asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what conclusions he has reached on the working of the Northern Ireland Criminal Injuries to Persons (Compensation) Act 1968.

The working party referred to in the reply given to a Question from the hon. Member on 15th May—[Vol. 892, c. 635–6.]—has not yet completed its review. I am, therefore, not yet in a position to reach any final conclusions.

Can the right hon. Gentleman do anything to expedite this important review? Can he assure the House that its provisions will be suitably back-dated when it finally emerges?

Certainly expedition concerns me. I am very concerned about this matter as a whole. As regards backdating, decisions in that respect are matters for the courts. My ministerial colleagues and I are very concerned about this matter. If the hon. Gentleman has any particular case in mind, perhaps he will let me know about it.

What are the reasons for having taken so long?

I set up the investigation in March this year and, given the complications of the matter, I do not regard this as a long period. The investigation is based on legislation that went through the Parliament in Northern Ireland in 1968. I am also keeping closely in touch with any changes in the ex gratia scheme operated by the Home Secretary. These are complicated matters but we are trying to operate the scheme as well as is possible. Everyone takes into account the people who have suffered as a result of the problems in Northern Ireland.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the widespread disgust that is felt at the glaring unfairness between the vast sums awarded to internees and prisoners for alleged injuries and the relatively small sums paid to the widows and families of soldiers, policemen and civilians murdered by the IRA? Surely this is a matter which should be expedited Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that four months is too long?

As regards the last part of his question, the hon. Gentleman is wrong given the nature of the situation. The payments to which he refers are a different matter. I fully understand how people feel in Northern Ireland when payments are made to certain people, but the law is the law and that is what I have to operate. It is the legal aspect that is being investigated.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the numbers of unemployed in the Province; and if he will give comparable figures for 1974.

In July 1975 the total number of unemployed registered for work was 51,525. representing 9.9 per cent. of insured employees. These figures are greatly inflated by the numbers of school leavers and adult students registering as unemployed in July. The seasonally-adjusted total of unemployed, which excludes school leavers and adult students, was 38,700 or 7.4 per cent. In July 1974 the unadjusted total was 34,649 or 6.7 per cent. and the seasonally-adjusted total was 28,700 or 5.5 per cent.

I am sure the Minister will agree that those are extremely worrying figures. What special measures do the Government intend to take to help Northern Ireland? When does he intend to publish the review of the Northern Ireland Finance Corporation? I think we all appreciate the value of the corporation in helping to find jobs in Northern Ireland.

The Government are doing a considerable amount with the injection of public money into Northern Ireland through retraining and through having people kept in temporary employment while they are retrained. For instance, as a result of the counter-redundancy training scheme 740 people have been kept in employment. Industrial incentives are being used that are far in advance of anything else that is being applied in any other part of the United Kingdom. The Government are considering the operations and the retailoring of the Northern Ireland Finance Corporation in line with the National Enterprise Board and other agencies in the United Kingdom.

Will the right hon. Gentleman investigate the loss of the poding contract relating to the RB211 and involving Short's? Secondly, will he initiate an immediate inquiry into the textile industry in Northern Ireland? This is a critical time for the industry. Hundreds of jobs will be lost in the immediate future unless the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues in the Departments of Trade and Industry take immediate action.

As the hon. Gentleman knows, he raised the question of the RB211 with me in Committee the other week, and I am having that matter investigated. When the Government have any information I shall see that it is made public and the hon. Member will be notified.

With regard to the textile industry, the hon. Gentleman also knows that for a considerable time I have been involved in examining what can be done to safeguard that industry. The matter has been raised with the Secretaries of State for Trade and Industry and the Prime Minister, and we are keeping the matter under constant review.

While appreciating that the unemployment position in Northern Ireland is very serious, may I ask my right hon. Friend to recognise that it is also very serious in my constituency? There is probably a higher percentage of unemployment in Jarrow than in Northern Ireland. Will he explain why there should be these extra grant facilities for Northern Ireland which are not available to my constituents in Jarrow?

As the House will realise, my right hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough) represents a constituency with a poignant memory of unemployment. I think that he would not want the Government to treat unemployment any differently in one place from another, whether in Jarrow or in Northern Ireland, while it remains a part of the United Kingdom. I can assure him that the Government are concerned about this rising unemployment, and the steps we are taking in Northern Ireland are to offset an unemployment position which, unfortunately, is worse than in his own constituency of Jarrow.

Concerning the problem of the self-employed in Northern Ireland in particular, will the Minister recognise that the taxes on the self-employed fall particularly heavily on business men in Northern Ireland, where there is a higher proportion of self-employed people?

I take note of what the hon. Gentleman has said. I am not sure whether the facts bear it out. I shall look into it, but it does not touch the centre of this issue.

From the figures which have been given by my right hon. Friend it appears that there has been an increase of 10,000 in the unemployed in Northern Ireland since last year. Does he not agree, therefore, that this is a deplorable situation in such a small community? Will he give the House any indication whether one of the reasons for the non-provision of jobs in Northern Ireland is the effect of the UWC strike last year, which prevented potential industrialists and investors from investing in Northern Ireland?

I have said to my hon. Friend that the NWC strike had an effect and is having an effect on investment in Northern Ireland, and an effect on jobs, but so also has the continued violence from the Provisional IRA over a number of years, and the sectarian murders taking place in Northern Ireland do not add confidence in regard to bringing investment into the Province. I only hope that the people in the Province will take note of this.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he will make a statement on law and order in the Province.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will make a state—ment about the security situation.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the present security situation.

I would refer the hon. Members to the statement I made to the House on 21st July and to the Reply I gave to a Private Notice Question from the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) on 10th July.—[Vol. 896, c. 37–39; Vol. 895, c. 742–47

Is it not absurd to suggest that men reliably believed to have committed at least one terrorist murder will not willingly, or under intimidation, rejoin or be retrained for terrorist units? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we were not reassured when he told us on Monday that ex-detainees were being persuaded to leave the country, unless by "country" he meant the whole of the United Kingdom? Are we to expect ex-detainees to join active service units in British cities over which the threat of terrorism now hangs? Finally, have releases been suspended?

I have explained my policy concerning the release of detainees, who have been arrested not through the courts but mostly by my fiat and by my investigation of each individual case. Under the law as it is, and under the Bill which I hope will shortly become law, it is for me to look at each individual case. I am not in business to keep people locked up for ever. I shall look at each individual case.

I say to the hon. Gentleman, however, that the same problem arises with those who are released from prison, and there are 1,400 so-called special category prisoners coming out every day of the week. I have had no question from anybody about whether people released from prison may return to violence. There is always a problem in this respect. I have had a very careful investigation made as a result of what the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) said to me on Monday, and the RUC will take all necessary steps to arrest anyone against whom there is sufficient evidence of a crime and to bring any such person before a court. There are those who are known and seen but against whom there is no evidence. There are also those who are known but unseen and on the run, and we wish we could find them.

While the House is grateful for the statement of the Minister on Monday—some of us accepted the principles on which it was based, particularly that those who are interned cannot be regarded as hostages or treated as such —may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to say whether over the period of the cease-fire, and perhaps even more since the recent event involving four soldiers, there has been any evidence of increased community co-operation and increased willingness throughout the community to assist the police in ensuring that the proper processes of law enable arrests to be made?

I can tell the hon. Gentleman that a large number of arrests that have been made, and charges made through the courts, have been as a result of evidence given to us. I hope the House will take note that the Government believe that it is much more important to be able to charge arrested persons in the courts and, if they are convicted, to imprison them than it is to detain people. The amount of evidence coming from minority areas is large, but sadly, in one Protestant area of Northern Ireland where there is a Robophone, there has been only one telephone call ever.

Will my right hon. Friend accept the assurance of many Members on the Government side, and I think in the rest of the House also, that it is far more preferable to have people tried and convicted, or acquitted, than it is to intern them, with all the emotional overtones involved? Is he able to tell the House whether there is any evidence of the degree to which ex-detainees or ex-internees have been convicted of terrorist crimes and what percentage this represents of the sum total? In relation to these figures, is he able to assess the policies and fears of the opposition?

Concerning the last part of my hon. Friend's question, it is a very small number. I shall check on it. I seem to recall one such case from each side, as it were, in Northern Ireland, but I do not think that proves the point. We must be concerned about what may happen in certain conditions to people who were formerly detained or who were formerly in prison, having been properly sentenced. In terms of the question asked by my hon. Friend, however, it is a very small number.

Concerning the first part of the question, it is the aim of the Government to bring prosecutions through the courts. It is better to do it that way.

If there should be a full-scale return to violence on either side, the powers of the law at the moment, and under the new legislation which will come shortly, empowering detention, are there because they may have to be used.

Can the Minister really say, with his hand on his heart, that these people are not going back to terrorism? If he cannot say this, is it really worth the risk involved in releasing them?

Concerning the recent death of the four soldiers in Northern Ireland, will the right hon. Gentleman consult the BBC, which at 10 o'clock on the morning in question announced that four soldiers had been killed but made no mention of the next of kin being informed? Will he recognise that the failure to mention this caused a great deal of pain and anguish to those with sons in Armagh, who had no idea until 6 p.m. whether their own sons were involved?

I will look at that and see who is the appropriate person to investi- gate. With regard to releases from detention—the current wave of detention, starting with internment in 1971, with well over 1,000 people—it is not the intention of the law either then or now to have life imprisonment by detention. I have to look at every individual case, and I shall continue to do that. I am not unaware of the problems. I am also aware of the number of people being released every day from gaol who have been properly sentenced. No one seems worried about them, although in many cases they have committed far worse crimes.

The Secretary of State appeared to say just now that there were 1,400 special category prisoners coming out every day.

No.

That was the right hon. Gentleman's expression. I thought that he would want an opportunity to correct that if it was a slip of the tongue.

There are 1,400 special category prisoners. There are special category prisoners coming out every day.

I recognise the sincerity which my right hon. Friend is displaying in trying to bring violence in Northern Ireland to an end. Is he aware, however, that there is considerable disquiet in both communities about the fact that negotiations appear to be going on between the British Government and paramilitary groups from both sides of the religious and political divide whose only authority is that of the gun and intimidation? Will he at all times bear in mind that in the final analysis the people to set the pattern for any development of a future peace in Northern Ireland are the representatives of the people elected by the people?

The purpose of the Convention is for the people of Northern Ireland to elect representatives who are not governing Northern Ireland but who are talking together with a view to putting to this House a general attitude to a scheme of government, because it is those who are elected who will govern Northern Ireland. It is political action which matters. I say that not just to my hon. Friend and to his community, although I know that he attempts to cross the divide. The man with the gun in both communities in Northern Ireland calls the tune. That would not be so if there was not support for men with guns in many parts of Northern Ireland.

When terrorist outrages occur in Ireland or in England and persons are tried for these offences in counties other than those in which they were perpetrated, will the Secretary of State persuade his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that the cost of these trials should be defrayed from national funds and should not be borne by the ratepayers of counties such as my own?

That is not a matter for me. I have many problems in Northern Ireland, but I am glad that that is not one of them.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the continued use of troops as policemen, especially in stress areas in Northern Ireland, is neither good for security nor good for the troops concerned? In the near future, does he expect to be able to make some kind of progress report to the House about discussions which have been held or proposals which have been made about the introduction of acceptable police forces in those areas and the withdrawal of troops?

In the time that the Government have been in power—and going back to the section in last year's White Paper on law and order—it has been the view of the Government and of many people in Northern Ireland that what we should achieve is proper policing and that the quicker that the troops were withdrawn to perform their normal function, the better. Under normal circumstances the police do the job very much better. That is not in any way decrying the troops there, on whom I find every day that I depend greatly. But there are parts of Northern Ireland where the writ of the police does not run properly. In my 18 months there I have learned that there cannot be two police forces. There cannot be degrees of police forces. There can be only one police force throughout Northern Ireland. It is basic that that should be the case, because the law will be carried out only when the police are supported by everyone in the community. I endeavour to do my part to see that that comes about.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much money was made available from public funds in 1974 to finance community relations projects in Northern Ireland; and by what percentage such grants have been cut for the forthcoming year.

In 1974–75 the sum paid in grants towards intercommunal projects was £33,000. In addition there was expenditure of £977,000 on research, publications and support to community groups and similar projects, including the social need programme administered by the former Northern Ireland Department of Community Relations.

Provision has been made in the 1975–76 Estimates for services to increase these amounts to £35,000 for inter-communal projects and £1,265,000 for the other items. Together these figures represent an increase of 29 per cent. over the 1974–75 expenditure.

In fact, as the hon. Gentleman knows, many valuable projects are being cut. I appreciate the need for Government economies at the present time, but does not the hon. Gentleman agree that among the things not to cut in Northern Ireland are grants, for example, for play schemes, play buses and holiday centres which bring Catholic and Protestant children together, get them off the streets and give them somewhere to play, which is especially important in the school holiday period?

We are aware of the problems. Some of the matters referred to by the hon. Gentleman come on other budgets than the one to which I have referred. But we intend to continue to support inter-communal groups and community associations as we have in the past. However, all public expenditure will be the subject to a process of reconsideration.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that good long-term community relations cannot be purchased and that they will improve only when law and order are restored in Northern Ireland? If the party of the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) were to support the RUC, that would go a long way to bringing about that situation.

The question of law and order is one which engages the attention of my right hon. Friend continually, as the hon. Gentleman must be aware from earlier exchanges. Certainly good community relations cannot be bought, but sometimes we have to use expenditure to encourage them.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the future of the Housing Executive.

It is honed to lay before Parliament later this year an Order in Council which will give the Housing Executive new responsibilities in relation to the improvement of the existing housing stock. There are no other plans to change the role of the executive, which has its own internal arrangements under constant review to improve its efficiency.

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that if public authority housing is to get on to an even keel once again some real sense of local identity has to be established? Will he consider setting up liaison committees between district councils and the Housing Executive to deal with such matters as mundane repairs, house allocations and so on? Only by doing this will we get acceptance again that the community has to pay its way.

We have various offices up and down the Province, and this is one of the matters concerning the Housing Executive in its review. At the same time we should recognise the special difficulties of the Housing Executive. Its headquarters has been bombed nine times. Several of the other offices, along with large numbers of houses, have also been bombed. In 1973–74 there were 340 explosions affecting 6,800 houses. Belfast has had 1,495 Housing Executive houses vandalised. All this takes up valuable resources and money which I can hardly afford to spend.

Does my hon. Friend accept that although the Housing Executive is woefully deficient in many areas, especi- ally in terms of repairs, what we want is to improve the efficiency of the executive and to resist any attempt which may be made by certain political orders to return the functions of the Housing Executive to the local authorities which created such a disaster in their running of housing in Northern Ireland in the past?

I have no intention of reverting to local government control of housing in Northern Ireland. It would be a retrograde step to move away from the concept of a single impartial housin authority.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals he has for the improvement of industrial training in the Downpatrick area.

A new training course in basic office work is due to commence in September at Downpatrick Technical College. There are no other plans at present to provide additional industrial training facilities in the area.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the disappointment which was felt in this area at the reduction of these facilities a year or so ago? Does he recognise that this is an area and a centre which are particularly fitted for the provision of industrial training and where it is specially needed?

There are three training centres within 30 miles of the area to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred, namely Dundonald, Newry and Craigavon. Travelling expenses are available to people who use these facilities. It is impossible for the Government to provide training centres in every town and city in Northern Ireland because of limits on expenditure.

I should like to congratulate my right hon. Friend on his interest and the progress he has made to date with regard to training facilities in Northern Ireland, particularly his recent opening of the Boucher Road training centre in Belfast, which was not well publicised. Will he look again at this particular project because, as the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) said, there is a lack of training facilities for those concerned in the area?

I thank my hon. Friend for what he has said. As I have repeated many times in this House, there are 10 times more training centres in Northern Ireland than in the rest of the United Kingdom. Although the unemployment rate is too high in Downpatrick, it is below the average for the Province. Certainly I shall look at this matter. Frankly. I do not think that there is any justification for more facilities at present.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many employees of Harland and Wolff have been made redundant in the past six months.

I understand that over the past six months 87 people, all staff employees, have been made redundant by Harland and Wolff. A further seven will be made redundant on 31st July next.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his reply. In view of the fact of a world slump in demand for super-tankers and a need for diversification in Harland and Wolff to take up the work force available there, can the Minister tell us why that company has confined itself to building only one oil rig, which is now operating successfully in the North Sea, when we know that about a dozen such rigs are being built in Scandinavian shipyards and that there is a demand for them?

We might go more fully into this wider aspect when the order for bringing Harland and Wolff into full public ownership is put before the House—we hope, before the Summer Recess. In actual fact the redundancies to which I have referred are minimal at present because the company has a full order book until 1978. The test for the shipyard will be in finding fresh work on the terms which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has laid down.

Is there not a shorter answer—that the management of Harland and Wolff has not been as alert as it ought to have been to what is bappening in the North Sea?

Taking recent history into account, I believe that the words "has not been as alert as it ought" are probably correct. We are trying to redress that situation. I hope that the proposals that the Government put before the House will ensure that past mistakes are not repeated.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is his policy towards the comments contained in paragraphs 170 and 171 of the Gardiner Report.

I accept in general the views expressed in paragraphs 170 and 171 of the Gardiner Report. I made clear the Governments policy on the release of detainees during the Committee stage of the Emergency Provisions (Amendment) Bill. I cannot commit myself at this stage to a specific date but I hope that the situation will progress sufficiently to enable all the detainees to be out by Christmas. Policy on detention will continue to be related to the level and nature of violence prevailing, but under the terms of the law I have to make the judgment on each individual case in the light of the right of the community to be protected as well as the need to consider the right of the individual to his freedom.

Despite this and earlier answers, does the Secretary of State discount entirely the view of the Gardiner Committee that there is an unacceptable risk in releasing detainees who are skilled in guerrilla activities and guerrilla warfare when their terrorist organisations remain intact and demonstrate their capabilities?

I have read carefully what the Gardiner Committee said on this point. It also went on to say: Release linked to the state of violence in the community, on the other hand, would lend substance to the detainees' complaint that they are being used as 'political hostages'". The report says that I have to balance one against the other and make my own judgment. That is precisely what I am doing.

Would my right hon. Friend agree that to apply the logic that is now being suggested by the Opposition side of the House would mean that those who have been sentenced and convicted of armed offences in Northern Ireland should not be released, on the ground that they have been proved guilty and might resort to the same offence again?

The hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) was referring to the Gardiner Report. The Gardiner Report said that the most appropriate release policy that it could foresee would be an ordered process. Although, as I explained, I cannot accept its recommendation about release procedure, I accept in general this principle of an ordered process.

Does the Secretary of State recall saying in the Second Reading debate on the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) (Amendment) Bill that he did not take an optimistic view of the situation in Northern Ireland with regard to violence? Does he think that the risk is justified of releasing over 200 experienced terrorists on to the streets of Ulster by Christmas?

We shall have to see what we see in the next few months. Since the release of 300 people in May, 600 have been arrested through the courts. From the arithmetical point of view there is a bonus. I am concerned with those who go through the courts.

On detention, our aim is to dismantle detention. If there is a full-scale armed insurrection, such as we had before, I shall use the law that I have used. However, I shall continue to release people in the light of the circumstances of the individual case, which I shall look at very carefully. Indeed, I look at nearly every case carefully.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will estimate the rate of emigration from Northern Ireland and the extent to which it has increased in recent years; and whether he will make a statement.

There are no precise figures, but it is estimated that net civilian migration from Northern Ireland in 1974 was about 11,000. This figure is lower than similar estimates for 1972 and 1973 but higher than those for the period 1961–71.

Is it not plain that in recent months there has been, alas, a sharp increase in the number of skilled engineers and university graduates leaving Northern Ireland?

This has always been the case, but the Government are watching the situation. However, we do not believe that there is any major cause for alarm at the present.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he is satisfied with the present level of activity by the security forces in the Londonderry area.

Yes, Sir.

Will the right hon. Gentleman recall that on 11th July he signed an order banning an Orange procession in the village of Feeny? Is he aware that the police had discussions with the organisers of that party on the morning of 12th July, at approximately 9 o'clock, yet the police did not see fit to deliver the order for the ban, which they must have had in their possession, but waited until a quarter to five in the evening? This caused much resentment in the area. Is he also aware of the concern my constituents feel at the very great decrease in the number of house searches carried out by the security forces in the Londonderry area in the past 12 months?

With regard to the first question, the police came to me late in the day. I consulted the police authority and on the advice that I was given—I am not an expert in these matters and I take advice from the police—I agreed to alter the route of the march. I thought it was good sense. There are many marches taking place in Northern Ireland and we like to prevent the marchers from marching through or near areas that might be affected. This seems to me to be good sense.

The number of house searches at that time was very high, in my view quite properly. House searches are still taking place, and head counting from house to house at different times of the day, although they are far fewer than previously, and I think that this is right in the situation of Londonderry.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what evidence he has of an IRA scheme to acquire funds through exploiting the Department of Health and Social Services in Northern Ireland, similar to the operation detected in Great Britain; and what is his estimate of the amount of money involved in such exploitation.

I have no evidence that the IRA is involved in any scheme to defraud the Northern Ireland Department of Health and Social Services.

Is the Minister aware of the amount of money involved in the theft through the Giro cheque misappropriation? Is he also aware of the sum involved on the mainland by way of misappropriation? Is he also aware of the misapprehension shared by many people that the cease-fire will last only as long as it suits the purposes of the IRA, and that the people of Northern Ireland would much prefer attempts to prevent a buildup of IRA resources through the misappropriation about which I have spoken rather than an attempted cure of the horrific application of violence in Northern Ireland?

The situation in Great Britain is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. I am aware that there are a number of Giro payments going astray in Northern Ireland. My Department is keeping the situation under continual review and my right hon. Friend has promised, as the hon. Gentleman will know, to write to the hon. Gentleman on the subject.

Has the Minister any evidence to link, as the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Bradford) did, the matter of Giro cheques with the IRA and with the cease-fire? If so, I think that the House would be interested to hear that evidence.

None at all.

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on recent armed IRA road blocks, located at Belfast and Newry; and what instructions have been given to the RUC to protect people living and travelling in these areas.

There were newspaper and radio reports of a Provisional IRA claim that it had operated "vehicle checks" in the Derrybeg Estate in Newry on 15th July. The security forces in the area came across no evidence of this. I have no knowledge of recent armed IRA road blocks in Belfast, but on 12th July the Falls Road was blocked for 15 minutes by local taximen. Any instructions given to the RUC on operational matters are the responsibility of the Chief Constable.

Is the Secretary of State aware that on two occasions RUC men have been stopped at a road block on the New Lodge Road by the IRA? The RUC arrested one of the men, who was released by North Queen Street police station shortly afterwards. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a directive signed by Chief Inspector Brown was delivered to the police in that area telling them not to go into the New Lodge area except in consultation with the Army? Does the Secretary of State consider this as giving the people in this area protection from the IRA?

I think that the hon. Gentleman has referred to this matter previously. I have consulted the Chief Constable on it. I wish that the hon. Gentleman would give this directive to me. It is a matter for the Chief Constable.

What is involved in this matter is that there are times—not related to individual cases—when the numbers of police on the ground must be related to overall security matters, and there will be occasions when the Army is the best instrument to deal with the crime in that area.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that just before midnight last night, on the Camlough Road, outside the Derrybeg Estate, to which he has referred, a constituent of mine was stopped by the IRA, accelerated past them, was shot at and was lucky to escape with his life? What assurance can I give my constituents that action is being taken in these areas to protect their lives?

I am not aware of that particular incident. The details must be passed on to the police, as I am sure they have been. The hon. Gentleman knows the nature of the Derrybeg Estate. What matters is to get at the person with the gun. It is not a matter of picking up anyone one can find and detaining him, because that would not be dealing with the crime that is taking place.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that a boost would be given to the morale of the police if he would implement the recommendation of the Gardiner Report which called upon the Government to end the status of "special category prisoner"? Is it not ridiculous that certain people who were charged with terrorist offences only recently organised a protest because they were being forced, as they said, to mix with common criminals? Surely this is a ridiculous situation.

I do not like the category of "special category prisoner". I understand why the previous administration came to this position because I know how difficult it is to get out of it. I understand that on the night before the 12th the Republican special category prisoners in Magilligan threw their furniture over the fence in order to provide a bigger fire for the Protestants. There seems to be a liaison between special category prisoners.

Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that questions of a sectarian nature which are designed to prove how very right one side is and how very wrong is the other side are most unhelpful, and that we would be better directed to questions which tried to build a bridge between the two communities in Northern Ireland, unlike the previous two Questions?

I agree that bridge building is better than bridge destruction.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will designate a senior Minister within the Department of Employment to take special responsibility for the self-employed.

As the House knows, my right hon. Friend is visiting the Federal Republic of Germany today for informal talks with the Federal Chancellor, and in his absence I have been asked to reply.

No, Sir. The valuable contribution of the self-employed to the community derives from the diversity of their activities and interests. Matters arising from these activities do not form a coherent whole and are better handled on the basis of the existing pattern of ministerial responsibilities.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that to many people that will be a disappointing answer? As there are 2 million self-employed, who employ in turn 6 million wage earners who represent one-fourth of our work force and who produce one-fifth of our wealth, and as they are going out of business at the rate of 4,000 a year, would it not be a satisfactory thing if there were a Minister to whom they could make known their problems urgently?

No, Sir. The problem is that the self-employed are not a homogeneous group. They range, for example, from the small business man and shopkeeper to the professional person. The only common points are the way in which they are taxed and the way in which their national insurance contributions are computed, and here I think that a very fair balance is struck. The great difficulty, therefore, is in regarding them as one coherent, homogeneous group.

Will my right hon. Friend tell the Prime Minister, when he gets back from one of his many visits during the course of the last few months, that quite apart from the problems of the self-employed many of us are deeply concerned about the unemployment figures that have been declared today? Will he also tell the Prime Minister that we are not prepared to tolerate the continuation of a policy which is resulting in totals of this kind with a Labour Government, and that some alternative steps should be taken along the lines indicated in the many discussions that have taken place between ourselves and the Government, especially in respect of the prevention of the importation of unemployment arising out of the lack of will on the part of the Government to impose import controls?

On the first part of his question, I am sure that my hon. Friend and the whole House will welcome the leadership which the Prime Minister is demonstrating in Europe at present. As regards my hon. Friend's second point, the Government share, as I am sure do all hon. Members, my hon. Friend's concern about the figures announced today. The Secretary of State for Employment will be making an announcement about this matter at the end of Question Time.

Considering the enormous contribution which the self-employed make to both the stability and the prosperity of the country, do they not deserve something better than the consistently raw deal that they have been dealt by the present Government?

No, Sir. That suggestion is utterly untrue. The present Government have done a great deal to help the self-employed. The Question was about a special Minister for the self-employed. I pointed out that the problem is that they are dealt with by a great many Departments, because they are not a coherent group.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May we ask the Leader of the House to speak up? We cannot hear him.

asked the Prime Minister when he next expects to meet the TUC.

I have been asked to reply.

I refer my hon. Friend to the reply —[HON. MEMBERS: "Speak up."] I think that probably the microphone is not working. I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) on 22nd July.

When my right hon. Friend meets the TUC, will he be able to explain how the Government's measures are reducing income and thereby reducing demand, and are likely to increase the already very serious unemployment figures? What will the Government do about activating the National Enterprise Board to increase investment and reduce unemployment? How long will the Government prop up ailing capitalism at the expense of workers' jobs? Will my right hon. Friend urge the Prime Minister to concentrate on those urgent economic matters instead of joining in the campaign of vilification and abuse which has been going on over the past few days against members of the Newham Labour Party? Will he tell him that his intervention was both deeply resented and clearly unproductive?

The National Enterprise Board will be activated as soon as the Bill receives Royal Assent. With regard to discussions with the TUC, my hon. Friend will recall that the policy is one agreed and initiated by the TUC.

Have not today's unemployment figures been greeted with particular dismay precisely because of all the foolish rhetoric of the Prime Minister and his colleagues that this could not happen under a Labour Government? Is not the only chance of acceptance of the new policy to say clearly that because of old policies there will certainly be much higher unemployment even than we have seen today, and much higher prices in the months to come?

My right hon. Friend and many of my hon. Friends have warned about the effect of inflation on employment over the last few months. As I have said, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment will be making a statement on the figures at the end of Questions today.

Does my right hon. Friend recognise that some of us are becoming very tired of the attempt to make cheap party political points about the current situation, whether it be unemployment or inflation? Will he confirm that the reason why the TUC has agreed to co-operate with the Government in their current policies is that it recognises the truth of the statements of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that one man's wage increase is another man's price increase, and also his prospects for the dole queue?

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. I hope that the whole House will pay tribute to the courage and statesmanship of the TUC in this matter.

Is the Lord President aware that we have some sympathy with him over the frequency with which he has had to reply for the Prime Minister in recent weeks, and particularly today when there is such bad news about the unemployment figures? Is it true that not only is the Prime Minister absent today but that he intends to be away on Tuesday and Thursday of next week as well?

The implications of the right hon. Lady's question are beneath contempt.

asked the Prime Minister if he has received an invitation to speak at the next TUC conference.

I have been asked to reply. No, Sir.

When the Prime Minister receives an invitation, and when he goes, will he bear in mind the words he used on 24th January 1972 in this House, when he referred to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) as the first dole-queue millionaire to cross the Channel since Neville Chamberlain? Will the Lord President remind us what are the dole queue figures today, and on which side of the Channel is his right hon. Friend?

The difference is that today we are at the bottom of a world recession. When the unemployment figures topped the million mark under the Government of which the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition was a member not long ago, there was no world recession.

Will my right hon. Friend arrange to have an invitation extended from the TUC to the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition to address its next conference, whereupon she might find that she had to address herself to the real problems of the country instead of making snide and bitchy remarks?

That is a very attractive idea. For once I agree with my hon. Friend. I am sure that the TUC will take note of the suggestion. It will make a nice change for the right hon. Lady from the usual country-house circuit.

asked the Prime Minister when he next expects to take the chair at a meeting of the NEDC.

asked the Prime Minister when he next intends to take the chair at a meeting of the NEDC.

asked the Prime Minister when he will next take the chair at a meeting of the NEDC.

I have been asked to reply.

I refer the hon. Members to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) on 24th June.

I do not know what that answer was. But while we all understand the great anxiety that the Government have not to publish the secret reserve powers Bill until after the TUC conference in September, nevertheless, can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether it is true that the reserve powers in draft would impose penalties on employers in the private sector but not impose penalties on employers in the public sector and nationalised industries; and if not, why the distinction?

My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer explained the contents of the reserve powers Bill fully in his speech at the beginning of the week.

Will my right hon. Friend inform my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that, official figures notwithstanding, there is still grave apprehension among ordinary people about rises in prices? Will the special secret powers be able to deal with those latter-day Old Mother Hubbards who stock their cupboards full and tell everybody that they are empty until there are high prices?

Without commenting on the Old Mother Hubbards, I can say that the contents of the Bill are not secret. My right hon. Friend spelt out in precise terms what the Bill contains. As for publication of the 13111, as I said last week I hope that it will never have to be published.

What is the real difference between a statutory incomes policy and an incomes policy imposed with a threat of statutory action if it is not accepted?

The difference is that there is a statute to enforce it.

To overcome the growing and tragic unemployment situation, may I ask the Government to launch a great housing and public works programme, such as in similar circumstances President Roosevelt produced in the thirties? Since it costs £2,000 a year to keep an unemployed building worker and his family by way of tax relief and unemployment benefit, would it not be better to have that man working? Will the Government reject the advice of the Treasury and Conservative Members who call for a reduction in public spending? Will my right hon. Friend say that, on the contrary, this is the very moment to increase such spending for all purposes?

Everyone will share my hon. Friend's concern about these tragic figures. Unemployment and inflation are our major problems this year. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment is to make a statement very shortly.

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House how the new pay policy can possibly work fairly if those who have an entitlement to annual increments can secure substantially more than £6 while those who do not have such entitlements cannot?

The hon. Gentleman knows that the entitlement to increments has been agreed, provided that the total wage bill does not exceed the product of the £6.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that in the last quarter of an hour we have heard a great deal of sickening hypocrisy from Conservative Members? Does he further agree that although they claim to be in favour of controlling inflation, they have been busily pointing out the level of unem- ployment and sniping at the pay policy, as no doubt they will go on doing all night?

I am sure that this is correct. The country will have noticed the posture of the Opposition in the past few days—with one or two notable exceptions.

If the right hon. Gentleman continues to claim that the contents of the secret powers Bill were fully disclosed by the Chancellor the other day, why does he continue to object to publishing those contents?

There is no need to publish a Bill which is not required. If it is required it will be published. I have explained that carefully.

Since the Government are appealing for national unity and for support of their policies, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to suggest to the Prime Minister that when he takes the chair at the next NEDC meeting he should pursue the suggestion of the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection and invite representatives from Opposition parties to share in discussions on the Government's policies?

I will certainly pass that suggestion on to the Prime Minister when he returns.

Does the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. Wells) wish to raise a point of order?

No longer, Sir.

Will the Leader of the House please state the business for next week?

Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:

MONDAY 28TH JULY AND TUESDAY 29TH JULY—Remaining stages of the Employment Protection Bill.

WEDNESDAY 30TH JULY—Progress on Report stage of the Petroleum and Submarine Pipe-Lines Bill.

THURSDAY 31ST JULY—Peoceedings on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill.

FRIDAY 1ST AUGUST—Remaining stages of the Criminal Jurisdiction Bill [Lords].

Motions to consider Northern Ireland orders on diseases of animals and the shipbuilding industry.

MONDAY 4TH AuGusT—Conclusion of remaining stages of the Petroleum and Submarine Pipe-Lines Bill.

Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Housing Finance (Special Provisions) Bill.

The House will wish to know that, subject to the progress of business, I hope to be able to propose that the House should rise for the Summer Recess no later than Friday, 8th August.

In relation to tomorrow's business, I understand that it would be helpful to bring before the House, in addition to the documents already announced, the EEC Document on Wheat (R/1831/75).

; The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Remuneration, Charges and Grants Bill, which we are discussing today, is being pushed through with very great haste, bearing in mind that there are to be over 25 debates on the amendments tabled so far. Is it possible that we may continue with part of that Bill next week? May I ask whether we are to have a debate on the textile industry before we rise for the recess? Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether provision is to be made for us to debate the new Price Code before it takes effect?

I agree that there are a number of complicated amendments tabled to the Bill which we are to discuss today. I think we ought to see how we get on and see where we are after we have gone on for a reasonable time. I am happy to say that, having listened to the exchanges yesterday, I hope to arrange a full day's debate on the textile industry before the Recess. The motion dealing with amendments to the Price Code requires parliamentary action through either affirmative or negative resolution. I will certainly see that there is an opportunity for a debate.

Will my right hon. Friend consider the possibility—so as to give the Opposition plenty of time to discuss the Remuneration, Charges and Grants Bill—of the House meeting on Saturday and Sunday if necessary? Since most Labour Members will not have any garden parties or other social functions to attend, it may be advisable to do this in the interests of getting the Bill through.

I am sure that my hon. Friend and everyone else recognises the urgency and importance of this Bill. Because of that I hope that no one on either side of the House will impede its progress. Let us see how we get on before we commit ourselves to Saturday or Sunday sittings.

Is the Leader of the House aware of the chaotic state of Government business? Is he further aware that he is in charge of it and that he has some responsibilities to the House in general? Does he realise that we sit, night after night, into the small hours of the morning—[140N. MEMBERS: "Not you."]—and that this should not happen, however important the business may be? Does he appreciate that the reports of the proceedings of the House are not available before the sittings of Committees begin?

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Scottish Grand Committee has so far met only twice and that many important reports will not be debated at all, while we are cluttered up with quite useless and indeed harmful legislation? May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to put off some of the Government's programme until next Session and, if necessary, make a statement on those lines to the House so that we may meet at reasonable times and give proper consideration to matters that are of importance to the nation?

The right hon. Gentleman's description of our legislation staggers me. He ought to be sitting here, not there. I realise that the load of legislation has been unduly heavy. We have imposed a burden upon hon. Members over the past few weeks. Problems of this kind invariably occur in July. I hope that over the next few weeks the load will not be so great.

May I ask my right hon. Friend when the House is to have a statement about the Cabinet's decision on support for NVT and when we are to' have an opportunity to debate that issue'? Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us are concerned about this? May also ask my right hon. Friend when the remaining stages of the Sex Discrimination Bill will be taken?

As my hon. Friend knows, my right hon. Friend the Secr3tary of State for Industry is having discussions today with the people concerned with NVT. He will certainly be making a statement on the matter before the recess.

Does the right hon. Gentleman—

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will the Leader of the House kindly reply to my second question?

The Sex Discrimination Bill will certainly reach the statute book before the end of the Session.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that he is treating the House with grave discourtesy in connection with the Employment Protection Bill? Is he aware that the Bill came out of Committee on Tuesday and has not yet even been printed? Does he appreciate that 15 schedules were changed and a new schedule added? Is he aware that out of the 115 clauses, 100 have been changed and yet we do not have a completed Bill to consult before tabling fresh amendments? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that this is no way in which to get decent legislation through the House? Will the Government accept manuscript amendments to the Bill? Is it not scandalous not to give the House a proper opportunity to consult outside interests before beginning the Report stage of an important Bill?

Dealing with the business question, if there is a problem about it I shall certainly be happy to look at that suggestion and talk to the right hon. Gentleman about it. I have no knowledge of the issues raised by the right hon. Gentleman in the second part of his question. I will look into the matter.

In the provisional arrangements announced last week, we were told that the Community Land Bill would be taken on Monday. The Bill came out of Committee nicely and obviously has the full support of the country as a whole, particularly as it has the support and blessing of the TUC as part of the social contract. Arrangements have been made to satisfy the legitimate aspirations of the churches and the charities, so may we know when we are going to see the Bill and have it on the statute book?

I agree with my hon. Friend about the support the Bill has throughout the country. Like the other Bill to which I have just referred, it will receive the Royal Assent before the end of the Session.

Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me when consideration will be given to the Lords Amendments to the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Amendment) Bill?

Not next week, Sir.

When may we expect a statement on the Porter Report on housing in Northern Ireland? Will the motion for the adjournment for the Summer Recess be moved next Tuesday?

I hope the report will be published towards the end of next week. I provisionally propose to take the Adjournment debate on Thursday.

May I make a special plea to the right hon. Gentleman with regard to today's Bill? While realising that it is an important Bill which the Government want to get through by 1st August, may I ask whether he is aware that it contains a number of new constitional principles which are without precedent? A number of my hon. Friends have tabled amendments with a view to trying to improve the Bill, and does he realise that it will be quite intolerable if there is no interval between the Committee and Report stages? Can he give an undertaking that the House will not be placed in the impossible position of having to draft Report stage amendments in the early hours of the morning immediately following the conclusion of the Committee stage?

This is an extremely urgent Bill to deal with a very serious and urgent national question. I am sure the right hon. and learned Gentleman will wish to expedite its progress through the House. I will bear in mind what he says, because he always puts his points fairly. I realise that the Bill contains a number of new concepts and a number of controversial, complicated amendments. I will watch the progress of the Bill with my right hon. Friend and see how we get on.

Will my right hon. Friend discuss with the Secretary of State for the Environment increases that have taken place in council house rents which do not appear to be in accord with the spirit or inentions of the Housing Rents and Subsidies Act?

I will pass on my hon. Friend's points. Perhaps he will let me have any details that he has.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider extending the debate on textiles to include the boot and shoe industry, which is facing similar problems? I think they could conveniently be debated together.

I would be happy to do that.

Have the Government now abandoned the annual Welsh days? We have not had one for 16 months. Is it the Government's intention to have one before the beginning of the next Session? Can the right hon. Gentleman also give an indication of the date of recommencement of Parliament in the autumn?

I cannot yet give that date, but I will do so before the recess. I hope to be able to find time for a Welsh day in the spill-over period in the autumn.

Hon. Members on this side who represent constituencies that include parts of the textile industry are very grateful that time has been allocated for a debate on textiles. This is an urgent matter. Contrary to what hon. Members opposite have said, hon. Members on this side are ready to sit late into the night on the Employment Protection Bill to get this measure through. It is an important way of carrying out some of our policies.

It would be for the convenience of the House if the Lord President told us now that he will separate the Committee and Report stages of today's Bill so that hon. Members know where they stand. Does he not understand that it is much more in the interests of good legislation to announce this now rather than to plough on into the night and decide what to do later?

A moment's thought will show the hon. Gentleman that I cannot say that now. We shall watch the Bill's progress carefully, and if we think there is a need for a change, we will announce it.

Has my right hon. Friend put aside a day for the debate he promised on the Finer Report?

There will be a debate in the over-spill in the autumn.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that, apart from the constitutional points in today's business, there are extremely important matters relating to local government in Clause 4 of the Bill, and it would not be acceptable to local government or to most hon. Members if there was no separation between the Committee and Report stages?

There is a Government amendment to Clause 4 and no doubt we shall find many loopholes later tonight. We must have this separation and it would be a help if the right hon. Gentleman gave his decision now.

I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but I know that he understands the extreme urgency of this measure and that we must get it through very quickly. I know that he and some of his hon. Friends will expedite the Bill on its way through the House. We shall watch the progress of the Bill through the night and see what can be done to help.

The Under-Secretary nominally responsible for the Arts promised us a Public Lending Right Bill before last Christmas and as the right hon. Gentleman, when I questioned him three weeks ago, did not seem to have a clue about it, may I ask whether he has since cheked up—and when is the Bill to be introduced?

The excellent Minister responsible for the Arts has been doing a great deal of work on this matter. He has consulted many people to try to get the right solution to this difficult and complicated matter. The Bill will be brought forward before long and I hope that it will receive my hon. Friend's support.

I welcome the assurance that there will be a debate on the Price Code amendments. Can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that there will be adequate time and that it will not be taken in the small hours of the morning? Can we be told whether the Community Land Bill is likely to make a re-appearance this side of the recess? When the right hon. Gentleman says that he will see how we go on today's business, will he not reconsider the point raised by a number of my hon. Friends that there should be a decent interval between the Committee and Report stages? Lastly, may I raise with the right hon. Gentleman a point made by my right hon. Friend about the Employment Protection Bill? I hope that he will at least initiate conversations through the usual channels to discuss the very unusual and discreditable situation of this Bill.

I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman's last remarks. It is not discreditable. We would be very happy to have talks through the usual channels about the Bill, if that is his wish. I appreciate the point that he has made about today's Bill, but this is a matter of unusual urgency and importance to deal with a very serious and dangerous national situation. In these circumstances, the House has very often felt able to waive the normal intervals between stages of a Bill, and I am sure that it would be willing to do so on this occasion, if necessary. However, I have taken his point and will bear it in mind. We shall do our utmost—and I am sure that we shall succeed—to get this Bill on the statute book before the end of the Session. [HON. MEMBERS: "Next week?"] I have already announced business for next week, if hon. Members had been listening.

We are rather in the hands of the Scrutiny Committee as to the timing of the proceedings on the Price Code orders, but I understand that three orders will be needed, one to be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, one to the negative resolution procedure and one not requiring any parliamentary action. I will bear in mind what the hon. Member said and what the Leader of the Opposition said on this matter.

Later—

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Leader of the House helpfully said during his business Statement that he would consider and discuss through the usual channels certain matters which were raised. I wonder if this would be a convenient time for him to say something further on that matter.

It is very unusual to make a second Business Statement half an hour after the first one, but strong representations were made to me about the Report stage of the Remuneration, Charges and Grants Bill. Discussions have taken place through the usual channels, and I wish to re-arrange the business so that on Monday we take the Petroleum and Submarine Pipe-Lines Bill, remaining stages, continuing with that on Tuesday until 7 o'clock when the guillotine falls. At 7 p.m. on Tuesday, we take the Report and Third Reading of the Remuneration, Charges and Grants Bill and on Wednesday the Employment Protection Bill.

I hope that it will be for the convenience of the House that we have separated the Report stage from the Committee stage of the Remuneration, Charges and Grants Bill.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Governments, I know, never give Oppositions all they want, but I should like to thank the Lord President and the Patronage Secretary for their help on this occasion, which will greatly assist our consideration of the Bill.

Further to the second business statement made by the Leader of the House, a short time ago I checked in the Vote Office to see whether Government amendments to the Petroleum and Submarine Pipe-Lines Bill had been tabled, but I was advised that they were not yet on the Order Paper. As the Leader of the House has now changed the business so that the Report stage of the Bill is to be on Monday, will he advise us whether the Government amendments are tabled and, if so, why we have not vet been able to see them.

I do not know whether or not they are tabled. I will look into it.

With regard to the business for next week, for the debate on Thursday 31st July on the Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill hon. Members may hand in to my office by 9.30 on the morning of Wednesday 30th July their names and the topics they wish to raise. The ballot will be carried out as on the last occasion. An hon. Member may hand in only his own name and one topic.

The debate on Second Reading of this Bill is, to quote page 729 of "Erskine May", commensurate with the whole range of administrative policy". It covers, for example, all the main Estimates originally presented for the current financial year in House of Commons Papers 198 and 210, and the Supplementary Estimates presented since then in House of Commons Papers 444 and 445. It will be in order on Second Reading to raise any topic falling within the compass of those Estimates.

I shall put out the result of the ballot later on 30th July.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If the Leader of the House persists in bringing forward the Employment Protection Bill on Monday, will you accept manuscript amendments? We know now that this Bill will not be available in its printed form until tomorrow. Without such an assurance the Government's action makes a total mockery of the procedures of this House in that we are not able to examine legis- lation, consider it and put down amendments with at least a chance of them being called.

Of course, I shall consider that situation when it arises. I shall take into account the circumstances in which we are dealing with the business. On previous occasions I have indicated my attitude by accepting manuscript amendments, but I shall not deal with the situation now. I shall wait until the matter arises.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On the question of the printing of the documents of the House, may I draw your attention to the state of the Votes and Proceedings, which are already two days out of date? That means that the report of the Votes and Proceedings of the House of yesterday and the day before are not yet available.

I am grateful to the hon. and learned Member for drawing this to my attention. We shall do what we can to help in the usual way.

With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement on the unemployment figures published today.

The figures show that the total unemployed in Great Britain on 14th July was 1,036,000. [HON. MEMBERS: "Disgraceful."] This includes 92,000 students who will leave the unemployed register in the autumn and also 55,000 school leavers whose numbers we must expect to increase over the next month or two.

Seasonally adjusted, the total is 938,000. This represents an increase of 74,000 since June, which compares with an average rise of 47,000 over the three preceding months.

The House will share my deep concern at these figures, and I have no wish to minimise their gravity. And we must face the fact that the level of unemployment is likely to continue upwards in the months ahead until the counter-inflation policy and other Government policies take effect and world trade begins to improve.

One fundamental requirement before we can secure a substantial improvement is to bring down the domestic rate of inflation. Meanwhile the Government will take such measures as are open to us in our difficult economic situation to help those affected.

We have already allocated £50 million to the Manpower Services Commission to strengthen training programmes, improve the employment services and provide additional incentives for job mobility. These measures include provision to assist the training of an additional 30,000 people, bringing the total we aim to assist to nearly 100,000 in 1976.

A further package of measures is now being worked out with the MSC and is being put into effect at once. This will make it possible for a further 6,000 young people to obtain skilled training this year and will provide for a strengthening of the careers service. The cost will be £10 million spread over this and the next financial year.

We shall introduce our temporary employment subsidy scheme as soon as possible and I shall be announcing the details and starting date very shortly. We are also considering what further temporary measures might be possible to encourage the employment of young people in industry.

These measures can help, but of course, I cannot pretend for a moment that the number of jobs maintained and provided by these means will alleviate substantially the tragic total published today.

If we are to see these figures effectively reduced, we must secure the expansion of our economy as a whole and the fresh investment and confidence required for that purpose. The Government's anti-inflation policies are an essential part of that purpose.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the whole House will be shocked and deeply disturbed by the trend in the figures that he has announced? There will be no hysterical reaction from the Opposition Benches as there was on the last occasion when the figures reached, at the top of the cycle, just under 1 million. Some of us feel that on this occasion it might have been appropriate if the Prime Minister had been here during Question Time, in spite of his obvious commitments elsewhere, because this is an important occasion for the nation.

We are now at the beginning of the price we are having to pay for the electoral bribes and inaction and the total failure of the Government to deal with inflation. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the action on school leavers that he has announced, coming some two months after the debate in this House when we drew attention to that fact, is far too little for what is required? We would much prefer that more cash was devoted to helping school leavers and creating skilled jobs in the next few months than to extra subsidies on food and rents as have been announced. If the right hon. Gentleman asks his constituents whether they would prefer to have their children in work, doing something useful, or to have to pay a penny less for bread they will give him the answer.

Is he aware that he has a very special responsibility for employment, not least because of the remarks that he and some of his right hon. Friends have made over the last few months? We on the Conservative Benches have had to endure—and it has been endurance—some of the bribes and taunts—[HON. MEMBERS' "Oh."] I meant to say jibes and taunts, but there have been a good many bribes, too. We have had to nut up with jibes and taunts of Labour Members about our being the party that wanted to cause unemployment. Not only do we reject that, but we think that in the circumstances the Secretary of State should stop hawking his conscience around the House and the country and resign.

I do not believe that in the face of the figures the country is interested in jibes and taunts, from whichever quarter they may come. The country will be concerned about how we are to get these tragic totals down, and it is upon that that I should like to concentrate in replying to the right hon. Gentleman.

As for the programmes for school leavers and for training, as I have already indicated we shall do everything we can, but of course there is proper timing for proposals about school leavers, and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would have appreciated that.

As for the past, if we were to go back and examine all the reasons for unemployment we would have to look not merely to this country but to other countries as well. The major cause of our present situation and of the tragic unemployment figure is the general recession which has hit so many countries.

The seasonally-adjusted figure is a tragically high total for this country and represents 4.1 per cent of the employed population. In France the figure is 5.1 per cent., in Germany 5.6 per cent., in Holland 5.4 per cent. and in the United States 8.6 per cent. In the face of those figures, it is absurd for anybody to suggest that the major cause rests with the present Government. It is a recession which has hit the whole Western world and we must do our best to devise our own methods to save ourselves.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that although the unemployment figures are deeply disturbing, his lack of complacency is in striking contrast to the attitude shown by Conservative Members during the three-day week and the time when the unemployment rate was even higher? Would he agree that the best way of bringing down the figure of unemployment lies in the success of the Government's anti-inflation policy and that those hon. Members on either side of the House who undermine that policy thereby undermine the prospects of the unemployed?

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his remarks. He is correct to say that the first necessity is to carry through the policy which we are now discussing. However, I am not saying that that is the only way in which we can tackle the problem. I have sought to indicate the immediate first-aid measures which we should seek to take, but we must consider other measures as well. We must consider a whole series of measures to try to tackle this appalling problem.