Skip to main content

Japan

Volume 930: debated on Tuesday 19 April 1977

The text on this page has been created from Hansard archive content, it may contain typographical errors.

Q2.

asked the Prime Minister if he will seek to pay an official visit to Japan.

I have no immediate plans to pay an official visit to Japan. Meanwhile, I look forward to meeting the Prime Minister, Foreign Minister, and Finance Minister of Japan at the Downing Street Summit on 7th May.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that there is an urgent need for him to visit the Far East to offset some of the damage done by the Leader of the Opposition, who spent her time in Japan running down the British worker and British industry and her time in China stimulating a third world war by furthering a Russian menace phobia?

If I went to Japan—I should be very happy to do so—I should have better things to discuss than the animadversions of the Leader of the Opposition on these matters. As for the representation of our interests, I was very glad to read the robust speech made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade yesterday, which I thought formed a very good coda to the previous visit.

As my right hon. Friend has just visited Japan in her capacity as Leader of the Opposition, should not the Prime Minister defer any visit he has in mind for a few months so that he can go in a similar capacity?

I am told that

"Hope deferred maketh the heart sick."
I have a feeling that the hon. Gentleman is going to be feeling awfully queasy for a long time to come.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the right hon. Lady's time would have been better spent criticising Britain's investment strikers, who have so let this country down? For example, the Japanese car worker has about 12 times more power to his elbow than does his British equivalent. Is not this the major factor in Britain's low productivity record?

It is a partial factor that investment in this country has not been sufficiently high. [An HON. MEMBER: "Tell us why."] Not in the course of a supplementary answer; it is a matter for debate.

It is also the case that we have not made sufficient use of the investment we already have. It is no use trying to pin blame on one aspect of Britain's problem. It is a wide-ranging and deep-seated problem, which involves increased productivity, better use of our machinery, better and more activity by middle-management, and the removal of trade union restrictive practices. All of these come together. I do not accept that one can isolate one element and say that that is the only thing that one has to remedy, and then the whole situation will come right.