am answering them in turn. The right hon. Gentleman's suggestion in his supplementary question was that the improvement in the unemployment situation in the last few years was due to his beneficent work at the Board of Trade. In fact, the advance factory programme, which he did not build but which we have, and the other measures we have taken—[HON. MEMBERS: "What about the increase of 15,000 in unemployment?"] I will come to that in a moment—and the other measures we have taken have led to the most rapid improvement in the unemployment situation in Scotland for very, very many years. I am only suggesting to the right hon. Gentleman that he cannot go on saying that every increase in imports is due to Labour and every increase in exports is due to the Tories, which is the line he has been arguing.

With regard to the last part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, he has changed his ground between his two supplementary questions. The first time the right hon. Gentleman quoted me as saying in April that we would not seek to solve the problem by unemployment. That is our position. What he is now saying is that I said in April that there would not be any increase in unemployment. That is not what I said.

Mr. Heffer

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, despite the hypocritical statements from the other side of the House, hon. Members opposite have no right to talk about unemployment? Nevertheless, there are many Members on this side of the House who are deeply concerned at the growth in unemployment, both in Scotland and elsewhere, and we cannot feel happy because it is lower than it was under the Tories. Will my right hon. Friend give us an assurance that this continued growth in unemployment will be arrested and the present trend reversed?

The Prime Minister

My hon. Friend is perfectly right and I think that the concern that he has expressed—concern about what is happening, about the transitional situation, what is happening in regard to unemployment until redeployment is more effective—is a concern we all share in all parts of the House. I can certainly assure my hon. Friend that the position is being very closely watched. [Laughter.] This is no laughing matter. I will give some figures in a moment to take the grins off the faces of some hon. Members opposite. As I said at the Productivity Conference, having now released resources because everyone knew that this was necessary if we were to be able to deal with our balance of payments problem and strengthen sterling, we want to see the release of resources put, not back into a consumer boom, but into strengthening the economy by investment. It is on this that we have been having discussions with industry and will make a statement as soon as is possible.

I will certainly take advice from my hon. Friend, who knows a great deal about the unemployment problem on Merseyside over the last few years. I shall not take advice from the right hon. Gentleman, who told us last week that his policy would be that unfilled vacancies should be equal to the unemployed, seeing that in the last three years of Conservative rule, when the right hon. Gentleman was in high office, out of 37 months the unfilled vacancies exceeded the unemployed in only two out of those 37 months.

Several Hon. Members

rose

Mr. Speaker

Order. We have already exceeded Question hour. I must point out to the House that during this week both questions and answers have tended to get longer, and this deprived some hon. Members who had put down a Question of the opportunity of putting it to the Minister orally.

Back to