§ Q1. Mr. Litterickasked the Prime Minister if he will list his public engagements for 18th July.
§ The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan)In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be holding meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, including one with members of the general council of the Trades Union Congress.
§ Mr. LitterickI am grateful for that answer. Will my right hon. Friend take some time today to take note of the sweet-talking speech made by the Leader of the Opposition at the weekend to a gathering of Asian immigrants and note the sharp and cynical contrast between the tone and content of that speech and the "shock horror" television statement she made some weeks earlier, averring that the country was being swamped with Asian immigrants? Will he—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. It will save time if I make this point early. If the hon. Gentleman will ask the Prime Minister questions on matters for which he has responsibility, that will help us all.
§ Mr. LitterickHas my right hon. Friend or the Leader of the House received a request from the Leader of the Opposition, which she promised she would make as a matter of urgency, for time to debate the subject of immigration?
§ The Prime MinisterThe Lord President tells me that he has received no request for a debate on immigration. I would welcome, as I am sure the whole House would welcome, such a debate. [HON. MEMBERS: "You supply the time."] There is not much time left, because the Opposition, who had under their control most of the available free 261 parliamentary time, have failed to use this opportunity to have such a debate. However, if the right hon. Lady's speech means that she is moving closer to the Government's policy in these matters, I welcome it. I have never wanted this to be a matter of party dispute.
§ Mrs. ThatcherMay I cross-examine the Prime Minister on the Government's policies? Last Thursday the right hon. Gentleman did not know that his own Government's record on unemployment was one of the worst in the western world. As today's figures show unemployment rising to 1.5 million and job vacancies falling, what is his excuse this time?
§ The Prime MinisterI reflected on the right hon. Lady's question last week because I thought that it was a most interesting one. I find that the Conservative Party documents take the view that I rather take on these matters. They say that it is "idle" to talk of an "economic miracle" because our problems are so deep-seated—
§ Dr. HampsonThe Prime Minister talked like that.
§ The Prime Minister—and that what is needed for Britain is a "long hard haul." This has been true because of the decline of this country's comparative productive capacity over a period of 50 years.
However, as the right hon. Lady repeats the question, I will answer her. Unlike her and the Administration of which she was a member, we have not run away from the problems by dodging increases in the prices of the products of nationalised industries or by dodging the needs for a new industrial strategy or by dodging the question of inflation or by allowing the money supply to go awry. What we have done is to take the basic issues and handle them. That is well understood in the country. We shall continue to do so. I am very glad to say that unemployment has increased at a relatively lower rate this year than in past years. That shows that our policies are beginning to pay off.
§ Mrs. ThatcherThe Prime Minister will recollect that he inherited a figure of 600,000 unemployed. Under his Prime Ministership and his predecessor's, it is now 1.5 million. Does not this prove that Socialism is incapable of creating 262 genuine jobs and increasing wealth, but is capable only of sharing out wealth that other people have already created?
§ The Prime MinisterNo, Sir. What it shows is that the world has been going through a substantial recession in which every major country has had a large increase in unemployment. That is what it shows, and that is what the Bonn summit was about yesterday and the day before. But, as the right hon. Lady talks about our inheritance, I shall quote a few more things that we inherited—a disgraceful rate of increase in the money supply, a disgraceful rate of inflation, a disgraceful rate of increase in the minimum lending rate, and half a dozen other matters. We put those right.
§ Miss Joan LestorWill my right hon. Friend find time in his busy schedule to go to South Africa House and see whether he can get it opened in order that he may deliver birthday greetings to Nelson Mandela on the occasion of his sixtieth birthday, after 16 years on Robben Island, greetings which the South African authorities refused earlier today to accept from the Labour Party, sections of the Liberal Party, the trade union movement, students and a cross-section of society? Will he please try to do that?
§ The Prime MinisterI have long been, as I know my hon. Friends are and I hope many Opposition Members are, an admirer of Nelson Mandela. Whether or not South Africa House accepts the greetings, I should like on behalf of Her Majesty's Government to send him formal greetings from this Dispatch Box. [HON. MEMBERS: "Come on Margaret."]
§ Q2. Mr. Andrew MacKayasked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 18th July.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer the hon. Member to the reply which I have just given to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Litterick).
§ Mr. MacKayDuring his hectic day, will the Prime Minister explain to the House how these disastrous unemployment figures tally with his party's slogan at the last election "Back to work with Labour"? Is he aware that the 900,000 people who have been put on the dole by the incompetence of his Government want a straight answer to this question?
§ The Prime MinisterYes, Sir. It is, of course, the case that in the hon. Gentleman's constituency there would be many more unemployed if the Opposition had had their way about Leyland and, indeed, about many other such matters. It is also true that the situation is much better than it was when we had a three-day week—
§ Mrs. Kellett-BowmanNo, it is not.
§ The Prime Minister—and that production is higher now than it was then, as indeed it should be. If the hon. Gentleman should happen to be here after the next General Election, which I very much doubt, he will find that unemployment will be going down steadily.
§ Mr. Frank AllaunAs it was agreed at Bonn yesterday to stimulate the western economies, will my right hon. Friend today consider expanding ours by means particularly of removing or relaxing the restrictions on housing, health—
§ Mr. TebbitAnd dividends.
§ Mr. Allaun—the social services and education'? Contrary to the views expressed from the Opposition Benches, would not this help simultaneously to relieve human need and unemployment?
§ The Prime MinisterYes, Sir. I think that the faster rate of economic growth that this country is experiencing this year clearly gives us a bigger dividend—but not the kind of dividend that the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) was referring to—for increasing those public expenditures. But we must not increase public expenditure until we have earned it, and so far we have not earned it.
§ Mr. Donald StewartAs the Government admit that food prices have risen by 104 per cent. since they came to office—[HON. MEMBERS: "Common Market."]—running alongside restriction of wage increases, does not the Prime Minister think that he should take time off today to announce the end of this attack on the living standards of the people?
§ The Prime MinisterThe right hon. Gentleman is wrong. Wages have gone up faster than food prices over the past four or five years. That has had no impact on living standards. Indeed, living standards are going up this year. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that, 264 because of the situation we inherited, food prices went up very fast in the early years of this Government, but I hope that he will rejoice with me in the fact that during the past 12 months they have increased by only 6.7 per cent.