§ Q2. Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Prime Minister if he will state the approximate number of unemployed the Government aims, or are likely, to establish in February, July and December of next year and in July, 1968.
§ The Prime MinisterI would refer my hon. Friend to the Answer I gave on 26th October to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton).—[Vol. 751, col. 557–8.]
§ Mr. AllaunDoes the Prime Minister intend to restore full employment, that is to say, the level obtaining before the credit squeeze of last year, which was 260,000? If he does not, is he aware that his policy will remain totally unacceptable to many Members on this side of the House?
§ The Prime MinisterYes, Sir. If we do not restore full employment it will be totally unacceptable to me, to my right hon. Friend and to the whole Government. As I have said, it is not possible to avoid serious balance of payments crises if in significant parts of the country one has such shortages of skilled and unskilled labour that delivery dates cannot be met and imports are sucked in. That is the situation that we are facing and have faced in the past. Equalise the regions and we can have full employment on the basis that I defined it earlier.
§ Mr. Ian LloydWould the Prime Minister concede that in view of overwhelming evidence, even now, of a massive amount of mis-employment and artificially sustained employment, this overwhelming concentration on the statistically visible index of unemployment is quite unproductive?
§ The Prime MinisterIt is true that there is still some considerable misuse of labour in industry, but everyone would pay tribute to what has been done by both sides of industry over the past year in increasing productivity, which is now rising very very rapidly indeed. In one sense this is the cause of our problem—the level of unemployment. At the same time it is the biggest reason for hope of the expansion which has now started continuing without becoming uncompetitive.
§ Mr. LiptonDoes not the Government's present policy inevitably mean that, for example, in London and the South-East the rate of unemployment is bound to be substantially increased, if not doubled?
§ The Prime MinisterWhat I was referring to was the fact that in some areas, and I was thinking particularly of certain Midland areas, 0.5 per cent., 0.6 per cent., is not a definition of full employment that any of us would regard as realistic, because when there are eight skilled vacancies for every skilled man, with the bottle-necks arising, obviously a higher figure will be tolerable without a single man being involuntarily unemployed?
§ Mr. Iain MacleodIs the Prime Minister aware that the Chancellor's precise words on Tuesday were:
We must have a somewhat larger margin of unused capacity than we used to try to keep. That is the truth of the matter.Is the Prime Minister aware that every explanation that he has given this afternoon is totally incompatible with this statement?[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]
§ The Prime MinisterNo, Sir. We have run into difficulties time and time again because we have too little margin of capacity in over-productive areas, which affected our overseas trade. My right hon. Friend was not referring to any national pool, and neither he nor anyone else has used the phrase "national pool" on any occasion.
§ Mr. James GriffithsMay I ask the Prime Minister whether he realises that the Report recently issued about the inbuilt growth of the South-East Region, and the position in the old regional areas where unemployment is increasing while the older industries are undergoing technological change, is the fullest justification for a concentration upon the regions to help solve the unemployment problem?
§ The Prime MinisterYes, Sir. And this means the most stringent measures, not only to build up employment investment in the development areas, but also to hold back an excessive deployment of investment in the prosperous areas such as were mentioned by my right hon. Friend.
§ Mr. SandysIs this not just a further example of Ministerial double-talk?
§ The Prime MinisterThe right hon. Gentleman told us last week that he did not understand anything about unemployment, and it is quite clear that he does not.
§ Mr. William HamiltonSince my right hon. Friend rightly lays stress on regional differentiation on this problem, and since most of the development areas depend to a great extent on coal mining, will my right hon. Friend reconsider the suspension or closure of pits for a further period until we get over the winter period and the early spring?
§ The Prime MinisterMy hon. Friend will be aware, and I know of the deep concern in his own constituency and in surrounding areas, of what we have done for the difficult winter that we are facing. I am sure that he will be aware—and this will be gone into more thoroughly when our White Paper on fuel policy is available—that if one keeps pits open when they are uneconomical the total volume of coal production is more than can be burned except by heavy subsidies. We would simply be putting more coal on the ground and the result at the end of the day would be a very large expenditure of public money to keep it there.
§ Mr. EmeryDoes the right hon. Gentleman recall that in at least five speeches between 1962 and 1964 he absolutely condemned any policy that allowed a level of unemployment above 500,000? Is not the present policy of his Government a complete betrayal of anyone who believed in them?
§ The Prime MinisterI explained on 20th July, 1966, what the consequences of these necessary measures will be. I do not think that any of us actually foresaw one thing, which is the increased unemployment figure. But this in its way is a very hopeful factor for our economy because of the very great increase in productivity, based on getting more output for less manpower. This is the basis on which we can go forward for the expansion which has now begun.
§ Mr. ShinwellCan my right hon. Friend explain why, in spite of his interpretation of the statement of the Chan- 1248 cellor of the Exchequer, many of us fail to understand it? Is it our fault, the fault of the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or the attempt of my right hon. Friend to interpret the statement?
§ The Prime MinisterTo judge from what my right hon. Friend said on the radio at lunch time, it is the result of my right hon. Friend not doing his homework. It is most unusual for him; I do not think that it has happened before. If he had done his homework, he would not have signed a Motion which so completely misrepresented what had been said. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will now give very close study to what is a pretty difficult concept of this question of regional balance so far as the total of unemployment is concerned. When he studies it, I am sure that he will feel very much happier than he did at lunch time.
§ Mr. CarlisleDoes the Prime Minister still stand by his statement of 20th July, 1966, that he did not seek any policies of the kind which would bring an unemployment figure of over 800,000 to this country?
§ The Prime MinisterYes. That was very clear, I think, from the answer to the first supplementary question today. I have not made—I wish that I could make, and I should like to make for the House —an estimate of what it is likely to reach during this winter. Obviously a lot depends on the weather. The right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) made a brilliant forecast of 650,000 in 1959, and he was right almost to the last decimal point. The reason why it is not possible to make an estimate is that there has been a change in the trend in unemployment. The rise has stopped and it is difficult to make an exact forecast of what the underlying trend will be, apart from the seasonal increase due to bad weather.
§ Mr. LawsonMany of us who have studied the problem of regional development have believed in and talked for a long time about the necessity of deliberate Government involvement in developing the areas. Is my right hon. Friend aware that, having studied the speech made the other day by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, we are thoroughly behind what he is endeavouring to do?
§ The Prime MinisterYes, Sir. My right hon. Friend and his Department, as well as the Government as a whole, personally and fully and officially are involved in what we are doing to bring more work to the regions. My right hon. Friend and I and the Government have been pressed recently to embark on a policy of reflation. Most right hon. Gentlemen have said that that would be unwise and irresponsible. What we are doing in expansion is not a national reflation which would reproduce the old difficulties; it is a regional expansion for specific regions.
§ Mr. PeytonIs it possible that the reason why the Prime Minister's right hon. and dear friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) has misunderstood him is that he has not made the position crystal clear? Is the Prime Minister aware that some of us find it a little difficult to understand exactly what he means by "stop" phases when there is nothing but stop all the time?
§ The Prime MinisterThe difference between the hon. Gentleman and my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington is this. My right hon. Friend has been very busy today and has not had time to study what has been said in these matters—I know that he will study this matter very carefully from now on—whereas the problem about the hon. Gentleman is that we can give him the facts and arguments but we cannot give him the intellectual capacity to appreciate them.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I should have moved on from Question Time more quickly.