§ Q8. Mr. Wyn Robertsasked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech on Government policy at the Guildhall, London, on 15th November.
§ Q9. Mr. Aitkenasked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech on economic policy at the Lord Mayor's Banquet on 15th November.
§ Mr. RobertsThe Prime Minister referred in that speech to the intractable problem of unemployment Why did it take the Prime Minister until last week to admit that unemployment was bound to rise, when it was patent to the House and to the country that it would do so? Was the Prime Minister not guilty of misleading the country?
§ Mr. FootI do not think that anything the hon. Gentleman has said suggests that the Prime Minister has misled the country in this respect. My hon. Friend merely underlined what everyone knows, that the situation is extremely serious. In all his pronouncements since he became Prime Minister, he has never misled the country in that respect.
§ Mr. AitkenIs it not clear that when the Prime Minister spoke in that speech about public expenditure cuts he had not, like the Lord President, studied all the Government's devolution proposals in detail? If he had studied them closely, would not he be aware that it would be incompatible to say that public expenditure was under control while simultaneously putting forward proposals for an expensive new tier of Government, with new bureaucrats and a new level of politicians, all of whom would be destined to see that public expenditure rose in Scotland and Wales?
§ Mr. FootThe devolution proposals do not propose a new tier of Government. When right hon. and hon. Members have had the chance of studying the proposals they, too, will appreciate that. Indeed, it may well be, as has already been indicated by the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales, that the establishment of the Assemblies may enable us to escape some of the heavy expenditure that was involved in the establishment of local government reform —so-called—by the Conservative Administration. Indeed, if the Welsh Assembly had been in being, I am certain 688 that we should not have had local government reform in the form that we had it in Wales. That would have saved the country a great deal of money. I assure the hon. Gentleman that so far from there being the slightest slender margin of difference between the Prime Minister and myself on this subject, we are absolutely united.
§ Mr. WrigglesworthWill my right hon. Friend be so good as to ask the Prime Minister, on a future visit to Guildhall, to investigate the curious announcement made last Friday, that the Bank of England is to look into the clothing industry in this country? Will he explain to the House how we shall avoid massive confusion if everybody in the City, the NEDC, the Department of Industry and various other bodies try to run our industrial strategy?
§ Mr. FootI have not seen that announcement on behalf of the Bank of England. Although I may be responsible for some strange people today, I am not responsible for the Bank of England. I should have thought that the Bank of England had enough problems of its own without inquiring into the clothing industry.
§ Mr. PriorDid not the right hon. Gentleman once say that he would fight unemployment with every breath in his body? In view of what has happened, why is he still here?
§ Mr. FootBecause I am still trying to fight unemployment with every breath in my body. I remember very well that when we introduced the temporary employment subsidy, which has saved the jobs of some tens of thousands of people —to put the claim very moderately—we did not have support from the right hon. Gentleman. He tried to pour scorn on many of our other proposals that have saved jobs. Of course we agree that the situation is still extremely serious, but I am sure that the way to bring the figures down is for this Government to stay in office and to fight it through.
§ Mr. HefferHas my right hon. Friend read the speech made by the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell), the Opposition spokesman for economic matters, in which he told the staff of the NEDO that the Opposition would go forward on the basis of a cut in public 689 expenditure of a further £4,000 million or £5,000 million?
Would not that increase unemployment, and is it not a good reason for the Labour Government to remain in office to avoid such slashing of public expenditure by the Tories?
§ Mr. FootI entirely agree with my hon. Friend. If any such madcap proposals as that were carried out, they would result in making the unemployment situation much more serious than it is. I am sure that that fact is appreciated by all my hon. Friends.
§ Sir David RentonHow does the right hon. Gentleman delude himself that there will be no new tier of Government under the devolution proposals when the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales will continue to have their central Government offices and there will still be several tiers of local government, as well as a new Government, responsible to the new Assembly, interposed between them? Is not that a new tier of government?
§ Mr. FootThe right hon. and learned Gentleman has misunderstood the situation. We shall have considerable time in which to debate the matter later in the Session but in immediate reply, I point out that many of the functions that will be exercised by the Scottish Assembly will be transferred from the Secretary of State for Scotland. In that sense, the Secretary of State will not be dealing with the same functions. We are not establishing a new tier of government.
Moreover, as I have said before—I know that the Conservative Party does not like to be reminded of it, but it is a fact—in Wales and Scotland, and, indeed, in England, the Conservatives made such an unholy botch of local government reform by piling huge bureaucratic burdens on the people that, naturally, one of the tasks of the new Assemblies to be established in Scotland and Wales will be to try to diminish those heavy bureaucratic burdens.