asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will offer every unemployed school leaver the right to create his or her own work, and make available further opportunities for job training and learning experience.

The further package of measures to alleviate unemployment amongst young people announced on 23rd August includes further allocations to the Training Services Agency and an extra £15 million for the Job Creation Programme. In addition, it is hoped that the Work Experience Programme will provide a realistic introduction to working life for at least 30,000 young people aged under 19, mainly school leavers.

Is the Minister aware that there are now about 400,000 unemployed under the age of 25 and a further 200,000 who are under 21 and who have never had a job before? What does he propose to do for those who are not catered for under these schemes, as they total about 95 per cent. of 600,000?

Because of his interest in the subject the hon. Gentleman should know as much as any hon. Member how many of our recent measures are specifically directed at young people. I have had the benefit of reading his views, which, summed up, appear to require young people to find a job of their own or forfeit social security benefits, or to find a job and be paid supplementary benefit rates. That is a solution which is unacceptable to the Government.

What about the efforts made by the Government over the last 18 months for school leavers? Has the Minister an estimate of the accrued benefits of the measures that have been passed?

Yes. We estimate that about half a million people will have been helped in employment by the range of measures introduced by the Government.

What proportion of the jobs generated by the Job Creation Programme have been produced by local authorities and what proportion by private and voluntary bodies?

I cannot give the exact figures, but the majority have come from local authorities. However, it is open to other organisations, bodies and individuals to put forward projects, and that includes private industry. I know that the people in charge of the scheme have gone to great lengths to encourage private employers to put forward projects

What steps are being taken to monitor what happens to people who come out of the schemes to see if the work has been of any value to them in finding a job?

It is obviously important to do what we can in terms of follow-up, and this is being done by the agencies of the Manpower Services Commission.

Is my hon. Friend aware that of the 1½ million registered unemployed, 260,000-plus receive not a penny piece from the State? That is the motive behind the Question tabled by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Steen), who wants to increase that figure.

I agree with my hon. Friend's last words.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many persons are unemployed in the South-West assisted area; what was the percentage unemployment figure at the latest available date, and what are the corresponding figures for 1975.

In September 1976, the number of people registered as unemployed in the South-West assisted area was 24,876 and the rate of unemployment was 9·1 per cent. The corresponding figures for September 1975 were 19,913 and 7·3 per cent.

Does the Minister agree that that is a most depressing state of affairs, particularly for the younger person? When will Ministers, both in the Department of Industry and in his Department, appreciate that the structural unem- ployment difficulties in rural assisted areas can be just as great as those of the urban industrial areas?

I agree that the situation is very depressing for all concerned, but it is brighter than we might have expected for the take-up of school leavers. The problem is mostly amongst young people who have already had a job. The Government have given great financial assistance to the South-West assisted area.

Is the Minister aware that the Government's present policy of switching aid to the urban stress areas is working directly against the South-West region especially in the building and construction industry? There is no basic infrastructure in that area and therefore the switching of aid is leading to unemployment in the building and construction industry, and a lack of confidence in that industry.

The Government have no policy of discriminating against rural areas. In the last period unemployment fell in the South-West assisted area.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the progress of his Department in co-ordinating the draft of a Press charter as required by the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Amendment) Act.

The Trade Union and Labour Relations (Amendment) Act 1976 does not require my Department to co-ordinate the draft of a Press charter, and it is not doing so.

Is not the Minister being a little complacent? If agreement is not reached, he will have to impose a charter on the industry. Is he aware that all the signs and portents are that the parties will be completely unable to reach agreement on the terms of charter, because the National Union of Journalists is insisting on a closed shop in journalism which excludes the smaller trade union from the right to work? Does he not think that he should be doing something to bring the parties together?

The hon. Gentleman is being premature and unduly pessimistic. There is a considerable time to go, although one appreciates that the discussions are very difficult and delicate. That is all the more reason for us not to interfere. To do so now could well prove counter-productive.

Does my hon. Friend agree that many of the pontifications about a free Press that have surrounded the proceedings in trying to bring about a Press charter are completely divorced from reality, and that until we curb the power of the Press barons we shall not have a free Press? Will my hon. Friend reaffirm that members of the NUJ have every right to have a trade union membership agreement, just as any other group of workers in Britain has?

There are certainly many considerations in addition to the closed shop, including that to which my hon. Friend referred, which need some attention. I hope that all those with some influence in the newspaper industry, direct or indirect, will try to use it to secure a satisfactory result.

In that case, will the hon. Gentleman and the Secretary of State use their influence as well to see that, with Press freedom very much at stake action is not taken by journalists to force a closed shop in a vital industry which should not have it and does not want it?

The Government's position on the closed shop has been made very clear on a number of occasions. Our position is neutral.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will make a statement on the current level of unemployment.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what are the Latest unemployment figures as compared with one and two years previously.

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

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what are the latest available figures for unemployment in the United Kingdom and by region and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the current level of unemployment.

At 9th September 1976 1,395,770 people were registered as unemployed in Great Britain. The rate of unemployment was 6·1 per cent. Equivalent figures for the United Kingdom were 1,456,363–6·2 per cent.

Will the Secretary of State now concede that recent Government measures will almost certainly lead to a further increase in unemployment? May we have an assurance that there will be no attempt to disguise this, and that he recognises that further counter-cyclical measures are unlikely to have much impact?

I am tempted to say that that depends on which recent Government measures one is talking about. A number of them, including measures introduced by my Department and the Department of Industry, will have a considerable impact. The extent to which the counter-cyclical measures will be effective depends upon the size of the component of our unemployment that stems from cyclical considerations and how much of it is long-term, structural unemployment.

My right hon. Friend will learn nothing from Conservative Members, who are more concerned about more public expenditure cuts, resulting in more unemployment. He would do well to listen more closely to those of his hon. Friends—[Hors. MEMBERS: "Question."]. Do not panic.

Order. I am the one who is panicking. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will come to his question, because many hon. Members are anxious to have their Question called.

Not enough people are panicking about 1½ million on the dole.

I think that my hon. Friend knows that I listen very carefully to what he and other hon. Friends of mine say about unemployment. Many of the recent measures are directed particularly at the problem of school-leaver unemployment. One of them relates to earlier retirement as well. But within the total scope of measures we are anxious to expand further training opportunities, including those in the mining industry, for young people. In this we have had a measure of success.

How can the right hon. Gentleman maintain that the social contract has worked when since its inception unemployment has risen by more than 750,000?

I maintain that it has worked because it has enabled the Government to discuss with the TUC a wide range of measures affecting levels of unemployment and has enabled this country to achieve by voluntary wages policy a restriction in internal demand far above anything that any other country has achieved.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the shamefully high total of unemployed would be considerably less if the Government had introduced selective import controls a long time ago? Can he point to any evidence, as opposed to opinion, to substantiate the claim often made by Ministers that the introduction of selective import controls would result in retaliation from abroad?

The last part of my hon. Friend's question should be directed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade. The Government have introduced and operated a number of import restrictions and are even at this stage ready to consider where restrictions might be necessary in other areas to protect employment. I believe that as a result of these measures, coupled with other factors, we have seen a turn in the position of manufacturing industry. In every month since May this year there has been an increase in the total numbers employed in manufacturing.

Has the right hon. Gentleman's Department made a specific estimate of the additional number of unemployed that will result from a 15 per cent. minimum lending rate? Does he accept that it will mean tens of thousands of extra unemployed and will more than swamp everything else he mentioned in his first supplementary answer?

That is principally a question for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The high current MLR was introduced as a short-term measure to deal with a particular financial situation. I believe that it will not last for such a time as to have a considerable effect upon industrial investment.

Knowing how my right hon. Friend genuinely feels about unemployment, may I ask him to have a word with my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and Chancellor of the Exchequer about the building and construction industry, where we now have 220,000 unemployed and the employers estimate that another 100.000 could be unemployed in a short time? Will he tell them that public expenditure cuts affecting the construction industry must be reversed, otherwise there will be no construction industry, no new intake of apprentices, and no skills, and the country will suffer as a result?

If my hon. Friend had widened his question to ask whether I would discuss with my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Chancellor the question of unemployment generally, as opposed to unemployment in the construction industry, I could have said that we talk of almost nothing else. But there is a particular problem, to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention very frequently. We are, within the present scope of the whole series of measures, problem where Government strategy can seeking to bring some assistance to the have a useful impact.

There is increasing concern in Scotland at the failure of this Government, like their predecessors, to deal with deep-rooted problems of unemployment there. Does the Minister not think it would be right now to recommend to his Cabinet colleagues that the Government's devolution proposals should include control of the Scottish economy, control of the money supply and control of employment measures, so that we can take responsibility for them ourselves in Scotland?

I did not know that it was my duty to answer questions about devolution, too. I accept, however, that many of these factors can be seen to affect unemployment. In Scotland the total number of unemployed fortunately fell by 8,697 between August and September. I am discussing with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland how far it is appropriate that there should be a devolution of certain powers currently exercised by the Manpower Services Commission in the interests of dealing with employment questions in Scotland.

The Secretary of State's answers today have not differed from the totally unsatisfactory answers we have had from him and his predecessor month after month. Is it not a fact that his policies have failed? Will he listen not to his hon. Friends but to Conservative Members who for two years have put forward a consistent case which, if it had been adopted, would have reduced the level of unemployment by now?

I think that the House is able to judge who is listening to whom. I am saying something different this month. I am glad to be able to say that last month's statistics show that total unemployment has fallen in every region in the country and that overall the number of vacancies has risen. Much of the fall has been attributable to the drop in the number of unemployed school leavers, but the figure is none the worse for that. We have also introduced measures and we are checking and verifying their effectiveness. We are prepared to turn to any aspect of the employment problem where Government strategy can have a useful impact.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what new proposals he has for reducing unemployment.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what further measures he is considering to reduce unemployment.

New measures to alleviate unemployment which I announced as recently as 3rd August and 23rd September are thought likely to keep at least 140,000 people off the unemployed register over the next 12 months, bringing the total helped by our measures to approaching half a million. The Government are keeping the unemployment situation under constant review and will be ready to expand existing measures and introduce new ones if the need arises.

Is the Minister aware that his reply will come as a disappointment in the North-West, where the rate of unemployment is much higher than elsewhere, and particularly to the employees of International Computers Limited, at Winsford, where a number of my constituents are employed and in which the Government have a substantial stake, but where 640 out of 1,400 employees are due to be made redundant? What proposals does he have to offer to give encouragement to those employees?

Fortunately, the position in the North-West is improving. There has been a drop in the total unemployment figure in the last month, and in regard to measures to deal with major redundancies, such as that mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, I would advise the House that there has been a considerable take-up of temporary employment subsidy, which has now succeeded in staving off 120,000 proposed redundancies. I shall see whether this form of support can assist in the case that the hon. Gentleman mentioned.

Is the Minister aware that none of the experience to which he referred will overcome the fact that the Achilles heel of the Government's economic strategy is lack of investment? Does he, as a Socialist, agree with me that until such time as we formulate and execute a national plan involving control and direction of the economy we shall not tackle the fundamentals that have led to the current high rate of unemployment?

I agree to the extent that the achievement of an industrial strategy, which depends on a rate of growth in industry of 7 to 8 per cent., must over a period involve a considerable increase in the amount of industrial investment. On all present evidence, we shall need a considerable measure of Government intervention to sustain and achieve investment of that level.

Has the Minister within the last 24 hours received a demand for a reduction of 1 million in the unemployed level? If so, how does he propose to achieve it?

Within the last 24 hours I have been one of a number of Ministers who have had this proposition addressed to them. Among the ways in which we seek to meet the demand is, principally, by our industrial strategy, since we take it that the measures special to my Department are a complement and supplement to mitigate the worst effects of unemployment, and are not in themselves a long-term solution. It is evident to all who study the solutions to that problem that in the long run there must be a regeneration of British industry, and that that will play the major part.

In view of the sad level of unemployment in Leicester and other areas not classed as assisted areas but where the unemployment rate is the highest in history, will my right hon. Friend reconsider his policy not to extend the job release scheme to unassisted areas? Does he agree that it is just as wretched to be unemployed in those areas as it is anywhere else?

My hon. Friend raises a serious and difficult question. The special measures that we have introduced in the last year have brought about more nation-wide support than was the case previously. We have departed from the policy of successive Governments of directing attention to development areas only. It is not beyond possibility that we can reconsider those of our schemes which currently apply solely in development areas, to see whether we may be justified in introducing them on a nation-wide basis.

Is it not clear from the way the Minister is floundering that he has no answer at all to the demand that 1 million new jobs should be created? Is it not time that the Government began to develop a strategy for the labour market that takes account of the fact that the unemployment rate of 1 per cent. or 2 per cent. experienced under a Tory Government in the 1950s and early 1960s has now gone, and that we shall have to live with an unemployment rate near the 1 million mark for many years to come?

I do not accept that, as a Government, we could base any of our strategies or policies on the proposition that the country should live with 1 million unemployed for many years to come. Policies of support for manufacturing industry operated by the Labour Government since we came into office are beginning to bear fruit, as in the reduction in the amount of short-time working, the high level of overtime now being worked in the manufacturing sector, and the fact that in each of the last few months there has been an increase in the total number of people employed in manufacturing industry.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many employees in the public sector and how many in the private sector are covered by closed shop agreements or arrangements, existing or proposed: and whether he will make a statement about Government policy towards the closed shop.

Information about numbers covered by closed shop agreements is not available. The Government maintain a neutral policy towards the closed shop. It is entirely up to employers and unions to decide whether or not they wish to operate a closed shop in any particular case.

Though the figures for those covered by a closed shop may not be available to the Government, is the Minister aware that it is perfectly clear that more and more people in this country are covered by closed shop agreements? Is he further aware that it is becoming a precondition of employment that those who wish to work must be members of a union? What advice does the Minister have for British Rail concerning its policy of a closed shop?

As the lion. Member has been told several times, this matter is one for the employer and the union—in this case the employer being British Rail. There have been problems over some of the employees who were dismissed in respect of the payment of unemployment benefit and their disqualification from receiving it. I understand that the cases are currently subject to possible appeal and I therefore hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press me about them.

Does the Minister agree that however satisfactory he may find it to wash his hands of responsibility for the closed shop generally and to refuse to give advice or a view on it, he cannot do that in the public sector? There, at least, he must take responsibility to prevent individuals being deprived of their livelihoods because they do not wish to join a trade union.

I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is, in effect, calling for a ban on the closed shop. Those who say that we should ban the closed shop are saying that we should sweep the problem under the carpet, if I may use words which may be familiar to the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) from his recent conference. The Opposition should make up their minds where they stand on this issue.

That sort of simple political propaganda does not constitute a satisfactory reply. Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the Government's so- called neutrality on the closed shop means that they are attempting to act as a disinterested onlooker while the freedom of the Press is being increasingly threatened and while people who have worked for a long time in the public sector are having their individual liberty curtailed?

I think I am gradually beginning to understand the Opposition's position on the closed shop. They are not against the closed shop so long as no one practises it.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many young people between 18 and 21 years of age are unemployed.

The precise information requested is not available. On 8th July, when the unemployed register was last analysed by age groups, the figures included 121,886 people aged 18 and 19 and 224,850 aged 20 to 24.

In view of those very grim figures, does the Minister agree that the money invested through the Job Creation Programme must be used for long-term purposes—for example, for training young people for productive jobs? What action is the Minister planning to take to evaluate the wide variety of schemes being operated at present in order to ensure the most efficient use of people and resources?

We constantly evaluate all these special measures. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 24th September a wide variety of measures, which we believe will create 160,000 new jobs, training or work experience for young people in the coming 12 months.

I welcome what the Department has done in extending training facilities for young people. However, will the Department keep up its pressure over training and particularly take account of some of the practical recommendations made by the South Shields trade union council, of which my hon. Friend has a copy?

Of course we will at all times try to ensure that as many young people as possible receive training. We would particularly ask that the employers and trade unions give as much support as they can to the work experience scheme.

In view of the Minister's original answer, has he studied the letter in The Times this morning explaining how an employer in Croydon applied at the employment exchange for a warehouseman? The employment exchange said that four men would be coming along for the job. None came. The fifth man, a visiting Australian, got the job. In view of the unemployment among young people, will the Minister discover whether there are any suitable young people on the list at that exchange, and whether they should have taken the job?

This is a matter for the Employment Services Agency, which I am sure will take note of the hon. Gentleman's remarks.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the level of overtime working in manufacturing industry.

The level of overtime working by operatives in manufacturing industries for the week-ended 14th August was 12,931,800 hours.

Notwithstanding the Minister's comments, does he accept that the fact that one-third of all workers in manufacturing industry are working eight hours' overtime a week is totally immoral in the present situation?

It is a matter of some concern that substantial amounts of overtime are being worked at a time of chronic job shortage, although some overtime is desirable and sometimes essential. Both management and unions are aware that voluntary restriction of overtime can help to prevent redundancies. The TUC at its September congress passed a resolution recognising the responsibility of the trade union movement in trying to achieve a reduction in overtime.

Does the Minister think it right that trade unions should stop people working harder on piece-work?

That is not a matter that arises out of this Question. If the hon. Gentleman is referring to a case that received some recent publicity, he should look again at the facts of that case before he goes further.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will introduce legislation to increase the penalties which may be imposed by magistrates' courts for breach of the Health and Safety at Work &c. Act.

No, Sir. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department is considering a general overall increase in magistrates' court penalties as proposed by the James Committee. I consider that the proper course is to await the outcome of this consideration rather than to initiate a separate Bill for health and safety legislation.

Does the Minister agree that the present penalties imposed by magistrates' courts on those convicted of offences under the Health and Safety at Work &c. Act are pathetic? Does he also agree that it is as criminal to kill a man in a factory or on a building site as it is on a road? Will he join with the Lord Chancellor in advising courts to use their present powers to make it plain that that kind of behaviour will not be tolerated?

Yes. I am broadly in agreement with my hon. and learned Friend and, indeed, with the remarks of the Lord Chancellor last week—remarks that he addressed to magistrates and of which I am sure they will take considerable notice.

Will the Minister say whether magistrates' courts are imposing penalties to the limits, or is it not perhaps foolish to talk of increasing the penalties that they can impose if they are not now imposing the maxima?

In a good many cases involving health and safety matters magistrates are imposing lenient fines, bearing in mind the gravity of the offence. As for the question of raising the level of fines, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is considering the matter, although not in isolation.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will review the composition of the panel set up by him from which lay members of industrial tribunals are chosen.

No, Sir. I am satisfied with the composition of the panel.

In view of the vastly increased powers of industrial tribunals and the fact that many employees who apply to them are members of unions not affiliated to the TUC, what possible justification is there for the Government's continued insistence on appointing employee representatives to industrial tribunals solely from the ranks of TUC-affiliated unions?

In making these appointments my right hon. Friend must work within the statutory framework laid down in 1971. The Secretary of State was then required by statute to consult with organisations representing employers and employees. The TUC speaks for 90 per cent. of the trade unionists in this country—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, the figure is 90 per cent. I do not know of any organisation that speaks for non-unionists.

Will my hon. Friend examine the composition of the tribunals dealing with equal pay? Is he satisfied that there are enough women sitting on the tribunals which consider equal pay for women?

No, we are not satisfied with the number of women on the panel. We have made a special effort to increase the number, so as to have regard to the requirements of the equal pay legislation. At present, women form only 22 per cent. of the total. We should very much like to see the number increased.

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the TUC unions represent 90 per cent. of the union representation? Is it not wholly wrong to exclude the other 10 per cent. by not accepting nominations? Would it not be reasonable to allow, for example, 10 per cent. of the places on the industrial tribunals coming from the workers' side to be nominated from other sources? Certainly the TUC should not have a monopoly.

I am sure that we have told the hon. Gentleman on previous occasions that we do not share that view.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement about compensation to be paid to the fishing industry following the recent agreement with Iceland.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has yet made a decision regarding the amount of compensation to be given to the trawling industry consequent upon the Icelandic Agreement, following his talks with the British Trawler Federation and the Transport and General Workers' Union.

On 28th June 1976 my right hon. Friend the then Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, during the course of his statement on fisheries policy, said that we would discuss with the unions and employers the feasibility of an arrangement for compensating those fishermen whose employment was directly affected by the Oslo agreement. I put suggestions to representatives of the employers and the unions at a meeting in July, but after careful joint consideration of the issues involved they subsequently concluded, reluctantly but unanimously, that it was not practicable to devise a scheme.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that by far the best thing that he and his colleagues in the Government could do would be to recreate conditions in which our fishermen could go out again and catch fish? Will he bring this matter to the notice of his colleagues in the Government and make things easier for this presently hard-pressed industry?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that that is not a question for me.

Notwithstanding the arrogant propaganda south of the Humber, will my hon. Friend confirm that both the vessel owners and the men find it difficult to identify those of our fishermen who may be affected by the Icelandic agreement? Would it not be better if we got on as quickly as possible with decasualisation, so as to give our second-class citizens on the water the same conditions as those of workers on the shop floor?

In the discussions to which I referred the Government made it clear that they were prepared to assist financially, but for a variety of reasons neither the unions nor the employers thought it was feasible or practicable to undertake a scheme such as the one we were suggesting. Nor could they find any alternatives. Perhaps my hon. Friend will be reassured if I tell him that I have had separate and further meetings with both sides of the industry about introducing a more stable employment pattern in the industry. The employers have expressed a willingness to embark, in their own words, on the road to decasualisation, with a number of reservations and qualifications.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what consideration he has given to making use of unemployed teachers and unused or under-utilised premises such as some colleges of education or further education for the purpose of providing training and retraining facilities, particularly for school leavers and older workers.

I am informed by the Manpower Services Commission that considerable use is already being made of accommodation in colleges of further education for training under the Training Opportunities Scheme, and that further expansion in this field is expected. The use of such facilities is being further encouraged by the programme of grants and awards in support of additional training by industry, which is being operated jointly by the Training Services Agency and industrial training boards. The possibility of using vacant colleges of education premises will be kept under review. Suitably qualified unemployed teachers can be considered for vocational training posts within the Training Services Agency.

I accept that use is made of colleges of education by the Manpower Services Commission, but is the hon. Gentleman satisfied with the co-operation between his Department and the Department of Education and Science in training matters, especially the proposal of the Training Services Agency to build a new training centre at Redditch?

I can give the assurance that there is close co-operation between the DES and my Department. We are satisfied that it is valuable to provide the centre to which reference has been made.

As so many of our young people are now unemployed, and in view of the present circumstances of the country, is this not a situation calling for emergency action and much more cooperation between the hon. Gentleman's Department and the Department of Education and Science?

There has been close co-operation between my Department and the Department of Education and Science, and, indeed, the Manpower Services Commission. We have now approved 145 job creation projects specifically for teachers, and 1,250 teachers are now employed on them, being engaged in organising play groups, educational theatres and the like.

But do not the Question and the Answer show that current Government policy of cutting public expenditure is running counter to the idea of my hon. Friend's Department for getting full employment?

The Government do not accept that point of view. We believe that it is in the long-term interests of employment that public expenditure growth should be cut.

In view of the number of teachers now unemployed, will the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues consider advising local authorities to relax the restriction on grants so that they can undergo training courses for which grants may not otherwise be available?

The positive response of the DES to the shortage of jobs for teachers has been to discuss and to inquire into the possibility of retraining teachers for jobs in education where their skills are in short supply.

asked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with the coordination between the Home Office, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Treasury and the Department of Health and Social Security over the control of entry of animals into the United Kingdom in contravention of the animal quarantine regulations; and if he will make a statement.

Yes. I understand that the anti-rabies defences are judged so far to have been successful, but the Government are ready to strengthen them if this is found necessary.

Is the Prime Minister aware that the overwhelming majority of cases in England and Wales that come before the courts are heard by magistrates' courts, and that those courts do not have the power to imprison people? As the maximum fine of £400 represents a chance considered worth taking, especially by foreigners paying in devalued pounds, will the right hon. Gentleman accept the suggestion for another addition to his Queen's Speech, namely, a short enabling Bill to give magistrates the power to imprison people who commit this selfish crime?

I know that the hon. Gentleman's constituency is in the forefront on this matter. If he does not mind my saying so, I think that he is performing a public service by keeping this matter in front of the House from time to time by means of his Questions.

Make him a PPS.

No, thank you. There are far more people of quality behind me for that purpose. It is important that we should continually bring these matters to the attention of people in this country and overseas. As for the hon. Gentleman's specific suggestions, he may or may not have seen the consultation paper issued on 11th October. In addition to that, allow me to inform the House that the Home Office has just completed a review of penalties and matters of that sort. The hon. Gentleman would not expect me to anticipate the Queen's Speech, but that matter will come under consideration by the Government in due course. As for imprisonment and the other suggestions that have been made, they can all be taken into account in any conclusions finally reached.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that apart from rabies there is the gross disparity between the Irish and British green pounds? At present that is one of the major causes of entry of animals into this country in breach of the regulations and endangering animal health. A statement on this subject is urgently awaited in Northern Ireland.

I was under the impression that one of the consequences of the green pound was that animals that might have been slaughtered in Northern Ireland were being sent to the South. I hope that they are not getting any contamination from us. Maybe there is a two-way traffic with some gentlemen who are very concerned with private enterprise and who, having drawn the money in the South, find it not a bad idea to send it back to the North. I think that this matter would be better directed to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

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

I have at present no plans to do so.

Does the Prime Minister realise that if he were to visit Whitby many people there would tell him that if the Government wanted to show their determination to face economic realities they would not threaten the livelihoods of small ports such as Whitby by increasing costs and reducing flexibility of operation, but would, as a gesture of national unity and common sense, drop their ill-conceived, monstrously begotten, widely unpopular and grotesque Dock Work Regulation Bill?

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his well thought-out supplementary question. It bears little relation to the state of public opinion in Whitby or anywhere else.

Before my right hon. Friend makes any arrangement to go to Whitby, will he be good enough to deal with the serious situation at the other end of the corridor, where a group of non-elected people are doing their best to smash the legislation that has been passed by this Chamber?

I have noticed that demonstration of national unity. I have no doubt that the other place will continue with its self-appointed task of mutilating Bills that have passed through this House. No doubt in due course the House of Commons will want to reconsider this matter.

asked the Prime Minister whether he remains satisfied with the effectiveness of the Government's economic policies.

I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) on 12th October.

Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that one of the reasons why the Government are taking the wrong course of action, in my view, has to do with the constant over-selling of the public sector borrowing requirement? Does he accept that if the Government deficit were calculated in the way it is calculated in many of our competitor countries the percentage, as expressed in terms of gross domestic product, would be down to about 5 per cent. or 6 per cent.? On that basis, would it not be a sensible idea to abandon the public spending cuts and thereby reduce that £4,000 million which it is calculated is the cost to this country of 1½ million unemployed?

I am aware that there are different conventions for calculating these matters. My hon. Friend is correct in saying that if we were to adopt what is called in some other countries, but not universally, a general Government deficit, the figures would look much better than they do now. We calculate them on the basis of the public sector borrowing requirement. This is to a large extent because we include in our public sector borrowing requirement the capital needs of nationalised industries and other public concerns which are genuine investments. Of course, these must come from savings in one form or another, or from borrowings. It is to that central point that the Government are having to direct their attention. That is why the public sector borrowing requirement is now under such close scrutiny.

Would the Prime Minister care to confirm that the Government's policy is still to increase the money supply by only 12 per cent. this year, bearing in mind that it has already increased by 10 per cent.? Is it the Government's policy to increase it by only 2 per cent. for the rest of the financial year? Would the right hon. Gentleman spell out in clear and precise detail exactly what the consequences for the British people in terms of employment and living standards would be if the money supply rose by only 2 per cent. over the next six months?

I am not absolutely sure that the hon. Gentleman has got the figure right. Perhaps it would be better if he were to table a Question to the Chancellor. It is not my impression that the money supply has gone up by 10 per cent. this year so far overall. That figure can be corrected if the hon. Gentleman will table a Question. As to the general guidelines, the answer is "Yes, it is the Government's view that 12 per cent. is the appropriate figure for the rise in the money supply during the course of the current year". It has increased rather more than that during the first six or seven months of the year. Success achieved in controlling this will have an impact on the sales of Government stock to finance the public sector borrowing requirement, among other matters. I hat, in turn, will have an impact, in due course. I hope, on interest rates.

In view of my right hon. Friend's clear interest in the role of education and its connection with the furtherance of the Government's economic policies, will he expand on the statement in his speech yesterday that there should be an improvement in relations between industry and education?

I have drawn the attention of hon. Members to this problem on many occasions. I am gratified to see that it is being taken up by both sides. I am not saying that the responsibility rests wholly on one side. There are certainly employers who feel that the education system is not producing people with the basic knowledge that they need when they are recruited. On the other hand, some parts of the education service feel that employers could do more to bring their requirements to the notice of the education service. I think I have succeeded in my objective of starting a debate—indeed, it started before I ever said a word, thanks, I think, to some infighting that went on somewhere, which I do not know much about. I hope that the discussions will continue. I am now considering ways in which we can focus them on some of these issues.

As the Question refers to the whole range of economic policies, will the Prime Minister give one of the key forecasts which he has so far withheld but to which he must have addressed his mind, namely, what is the peak level of unemployment that we are likely to face if he pursues the present policies of this Government?

The right hon. Lady knows full well that from the days of lain Macleod onwards no Minister of Labour or his successor has ever given a forecast of that sort. I do not propose to depart from that now.

Is the Prime Minister aware that the Leader of the House, when he was Secretary of State for Employment, gave such a forecast and said that unemployment would not exceed 1¼ million? I am afraid that the Prime Minister is out of date. Has he not addressed his mind to this question, or will he not give us the answer?

If the right hon. Lady is right—and of course I take it that she is—I certainly am out of date on that score. [Interruption.] And maybe many more matters. I do not deny any of these things. Unlike Tory Members, I do not claim to he absolutely perfect on everything. There are always estimates of unemployment, as the right hon. Lady knows. Frequently, as with so many other forecasts, they are totally incorrect.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that one sure way to in- crease the level of unemployment would be to adopt the policies proffered by the Opposition? Does he realise that the level of national unemployment is disturbing, particularly in regions like Merseyside, and especially among school leavers? Will he say what specific measures will be taken in relation to the regions and in relation to school leavers in those areas?

I have no doubt —and I think that the Opposition have no doubt—that the adoption of Opposition policies would lead to substantially increased unemployment. If that is the case, the Opposition should be a little chary about some of their proposals. On the general question of unemployment, it is our view—I see no reason to depart from this—that if we are to secure the growth of new jobs our major task over the next three years is to overcome inflation—to reduce it below its present level despite the great difficulties arising from the depreciation of sterling and from increased costs of raw materials and commodities and problems of this sort. If we get inflation down we are on the way to overcoming the unemployment problem. As for school leavers, my right hon. Friends have announced a number of schemes to help them. We shall go on considering what more can be done.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that almost everyone in this country and overseas who has considered the matter believes that this nation of ours is drifting, day by day, steadily towards an economic disaster? When will the Government bring forward the comprehensive package of measures necessary to avert this?

I do not believe anything of the sort. When I visit factories and workshops throughout the country, as I do continually, and see the products emerging from them I realise that that sort of alarmist and scare talk totally misrepresents not only the truth but the spirit of the British people. We are faced with difficult and deep-seated problems that have arisen over a period of 30 years and the Government are now overcoming them, thanks to the full co-operation of the trade union movement, and I am glad to see that at last that remark does not arouse the jeers that it used to arouse from the Opposition. Provided we stand by the industrial strategy, provided we work as we must to overcome inflation, this country has a very good future. But we must stick by the policy that we are following.

Reverting to my right hon. Friend's speech yesterday, when he suggested that our education system provided part of the cure for our economic ills, is he aware that some Government supporters have considerable concern and apprehension that we load on to our schools too much of an exclusively economic rÔle? Does he not agree that it would be a pity if, in the debate that he has initiated, we started a movement which made the teachers in our schools, who are doing a very good job, the scapegoat for the nation's economic ills?

Nothing that I have said so far should lead to that conclusion. I have pointed out some worrying factors, namely, the large number of vacancies—I am told, 30,000 or so—for scientific and technical students in our universities and polytechnics. This is a very serious matter, which the nation should consider. I have pointed out the lack of co-ordination that seems to exist between industry and education. I have asked that there should be better linkage between the two, and I shall work to that. But I do not put anyone in the dock on this. We, as a nation, are too fond of trying to find scapegoats and of putting people in the dock. We have to discover what is wrong and to work towards putting it right.

How can the Prime Minister justify his remarks at a time when unemployment since the present Government came to office has gone from 2·7 per cent. to 6·1 per cent., when the pound has fallen from $2.40 to $1·65, and when inflation is rising faster than when he and his right hon. and hon. Friends first took office in 1974? Would it not be better for the Government, if they admit their failures, to change their economic policies or get out of office?

Any change to the Opposition's policies would raise unemployment, increase confrontation, and return us to the three-day working week. The interesting feature is that the Opposition know in their hearts that the policies that we are following are the only ones likely to save the country, and they know perfectly well that if some of their proposals were adopted the large increase in unemployment that would follow would result in serious confrontation and would increase social tension, perhaps beyond limits that are endurable.

What the House knows in its heart is that these levels of unemployment are not good enough for the British nation—[Interruption.] Furthermore, the House and the country know—[Interruption.]

Order. I cannot hear what the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) is saying.

The House and the country also know that if the policies of cutting public expenditure had been taken at the right time, unemployment would not have risen to its present level.

I note that the right hon. Gentleman says that the level of unemployment is unacceptable, and I agree with him. However, I do not understand how he and his party can go on advocating policies designed to have the effect of increasing unemployment. If I may give just one example of this, if the Opposition's votes on the motor car industry had been carried, the industry would now be in a state of total disruption.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There are two categories of error which appear on the Notice Paper. One is where, through carelessness, the printer omits words or, indeed, complete lines, as has happened in the case of a motion tabled yesterday by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton). There are also cases where, apparently, the printer believes himself to be at liberty to doctor motions which have been accepted by the Table Office before printing them.

"That this House, recognising that neither the consumers nor many of their elected representatives in Parliament or in local authorities retain any confidence in the ability of the South West Water Authority to discharge its proper functions in an efficient, understanding and acceptable manner while its existing Chairman remains in office, calls upon the Secretary of State to replace the present Chair man before 1st January 1977 with somebody who can restore public confidence."

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Although I accept that one Renton is as good as another, may I point out that the motion referred to in my hon. Friend's first example was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton)?

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to support what my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) said. The motion relating to his first complaint was tabled by me and its purpose was to call for the instant dismissal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. As it reads from the printer, it appears to suggest that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should last for only a few weeks. That was not our intention.

May we assume that the motion is now a hybrid?

The hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) gave me notice of this intention to raise this matter. There was a mistake in the printing. It will be put right. I am quite sure that the whole House may have confidence that the printers would not seek to doctor or alter any motion. What the hon. Member for Tiverton said will he read, and I give the assurance that the necessary correction will be made.

In order to save the time of the House, unless there is any objection I propose to put one Question on the four motions relating to Statutory Instruments.