asked the Lord President of the Council if he is satisfied with the facilities for the disposal of waste in the Palace of Westminster.

Yes, Sir. However, if my hon. Friend wishes to raise a particular matter I shall arrange for it to be considered.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the most important functions of Members of Parliament is to dispose of the enormous amount of waste paper sent to them through the post, in the form of unsolicited propaganda and circulars of one kind or another? The flood-tide of such paper has increased, but why has the size of our waste paper baskets shrunk by half? May we have larger baskets?

I cannot answer that question but I shall be pleased to discuss it with my hon. Friend to discover the answer.

In view of the very great deal of waste on the Government Front Bench, will the Lord President arrange for its immediate disposal by having an election?

No, Sir, there is no room. There is too much waste coming from the Opposition.

Is my right hon. Friend satisfied with the waste of time that affects hon. Members who have offices in the Norman Shaw Building and who would occasionally like to get in touch by telephone with those offices, but who at present find it virtually impossible? Moreover, does the gloom in which we are now plunged mean that the waste of money in Government circles is such that we have been unable to pay the electricity bill?

No, Sir. There is no waste of money in Government service—none at all. My hon. Friend has raised the question of telephones in the House, but she has made no complaint to me about the matter. If she cares to make a complaint I shall be pleased to look into it.

That is factually inaccurate.

I ask the Leader of the House to look at the Official Report for many years back to see whether he can find any precedent for a Leader of the House giving the sort of answers that he has given this afternoon.

asked the Lord President of the Council if he will move to appoint a Select Committee on the increase of ministerial patronage.

No, Sir.

Why not?

The Prime Minister has answered this question and pointed to striking examples, in recent years, of the contraction, not increase, in the granting of honours for political services.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that I am not talking about honours? I am talking about patronage. Is my right hon. Friend not aware that if he looks through the list of Ministers of the Crown he will find that patronage in their hands, for appointments to ad hoc bodies of one kind or another, is quite enormous and is increasing? I should be pleased if my right hon. Friend, with his well-known passion for Select Committees, would appoint a committee of five, preferably with myself as chairman, to look into the matter.

That body would have to consider appointments to the European Parliament, the Council of Europe, and so on.

Will the Lord President advise the House whether, in view of Lord Brayley's massive services to the country and the eminent qualifications that entitled him to ennoblement, the Government intend to reinclude him in this Administration?

The unemployment figures to be issued tomorrow will show a considerable fall in unemployment. This is almost entirely due to students leaving the unemployment register. Such fluctuations arise from the large and increase- ing numbers of students who now register in the vacations, particularly in the short Christmas and Easter vacations, and who are not yet seeking permanent employment. The consequent flow of over 100,000 on to and off the unemployment register has distorted the change in the unemployment figures in six months of the year and created considerable problems in interpreting those figures.

It has therefore been decided, with effect from March 1976, to separate from the unemployment statistics adult students who register for vacation employment. The numbers of students registering for employment will continue to be published in the unemployment Press notice but separately from the unemployment figures.

The announcement today by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science that he proposes to change the student support arrangements for the 1976–77 academic year means that the number of students claiming supplementary benefits at Christmas and Easter should be reduced from Christmas 1976. It does not mean that all students will be removed from the register in those vacations, nor that the numbers registering in the summer vacation will be reduced.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for coming to the House and making that statement. As he referred to a considerable fall in unemployment, may I ask whether the seasonally adjusted trend tomorrow will show a fall or an increase? Is he aware that, among many others, the Centre for Policy Studies has been pointing out for some time the absurdity of including students on holiday in the unemployment figures?

Will he understand that a more wide-ranging review is desirable? Today's tinkering seems directed more towards avoiding newspaper headlines about over 1½ million unemployed in April, and taking account of the start of this year's conference season for trade unions than getting the basis for comparative unemployment figures right. Is not this another example of the right hon. Gentleman putting short-term political presentational considerations first? What effect, if any, will there be on students' entitlement to supplementary benefits?

I must ask the hon. Gentleman to await the seasonally adjusted figures tomorrow.

They are misleading.

They are not misleading. I am making this statement today so that, when the figures are published tomorrow, people are under no misunderstanding about the situation. The figures to be published tomorrow will be in the same form as they have been hitherto. As we shall be announcing a different form for the following month, I thought it right to tell the House today so that hon. Members could put questions about it. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would welcome the statement on that ground.

Neither my statement nor that of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science implies any criticism of students who have put down their names for supplementary benefits in any of the vacations. We think it is a commonsense arrangement that those, such as students, who are not seeking permanent employment should not be included with those who are seeking permanent employment.

I have stated previously my reasons for not accepting what has been said by the Centre for Policy Studies. I do not accept that the figures should be reduced on the scale suggested. That would be misleading. In some respects the figures would be higher than the heavy figures we have had to report to the House.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that it is extremely difficult to adjust to what he said as we have not had the opportunity of seeing the statement by the Secretary of State for Education and Science, which I understand is to be published as a Written Answer? Is he happy that this will be seen by students as more than sleight of hand? Many students have to pay rent in their halls of residence during the two shorter recesses. Will they find that the new block grant gives them the right amount of money to pay their rent?

No sleight of hand is intended or is operating in any sense. My hon. Friend and others, including students, will no doubt wish to look at the statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. I am sure that if they have any questions they will put them to him. They may not be able to do so today, but there are other opportunities for putting questions. I do not believe that there will be any misapprehension. I know that the House and the country are naturally deeply concerned about the unemployment figures. Therefore, I thought that, before the statement was published, it was only right to say what was happening.

Does the Secretary of State recognise that there are many others, apart from students, who are seasonally unemployed for one reason or another? Therefore, if there is a case for distinguishing students in this way, is there not also a case for those other categories of people? Does he also appreciate that many of us find disturbing the number who have been unemployed for more than six months? Will he revise these statistics so that the figures for those who have been unemployed for more than six months appear monthly, not three-monthly as they do now?

As I have said, the figures do not require restatement or rearrangement in other respects than those which I have announced. I do not accept the proposals for rearrangement made by the Centre for Policy Studies. If other suggestions are made by hon. Members for looking at the way in which we consider the figures in order to make them clear, we shall be ready to consider them. This month there are some on the register who are not seeking permanent employment. They do not represent such a large number as the students. However, it would be difficult to differentiate. As the hon. Gentleman rightly indicated, there are some who could come in that category. But it would not be right for the House to judge that there could be any great reductions in the unemployment figures as suggested by the Centre for Policy Studies. I repudiate that suggestion altogether. That would be misleading the House and the country.

Could not the right hon. Gentleman approach the problem more constructively in view of what has been suggested by the Conservative Opposition Front Bench? Now mat both the major parties agree that unemployment is good for us, should he not accept the invitation to fiddle the figures so that future Governments can be absolved from responsibility for dealing with the problem?

I do not think that unemployment is good for anybody, including me. It is an appalling business, as the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well. I think that he made a joke in very poor taste.

If we accept, as I think we should, that today is not the time to go into the unemployment figures, as they have not yet been published, does not that lead us to ask my right hon. Friend to make a statement tomorrow so that his statement on unemployment and what the Secretary of State for Education and Science will be announcing later today can be considered in questions to him tomorrow afternoon?

It is not normal for statements to be made when the unemployment figures are published. I made a statement to the House when the figures rose most spectacularly in November last year. Whether it would be wise or right to have a statement every month on unemployment figures is a matter which the Government are prepared to consider if hon. Members wish it. I agree that the figures are so serious that we should constantly debate them in this House, whether or not we have replies to questions on days when the figures are announced.

Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the answer that he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham and Crawley (Mr. Hordern)? His announcement today represents a welcome improvement in the presentation of the figures but a great deal more needs to be done, especially in differentiating between the long-term unemployed and those unemployed for such a short time.

I think that the figures now give the clearest picture. If we can make further improvements we shall give those matters consideration. I make it clear that I do not accept the proposals of the Centre for Policy Studies. I do not accept that the figures it lists give an accurate impression of unemployment totals. I am ready to consider any suggestions for further improvements in the figures. I repudiate the recommendations of the Centre for Policy Studies, which I think are misleading.

Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that some of us feel that while the figures are abnormally high it would do the Government good for the Minister responsible to come to the Dispatch Box whenever necessary to try to explain why such extraordinary totals have been reached? Does he accept that while he may be spiriting away a few thousand students from the list, it will need more than spiritualism to get rid of £1½ million currently unemployed? That will need some positive action from the Government of which my right hon. Friend is a member.

I am not talking about spiriting away any people or figures from the unemployment total. I am proposing—I think that the House will accept this—a commonsense way of presenting these serious figures. I agree that unemployment is the most serious problem facing the country. My hon. Friend knows perfectly well that I have never run away from any debate or discussion in the House, and I do not propose to start doing so now. I am prepared to discuss these matters if the House wishes discussion to take place.

I think that the House will recognise that the right hon. Gentleman was right to make his statement, and it was characteristic of him that he did so, but will he explain why his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science was not prepared to make a statement on a matter of considerable importance, a matter which has a considerable bearing on what the right hon. Gentleman has been saying, bearing in mind that the right hon. Gentleman has himself made a statement?

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he has said. I do not accept any reflection on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. The proposals that my right hon. Friend is making for an alteration in the arrangements for students' grants will not come into operation until the next academic year. Therefore, the House will have the fullest opportunity for any discussions in which it may wish to engage. I believe that the more the House considers these matters, the more it will recognise that the combined statements represent the commonsense approach to the problem.

As the unemployment statistics are a most important indicator for determining Government policy, does my right hon. Friend accept that we welcome the fact that the figures will be more accurate even though we deplore the present unemployment levels? We deplore the Government's refusal to listen to the words that have come from my hon. Friends and from the TUC.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that in determining Government policy it is more important to consider the loss of job opportunities in many areas rather than the level of unemployment statistics? Will he urge his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry to take that factor into account when determining such matters as development area status in North-East Lancashire?

I agree that it is not only unemployment statistics but the loss of job opportunities that has to be taken into account. There is no dispute between us on that. I come from an area which suffers serious unemployment and a great loss of job opportunities. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about that. My hon. Friend suggested that we do not listen to the views of members of the TUC, but I have listened to them on quite a number of occasions. In fact, I listened to them again this morning. The Government will take the fullest account of the representations that they have made.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the unemployment figures that will be published tomorrow, although showing a reduction on last month, will show a substantial increase when compared with the comparable month of last year? Does he agree that that is the relevant comparison? Will this fact be made clear when the figures are published?

The figures will show the comparisons as they have done previously. Anyone can make comparisons between a year ago or any other period. Although the removal of the number of students applying for supplementary benefit will appear in the statement, that removal will not alter in any way the seasonally adjusted figure for unemployment. That is the true figure to be taken into account. Students have always been excluded from that figure. It would be right for the House and the country to pay chief attention to the seasonally adjusted figure, which is the most accurate figure.

Will my right hon. Friend give the House an assurance that the seasonally adjusted figure on the new basis will be published for past months so mat we can judge the true current trend in unemployment? Is my right hon. Friend aware that the numbers of unemployed for periods longer than six months are already published every quarter, and that those who are unemployed for more than four weeks are published every month?

We publish very full figures. No attempt is made to suppress them. If the House wants to make comparisons with earlier periods the figures will be published. What I have said makes no difference to the seasonally adjusted figure.

I wish to raise a point of order, Mr. Speaker, relating to the conduct of the Secretary of State for Employment. Last week the right hon. Gentleman repudiated the charges that I made in an Oral Question, in which I gave the correct figures for unemployment in job creation terms in and on Merseyside. Those figures were repudiated by the right hon. Gentleman. He said that they were incorrect. Subsequent to that I wrote the right hon. Gentleman two letters, having obtained the figures from his Department, pointing out that the matters should be corrected in Hansard. That has not been done. To add insult to injury, in the Daily Telegraph on Saturday the chief civil servant in charge of the job creation programme wrote:

The content of Ministers' replies is the responsibility of Ministers and has nothing to do with the Chair. That has often been said.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As far as I know, I received no notification from the hon. Gentleman that he proposed to raise this matter in the House. If he wanted to do so, I think that he should have let me know.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not ask the right hon. Gentleman to answer this point now, but perhaps he will investigate the remark that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Steen) alleges came from a civil servant. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will agree that such a comment would be highly improper.

I shall not comment until I know the full circumstances. I shall have to ascertain whether the Press report is correct. As I have said, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Steen) gave me no notice that he was to raise the matter in the House. I should have thought that the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) would wish to repudiate that conduct.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker——

I have ruled on this point. In fact, it is not a point of order but is a matter of dispute between two parties.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker——

Is the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) raising a new point of order?

I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) wishes to raise a new aspect.

There must be something wrong with my eyes. I am addressing the hon. Member for Gillingham.

It is a related matter, Mr. Speaker, and perhaps it is for your guidance. There have been complaints from the right hon. Gentleman——

Order. It is not fair to take the time of the House unless it is a genuine point of order.

My point arises from the right hon. Gentleman's answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Steen). Surely it should be put on record that, in the opinion of many of us, no one has done more to help the job creation programme than my hon. Friend.

In raising this matter, Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to criticise the judiciary. My purpose is to ask you whether a breach of privilege is involved as a result of an order which has been imposed by a judge, and, if not, whether the importance of the precedent which has been set by the order requires the consideration of the Committee of Privileges.

The matter in question arises from the following situation. On 13th January a constituent of mine, a Mr. Donald Smith, was sent to prison for contempt of a court order forbidding him from seeing his two sons. Two days later I visited him in prison, and thereafter I tabled some Early-Day Motions which became the subject of Press reports the following day. Thirteen days later my constituent was released from prison but was ordered not to have any contact with the Press on the subject of his two sons.

Last Friday, when Mr. Smith was granted custody of his two sons, the judge ruled:

"There will be an injunction restraining both parents communicating directly or indirectly to the Press, or any other media, things related to the wards of court."

I understand that counsel's opinion is that the judge's ruling means that I, as Mr. Smith's Member of Parliament, cannot speak to the Press about this subject as it would be "indirectly" discussing the children.

It is not a new thing for injunctions to be imposed restraining people from making statements, but I submit, Mr. Speaker, that an injunction of the courts which has the effect of inhibiting or regulating freedom of speech or communication between a constituent and his Member of Parliament is in a different category from any other court ruling, since it surely affects the rights, privileges and responsibilities of a Member of this House.

I believe that we have a duty not only to respond to public opinion but also to consult, discuss and, if necessary, mould it in places outside the precincts of the Palace of Westminster.

The position as I see it is that my constituent can no longer, after three and a half years of doing so, discuss his case with me. Apart from this, there are several aspects of my constituent's case which touch upon matters which have been raised in the recent Committee on One-Parent Families.

I do not believe that it is in the public interest that Members of Parliament should be prevented from making references to actual cases, especially when the demands of their constituents dictate otherwise. Nor is it right that the only forum for the discussion of public issues should be this House. For example, it would surely be rightly resented if either the Prime Minister or the Leader of the Opposition refused to make any speeches outside Parliament. The public expect speeches to be made outside Parliament.

Consequently, Mr. Speaker, I ask you for your guidance on these three points. The first is whether the matter of the judge's ruling can be investigated as a breach of parliamentary privilege. Secondly, if it cannot, can the matter be referred to the Committee of Privileges for it to consider the implications of a ruling which, in effect, prohibits free communications between a constituent and his Member of Parliament and between a Member of Parliament and the Press? Finally, now that the two boys are my constituents, as a result of the judge's order, is it a breach of privilege for the courts effectively to deny them access to their Member of Parliament or to deny their Member of Parliament access to them?

I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. Following previous practice, I shall give my ruling tomorrow.

You will recollect, Mr. Speaker, that apart from the Attorney-General I am the only remaining Member of this House who served on the Joint Committee on the Publication of Proceedings in Parliament. If the facts are as stated by the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst), I hope you will realise that he has made a very grave case indeed.