§ The Prime MinisterThis morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be holding further meetings with ministerial colleagues and others.
§ Mr. AdleyWhen the right hon. Gentleman meets his ministerial colleagues, will he invite a representative from the TUC to join the meeting and thereafter to issue a statement deploring that any trade union should expel a member from a trade union merely on behalf of his political views or his membership of a political party, regardless of how obnoxious that party may appear to be? Does he realise that what the NUR did over the weekend could have serious complications if, for example, the National Union of Journalists were to do the same thing, resulting in some form of political censorship?
§ The Prime MinisterOn the substantive question, I have learned from long 234 experience not to comment at the Dispatch Box on the actions of particular unions or other bodies until I am in full possession of the facts. Therefore, I make no comment on the National Union of Railway-men. As regards the general proposition, I make clear to the hon. Gentleman and to the House that I would deplore utterly, and would not find it at all acceptable, that people should be dismissed from their employment because of their political views, however objectionable they may be. However, there are some limitations that have to be imposed—for example, in the case of employees in the Crown Service, and maybe in the police. Generally speaking, what I have said as regards the general proposition should be the rule, and I hope that everybody will accept that.
§ Mr. LitterickAs my right hon. Friend would appear to be having a quiet day, will he take time out to confirm or deny the factual content in the extraordinary broadcast made by Independent Television News last night to the effect that it is now Her Majesty's Government's policy to deploy the neutron bomb on British territory?
§ The Prime MinisterIt may seem like a quiet day, but it is rather like the swan which looks calm on top but is paddling like hell underneath. Of course, I do not accept any responsibility for what appears in ITV news reports, on the BBC or in any of the newspapers. I am tempted to add "Thank heavens".
I have already said to the House that as regards the neutron bomb it is a matter of weighing the substantial political disadvantages against whatever military advantage may be presumed to exist. I had general discussions with President Carter last week about the issue of disarmament, and I would be glad if my hon. Friend did not press me any further today on these matters.
§ Mrs. ThatcherWill the Prime Minister explain why, after four years of Labour Government, the level of unemployment in this country is now worse than in any of our major industrial competitors?
§ The Prime MinisterThe last part of the right hon. Lady's question is not true, as I think she will realise when she 235 reads the figures. However, unemployment is far too high in this country, as it is throughout the Western industrialised world. It is my intention, with, I hope, the help of others in other countries, to ensure that there is a revival of world trade so that we can get our own people back to work. I add that as a result of the sacrifices made by the British people over the past two or three years it could be that next week's Budget will provide a stimulus, too.
§ Mrs. ThatcherDoes not the Prime Minister know that the figures I have given are true according to the Secretary of State for Employment and that the level of unemployment in this country is now worse than in that of any of our main industrial competitors by a quite considerable margin? Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why his policies have led to that result?
§ The Prime MinisterIf I look at the figures that I happen to have in front of me, I see that the position in Canada is much worse. I take it that that would be a major competitor. I see that the position in Italy is much worse. I take it that that would be a major competitor. [An HON MEMBER: "What about Nicaragua?"] From the reaction of the Opposition, it would seem that major competitors are only those that the Opposition select. However, I hope that the Opposition will accept that we are facing a world recession and that such a recession demands collective international action if it is to be overcome. It is to that that we should be bending our efforts, together with the stimulus that we ourselves can give as a result of the success of the Government's policies on inflation during the past 12 months.
§ Mrs. Thatcherrose—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The House knows—I have said this before—that the Leader of the Opposition may take this course, which is a long-established custom in this House.
§ Mrs. ThatcherAccording to a reply from the Secretary of State for Employment on 30th January, on a comparable basis the level of unemployment in Italy was 3.3 per cent, while in Great Britain it was 7.2 per cent. We are suffering 236 from the same world recession. The right hon. Gentleman's Government are doing worse than other nations, with the single exception of Canada, which has less than half the population of Great Britain. How does the right hon. Gentleman explain that result?
§ The Prime MinisterI can give the right hon. Lady the explanation, as I have done on many occasions in the House, but I cannot make her accept it. That is something that will have to be judged in due course. However, generally speaking, the country understands that, whatever may be said—I shall not rehearse the arguments against the Opposition's monetary policies in 1973 and 1974, which are well known, and if I may say so, better deployed at the hustings than in the House—about the Opposition's policies, they led in Government to substantial inflation during the following years which the present Government are now succeeding in overcoming. From that position, we can build our employment again. I hope that in due course the Opposition will accept that as being the accurate analysis.
§ Mr. FernyhoughDoes my right hon. Friend appreciate that when the Leader of the Opposition quotes the unemployment figures of our European competitors she forgets that unemployment in Germany is lower than in Great Britain because Germany has sent back 1 million migrant workers? Will my right hon. Friend assure me that, notwithstanding what the right hon. Lady may do if she is given a chance, he will not solve our unemployment problem in that fashion?
§ The Prime MinisterIt is true that the German unemployment figure, which is now over 1 million, has been kept substantially lower than it would otherwise have been because migrant workers have been admitted on only a temporary basis. As I understand it, it is not the policy of any of the major parties in this country to do that, although there are some who hold the view that migrant workers should be returned. Generally speaking, both major parties are agreed on that issue. I emphasise that the one thing we must not do is create unnecessary uncertainties in people's minds.
As to the general level of unemployment, I have said before in the House, and I repeat, that those who believe in a 237 market economy should note that, whereas Britain's unemployment has increased twofold since 1973, German unemployment has increased fourfold since 1973.
§ Mr. EmeryWill the Prime Minister, on a House of Commons matter, insist with his Secretaries of State in future that any major new announcement on public spending, such as the £450 million to British Leyland this year, should be announced at the Dispatch Box on the Floor of the House so that the Minister may defend his statement and Members of Parliament may have their traditional right of cross-questioning such public spending? Does he accept that to make such an announcement by slipping it in through the back door of a Written Answer is really cheating and ignoring the House and ought to be condemned?
§ The Prime MinisterI think that whether a statement should be made at the Dispatch Box or answered by a Written Question is a matter for judgment on every occasion. But on this particular occasion as, I should hope, the hon. Gentleman knows, the issue about which he is speaking—Leyland—will be debated in the House. That will be his opportunity to express his view and, if the Opposition so wish, to vote against it and so reduce the West Midlands to an industrial wasteland.