§ Q3. Mr. Michael Lathamasked the Prime Minister if the public speech by the Secretary of State for Energy to the annual dinner of the Labour Economic, Finance and Taxation Association in London on 12th December on the future programme of the Government represents Government policy.
§ The Prime MinisterMy right hon. Friend's speech was not concerned with current issues of Government policy.
§ Mr. LathamDoes the Prime Minister realise that his failure to dissociate himself in any way from the Secretary of 247 State's very Left-wing speech on that occasion has ensured that at the next General Election the decisive issue will be whether the Secretary of State and those who think like him can be entrusted with the oil revenues of this country?
§ The Prime MinisterI suggest that the hon. Gentleman concerns himself more with our present economic recovery than with the phantasmagorial notions that he has about a forthcoming General Election.
§ Mr. MaddenHas the Prime Minister seen the full-page article that appeared in Sunday's Observer, based on the work of the Cambridge Department of Applied Economics, which showed that the effect of most new investment is to reduce employment and that unless the Government adopt radical, social and economic policies we shall face staggering unemployment in the early 1980s?
§ The Prime MinisterI did not see that article, but it would not be foreign to the thinking that I find is prevalent on this matter, that, especially in large-scale organisations, rationalisation and new investment frequently lead to a reduction in jobs. That is one reason why my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is now engaged quite successfully in work on encouraging the growth of small firms that can provide additional employment.
§ Mrs. ThatcherBut is the Prime Minister aware that in that speech his right hon. Friend referred to the dole queues being back again under the present Government? How does the Prime Minister account for the fact that unemployment is now worse in Britain than in the countries of all our main industrial competitors?
§ The Prime MinisterI should want to check the right hon. Lady's figures before answering. However, that does not remove the point that unemployment in this country is far too high, and far higher than I ever expected or wanted to see it. That is why we have taken a large number of measures—such as the temporary employment subsidy—the total impact of which, I am told, has been to safeguard over 600,000 jobs during the period in which they have been operating. We must continue to take measures of this sort and to stimulate the recovery that is now beginning [...]s was shown in the 248 December retail figures. But with all these it will be very difficult indeed to achieve a substantial reduction.
§ Mrs. ThatcherIs the Prime Minister aware that he will find the figures, from his own Department of Employment, at the end of Hansard for 11th January? Will he now answer the question why, as a result of some of his policies, unemployment is worse in Great Britain than in our industrial competitor countries?
§ The Prime MinisterI shall check the figures, as the right hon. Lady has now given her source. I can say that manufacturing employment is better this year. There is a 1.6 per cent. increase in the number of people employed in manufacturing industry compared with a year ago. That is in itself encouraging. Indeed, total employment is up slightly. The number of people who have come on to the register has increased the number of unemployed, but let us not neglect the fact that more jobs are being created.
§ Mr. HefferIn relation to oil revenues, will my right hon. Friend ignore the advice from the Opposition Benches that there should be wholesale tax reductions, particularly for the higher income groups, and concern himself and the Government with the regeneration of British industry and the development of public expenditure, to ensure that we get our people back to work?
§ The Prime MinisterThe Government are considering their policy on these matters and will publish a statement in due course. I have no doubt that a combination of such measures is needed. One that my hon. Friend did not mention, but with which I am sure he would agree, is the need to provide out of the oil revenues for a replacement for oil as a source of energy when the oil runs out. This, too, must have a high priority in anything that we do.
§ Mr. KilfedderWith regard to Government policy in general, will the Prime Minister reply emphatically to the recent remarks of the Eire Prime Minister, telling him in no uncertain terms to take note of the utter determination of the Ulster people in no circumstances to be encompassed within an Irish Republic. and that if Britain should ever withdraw from Northern Ireland the Ulster people 249 are resolutely determined to stand on their own?
§ The Prime MinisterThis matter does not arise from, and is very far indeed from, the original Question. On important matters like this I would sooner have notice and be able to answer them properly. However, I can say, on this issue—men's and women's lives are affected, and therefore I wish to choose my words carefully—that there will be no departure from the Government's policy, which I believe has received support on both sides of the House, that the people of Northern Ireland will remain in the United Kingdom as long as it is their desire to do so.
§ Mr. FernyhoughMay I revert to the original Question? Can my right hon. Friend say how much better off this country is because my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy renegotiated the licences with the oil companies, and how much more revenue and royalties we have received as a consequence of those negotiations compared with the sell-out by the Conservatives?
§ The Prime MinisterI think it fair to say that in this matter the Labour Government proved a much better custodian of the national interest than did our predecessors, who were willing to give away the oil revenues not only to British companies but to overseas multinational companies.
§ Mr. RathboneI welcome the figures which the Prime Minister gave for increased employment in manufacturing. The House will be aware that this has made little dent on unemployment as a whole. What are the Prime Minister and his Government doing to improve employment in the service industries, which earn so much of our foreign currency?
§ The Prime MinisterThe Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will be considering this matter, too. Increasing employment in the service industries in the public services would require additional public expenditure, and we have been limited on this. We shall have to turn more and more to this area, because I do not believe that manufacturing industry, as such, will be able to provide the jobs that are necessary if we are to return to the levels of employment that I want to see.