§ The Prime MinisterNo, Sir.
§ Mr. LaneIs the Prime Minister aware that all the Secretary of State's critics will wish him a quick and complete recovery from his operation? Nevertheless, in view of the extreme bias of the right hon. Gentleman's legislation and its ineffectiveness over salary and wage restraint, why does the Prime Minister expect his right hon. Friend to be any less of a failure in future?
§ The Prime MinisterI do not agree with any of the hon. Gentleman's comments, except his very kind and gracious opening reference to my right hon. Friend's forthcoming operation in hospital next week.
My right hon. Friend took over from the worst industrial catastrophe that this country has seen since 1926. Even before the previous Government reached their consummation in that catastrophe, they had in 1972 produced a total loss of man-days through disputes of 24 million in a year—more than in the whole of the six years of the previous Labour Government. With that record, I should have thought that there would have been a little more, how shall I say, chaste approach by the hon. Gentleman. What appals me is that, from the look of the Opposition Front Bench, they stand by their three-day week and other policies which produced that loss of man-days in 1972.
§ Mr. BidwellDoes my right hon. Friend agree that the retention in his present post of the Secretary of State for Employment is indispensable or that someone of like spirit, should he decide that the job has become too burdensome, is indispensable, as is a full understanding between himself and the trade union movement, to the economic survival of Britain?
§ The Prime MinisterYes. I agree with what my hon. Friend said, except his suggestion of a possible replacement for my right hon. Friend. I am not looking for any replacement for my right hon. Friend.
§ Mr. PriorWith the present situation facing the country, does the Prime Minister agree that it would be far better to seek the co-operation of this side of the House rather than to attack us for something which is totally untrue, as he knows only too well? In view of the 1739 serious unemployment figures published today, will the Prime Minister give us his estimate of unemployment figures to the end of the year, bearing in mind that already the estimate made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer a few days ago, like most of his estimates, is totally out of date?
§ The Prime MinisterI am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's offer of co-operation. I look forward to considering how that might be made a reality. However, he will understand that, in relation to my earlier reply, I cannot erase the history of either 1972 or 1973 or the events of January and February 1974. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about 1975?"] The number of man-days lost through disputes in 1975 is the lowest for seven years. I should certainly be prepared to discuss with my right hon. Friend the possibility of some agreement between us as soon the the right hon. Gentleman has persuaded the leader of his party, who we know cannot be here this afternoon—
§ Mr. William HamiltonThe right hon. Lady is not earning her keep.
§ The Prime MinisterI have had a polite intimation from the right hon. Lady that she cannot be here. In fact, she has gone off to Turkey for the weekend with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Nothing arises for me to deal with out of that situation. When she comes back, however, and we have a policy from the Opposition in due course, we can then discuss the right hon. Gentleman's offer.
Regarding the right hon. Gentleman's question about unemployment, I have already said that we were warned to expect the figure mentioned by the Chancellor much earlier—indeed, by this time. Therefore, we must all make an effort—I welcome the offer of co-operation now—to see that the figure is kept as low as possible. Indeed, in a few minutes'time the Opposition can tell us whether they agree with what we are proposing to do about British Leyland to avoid mass unemployment.