§ Q1. Mr. Neubertasked the Prime Minister whether he will place in the Library a copy of his speech to the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions at Eastbourne on 30th June concerning wages and inflation.
§ The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan)I did so on 6th July.
§ Mr. NeubertDoes the Prime Minister recall that in that speech he spoke of Socialism in action? Where does he rank the doubling of prices in the Government's achievements, and why does he resolutely refuse to forecast inflation beyond the end of this calendar year?
§ The Prime MinisterThe hon. Gentleman is quite right. What I said I thought was Socialism in action was when the wage earners of this country voluntarily accepted restraint on their wages, in order that the pensioners of this country could have an increase that was far bigger than the increase in wages because it was related to price increases. That is my definition of Socialism in action—when the strong stand back to help the weak.
§ Mr. AshleyIs the Prime Minister aware that any calls for wage moderation are bound to be unpopular but that the response that he has received from Sidney Weighell and other trade union leaders proves that his courageous and very brave stand demanding wage moderation will have a constructive response from the trade unions? The Opposition are bound to oppose it because they are constantly seeking popularity.
§ The Prime MinisterThe Government's proposals as to what can best be afforded in the way of increased earnings in order to maintain our standards of life will, I hope, be published tomorrow, and, subject to the will of the House and the Lord President's announcement on business, I hope that we can have a full debate on the matter next week. Then, perhaps, we shall learn the attitude of the Opposition.
§ Mrs. ThatcherNow that we know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is work- 780 ing on the assumption that on his policies unemployment will rise to 1.7 million, will the Prime Minister say whether he is working on the same assumption or a different one?
§ The Prime MinisterThat is not correct. The figures that are included in order to estimate what public expenditure is likely to be over the next three or four years are not forecasts of unemployment. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is very swift this afternoon. They are assumptions that can be altered by policy changes. Indeed, since that figure was published last autumn and sent to the Government Actuary, it has already been twice revised downwards and the new figures have also been published. These variables are so great that they give a spurious precision to any idea that one can attempt to forecast unemployment two or three years ahead.
§ Mrs. ThatcherDoes not the Prime Minister recall what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said during the last election campaign, when all his speeches were euphoric—that any party which contemplated unemployment at a level of 1½ million was a party unfit to govern? Is it not time that he took his own medicine?
§ The Prime MinisterYes, Sir, I think that it is true that a level of 1.5 million is unacceptable to everybody in this country. What I also know is that if the policies that have been put forward from the Opposition Dispatch Box were carried out, taking away grants and subsidies as well as other measures, there is no doubt that unemployment in this country would be very much higher than it is.
§ Mr. WhiteheadWill my right hon. Friend take heart from the opinion poll today showing that there is a three-to-one majority in support of his economic policies? Is this not a clear indication that the public can distinguish between a concerned approach, such as my right hon. Friend has, and the kind of callow carping that we get from the Opposition?
§ The Prime MinisterI do not know whether it is callow carping or an opportunistic attempt to take advantage of every grievance that exists. Whichever way it is, it contrasts with the steady policy that the Government are following in this matter. That is why there is continuing support for the Government.