asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the current figure for registered vacancies.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many vacancies there were for jobs on 1st July 1976.

At 2nd July, 127,128 vacancies notified to employment offices and 25,971 notified to careers offices remained unfilled in Great Britain. These figures are provisional. Because of possible duplication the separate series for employment offices and careers offices should not be added together, nor do they constitute a measure of total vacancies in the economy.

What is the Secretary of State doing to see that as many as possible of these 125,000-plus unfilled vacancies are taken up as urgently as possible? In view of the tragically high level of unemployment today, will he follow the sensible example of Australia and Holland and stop unemployment benefit after six weeks if people do not take up the unfilled vacancies offered to them and for which they are suited?

I agree with the hon. Member about the tragic nature of the figures published today. As for the matching of vacancies with applicants for jobs, I think he should know that there has been a significant improvement in the placement services of the Manpower Services Commission, which is continuing. He should bear in mind that vacancies do not always provide the opportunities or prospects for advancement to match the skills, abilities and aptitudes of those who are seeking jobs.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the appalling unemployment figures published today are a clear indictment of our capitalist system? Does he also agree that we require the kind of Socialist policies with which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has often been associated, and which he has advocated in the past?

Certainly the unemployment figures are a reflection of the Western economic system, as can be testified by the fact that the malaise that we are enduring is common to all Western industrial countries. I hope that the House will derive some encouragement, however, from the fact that the trend of vacancies is continuing to rise and that the number of people on short time, and who are temporarily stopped, has dropped significantly.

Will the Minister reconsider his reply? Is it not shameful that the "won't-works" and the "can't-works" are paid the same level of unemployment benefit? Will the Minister therefore ensure that, in future, if a man is offered a job in accordance with his aptitudes and skills, he is free to turn it down, but we are free not to pay him unemployment benefit?

That is the statutory position that is exercised by officers. If people are offered suitable jobs it is a condition of continuation of benefit that they accept them. In 1972, the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), who was then Secretary of State for Social Services, instituted the sort of inquiry that some hon. Members are now calling for, looking into alleged abuses of benefit. It was found that, by and large, the allegations were unfounded and that the majority of those unemployed were seeking work.

Will my hon. Friend repudiate entirely the disgusting and despicable philosophy that is being expressed by the Conservatives? Is he aware that that was the philosophy which guided their party during the 1930s? Will he make it clear that in no circumstances will a Labour Government tolerate that type of concept for one moment?

We certainly do not contemplate responding to the wild and rather foolish demands made by some Conservative Members.

Is the Minister aware that the Opposition have never underestimated the problems of unemployment? We have never failed to criticise the Government for complacency they have shown in what is now an extremely serious situation for the nation. When will the Government recognise the facts of life, which are that if they had allowed private industry to expand and had cut public expenditure earlier, as we said they should, the position would be far better today than it is?

The right hon. Gentleman is wholly unjustified in suggesting that the Government have been complacent. As he will know, the Government have introduced a wide range of contingency measures over the last 12 months or so and are urgently considering further measures, about which a statement will be made very shortly. A central theme of the Government's whole economic strategy is increasingly to shift resources into the manufacturing sector to expand it and thus provide job opportunities. It ill becomes the right hon. Gentleman to accuse this Government of causing high levels of unemployment when, in November 1972, under his Government, unemployment reached 1,574,000.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to expand the Training Opportunities Scheme during the next 12 months.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what expansion in the Training Opportunities Scheme is planned over the next 12 months.

The Manpower Services Commission is planning to train 80,000 people under the Training Opportunities Scheme in 1976, compared with 60,000 in 1975. The objective for 1977 was 82,000 trainees, but is expected to be increased to 84,000 as part of the additional measures to alleviate unemployment announced on 5th May 1976.

I am grateful for that reply. Notwithstanding that progress has been made by the Government in providing training opportunities, particularly for young people, in the city of Birmingham and, I understand, in other cities, it is still inadequate. May we have an assurance that the whole area of training and work opportunities for the unemployed will not be left to the local authorities, many of which are now dominated by Tories who are hell-bent on reducing public expenditure to such an extent that that by itself will create yet another wave of problems?

I can certainly give my hon. Friend the assurance he seeks. The local authorities have played a very valuable part in bringing about a number of job creation schemes, but we shall not rely on local authorities to sustain or improve training. It would be unfair to put that task upon them in present circumstances. We have already brought about a substantial increase in adult training through the Training Services Agency and we are working with the Manpower Services Commission to improve upon the already increased numbers of places for training young people.

Will the Secretary of State look at registered vacancies in the Northern Region in particular and think in terms of encouraging private industry to introduce more individual training schemes? The level of registered vacancies alongside the very high unemployment figures just do not make sense.

I very much appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point. One of the schemes which has been developed through the TSA is that of assisting private employers by paying for additional places in their training schools and within their normal craft training arrangements. As a result of that we are aiming at sustaining, particularly in manufacturing industries, a training intake equivalent to that which existed before the recession started.

I welcome my right hon. Friend's figures, but does he not agree that against the need to have skilled labour in the right places at the right time the figures are far too paltry?

I would not have called them paltry. They represent the biggest-ever Government effort to sustain and increase training. Our difficulty is to ensure that against the desperately serious unemployment situation sufficient training is carried out to avoid shortages of skilled labour when the upturn comes. I do not think that we can guarantee that by the measures we have so far introduced, and that is why we are seriously considering whether they can be supplemented by additional measures.

We fully support the provision of training opportunities. Will the right hon. Gentleman take the earliest opportunity to repudiate the absurd use of statistics by the Minister of State, who sought by the figure he used to get away from the fact that the Government are now responsible for the highest level of unemployment over the longest period since the 1930s? It is the Ministers of this Government who are the dole-queue millionaires.

There is no need for me to repudiate the figures used by my hon. Friend, because he was quoting figures which were calculated on the basis used at that time. Let me make it clear that that method of counting is not now used, and if common counting methods were still used, the figures would show that we have a much higher level of unemployment now.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will review the dates of bank holidays, having consulted the religious, economic, European and other interests concerned.

As already announced, the Government intend to introduce a May Day bank holiday in 1978 and to designate days in lieu whenever a holiday falls at the weekend. We have no other plans to review the dates of bank holidays.

Does the Minister of State understand the concern felt in the Christian community in this country about the neglect over the allotment of holidays in respect of the great Christian festival of Whitsun? Will he consult religious bodies in this country when this review is undertaken?

I understand that Whit Monday ceased to be a bank holiday as long ago as 1967 and that there was an experimental run until 1971 to discover whether the Churches and others were satisfied with the shift of date. In 1971 there was found to be no reason to move it and we have had no suitable representations since to do so.

Will my hon. Friend consider the vastly superior system of local holidays in Scotland when he is considering any increase in the number of public holidays in England?

I am not sure that there is a vastly superior number of statutory holidays in Scotland.

The system is vastly superior.

In industry and commerce the majority of holidays are determined by collective bargaining.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the increase or decrease in unemployment percentage in Wales since June 1974.

Based on seasonally-adjusted figures, which exclude school leavers, the percentages were 3·5 at June 1974 and 7·1 at July 1976, giving an increase of 3·6 percentage points. The figure for July 1976 is provisional.

In other words, the figure has more than doubled. Will the Under-Secretary suggest to the Secretary of State for Wales, who has presided over the largest unemployment figures in Welsh post-war history and done nothing to mitigate them, that he should set an example to other Ministers by resigning, especially as he voted against extra jobs for his steel working constituents in Port Talbot?

That comes ill from an hon. Member who voted for the closure of the Shotton steel works. The Secretary of State for Wales has been associated with a long record of measures to alleviate the levels of unemployment undertaken by the Government.

Is it not clear that, with Welsh unemployment standing at 7·1 per cent.—the second highest in the United Kingdom—special measures are necessary? What special measures are the Government proposing to take?

The Government will shortly be making an announcement on further special measures to deal with unemployment. Selective measures have so far helped 12,000 workers in Wales. We have spent £40 million on advance factories, £4 million on the construction industry and have provided 400 community industry places.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what are the latest figures for industrial disputes in the United Kingdom; and how these figures compare with other EEC countries.

There have been 798 stoppages of work due to industrial disputes in the United Kingdom in the first five months of this year. I regret that comparable information relating to other EEC countries is not available, nor are 1975 data yet available.

Does my hon. Friend agree that these figures show a considerable improvement and would probably compare well with the position in other EEC countries? Does he agree that the improvement is due to the Government's correct policy of consultation with the trade union movement, rather than the confrontation that we saw from the last Tory Government? Does it not also show that, contrary to what the Opposition are always telling us, the trade union movement is a very responsible body of opinion?

I hope the whole House will take comfort from the fact that the number of working days lost through disputes last year was the lowest since 1968 and that for the period January-May this year the figure is less than half that of the same period last year. No doubt this is due to a number of factors, but the co-operation with the trade union movement that has been achieved by the Government is a significant factor.

Is it not rather curious that comparable figures for other Community countries are not available? Are they not obtainable without difficulty from the ILO?

We are dependent on international sources, and they have not yet been able to provide the information.

Am I not right in thinking that we are members of the Community? Were we not told that we would get a lot of benefits from membership? Are we now being told that the Minister cannot get for this House information which must be readily available in the Community? Has he tried to get it? If not, will he try, and then arrange for the information to be passed on to hon. Members?

The necessary information is provided not by the Community but by member countries, and they have not yet provided it.

Why does the Minister persist in living in the dream world of believing that there is no connection between the present extremely high level of unemployment and the fact that there has been a welcome reduction in the number of disputes?

The hon. Gentleman is not prepared to give credit to anyone. He claims that the improvement is due to market forces, but how does he explain that in 1972, when the level of unemployment, calculated by the present method, was 1 million or, calculated by the method used by his Government until they decided to fiddle the figures, 1,574,000, the number of working days lost through strikes in that year was 24 million—the highest since the General Strike?

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many race relations employment advisers are employed by his Department; and if he will indicate their duties.

There are 18 race relations employment advisers, four of whom are part-time. They work closely with the agencies of the Manpower Services Commission and provide a specialist service to help both sides of industry to handle questions that may arise in a multi-racial work force.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that there is a disproportionate level of unemployment among black people in the United Kingdom, compared with white people, and thereby repudiate the lies peddled by the merchants of race hate that black people are forcing white people into unemployment?

I confirm what my hon. Friend said. There is a disproportionate number of coloured people who are unemployed, compared with white people. Their unemployment rate is slightly higher than the national average. Unemployment among minority groups was 49,656 on 13th May—an increase of 2,714 in three months. However, this compares with an increase of 5,341 in the previous quarter.

Can my hon. Friend say how these employment advisers are distributed? How many are in London and how many are in the provinces?

They are mainly in areas with high immigrant concentrations.

What are the advisers doing that the existing area conciliation committees cannot already do? Is not the fact that the Minister has seen fit to employ these people a form of racial discrimination in itself?

Far from it. There is a general recognition by all those involved in race relations in industry that the advisers perform a very valuable function. They maintain contact with all agencies, including the bodies mentioned by the hon. Member.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the rate of unemployment for young people who left school during the summer.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is his estimate of the number of school and college leavers this summer who are currently unemployed; and what proportion this represents of all those who have left schools and colleges this summer.

I regret that the information is not available in the precise form requested. On 8th July, 199,955 persons under age 18 and 24,380 aged 18 and over, who were still seeking their first employment following completion of full-time education, were registered as unemployed, but the statistics do not define the date on which education was completed.

In view of the 1½ million unemployed—the worst total since the war—does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be particularly obscene to use up to 250.000 youngsters as an economic weapon? Will he reject further public expenditure cuts that would cause even more unemployment, and consider introducing emergency programmes, such as the training schemes proposed by the Standing Conference on Youth Unemployment, especially in areas such as Kilsyth and Stirling, where the male unemployment rates are about 15 per cent. and 8 per cent., respectively.

I must appeal to my hon. Friend: the figures are bad enough without exaggerating them to 1½ million. Whatever the figures are, let us agree that they are far too high. We need to concern ourselves with policies and measures that will reduce them. I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees with that. I agree that it would be inexcusable to use unemployment among the young, old or middle-aged as a weapon of economic policy, and that is no part of the Government's approach. The Government are considering urgently measures to supplement existing measures, or to replace them with more effective measures than have been used up to now, to deal with this terrible level of unemployment. I hope to make an announcement very shortly.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the 199,000 school leavers who are unemployed represent an increase of 82,000 on last month's figure and must be compared with the 55,000 unemployed 12 months ago for the same age group—namely a fourfold increase? Under those circumstances, will he extend the recruitment subsidy at a level of £10 per week and make it applicable to these people?

The figure of 199,000 represents those registered at careers offices. It consists of virtually all the under-18 figures. The figures are not directly comparable with those used by the hon. Gentleman, because this year school leaving took place from 28th May. That is bound to increase the figures. I am at present examining with the Manpower Services Commission an alternative to the present recruitment subsidy for school leavers, thereby acknowledging that school leaving figures of this dimension require a more effective approach.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the juvenile operator training pilot schemes operated by the Engineering Industry Training Board in Lanarkshire have been a remarkable success and are ripe for wider application throughout Scotland and the United Kingdom? Can my right hon. Friend offer any prospect of their early expansion?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. The Government's proposals for new arrangements for vocational preparation for the 300,000 or so young people who leave school without any qualifications each year, and who have little opportunity of getting jobs in the present circumstances, are being considered. We shall publish tomorrow a document indicating our proposals for further pilot schemes. If these schemes prove successful, we hope to introduce them on a nation-wide basis to deal specifically with this problem.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that unless at least £1,000 million worth of cuts are made in the Government's expenditure the unemployment figures for young people and for other unemployed people are liable to rise in the coming 12 months?

I must ask the hon. Gentleman to try to seek some accord with Opposition Members who have argued that if we had reduced public expenditure we should not have had this serious level of unemployment. In examining public expenditure I believe it is essential that we have critical regard to its effect upon unemployment generally, and not only on unemployment among young people.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the proposed cuts in public spending take place it is inevitable that there will be a substantial increase in unemployment? What steps is he prepared to take to resist that situation?

As I have indicated to the House, I am concerned that we should examine the measures that we are now running to deal with the special problems of high unemployment, with a view to introducing measures that may be more effective or that will supplement the present measures.

What reply does the right hon. Gentleman give to the parents of a young teacher leaving teacher training college this summer who cannot get a job—one of 20,000 who cannot get a job—bearing in mind that the Government know perfectly well that they could employ them if they allowed the price of school meals to be increased by 5p for each meal?

If they put that proposition to me on that basis, I should say that if parents had to pay more for school meals, the demand for other goods and services would thereby be reduced, which would also have an effect on employment.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what action he is taking to improve training opportunities for employees able only to undertake part-time employment after training.

I am informed by the Manpower Services Commission that courses are available under the Training Opportunities Scheme to people able to undertake only part-time employment, provided there are reasonable prospects of employment following training.

Is my hon. Friend aware that in some areas the Training Services Agency is refusing courses to women because family circumstances do not allow them to work full-time after training? Will he make it clear to the agency that the Government are entirely opposed to that form of discrimination? If insufficient courses are available, we should be expanding the training system rather than placing the burden of its inadequacy on one section of the community.

The aim of the Training Opportunities Scheme is to provide adults over 19 with intensive training so that they can change careers or improve their existing qualifications and re-enter the employment sector after a lengthy absence. There is no exclusion for married women for example, who are available for part-time work only. However, opportunities for part-time work vary considerably from area to area. The Training Services Agency has to take a realistic view in a situation in which it is clear that local opportunities for part time work are minimal. If my hon. Friend has a particular case in mind, I think he will find that there is a helpful reply.

Are there still vacancies in the Training Opportunities Scheme, or is the scheme full up already?

I understand that there are still vacancies.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has for expanding the number of skillcentres in the Berkshire, Oxfordshire, Hampshire and Wiltshire areas.

The Manpower Services Commission informs me that a new skill-centre with 135 training places is being built for the Training Services Agency at Reading, and another with 140 places is being built at Swindon. The agency hopes that training at both skillcentres will start by the end of 1977. In addition, the skillcentre at Slough is being expanded to provide 329 places.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that unemployment in my constituency is running close to the national average? Does he appreciate that the waiting time for the skillcentre in Slough is now so long advanced that a reserve waiting list has had to be introduced at the job centre? Will the hon. Gentleman put pressure on his Department to get the skillcentres at Reading and Swindon brought forward as a matter of great urgency?

I do not think that is possible, although I can say that we shall do our best to get them established by the end of 1977. It should be emphasised that these are not the only establishments at which TOPS courses are provided; they are also provided in colleges of further education. I am certain that the Training Services Agency will note the hon. Gentleman's remarks.

Will the hon. Gentleman give consideration to the skillcentres in the Greater London area, bearing in mind that whilst the outer London boroughs have had an easy time on the unemploy- ment front so far, a much more disturbing longer-term trend is now setting in, of semi-permanent unemployment? In the London borough of Harrow, for example, the nearest skillcentre is at Perivale, with far too limited opportunities.

I have recently visited a skillcentre in London. I have discussed expansion in London with the Training Services Agency.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many jobs have been created and saved by Government measures in the last 12 months.

As at 2nd July 1976 the Temporary Employment Subsidy Scheme, first announced on 18th August 1975, had saved 73,000 jobs and the job creation programme of the Manpower Services Commission, first announced on 24th September 1975, had created 20,000 jobs. Further applications are being considered under both schemes covering about 50.000 additional jobs. These are the measures of direct concern to my Department and to the Manpower Services Commission. In addition, many more jobs have been saved or created by government assistance to industry under the Industry Act or through the National Enterprise Board.

I welcome those figures. However, does my right hon. Friend accept that until we get a major economic upturn, there will be a need for his Department to provide selective measures to improve employment? Will he consider the proposal in the TUC "Economic Review" for a job creation subsidy by which employers in areas of higher than national unemployment receive a subsidy if they take on labour?

Certainly, in the light of the figures announced today, I accept that there is a need to consider a wide range of additional alternative measures. We are considering the possibility of aiding particular areas, but my own view is that the level of unemployment is too high in every region and, therefore, I am not inclined as a first preference to go for measures selective as between regions. I prefer to continue the attempt to reduce the level of unemployment in every region.

Does the Secretary of State accept that, although these various measures are welcome, they are only a drop in the bucket compared with the appalling unemployment figures, which suggest that the whole position is totally out of control? The Secretary of State and the Minister of State have suggested that new measures are coming forward. When will they come, and will the Secretary of State undertake to announce them before the House rises for the recess?

I know that the hon. Gentleman takes a keen interest in this subject. There are two ways of examining it. Anyone who is involved in schemes that prevent up to 250,000 people from being in the dole queue is not inclined to look at that as a drop in the bucket, but, seen against a background of 1,400,000 unemployed, one can take the view that the measures are inadequate. I hope to make an announcement soon.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether work permits issued have been reduced in the light of the current high levels of unemployment.

The number of first permits and permissions issued in 1975 was 30,078, which was about 9 per cent. lower than in 1974. Only the first quarter's figures are presently available for 1976. It would be wrong to draw longer-term conclusions from one quarter's figures, but it is encouraging that they show a drop of about 23 per cent. over the same period in 1975.

I thank my hon. Friend for that information. Will he elaborate a little by providing information on the number of people who have come over from Common Market countries and secured residence and employment in this country?

EEC nationals have the right to enter and to look for and take work without a work permit. If they want to stay for more than six months to work, they need a residence permit from my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. The figures for the issue of residents permits are as follows: 6,402 for 1973; 5,769 for 1974 and 4,680 for 1975. My hon. Friend can see that the annual figures have declined over that period. That is consistent with the falling trend in the number of work permits issued for people from EEC countries in the years immediately preceding our entry into the Community.

Will the Minister give us the other side? How many people are leaving this country to get jobs abroad? Are we not losing many of our best people because they are disenchanted with the Government's policies?

That is not a matter for me.

Does my hon. Friend think that it is fair to those who are refused work permits that girls from non-EEC countries coming to work here as au pair girls may be able to slip into full employment after a few months, to the detriment of those who want to come here under the normal procedures?

That should not happen. If my hon. Friend will supply evidence of that, we shall look into it.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a special appeal to industry to recruit above its normal establishment of school leavers in an endeavour to reduce the high level of unemployment among this group.

The Government's measures to help unemployed school leavers already draw to a considerable extent on the co-operation of employers. But I shall bear my hon. Friend's suggestion in mind.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is degrading, depressing and soul-destroying for youngsters who leave school in the expectation of starting work to finish up on the dole? Will not this have a damaging effect upon them throughout the whole of their working life? Will the Minister please make a special appeal to industrialists to take more than their normal establishment of school leavers to help to alleviate this problem?

I agree with all my hon. Friend says about the experience of young people leaving school and finding that no jobs are available. I assure him that in many of the measures we have introduced we have paid particular attention to the requirements of the unemployed school leavers—in the recruitment subsidy scheme, strengthening the careers service, the job creation programme, the community industry scheme and additional training measures. I am considering initiatives involving to a greater extent than ever before the support of private employer's and industrialists generally in alleviating the problem of the unemployed school leaver.

Will the Secretary of State tell the House why he continues to resist the proposal that companies prepared to train school leavers in skills vital to the country should be allowed to recover in full the cost of training?

At present the Training Services Agency funds a considerable amount of training in employers' premises. But it is not possible for the Training Services Agency under the present arrangements to guarantee to cover every vacant place that an employer can provide for training. We are seeking to construct a scheme that will provide opportunities for unemployed school leavers on a much wider basis than the availability of craft training places.

asked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 20th July.

I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet this morning and I shall be holding further meetings throughout the day.

Will the Prime Minister tell those of his colleagues whom he meets today that their continual public squabbling about the £1,000 million spending cuts—coupled with the Government's inexcusable delay in announcing them—is causing immense damage to confidence in the pound and that, when the cuts are finally announced, his colleagues must not run off whining about them to the Lobby, but must either give them their fullhearted support or get out of the Cabinet?

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's help, but I do not need it, thank you very much. As to public squabbling—unless the hon. Gentleman has bugged the Cabinet room —I can promise him that our discussions are extremely amicable, even though they are keenly argued. I do not think that there is any inexcusable delay in taking decisions on cuts that will begin to apply on 6th April 1977.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that some of us regret that the discussions have been so amicable? We are all deeply concerned about unemployment and feel that further cuts in public expenditure could lead not to a decrease in unemployment, as is suggested, but to an increase in unemployment. Will my right hon. Friend explain whether the argument is about the switch of resources or the confidence of foreign bankers?

It is a threefold argument about the use of resources after April 1977, the financing of public expenditure, for which we are having to borrow about £1 in £4, and confidence. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh"] There is nothing new about those figures. They have been going on for some time, started by Lord Barber, as everyone knows. We are now trying to get some order into the situation.

Does the Prime Minister recollect that it is exactly 10 years to the day that the then Labour Prime Minister put the famous financial crisis measures of 20th July 1966 before the House, when the right hon. Gentleman himself was Chancellor of the Exchequer? Bearing in mind that borrowers cannot be choosers, and that some cuts are therefore inevitable, why is he taking so long to bring his proposals before the House? Is he aware that his procrastination makes his predecessor look positively decisive?

The right hon. Lady still does not seem to have hoisted in the point that these expenditure proposals take effect from April 1977. We are discussing next year's financial proposals and not this year's. When the expenditure cuts were made on 20th July 1966, they took effect immediately. We have constantly refused to take panic decisions in relation to this year. There is no need to do so, because the deficit is capable of being financed and there is no pressure on resources. To do otherwise, as Opposition Members seem to be pressing us to do, would be to create an absurd situation, which I would not tolerate. What we are concerned with is next year. That is the year we are discussing.

Why is a decision when unemployment was below 1 million a panic decision but a decision when unemployment is above 1½ million not a panic decision?

I do not know to what the right hon. Lady is referring. What we are discussing is next year's estimates. We are discussing what the likely impact on resources will be and whether we can finance the borrowing, and these kinds of issue. These matters deserve consideration. Indeed, we have time to discuss them and thrash them out, and that is what we are doing. I have already told the House that I hope that we can produce a statement before we adjourn for the Summer Recess. That is still my intention, as far as we can do it, but there is no reason for the right hon. Lady to suggest that there is any need for a panic decision or an urgent decision on these matters when, by thrashing them out, we can get agreement. On the whole, I prefer to carry a Labour Government through this because I would not trust the right hon. Lady.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will seek to pay an official visit to Belgium.

I have just been to Belgium for the European Council meeting on 12th and 13th July. I have no plans to go there again in the immediate future.

Does the Prime Minister agree that although much of Belgium is below sea level it is morally and politically above this country in that it recognises the extent of its social problems and the importance of giving unemployed school leavers the opportunity to create their own work for the benefit of the community and others, rather than letting them hang around on street corners with nothing to do but draw the dole? In order to re-establish the detente with the Opposition, will the Prime Minister lean on the Chief Patronage Secretary in order to expedite the passage through this House of my Bill, aimed at restoring dignity to the unemployed, and in order to give them the opportunity to make Britain great again?

I have very great respect for the people of Belgium but I do not think that they would claim to be morally or politically superior to us if they looked at some of the problems of their own country. I shall not go into that today.

In view of the talks being conducted in Brussels on the fishing industry, will the Prime Minister agree to give top priority to the present plight of this industry? Is the Prime Minister listening to the voices of the official organisations within the fishing industry, in their demand for a 50-mile exclusive limit, or has he turned a deaf ear to this legitimate and reasonable claim?

The hon. Lady is aware that the matter is being discussed in Brussels today. I have a telegram from a number of fishermen protesting at the fact that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has to return to this country today and leave these discussions. I think that the responsibility for that is firmly placed on the Opposition. The Foreign Secretary has been placed in an absurd position. I tell the hon. Lady that I do not think that this will be decisive. As she knows, the interim arrangements last until 1982, and I have every confidence that we shall be able to renegotiate something arising out of the 200-mile limit.

Without nagging the Prime Minister, may I ask whether, in Brussels, he will consider the vexed question of the siting of the nomadic European Assembly which, alas, is one of his burdens?

I said the other day that I was grateful that it was not my responsibility. Of course, we have a partial responsibility for the siting of the European Assembly. I would much prefer to see it established in one capital. At the present time, however, I must tell my hon. Friend that I am not willing to recommend the expenditure of more money in order to achieve that.

asked the Prime Minister whether the public speech by the Chancellor of the Exchequer at Newcastle on 3rd July on the subject of public spending cuts represents the Government's policy.

asked the Prime Minister whether the public speech on econo- mic policy by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 3rd July 1976 at Newcastle to the TUC Northern Region Council represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

Yes.

The Prime Minister concedes that the effect of spending cuts is to increase unemployment in the short run. How does he answer the charge that if only he had exercised some discipline over public spending earlier the short run might now be nearing its end?

The increases in the levels of public expenditure have been extremely beneficial to a great many people. The fact that, for example, old-age pensions will be nearly doubled by November is something for which the House should give a great deal of credit. I think that it was right to do this, especially at a time when our resources were not fully used. We are taking steps to redress the situation for next year.

Is my right hon. Friend familiar with the view that the cuts now being proposed have absolutely nothing to do with resources and everything to do with business confidence abroad? If that is the case, how many more cuts will be required in order to try to achieve the unachievable and satiate the insatiable?

I am familiar with that view, and I think that there is some degree of truth in it. However, as I explained in answer to an earlier question, from the Leader of the Opposition, there is a combination of factors here, and different weights apply to them at different times. At the moment I do not think that the resources situation is the vital one, although we are taking into account the fact that manufacturing industry seems to be expanding at a rate of about 8 per cent. a year, which is very fast, and as we are considering next year's public expenditure, that is an important matter. But other factors do come into the question from time to time; I do not deny that.

As there are today 1,463,465 human signs of the total and abject failure of the Government's economic policy, will the Prime Minister make up his mind either to chuck in the sponge to his Left wing and have a totally Socialist State or withdraw these irrelevant and damaging Bills currently before the House, so that, for once, the world may get the impression that the Labour Party is prepared to put nation before party?

I am glad to be able to reassure the hon. Gentleman that since this Government took office growing respect has been shown for this country by people abroad. The fact that the trade unions have given their assent to the wage agreement has had a very great impact, together with our determination to get public expenditure fully under control. I promise the hon. Gentleman, from my experience and contacts on these matters, that what is being done by the Labour Government is regarded as much more important than the bleatings of people like him.