asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will instruct the working group, to be set up to study unemployment, to make a special study of that section of the unemployed, which in May 1972 amounted to 158,000 people, who receive neither unemployment benefit nor supplementary allowance.

Yes, Sir.

I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. Does he agree that most of the people included in that figure are retired and are merely registered as unemployed to avoid paying for the national insurance stamp? Does he also agree that it would be better if means could be found to exempt them from this payment rather than inflating the unemployment figures?

Although the exact terms of reference of the membership of the working group to study the characteristics of people of this category have not been determined, I think that what my hon. Friend raised in the first part of this question comes within its remit.

Will the Minister say what powers the working group is likely to have? Will he inform the House whether he is prepared to fix a time limit to its studies and tell us when he expects a paper or the record of its work to be published?

It is purely a statistical survey at this stage and it is not subjective in any way. As I have said, the terms of reference and its membership have not yet been exactly determined.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will state the male unemployment rate in the Rotherham, Maltby and Dinnington exchange areas at the latest available date and in the same period two years earlier.

At November 1972 the provisional percentage rates of unemployment for males were 6·8 for Rotherham, 8·3 for Maltby and 9·9 for Dinnington. The corresponding figures for November 1970 were 4·0, 7·1 and 5·2. The unemployment figures used in all these calculations exclude the temporarily stopped.

Does the Under-Secretary of State agree that his answer provides grounds for grave anxiety and disappointment? Does he agree that his answer shows the Government's optimism, which was expressed two years ago, to be gravely misplaced? What further steps will be taken to see that the geographical and social advantages of the area will not be further ignored?

I do not think we have ever pretended that this is other than a difficult area. It is true that unemployment has risen since November, 1970. But there has been a reduction of about 480 since November of last year, so the trend is in the right direction. As I have told the hon. Gentleman before, the best hope for the area lies in an expanding national economy, which is now being achieved.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he now has to amend the Industrial Relations Act.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what discussions he has arranged with unions and employers about the operation of the Industrial Relations Act; and if he will make a statement.

As I told the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) on 7th November, I have no immediate plans for amending the Act but I am fully prepared to discuss with unions, employers or any other responsible bodies constructive proposals for improving its operation.—[Vol. 845, c. 108.]

Was the Act introduced, among other things, with the idea of curing strikes? Is it the case that this country, which once held a low position in the international strike league, has gradually been creeping up that league since the Act was introduced and is now reaching one of the top positions as one of the countries with a higher number of strikes? In the circumstances, is it not the case that there is no cure for this situation other than to repeal the Act?

I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's deduction that the increase in the number of days lost through strikes is due to the Act. It is very largely due to the miners' strike, which happened before the Act came into operation, and the building dispute, which added to the total number of days lost. The trend of the number of disputes is downwards.

Is it not irresponsible of certain unions not to make use of those parts of the Act which everybody would agree are in the interests of their members—namely, the provisions which grant compensation for unfair dismissal?

I am happy to say that despite the reluctance of some unions to use those parts of the Act which benefit the individual, the industrial tribunals and the National Industrial Relations Court in dealing with appeals from tribunals have succeeded in helping a large number of individual workpeople.

Is it not clear that redundancy payments and unfair dismissal could equally well have been dealt with in a separate Act? There was no necessity to have the Industrial Relations Act as a whole. As the trade union movement will not accept the whole of the Act and as even Eric Jacobs of the Sunday Times, who is not renowned for his complete support of the trade union movement, is now saying that the time has come to get rid of the Act, is it not clear that the Government should wake up and get rid of it and bring in a small Act to deal purely with redundancy payments and unfair dismissal?

The Government will continue their position of saying that industrial relations is not a matter which can be conducted by law. Like other types of human relations, however, it has to be conducted within a framework of law. It is that framework of law which the Industrial Relations Act provides. It is right hon. and hon. Members on the Opposition side who have denied that, both when in government and in their words in opposition, and it is their surrender to the concept that industrial relations can be conducted outside the principles of law that has caused a good deal of our present difficulties.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what consultations he has had with the London Borough of Hackney concerning the provision of a sheltered workshop for the disabled; and if he will make a statement.

My Department has been in close touch with the borough on this matter; and as I said in my reply on 17th November it expects to begin building a sheltered workshop by the spring of 1974.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply. Is he aware that there is no certainty, even at this time, that the local authority will be able to obtain a site for this valuable project? Is he also aware that the great difficulty is finding a site at a reasonable cost and that this issue demonstrates fairly conclusively that the scandal of rising land prices in London is hitting very hard at projects such as sheltered workshops?

I do not wish to go into the question of land prices; there is a good and adequate answer on that. However, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there are difficulties in London which are greater than those elsewhere concerning the provision of sheltered workshops. It is really the responsibility of the borough to find somewhere. In this case a compulsory purchase order may be required. But certainly if another site could be found in advance of this it would be proceeded with before 1974.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what progress has been made on his consultations with interested persons about the Robens Report on industrial safety.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what progress has been made in the consultations with interested bodies about the recommendations of the Robens Report on Safety and Health at Work.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what progress has been made in his consultations with interested parties about the Robens Report on Safety and Health at Work.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what consultations have been held between the Government, the Confederation of British Industry and the Trades Union Congress and others concerned with the implementation of the Robens Report on Safety and Health at Work.

In my statement in the House on publication of the Robens Report, I promised to consult the CBI, TUC, local authorities and other interested bodies to obtain their broad reactions to the proposals. Over 80 organisations have submitted comments or discussed the proposals with us.

Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that any consultations on this matter are constantly being overtaken by newer proposals, such as that arising from the discussions on thalidomide? As the revision of the Factories Act has been under discussion since 1967, will the right hon. Gentleman undertake that necessary medium-term proposals arising from the report, such as statutory provision for workplace safety consultation, will not be delayed until everything there is to be said on safety has been finally said?

The whole concept of the approach contained in Lord Robens' report is that it will be possible to bring forward relatively quickly enabling legislation setting up the type of body which is now under discussion with the unions and employers and within the Government, in order to prevent the sort of delay to which the hon. and learned Gentleman refers.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Alkali and Clean Air Inspectorate has very distinct and technical responsibilities, and as it has fairly close affiliations with the Department of the Environment, will be concede that this is an argument for keeping it as a separate entity and away from the unified inspectorate which is recommended by the Robens Committee?

The problem of accepting that type of argument, which has recently been shown in one or two practical cases, is that there is a danger that one inspectorate may say that a poisonous substance must be pumped out of a factory in order to protect the workpeople and another inspectorate quite properly may say that, in order to protect the environment, the poisonous substance must not be pumped out of the factory.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one of the most controversial aspects of the Robens Report is the encouragement given to the substitution of codes of practice for mandatory provisions and statutory orders concerning safety? There will be a good deal of opinion, from the Opposition and no doubt from the Government side of the House, which will query these factors. We find it very difficult to enforce, for example, in the building regulations, the safety precautions which already have a statutory and mandatory basis. Any tendency to substitute the sort of codes of practice that have become so notorious in the Ministry of Agriculture concerning animal welfare will be very critically considered by many hon. Members, including myself.

I have discussed this matter with various representatives of the unions. The hon. Gentleman's criticism rests very largely on a misunderstanding of the nature of the so-called voluntary codes of practice suggested in Lord Robens' report. I think that what Lord Robens was suggesting is non-statutory codes which would be worked out by unions and employers together and which would be backed by statutory sanctions.—[Interruption.] I am grateful for the correction of my pronunciation, if not of my principles. These codes, which would be worked out to suit each industry concerned, would have sanctions which would be legal in nature.

When the time comes for drafting the promised comprehensive safety legislation, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the need not only to establish properly qualified industrial safety engineers in all situations where that is economic but also to give positive support and stimulus to training in accident prevention on a much broader basis in terms appropriate to each industry?

Yes, indeed. The emphasis which Lord Robens and his Committee have put in their report was mainly on prevention and on using a joint approach to prevention. That is the importance of the joint safety committee and other proposals contained in the more detailed parts of the report.

Will the Secretary of State recognise that the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) represents the anxieties of a large number of people? There is concern that in changing over to the kind of pattern suggested in the Robens Report there might be some weakening of statutory protection for certain groups of workers, which course we should all avoid. Further, in view of all the discussions taking place between the right hon. Gentleman's Department and all the organisations he has mentioned, will he recognise that there ought to be an early debate in the House and that it should be in Government time, because the Robens Report was made to the Government? Will the right hon. Gentleman consult the Leader of the House about this matter in order that we may have a debate at a fairly early stage?

I assure the right hon. Gentleman that there is absolutely no intention, in either Lord Robens' proposals or the Government's interpretation of them, of weakening the statutory safety regulations. As for a debate, that is a matter for my right hon. Friend and I shall talk to him about it.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will seek to encourage firms to award safety prizes in the interest of promoting safety consciousness at work.

This is a matter for individual firms to decide. Safety prizes may produce marginal benefits in some cases, but only as part of a properly conceived and executed safety programme, which my Department is naturally concerned to encourage.

Surely the test of the hon. Gentleman's Department is the concern it shows for safety by trying to encourage firms and employees to be safety-conscious. What does he think, for example, about the fact that the Inland Revenue has decided to tax a man's safety prize? Is not this a classic example of a Government taking leave of their senses?

I do not have detailed knowledge about that but I would be happy to look into it. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that this is a matter of having an effective safety policy. While prizes may be one strand of that policy, a lot of other back-up work is needed as well. We try to encourage as many firms as possible to have a sensible and cohesive safety council.

The National Coal Board and the National Union of Mineworkers have had a lot to do with safety drives and competitions and it is ludicrous that the Inland Revenue should tax these prizes. Will the hon. Gentleman, although it is not his Department's responsibility, press this matter on the Treasury so that in the next budget it gets rid of this ludicrous situation?

I cannot undertake to press the matter but, as promised, I will look into it. I echo the hon. Gentleman's words about the National Coal Board because the safety performance of the mining industry is extremely good and very commendable.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will take steps to ensure the standardisation of industrial safety signs.

Steps are already being taken to standardise the symbols used to identify dangerous substances. My Department has no evidence that differences in other types of sign give rise to significant risks, but the matter will be kept under review.

Will my hon. Friend do a little more than that? Is he aware that several different systems are in use? May I as a former teacher give him a little visual aid lesson and show him three different signs for a fragile roof? Will he look at this again?

If my hon. Friend likes to have a word with me afterwards I will certainly undertake to look into that matter. Most industrial safety signs include simple words, and differences in the pictures are unlikely to cause confusion. But if my hon. Friend has specific cases in mind we will investigate and see whether we can get an improvement.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if the monthly unemployment figures published by his Department will henceforth differentiate between the various reasons for, and kinds of, unemployment.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will review the basis on which unemployment figures are compiled in the light of the recent census report.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he is taking to review and improve the accuracy of the unemployment statistics.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he is satisfied with the accuracy of unemployment statistics; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will order a re-examination of the method of collecting unemployment data, in view of the findings of the 1971 census.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement about the White Paper on unemployment statistics.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what changes he proposes to make in the procedure for the monthly enumeration of the unemployed.

The report of the Working Party on Unemployment Statistics was published on 20th November as a White Paper, Command 5157. The working party made a very thorough review of the existing statistics, it took into account information from the 1971 Census of Population and made a number of recommendations for improving and simplifying the presentation of the statistics and for supplementing them. The Government have accepted the recommendations of the working party. I am satisfied that the statistics provide the best available indicators of monthly changes in unemployment at national and local levels.

I am grateful for that reply but does my right hon. Friend agree that the overall figures will become increasingly meaningless unless they can be broken down to indicate the ages of the unemployed, the time they have been unemployed, differentiating between long-term unemployment and the inevitable short-term turnover, and the type of employment—for example, unemployment caused by redundancy where compensation has been paid and where people therefore expend the financial means they have received while necessarily taking their time before seeking re-employment?

There is always room for improvement in most sets of figures but the difficulty comes in breaking them down into too much detail. There are problems of collecting the figures on a regular basis when broken down in that fashion. That is why we are setting up the sample surveys to see what information can be gained and how best it can be regularly gained in order to analyse the nature of unemployment as well as the numbers.

Does the Secretary of State agree that the advanced analysis of the 1971 census does not invalidate some of the current unemployment statistics? Does he maintain that the numbers out of work, both male and female, are not under-estimated to a disturbing extent, and is there not a grave danger of unemployment statistics among teenagers, particularly coloured teenagers, being distorted?

I must remind the hon. Member that the census was not an advanced analysis; it was the subject of a reply to a particular question. It is an objective analysis of the specialist matters that the hon. Member raised concerning the damage of unemployment and the need to improve the figures as an indicator of the reserve of manpower and as an indicator of social distress.

Will the Secretary of State agree that however the figures are "cooked" they show the worst unemployment statistics for 40 years? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Indeed, yes. Will the right hon. Gentleman make sure that when he publishes the index in subsequent months or quarters he will compare like with like? Will he explain why he did not come to the House and make a special statement about why he was altering the format of the figures?

I am surprised at the hon. Member continuing the absurd suggestion that the figures were "cooked". [Interruption.] The figures which were published in the last Press statement were precisely the same as those available in the previous Press statement. The figures for the temporarily stopped were published separately and were not included within the total of unemployed in order to achieve greater accuracy about the reserve of manpower, which is something that Labour Members have been seeking. Those who are temporarily stopped are not unemployed in the sense that they are seeking further work. [HON. MEMBERS: "What are they?"]. They are people who have registered as unemployed for the purpose of drawing unemployment benefit until they go back to their previous job. They are not seeking work, nor are they unemployed in the sense that Labour Members have sought to suggest. The marked improvement shown by the unemployment figures last month would have been greater had those who were temporarily stopped been included. As it is, it is the first time that there has been a fall of unemployment in this month since 1950.

Is not the main point of unemployment figures to show where there is an unemployment problem with people who are genuinely and anxiously seeking work? Is it not important from an economic point of view that we should know where the hard core problems lie, and are we not moving towards that with the new system of publication of the figures?

That is the point of trying to break down the figures as we are now doing in the Department of Employment Gazette and in the monthly unemployment figures and the Press release. Students, for example, constitute part of the labour reserve only during vacations. They are therefore separately identified in the unemployment figures. There were 30,000 of them on the unemployment register in August, 1972 and in November, 1972 there are clearly none. It is difficult to make a further breakdown without the additional work which will be done by the working group in their more detailed studies of the characteristics of unemployment.

The Secretary of State looks as though he is imitating one of his distinguished ancestors who is said to have dreamed that he was addressing the House of Commons and then woke up to find that he was. Does he not realise that the effective standard for measuring unemployment is those who have no work on the day the survey is taken? In view of the widespread discrepancy in the November figures between those seeking work and those registered as unemployed, will the Secretary of State look once again at the suggestion of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition that we should have an all-party Select Committee to look at the compilation of these figures?

I do not accept that the situation is in any way different from what it has been in the past. The figures enumerate those who are on the unemployment register. There is a discrepancy in 1971 as there was in 1966 when the Labour Government did not even notice it or think to do anything about it in their period of office. We are trying to make the figures more accurate both as an index of the reserve of manpower and as an index of social distress. A Select Committee would be a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the recent figures reveal the first fall in unemployment in the month of October for 22 years and that this, coupled with the dramatic increase in the number of situations vacant, points hopefully to the future?

Those two facts show that the Government's policies for reflating the economy and for improving the unemployment situation are working and I have no doubt that that is precisely why the Opposition are making such a storm in a teacup about the relatively small change in the method of presentation.

The rapidity with which the Secretary of State accepted the working party's report and the speed with which he put it into operation have sown the seeds of suspicion in the public mind. Would it not have been better to allow time to debate the working party's report before altering the method of calculating or ascertaining the statistics about unemployment?

If there was any question of altering the method of calculation or of changing the figures in the monthly presentation, the hon. Member might have had a point. But there has been no change. We have added a line for those who are unemployed for four weeks or less, who are some 20 per cent.-plus of the total, and we have removed from one table the temporarily stopped and shown that figure separately. We have emphasised once again that the figure which has always been in the report and which has always been considered the most important indicator—the seasonally-adjusted figure—is precisely the same as it was before. It would seem unnecessary to have a debate on such a small change as that.

For those who believe that the age when a person becomes entitled to a retirement pension should be reduced, can the figures indicate the proportion of the over-60s who are unemployed?

Yes, I think it would be possible to improve the analysis by age as well as by the length of time that people have been unemployed. I must warn my hon. Friend, however, that it is a complicated matter and that there is a limit to the amount of information which can be collected under this particular method. We shall have to examine more carefully the methods of survey sampling and so on.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that to the Opposition any person who is able and willing to work but is denied the opportunity to do so is unemployed and that no dodging around with figures will obscure the fact that at Christmas over 800,000 people will be unemployed and looking for work as a consequence of the Government's policies? Is it not clear that the census, which was taken from every household in the country, showed a yawning gap between what the Secretary of State's officials have produced in their White Paper and the census figures? Ought there not to have been, before the right hon. Gentleman clutched at his straw, a thorough investigation so that we could have analysed the discrepancy between the figures? The hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Sydney Chapman) asked for more detailed information. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us, therefore, why he has altered the presentation of the numbers of young people unemployed, which used to give a detailed breakdown but is no longer shown as such in the Press notice?

The census of population provides information about the number of persons who described themselves as either seeking work or waiting to take a job in April 1971. The hon. Gentleman asked why we did not break down the analysis any further. We are breaking it down. The figures include many who were sick; the exact numbers are not yet available. In addition, probably about 100,000 men and up to about 300,000 women described themselves as waiting for or seeking work but were not registered as unemployed. These include many people, especially women, who would accept work only on certain conditions—convenient hours, travel and so on. In the 1966 census about half the people in this category were waiting to take up jobs or were not seeking to take up work at all. The corresponding figure for 1971 is very likely to be much the same. Therefore, there is no difference between the situations in 1971 and 1966. We have not in any way sought to confuse the issue or to reduce the amount of information in the Press notice. Rather have we increased it.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many school leavers in Derby are still unemployed; and what steps the Government intend to take to alleviate the position.

Sixty-eight school leavers were registered as unemployed in Derby in November. Careers officers are doing all they can to help them and it is expected that most will find work within the next month or two.

Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that his figures do not include, for example, 40 school leavers who are forced to remain at school because no jobs are available for them? In addition, some of the 68 school leavers mentioned by the hon. Gentleman have been without work for periods of up to six months. Is not this a disgrace? Will the Government now take action to alleviate the position? I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should write to industry, not only in Derby but throughout the country, asking it to take on some of these youngsters supernumerary to establishment in order to alleviate the position.

The situation is not nearly as bad as the hon. Gentleman makes out. The November total of unemployed school leavers was 39 less than in October. There has been a marked improvement in the employment position of young people in his area. The situation generally in Derby is improving and its unemployment percentage of 3·1 is now below the national average. But of course we shall continue to do what we can to help those young people who are unemployed.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has now considered the proposals regarding training courses for young people made to him by the Teesside Youth Employment Committee; and if he will make a statement.

Various proposals on the training of young people have been made by the Teesside Youth Employment Committee. Those relating to the provision of further industrial training board award schemes and to the continued provision of limited skill courses for young people have been accepted for the current academic year; others have been rejected and some are still under consideration.

But thousands of teenagers are still suffering enforced idleness in the North. How long will my hon. Friend take to deal with the situation in terms of providing industrial training courses for these young people? How long will he take to act upon the very constructive proposals put up more recently by the Chairman of the Northern Economic Planning Council?

My hon. Friend would be very prepared to see a deputation from those who have put up various proposals in that area. As far as training is concerned, the Department is again meeting half the cost of special industrial training board award schemes. Five boards are running schemes and over 4,000 first-year training places have been made available, a number of them on Teesside. We are taking various other training places and, of course, the area is benefiting from community industry schemes as well.

Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that in the Government training centres alone considerable numbers of places are not taken up? In my constituency, just north of the Tees, 72 men and boys are wholly out of work for every vacancy registered, and this is a measure of the intensity of the problem. Will the hon. Gentleman therefore give an assurance that he will enter into pertinent discussion with me and other hon. Members representing that region to see whether the Government can do much more than they are doing?

There is obvious concern about Teesside. I accept the hon. Gentleman's concern. But the number of vacancies has improved. There may be places in Government training centres which have not been taken up in certain skills. That depends on the economic activity in the particular trade at the time. But this is an aspect which we keep and will continue to keep carefully under review. If the hon. Gentleman wants to come and talk to me about these matters I shall be glad to welcome him.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what decline in unemployment has occurred in the West Midlands, including Birmingham and Coventry, during the eight months from April to November, 1972.

During this period unemployment in the West Midlands fell provisionally by 20,092, a drop of over 22 per cent.

I congratulate my hon. Friend in these excellent figures, but will he tell us what the particular reference is to the motor industry and the conditions of the motor market in the New Year?

The motor market is not within my responsibility, but I assure my hon. Friend that the motor car industry's situation is improving. Austin-Morris at Long-bridge is recruiting because of increased production and I read yesterday that Chrysler at Coventry is also recruiting. Like my hon. Friend, I have a great interest in the prosperity of the West Midlands. The situation is far more satisfactory than it was a year ago. It gives cause for genuine optimism. We have always known that this was a strong and well-diversified base, and so it is proving through Government policy.

While there has been an appreciable drop in unemployment in the West Midlands, nevertheless there is still a deplorably high level of unemployment among young people and school leavers in particular. What action does the hon. Gentleman intend to take to ensure that young people, when they leave school, instead of going into the dole queue get decent jobs?

There is a later Question on this point, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman now that the situation for young people is improving. Unemployment has fallen steadily since August and the November total of 1,422 was 680 less than in October. This is a trend in the right direction and I wish that the hon. Gentleman would cheer up about it.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he proposes to take to curb industrial subversion.

My right hon. Friend is aware of the general concern over subversive activities by a small minority in industry. The most effective safeguard is active participation by the great bulk of trade unionists in the affairs of their union.

I appreciate my hon. Friend's reticence about going into this matter in detail at the moment, but does not he recognise that the recent intimidation we have seen in a small number of strikes by a very small number of people is a threat both to the rule of law and to good industrial relations.

I would not wish to play down the contribution that subversive elements make towards the course of disruption, but at the same time it can be easy to exaggerate their influence. There is an important distinction between militancy and subversion. Where the law of the land has been transgressed, action must lie in the courts. Where it has not been transgressed, we need to walk warily with regard to our democratic freedoms because that is a necessary price that we pay for our free way of life, and admittedly it can sometimes be a very high price.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the most dangerous forms of industrial subversion lies in throwing hundreds of people out of work for the sake of short-term profit?

That appears to be a totally different question.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has for cutting unemployment in Scotland and Coatbridge and Airdrie, respectively.

The hon. Member's constituency together with other parts of Scotland should continue to benefit from the extensive measures we introduced to encourage industrial expansion especially in the development areas.

Is the Minister aware that, in spite of these so-called extensive measures, Scotland has nearly twice and Coatbridge and Airdrie nearly three times the national average of unemployment? Is it not time that this grave situation was acknowledged and the Minister took action to pressurise the spending Ministries to place more orders for firms in this part of the country to provide thousands of immediate jobs and help to alleviate unemployment?

I know the hon. Gentleman's concern about his district. Unemployment is still too high in Scotland, but it is encouraging to see that the Scottish seasonally adjusted rate has dropped by 0·8 per cent. since April, and that drop represents 15,200 people. That is is a trend in the right direction and it is being maintained.

asked the Prime Minister whether the public statement of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, at Exeter on 18th November, on the subject of the monarchy and the European Economic Community, represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

My right hon. Friend's remarks about the monarchy were in response to a question. He did not make any statement of policy.

May I take it that the Prime Minister repudiates his right hon. Friend's inane suggestion that it would be a splendid idea for the Queen of England to become the constitutional monarch of Europe? Does he agree that the suggestion that the Queen should be imposed as a super-monarch over the monarchs of Belgium, Holland and Denmark is a gross insult to them? What consultations has he had with President Pompidou about the restoration of the monarchy in France?

I do not think the hon. Gentleman can have read the Press reports. My right hon. Friend is reported as having said that a great many people would like to see this happen and that, if it were the wish of the countries of Europe that this should be so, he would be perfectly happy about it.

asked the Prime Minister if he will define the responsibilities of the Minister for Trade and Consumer Affairs.

My right hon. and learned Friend is responsible for overseas trade matters, commercial policy in the United Kingdom, prices policy and competition and consumer policy. On the last he will work closely with other Ministers responsible for particular consumer matters to develop and co-ordinate the Government's policies in relation to the consumer.

What will be the new Minister's responsibilities on the introduction of value added tax? Is the Prime Minister aware that already companies are suggesting to wholesalers and retailers just how much they can increase profits when VAT is introduced? Will he urge the Minister to keep a watch for people who attempt to fleece consumers when VAT is introduced?

Value added tax is, of course, a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the House is to debate it fully later this afternoon. The point which the hon. Gentleman has made is a very important one, and action will be taken in this respect.

Does the Prime Minister realise that it will not exactly fill the public with confidence in the new Minister's ability to resist the inbuilt pressures and lobbies that will inevitably result from his being wrongly placed within the major industrial sponsoring Department of his Government when they realise that he has already bowed to his own professional lobbies by excluding legal services from outside scrutiny—in other words, the new Bill?

This is an arguable point in the structure of government and I do not accept the view put forward by the hon. Gentleman. It has sometimes been argued in the past that it would be better to separate the industrial matters in government from the trading matters because each is likely to influence the other. On the other hand, all Prime Ministers have taken the view, learning from the experience of other countries, that it is better to have trade and industry together because that system works to prevent industry becoming protectionist. The same applies to having consumer protection inside the Department of Trade and Industry, because it can bring the necessary pressure to bear on industry.

asked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with the coordination of the Home Department, the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Department of the Environment concerning questions of law reform; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Prime Minister whether he is satisfied with the co-ordination between the Lord Chancellor, the Secretary of State for the Home Department and the Secretary of State for the Environment relating to questions of law reform; and if he will make a statement.

Yes, Sir. There is full consultation on law reform matters between my right hon. Friends.

Is the Prime Minister aware that it has been reported in the Press that certain discussions have taken place between these Departments concerning proposals to eliminate the right of trial by jury in connection with certain petty thefts and serious driving offences? Is that right? If it is right, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these proposals would be regarded by many sections of the public and by a large section of the legal profession as being a serious erosion of the liberty of the individual?

As I think the hon. Gentleman knows, the burden on the higher courts increased sharply during the first nine months of this year. From January to October 1972 the number of committals for trial was 20 per cent. higher than during the corresponding period of 1971. The Lord Chancellor and those who are concerned with servicing the Crown Courts have been examining possible ways of dealing with this additional burden. As the House knows, the number of courts has been considerably increased, and that programme is continuing. It is, therefore, right that these matters should be looked at. If the Government were to come to the conclusion that any particular method should be adopted they would have to come to the House.

Has not a great deal of useful law reform been carried out in recent years, and have not the reports of the Law Commission received prompt consideration by Parliament?

Yes, Sir, that is so. A great deal of excellent work has been done, and the House has been willing to implement as speedily as possible the recommendations of the Law Commission. There have been other recommendations on the reform of the law which have been more controversial, particularly in the recent report of the Criminal Law Revision Committee, on which we have said that we do not intend to legislate this Session, so that there will be time for full public discussion.

Does the Prime Minister agree that the right to trial by jury, with proper financial provision for representation and with such traditional rights as the caution and the right to silence, are important practical safeguards of individual liberty and worth the price we pay for them, particularly to the less affluent and the less articulate? If any inroads arc to be made on these principles, will the Prime Minister undertake that it will be after proper debate in the House and not by way of a measure introduced in a telescoped form and debated in the bleak hours of the morning?

Yes, the right to trial by jury is an important aspect of our legal system. It does not extend to all offences and it is right that this matter should be examined. If recommendations are made which the Government decide to implement, legislation would of course have to come to the House.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that spokesmen from all these Departments join the Magistrates' Associations and others in their universal concern about some aspects of the way in which the Children and Young Persons Act is working? Can he hold out any hope of an early reform of that law?

I should like to consider that matter. I do not think I can hold out early hope but I am certainly prepared to discuss it with my right hon. Friends.

In the law reform discussions, have the Government taken a decision on the Franks Report, with particular reference to Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act? As the Department of the Environment is mentioned, does the right hon. Gentleman recall the exchanges in the House during business questions last week about the raid on a newspaper office and the document that was alleged to have come from the Department of the Environment? Will he give an assurance that there will be no question of legal proceedings for the holding of a document in which the copyright is elsewhere, which arises out of a legal decision by the late Mr. Justice Ungoed-Thomas?

My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has been in contact with the right hon. Gentleman since business questions last week, and I have seen the correspondence he has had with the right hon. Gentleman. I would not like to give the right hon. Gentleman an undertaking on the matter because it is somewhat controversial, but I am quite prepared to examine it further and write to him.

asked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with the coordination between the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs over the proposals of the European Community concerning the weight of heavy lorries; and if he will make a statement.

Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friends have made very clear to the Six the strength of our opposition to the present proposals.

As, by accepting the motion last Wednesday, the Government have acknowledged that they will veto any proposal to increase the permitted size or weight of heavy lorries, will the Prime Minister ensure that our representative at Brussels follows implicitly the instructions of this Parliament and does not yield to any compromise solution without coming back to the House for permission to do so?

My right hon. Friend in winding up the debate made the position quite clear. We have asked that this matter should not be dealt with until the three new members accede to the Community on 1st January. Then it will be our objective, and the objective of all the new members, to reach agreement.

Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to state what authority this Parliament will have after 1st January 1973 on the questions that he has answered?

I do not think that accession to the EEC would have affected any of my answers today.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will pay a further official visit to the city of Leicester.

I have at present no plans to do so, Sir.

Is the Prime Minister aware that more than 800 children are awaiting school places in Leicester, which also has a considerable housing and unemployment problem? Is he also aware of the grave anxiety and anger within the city at the Government's failure to take generous, immediate and long-term steps to enable the city to cope with the current influx of refugees?

I have myself looked into this matter very carefully because I saw the report in the local newspaper about what the hon. and learned Gentleman said on these matters. I find that Leicester has been generously treated in many ways, and it is eligible for the grants which can be made by the Uganda Resettlement Board. If the hon. and learned Gentleman's point is that Leicester has not so far received the money, I am assured that Leicester has applied for grants for two schemes and grants for one scheme have already been approved, and the resettlement board is ready to arrange payment as soon as Leicester requests it.

Is the Prime Minister aware that many of us sympathise with his reluctance to visit Leicester as the road traffic conditions there are just as bad as they are in Westminster?

If the hon. Gentleman looks carefully at the Question, he will see that it asks me to pay a further official visit to Leicester. I have only just been to Leicester.

If my right hon. Friend goes to Leicester, on his way there will he call on my constituency and allow me to accompany him round some of our ancient primary schools which are urgently in need of replacement?

Yes, Sir, I am quite prepared to do that. I think, however, that my hon. Friend will acknowledge that the present Government, since coming to office, have given the highest priority in education to the replacement of old primary schools, and we should have the credit for it.

Since the Prime Minister cannot go to Leicester and the House is, unfortunately, procedurally not able to learn whether he would have been prepared to go to Uxbridge, will he compromise and either in an unofficial capacity before polling day or in an official capacity after polling day go to Sutton and Cheam to see why a blue chip Tory area has been captured by the Liberals?

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman might be wise to wait for a day or two.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will seek an early meeting with the Scottish Council (Development and Industry) and the Scottish Trades Union Congress.

I have at present no plans for such meetings but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry met both bodies on 1st December; and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has arranged to meet both bodies on 8th December. I shall be receiving full reports of these meetings.

If that is so, the Prime Minister must know that both those bodies agree that if the Government's plan for a 5 per cent. annual growth is to be met there will have to be a substantial increase in steel production in Scotland, and I hope that this will be taken into account when the statement is made on the future of the steel industry before Christmas. Will the Prime Minister make sure that consultations take place on the discovery and exploitation of North Sea oil and its effect on the coal industry?

Yes, I give the hon. Gentleman an assurance that these matters will be taken into account. I have discussed them on several occasions with the Scottish TUC and other Scottish bodies.

Will the Prime Minister reconsider that decision and agree to meet the Scottish TUC to explain why, when unemployment begins to fall, it falls much faster in the Midlands and South-East of England than it does in Scotland and the North-East and North-West of England?

It is an historical fact that when the trade cycle moves and reflationary forces begin to work the Midlands and the North-West show the impact more quickly than does Scotland. The only effective answer is a regional policy which will get sufficient industry to Scotland so that in future it will be able to expand at the same rate. This Government have produced the best regional policy of any Government.

When the talks eventually take place, will the Prime Minister explain why he has allowed the National Industrial Relations Court to continue without the existence of the Commission for Industrial Relations about which the former Solicitor-General said that the court should not continue if the commission were allowed to go out of existence?

The hon. Gentleman is on the wrong Question. This is a Question about the Scottish Council (Development and Industry) and the Scottish TUC. It is not Question 8, which I shall come to later.

This is about Scottish questions—

Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge the pleasure it gave us on the North-East coast when he came last Friday and went round—

Order. This Question relates to Scotland. Mr. Lawson.

I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker. I did not hear what you said.

The Question relates to Scotland and not to the North-East.

Well, there has been a lot of talk about the North-East.

Has the Prime Minister considered the views of the STUC and the Scottish Council for Development and Industry on the recent decision to stop paying the Government grant towards the productivity councils which have rendered such excellent work, especially in Lanarkshire?

This is not a matter which has been raised with me, but I am prepared to discuss it.

Mr. Milne.

May I raise a point of order, Mr. Speaker, about that last Question to the Prime Minister? Will you explain why it is that if there is a Question on the Order Paper relating to an English matter, Scotsmen are allowed to participate, whereas apparently there is now a ruling that English Members cannot intervene in the course of a Scottish Question to raise matters applicable to both Scotland and England?

The selection of those hon. Members who ask supplementary questions is a matter for the discretion of the Chair.