asked the Secretary of State for Employment what monitoring his Department does of the administration of unemployment benefits carried out by its offices.

Stringent monitoring is undertaken by management and by the Department's inspectorate and auditors to ensure that the administration of unemployment benefit is undertaken efficiently and according to law, regulation and rule. In particular, steps are taken both to prevent fraud and to confirm that the claimant has registered for work and that he remains available for it.

Is the Minister satisfied about the operation of the conditions applying to the definition of "suitable employment"? Does he agree that, if these conditions were considerably loosened to include a wider range of alternative jobs not related to previous occupations, that would help to cut out some of the abuse, especially by the over-60s, and make it unnecessary to have the measures for curbing unemployment benefit that the Government are bringing forward?

I made it clear earlier that I believed that the term "suitable employment" should be interpreted widely by my Department and I believe that that will be the case.

Is my hon. Friend satisfied that legitimate claimants for unemployment benefit are getting their benefit at the right time? Is he aware that I have had complaints from time to time that delay occurs for various reasons?

I am anxious that all claimants should receive benefits on time, and that will certainly receive the attention of my Department.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the latest figures relating to the employment of disabled people in the public sector.

I did so in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) on Thursday 16th December last. The figures give concern in many instances, though it must be remembered that they relate only to those disabled employees who have registered. My ministerial colleagues are already considering what more might be done in the fields for which they have responsibility. The Manpower Services Commission will help here, and the Civil Service has already issued its own code of practice on employment and disabled people.

Are not the figures quoted totally deplorable? Does not the public sector have a special responsibility in this respect? Will my hon. Friend and the Minister responsible for the disabled get together to ensure greater opportunity for employment for the handicapped?

I certainly agree that many instances give great anxiety and that the figures leave much to be desired, in spite of the qualifications that I have made and that appear in the article in the Department of Employment Gazette, which disclosed the figures. The whole House should welcome the fact that these figures are now out in the open and we can see the size of the problem.

Is the Minister aware that there has been a decline in the numbers of disabled in employment in the public sector and that at least the Government quota of 3 per cent. should be applied in the public sector?

I cannot but agree. The figures show a serious situation, and that is why we have published them. I have outlined a number of steps that we propose. We expect to publish early in the new year a guide for employers on the employment of the handicapped. I hope that it will be carefully looked at, borne in mind and acted upon by employers in both the public and private sectors.

Will my hon. Friend take a look at three factors, including the supply of equipment to enable disabled people to earn a living where they want to do so? Will he also see that the mobility allowances is augmented so that handicapped people may go to work freely in their own vehicles? Will he set up a special unit to advise disablement resettlement officers on the employment of the severely handicapped?

I doubt whether my hon. Friend's first suggestion is necessary. That situation is largely covered by existing arrangements. Mobility allowances are primarily a matter for the DHSS and the Employment Services Agency. The travel-to-work scheme is under active review. A good deal is already done about equipment, but we shall look at this matter again in view of my hon. Friend's remarks to see whether there is anything that we can do, and perhaps he has some suggestions.

Is the Minister aware that the whole House is very concerned about this matter and wishes to see the public sector fulfil its full quota of 3 per cent.? Is he aware that the Government have every support in carrying that through? Will he agree to report to the House in a few months to say what progress he has made in the achievement of this target?

Yes. That is a perfectly fair request and I am prepared to give that undertaking. The figures show that there is a great deal to be desired. Hon. Members may be able to bring influence to bear in their own areas, as I am trying to do in mine.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what inquiries have been made by his Department into the circumstances in which the British Railways' Board has dismissed 31 of its employees for refusing to join a trade union.

I do not regard it as appropriate for my Department to make such inquiries.

Does not the Minister think that it should be of concern to his Department that on 29th November 31 employees in the public sector were dismissed from their jobs, many after a lifetime of service, for no other reason than that they refused to join a trade union? Does he not think that it is a sinister development that the right to work is dependent increasingly on whether a person is prepared to join a union?

Far from this being a sinister development, I understand that in British Rail there has been the resurrection in part of a moribund agreement, due to the perverse influence of the Industrial Relations Act. We regard these as matters primarily to be dealt with by the employers and trade unions concerned.

Does my hon. Friend agree that serious disputes have arisen because of the dismissal of employees by Victorian-minded employers just because those employees have had the audacity to join trade unions? Does he further agree that the fact that no Questions have been asked by the Opposition on this subject shows a lack of sincerity when they talk of trying to defend the freedom of the individual?

I agree with my hon. Friend. Some of us had to sit through an all-night sitting this week discussing the dispute at Grunwick Processing Laboratories which involved the persecution of those who sought to exercise their right to join a trade union. I wish that some Conservative Members, including the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior), would attack those employers with the same vigour as they tend to attack trade unions.

Would the Minister tell his hon. Friend that, unfortunately, Queen Victoria is dead and that times have changed? Does he not accept that it is the duty of any Government, in a democratic and free society, to protect freedom of choice and the liberty of the individual?

I wish that the hon. Gentleman would bear in mind the effects of the Industrial Relations Act, which was enacted by his own party and which provided for the closed shop in certain specified circumstances and at the same time attempted to define the rights of the majority. The majority have some rights too.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many trade unions have made representations to him regarding the proposed delay in the implementation of the proposed health and safety regulations concerning safety representatives and committees; and how many and what percentage of such representations were protesting at such proposed delay.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he intends to publish draft safety regulations as laid down by the Health and Safety at Work Act etc. 1974 before 1st March 1977; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received to date about the need to bring in regulations on safety representatives under Section 2(4) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received concerning his decision to defer the introduction of certain provisions of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act; and what replies he has sent.

As indicated in reply to Questions by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) on 6th and 13th December, I have received representations from numerous bodies and individuals about the proposed regulations on safety representatives and committees which have been published by the Health and Safety Commission. TUC representatives have told both the Prime Minister and me that they consider the Government's undertaking to make the regulations to be part of the social contract. Consideration is being given to the date for the introduction of these regulations.

In view of the sense of outrage felt not only in the TUC but in the CBI at the delay in implementing these regulations and at the number of lives which will be unnecessarily lost as a result of non-implementation, will my right hon. Friend say that the Government will introduce these regulations as soon as possible? In the meantime, will he advise industry in the strongest possible terms to comply with the regulations even before they become law and subject to sanctions of the criminal law?

I undertake to introduce the regulations as soon as possible. I very much hope that that will be taken as an indication that anybody who is not operating safety practices in areas where workers are at risk should comply with the main recommendations of the Health and Safety Commission as soon as possible. The reasons for the delay relate to financial considerations that arise where regulations have not previously applied, but that should not be taken to indicate that the Government wish anything other than the greatest urgency to be attached to adopting the best safety practices.

Will my right hon. Friend accept that, whatever the CBI says, in practice many employers are completely unwilling to operate these regulations until they are forced to do so by law, and that many employers cast doubt on whether the regulations will 'ever have the force of law? Will he rephrase his answer from "as soon as possible" to "without further delay", because delay in this respect is wasteful and expensive in terms both of human misery and of cost?

It is not often that I rush to the Dispatch Box to defend the CBI, but on this occasion its representatives on the Health and Safety Commission have fully backed the Commission's recommendations. If there are any employers who are members of the Confederation and who are not prepared to operate the regulations in advance of provision being made, they are not meeting the spirit and intention of the matter as expressed by their national representatives. As for any loss in terms of human life or health, employers must take account of that factor as well as of any costs involved in operating the regulations. All the evidence that is before us is that the cost of operating the regulations will be small compared with the cost of industrial injury with which many employers are now faced.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the main recommendations made to him urge him to defer the introduction of these regulations and that they come not from people in industry but from the local authorities?

Yes, that is so. I have had no representations whatever from any industry asking me to defer the making of regulations.

Will the Minister confirm that the voluntary establishment of safety committees is proceeding apace? I hope that he will encourage that activity. Will he also confirm that the estimates made by local authorities of the cost of implementing these proposals seem extraordinarily high, and that the implementation of safety committees should be brought about without a vast increase in costs and staff?

I agree with that suggestion. I confirm that estimates which have been made appear to be high. A number of employers are implementing the regulations in advance of the statutory requirements. I hope that that development will proceed apace.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he is taking to reduce unemployment in the construction industry.

At 12th August, the latest date for which an industrial analysis is available, 193,818 people who last worked in the construction industry were registered as unemployed in Great Britain. This is estimated to be about 13·6 per cent. of all persons employed in the industry. Questions about the expansion of the construction industry should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

Does not the Minister agree that that is an appallingly high figure? In view of the evidence submitted yesterday to the Expenditure Committee, does he not agree that the Chancellor's latest measures will add considerably to unemployment in the construction industry? Why do not the Government come clean and estimate the increase in unemployment that will be caused by these measures?

The Government have come clean. I agree that it is a grave and serious situation, that there are bleak prospects and that we must face that fact. My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury said that 20,000 people would lose their jobs by the end of 1977. I think that that is a correct estimate, although it is to be taken in the context of an overall economic package which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor believes will result in a net saving in unemployment next year. It ill becomes Conservative Members to make too much of these things, because we know that their policy would result in a much higher unemployment figure on a scale not envisaged by a Labour Government. We should bear that in mind when we observe their crocodile tears.

Will my hon. Friend accept from me that the statement he has made is an absolute disgrace? Is he aware that if he knew building workers personally, as I do, particularly on Merseyside—some of whom have been unemployed for nearly two years—he would realise that the statement he has made to this House, from a Labour Government, ought never to have been made? Is it not time that the whole policy for the construction industry was reversed so that the answer to the Question of how many workers from the industry were unemployed would be "None, Sir"?

I would have liked to be able to give that answer. I am sure that anyone on the Labour Benches would agree with my hon. Friend about that. It clearly is not possible in the present situation to give such a reply. As for my hon. Friend's remarks about meeting construction workers, my hon. Friend is not the only one to have met such workers, although I recognise his close connections with the industry.

Would not the Minister agree that one of the best ways of remedying this disgraceful situation is rapidly to reduce the indiscriminate subsidies, now running at about £1½ billion a year, paid to council house tenants, so as to encourage those who can afford to buy their own houses to do so and thus provide work for unemployed construction industry workers?

You want more cuts in public expenditure.

My answer seems to be coming from a sedentary position behind me. The hon. Gentleman knows very well that that is a question for the Secretary of State for the Environment and not for me.

Leaving aside the ridiculous underestimate which my hon. Friend has given, may I ask him whether he accepts the estimate given by the construction employers that one-third of the men in the industry will be out of work when these cuts go through? What is the sense in asking local authorities to create trivial, temporary jobs and at the same time making them dispense with the labour of thousands of men who are doing far more important work in house building? Will my hon. Friend, through his right hon. Friend, ask the Cabinet to have second thoughts on this issue?

The Cabinet took a great deal of time in considering this situation. I do not think that there is much to be gained by asking it to have second thoughts at this time. As for the estimated figures, the figure I gave was a rough estimate. On the other hand, I do not believe that it is ridiculous. It is based on quite sound calculations. I cannot comment on the estimate that my hon. Friend has given to the House.

Is the Minister aware that we on the Conservative side of the House need no lessons in the creation of unemployment from Labour Members, who know more about it than we do? Will he try to understand, and teach his colleagues to understand, that the way to destroy the construction industry is always to ensure that Government cuts fall on capital projects and not on revenue projects?

The right hon. Gentleman has to make a choice. Is he saying that Conservative Party policy would not involve cuts in capital expenditure, since that is certainly not the way we understand Tory policy? If Conservative policies were to be put into practice, there is no doubt that unemployment in this industry, and in industry generally, would be far higher than it is now.

The hon. Gentleman has asked me a question. I will answer it. Until the Government cut their revenue expenditure, there will be greater unemployment. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question whether our policy would not involve cuts in capital expenditure is "Broadly, yes."

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he is satisfied with the operation of the Employment Protection Act.

In so far as it has already been implemented, yes.

Is it still the Government's intention to introduce Schedule 11 to the Act on 1st January? Is it not clear that the requirement to equate the working conditions of various groups of employees in the same district is liable to blow a large hole in the Government's wages policy and to strain their social contract? Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that postponement of the implementation of that schedule might be in the best interests of the community in fighting inflation?

The possible inflationary effects following the implementation of Schedule 11 have been very much exaggerated. With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I doubt whether he has fully understood the provision. We consider that it will give unions a useful tool to deal with pockets of low pay.

Has my hon. Friend any intention of amending the Act so as to tighten up the definition of an independent trade union?

The House will know that there have been problems arising from certification of independence and the assumption in some cases that this gives some kind of passport to recognition. Because of that, we are looking at the matter carefully and consulting the TUC and the CBI about whether changes may be necessary.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the British Steel Corporation is currently offering employment contracts for a period of 25 weeks? If a nationalised corporation is thus seeking to avoid the implications of the Employment Protection Act, how can other employers be expected to comply with it? Is this not a commentary on the effect of the Act on employment prospects?

I am not familiar with the situation to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. I am bound to say that I see difficulty in relating it to the provisions of the Act. If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that it is in some way a practice that is being stimulated by extra costs arising from the Act, I must remind him and the House of what my right hon. Friend said on the last occasion when we were answering Questions a month ago—namely, that the total extra cost of the Act when fully implemented would be less than one-quarter of 1 per cent. of industry's wage bill.

Will the hon. Gentleman understand that we on the Conservative Benches will be utterly opposed to TUC-inspired amendments about the requirements for independent trade union recognition? Is he also aware that we believe that it is grossly irresponsible to bring Schedule 11 to the Employment Protection Act into operation at the beginning of next year since it may well lead to widespread pay increases—particularly in the white-collar sector—outside the pay policy as at present envisaged? Does he realise that these pay increases could lead to a further loss of jobs?

The hon. Gentleman ought to know, because he was intimately involved with the passage of the Act through the House, that Schedule 11 extends to many other workers only the benefits that are at present enjoyed by a few workers under the Fair Wages Resolution. The inflationary effects of the implementation of Schedule 11 have been thoroughly exaggerated. As for the hon. Member's opposition to any change in the provisions relating to certification of independence and recognition, I would have thought that he would be the first to recognise the difficulties now emerging from the assumption on the part of some organisations that certification should give them some sort of automatic right to recognition. This was never intended by the Act, as the hon. Member knows.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will introduce legislation to protect home workers from exploitation.

No, Sir. So far as terms and conditions of employment are concerned, many home workers are already covered by wages councils. My right hon. Friend has asked the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service to report to him on the operation of two wages councils which include significant numbers of home workers in their scope. So far as health and safety are concerned, I am advised by the Chairman of the Health and Safety Commission that the Commission is at present considering proposals to ensure the effective protection of home workers under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974.

Does my hon. Friend accept that the 250,000 home workers—many of whom receive pitifully low wages such as a few pence an hour—represent one of the most deprived sections of the community? Will he ensure that those who are covered by wages councils receive the minimum wages laid down by statute? Will he also have a word with his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to see whether a Select Committee can be established to inquire into the pay and conditions of home workers with a view to recommending legislation aimed at ensuring that they are protected in the way that this House would wish?

On the last point, I think I am right in saying that this problem was looked into by a Select Committee to some extent before and that that is to some extent responsible for the steps I have announced, particularly regarding ACAS and the consultative document of the Health and Safety Commission. The House can therefore take some credit for that. The general problem is very serious, and where home workers are already covered by wages councils the inspectors have powers to act. We shall take further heed of what my hon. Friend said and try to step up our efforts in that direction.

Would not a far better way to stop exploitation of home workers be to make sure that plenty of jobs are available to people who want to work from home, many of whom are women? In that regard, will the Minister accept that it is highly necessary for the Government to change their policy of stamping on enterprise and making it impossible to start up new businesses? Would that not be better than establishing a Select Committee?

I do not know what the hon. Lady means in the latter part of her question. However, I can assure her that there are no glib solutions or easy answers to such problems.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the principal religious sects whose precepts would enable a worker to avoid joining a trade union closed shop.

No, Sir. It is for an industrial tribunal to determine in each individual case, in accordance with the relevant statutory provisions, whether a person genuinely objects on grounds of religious belief to being a members of any trade union whatsoever.

Does not the Minister realise that failure to give any guidance of this sort make it hard for the individual who wishes to stand out against trade union membership? Is it the wish of the Government to make that as difficult as possible?

Let me explain to the hon. Lady, as I have explained to the House so often, that we believe that these matters are best determined by employers and trade unions. The Government's attitude to this issue is one of absolute neutrality. Deciding whether a person genuinely holds religious convictions which would prevent or deter him from being a member of a union is best left to an industrial tribunal rather than requiring Ministers or an Act of Parliament to determine the question.

The Minister's constant parrot cry of neutrality in these matters is not believed by anyone in industry, and it certainly is not believed by workers on the shop floor. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that most peple working in this country are well aware that the Labour Party and the big trade unions have a pact, the object of which is to ensure that every working person is pushed into a closed shop agreement?

The hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) has just inflicted upon this House some fanciful figment of his imagination.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what survey his Department has carried out on employment trends in North-East Lancashire.

My Department has not carried out any special survey of employment trends in North-East Lancashire. However, the annual census of employment provides regular information on the numbers employed, analysed by industry, for each local employment office area.

Will my hon. Friend please bear in mind that one of the problems in North-East Lancashire is depopulation through lack of white-collar jobs? Does he realise that this lack of jobs means that many of the young people have to look elsewhere for work? What steps are being taken to increase white-collar employment in the area?

I was very surprised to learn during the briefing for this Question that textile jobs now take second place in to number the professional and scientific jobs in North-East Lancashire.

Does the Minister realise that North-East Lancashire has had no benefit from the dispersal of Government offices and that it is about that, I think, that the hon. Member, and certainly I are asking?

My hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Jones) has certainly brought this factor to the attention of Ministers on many occasions. It is for that reason that I welcome the meeting between my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley and the North-East Lancashire group of MPs on 18th January to discuss the whole employment situation.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement as to why unemployment statistics have not been published since October 1976.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement as to why unemployment statistics have not been published since October 1976.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement as to why unemployment statistics have not been published since October 1976.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement as to why unemployment statistics have not been published since October 1976.

My Department has today published an estimate of the level of unemployment in Great Britain on 9th December, based on returns and estimates covering just over half the country.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the feeling is growing that some Ministers are not over-anxious to get this work resumed since the accurate recording of unemployment statistics would demonstrate the complete failure of the Government's economic policies? With the figures published today in the handout from the Department it is said that the figures are subject to a wide margin of error. What statistical basis did the Minister use to advise his colleagues in the Cabinet that in is estimation unemployment could rise as high as 2 million next year?

I am not aware of my colleagues not wishing to resolve this dispute. I am, however, absolutely certain that I and the senior officers of the Department have done our utmost to resolve the dispute. I have had a long meeting with the members of the executive of the CPSA in my Department in an attempt to resolve it, and I welcome the attempt that the TUC will be making tomorrow to the same end.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that to describe this dispute as industrial action is a fatuous euphemism which is rejected by the House? Can he say whether the words "industrial action or dispute" are included within the Department's statistics on disputes, or whether the Government's claim of a reduction in the number of industrial disputes and strikes includes this kind of damaging action?

I am aware that a number of people will draw a distinction between this dispute and a whole number of other disputes, whether or not they call this an industrial dispute. Initially the dispute raised a number of issues which had a direct bearing on the terms and conditions of CPSA employees in my Department. That is no longer the case. The general secretary of the union has made clear to me that action is being pursued in support of a campaign against Government cuts, and this is not typical of industrial disputes.

Is the Minister aware of the damaging effect of his policy in urban stress areas? What is he doing for the half a million young people under the age of 25 who have had no work for over six months? They represent the highest such figure since the war.

I am not certain whether the hon. Gentleman is referring to my policy in relation to this dispute or to measures introduced by the Department to deal with the effects of high unemployment. I accept that the dispute is having a detrimental effect. Anything which prevents us from obtaining full statistics on the effect of measures introduced makes it more difficult to judge their efficacy and to judge what changes may be needed in order to meet a changing situation. I fully accept that, but the measures taken are very properly biased in favour of assisting the young unemployed, and, therefore, I want to see them developed to the full.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the unemployment statistics provided yesterday by the Department of Applied Economics at Cambridge suggest that 2 million might be unemployed in 1979 unless the alternative strategy is followed? Will my right hon. Friend comment on that and say how those estimates compare with the estimates being carried out in his Department?

The estimates being carried out in my Department, and the information being collected to make them, indicate that the figure referred to by my hon. Friend for 1979 must be subject to an enormous margin of error. It is difficult to forecast with any degree of confidence the unemployment figure for 12 months ahead, let alone at the end of 1979. My view is that the figure gravely overestimates the position, but I am certain that the measures which my Department is taking will reach maximum effect during next year and reduce the level of unemployment below what it would otherwise be.

Now that the old-age pensioners no longer get a Christmas bonus, is the only bonus that the Government can provide for the nation the highest unemployment figures we have had at Christmas since the war? Would not a much better bonus be for the Government to get out of office?

The right hon. Gentleman strains to draw comparisons between the position of the old-age pensioners and the position of the unemployed. Everything that we can do to reduce the level of unemployment on a sound basis we must do, but we do not do that to improve the position of old-age pensioners. Their position has to be sustained and improved in any case, and the Government's record in that respect is exemplary.

Does the Secretary of State intend to issue a further Press notice, and are any figures to be issued for Scotland? How do he and his Cabinet colleagues find it possible to devise policies when they do not even know the size of the problem?

I take the implication of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. Of course, it is much more difficult to devise effective policies, especially for regions and development areas, in the absence of complete statistics. I could not advise the House that it would be worth while to attempt more detailed statistics than those published in today's notice until we overcome some of the effects of the CPSA action.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment to what factors he ascribes the relatively low level of recorded industrial disputes over the last two years.

The Government have pursued policies which have helped to bring about this improvement, we have repealed the Industrial Relations Act, established the new Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service and given new rights to workers and their representatives in the Employment Protection Act. More generally, the social contract has helped to create a climate conducive to industrial peace.

It was to be expected that the right hon. Gentleman would seek to ascribe this situation to the so-called achievements of his Government, but does he not realise that the real reason is the disastrously high level of unemployment—now 5½ per cent. of the total working force? Is not the right hon. Gentleman equally worried that in a few vulnerable industries there are still far too many short, sharp disputes which do great damage to our export prospects in those sectors?

I am concerned that there are some disputes in areas which are damaging to employment and exports, but I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that probably more damage is done to exports by the continuous harping on a limited number of disputes by the British Press and some Opposition Members. That conveys a general impression across the world that foreign countries cannot safely place orders with British industry. Any objective study of our strike statistics shows that Britain has a much better record than that of many other industrial countries, and the number of disputes has been falling. As to the relationship between levels of unemployment and the number of strikes, I remind the hon. Gentleman that the previous Conservative Administration managed to combine high levels of unemployment with a high degree of industrial unrest.

Is my right hon. Friend in a position to make a statement on a meeting he had this morning with officials of the electricians' trade union on the damaging dispute at Rubery Owen, Darlaston, in my constituency?

The dispute at Rubery Owen threatens very grievous employment consequences. I am, therefore, glad to be able to tell my hon. Friend that the outcome of the meeting held in my Department this morning, which was attended by the Secretary of State for Industry, the President of the EETPU, the executive member for the area and other representatives of the EETPU, was that we can expect an early return to the negotiating table which promises to bring about a solution of the dispute.

asked the Prime Minister what reply he has given to a letter he has received from Mole Valley Farmers Limited on the subject of national government.

The letter to which the hon. Gentleman refers proposed that I should form a National Government comprising hon. Members from all parties. It was acknowledged on my behalf and the authors were informed that their views had been noted.

Does the Prime Minister recognise that the organisation is not a subterranean, subversive, political group, as the name might imply, but a highly responsible organisation of anxious farmers? The Mole Valley Farmers, independent of any political line, have come to the conclusion that the failures of the British economy are due more to the failures of our party political system than to anything else. Will the Prime Minister accept that that is the view not only of the farmers but of the growing majority of his countrymen?

I read the letter with very great interest. The Mole Valley Farmers rehearse a number of reasons for thinking that a National Government, led by me—[Laughter.] I do not want the hon. Gentleman to get any false ideas. If the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) got into the Government, that might be the way in which the hon. Gentleman could lead the Liberal Party. The letter contained very interesting ideas, but the first proposal that a National Government might help the green pound devaluation is not perhaps the most suitable foundation on which to base a National Government.

Has the Prime Minister any reflection to make on the behaviour of the national Government of France, who seem to have frustrated any prospects for the European JET fusion project, which is our power source for the future?

The Mole Valley Farmers do not suggest that as a reason for the formation of a National Government. I do not want to be too derisory, because the farmers wrote a very interesting letter. I hope that the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) will convey to them my thanks for the sentiments they express, which contain many interesting thoughts.

Will the Prime Minister explain to the Mole Valley Farmers that the reason why we have inflation on the Healey basis at 20 per cent. per annum, and unemployment rising on average 750 a day for every day of the Labour Government, is his Socialist policies? Is not the right way to deal with Socialists and their policies not to put them in a coalition but to defeat them at a General Election?

One of my difficulties in answering the letter was that I was not quite sure from which Conservative Party I was supposed to form a National Government. I was not sure whether it was with the right hon. Lady or the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath), whether it was with those who believe in devolution or those who are opposed to it, or whether it was with those on the Opposition Benches who believe in an incomes policy or with those who are opposed to it. I was not sure whether I was to link up with the Piltdown Man, the hon. Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson), who believes that boys should become chimney sweeps at the age of 14.

Does the Prime Minister accept responsibility for the inflation and unemployment that he has created, or, is he still blaming his predecessor?

No. What we are doing is trying to ensure, with the aid of both sides of industry but without any help from the right hon. Lady, that there is stability in our currency, that we have an industrial strategy that will ensure that exports come first and that we can base full employment upon a good industrial base with the social contract. That is a long-term policy. I do not expect to get any support from the right hon. Lady, but at least she might try to recognise the facts sometimes about the situation and not put her lust for office above everything else.

asked the Prime Minister when he last met the CBI.

I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council gave on my behalf to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) on 30th November.

When my right hon. Friend next meets the CBI, will he put to it in a constructive spirit that the social contract should be accompanied by an industrial contract from the employers giving a firm commitment to increase investment and employment as a necessary continuation of an incomes policy?

The CBI, with which we are having regular discussions on these matters, understands that industry should try to make a response to what is being done at present. I notice that the TUC called on employers to make as positive a response to the future of the country as that already undertaken by trade unionists, who have given 100 per cent. support to the £6 policy and the 5 per cent. policy. The CBI welcomed the new measures. As the TUC said, we need to see that translated practically in terms of expansion in investment, in output and in jobs. I shall convey what my hon. Friend has said to the CBI, but my understanding is that the leaders of the CBI are as intent on securing an increase in investment as are the Government and everyone in the country, I believe, except the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition.

Will the right hon. Gentleman explain two things to the CBI? First, will he explain why he never answers Questions at Question Time? Secondly, will he explain why it is that the longer the Government stay in office the further away they get from their objectives of lowering unemployment, which is rising, of lowering inflation, which is worse than when the Government took office, and of increasing production, which is still stagnant at the levels that prevailed when the Government came into office?

I dare say that it is a little discouraging to the hon. Gentleman that the CBI and ourselves are able to discuss these matters in a rational atmosphere and that the CBI is as aware of the problems as anyone else, although it does not place the same construction on these matters as the hon. Gentleman does for party reasons. As for particular issues, I have already said that in my view inflation will continue to come down next year after a period if we—

The right hon. Gentleman said that last year.

I did say it last year and it halved, if the hon. Gentleman followed it. It has come down from 27 per cent. and has halved, and it will continue to go down if we can maintain yet another round in wage increases within reasonable margins. I have always tried—I shall always try, despite the jeers of Opposition Members—to put the position as straight as I can. That is the first thing. The second point is that, because of the impact of these policies—I repeat what I have said before if it is any comfort to the hon. Gentleman—I fear that unemployment is going to rise next year. I have tried to put that as straight as possible. However, we shall overcome these difficulties not by jeers or gibes but only by following the long-term policy that the Government intend to carry out.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the House will be deeply disturbed to learn that unemployment will rise? When he next discusses unemployment with the CBI, will he bear in mind that the Government's concern for the unemployed is in stark contrast to the crocodile tears shed by Opposition Members, who regard the unemployed basically as scroungers? Will he try to explain to the House how the Government can justify giving £120 million to reduce unemployment and taking away £150 million in terms of the regional employment premium?

To answer my hon. Friend's last point first, there will be an opportunity to debate these matters but it is the Government's view, shared, I think, by many in industry, that the redistribution of the assistance that is given by the Government is better than clinging to the old system, which was useful in its time but which we think has now outgrown its usefulness. As for my hon. Friend's first point, we all know the policy that the Conservative Opposition would like us to follow, which would produce a much greater degree of unemployment than is likely to arise now.

Perhaps the Prime Minister will find time during the course of the rest of the day to explain to the country why the Secretary of State for Energy remains in office at a time when the Minister for Overseas Development has to leave it.

The Minister for Overseas Development does not have to leave office. He can choose for himself whether he decides to stay, but I have not sacked him.

Will my right hon. Friend consider the fact that world expansion, especially in the industrial West, is now foundering? Will he undertake to initiate talks with Western leaders in the new year to stimulate world trade?

I regard this as extremely important because, although the Opposition will always try to blind the country's eyes to it, in fact unemployment is growing throughout the world and is a disease of the Western industrial system at present. The policies that will be followed by the new American Administration will be extremely important in this matter. I shall take an early opportunity of exchanging views with them to try to get a recovery both in confidence among those who invest in new plant and machinery throughout the world and in expansion of the American economy.

asked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 21st December.

asked the Prime Minister if he will list his engagements for 21st December 1976.

asked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 21st December.

In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be holding meetings with ministerial colleagues and others.

May I express the hope to my right hon. Friend that his heavy round of public duties today will allow him to go to the party at Transport House tonight, where they are doing what I think is described as a historical epic—"Treasury Island"? If he gets there, will my right hon. Friend take advantage of any break in the proceedings to give the name of one country that has followed the advice of the International Monetary Fund and has made a success of its economy?

I certainly hope to look in at the party for a few minutes tonight among the other social rounds that I have. Somehow, I do not think that I shall be discussing the International Monetary Fund on that occasion. I have a feeling that the lads and lasses at Transport House will have many other and more jolly things on their minds.

Will the Prime Minister find time today to have a short meeting with the First Lord of the Treasury? Will he discuss with him the iniquities of the system known as the 714 certificate, whereby self-employed builders are being prevented from pursuing their work? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that 20,000 of them have been refused tax certificates, which could result in 100,000 losing their jobs without any appeal whatsoever? Is he aware that this is a scandal that he should look into?

I fear that there are a number of things that need looking into, including why the hon. Gentleman is backing the National Association for Freedom. I should like to inquire what support the hon. Gentleman has given and what action he has taken in connection with the Grunwick dispute.

Will my right hon. Friend spend a few moments today reading more extensively the revelations in the Press about the way in which the National Association for Freedom has got on to the Tory Front Bench and how the CIA assists in running the association? Is it not ironic that the director of the association, Robert Moss, apart from having books published by a subsidiary of the CIA, also acts as speech writer for the Leader of the Opposition?

I have commented before on the infiltration of the Tory Front Bench, and we are now getting some practical examples as the names of members of the association become known.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—

CIA.

Order. I want to hear what the hon. Gentleman has to say.

Before the Prime Minister indulges further in any McCarthy-type smears, perhaps he should be told that I understand that writs are being issued in respect of the unfounded allegations made on the BBC and in The Guardian.

That is a point of order that never existed.

After those dramatic exchanges, will the Prime Minister be frank and honest and tell us whether he would prefer to abolish first Mr. Bevan, the Secretary of State for Energy or Transport House as a whole?

I see that the Christmas spirit has arrived a little early. On the point of order, which was not a point of order and which I would not dream of pursuing, I hoped when I dangled the bait, to catch a good-sized fish. Unfortunately, I attracted only a tiddler.