§ Q2. Mr. Kilroy-Silkasked the Prime Minister if he will explain why he has not yet made an official visit to Kirkby.
§ The Prime MinisterI visited Merseyside in September last, but there was insufficient time for me to go to all parts. I will bear in mind the possibility of going to Kirkby on a future occasion.
§ Mr. Kilroy-SilkWhen my right hon. Friend visits Kirkby, he will be aware that it has the highest rate of unemployment in the whole of the United Kingdom and that the town will be further decimated by the announced closure of the Plessey factory. Will he look at this matter urgently? Will he look at the Post Office's ordering policy? Will he, in particular, look at the possibility of taking into public ownership the whole of the telecommunications industry?
§ The Prime MinisterI have considered this matter since it came to my attention this morning. I am glad to be able to say that, as the House may already know, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry has today appointed Professor Posner to review the latest Post Office ordering cuts. The terms of reference of his inquiry will be
To consider the assessment which led the Post Office in November to reduce the future level of orders for telephone exchange equipment and to report.That seems to be the first step to take in this particular matter. The technical considerations which led to this position are fairly well known. I think that, in view of the seriousness of the situation, we should carry the matter a little further.After consultation with my right hon. Friend today, I shall be asking the National Enterprise Board—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—which has established a regional director in both the North-West and the North-East, to investigate the investment potential in both areas and to report to us on what can be done to offset any of the disastrous consequences which may ensue. I believe that to be the best way to tackle both the 606 Post Office side and alternative employment.
§ Mr. GryllsIf the Prime Minister goes to Kirkby, will he repeat what he said yesterday—that he will not be pushed out of office—and will he explain to the House and the country why he said that? Is it because he enjoys being Prime Minister or because he believes that his industrial and economic policies have been so outstandingly successful that he must stay on?
§ Mr. OgdenI thank my right hon. Friend for the considerable interest that he has shown in the problems of Kirkby and of Sunderland and particularly of the Plessey organisation. Will he take one further action today, namely, use his considerable influence with the Plessey company to get an assurance that there will be no redundancies while consultations and all other efforts are taking place? I believe that he can ask for that assurance and that the Plessey company ought to give it freely.
§ The Prime MinisterUnder the Employment Protection Act, which is one of the Acts passed by this Government, the company is required to give, and has, I understand, given, 90 days' notice before any redundancies can take effect. That should give us the time that we need to investigate these matters.
§ Mrs. ThatcherDoes the Prime Minister recall that when his predecessor visited Kirkby in 1972 and went to the employment exchanges he said that he felt a sense of shame at the then level of unemployment, which was just touching 1 million for Great Britain as a whole? I have no need to ask the Prime Minister whether he feels a sense of shame. I am sure that he does. But, on the third anniversary of the beginning of the Labour Government, will he now accept responsibility for the level of unemployment, which has increased by 700 for every day that his Government have been in office?
§ The Prime MinisterNo, I do not accept that responsibility. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] If the right hon. Lady attempts to deceive her followers into believing that the Government can cure these matters, if she ever came to office 607 she would rapidly disillusion them. I do not think that the cause of democracy, to which the Opposition say they are attached, is strengthened by that kind of superficial approach to this problem. It is well known that the levels of world recession, coupled, as the Conservative Party's documents say, with the run-down of British industry over a period of 30 years, will take us a long time to recover from them. The right hon. Lady does not help by pretending that there are immediate and quick solutions, and she should stop doing it.
§ Mrs. ThatcherThen I take it that the Prime Minister is prepared only to accept office but never responsibility.
§ The Prime MinisterThe right hon. Lady is still showing her slip on these matters, and her preoccupation with office comes out in nearly every question that she asks. I am ready to accept responsibility for taking the harsh decisions necessary to achieve the industrial regeneration of the country and to put our economy on a sound foundation. That involves taking harsh decisions, not making idiotic quips.
§ Mr. MellishIs it not absolutely sheer humbug for the Conservative Opposition to moan and groan about unemployment when their policies, from what little we know of them, of massive cuts in Government expenditure would mean that there would be many more unemployed? What kind of humbug is it that we are getting from the Opposition Front Bench?
§ The Prime MinisterIt is well known that the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), who has just taken over as Opposition spokesman on industry, believes that there should be much tighter control than we have now on sources of credit, money and public expenditure. It is quite clear that if his policy were carried out the right hon. Gentleman, as my right hon. Friend said—whom, in passing, perhaps I may be allowed to congratulate on his birthday—if he ever had the misfortune to stand here, would be presiding over a vastly higher level of unemployment.
§ Sir K. JosephDoes the Prime Minister agree that my prediction two and a half years ago, which he attacked—that increased public spending under Labour would lead to increased unemployment— 608 has been proven right? My right hon. Friends and I still say that until public spending, interest rates and direct taxation are reduced, unemployment will continue to rise.
§ The Prime MinisterI am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for confirming my analysis of his attitude and of the support that he is getting from the Benches behind him. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] Now we know that it is the policy of the Conservative Party Front Bench to cut public expenditure even more and, therefore, to increase unemployment, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will convey that policy to those on the Opposition Back Benches as well as to those on the Front Bench who in one and the same breath are calling for additional expenditure on arms and social security, great tax credits and, of course, the abolition of the rating system. How does he square all those?