asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is his latest estimate of employment prospects for those leaving school this summer.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what are the estimated figures of school leavers who will be available for employment at the end of the current school year.

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

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he is taking to increase employment and training opportunities for school leavers.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the report, prepared by the Manpower Services Commission, on measures to combat unemployment, particularly of young people.

It is estimated that 634,000 Easter and summer-term leavers will be seeking employment this year compared with about 616,000 in 1976. It would appear that the Easter leavers have fared better than was generally anticipated. Of an expected 69,000 leavers, a little over one quarter—about 19,000—registered as unemployed. Of these, between 6,000 and 7,000 entered employment or training within four weeks. This indicates that about 80 per cent. of the Easter leavers are now in employment or training.

Is not that almost exactly the same answer as the Secretary of State gave to the House on 3rd May? Is it not time that he ceased considering the Manpower Services Commission's report and brought it before the House so that we can debate it? Will the Minister say whether he expects the number of unemployed school leavers to top the 150,000 figure during the course of the summer?

It would be foolish of me to try to make such predictions. As for the report, it is less than a month since it was published and the House had a full debate about it a week after its publication.

Will my hon. Friend understand that while many of us will give our full support to the early implementation of many of the recommendations of the Manpower Services Commission's report, we are nevertheless disturbed at the possibility that education beyond the age of 16 will be reserved for the better-off and the more able while training alone will be reserved for those who are less able and less well off?

I am sure that that point of view will not be lost on my right hon. Friend and on the Secretary of State for Education and Science. We are receiving views on the report but—if I may disagree with the point of view expressed by my hon. Friend—it is important that we should recognise that a large number of those who are finding difficulty in securing employment, and who are aged between 16 and 18, are the less able who need special assistance by way of training. Their needs will not be neglected.

What steps do the Government now propose for continuing the training of those who are likely to be unemployed in the skills for which the need will be most felt when the economy turns upward again?

I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows that a substantial part of the effort that has been put into the special measures has been aimed at that point. That is absolutely right. We must have skilled manpower in training now because it will be needed when the economy expands. There are acute shortages of skilled manpower in some areas, and there will be more if we do not take such steps.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the present situation of youth unemployment is most serious and that the seriousness will deepen later this year and remain into the 1980s? In view of the fact that the future of many of the schemes must be determined by the end of the month, will the Government respond to the Holland Report before the end of the month in order to allay the anxiety that is in the minds of those who are responsible for the present schemes?

The whole House shares my hon. Friend's concern about the high and serious level of unemployment among young people and the difficulties that face us during the immediate future. However, my hon. Friend is not right in the assumption that some of the schemes expire at the end of the month. Only the job release scheme will expire, and the remainder will continue until the end of Angust. We shall try to give a firm policy response to the Holland Report by the end of the month, and we hope that we shall be in a position to do so by then.

In view of the importance of training and retraining in dealing with our structural unemployment problems and the special contribution that can be made by TOPS centres such as the one at Waddon in my constituency, may we have an assurance that the Government will do more to expand TOPS schemes to help to cope with this difficult problem?

I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance and point out the dramatic expansion of TOPS schemes that has already taken place. In 1974 TOPS training was given to about 40,000 people. By 1975 the figure had increased to 60,000. In the past year it was 90,000, and the target figure for next year and subsequently is about 100,000.

Does my hon. Friend realise that there is a terrifying despair among school leavers on Merseyside and that unless action is taken quickly this will not be dissipated? Will he ask his right hon. Friend to lean on the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reflate the economy and on the Secretary of State for Industry to bring more work to Merseyside to deal with what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State described two months ago as a terrifying and urgent problem?

My hon. Friend is not exaggerating the seriousness of the problem on Merseyside. I can give him the assurance that the Government are keenly aware of it and are desperately anxious to do what we can to help. In replying to our debate before the recess, I stressed the importance of our economy and all Western economies moving as quickly as possible out of recession into a period of fast growth.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree with the view expressed at the weekend by the Chairman of the Manpower Services Commission that unemployment among young people will get far worse? What is the Minister going to do about it?

The Chairman of the Manpower Services Commission was reflecting what is already contained in the Holland Report, whose proposals were a response to this situation. We are trying to reach a conclusion on the report and to give a speedy response to the House. I hope that we shall be able to do so by the end of the month.

Does the hon. Gentleman recognise the urgency that is felt about this matter in all quarters of the House, and, if so, will he be more forthcoming about the Government's intentions? Is he aware that saying that he will make a statement as soon as possible when this may be after the end of the month is not good enough and that the House would welcome an assurance that we shall get a statement responding positively to the Holland Report no later than the end of next week?

We owe it to the various outside interests to give them an opportunity of expressing their views on the Holland Report and for those views to be taken fully into account before the Government reach a firm conclusion. I can assure those who have expressed views that they will be taken seriously, as will the views expressed in our recent debate, and we shall respond as quickly as possible. I say for the third time that I hope that we shall be able to make a statement by the end of the month.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Scotland, which has 9·3 per cent. of the British working population, has 19·9 per cent. of the unemployment in the under-18 age group? Is he aware that much of this is a direct result of the Government's policy of cutting back public expenditure? Will he, therefore, use all his influence with the Cabinet to ensure that adequate funds are channelled into organisations such as the Scottish Development Agency so that permanent jobs may be created in our communities and not just temporary jobs, the provision of which merely postpones the evil day?

I do not entirely accept the hon. Lady's arithmetic, but I understand her point about the seriousness of youth unemployment in Scotland as much as anywhere else. The SDA is the responsibility of the Department of Industry and not of my Department. I have to say to the hon. Lady that it does not help young unemployed people for her to make political points attributing responsibility to the Government. It was recognised in our debate that most industrialised countries face the same problem, and in some of them it is even worse.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what would be the effect on employment in the British car industry if the new Mini project for British Leyland were not proceeded with.

As my hon. Friend will be aware, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry told the House on 26th May that the Government had authorised the National Enterprise Board to allow a resumption of work on the programme, which it has now done.

Does my hon. Friend agree that this was a wise decision by the Government and that it is time that millionaire Press proprietors and unscrupulous and inefficient editors got off the backs of the Leyland management and workers and allowed them to get on with their job of making British Leyland viable?

There is nothing in my hon. Friend's remarks with which I disagree. It was certainly a wise decision by the NEB and the Government to endorse the new programme.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what the latest unemployment figures are; and if he will make a statement.

At 12th May, 1,285,716 people were registered as unemployed in Great Britain. The seasonally adjusted figure is 1,262,000. The fall in unemployment and the increased vacancies between April and May are encouraging, particularly taking account of the reduction in unemployment in the two previous months, though future prospects are still uncertain.

I hope that I do not detect a blasé attitude developing on the Treasury Bench about unemployment and the prospect of even higher unemployment later in the year with the summer school leavers. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that it is now costing about £4,000 million, taking into account all the benefits, including earnings-related benefits, redundancy payments, loss of tax revenue and tax relief in certain circumstances, to finance this mountain of misery? This is the era of the great debate about simplifying children's education, so can my right hon. Friend explain why, when we have 800 million bricks on the ground, 250,000 construction workers on the dole and thousands of people wanting roofs over their heads, his Department and the Treasury cannot match up these three simple facts and get the problem solved straight away?

I can assure my hon. Friend that there is no question of any Minister in my Department or on the Treasury Bench generally being blasé about the level of unemployment. The recent improvements are welcome, but they are small in relation to the total size of the problem. There are a number of ways of estimating the cost of unemployment, and it is far too high in terms of human misery and loss of potential as well as in financial terms. I am working with other Ministers in interdepartmental considerations between my Department, the Departments of Industry and the Environment and the Treasury on ways of dealing with precisely those major points to which my hon. Friend has referred.

The right hon. Gentleman has told us that unemployment is well over 1 million, but does he recall that in the Common Market referendum campaign two years ago we were told that if we did not stay in the EEC unemployment would rise to 1 million? Does he think that unemployment is higher or lower than it would have been if we had not remained in the Common Market?

I recall many of the things that we were told would happen if we did not stay in the Common Market, and many of them have happened since our entry. How far they are attributable to our membership of the Common Market and how far to the world slump is a matter of speculation, but there is no evidence to show that membership of the Common Market has protected countries from the effects of the slump. Many Common Market countries, including our- selves, are suffering seriously from those effects.

In his interdepartmental discussions, has my right hon. Friend given serious consideration to the Ryder Report relating to Plessey on Merseyside and elsewhere? Is he aware that 1,400 more workers are likely to join the unemployment queues in Liverpool because of the failure to come up with the alternative proposals that the Ryder Report may contain? What are the Government doing about this matter, which is very important to Merseyside?

The report to which my hon. Friend refers has only just come into Ministers' hands. I was involved with Ministers in the Department of Industry in exploring the possibilities of creating alternative work or bringing additional work to plants affected by changes in the Post Office ordering programme. I expect that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry will shortly be in a position to indicate the outcome of the two reports that were put in hand as a result of these discussions.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the unemployment record of the Government is disgracefully complacent? Is he further aware that remarks such as he has made this afternoon about the Common Market do nothing to create confidence in British industry? Is he not aware that lack of confidence in British industry and lack of incentive to work and get on is at the root of many of our problems today?

All that I said about the Common Market was that there is no evidence that membership in itself has protected member States from the slump. I do not see how that could undermine confidence in British industry. I hope that it might act as a spur to industry to make efforts to improve our productivity and performance in the future as a member of the Community. There is no question of any complacency on the part of the Government. In fact, through my Department and the Department of Industry we have mounted more measures to deal with the effects of the slump than ever before in the history of this country.

Will the Secretary of State state clearly that he fully supports Britain's entry into the Community and that he thinks it right for Britain to stay in?

All I shall say is that I fully accepted the decision of the British people in the referendum.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the job creation programme; how much money has been allocated to it so far; and to what extent it has helped reduce unemployment amongst young people in urban areas.

I am informed by the Manpower Services Commission that a total of £130 million has been allocated to the job creation programme, which is due to end on 31st March 1978. Up to 19th May 1977, grants totalling £114 million had been allocated to 8,201 projects creating 80,038 jobs. The majority of these are in urban areas. About 45 per cent. of all jobs created are filled by 16 to 18-year-olds and about 75 per cent. by those in the age group 16 to 24.

In addition to or in substitution for the costly and temporary job creation programme, will the Minister accept the Opposition's imaginative idea of getting young people involved in neighbourhood and community work? Does he agree that such a scheme would cost less and involve more people?

The Government are at present considering proposals that have come from the Holland Committee's report which are endorsed by the Manpower Services Commission and have received support from the CBI, the TUC, the education services and local authorities.

What will follow when the job creation project finishes? What will happen after that?

I am afraid that my hon. Friend will have to wait a little while for us to announce our decision about that. We are expecting shortly to make a statement on the Government's view of the Manpower Services Commission's proposals.

Is the Minister aware that, although it is not regarded as a solution or a substitute for permanent employment, the job creation programme has been welcomed in my community as a contribution towards reducing unemployment? It also provides some amenities and facilities that have been missing for a long time. What will happen after the date when the schemes are due to end in constituencies such as mine, which consistently has had the highest unemployment figures in the United Kingdom?

The right hon. Member must be patient for a few weeks. The Government will announce their decision as soon as possible. I, too, have been enthusiastic about the success of the job creation programme. I have supported the work that has been done among young people.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the total expenditure to date on the job creation scheme; and how many jobs have been created; and, of these, what percentage have been translated into permanent employment.

I am informed by the Manpower Services Commission that up to 19th May grants totalling £114 million had been allocated to 8,201 projects approved under the job creation programme, creating 80,038 jobs. No JCP jobs have been translated into permanent employment. The programme is intended to provide temporary jobs, and employment on JCP projects is subject to a maximum of 52 weeks, with the exception, in some cases, of project supervisors. A small number of workshop enterprises which may lead to permanent employment opportunities are also currently being funded by JCP.

As unemployment among young people is not likely to be a temporary problem, is not that one of the real weaknesses of the job creation programme? Would it not be better to concentrate rather more of the vast sums involved on programmes which offer long-term training and work experience, concentrating more effort on removing from firms, especially small businesses, some of the obstacles which are now discouraging them from taking on new employees?

All these matters are under consideration by the Government in the light of their consideration of the proposals contained in the Holland Report.

Does my hon. Friend agree that in the long term technological advance means that there will be no overall increase in the number of jobs and that, in fact, there will be a reduction as the years go by? Does he accept that the only solution is to reduce the retirement age?

I believe that technical innovation can increase the number of jobs available. That is certainly so in the service sector. That will enable us to pay for them as well as to diminish them.

Why do the Government take so long to make up their minds? The problem has been with us for three years and yet the Government have not put forward any positive long-term scheme to deal with the problem, as was pointed out by the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Park). Why do not the Government get on with the job instead of talking about it?

Because the Government believe that it is important that we discuss the recommendations of the Manpower Services Commission with as many people as possible. We believe that it is important to carry the CBI and the TUC with us in any proposals in respect of youth unemployment.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many people have taken advantage of the employment transfer scheme to find employment.

I am informed by the Manpower Services Commission that from the time the employment transfer scheme was introduced on 5th April 1972, up to 31st March 1977, 80,687 people were assisted under the scheme to take up employment. This figure does not include transfers which took place during the quarter ended 31st December 1976, for which statistics are not available.

What proportion of those originally accepted under the employment transfer scheme were unable to take up their new employment because they could not make a council house transfer from one area to another? What will the Minister do to remedy that defect in the scheme?

I cannot give a precise statistical answer to that question. The Government are actively considering the question of mobility.

Can the Minister confirm that the Government have not changed their policy of not moving people from areas of high unemployment to other areas to look for work as a permanent solution? Is he aware that this idea has been given credence particularly with the abolition of regional employment premium and yesterday caused considerable consternation at the meeting of Welsh district councils?

There has been no change in policy. The employment transfer scheme is being considered by the Employment Services Agency and the Manpower Services Commission.

Will my hon. Friend be slightly less complacent about the difficulties of those who take advantage of the sensible transfer scheme and then have to leave their families in areas of high unemployment while they try to find housing? May we have an assurance that he or the Secretary of State will initiate discussions with the Secretary of State for the Environment, the development corporations and the Commission for the New Towns to encourage them to give priority in areas of long-term high unemployment to people who have been unemployed for perhaps 14 months or two years when they obtain local jobs?

I understand that a degree of preference is already given to people in new towns.

No, it is not.

I shall draw my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of both my right hon. Friends.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether, in the light of further dismissals of employees by British Railways for refusing to join a trade union, he is satisfied with the present law relating to the closed shop.

Yes, Sir.

Is the Minister aware that since the Adjournment debate on 7th April last the number of employees of British Rail who have been dismissed for refusing to join a union has increased from 31 to 40? Is it not clear that as the closed shop is extended the man without a union card will find it impossible to get a job? Does the Minister believe that it is right for the Government to accept a policy of neutrality when we are moving towards a closed shop Britain?

We believe that it is right that we should have a policy of neutrality and that the law should be neutral, as it is. The hon. Member is asking the Government to move away from neutrality against the closed shop. We prefer to remain neutral.

Can the Minister explain how this neutrality differs from the neutrality of Pontius Pilate?

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek an early opportunity to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what changes he has made in his estimates of the trends of unemployment following the conference of Heads of Government in London during May.

None, Sir. As I frequently said, it is not possible to predict the trend of unemployment with any hope of accuracy in present circumstances. But I believe that the agreements resulting from the Downing Street conference should help towards achieving our common objective of reducing unemployment.

I thank the Minister for that answer, which seems to mean that he has no estimates and that no changes have been made but that he is rather optimistic. Will he say whether in his opinion the prospects for unemployment in the United Kingdom would be worse or better if Britain were to leave the Community?

First of all, it is not correct to deduce from my answer that we have no estimates. We obviously have estimates of a number of important factors which have a bearing—the increase in the number of school leavers, the drop in the number of those retiring, and so on. However, the reason why I answered in the way in which I did is that one cannot foresee some of the changing factors which are ahead. I do not think that the question of coming out of the Common Market is one on which we can base employment estimates, because we are currently working within the framework of the Market to develop a number of employment policies, and my Department has been successful in a number of applications to the Social Fund for the funding of measures dealing with employment. Therefore, while we are working within the Market we shall use its agencies to the full in order to help the employment situation.

Does my right hon. Friend know of the official estimate that the number of registered disabled people who are now unemployed is no less than 14 per cent.? Will he bear that point in mind when considering these factors, and will he consider a six-point plan to help them, which I shall be sending to him today?

I shall certainly consider any proposals put to me to help the very difficult situation of unemployed handicapped people. I am discussing with the MSC the way in which we can give special vocational aid to handicapped people, as I indicated to the House some weeks ago.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he is satisfied with the implementation of legislation concerning health and safety at work.

I am satisfied with the way in which the Health and Safety Commission and the Health and Safety Executive are carrying out their responsibilities. But there are very few fields in the area of health and safety at work where standards cannot be improved. If my hon. Friend has any particular problem in mind I shall, of course, be pleased to look into it.

Responding to that, may I ask my hon. Friend to look at the representations that some of us have received about the small but serious problem of alcoholism at the place of work? Is he aware that it is as serious a problem to be unfit to be in charge of a machine as to be unfit to be in charge of a motor car? Will he look at the evidence on this matter and see whether the legislation needs amending?

There was a National Council on Alcoholism working party, chaired by the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine), which reported earlier this year on alcoholism at work and recommended certain steps—more research by the Health and Safety Executive into the costs of alcoholism at work, and a code of practice to help employees with drink problems. The Health and Safety Commission's Medical Advisory Committee at its next meeting will be considering that and, in turn, the full Health and Safety Commission will be looking at the whole problem.

Would not the health and safety legislation be more likely to be implemented if the courts started imposing on convicted offenders penalties severe enough to show the importance of the crime committed?

Yes, I think that there is a great deal in what my hon. and learned Friend has to say. I think that the average fine imposed last year on offenders was about £87. I doubt whether that really reflects the gravity of many of the offences concerned. My hon. and learned Friend will know that there is legislation at present before the House that will raise the fine from £400 to £1,000 on summary conviction for offences under the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what effect the Government's special training measures have had on reducing unemployment.

At the latest count, 30,825 persons were in training places supported by industry and 4,448 were on the Training Services Agency special courses for young people. Most of these persons would have been unemployed without this support. Moreover, an increase in the number of skilled workers makes it possible for employers to expand production in a way which gives employment to others.

Does the Minister agree that training facilities, in particular on Merseyside and for young people, are still far from meeting the needs of the unemployed and will become more and more inadequate as the year progresses? Will he, therefore, look again at the decision not to site a skillcentre in Wirral?

There are over 1,850 places on Merseyside, but I recognise the case that has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bebington and Ellesmere Port (Mr. Bates) and others for the necessity to have a skill centre in the Wirral. This is at present under consideration by the MSC.

Has consideration been given to the submission made by the Liverpool Enterprise Development Unit, which has introduced innovations concerning unemployment which certainly merit consideration by the Department? Will my hon. Friend respond to the approaches made to him on this matter?

Together with my hon. Friend, I saw the delegation that made those representations and told them that I would respond when consideration had been given to the proposals of the Holland Report. That remains the case.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what effect the temporary employment subsidy has had on reducing unemployment.

On 13th May some 199,000 jobs were covered by the TES scheme. This is thought to reduce the unemployed register by around 120,000.

Is it not also true that the TES will cost about £475 million, that it will have no long-term effect on the unemployment problem and that it severely distorts the monthly unemployment statistics by reducing the unemployment figures by 199,000?

The simple answer is "No". The hon. Gentleman has his figures wrong, once again. Up to 13th May £234 million had been committed, and the estimate is in the range of £240 million.

Will my hon. Friend accept that the TES scheme has been a most valuable work in combating unemployment? Is his Department monitoring the take-up? Is he aware that in my county there are vast discrepancies, within the county itself, on take-up? Is he sure and confident that all factories and managements know of the opportunities afforded by this scheme?

The short answer is "Yes", because when redundancies are notified to us we bring to the attention of employers the availability of TES. It is often very much for trade unions concerned to discuss with management the relevance of TES to a particular redundancy.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment why statistics for days lost due to strikes exclude days lost from consequential lay-offs in firms other than those in which the strike takes place.

It would be impracticable to collect comprehensive information of this kind owing to the difficulty of identifying the ramifications of consequential lay-offs and the complex interrelationships between industries. Other countries experience the same difficulties, and this country's practice is in line with that followed by other members of OECD which also exclude consequential lay-offs from their statistics.

Surely the right hon. Gentleman knows when and where lay-offs take place, especially if they are on a big scale, as in the motor industry. As stoppages in one factory can lead to lay-offs in other factories, is it not misleading to give part only of the figures for days lost, and is it not utterly illogical for the Department to include in the figures workers who are not party to a dispute but who are laid off in a factory where a strike is taking place, but not those who are laid off in other factories?

No. Our figures are completely consistent. When we give the figures of days lost due to strikes, we include only people in the plants affected by the strikes. We know of certain other lay-offs in the motor industry, but we do not collect those figures on the same basis. Often, in fact, we learn of them from newspaper reports. Therefore, it would not be reasonable to publish statistics on that basis. The average strike in this country lasts for only four and a half days. Therefore, it is relatively rare for there to be large consequential layoffs in factories other than those affected by the dispute.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be very misleading to include consequential figures, because many of these so-called consequential lay-offs are actually bosses' sympathy lay-offs, used to put pressure on the firm in which the strike is taking place?

That could also affect the figures, but I believe that we should keep the common basis with the OECD, because international comparisons happen to favour this country. Far too often a bad impression has been given and business confidence has been damaged, particularly by some Opposition Members talking as though strikes in this country were somehow peculiar and other countries did not have strikes of the same magnitude.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to implement the commitment made at the recent Summit Conference in London to help the young unemployed.

It was agreed that there would be an exchange of experience and ideas on providing the young with job opportunities, and we are exploring how this can best be arranged.

As so many of the job creation schemes are of a temporary nature, will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what action he is taking to provide more long-term employment by, for example, facilitating the provision of small-scale enterprises in inner city areas, where youth unemployment is so very high?

The industrial strategy is the greatest long-term scheme that any Government have backed to create jobs in this country. During the 12 months from March 1976 to March 1977 there was an increase of 80,000 jobs in British manufacturing industry. That has had a considerable bearing on employment opportunities for young people. In the short run, of course, it is necessary to work with our European partners. In March the European Council asked the Commission to focus attention on measures to deal with specific unemployment problems, especially for young people, and to report on progress at the next meeting of the Council in June. By that stage I hope to be in a position to say what we are able to do to meet the major proposal of the Manpower Services Commission—namely, to increase by about 130,000 the number of training and work experience places for young people.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, helpful and well meaning as the job creation programme and other programmes to help the young unemployed may be, they are merely palliatives? Does he agree that the time has come for reflation of the economy, for further import controls and for consideration being given to a complete alternative strategy, the social contract and phase 3 going for a burton?

I cannot agree with my hon. Friend that the measures that we are considering with the MSC, or the existing job creation and work experience and training programmes, are palliatives. One of the features of the recession is that unemployment among younger people has risen very much faster than among adults. Any steps we can take that will improve their respective chances of obtaining jobs are of importance, even where we can bring about, as we must, a considerable improvement in the total number of jobs available. Unless we do that we could have a considerable reduction in unemployment and still have a large youth unemployment problem.

Is it not a fact, taking into account all the answers this afternoon, that the complacency of the right hon. Gentleman is equalled only by the complacency of Labour Back Benchers?

How the right hon. Gentleman can reconcile talk of complacency with announcements of measures planned to double what is the greatest provision there has ever been for the problems of young people eludes me.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will list his public engagements for 14th June.

In the absence of my right hon. Friend, who is engaged with the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting, I have been asked to reply.

Will my right hon. Friend tell the Prime Minister that many of us are pleased to hear of the efforts of the Commonwealth leaders to discourage sporting contacts with South Africa, a country where the exploitation of coloured workers is accompanied by police brutality and oppression? But would not this gesture have more meaning if the Prime Minister were to tackle the problems in our midst by holding a top-level inquiry into recent incidents at the Grunwick factory?

I am sure that the whole House will be glad that an agreement has been reached between Commonwealth leaders over their sporting links with South Africa so as to allow next year's Commonwealth Games in Canada to take place. I am sure that that should be welcomed by everyone, both in the interests of the attack on racialism and in the interests of sport.

I recognise that the Prime Minister has a very full schedule, but does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that he and his Government colleagues have already disappointed very many members of the fishing industry who have been giving a demonstration today in the Pool of London and in other parts of the Thames in support of the demand for a 50-mile limit? Does he agree that the best way in which the Government can help our fishing industry is to come out of the Common Market, taking the whole of our 200 miles with us and using the outer 150 miles as a bargaining zone for trading off with the members of Europe?

As the hon. Gentleman and the House knows, many agreements were made before the Government came into office. What has happened recently is that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has been doing everything in his power, within the limitations to which I have referred, to defend the position of British fishing. My right hon. Friend will continue to do so.

If the Prime Minister is attending a meeting of the Parliamentary Labour Party today, does that count as a public or private engagement? If it is correct that he is attending the meeting, no doubt he will be referring to Europe and elections to the European Assembly. Are proposals contained in the Queen's Speech always to be taken as intended Government policy and collectively to be backed by Cabinet colleagues? Is it not right that had there been fundamental disagreement with the proposals when they were introduced we might have expected resignations from this Administration?

I am sorry, but I cannot anticipate the statement that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will make at the meeting of the Parliamentary Labour Party this evening. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman does not feel too disgruntled that he will not be there, but that is the situation. On the general question that he has raised, of course I understand the interest in this subject in all parts of the House. As I said before the recess, a communication will be made to the House about the matter this week, and, of course, that will be carried out.

During the busy day that both my right hon. Friend and the Prime Minister are having, will they have time to look at the experiences of Norway, Sweden and Austria, none of which is in the Common Market but all of which have a lower rate of unemployment than any Common Market country? Does my right hon. Friend think that the policy or policies which they are pursuing could be produced by this country outside the Common Market?

I understand my hon. Friend's point. Another feature of those three countries, of course, is that they have all had good Socialist Governments; that all assists. In many respects they have been following our example and we have been following theirs. That is a very good interchange. One thing that we must always be determined on in all those countries is to keep out any other incursion by Right-wing parties.

Despite the right hon. Gentleman's reply to the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe), will he confirm that the use of the Government's "best endeavours" to pass a Bill providing for European elections includes the responsibility of each and every Minister to vote positively in favour of the Government's own legislation?

I remember very well that the right hon. Gentleman was a member of an Administration which arranged for a free vote, I think, on a question concerned with a major item of policy affecting the Common Market and that that announcement was not made until just prior to the debate itself. I must therefore ask the right hon. Gentleman to wait in patience for the answer to his question at a later time.

asked the Prime Minister when he will next meet the TUC.

I have been asked to reply.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that at a meeting of TUC leaders this morning a great deal of bitterness was expressed at the fact that the wage restraint exercised by the trade unions over the last two years has not resulted either in a reduction of prices or in price restraint, has not created one additional job and has not led to any additional investment in productive industry? Is he aware that there is, therefore, some reluctance to go forward into a third year of wage restraint of that sort? Can he now assure the House that it is the Government's intention to back up any future agreement concluded with the trade unions with some price control, guarantees for industrial investment and some guarantees that this Government intend to be job-creative?

On the first part of my hon. Friend's remarks, if it had not been for the agreement reached between the Government and the trade unions over the past two years I have no doubt—I do not think that most of them would have much doubt—that both inflation and unemployment would be worse. Therefore, I believe that it was necessary to make those agreements, and I believe that it should be necessary also to make a further agreement. The form in which that agreement should be made—some of the matters raised by my hon. Friend are, of course, matters to be covered in those discussions—is still to be concluded, and discussions are proceeding on it at present.

When the Prime Minister next meets the leaders of the TUC, can he discuss peaceful picketing and suggest to them that, except on Shrove Tuesday, it should be unnecessary to take eggs and flour on to a picket line?

It would be most improper and foolish for anyone from this Box and for most other people in the House to comment on the events of yesterday before we have had the report on the proceedings.