asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the latest figure for unemployment; and how this compares with the percentage in each of the EEC countries.

On 11th May there were 1,386,810 people registered as unemployed in the United Kingdom—5·8 per cent. of all employees. No fully comparable rates of unemployment are available for all EEC countries. The Statistical Office of the EEC publishes rates that have been partially standardised, but the standardisation is not sufficient to permit totally reliable comparisons to be made.

That is probably just as well. But how many more jobs will be lost over the coming months as a result of the Government's policy to push up interest rates again in order to sell enough gilts to finance their gross overspending?

With respect to the hon. Gentleman's comments, the EEC's partially standardised rates are rather favourable to us and show us as having a lower rate of unemployment than that of a number of other EEC countries. As to the Government's interest rate policy, this must be decided in the light of a number of considerations and it would not necessarily help unemployment to pursue a policy of unrealistically low interest rates.

Is my right hon Friend aware that unemployment in Norway now stands at about 1·5 per cent.?

Yes, I am aware of that, and I greatly admire that achievement, but it was done through pursuing policies which are not available to us in this country as a member of the EEC.

Although figures for unemployment in England have come down in recent months, for four of the last six months in Wales they have not. In view of this, will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider regional policy in the European context as well as in the United Kingdom context in order to overcome the problems of unemployment in Wales?

Yes, certainly, we are giving very careful consideration to regional policy and in the Department of Employment we seek special measures to strike a proper balance between those which we apply over the country as a whole and those which give preference to the regions. I have been in discussion with a number of Ministers of Labour in EEC countries with a view to seeing how far we can further this in EEC policies.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the latest published figures from the EEC show that unemployment fell by more than the average in Germany, Denmark, Holland and Luxembourg and that the United Kingdom's fall was less than the average? Is he further aware that on 23rd May his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster stated quite categorically that the Government's legislation with regard to employment, particularly the Employment Protection Act, was inhibiting employers from taking on new labour, thus leading to further unemployment?

My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster did not say that the Government's legislation or policy in respect of small firms was inhibiting employment. In fact, as the hon. Lady is well aware, I have announced in the House a small firms employment subsidy scheme which is designed to encourage small firms to increase the numbers that they employ. In fact, the rate of change of employment levels in EEC countries shows that in Belgium, Denmark, France, Italy and Luxembourg the rate of increase in unemployment has been very much higher than in the United Kingdom over the last 12 months.

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that part of our un employment problem arises from the flooding into this country of manufactures from EEC countries? Would he not further agree that some EEC countries have adopted a measure to reduce their unemployment problem which is anathema to us—that is, sending immigrant workers back?

It is certainly the case, particularly in the Federal Republic of Germany, that in spite of sending many workers back, they have still suffered a considerable fall in the number of jobs available for the home population. With regard to the amount of manufactured goods coming into this country, my right hon. Friend will be aware that we have been concerned about the operation of EEC competition policy and a number of other policies which do not appear to us to have sufficient regard for employment consequences.

Is it not a fact that, through our membership of the EEC, we have had significant help concerning training and in dealing with redundancies in basic industries? Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that a substantial part of the unemployed in this country are under the ago of 30, including school leavers of last year and the year before? Although one welcomes the measures that the Government have in hand for dealing with school leavers later this year, can the right hon. Gentleman give some assurance that the school leavers of last year and the year before who are still unemployed will get particular attention?

Not if it is left to Nicholas Ridley.

Certainly, in working with our EEC partners we have always supported policies of using EEC funds to support training schemes, particularly where they will improve the employment prospects of people in the EEC. As for the unemployed school leavers, 16 out of every 17 who left school in this country last year obtained employment. What we are seeking to do now, of course, is not only to improve upon that performance in the coming year but to give special attention to those who did not obtain jobs last year. That is why, in particular, we have provided within the special temporary employment programme for anyone unemployed for six months or more to have first call on the places provided.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many persons are currently unemployed.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what are the latest figures for unemployment; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what are the latest figures for unemployment; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the present level of unemployment.

At 11th May, 1,324,866 people were registered as unemployed in Great Britain. The seasonally adjusted level of unemployment has fallen for the eighth successive month. However, as I have told the House previously, the prospects for a major improvement depend in large part on international cooperation on economic growth. Concerted action by major industrial countries is needed, and the Government are working to achieve this. At home, the special measures are playing an important part in counteracting the worst effects of unemployment.

I shall call first those hon. Members whose Questions are being answered.

Does the Secretary of State agree that 1,324,866 is an appalling figure? Now that Britain is getting big revenue from North Sea oil, what possible excuse is there for the Government to run the economy so badly that there are still almost 1⅓ million people unemployed?

Certainly the figure is appalling, and I welcome the hon. Member's support for the use of North Sea oil revenues for measures to increase employment levels. On the actual numbers employed in this country, the Government's record compares favourably with that of a number of other countries and it also compares favourably with the way in which this country was run between 1971 and 1973.

Nothwithstanding what the Secretary of State has said about international factors, does he not agree that unless the Government give greater inducements to British industry to become more profitable we cannot reverse the underlying trend towards increasing unemployment in manufacturing industry?

I certainly agree that the Government must give a great deal of direct support and encouragement to British industry, both to workers and to management. That is largely the purpose of developing the industrial strategy and of the Industry Act and a number of other measures to support that strategy.

When will the unemployment level fall below 1 million, and when will it fall to the level at which it stood in February 1974?

Like my predecessors, I do not engage in forecasts of unemployment levels, but if we achieve that level by December it will be very welcome and none too early.

We all welcome the continued fall in the number of unemployed. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the outlook for Western economies is not particularly bright in the immediate future and, therefore, it is all the more important to extend the measures that he has already introduced? What is his Department's present thinking on work-sharing programmes, and will he consider extending even further the job release scheme?

I agree that the immediate outlook in a number of European countries is not particularly bright. This makes necessary the extension of special measures of support for employment. To that end, we have already announced measures which should bring the total support up to 400,000 jobs by next Easter.

On work sharing, we agree that there is a real need for this in certain industries and we have introduced special measures of support for short-time working in the clothing, textile and footwear industries. We have recently extended the job release scheme so that it has nationwide application, and there is an increase in the payment of the job release allowance. All these are measures which have to be kept under continuous review and development and which can play a very important part in reducing unemployment.

Will my right hon. Friend accept that some of us at least are delighted to see a small fall in the figures? We agree with him that it will take international co-operation to reduce these figures further.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that there is precious little evidence that West Germany is prepared to go along with his opinion and take those steps which are absolutely necessary if we are to reduce the level of unemployment, not only in this country but throughout the Common Market?

I agree that last month's fall was a relatively small one. The more significant thing is that it was a continuation of a fall which has been taking place for the seven previous months.

I agree that the attitude of the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany is a very important factor in the EEC discussions. I had that very much in view in a whole day of talks with Dr. Ehrenberg last Thursday, which I hope will be reflected in a greater measure of agreement at the next tripartite confrence.

Will the Secretary of State commission an independent inquiry into the effect of the Employment Protection Act 1975 on the present levels of unemployment? When its report is produced, will the right hon. Gentleman publish it?

I have commissioned such a review of the effect of the Act, and I hope to have it available for publication by the end of this month.

I welcome the immense amount of money that the Government are making available to stimulate employment in the public as well as the private sector, but does not my right hon. Friend agree that it is a paradox that so much money should be spent while there is underspending, particularly by some Tory local authorities which are refusing to spend money which has been allocated to them? Does he agree that where there are shortages of manpower in many of the public services we need to have a big increase in public spending in order to provide people with employment?

I certainly agree that public expenditure must be planned with a view to our employment needs as well as the needs of the customers of the services. To this extent I agree entirely with my hon. Friend that it is tragic that local authorities, some of which are very critical of the Government, have underspent considerably in areas where there would be considerable scope for improving local services and increasing employment.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the multinational firm of National Cash Registers in Dundee has announced redundancies because of transfer of work to Augsburg in Germany? As this firm has reduced its manpower from about 7,000 to less than 1,000 over eight years, may I ask whether the Government have considered entering into any planning agreements with multinational firms in order to try to secure employment among workers in Scotland?

The Government, as I think the hon. Gentleman is aware, have been very keen to secure planning agreements on a voluntary basis with a large number of companies, both national and multinational. I very much welcome what I take to be the hon. Gentleman's support for our seeking to press that policy with a view to protecting the interests of his constituents and many others whose jobs may be at stake.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he is satisfied with the preparations being made for the implementation of the regulations concerning workers' safety representatives on 1st October 1978.

I am informed by the chairman of the Health and Safety Commission that responsibility for the implementation of these regulations rests with employers and the independent trade unions they recognise. While I am aware that many are preparing themselves for their implementation and some have already reached agreement, the Commission, my right hon. Friend and I have been encouraging those who have not yet started to do so immediately.

Would my hon. Friend care to elaborate on that statement by distinguishing between the preparations in the public sector and those in the private sector? Is he satisfied with the preparations being made for the implementation of these regulations in the public sector?

I am certainly satisfied that all public sector bodies have now either reached agreement with their recognised unions about the arrangements to be made or else are in active consultation about them. If, as I think, my hon. Friend is concerned about the resources question, I would say that we believe that it can be done adequately within existing resources in the public sector—not without problems and some reordering of priorities—but we still have a constraint on resources and extra money spent here would mean less for other equally desirable activities.

Since it is hoped that safety representatives will fulfil a vital role in reducing accidents, what information do the Government have about the amount of training that the newly appointed representatives will have received? Are the Government satisfied with the level of training being given?

Most of the training is being done under the auspices of the TUC. The safety representatives will, of course, be officials of their unions, and the Employment Protection Act gives the TUC and the independent unions the right to determine the standards of training. The TUC is doing a great deal in this respect, so we need have no fears on that ground.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what further discussion he has had with the International Labour Organisation since his reply to the hon. Member for Blackpool, South on 4th April—Official Report, c. 226—about the recognition by the International Labour Organisation of the Association of Free Trade Union Workers in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

The ILO has confirmed that its established procedures are available for the examination of allegations of infringement of the right of workers to establish and join trade unions as expressly provided for in the Freedom of Association and Collective Bargaining Convention (No. 87) which has been ratified by the USSR. An investigation under these procedures has now been initiated.

Does that carry us much further forward compared with the position two months ago when the Minister answered a Question on this subject? Since this matter is becoming more urgent because of the evidence which has come in of increasing harassment of the members of the association, is it not possible either for the TUC or for the Government to make sure that the matter is put on the agenda of the ILO meeting which is to take place this month?

First of all, there is considerable progress in this matter; this is a positive step forward which has been taken. It would be wrong for the United Kingdom Government as a member of the ILO to try in any way to short circuit the procedures of the ILO and to prejudge the issue. In any part we play, particularly within the governing body, the United Kingdom representatives will be aware of the views expressed in this House and of the Government's total opposition to the suppression of human rights wherever that occurs, and will especially be aware of our fundamental rejection of the misuse of psychiatric treatment or other forms of punishment in the ways alleged in this case.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the National Union of Railwaymen, the National Union of Mineworkers, NALGO, the AUEW and other unions have raised this question and are very concerned about it? Is he also aware that this matter is on the agenda of the Labour Party national executive, that the TUC general council has written to the Soviet trade unions about it and that, whatever the reply is, we are deeply concerned about this whole question? But is my hon. Friend also aware that some Conservative Members are concerned to attack what happens in the Soviet Union but do not defend the rights of Chilean workers, Iranian workers or others in different parts of the world who are equally concerned with trade union rights in their countries?

Yes, I am well aware of the facts that my hon. Friend mentioned at the start of his question. Also, the TUC is a leading affiliate of the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions, which lodged a formal complaint with the ILO about this matter. I very much agree with the latter part of my hon. Friend's question.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what measures he intends to take to reduce unemployment amongst disabled young people.

I am informed by the Manpower Services Commission that the measures previously announced to reduce unemployment among disabled people should benefit disabled young people equally. Specifically, consideration is being given to developing special projects for disabled young people under the new special programmes which came into force in April. It is also intended to expand the work preparation courses and short assessment courses provided especially for disabled young people at employment rehabilitation centres.

Will my hon. Friend accept that, although we all welcome the special provision being made within the youth opportunities scheme for disabled young people, their employment opportunities can be significantly improved only if the Manpower Services Commission adopts a much more urgent attitude towards the implementation and enforcement of the disabled employment quota? Will he impress on the MSC that that is absolutely vital?

I do not think that the quota is relevant here, although it is due for review in the fairly near future when the present positive policy has had rather more time to take effect. The MSC is particularly conscious of the importance of meeting the needs of disabled young people and has set up a special working group to look into ways in which their needs can be met and to try to develop more practical proposals for ensuring a fair share of job opportunities for disabled young people.

In a week which has been designated National Access Week for the disabled, can the Minister outline what is being done in Government Departments to employ young disabled people? Has any survey been done within the Depart- ment of Employment itself which shows the level of its employment of disabled young people?

On Government Departments, I do not think that I can add to what I have said before in relation to the quota. However, I am grateful to the hon. Lady for mentioning National Access Week, because it allows me to welcome the steps taken in this respect by my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for the disabled and to draw the attention of employers to the capital grants scheme, which has been sorely ignored by employers so far. We have spent only £11,000 out of nearly £500,000 allocated for the scheme. That would certainly afford further access to employment for disabled young people as well as other disabled people.

Bearing in mind the fact that the aim of most countries is the integration of the disabled in normal life, may I ask the Minister what are the special projects to which he referred?

There is a whole list of them. If I may, I should like to write to the hon. Gentleman with the details.

In view of the high number of disabled young people who are workless, when will the MSC's plans, good as they are, be translated into action?

I could go on at length about the activities of the MSC in respect of the disabled, particularly disabled young people, and its proposals in respect of employment rehabilitation centres. However, it would take up too much time to deal with those matters now, and I should prefer to write to my hon. Friend.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what are the procedures currently in operation in his Department for monitoring the extension of closed shop agreements in the public sector.

My Department does not monitor the establishment or operation of closed shop agreements in either the public or private sectors.

May we take it from the hon. Gentleman's reply that the Minister does not realise that 42 former employees of British Rail, some of them with more than 30 years' service, have been dismissed without compensation, solely because they refused to join a union? Will he take this opportunity of confirming that he agrees with what the Prime Minister said in the House on 4th April—namely that he would find it unacceptable that people should be dismissed from employment because of their political views, however objectionable those views might be?

I would not dream of dissenting from anything my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said. The employees to whom the hon. Gentleman referred have not been dismissed for their political views, nor is the situation as simple and crude as he makes out. There are difficulties, and I hope that where union membership agreements are entered into they will be operated flexibly and tolerantly.

Will my hon. Friend accept that the Opposition's constant harping on this subject is another indication of their cynical opportunism in that although, on the one hand, they assert in the name of freedom the right of an individual to be employed in a closed shop, on the other hand they condemn those workers and ask for the trade unions to impose discipline on those who go on unofficial strike?

On the many occasions when we have discussed these matters relating to the closed shop, the House will have observed the Opposition's lack of concern about those who are denied the right to join a trade union and those who wish to exercise their functions as trade union members. I hope that the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) will read the speech of Mr. David Basnett, who said that in pursuing the subject of the closed shop the Opposition are engaging in naked political opportunism.

Is the Minister aware that one very good reason for changing his staggeringly complacent attitude on this subject is the fact that the European Court of Human Rights has now agreed to hear what could be the tremendously historic case of Webster v. the United Kingdom on the grounds that a prima facie case has now been made out that the closed shop dismissals of British Rail employees, to which my hon. Friend referred, may be a violation of fundamental human rights and perhaps of the treaty which Her Majesty's Government have now signed? Will the Minister think again?

We are considering the implications of this narrow but complex matter. We are carefully studying the decision on the admissibility question, but so far the Court has not examined the merits of the issue. We must wait until we have seen the merits of the matter. Nobody has ever suggested that the Convention on Human Rights outlaws the closed shop in the way the Opposition sought to outlaw it in the Industrial Relations Act 1971, with such disastrous consequences.

In view of the gravely unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply, I give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many workers are currently covered by closed shop agreements.

Dr. W. McCarthy's study of "The Closed Shop in Britain", published in 1964, estimated that at that time about 3¾ million workers were covered by closed shop agreements. Reliable estimates are not available for subsequent years, but my Department has recently commissioned research which is designed in part to provide up-to-date information about the present extent of closed shop agreements.

Can the Minister confirm that in the negotiating arrangements for the closed shop with the Civil Service the Government are insisting on certain safeguards? Will the Government arrange for these safeguards to be put into a code of practice so that all employees, in both the public and the private sectors, can enjoy the same protection?

I tell the hon. Member and the House for the umpteenth time—at great public expense—that we believe that the matter of the closed shop and the precise form of the arrangements are matters for agreement and negotiation between the employer and the trade unions concerned. The Government are an employer, but it does not follow that the appropriate arrangements for a union membership agreement between the Government, as an employer, and their employees are of universal application. These arrangements are a matter for negotiation in the public sector, as in the private sector, and negotiations are currently continuing with the Lord Privy Seal and the Minister of State, Civil Service Department, who are responsible for the union arrangements in the Civil Service at present.

Did the figure of 3¾ million referred to in 1964 include lawyers, doctors and Church of England vicars?

I must confess that I am not familiar with the details in the professions to which my hon. Friend has referred.

Is the Minister aware that the continuous weasel words that he uses on this issue and his failure still to show how his supposed neutrality varies from that of Pontius Pilate destroy any claim that his Government have of being concerned about the individual rights of workers? Is he aware that the contribution by Mr. David Basnett at his union conference yesterday about the Conservative policy on this issue was a gross and grave misrepresentation? We are concerned about protecting the rights of individuals who are caught up in such agreements.

I think the House will feel that the role of a Roman governor is a most unlikely one for me. I try to handle this difficult and sensitive issue in an equally sensitive way, which contrasts with the crude approach of the Conservatives. They fail to face up to the inevitable consequences of the policy that they have openly declared of providing certain safeguards—a policy which must inevitably take them down the same road as had such disastrous consequences in 1972 and which produced the worst industrial relations record for any year since the General Strike. That is the road on which Conservatives want to embark yet again. Only fools fail to learn from their own experience.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment when he next expects to meet the chairman of the Manpower Services Commission.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment when he next plans to meet the chairman of the Manpower Services Commission.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment when he will meet next the chairman of the Manpower Services Commission.

I am in constant touch with the chairman of the Manpower Services Commission.

In one of the moments when the right hon. Gentleman is in touch, will he consider the problems of those over the age of 40 who are now unemployed? Much of the work of the Commission is related to young people out of work, but unemployment among the over-40s is a growing and considerable problem. Will he consider what is being done in that area?

The hon. Gentleman will be glad to know that, with unusual foresight, I anticipated his question. I discussed the matter with the chairman of the Manpower Services Commission two months ago. At my suggestion, the Commission has in hand a study of the problems of older unemployed people. It is attempting to implement a pilot scheme to see whether there are any counselling aids that can be brought to bear on the problem. I expect to have a report from the MSC, which has considered this subject in depth, by the early autumn.

As labour shortages are beginning to appear in skillcentres in the electrical engineering section of the car industry, resulting in intense competition for labour, will the Secretary of State ask the chairman of the MSC how the Commission intends to overcome the shortage of technicians and supervisors in order that the youth opportunities programme can get off the ground in September?

The chairman of the MSC has had discussions with the chairmen of all the industrial training boards. I have considered with him the way in which the industrial training boards can best assess the future skill needs of the respective industries. We must accept that anything we can do in the next year will be by way of first aid to remedy failures and to make the decisions which should have been taken four or five years ago to step up industrial training at that time. We shall do as much as we can within the training opportunities scheme in particular, and we should extend current courses supported through the industrial training boards. But I am afraid that in respect of the higher skills such action will not have a great deal of bearing on immediate shortages.

Will the right hon. Gentleman discuss with the chairman of the MSC contingency plans for dealing with the situation under which young people, having undertaken the maximum of a year's course under the youth opportunities programme, may, as a result of factors such as the state of the economy and continuing trends towards automation, find themselves still largely unskilled and totally unemployed?

That matter is within the area of the broader discussions with the Commission, but some of the measures we are taking to ensure jobs for young people when they complete their youth opportunities programme courses are the direct responsibility of my Department and are not run by the Commission. Such schemes as the job release scheme and the small firms employment subsidy, which will make more jobs available for young people, are a complement to the youth opportunities programme.

When my right hon. Friend next meets the Chairman of the MSC, will he ask what he is doing about those expensively situated job shops and jobcentres in city centre premises and what he intends to do to open them on Saturdays?

The chairman of the MSC and all the commissioners are keeping under constant surveillance the way in which they can best serve those who are seeking to obtain or change jobs through the jobcentres. My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that they have a much better record than the old exchanges which they replaced.

Since the by-elections a, Hamilton and Garscadden show that the people have more faith in the Labour Government in solving the problem of unemployment than they have in any other Government, will my right hon. Friend recognise that unemployment is still the main problem that faces the nation? Therefore, when he next meets the chairman of the MSC will he have a long discussion with him to get the youth opportunities programme off the ground so that we may make an immediate effort to get young people out of the dole queues and into jobs?

Yes. This is a matter I have discussed with the chairman of the MSC. He spends a great deal of his time in ensuring that the various area boards of the youth opportunities programme have maximum support from the Commission and that they will achieve the very high targets which have been set for the programme.

Will the Minister ask the chairman of the MSC to give serious consideration to the proposition which I put to him that the sea defences at the village of Salthouse and other places in the United Kingdom should qualify as projects suitable for job creation? Is he aware of the ludicrous situation which exists within one mile of Salthouse where the MSC is helping to re-lay a model steam railway yet refuses to assist in sea defence work?

I shall look into the particular case that the hon. Member has mentioned. I shall do so with keen interest because I have a sea defences problem in my constituency which might be solved by the same means.

The main reason why we distinguish in the new youth opportunities programme between job creation schemes which we are now reserving mainly for adults and schemes which are training projects is that we believe it is necessary to have a higher educational and training content in the schemes for unemployed school leavers.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the problem of redundant middle-aged workers has been apparent for a long time? The Manpower Services Commission should be doing more than looking into it. It should be taking action, particularly on the difficulties of contracts of employment, which often operate against middle-aged workers.

I share my hon. Friend's concern. Because the Manpower Services Commission—for the best possible motive—does not want to label any particular group of people as long-term unemployed, it has hesitated in tackling this problem before. I have discussed this matter with the chairman. This is something upon which the Commission is acting with the facilities it has available and for which it will produce some proposals as a result of a full survey of the problem.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many disabled persons received help in 1977 from the Manpower Services Commission in order to get to work; and what was the average amount of help given.

I am informed by the Manpower Services Commission that in 1977 210 applications were approved for help to be given with the cost of travel to work, at an average weekly amount of £10·20.

Is the Minister aware that, in the conditions of high unemployment that we have been discussing, the disabled worker is particularly disadvantaged? Is he aware that one of his biggest problems is that of getting to work and that the mobility allowance, welcome though it is, is not always adequate? Will he talk to the Manpower Services Commission and try to make better use of this facility, because the figures that he has given are frighteningly small?

I have a great deal of sympathy with the hon. Member's point. There will be a revised fares-to-work scheme which will be introduced on 5th July to coincide with the next uprating in the mobility allowance. This will mean roughly a 75 per cent. contribution towards the cost of taxi travel to work, and it will not be means-tested like the present scheme. The new scheme will be much more flexible in its application, many more people will benefit and it will be available to people in both open and sheltered employment. We intend that the spending on the scheme will be trebled between 1977–78 and 1978–79.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what action he intends to take to further employment opportunities for skilled engineers.

The strengthening of a wide range of industry through the industrial strategy should improve employment prospects for skilled engineers. In addition, the temporary employment subsidy has done much to prevent the dispersal of skilled work forces. The small firms employment subsidy, which is to be extended in July, should also help to increase employment in small manufacturing firms.

Is the Minister aware, however, that the industrial strategy and the Government's incomes policy, and all the other things he has mentioned, are having the effect of causing skilled engineers quite simply to seek work abroad and that the British aerospace industry has now become one of the primary recruiting grounds for this process?

Is the Minister further aware that a silent crisis is developing among skilled engineers in this country? In spite of the Government's words today on various matters, what will the Minister do to protect the seed corn of the country's economic recovery, if and when it comes?

I certainly would not accept what the hon. Gentleman said in the first part of his question. The industrial strategy and the pay policy have done much to bring about the available economic indicators, which I am sure the whole House welcomes.

As to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question, he will know that a commission has been set up by the Government and is looking into the engineering industry. In addition to that, the Engineering Industry Training Board has put forward new radical and far-reaching proposals for consideration by the engineering industry about ways to reduce apprenticeship periods and to step up the quality of training.

asked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 6th June.

This morning I greeted the Prime Minister of India on is arrival for an official visit to this country. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall later today be having talks with Mr. Desai and tonight I shall be host at a dinner in his honour.

Since his return to this country, has the Prime Minister had an opportunity of looking at last week's issue of The Economist, which published a Tory plan for conflict and confrontation in public industry? Does he not agree that the Leader of the Opposition owes it to the public and to workers in the public sector to make clear whether she supports those bizarre proposals?

I am sure that the Opposition will make their position clear, but if they are drawing up battle plans for future industrial conflict I can only say that that is in contradistinction to what the Government are doing, namely, to try to promote industrial cooperation at all levels. That is why we are increasingly getting support from both sides of industry.

If the Prime Minister wishes to talk about party policy documents, will he say whether he endorses the Labour Party's programme, passed by his own Labour Party conference, to nationalise building, banking, insurance, land and 32 major private companies?

There seems to be—[AN HON. MEMBER: "Answer 'Yes' or 'No'."] I shall answer in my own way and in my own time. There seems to be an early outbreak of party skirmishing now that we have come back. I was trying to divert it into the more peaceful channels of indicating what the Government were doing to promote cooperation. Our programme will appear in due course and it will utterly satisfy the nation. I have no doubt about that.

As usual, the Prime Minister is trying to avoid answering the question. Will he now answer it? Does he endorse that document or not?

As the right hon. Lady well knows, I have no responsibility at this Dispatch Box for party documents, but I am very happy at any time to answer for Government policy. Government policy will be enunciated by me through the Cabinet at all times to the complete satisfaction of the right hon. Lady.

Will my right hon. Friend contact the Soviet authorities today and indicate to them the continued sense of outrage about the trial and sentence of Yuri Orlov? Will he also indicate that the possible further trials of dissidents Shcharansky and Ginsburg will be in clear breach of the Helsinki Final Act and can do nothing but undermine the support in the West for detente?

The NATO conference last week expressed its concern about human rights, the infringement of which is bound to jeopardise the improvement in detente. As my hon. Friend knows, I have expressed this view on behalf of the Government frequently and regularly. We are deeply concerned about the need for respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. But I do not believe that a public approach by me to the Soviet Union today would help in that matter.

asked the Prime Minister when he next intends to meet President Husak of Czechoslovakia.

I have no plans to meet President Husak of Czechoslovakia.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Czech civil rights movement has appealed directly to the Socialist International for help and that we all hope that all leading members of the Socialist International will make their views know, even if privately, to President Husak? Is my right hon. Friend heartened, as I am, that those who have to fight for the classic human freedoms recognise who their friends are and are not taken in by the kinds of smears against Socialists in this country that we constantly got from the gang of four on the Conservative Benches?

I am aware that an approach has been made, with a direct appeal for support from Social Democrats who recently signed "A Hundred Years of Socialism in Czechoslovakia", although I have not received it directly. If I do so, I shall be happy to render what assistance I can.

Is the Prime Minister aware that his reluctance to criticise the Governments of the Soviet bloc in public contrasts very strikingly with his eagerness to criticise in public the Government of the United States?

That is an unusual inversion of matters. In fact, had the hon. Gentleman been present at the NATO conference he would have heard everything that I said about the Soviet Union on that occasion. It was widely reported.

May we on this side congratulate the Prime Minister upon the words of sense about Africa at the NATO conference which defused the hysteria which was becoming endemic in the Western world? As a result, that has made a significant contribution to peace in that continent.

I am much obliged to my hon. Friend. There is a clear attitude by all the countries of the West about affairs in Africa, but no clear policy has yet evolved. That is something which we must continue to work on.

Does not the Prime Minister realise that, at a time when the United States, for the first time for some years, is becoming aware of the full responsibilities of the West to the African continent, it is unfortunate that it should be the British Prime Minister who appears to be the only Western leader trying to point the West in the opposite direction?

In fact, my views received very widespread support from the members of NATO. They were not designed to close anyone's eyes to the threats in Africa that arise from forces from other countries, either actual or threatened. What I was trying to do, and what I hope the Opposition may do, is to realise that some of the issues involved there go far deeper than that of an East-West confrontation. They arise out of basic problems in Africa which we left behind and problems which the French and the Belgians left behind. I think that the Organisation of African Unity was quite right to establish the principle—I hope it can carry it out—that there should be no outside interference, that the countries themselves should settle their own disputes and that as far as possible they should settle them peacefully. That is what I was concerned to point out, and it received widespread support in the United States and elsewhere.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that most of us on this side of the House will be absolutely delighted with the statement that he has made? Is he also aware that the CIA has played a very disreputable role with regard to Africa? Had the CIA not involved itself in Angola and had not Mr. Stockwell's references—now published in a book—been exposed to the world, it is quite clear that the Cubans would not have been in Africa. Therefore, the basic responsibility for what has happened with regard to the Cubans in Africa is that of the CIA.

I am aware of these charges. In due course history will no doubt adjudicate upon them. At the moment, it should be in the interests of the whole of the world to avoid Africa becoming a scene of East-West collision leading to a third world war. It should be our policy not to encourage forces from both sides entering that continent again.

asked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 6th June.

I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Madden).

Will my right hon. Friend give some priority to considering what action the Government can take to avert an increase in building society mortgage rates? Does he accept that such an increase would be very damaging to family budgets? Will the Government tell the building societies quite clearly that a rise in interest rates, at a time when they are holding very large reserves and when they are benefiting from tax cuts, would be quite unjustified and unacceptable?

I recognise that any increase in building society rates would be unacceptable and an additional burden on householders. Nevertheless, if the building societies themselves reach this conclusion I would not wish to stop them from doing it, although I would regret it. It seems to me that it is important that they should maintain their own balances properly and take whatever steps are necessary to achieve that. That is in line with the Government's policy of keeping all these matters of interest rates and other things, such as monetary supply, under control.

Among his official engagements today, will the Prime Minister give attention to the steady fall since Budget Day in the international value of the £ sterling and of our foreign exchange reserves? Will he tell us when the Government intend to announce the measures necessary to reverse these threatening trends?

The hon. Gentleman is an expert on City matters. He therefore knows that it would be quite improper for me to make any statement of a general nature about the position of sterling. What is quite clear is that the Government's policy is to ensure that by a combination of fiscal and monetary measures there will be an insurance, together with some continued moderation in wage claims and settlements, to enable us to maintain the level of inflation where it is now. I would like to see it come down, but I doubt whether that is likely. It will range between 7 per cent. and 8 per cent. But if we follow the policy that we intend to follow I see no reason why it should ever get back to double figures.

Since considerable sums of public money in relation to grant may be involved, can the Prime Minister in his own time and in his own way give his attention to the suspension of operations by the Cromarty Firth Development Company? Could a statement perhaps be made tomorrow by a Government Minister?

My hon. Friend was kind enough to warn me that he would raise this matter. I have already apprised the Secretary of State for Scotland of his views and I am sure that he will take into account my hon. Friend's request.

judging by the Prime Minister's earlier reply to his hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Madden), he is an avid reader of The Economist. Presumably, therefore, he thinks that the opinions of that magazine are worth paying attention to. Can he say what action he intends to take in the light of the recent opinion poll published by The Economist which showed that the vast majority of the British public was in favour of proportional representation?

I was very interested to read that. I look forward with interest to seeing whether it appears in the manifesto of the Conservative Party.

asked the Prime Minister when he expects next to pay an official visit to Splott.

I did so on 29th May and will do so again on 16th June.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer. When he next goes to this particularly important part of the world, will he take the opportunity to make a speech—which will doubtless be widely reported and read and heard by the people of Ladywood in Birmingham—pointing out the dilemma with which this country may well be faced in the event of the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition being asked to form a Government and how the economic policies being pursued by the Government reflect the views of the British people in contrast to those proposed by the right hon. Lady?

I shall certainly do that. My constituents are well aware of the situation. On the whole, I do not think it is worth while spending too much time on the phantasmagoria that my hon. Friend conjures up.

asked the Prime Minister when he last met the Trades Union Congress.

I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Dean) on 25th May.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that very helpful answer. Will he meet the TUC very soon and discuss with it the very serious problems of unemployment and the fact that the TUC believes that there ought to be a great increase in public expenditure in order to provide employment? Will he also take the opportunity to discuss with the TUC the ways in which local authorities have underspent on budgets for which money is already available, in order to ensure that they take up that money and provide more employment?

My hon. Friend will have heard the answers given this afternoon by the Secretary of State for Employment in which he showed that unemployment was steadily decreasing, although it is far too high. With regard to local authorities, that is a question of finding the revenue. That is why I am glad to see production going ahead, because that will produce the dividend we need to finance the local authorities.

If the Prime Minister has a meeting soon with officials of the TUC, will he see whether they can use their good offices to help resolve the dispute which is delaying equipment to the Post Office and which in itself is having a serious effect on the installation of telephones in various parts of the country?

I shall draw that matter to the attention of the Secretary of State for Industry.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that deep concern is being expressed by many trade union leaders over the confrontation policy being put forward by the Conservative Party? When he meets TUC leaders, will he tell them that the answer is to work for the return of a Labour Government with a good working majority when the opportunity arises?

I believe that the Opposition need to clarify the position a little, although that is not for me. I do not think that a policy of "If you have a weak union, bash it; if you have a strong union, surrender to it" is likely to commend itself to the British people.

When the Prime Minister next meets the TUC, will he discuss with it the reasons for the shortage of skilled labour which, despite his denial of it in January, it is now clear exists throughout the economy during a time when there are 11 million unemployed? Could it be that people do not believe that it pays, in this country, to acquire skills and work hard any more?

There may be something in the hon. Gentleman's point. What we need to do is to intensify the training for skill. There is far more training for skill in this country today than there has ever been. In the past four years we have stepped it up. It does not look as if it is sufficient yet, and I am ready to consider proposals for increasing it further. As for rewards, certainly an incomes policy does not help differentials of that nature. We sometimes have to choose between varying evils, and overcoming inflation was the first priority of the Tories as well as of ourselves. The only difference is that we have been more successful.

In accordance with the undertaking which I gave to the House before we went into recess, I have a short statement to make about names added to Early-Day Motions.

I have made a thorough inquiry into the two cases in which Members' names were added incorrectly to Early-Day Motions on the Notice Paper. I should say, first, that the mistakes were made not by the printers in Her Majesty's Stationery Office but in the course of the editorial preparation of the copy for printing. I am satisfied that the mistakes were in no way motivated by malice and that they were the result of simple, human error. I have been assured by the authorities concerned that new checking processes have been instituted which should prevent a recurrence of these mistakes.

With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on my visits last week to Washington for the North Atlantic Council meeting, and to New York to address the United Nations Special Session on Disarmament. Copies of the NATO communiqué, with accompanying documents on the NATO study of East-West relations, and on the Long-Term Defence Programme, and of my speech to the United Nations, have been placed in the Library.

The North Atlantic Council meeting took place against a background of concern about world economic problems and about the state of East-West relations. There was agreement that the strength of our defence in NATO is related to the strength of our economies, and on the need for the major industrial nations at the forthcoming summit at Bonn to stimulate economic recovery.

Our discussion of East-West relations was based on a study undertaken since our meeting in London last year. The communiqué makes clear that we remain determined

"to pursue as constructive and positive a relationship as possible with the Soviet Union and the other East European countries".

We discussed the reasons for the decline in confidence since the Helsinki Conference in 1975. Among them are human rights and the unacceptability of continued Soviet and Cuban exploitation of particular factors of instability in Africa.

I expressed my appreciation of the humanitarian operation which the French and Belgian Governments undertook to safeguard the lives of their and our citizens in the Shaba province of Zaire. But there is no intention that NATO should become involved in Africa. Instead, we emphasised that situations of instability and regional conflict in the developing world should not be viewed exclusively in an East-West context, and we reaffirmed the importance we attached to encouraging peaceful settlements through negotiation by the countries and regional organisations themselves.

In response to the unremitting growth in Soviet military capability, the allied leaders endorsed the results of work on the long-term defence programme which they had commissioned following President Carter's initiative at the London meeting a year ago. The alliance now has a clear guide to the improvements on which its members should concentrate and co-operate in defence plans for the years ahead. In our own case, the Government's decision, in line with others, to increase defence spending by 3 per cent. in real terms in each of the next two years enables us to play our full part in this programme, which should lead to greater co-operation in research and production between the allies.

I emphasised that both our security and good economic sense give us the strongest interest in controlling increases in armaments and securing a measure of disarmament. The NATO countries are committed to following this approach. But progress depends on a positive attitude on the part of the Warsaw Pact countries. In this connection I proposed, and it was agreed, that we should be ready to give renewed political impetus to the MBFR negotiations, by lifting these long-drawn-out negotiations to Foreign Minister level at an appropriate moment. It was also agreed, on my suggestion, that we should make fuller use of the alliance machinery for consultation on arms control and disarmament issues. This will be valuable as a means of following up the results of the United Nations Special Session on Disarmament.

In my speech to the United Nations I made clear that so long as it is necessary to strengthen our defences in the alliance we shall do so. But we should prefer, and will work for, maintaining security at diminishing levels of armed force by means of multilateral, balanced and verified agreements on arms control. We also need—and this can be done straight away —greater restraint by Governments in the use of armed force as an instrument of foreign policy. I emphasised the need for renewed efforts to bring existing negotiations to a successful conclusion.

As an earnest of our own intentions I was able to tell the Assembly that in the interests of achieving early agreement on a comprehensive test ban treaty, we were ready to put forward new proposals in the tripartite negotiations in Geneva. In my view these should open up the way to rapid progress on the outstanding issues. I stressed the central importance of a SALT II agreement if the world is to be saved from the risks of an uncontrolled nuclear arms race. I believe that such an agreement can be reached.

I also gave an outline of the new initiatives which the Government consider could be taken. These include the provision, with other nuclear Powers, of far-reaching and permanent assurances to the non-nuclear States that nuclear weapons will not be used against them; the establishment of further nuclear weapon-free zones; the encouragement of those States which prefer not to adhere to the nonproliferation treaty to accept full-scale safeguards on their nuclear facilities and how to work towards restraint of nuclear armouries in Europe.

I also put forward suggestions for improving the control of conventional armaments and for increasing regional security by such means as the further exchange of information and of observers, and technical means of surveillance; agreement on restricting conventional arms sales; and a United Nations study covering the problems of peace-keeping and of converting arms production facilities to civil purposes.

Through these and other specific, practical steps the members of the United Nations could put into effect a programme of action on which we should be called to account at a further special session which, I suggested. should take place in 1981. I found a wide measure of support for this approach, and not only from close friends and allies. Our delegation to the special session will now work to achieve a consensus on a final document which will mark our commitment, state our objectives and provide machinery for achieving a safer world.

May I put two questions to the Prime Minister, one concerning the NATO summit and the other about the United Nations Special Session on Disarmament? Why, when the United States is beginning to take the lead in pursuing a more robust policy towards Soviet expansionism in Africa, does the Prime Minister fail so pointedly to support it? Is he not aware that, by playing down the Soviet threat and failing to support a determined Western response, he is indirectly encouraging the Russians to continue their African incursions?

Secondly, I refer to the Prime Minister's speech to the Special Session on Disarmament and to that part of it in which he referred to his preference for each Government reducing its armaments as it perceived its adversary reducing its. How does the right hon. Gentleman justify the action of his Government in reducing and unilaterally cutting the United Kingdom defence budget by nearly £10,000 million?

We have already dealt with the first question during Question Time today. There is no question that the United States wishes to be directly involved in military intervention in Africa, and it is reckless of the right hon. Lady even to suggest that it might so wish. Our policies are closely related and both of us fully appreciate the nature of the Soviet threat and of the response that has to be made to it.

As regards reducing United Kingdom armaments, we have done so over a period and now we have decided that it is necessary to increase them again by 3 per cent., in line with our NATO allies—

That shows that you reduced them too much.

It shows that over the past two or three years we have been able to make an economic gain by so doing. However, we are ready to meet whatever threat arises. The Soviet Union fully understands that, but it also understands that the Government are not anti-Soviet for its own sake. We intend to live with the Soviet Union in the world and not to set up an artificial confrontation with it.

Does my right hon. Friend realise that there is strong support from Labour Benches, at any rate, for his clear recognition of the dangers of a commitment to certain African societies merely because they seem to exhibit a strong anti-Soviet line?

Yes. As I have pointed out—this was the only difference, I think, between myself and some of the American Administration, but not all of it by any means—these matters should not be construed in an East-West context exclusively. It is obvious that the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition has not read the NATO communiqué where my words are completely reproduced—namely, that these matters should not be viewed exclusively in an East-West context. If the Opposition persist in that line, they will be doing great damage to Britain as well as to their own prospects.

Was there any discussion between NATO leaders at the NATO summit with regard to Africa on the desirability of having a formal exchange of views with the Chinese on the Russian-Cuban involvement in Africa?

As for the disarmament proposals at the United Nations, will the Prime Minister give the House his view on the real impediments to the total and complete implementation of the nuclear test ban treaty?

There was no discussion about China at the NATO summit. As NATO does not propose to concern itself as an alliance with issues that are outside Europe and outside its present boundaries, whatever its involvement, there would clearly be no attempt on its part to have discussions with China.

Two issues have been standing in the way of the conclusion of a comprehensive test ban treaty. One issue is whether the treaty should be for a period or should be permanent. The second issue is that of verification—whether there should be international inspection and the question of what can be done to ensure that the treaty is being carried out. I believe that the first issue can now be settled and that the second may be overcome.

In view of my right hon. Friend's statement that NATO will not get involved in outside issues as such, will he explain the status of the talks at official level under the French aegis about Zaire and state his views on the role of Western assistance to African nations by providing permanent forces there?

The talks yesterday were called for the purpose of discussing what should be done to help Zaire's economic problems. That does not mean necessarily the existing regime, although at present that seems to be the only regime. The talks included such matters as food aid, fuel supplies, vehicles spares, medicines and longer-term economic aid. There will be another meeting on 13th June and 14th June—it was planned some time ago—in respect of longer-term assistance to Zaire.

There is no Western policy on general assistance to other African countries. There are Western attitudes, but that is a different matter. Each case will have to be considered on its merits when the time comes.

Will the Prime Minister say a word or two more about the Paris talks? Surely the talks were concerned not merely with Zaire and short-term or even long-term assistance but with whether there were feasibilities of managing to arrange a more widely representative pan-African force that would be able to intervene in situations such as that which has arisen during the past few days? The Prime Minister's remarks did not seem to give any indication that that is what took place at Paris yesterday. Surely that did take place.

I was reporting what was agreed. There was no agreement on the matter that the hon. Gentleman raises. One Government were concerned about the matter but there was no agreement on it.

Was it generally accepted that there should be no linkage between problems in Africa and developments of the SALT II talks? Is there general agreement that the delay on MBFR talks is linked with the delay on SALT talks? Does my right hon. Friend's proposal to lift MBFR talks to Foreign Minister level have broad acceptance on the Western side? Has the proposal been put to the Russians?

There is no linkage in Government policy between the general issue of detente and the completion of SALT II. The President of the United States has made clear to me and, I believe, has subsequently made public that he would not propose to delay an agreement on the present strategic arms limitation talks any longer than is necessary to iron out existing difficulties. I am sure that the House will approve of that. As for the relationship between MBFR talks and SALT II, it is fair to say that because of the concentration of the Soviet Union and the United States upon their strategic arms limitation talks we have not been able to make much progress on MBFR. We are now reaching the prospect of a successful conclusion of SALT II, which I believe will happen this year. We may now begin to raise the level of the MBFR talks. That is why I suggested that Foreign Ministers should take that in hand. There was general agreement on that proposal, and that was reflected in the communiqué.

In emphasising that the situation in Africa must not be seen in terms of an East-West conflict—

Exclusively.

—exclusively, is the Prime Minister seeking to tell the House that Russian policy in Africa is not being carried out deliberately to weaken the European strength on which Africa largely depends and thus to threaten the whole Western economy?

The right hon. Gentleman will understand why I interpolated "exclusively". These matters are not mutually exclusive. It is clear that there are severe problems in Africa, as I explained earlier at Question Time. It is also clear that the Soviet Union and the Cubans will, as always, take opportunistic advantage of the problems. It is far better for the West and other friends of Africa to devote themselves to trying to help Africa solve the basic problems than to deal with the symptoms.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that his support for the concept of a United Nations peacekeeping reserve will be much welcomed? However, is he aware that his rather half-apologetic excuse for British arms sales around the world was not so satisfactory? Will he review the Government's policy in that issue?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he says about the peacekeeping force. I made no halfhearted statements about arms sales by Britain. We account for 5 per cent. of the world's arms sales. Let those who account for 95 per cent. of arms sales account for themselves. It is true and clear, as must be apparent to my hon. Friend, that to withdraw arms sales from any particular area would not permanently leave a vacuum. It would encourage others to enter the vacuum. That is why I suggested that there should be a conference—I hope that it will be a technical conference, although it will have political overtones—between the major suppliers of arms and the recipients of arms, who are constantly asking for arms, to ascertain whether we can reach any agreement. It is a difficult matter, but we would be prepared to enter into it constructively. That is why I went on to say that we would welcome a study of how to convert some parts of our armaments production to civil uses throughout the world.

How does the Prime Minister believe that further Russian and Cuban aggression in Africa should be prevented? I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that we should pay attention to the basic causes and not to the symptoms. If that is to be our approach, may not further Cuban and Russian aggression deny us the opportunity of dealing with the basic cause?

The hon. Gentleman is drawing attention to a real dilemma. It is one from which I do not try to escape. We need the help of all—I hope not especially on a party basis—to try to solve the problem. I am trying to get some balance into the argument—at times that has been singularly missing—and to suggest in discussion with African countries—not exclusively with European countries—how we can solve these problems. I have been alarmed at the reactions of some of the African countries at what has taken place so far. I am glad that we have been able to interpolate a note of sanity.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the greatest obstacle preventing progress on balanced force reductions is the disagreement between the Powers about numbers? Therefore, will he now go all out to secure the appointment of official military observers so that there may be some basic agreement about the discussions and the numbers upon which those discussions should be based?

There is a growing exchange of observers to promote confidence building between the two sides—the Warsaw Pact and the NATO countries. We have been very glad to notify the Soviet Union of some of our own manoeuvres and it in turn has notified us of some of its. We must remember that we are living in a powder keg situation. There can be no room for taking propagandist attitudes.

On the question of numbers, we have had disclosure by the Soviet Union of the total numbers of their troops, and we have disclosed ours. But there is an inevitable argument whether they are of the same categories. I suggested to the United Nations, as one of the issues which could be followed up, complete disclosure of military budgets as a start. I do not believe that the Soviet Union and others have disclosed their budgets completely. We have. I said that we were willing to take part in a test bed experiment if a number of countries would do so in order that we could have a complete exchange of our expenditure on these matters. I have been both impressed and depressed by the consequences—the possibilities—of another arms race unless we get some agreement on these issues. That is why I am trying not to raise the temperature with the Soviet Union or anybody else, but to lower it.

At the NATO summit what emphasis did the Prime Minister put upon the threat to minerals in Southern Africa and to the sea routes round the continent of Africa?

Both of these matters were referred to.

Will my right hon. Friend consider sympathetically the French proposals for a realistic and limited approach to disarmament based on a series of regional agreements, which some of us consider more likely to be successful than the prolonged and generalised discussions which have dragged on over the years?

I understand that the French proposal is that the present talks which are going on, which concern central Europe, should be extended to cover Europe from the Urals to the Atlantic. We are having enough problems at the moment with Central Europe. I should not by any means rule out the French proposal but I do not think that it should supplant what we are trying to do now. In my speech at the United Nations I said that we should be glad to have further talks with the French Government on this matter.

Is the Prime Minister aware that it is the chronic instability of many regimes in Africa that makes so dangerous the presence there of a Communist army which is prepared to intervene on one side or another? Apart from all that waffle, what are the Prime Minister and his colleagues going to do about it?

I am aware that it is the chronic instability of a number of these regimes which is causing the problem, but it is much easier to analyse the problem than to prescribe the remedy. I should be very glad to have suggestions from the hon. Gentleman. We are continuing to study the matter.

When will you do something?

The right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition frequently has instant solutions for problems. Perhaps we shall have a referendum on this subject. What I was anxious to do and succeeded in doing last week was to point out that these were extremely complex problems and that we needed a longer time in which to decide our attitude rather than to make an instant response. That is the view that the other countries take, and that is what our present discussions are concerned with. But let there be no doubt on the part of the Soviet Union—indeed, that there is no doubt has been conveyed both publicly and privately by me—that what is happening in Africa in the build up of arms and on human rights is bound to jeopardise further progress of detente. They understand that and they, too, must take this into account.

rose—

Order. I propose to allow questions until 4 o'clock. There are two Standing Order No. 9 applications to come and a Ten-Minute Bill before we get to the main business. If those who are called will ask quick questions, I can get others in.

May not the Special Session of the United Nations be our last chance to halt the arms race? As the aim is disarmament, is it not distinctly unhelpful if, at the same moment, NATO is calling for still greater arms expenditure and some of its leaders, like the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition, are constantly sniping at detente?

I agree with my hon. Friend. I do not know whether this is the last chance, but certainly I see signs of an arms race developing. If we do not get a SALT II agreement, I think that it would be catastrophic for the economies both of the Soviet Union and of the United States. That is why I insist on the necessity for this agreement. I agree that it looks a little odd that we should be increasing our arms expenditure at this time, but the Russians understand perfectly why we are doing it. They know that there is a disparity, although they do not admit it. It is important that when we have a balance in the world, as we have at present, the Soviet Union should understand that we intend to maintain the balance, that we are willing to reduce that balance at any time, but that our will cannot be doubted about the necessity for maintaining a proper, defensive stance. We intend to do that.

Will the Prime Minister reaffirm the view that he expressed earlier—that the problems of Africa should be solved solely by the Africans? If so, what proposals will he put forward either at the United Nations or at NATO for the withdrawal of Cuban troops from Angola and Soviet troops from Ethiopia?

Yes, Sir. This is not only my view but the view of the Organisation of African Unity. It laid down this principle in the middle 1950s. I am interested to find that there is growing concern in Africa about the presence of Cuban troops. With respect, I do not need to say anything more this afternoon about my attitude on Cuban advisers or on troops in Africa. That has been made utterly clear to the Cuban Government and elsewhere. The question is, how do we persuade them to leave?

In view of the need to make it clear that we have no intention whatsoever of returning to cold war postures, will my right hon. Friend make clear to the House that it is still our intention to reduce the percentage of our GNP spent on defence at least to the average of that spent by our partners in NATO?

Yes, Sir. I should like to see us spending no more than the same percentage as our partners in NATO. Indeed, that has been one of the reasons why we have been reducing it. I cannot promise that this will continue. It depends, to some extent, on the nature of the threat. The United States, the Federal Republic of Germany and ourselves are the biggest suppliers of defence in Western Europe and we have a responsibility to bear there. But I think that the Soviet Union understands the British position on this matter, and I am happy that it does.

When the Prime Minister announced in the United Nations last week that the United Kingdom Government had decided to extend their aid expenditure by 6 per cent. per annum in each of the next four years, did he have in mind the statement made by the Foreign Secretary on 12th December that the developing nations are already spending on armaments more than three times the value of what they receive in aid? When was that decision taken and will it be reconsidered?

I am aware of and said both of those things in my speech. I pointed out that the developing countries were spending three times as much on arms—and the hon. and learned Gentleman is quite correct—as they receive in aid. That was why I thought it important that we should go ahead with discussions between the suppliers of arms and those who wish to purchase them in order to get some agreement on this matter. We shall not reconsider our decision on aid. That has already been made clear to the House, and it is for the House to adjudicate upon it.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a dangerous illusion about, particularly in the minds of Opposition Members, that any African nation which is anti-Communist is automatically democratic and virtuous? Will he dispose of that illusion instantly and remind Opposition Members that it is to the long-term advantage of the Soviet Union if we are seen to support corrupt regimes in South Africa?

Yes, Sir. I think that it is important that we should not have, I repeat, an East-West confrontation. I do not think that either side would enjoy much long-term benefit out of it, but a lot of medium-term misery would be brought to the people of Africa.

Our objective and policy—we do not yet have clear answers to all the questions—is to try to obviate the need for such confrontation by seeing how the basic causes can be removed. Some of them are long standing. It will require co-operation and initiative by the African countries themselves if we are to do that.

In the light of the successful French rescue operation of the civilians in Zaire, do the Government now have any plans to strengthen or expand Britain's paratroop capability?

The operations that the French carried out could be repeated by us if it became necessary in most of the situations that I can envisage and have been asked about.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry to raise this matter again, but again I was the only Scottish Member who stood through the entire time when questions were being asked of the Prime Minister and who was not called. We are not yet devolved and some of us are not even on drugs so perhaps more notice should be taken of the Scots.

The hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn) is suffering from an inferiority complex. It is by chance that the hon. and learned Member happened to be the last Member to be standing. I do not work out in my mind whether an hon. Member is Scottish Conservative or Scottish Labour. It is the first day back. I shall do my best for the hon. and learned Member in the distant future.

I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,

"the deportation of Mrs. Saroj Khullar."

She has a British-born child Julie, aged two years, who cannot be deported. The Home Secretary's decision to deport Mrs. Khullar after several representations gives the mother the choice between leaving her child in the United Kingdom or taking her with her to India at the State's expense.

Mrs. Khullar came to the United Kingdom on 12th February 1975 as fiancée to Sorrinder Khullar, who arrived here on 25th April 1973. On 24th February 1975 they were married and on 17th May 1976 a daughter was born to the couple in Preston. Later investigations were conducted into the status of Mr Khullar. Subsequently the Preston Community Relations Council wrote to the Home Office indicating that he was an illegal immigrant. A decision was then taken to remove him in October 1976, and this was carried out.

Mrs. Khullar had no knowledge that her husband was an illegal immigrant. She entered the United Kingdom to be married in good faith. She has maintained herself and her child by running a business as a trader in knitwear. She lives in a house which is fully paid for and she makes no charge on State funds.

Mrs. Khullar cannot return to her husband even if she wished to because he cannot be traced. He is believed to be in Turkey. Mrs. Khullar has put a divorce petition into Preston Crown. Court. It is important and urgent that she be allowed to stay here. If she returned to India she would face considerable hardship. In my view she is an innocent victim of this sorry affair. I think that the Home Secretary's decision to deport her is bureaucratic, un-Christian and inhuman. His decision should be the subject of scrutiny by the House.

The hon. Member for Preston South (Mr. Thorne) gave me notice before 12 o'clock today that he would seek to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely;

"the deportation of Mrs. Saroj Khullar."

As the House knows, under Standing Order No. 9 I am directed to take into account the several factors set out in the Order but to give no reasons for my decision.

I listened with great care to the hon. Member but I am afraid that I cannot rule that his submission falls within the provisions of the Standing Order and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,

"the proposal to station KC135 United States tanker aircraft in the Cotswolds."

The proposal is to station KC 135 aircraft either at Fairford or at Brize Norton. Which of the two makes almost no difference because the airfields are close together.

These aircraft are exceptionally and almost uniquely noisy and pollutant. They are old aircraft. None has been built for 13 years. Their jet engines are also old. They have to take off with a heavy load—90 tons with fuel—and consequently they have a slow angle of climb. I understand that it is less than three degrees when fully loaded. That means that their noise path is long.

There can be no doubt that they will be harmful to an area of outstanding natural beauty and of high population. There is also a certain element of danger because the population is large and there are towns nearby. Another factor is that Greenham atomic station is not far away.

The method of operation, which involves regular refuelling by these aircraft of others in the air, entails them flying night and day, especially during exercise periods.

I submit that the problem is specific. Ministers have said that the proposal to station these aircraft in the Cotswolds is one of the proposals that is before them. I submit that the matter is important for those living locally. But for three reasons it is also important nationally. First, it poses the usual dilemma between defence needs and environmental desirability. Secondly, other places in the United Kingdom are interested.

It would be unworthy to propose that the aircraft be foisted on another area which does not want them, but, the Lincolnshire County Council, supported by some of my right hon. and hon. Friends and local representatives, has said that it wants the aircraft to go there. The environmental and employment conditions are different in Lincolnshire from those in Oxfordshire and Gloucestershire. Thirdly, the matter is important because it involves the interests of our greatest ally, the United States, and NATO.

There can be no doubt that the matter is urgent because Ministers have said that they propose to announce their decision this week. This is the last chance that the House has of debating the matter.

Finally, there can be no doubt that this matter is the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government because they have repeatedly said that that is so. For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I ask you to permit this matter to be debated urgently.

The hon. Gentleman gave me notice before 12 o'clock today that he would seek under Standing Order No. 9 to move the Adjournment of the House for the purposes of discussing a specific and important matter which should have urgent consideration, namely

"the proposal to station KC135 United States tanker aircraft in the Cotswolds."

I listened very carefully to the hon. Gentleman's argument. He knows that I have to take into account several factors in deciding this matter. I am afraid that I have to rule that I cannot submit his application to the House.

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring a Bill to amend the Justices of the Peace Act 1361.

This Act was passed in the reign of Edward III to deal with the problem of the unemployed in the drastic fashion of those days. In this case the unemployed were soldiers returning from the wars with France after Edward III's Poitiers campaign who had become "pillers and robbers" in the words of the statute. So far, so good. We are against pillage and robbery. However, the Act goes wider than that. It has been put to many strange uses over the centuries. Even now the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice does not consider the Act to be within its terms of reference. That might have been one opportunity for considering it and amending it.

The Act charges the justices to restrain and arrest those who are called "rioters and barrators" and to take various other measures and levy fines and terms of imprisonment. To none of that would I object. Much of it has been consolidated into other statutes. But the Act then goes on—and the House will have to pardon my Norman French—

"de pndre de touz ceux [qui sont] de bone fame, ou ils sront trovez, souffisant seurete & meinprise de lo bon port, devs le Roi & son poeple, & les cuts duement punir".

That, approximately translated, means:

"to take all of them that be of good fame,"—

or not of good fame—

"where they shall be found, sufficient surety and mainprise of their good behaviour towards the King and his people, and other duly to punish".

No one seems to know exactly what is the official version. There is dispute whether the person described in the statute is of good fame or not. The word "not" does not appear in the official statute. But this person, whether of good fame or not, can be bound over to be of good behaviour or to keep the peace without any charge being brought against him in circumstances that I shall outline.

Financial sureties can be demanded and anyone who refuses to be bound over can be sent to prison for up to six months, even though he has committed no crime. This ancient power has been used by the justices against eavesdroppers, night walkers, and common scolds. It was used in the last century against Salvation Army marchers. It was used against the leader of the hunger marchers, Tom Mann, and, more recently, against a mixed bag of parking fine protesters, nuclear disarmament campaigners, transvestites and Left-wing politicians.

One attempt to amend the Act in this House over 20 years ago was denounced by the present Lord Rawlinson as a charter for

"those ugly gentlemen—and they are not so uncommon—whose practice it is to find a place from which they can watch a maiden lady disrobe."—[Official Report, 26th January 1960; Vol. 616, c. 55–6.]

But such offenders can be charged with an offence. For example, they can be charged with conduct likely to lead to a breach of the peace and in such circumstances, if charged and convicted, they can still be bound over. The binding-over power in common law is not something I would wish to abolish, and this Bill does not seek to do that. It seeks to limit the power of the magistrates to confine or harass those whose conduct is not unlawful but of whom they may disapprove.

Professor Glanville Williams, writing in the Modern Law Review, on cases where no breach of the law, actual or threatened, had taken place comments:

"It is extraordinary that the humblest judicial functionaries should thus be able to indulge their fancy by formulating their own standards of behaviour for those who come before them."

The case of Valerie Waters will be fresh in the minds of right hon. and hon. Members. On 13th November 1976, Mrs. Waters had been one of a number of antifoxhunting demonstrators at a meeting of the Atherstone Hunt. Driving away from the meet she was ambushed by a number of the hunting fraternity and physically attacked. Her car was damaged. As a result, four of the attackers were later charged with criminal damage and with conduct likely to lead to a breach of the peace. In court the following April they all pleaded guilty, were fined and bound over.

Mrs. Waters was in court that day only as a prosecution witness, but the magistrates decided to bind her over, too. She refused and said that she was not on trial. She was sent back into court and was sentenced to a month's imprisonment for refusing to be bound over. She lost her appeal and found herself in Risley as a criminal prisoner. I hope that hon. Members will agree with me that that procedure is neither right nor tolerable.

In the Lansbury case many years ago the justices, on hearing the appeal, made much of Blackstone's phrase that

"preventive justice consists in obliging those persons whom there is probable ground to suspect of future misbehaviour, to stipulate with and give full assurance to the public that such offence as is apprehended shall not happen."

But is it seriously our view that the law should compel a person to abjure conduct that is not unlawful and the deep personal convictions that go with it, or face imprisonment without any charge whatever being brought against him?

I hope that the House will agree with me that binding over should apply only to those who are brought into court and charged with an offence. That will be the effect of the Bill. It will leave, perfectly properly, the other powers for dealing with troublemakers involved in the 1361 Act and other related legislation. The 1361 Act will still end sonorously—and this time I shall speak in English—with

"the intent that the people be not by such rioters or rebels troubled nor endamaged, nor the peace blemished."

But the law would then operate according to the principle enunciated by Dicey, which I commend to Conservative Members who might have some atavistic urge to oppose this Bill. It is that

"no man is punishable or can be made to suffer in body or goods except for a distinct breach of law established in the ordinary legal manner before the ordinary courts of the land."

That is what this Bill seeks to establish and I ask leave of the House to bring it in.

rose—

Does the hon. Gentleman wish to oppose the Bill?

Yes, I do, Mr. Speaker.

I have great respect for the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead), and for the energy and dili- gence that he applies to various causes that he espouses. I suggest, however, that on this occasion his enthusiasm is misplaced. He has produced, after 600 years of the operation of this Act, one unfortunate case. It has been well said that hard cases make had law. The hon. Gentleman quoted from the Act, and I intend to do tile same, but in English. The opening words of the Act explain that its purpose is to assign certain persons

"for the keeping of the peace".

The object of the Act in assigning justices of the peace and indicating their powers was not only to deal with offenders but to deal with potential breaches of the peace so that if the justices considered that such a breach was likely they would have the power to bind that person over.

This has been an extremely useful power. On average it is used in some 10,000 cases a year, the vast majority in circumstances where no actual offence has been charged against the individual involved. It has been of value to the courts in dealing with quarrelling neighbours, one of whom has taken out proceedings against the other and where, when they come to court, both they and the court realise that, far better than go through all the various arguments and differences of opinion that have led to the quarrel, they should both be hound over to keep the peace.

It is important to emphasise that if the justices are considering binding a person over, that person must be told what is going through the justices' minds and must be given an opportunity to make representations. Further, if he is bound over he has the right of appeal to a higher court.

No law-abiding person would need much persuasion to agree to be bound over to keep the peace, but surely if he does refuse, the court must have some sort of sanction. As to the person being "of good fame" or "not of good fame", the justices must in any case consider whether the person appears likely to disturb tile peace, taking into account his or her past conduct and any threats that he or she may have made. Whether the person is considered to he "of good fame", as the Act puts it, may not be relevant if there is a possible threat to peace. If it is to be necessary, as the hon. Member for Derby, North suggests, to prove that the person is not "of good fame", without which proof such a binding over could not be made, this would make it extremely difficult for the courts to implement this sort of legislation. It would make it impracticable to use the binding-over power in the domestic disputes proceedings to which I have referred.

I oppose the Bill on the ground that the present powers serve a useful purpose. I also point out that the Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure is at present sitting and may well have something to say on the matter. We should not anticipate its report. Any change, in any case, should not be made in a piecemeal fashion.