asked the Secretary of State for Employment what are the latest unemployment figures nationally, and by regions of the United Kingdom.

At 14th February the provisional number of people registered as wholly unemployed in the United Kingdom was 968,927. In addi- tion 649,017 temporarily stopped workers were registered as unemployed. I will, with permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT similar information for regions.

Is the Secretary of State aware that when these figures were announced last week, we read in all the newspapers that the outlook was improving? Is he also aware that three months earlier one of his ministerial colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry said that the unemployment figures would not double during the lifetime of the present Government? Now that that has happened, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can answer a more realistic question. Will he now give a guarantee that at the end of the Government's term of office the wholly unemployed will be less than half the present total?

I will not give any guarantee of that kind, any more than any Minister in my position has ever given any guarantee, or any more than Ministers in the previous Government undertook to double unemployment, which they succeeded in doing in their four years of office. I point out to the hon. Gentleman and the House that the seasonally adjusted number of wholly unemployed last month rose by only 1,000, which was the smallest increase in that number for well over a year. That is some cause for a belief that the recent upward trend is now levelling off, particularly when coupled with the fact that the seasonally adjusted number of vacancies also rose.

On a point of order. I apologise for raising the point now, Mr. Speaker, but it is rather urgent. Many hon. Members have been to the Vote Office and found that there are no Order Papers available to us, so we do not know what Questions are being asked. Still less do we understand the answers.

I do not think there is very much I can do about that. I have noted the point.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. This has put some of us in an impossible situation. I do not know whether it will be in order—[An HON. MEMBER: "They are there now."] If they are now in the Vote Office, I shall be gratified. But when hon. Members from both sides of the House were at the Vote Office two minutes ago, no copies were available. If it is in order, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the House should adjourn for 10 minutes until supplies are available to us.

That would not be appropriate in my view.

Will my right hon. Friend add emphasis to his last remark by quantifying for us the improvement in the vacancies position? Looking at the figures, it seemed to me that this was one of the first hopeful signs that the basic employment situation was now improving.

I can tell my hon. Friend and the House that the number of unfilled vacancies increased last month by 10,494 and that this represented, on a seasonally adjusted basis, a rise of 7,300.

On a point of order. I confess, Mr. Speaker, that I find some difficulty in this situation. What surprises me is that you have not been informed that apparently no Order Papers are available. It is extremely difficult to follow the Questions without them. Some hon. Members have them, but what they have is the full Order Book. They are not the usual Order Papers. We do not have a list of Questions and apparently the Vote Office has run out of them, perhaps because of a strike, because they have not been printed or have not arrived. I am surprised, Mr. Speaker, that you had not been informed of this difficulty before Question Time.

May I advise you, Mr. Speaker, that not only is the Order Paper not available but that the Order Book also is not available? I inquired a minute ago and I was told that the Stationery Office is sending supplies but cannot guarantee when they will arrive. Hon. Members are sitting here virtually defenceless in the face of this situation.

I think we must get on. I share the hon. Member's surprise and I should have been told about this. I will certainly go into the matter. Perhaps as we move from Question to Question, as each hon. Member asks his Question he will say what the Question is.

Further to the point of order. May I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that each hon. Member reads out his Question?

That is exactly what I have just said.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many persons included in the latest unemployment total do not receive unemployment pay.

On 8th November, 1971, the latest date for which an estimate has been made, about 191,000 people registered as unemployed were estimated to be receiving neither unemployment benefit nor supplementary allowances.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. Will he please explain these extraordinary figures?

There are various reasons why some unemployed persons show up in the figures as getting nothing. About two-thirds of them are persons whose entitlement is still being determined or has been exhausted or who do not satisfy the contribution conditions. Some married women and school leavers are in this category.

On a point of order. This is not good enough. We are all most grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for your help in this matter. You have asked hon. Members to read out their own Questions and that is quite understandable. Now, suddenly, out of the blue, a number of Order Papers have arrived. If the firms which publish the Order Papers are unable to deliver them, will you please make inquiries about Great Yarmouth? We will give you Order Papers, print them daily and make sure they are here.

I have noted what the hon. Member has said. I now call Mr. Kinnock for a supplementary question on Question No. 2.

I had difficulty in hearing the Minister because of the activities of the usherette on one side and the prima ballerina on the other. Did I hear correctly that about one in four of the unemployed are not receiving unemployment benefit? How many of them are not receiving it because they have had inadequate redundancy payment awards in lieu of notice which under the present regulations disqualifies them from receiving unemployment pay?

The hon. Member in seeking to hear above the hubbub did not get the figure quite right. It is more like one in five—21 per cent. Of these about 37 per cent. became unemployed shortly before the day of the count of the figures, and of the remainder 41 per cent. were not receiving benefit for various reasons which in some cases included that mentioned by the hon. Member. In some cases people have no entitlement because they do not satisfy the contribution conditions and some are disallowed or disqualified from receipt of benefit at the time the count is taken.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what was the percentage of male unemployment in Sunderland at the latest available date.

Based on those wholly unemployed in the Wear-side travel-to-work area, the male unemployment rate on 14th February was 11 per cent. Substantial numbers of workers were laid off because of the fuel crisis and if those temporarily stopped are included the rate, based on the total number of males registered as unemployed, was 12·9 per cent. These figures are provisional.

Does the Minister realise that these are wholly unacceptable figures and that Sunderland has suffered exceptionally high unemployment for several years? The Sunderland Conservative Association has been driven to demand that this matter should be considered at Cabinet level. May I be assured that this will be done?

The whole question of unemployment is considered at Cabinet level. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the figures are wholly unacceptable. But there has been a slight but very welcome improvement in the situation on Wearside. The total number of men wholly unemployed is down by 0·2 per cent. compared with last month. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would also care to reflect, as a former Minister in a Labour Administration, that unemployment did not start under the Tories. Two years ago over 6,000 men were wholly unemployed on Wearside.

Do not the double sets of figures that the Minister gives in answer to questions show that since 1970 the Government, by their industrial policy, have produced more days lost in strikes and unemployment than any Government since the end of the Second World War?

No, I do not accept that. The hon. Member is getting on to the realms of strikes. No one is disguising that there is a very serious situation on Wearside, as there is in the whole of that part of the North East. The important thing is to get on, cure the difficulties and get to the root causes, and that is what we are doing.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will now introduce legislation to control noise levels in factories and other places of work.

My Industrial Health Advisory Committee is meeting on 14th March to consider, among other matters, a draft code of practice for reducing the exposure of employed persons to noise.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that most encouraging answer. May I draw his attention to the new evidence of damage to hearing which is apparently much more widespread among those who have to work in certain manufacturing industries, and may I impress upon him the need to have properly silenced equipment and other noise suppressing devices in industrial environments?

I agree that this is a most important matter and we in this country and, no doubt, people in other industrial countries have been rather slow in dealing with it. I will do all I can to see that it is taken very seriously.

Will the new Employment Medical Advisory Services Bill help in controlling the problem of damage caused by noise?

I hope so, because the underlying idea behind it is that we should have a medical service available for advising industry in future and investigating problems of this kind. I certainly hope it will contribute to solving the problem.

I welcome the fact that the Industrial Health Advisory Committee is to look at what the Minister has drawn to its attention. Is he aware, however, that this does not go far enough? In the light of the recent court judgment when a precedent was set, a worker was awarded very substantial damages for what is now being classed by the court as industrial deafness. Does not this precedent establish a very powerful case for the Government to classify industrial deafness as an industrial injury?

This may be an important matter but, as the hon. Member knows, it is a matter not for me but for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. I will draw his attention to what has been said.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how the proposals contained in the booklet, "Training for the Future", are being publicised in development areas.

The proposals in "Training for the Future" have attracted wide-scale attention in the Press, including the Press in development areas.

It is extremely important that these proposals should be made widely available to employers and trade unions in the development areas because there has been disquiet over the years in some areas because levies are paid for training schemes which are not available in the areas in which the firms are situated. It is very important that they be brought fully into consultation on the proposals.

This is not a document which is expected to have mass circulation. We have circulated no fewer than 150,000 copies and the reprint is now being made. It has been gratifying to see the very wide publicity given to the document, in particular in Scotland, although I understand not yet in the hon. Member's constituency. We hope that perhaps he will put that right.

To what extent is the document a consultative document and to what extent is it to be considered a White Paper?

The parts of the document concerning Government training centres and so on are really a continuation and development of the Government's present activities. They are not consultative to the same extent as the parts of the document which deal with industrial training boards. But I would like to underline the consultative nature of the document. The consultative nature of the Code of Industrial Practice was a great success and many people took part in the consultation which had a great effect on the final outcome. We would like the same sort of process here.

While the proposals are futuristic there is currently a very pressing problem, particularly for the young people who are thrown out of work and who are still trying to continue their studies and further education. The document circulated to local education authorities may be appropriate in England and Wales but it is not appropriate in Scotland and the burden of paying the fees for further education is falling on the local education authority. Will the hon. Gentleman consult the Secretary of State for Scotland to see what can be done about this?

We have already been in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and with the education authorities, but we think that this sort of thing should come within the consultative period and consultative process.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether provisions for the preservation of the confidentiality of information in the Industrial Relations Act include both his Departmental staff and those from the Commission on Industrial Relations.

Yes, Sir, with the exception of Departmental conciliation officers not appointed under the Act. The President of the Industrial Court has stated publicly that the Court will respect the confidentiality of discussions between the parties and conciliation officers of the Department or of the C.I.R.

But is not the Minister aware that despite the statement by the President of the Industrial Relations Court there is tremendous concern about the provisions, not only among staff of his own Department and the staff of the C.I.R. but particularly in the trade union movement? Does not the Minister accept that the success of the commission and his own staff in dealing with these matters depends upon trade unionists feeling that they can talk freely? How can they talk freely when there is a growing fear that any information they give to C.I.R. staff and to staff of his Department may have to be given to the Industrial Relations Court as evidence against them under subpoena?

I can only repeat the firm assurance given by no less a person than Sir John Donaldson—there is no greater authority—in his public statement at the opening of the court on 1st December, 1971, when he said that any fears that the court would require conciliation officers, C.I.R. staff or others to reveal confidential information were completely without foundation. I very much hope that this will give the hon. Gentleman the reassurance he seeks.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what are his plans for finding jobs for unem- ployed youths over 17 years of age in North Lanarkshire.

Careers officers and the staff in employment exchanges will continue to do all they can to help youths who are out of work to find fresh jobs. The extensive measures we have introduced to stimulate the national economy and encourage industrial expansion in the assisted areas should improve employment prospects for workers of all ages.

Is the Minister aware that in Lanarkshire 17·4 per cent. of the insurable population are signing on at employment exchanges and that youths of 17 are experiencing increasing difficulty in finding reasonable jobs, such as apprenticeships, because employers must pay the wage for the age and therefore look for boys of 16? Will the Minister now take the matter up with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and tell him to take his finger out and bring industry to that part of the country, because that is the only way to give any hope to those young people?

I am sure my right hon. Friend is well aware of that latter point. No one would disguise the fact that the position is anything but satisfactory in that part of the world. But the Government have made available £11½ million in Lanarkshire under their programme for public infrastructure works, which is a good indication of our intention to do all we can to help in those areas where there are great difficulties. But it will be a long-term job.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment in how many cases, other than that of the Highly Flammable Liquids Regulations, an inquiry before a commissioner has not reported to the Minister appointing the commissioner within nine months; and if he will make a statement regarding the reasons for the delay in this instance.

The answer to the first part of the Question is "None". The report has now reached my right hon. Friend, the delay in submission being due to the extreme complexity of the issues raised at the inquiry.

Will the Minister accept that a number of hon. Members who are deeply concerned about industrial safety issues consider that the delay in publication of the report has been intolerable, since the safety of thousands of people working in industry has been in jeopardy? As the Minister's sole justification for not producing regulations has been the delay in producing the report, will he now move with the utmost speed to see that regulations dealing with the storage of inflammable liquids in industry are laid before the House?

I am aware of the very proper concern of a number of hon. Members on this issue. The Government fully realise its importance. The report is now being considered and copies will be published in due course.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will seek to amend the existing law concerning picketing; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will now make a further statement on the operation of the law regarding picketing.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what consultation he has had with the Confederation of British Industry and the Trades Union Congress about amending the law relating to picketing during industrial disputes.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what proposals he now has to seek to amend the law on picketing.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will recommend the setting up of a Royal Commission or other form of inquiry to study and report on the law and practice relating to picketing.

As already stated by my hon. Friend the Minister of State on 22nd February, I intend to review the law on picketing in the light of recent events. I can assure the House that no changes will be proposed without consultations with the Trades Union Con- gress and the Confederation of British Industry.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that very many people were shocked by the abuse of the law during the recent dispute and that they look to the Government to clarify the present position and see that in future the law is both enforceable and enforced?

We should all remember two things. First, the majority of picketing in the recent dispute was orderly, peaceful and legal, but there was a minority of cases that many of us saw, and some of us experienced a little, which are a cause for grave concern. That is why I believe the law should be reviewed as I shall now review it.

When my right hon. Friend carries out that review, will he also consider the possibility of amending the law to provide that in future picketing shall be permitted only at a worker's normal place of work?

That is one of the points that will have to be properly considered.

Quite apart from whether the law needs revision to prevent outbreaks of violence or needs strengthening to prevent the disruption of industries that have nothing to do with a trade dispute, does my right hon. Friend agree that the whole case for so-called peaceful picketing has disappeared? The original idea was to allow strikers to put their case to the public. Strike leaders and strikers themselves, now have access to television, radio and the national Press, and an urgent review is necessary to stop peaceful picketing, so-called, or picketing at all.

The basic purpose of picketing—to inform and persuade in a peaceful manner—is an essential extension of the basic right to strike. That must be affirmed. What gives great concern to many, including those who hold most dearly to the basic right of picketing, is that this freedom, like all other freedoms, can be put in jeopardy by gross abuse.

Does the Secretary of State accept that in this sector above all others it is necessary to maintain a fair and reasonable balance between the conflicting rights and interests of the parties concerned?

Of course I do, and I hope that is quite clear from my last answer.

Is the Secretary of State aware that over 200,000 miners took part in the picketing at well over 500 establishments for five weeks, on a 24-hour basis, and that fewer than 50 were charged with breaking the law or going beyond the bounds of propriety? Is it not an infinitesimal problem blown up out of all proportion by Government Members and the newspapers?

I am aware that the majority of picketing in that strike was peaceful, legal and orderly, but I am also aware of the other side. So, incidentally, was a member of the T.U.C. General Council, the General Secretary of N.A.C.O.D.S., who felt so strongly about it that he felt impelled to come and see me, and tell the public he was coming to see me, to express his concern about what was going on.

I welcome the fact that the right hon. Gentleman and the Government recognise that the picketing by the overwhelming majority of miners in the coal dispute was perfectly legal, peaceful and within the law. Is it not a fact that only last year we revised the whole question of picketing, in a minor way it is true? We discussed the whole question of picketing as part and parcel of the Industrial Relations Act. Is it not quite clear that if anyone genuinely steps outside the law as it stands, the law as it stands is perfectly able to deal with him?

I hardly think the law on picketing was a major part of last year's review, although I agree that it was part. A minor change was made, removing protection from picketing of people's homes, which we did not believe to be necessary in the modern world. The events of the last few weeks are a cause of public concern and we should be foolish, whatever our views may be, to pay no regard to that public concern. That is why I am sure I am right to review the situation.

While I absolutely accept that in the recent strike the majority of picketing was peaceful, must we not also accept that the law cannot be enforced unless it has the backing of the vast majority of the people? Is it not true that in the sort of picketing where that was seen to be so—

On television.

All right, on television; so people do watch television, fortunately or unfortunately—the sort of picketing where that was seen to be so, in places like Doncaster, the law should have been enforced?

I am sure that my hon. Friend is right in saying that the law depends on the support of the majority One of the great needs here is that the real state of the law on this matter should be enunciated anew so that everybody knows it. However, we should realise that enforcement on the spot must be properly the responsibility of the police. None of us should under-estimate the difficulty that the police have. I had personal experience of this from a visit I made during the dispute, and I do not believe that it was possible in those circumstances for the police to enforce the law.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that while a small number of pickets at Coal House, Doncaster, indulged in behaviour which I would not seek to defend, on the night of the incidents to which the right hon. Gentleman referred the Assistant Chief Constable of Doncaster, Mr. Glendinning, who was in charge of the police on that day, said on Yorkshire Television:

"The behaviour of the strike pickets today has been splendid. I have nothing but praise for them."

Yes, that may be true in the majority of cases most of the time, but we do no good to the cause of peaceful picketing in the proper sense of the freedom which ought to be enjoyed in this country if any of us seek in any way to excuse some of the incidents which took place which were a disgrace and an abuse of freedom.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he is satisfied with the operation of the Redundancy Payments Act; and if he will make a statement.

As I announced in the House on 1st February, my right hon. Friend intends to issue a consultative document discussing whether any changes are required in the objectives of the Act or in the means by which they are secured.—[Vol. 830, c. 383.]

I am grateful to the Minister for that answer and I express the hope that he will see fit to try to change the situation whereby people in receipt of pay in lieu of notice are disqualified from unemployment benefit. This results in a major injustice to those who have paid national insurance contributions, and is frustrating for people who think that they have behind them the security of the Redundancy Payments Act.

I assure the hon. Gentleman that his question will be noted and studied in the course of the consultation period.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what most recent estimate he has made of the effect entry into the European Economic Community will have on employment prospects in the United Kingdom.

It is not possible to make a quantitative estimate; but I am convinced that unlimited access for British goods and services to the much larger market of Europe will give a substantial stimulus to output and employment.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer, but does he not agree that one of the main prerequisites for resolving unemployment in Great Britain is for Europe as a whole, including Britain, to enjoy a continuous period of economic growth? Does he also agree that the attitude of the trade union movement on the Continent shows up markedly the way in which it is in tune with modern industrial society and the way in which many trade unionists in this country are blinding themselves and their members to the facts of life?

I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that growth, which is the basic strategy of the Government, is the answer to the problem of unemployment and that that policy will be powerfully assisted by our membership of Europe. I certainly hope that members of the trade union movement in this country will work ever more closely with their trade union colleagues in Europe and learn from their belief that the Common Market has helped to improve the standard of living and to give full employment.

Is the Minister aware that many of us do not share his optimism about the future within the Common Market and that in any case, even if his forecasts were correct, workers in this country are not prepared to wait until we enter the Common Market for some relief of unemployment? This applies particularly in the North-West Region where the position continues to deteriorate sharply and is far worse than in any other region. During the last two years the North West has had the second highest number of redundancies in any of the regions. Will not the Government extend development area status to the whole of the North West and revise their development area programme to provide a real incentive to industries to come to development areas?

I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows that questions about regional policy are for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. I did not say that people must wait for our membership of Europe. The solution of unemployment must come through growth. Our main problem now arises from five or six years of virtually no growth. Our gross national product is today probably growing at at least twice the rate at which it was growing when the Labour Government left office.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he is satisfied with the progress being made on the restyling of the Professional and Executive Register and if he will make a statement.

Yes, Sir. The target date for the introduction of the restyled service remains January, 1973.

Will my hon. Friend say on what basis the restyling is being conducted? Does he agree that at a time when there is considerable unemployment in these categories, it is desirable that facilities should be provided as soon as possible for the placing of unemployed professional and executive people?

Yes, Sir. We hope to improve the service in the interim. The restyling plans were put into operation after a searching study under the direction of a business adviser. At the same time we had the results of an independent market survey into employment, recruitment practices and attitudes which indicated that many employers were ready to make much greater use of the restyled service than of the present service. The new approach fulfils a real need and I believe that it will be much appreciated once it gets under way.

What is the evidence for saying that the employers will make greater use of the service?

As I have just told the House, an independent market research survey was conducted which, so far as a judgment can be made, is one of the best in this field.

What is the Minister doing to attract women to the Professional and Executive Register? If he is having difficulty in this, will he employ his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) as public relations officer?

All suitable applicants will, of course, be considered by our staff. Without going into too much detail and getting out of order, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that there is no sex discrimination in my Department.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many employees will be retrained at Government training establishments in 1972 compared with 1971.

It is estimated that about 20,000 trainees should complete courses at Government training centres in 1972, compared with 16,500 in 1971.

What progress is being made in gaining further trade union acceptance of people who are trained in Government training centres? Does my hon. Friend intend to use the spare capacity in the Construction Industry Training Centre at Bircham Newton, which is in my constituency, for Government training purposes?

In answer to the first question, it is difficult to measure the progress we are making in this direction but I can say that, in consultation with the trade union leaders, we are making progress. I visited Bircham Newton the day before yesterday and was most impressed by the facilities and staff available I am glad to say that my Department is negotiating with the C.I.T.B. to use places there for courses in limited skilled construction trades. This is part of the general programme for utilising spare capacity wherever it is available.

Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that, although all efforts made by the Government to improve the Government industrial training schemes will receive my full support and encouragement, in view of the present Government's policies in other spheres of activity many of my constituents in Lancashire would have greater confidence in the scheme if, at the end of their training, they saw a reasonable prospect of being able to obtain gainful employment?

The hon. Gentleman will find from the figures that the record of employment of those trained in G.T.C.s is extremely high, even at a time of high unemployment.

In view of the massive effort which the building industry is being called upon to make, will my hon. Friend ensure that sufficient numbers of places in these training establishments are kept open to produce skilled bricklayers and carpenters who are so desperately needed?

In the increased number of places which are being provided the accent is being placed on training for craftsmen in the building trade.

The Minister said that there would be an increase in trainees from 16,500 to 20,000 this year. Although we welcome that expansion, however modest, does it not follow that successive Government statements, particularly the Prime Minister's speech in the debate on unemployment on 14th January, have grossly exaggerated the impact this would have on the 1 million unemployed in 1972?

I do not think this exaggeration has been made at any time. The whole programme has been brought forward in a sober and well-judged way and we have in no way deceived the House. At the end of the day the right hon. Gentleman will agree that this is exactly what we have said it is—a massive increase in the country's training effort.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the rate of increase in retail prices in the period since July, 1971; and how this compares with the rate of increase during the same period up to July, 1971.

The General Index of Retail Prices rose by 2·4 per cent. between July, 1971, and January, 1972, compared with 5·6 per cent. between January, 1971, and July, 1971.

I thank my hon. Friend for giving information about that trend, which must indicate a great triumph in the battle against inflation. Will he recognise this as a tribute to the C.B.I. initiative? Has he any suggestion about what should follow when that policy lapses in July?

I would pay tribute to the C.B.I. and its initiative. We are in touch with the C.B.I. about the future, though of course I cannot foretell what will happen. This is a battle on a number of fronts and the C.B.I. has done its bit. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has done his bit by reducing taxation and, probably most of all, success is due to our policy of de-escalation on the wages front.

If an increase in retail prices of 2·4 per cent. is a triumph, God help us if the Government have any defeats! Does the Minister realise that there are many people who are hard pressed to make ends meet as a result of the increase in prices of 2·4 per cent.? It is no comfort to such people to tell them "Because of our policies you are only having half as hard a job as you had in the previous few months".

The Government are far from complacent about the present situation, but we are conscious that we have changed the trend from the disastrous situation brought forward from the Labour Government. Among hopeful signs was the fact that the trend over the six-month period between February, and August, 1971, was 5·1 per cent. which gradually went down to 2·5 per cent. from June to December. Another satisfactory trend is to be seen in the pattern of wholesale prices. In the last three months of 1971 this has increased by just over½ per cent. This also is a very satisfactory trend.

May we be spared any more of this collusive complacency between the Government and their back benches? Is it not a fact that according to The Grocer magazine—which ought to be well known to the Treasury Bench —retail food prices are still rising at a rate of 9·5 per cent. a year, sugar at the rate of 14 per cent. and cheese at the rate of 12 per cent.? Instead of being so complacent about the situation, what do the Government intend to do about it?

I do not know what particular prices the hon. Gentleman is taking, but if he looks at the general rise in the cost of living he will see that it has been notably slowed down and that people are grateful for it.

asked the Prime Minister if the public speech delivered by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on behalf of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Tuesday, 15th February, in London on economic matters represents Government policy.

Yes, Sir. The speech was about international monetary reform, on which the Chancellor of the Exchequer's proposals have been widely recognised as very helpful.

In that speech the Chancellor referred to the difficulties of other countries which have their own balance of payments problems. Since we in Britain have achieved a massive surplus, which is now runnng at a higher level than at any other time this century, will the right hon. Gentleman say why it is not being used to increase demand and reduce unemployment? The only conceivable reason for failure to use the balance of payments in this way is that it would start the reflationary cycle too early for the next General Election. Because of this factor, must we be denied the use of that surplus in increasing demand and in reducing the present intolerable level of unemployment?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for paying tribute to the size of the balance of payments in 1971, but my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer was dealing in his speech with monetary reform, not with the internal economy.

Is the Prime Minister aware that his right hon. Friend in that speech anticipated our entry into the Common Market and suggested that it would be the financial salvation not only of this country but of many other countries? Is not the Chancellor incorrect in assuming that we shall enter the Common Market, particularly in view of the Prime Minister's speech on television the other day in which he said that the Geovernment were here to do what the people wanted them to do? If that is the case, we shall certainly not enter the Common Market.

When this House gives a majority of 112 to a policy, it is quite clear what the people's representatives want.

asked the Prime Minister how many times he has invited Mr. Victor Feather, General Secretary of the Trades Union Congress, to meet him since June, 1970, to discuss matters for which he is responsible.

Six, Sir, apart from meetings of the National Economic Development Council and on informal occasions.

Would my right hon. Friend confirm that at those meetings Mr. Feather has shown himself to have a much clearer understanding than the Opposition of both the rights and the duties of trade unions in a democratic society?

I have always found the meetings to be of value. We have covered a wide range of subjects. We have not always agreed, but at least the exchange of views has been fruitful.

Since the Prime Minister seems well aware of the problems of surtax payers and stockbrokers, will he invite to No. 10 some rank and file trade union representatives other than Mr. Feather so that he may acquaint himself with the problems of people who are generally overlooked and neglected by the present Government?

I completely refute the remarks at the end of the hon. Gentleman's question and his earlier imputations. On the point about rank and file trade unionists coming to No. 10, a number of deputations have come to see me on various occasions and they included shop stewards and others who are not leaders of the T.U.C. This is absolutely right.

asked the Prime Minister what proposals for increasing the powers of the European Parliament he discussed in his recent conversations with President Pompidou.

I am glad to say that the meeting between Monsieur Pompidou and myself, originally planned for 19th and 20th February, will now take place at Chequers on 18th and 19th March.

Instead of discussing the power of the European Parliament, might it not be a good idea if the Prime Minister paid a little attention to the power of this Parliament? Does he realise that the difficulties in which we found ourselves last night were due to attempts by the Government to bully and cheat their European Communities legislation through this House and that Her Majesty's Opposition have no intention of being done out of their rights in this matter?

Two things have become apparent during the last few days. The first is that those who pursued a policy of trying to negotiate this country's entry into the Community apparently either did not realise what accepting Community law meant or are deceiving themselves and the House in saying now that they object to it. The second thing which has emerged clearly is that those who were shouting most for the protection of the rights of Parliament, and particularly of the House of Commons, were the first to abuse those rights and obstruct the will of the majority.

Could President Pompidou be persuaded to invite the Leader of the Opposition to do a Eurovision broadcast, not simply to give the people in this country a rest but to explain to the French people the attitude of the party opposite to the Common Market?

I think that the activities of the Leader of the Opposition must be left to the Leader of the Opposition. All I can say is that many European Socialists who have been endeavouring to persuade him what it is all about have confessed to me that they have failed.

Does the Prime Minister realise that the European Parliament has the virility of a eunuch? Why did he not try, before signing the Treaty of Accession, to have that Parliament made responsible and powerful?

Representatives of both parties in this House have always said that when we become a member of the European Community one thing which we want to see happen is the development of the European Parliament. We also believe that one of the major contributions which we can make to Europe is in helping in that process. What worries me at the moment is that after the last few days many of our European friends are beginning to have doubts about it.

asked the Prime Minister what representations he has received from persons who were present at the Scottish Assembly sponsored by the Scottish Trades Union Congress in Edinburgh on 14th February.

I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on Tuesday to a Question from the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell). —[Vol. 832, c. 96.]

While welcoming the news that the Prime Minister has agreed to meet the Standing Commission, may I ask whether he accepts that the assembly itself was born out of frustration with, first, the Government's economic policies, which will not solve the unemployment problem in Scotland, and, secondly, the lack of confidence in the Common Market regional policies to solve the unemployment problem in Scotland? When he meets the Standing Commission will the Prime Minister listen closely to what it has to say so that the unemployment problem in Scotland can at long last be tackled in a realistic manner?

The assembly has sent me a copy of its proposals, which are now being closely studied. It has now been agreed that I should meet the assembly on 27th March. I assure the hon. Gentleman that at that meeting we shall express our views about these specific proposals and listen closely and carefully to any other proposals which the assembly wishes to make.

When my right hon. Friend has another meeting with the T.U.C., either in Scotland or in England, will he remind it of the words of the Leader of the Opposition, when he was Prime Minister, that one's man's price increase is another man's wage increase? [HON. MEMBERS: "The other way round,"] Will my right hon. Friend also point out to the T.U.C. that Chrysler has just announced a reduction in its work force, which presumably must not be unrelated to the recent wage increase granted by the management as a result of pressure from the unions?

My hon. Friend is right in saying that one man's wage increase is another man's price increase. I should have thought that the Chrysler announcement was a clear indication of that.

Will the Prime Minister tell us whether, when he meets the Standing Commission later this month, he hopes to be able to announce a general policy for the assistance of shipbuilding, in particular for other Scottish yards as well as U.C.S.?

I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman an undertaking at this point about commitments to be given to the commission specifically at the meeting on 27th March. However, I will discuss the matter with the commission and indicate the way that the Government's thinking is moving.

asked the Prime Minister what plans he now has for making regular progress reports on the putting into effect of the policies of his Administration.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. [Interruption.] This is a very short point. Can you tell me why this Question has been passed?

That is not a point of order.

It is a very good Question.

There is a very good answer coming.

Is the Prime Minister aware that none of those things has been achieved, that the unemployment figures are the highest since the war and that the cost of living is the highest since the war and has escalated more in the last 20 months? If there is this great catalogue of successes, why did the Prime Minister devote almost the whole of his broadcast on Sunday evening to the question of violence when he and his Government are doing more violence to the 1 million unemployed and the 7 million old-age pensioners than the miners did in five weeks?

The old-age pensioners have had the largest increase ever; last Christmas they were getting more in real terms than they had ever had at any previous Christmas; and they are now to have an annual review, which they never had before. The hon. Gentleman ought to try to keep in touch with what is going on.

Is not the real problem facing the Government that, before this Parliament is halfway through, they will have implemented their entire legislative programme?

Yes, Sir; and I shall continue to make helpful progress reports in this sense.

asked the Prime Minister if he remains satisfied with the co-ordination between the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of Employment on employment questions; and if he will make a statement.

Yes, Sir. The employment policies of all Departments, including massive reflationary measures, incentives for industrial expansion in the development and intermediate areas and expanded training programmes, are closely co-ordinated.

While welcoming the coordination which has resulted in a reversal of his "lame duck" policy in order, we are glad to see, to help unemployment on the Clyde, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he will confirm the new policy of giving £35 million handouts to companies with neither assets nor profits and whether he intends to do the same for those companies which happen to have both assets and profits?

I made it absolutely clear to the shop stewards when they came to see me in July that the Government wished to have a shipbuilding capacity on the Upper Clyde which would be as modern as any in Europe. What my right hon. Friend has announced is not the gradual dribbling away of millions of pounds to a yard which was unable to spend any of the money on capital investment, but a properly considered programme of capital investment together with £17 million to pay off a lot of the losses which were incurred by the previous Administration's company.

Will the Prime Minister explain what puzzles the country: namely, why what he calls the greatest stimulus ever to the economy has had the worst effect ever on employment?

I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman, with his experience in Government and his general knowledge of economic affairs, would have had some knowledge of the causes of the present unemployment cycle and would have recognised, as we did in the recent debate—which was a serious one, unlike the right hon. Gentleman's question—that the reflationary measures have had an impact on the economy but that, against that, the impact of high inflationary wages on productivity and the reduction of manpower has pushed up unemployment figures to their present level.

In similar answers two days ago in the House, the Prime Minister said that employers should now invest in employment. This has caused considerable controversy and doubts among machine makers generally. Will the Prime Minister now explain clearly what he meant? Is he advising employers to invest in employment or to invest in labour-saving machines? Which one is he talking about when he says that employers should invest in employment?

I was suggesting to employers that they should look ahead to the size of the market that they are likely to have to meet in two, three or four years and that what they should then do is to replace obsolete equipment and create additional capacity. It may be that the replacement of obsolete plant leads to a reduction in labour. But, to counter that, one wants an increase of at least the same and probably more in capacity. I hope that those responsible for taking investment decisions can look at the position from the standpoint that anything they arrange now will not be effective for two or three years. We do not want them to have bottlenecks, but the capacity to meet the demand which will undoubtedly be there.

On a point of order. First, Mr. Speaker, I must apologise to you for raising a point of order earlier at an inconvenient time. Secondly, I know that I am not allowed to comment on the brilliant answers that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has been able to give to a very poor lot of Questions. However, I believe that I am allowed to ask you why Question No. Q5, in the name of the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) was allowed to appear on the Order Paper at all. This is no criticism of anyone, unless it be of the hon. Gentleman who managed to table the Question. But it is clear to anyone that the Question is answered before it is ever asked, since my right hon. Friend repeatedly is making statements on all these matters. How did a Question of this kind to the Prime Minister ever appear on the Order Paper?

I have been considering the point since the hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell) raised it earlier. I am told that there is nothing out of order about the Question.