asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will detail the Government measures introduced to occupy unemployed school leavers whilst they are looking for work; and if he is proposing any further measures to help young people in cities.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will detail the Government measures introduced to occupy unemployed school leavers whilst they are looking for work; and if he is proposing any further measures to help young people in cities.

Since 1975 the Government and the Manpower Services Commission have strengthened the careers service, extended community industry, provided training places and otherwise provided assistance to unemployed young people through the job creation programme, the work experience programme, the recruitment subsidy for school leavers, and the youth employment subsidy.

That sounds very laudable, but will the Minister say how many permanent jobs have been created by the Government's policy towards young people in particular? Is he aware of the special problems of young West Indians in my constituency, for example, who have opted out of the system altogether? Will he talk to the Commission for Racial Equality on this subject?

The principal agencies for the creation of permanent jobs are not those which I have outlined. They are to be found in industrial strategy and in the development of services. The principal aims of the programme operated by my Department and by the Manpower Services Commission for young people are to enable them to obtain jobs when they would not otherwise be able to do so.

Will my right hon. Friend say what representations, if any, he has had from industrialists who are complaining about the standard of education of youths leaving school who apply for apprenticeships, in particular? Will he say whether he considers this to be a serious matter and, if so, will he inform the House what he intends to do about it?

I can tell my hon. Friend that it certainly is the case that a number of industrialists expect applications to come from young people who are comparatively well qualified and, in some cases, experienced. This is reducing the numbers being recruited. One of the great advantages of the schemes that are now being run by MSC and by my Department is that they provide young people with the training and experience to meet employers' requirements.

In view of the need for greater genuine productivity and the demands of increased mechanisation, is the Secretary of State prepared to acknowledge that there is a need for a scheme that is more permanent and extensive than anything that he or the MSC has so far produced if any kind of meaningful occupation is to be provided for young people in the years ahead?

I am not prepared to concede that there is a need for something more permanent than anything we have considered or envisaged. Over and above the special measures to which I have just referred, we have, of course, given careful consideration to the means of funding a much longer-term skills programme.

I welcome the helpful and wide-ranging measures that my right hon. Friend has described to the House. Does he not agree, however, that the problem is likely to be even more severe in the small towns and villages, such as those which I represent? Will he consider further encouraging young people who have no work to enter suitable training, and further ensure that the worthwhile Community Industry scheme is expanded in South Yorkshire?

I am glad to tell my hon. Friend that we have noted the important rôle that Community Industry can play. For that reason, we have expanded the scheme, in respect of both the number of people that it covers and its geographical range. However, I urge the House to consider the fact that the youth opportunities programme, which we hope very shortly to be able to sanction in its initial form, will provide training and work experience places for every unemployed youngster who wishes to be offered that opportunity. That must have a particular relevance to the sort of areas to which my hon. Friend referred.

Has the Secretary of State any evidence to show whether experience in the job creation scheme has better equipped young people for a permanent job? Does he accept that there is a feeling that many of the jobs that have been taken have not added in any way to their skills?

I cannot present the House with exact numbers. I should like to be able to deploy my staff for a precise survey of the results of every job creation and work experience scheme. I have managed to satisfy myself that on all of the better schemes the overwhelming majority of youngsters pass from them into full-time employment. I visited a large scheme at Chatham a few weeks ago and found that every youngster who had completed it had found a permanent job, using the skill which he had learned in the course of that programme. I also visited a scheme at Carlisle last Friday and found that one problem of running the scheme was that youngsters moved into full-time jobs before they had completed their training.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the number of dismissal cases before industrial tribunals for each three-month period since the tribunals began work.

As the reply involves a table of figures, I will, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, circulate the details in the Official Report.

Is it not true that the number of dismissal cases is rising sharply? Is the Minister aware that clerks in employment exchanges often urge dismissed persons to claim, stressing that it will not cost them anything, even though the dismissal may be perfectly justified? Is he also aware that cost to the employer is inevitable, whatever happens? Will he take steps to stop claims which are purely vexatious or trivial, because they are a problem for industry?

The hon. Lady is right, I think, in only the first part of what she said. It is certainly true that the number of applications to tribunals concerning unfair dismissal cases is increasing. However, the hon. Lady should not believe all that she reads in newspapers. The kind of wild allegation that she has made about the staff of the Employment Services Agency has been investigated. Certainly, as we should expect, the staff give advice, which is available to all. However, they do not operate in the way that the hon. Lady and some sections of the Press have suggested. Of course, the tribunals already have power to award costs against the appellant where there is a frivolous or vexatious claim. Furthermore, I think that the hon. Lady will recognise that the conciliation officers of the ACAS have been playing a sieving rôle to ensure that where cases can be settled without going to tribunal, this is done.

Will the Minister of State confirm that no worker can make an application for unfair dismissal unless he has completed 26 weeks' continuous employment? Will he further confirm that that period also allows a competent employer to determine whether a person is satisfactory, and that the provisions of this legislation represent fundamental rights which have been freely available to many workers in most other countries for many years?

My hon. Friend is quite right. I can tell him and the House that I never cease to be surprised by the number of letters that I receive from Conservative Members complaining that the 26-week period prevents some of their constituents from making applications. I am sure that my hon. Friend will recognise that the unfair dismissal in the first place rests with the employer. It is not the Act which creates unfair dismissals; it is the employers.

Does the Minister recognise that there is great concern about the way in which industrial tribunals are operating at the moment? Is he aware that it is a concern that is not confined to employers but is shared by some trade unions leaders? Is he also aware that the number of unfair dismissal cases is going up by about 50 per cent. a year? Does he realise that this is leading to a view among small employers in particular that it is far better not to employ labour? If we are to reduce unemployment, ought he not to look at this in a rather less prejudiced way than he has, perhaps, done so far?

I have acknowledged that the number of applications to tribunals on the ground of unfair dismissal has risen in recent years, but I should point out to the right hon. Gentleman that, contrary to the assumption that there is a steady increase at the rate of 50 per cent. a year, it has levelled out over the past 18 months at about 3,000 cases per quarter. However, I understand the right hon. Gentleman's point regarding the concern that has been expressed about tribunals. It would have helped both the House and me if he had been more specific. For example, there are allegations that the tribunals have become over-legalistic. It is said that as a consequence, instead of being informal hearings, without legal support and the consequent costs, such legalism has added to the costs of taking cases to tribunals. I share that concern, and it is something, that we shall have to look at. However, if the right hon. Gentleman has other points in mind I shall be glad to look at them if he will draw to my attention specific charges.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what shortages of skilled and unskilled workers have been reported to him from the West Midlands area.

Reports have been received from the West Midlands of shortages of skilled workers in a few trades and localities.

Will the Minister tell the House what reports have been received about unskilled workers, and if his civil servants have not taken the trouble to find out what the situation is, will he accept that I have received constant complaints about shortages of skilled and unskilled workers? Will he explain how, in a time of high unemployment, this apparent contradiction occurs and what policy formulation he is taking to remedy such a situation?

The hon. Member asked what shortages have been reported to my Secretary of State, not whether his officials could make inquiries. The short answer is that no complaints have been made to the Secretary of State in respect of a shortage of unskilled workers.

Is the Minister aware that the shortage of skilled craftsmen in the Midlands is still most serious? Is he further aware that part of the reason for this shortage is the lack of differential in pay between the skilled man and the unskilled man? Does he realise that if these differentials were restored the shortage of skilled men would decrease?

The reasons for shortages are many. Pay is certainly one of them in certain circumstances. Lack of housing, difficulty of access to the firm, selectivity by employers, poor working conditions in some places and strong competition from other firms are all factors that we certainly have to take into account. But the paramount aim must be the maintenance of the Government's pay policy.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on his Department's progress in drawing up the Press charter as required under the provisions of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act.

At the request of the Secretary of State I am currently engaged in the extensive programme of consultations required by the Act.

Is it intended to write into the Press charter the fundamental right of a journalist to belong to the appropriate union of his choice or not to belong to a union? Does the Minister realise that almost all the Press representatives—the only notable exception being the NUJ—who tried to reach agreement for the industry on a voluntary charter agreed that this right should be written in, and will he take cognisance of that important fact?

I am not sure where the hon. Gentleman gets his authority for the last part of his question. On the first part, it would be most unwise of me, while engaged in consultation, to preempt the outcome in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggests. Indeed, I am astonished that the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior), in advance of the outcome of consultations and before the laying of the charter before the House, should have so firmly committed himself and his party on this point. It is difficult for me to reconcile what the hon. Gentleman wants with the provisions of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1976.

Do we take it from what the hon. Gentleman has just said that he does not believe in total Press freedom, to the extent that the journalist should have freedom to write what he likes without having to belong to a union?

The right hon. Gentleman has declared that he would not support any charter that did not contain an absolute right for a journalist not to belong to a trade union. First, that is a significant shift from the attitude that he and his party adopted when this matter was before the House in 1974 and 1976. Second, I repeat that, although I am anxious to avoid pre-empting the discussions in which I am engaged, I should find it very difficult to reconcile what the right hon. Gentleman seeks with the provisions in the 1976 Act which require the charter to contain provisions for the application of union membership agreements to journalists. If the right hon. Gentleman will look at the definition of a union membership agreement he will understand what I am saying.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he is taking to deal with the level of unemployment in the Northern Region.

The region will continue to benefit from the Government's special employment measures, which have so far benefited over 52,000 persons in the Northern Region. This total includes 20,465 benefiting from temporary employment subsidy, 17,795 from the job creation programme, 4,656 under the work experience programme, 3,443 under the scheme of recruitment subsidy for school leavers, 2,393 under the job release scheme, and 524 under the small firms employment subsidy scheme.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the unemployment level throughout the region now approaches 10 per cent. and that that figure in itself camouflages pockets where unemployment is between 12 per cent. and 15 per cent.? Can he offer some assurance about what the Government are doing to insert a regional dimension in these nationally applied policies?

The Government are very concerned at these high levels of unemployment in the Northern Region. They have agreed to new NEB initiatives to assist industrial development in the North, and workers at C. A. Parsons will benefit from the advancement of the order for Drax B. The Government have also offered Newcastle and Gateshead local authorities a partnership scheme to help to deal with their inner city problem, and northern shipyards have already benefited from the Government's £65 million intervention fund.

I received with considerable interest the Minister's array of figures, but can he give an indication of how many permanent jobs have arisen from the so-called emergency measures? Second, can he give an indication of the advice given to officers of his Department in the area of the Northern Region in dealing with young men and women who are offered jobs and make no effort to take them up?

We cannot quantify the exact number of jobs which have been created, for the reason previously given by the Secretary of State, but it is clear that the special measures have led to permanent employment for many young persons. Certainly, the new small firms employment subsidy is leading to an extension of employment in the Northern Region, specifically as a result of the subsidy.

Bearing in mind the point made by the Prime Minister last Thursday, that the temporary employment subsidy would have to be continued in some form or another, when does my hon. Friend expect to make an announcement on that matter? In formulating plans for the future of the subsidy, will he also take into account those firms whose entitlement has already been exhausted but who are desperately in need of its continuation?

My right hon. Friend will be reviewing these special urban temporary employment measures towards the end of the year, and he will make an announcement in good time before the ending of the period of the various schemes.

Will the Minister reconsider the effect of the Employment Protection Act and also the effect of the legislation imposing minimum wages? Will he confirm that these interferences in the free market in labour are particularly disadvantageous to those who are weak, young, and untrained, and those who live in depressed areas, such as the Northern Region?

I think that there is some misunderstanding of the Employment Protection Act which leads employers to be more reluctant to employ in some circumstances than they would otherwise be, but I repeat the point, made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Madden), that the protection does not extend beyond those people who have been employed for 26 weeks or more.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what consultation there has been with the Scottish brickmakers over the job creation scheme activity to remove the tips of colliery waste shale.

None, Sir. I am informed by the Manpower Services Commission that no job creation programme projects have been approved in Scotland specifically for the removal of tips of colliery waste shale.

I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. However, the information that I have received from the Scottish brickmakers is that there is such a scheme, and if it is not yet started it will go ahead in the near future. May I have an assurance from him that there will now be consultations with the Scottish brickmakers before any decision is made to institute a job creation scheme of this sort?

I am aware of no scheme specifically for the removal of tips of colliery waste shale. However, if the hon. Gentleman will let me have details of the matter, I shall look carefully into it.

Most of the shale tips are in the West Lothian constituency. Is my hon. Friend aware that industries run mostly by William Griffiths Limited are very efficient without the sort of thing suggested by the hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris)?

I am glad to hear it.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many employees of British Railways have been dismissed for refusing to join a trade union; and whether he will make a statement about Government policy towards such dismissals.

Information as to the number of employees dismissed by individual employers is not available to me. The Government's policy on the closed shop remains that outlined in the Adjournment debate with the hon. Member, to which my hon. Friend replied on 7th April 1977.

May I tell the Minister, since he has not bothered to find out, that the number of employees dismissed by British Rail for refusing to join a trade union is now 40, and that of those five had between 29 and 39 years' service and two more than 39 years' service? Will the Minister not improve upon his Pontius Pilate attitude and express the view that these dismissals are wholly unjustified and unjustifiable?

We naturally regret that it has not been possible for such differences to be resolved. However, there is no requirement on employers to notify these matters to the Government, whether they are in the private sector or the public sector, and we would not wish to draw a distinction between them.

Is my hon. Friend aware that, for many years, the people about whom we are talking have accepted the benefits of trade union representation without paying one penny piece towards it, and that a democratic decision has been taken by the trade unions concerned that they will have nothing more to do with these parasites?

The Government's position on this matter is quite clear. We regard it as one between unions and management, and I should have thought that Opposition Members would have learned the lessons from 1971 of trying to interfere in these matters.

Would the Minister care to point out to the unions in British Railways that if only trade unionists travelled on the railways they would be in a worse state for earning profits, and half of the workers in British Railways would not have jobs?

I find it difficult to see the relevance of that.

Does my hon. Friend agree that over the years a multitude of decent people have lost their jobs simply because they were members of trade unions? Does he further agree that this position still obtains at Grunwick? What further steps is he taking to meet that situation?

Much as I sympathise with the general tone of my hon. Friend's question, I do not believe that the Grunwick situation arises on this Question.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that nothing does the trade unions more harm than the sort of action that has been taken in the case of British Rail? Why do the Government not at least bring pressure to bear upon employers who enter into union membership agreements which are so restrictive on the rights of existing employees at the time when such agreements are entered into? Is the hon. Gentleman saying that a trade union has to exact the terms of the union membership agreement to the extent of 40 people out of 220,000?

I have already pointed out that we do not think it right to put pressure on either employers or trade unions in the fashion that the right hon. Gentleman suggests. It would be interesting if the House could learn from the right hon. Gentleman what his party's policy is because, although it has been spelt out in "The Right Approach", when one hears the right hon. Gentleman speak about it he talks of seeking to ensure things. He has not told the country what that policy will be.

I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on his policy regarding the low-paid.

As promised in the White Paper, "The Attack on Inflation" after 31st July 1977, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has introduced a number of measures designed to give special help to the low-paid and to families with children. In addition, I am taking a number of measures to improve compliance with the statutory minimum rates set by wages councils.

Can my hon. Friend confirm that most of the low-paid work is in the wages council sector, and can he tell us how he can square calling in a wages council award of 11 per cent. on a basic rate of £26 per week with not doing anything about another wages council award when it allowed a 16-month gap between settlements? Will my hon. Friend place in the Library a considered document outlining the Government's total strategy regarding the low-paid?

The two cases to which my hon. Friend refers do not bear comparison, because one was in clear breach of the Government's guidelines. In the second case—I have already replied to my hon. Friend about this in a Written Answer—there was no way in which intervention could have been made; the legislation would not permit it. On the general question, it is very unpleasant to have to seek to limit these low-wage industries, and I confirm what my hon. Friend said—there are some 3 million workers in wages council industries, most of whom are very low paid. It is very unpleasant to have to request them to limit their increases when pay rates are so low, but I believe that it is essential that the Government do their utmost to try to uphold the 10 per cent. guideline. I believe that it is in the interests of low-paid workers and pensioners—people of the sort who are lobbying the House this afternoon—that we try to keep down inflation, because these are the people who are hardest hit when unfettered free collective bargaining is allowed to take precedence.

Does the Minister agree that it is not just the low-paid who are badly treated? Is there not something desperately wrong with the whole wages taxes-benefits situation when the average man in work, with the average family commitments, receives, after the Chancellor's cuts, £57·74 net spending power a week but his neighbour in exactly the same position who is out of work from yesterday onwards can receive, in cash and kind, £55·94 per week? In other words, the man in work is getting out of bed in the morning for a difference of only 36p a day, and, what is more, if his neighbour happens to have three children, that neighbour is, right from the start, better off not working than working.

I am sure that the House will want to study the hon. Gentleman's statistics very carefully, because we have had some experience of his facts and figures in the past. Beyond that, I certainly believe that there is a more rational way of ordering our affairs, and I hope that that can be found in the future. However, I very much doubt whether the Tory Party will support it.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Low Pay Unit has performed a valuable service by producing a series of outstanding reports but that the inevitable conclusion from those reports is that the vast and complex problems of low-paid workers cannot be solved piecemeal? Is it not time, therefore, for one Minister to devote his full attention to their problems? Will my hon. Friend discuss that with the Secretary of State?

The Low Pay Unit has performed some very valuable work, although we do not always agree with all its findings. On the question of a Minister being particularly responsible for the low-paid, I have already discussed the matter with my hon. Friend, and that is what I am now doing.

If the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends think that the wages are so lousy, why does he think that they support him in trying to control them to 10 per cent.?

I think that I have already answered that question by referring to the overall need.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the latest number of unemployed persons in the United Kingdom; how this compares with the number in October 1974; by how many the latest figures will be reduced as a result of the policies outlined recently by the Chancellor of the Exchequer; and over what period this reduction will take place.

At 13th October, 1,518,336 people were registered as unemployed in the United Kingdom compared with 640,797 in October 1974. We would hope that the measures announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 26th October would, on the economic assumptions which he has spelt out, result in a welcome curtailment in unemployment over the next couple of years.

Does the Secretary of State accept that those appalling figures are made even worse by the present lack of strategy to overcome unemployment, and particularly the lack of strategy in the recent Budget? Will he accept that in areas such as Wales, where last month the figures got worse—in the rest of the United Kingdom they got better—there is great despondency about the situation, particularly in view of the recent Manpower Services Commission report on the matter? When will the Government bring forward a coherent strategy that quantifies the jobs needed to be created and indicates how these jobs are to be created?

No, I do not accept that the figures have been made worse by a lack of strategy. I ask the hon. Gentleman and the House to realise that there are now 413,000 more jobs than there were five years ago. That is in part the result of pursuing an industrial strategy. On the special measures which we are pursuing to deal with a vast increase in unemployment, arising in no small measure from the increase in our working population, we have been able to provide through the temporary employment subsidy for the sustaining of over 340,000 jobs. We have provided over 100,000 jobs for young people through the job creation programme, and there are now in work experience about 37,000 youngsters. I do not think that those facts square with the hon. Gentleman's allegation that the appalling increase arises from a lack of strategy.

Will my right hon. Friend accept that, welcome and important though the temporary measures are, particularly for dealing with unemployment among young people, they are no substitute either for proper training or a permanent job, particularly in regions such as Merseyside, where there is excessively high unemployment among school leavers? Will he therefore consider a scheme, such as is already voluntarily operated by Dunlop in the North-West, of imposing a quota of apprenticeships on employers analogous to the scheme already implemented for the disabled?

I accept that many of the special measures that we have run over the past year or two are not as well fitted to the requirements of young people as would be an apprenticeship or some other structured form of vocational training. That is one reason why we are substituting a youth opportunities programme for the job creation work experience programme. Within a youth opportunities programme there is scope, and there is a structure, to meet the needs of young people who require training as well as work experience.

Does the Secretary of State agree with the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster that the Employment Protection Act is having a bad effect upon the necessary mopping up of unemployment, particularly in relation to small businesses?

I do not think that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has said that. If he has, I disagree with him.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the current total of unemployment in the construction industry; and what was the equivalent figure in March 1974.

In August 1977, the latest date for which figures are available, 195,952 workers who had last worked in the construction industry were registered as unemployed. The comparable figure for March 1974 was 113,046.

I welcome the limited help in the recent Budget, but will the Minister confirm that the measures announced are likely to make little or no difference to unemployment for the next 12 months and that things may well get worse before they get better?

I do not accept that. I think that to describe the help as limited is somewhat churlish. In fact, the Chancellor announced a further £400 million on 26th October, which it is estimated will add about 20,000 jobs in construction and another 10,000 in ancillary industries. So far, during the current year a total of £811 million in assistance has been announced for the construction industry.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the construction industry is the most difficult industry of all, and that there is a higher level of unemployment in it than in any other industry? Is he aware that many of us believe that the measures are not sufficient? To try to be constructive, may I ask whether my hon. Friend will indicate what allocations are being made now to local authorities so that they can be ready to start work when the money is available?

I accept that what my hon. Friend said was said in a most constructive spirit, but I cannot answer the question. I think that he will recognise that that is a question for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

Does the Minister know that the emergency joint committee of the building and civil engineering industries in the South-West estimates that one-third of employers who were in existence 12 months ago will not be able to employ anybody, because they will be bankrupt by next April? Will he therefore ensure that in the allocation of the £400 million in the Chancellor's Budget the South-West gets its full proportion and does not suffer, as is normally the case, by getting much less than the rest of the country?

I shall certainly draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list in the Official Report the names of the Chairman and members of the Advisory Conciliation and Arbitration Service and state in each case the salary or fees applicable.

Yes, Sir.

In view of the not infrequent inconsistencies and partiality evident in recent reports on recognition issues, will the Minister consider terminating the appointments of the Chairman and members of ACAS and replacing them with people capable of an objective reaction and able at least to follow their own precedents?

That is a wholly unwarranted attack on people who have made a significant contribution to an improvement in industrial relations in this country. I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says about the inconsistency of their approach on the subject of recognition. I deplore the inconsistency of response by some employers, including one who has acquired some notoriety in London.

Will the Minister make urgent inquiries of all parties to see whether ACAS can play a useful rôle in bringing to an end the industrial dispute affecting the engineers servicing lifts, on the ground that there are many thousands of people often in a vulnerable state through old age, or pregnant women, or women in charge of young children, and so on, who are finding it impossible either to get into their flats or to get out of them in the high-rise blocks of the inner cities?

Certainly. I think that the whole House wants this dispute to come to as speedy an end as possible. The services of ACAS are available if the parties are willing to call upon them. I must point out to the House that the strike itself is unofficial, and this, of course, presents obvious difficulties for the intervention of ACAS, but I hope that the parties will look to ACAS and will try to bring this unhappy dispute, which is having such very unfortunate consequences, to a speedy end.

Irrespective of any complaints against the objectivity of the members of ACAS, does the Minister agree that there is a lot of room for improvement in the qualifications of those members who come from the employers' side, particularly with regard to their lack of experience of small businesses?

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is referring to the Council of ACAS. I am bound to bear in mind what he said, but I should have thought that those appointed on the nomination of the CBI were people with experience, and with a distinguished record in industrial relations. When Tory Members jeered as I sat down, they were jeering prematurely. I was about to draw attention to the qualifications of those who had been appointed on the nomination of the TUC and CBI and to point to their wide experience. It is wholly unworthy of Tory Members to attack them in the way that they have done this afternoon.

asked the Prime Minister when he next expects to meet the German Chancellor.

I expect to meet Chancellor Schmidt at the next European Council in Brussels on 5th and 6th December.

I applaud some of the Prime Minister's remarks at the Lord Mayor's Banquet last night, and also some of the remarks that he made to the General Secretary of the Labour Party in his letter on the European Community, but will he, when he meets the Chancellor of Germany, stress that we shall not accept fedralism in this country, that we shall retain control over our parliamentary and governmental system here, and that we shall control our legislation here? Does he agree that it is only right and fair, before the enlargement of the Community, that we should make this absolutely clear to our partners and to new members who may be joining the Community?

With respect, I do not think that it is necessary to make it clearer than I have done. Indeed, I came in for quite a bit of criticism last time from what I would call professional Europeans—although not from the Heads of Government—about those remarks. I am pretty confident that the views I expressed are widely shared by the Heads of a number of other Governments.

Will my right hon. Friend take the first opportunity to express to the German Chancellor the revulsion felt in this country at the proposed visit this week of three former senior SS officers—one of whom was in Hitler's bodyguard—to launch a book designed to whitewash this organisation? As the SS was concerned not only with the killing of British prisoners but with the setting up and operation of Hitler's extermination camps, does he not consider that such a visit would be an extreme provocation to hundreds of thousands of people in this country, and that it ought to be banned?

Like the visit of Mr. Begin.

I think that all of this goes to show that we must be very careful about the company we keep on all occasions. As regards the supplementary question of my hon. and learned Friend, the record of that German division is well known and excoriated, but what happens if these gentlemen offer themselves at the port of entry will, of course, be a matter for the immigration authorities.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will dismiss the Secretary of State for the Environment.

I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle) on 8th November.

Will the Prime Minister say unequivocally that neither he nor the Secretary of State has any intention of implementing the half-baked proposals approved at the Labour Party conference last month for the nationalisation of large construction companies and a massive expansion of direct labour departments?

The manifesto of the Labour Party will be drawn up in due course, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will read it carefully when it appears.

Does the Prime Minister agree that the hon. Member for Melton (Mr. Latham), if he seriously has the welfare of the construction industry at heart, would do better to try to persuade some Conservative-controlled local authorities which are quite unnecessarily cutting back housing programmes to get those programmes under way? That would have some effect on the unemployment figures.

I understand that a number of local authorities have accumulated substantial balances, in some cases because of the drop in interest rates. I hope that they will maintain and, indeed, improve on the housing programme that has been established.

If the Prime Minister will not reject the proposals for the nationalisation of construction companies contained in the Labour Party programme, will he at least reject the wholesale proposals for nationalisation and State direction of the other 31 sectors of industry contained in that programme?

My answer remains the same as it was to the hon. Member for Melton (Mr. Latham).

If the Prime Minister's answer remains the same, will he tell us what the answer was? Does he repudiate that programme, or does he approve it?

I am sorry that the right hon. Lady did not hear what I said. I said that no doubt, in due course, when the manifesto is published, both she and the hon. Member for Melton will read it.

Is that programme alive or dead?

The right hon. Lady does not get the date of the General Election out of me in that way.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that if he were to dismiss the Secretary of State for the Environment it would cause a great deal of distress among my constituents including, in particular, the Tory leader of the council, who only last week was delighted to hear the announcement that the Oldham Metropolitan Borough was to receive an additional £1 million annually to assist with its difficulties? Is he aware that Councillor Geoffrey Webb, the Tory leader, described that news as most gratifying?

Yes, Sir. I am finding a great deal of satisfaction among Conservative-controlled local authorities at the fact that we have managed to reduce interest rates so that they are much lower than they were when the Conservative Party was last in office. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is performing his duties with his usual diligence and ability and, I understand, to general satisfaction.

If the Secretary of State is to remain in his employment, will the Prime Minister have an early word with him about the damage caused by the recent gales in the North-West, and particularly in Southport? A large number of my constituents have suffered heartbreaking damage to their homes and belongings. Their response to the tragedy has been magnificent, but they are very worried and it would be a great help to them, and to the Sefton Borough Council —which has also risen splendidly to the occasion—if the Prime Minister and his right hon. Friend were able to give further consideration to what might be done.

I received a telegram this morning from the mayors of Blackpool, Fylde and Wyre asking for Government financial assistance because of the damage that has been suffered on that coast. I have already asked the Secretary of State for the Environment to look into this matter—that is another reason why he should not be dismissed —and he has undertaken to do so. As the hon. and learned Gentleman will know, there is no fund available for this purpose, but there are certain facilities that could be made available. I readily agree that when the three mayors have informed me, as they have told me they will, of the additional assistance that will be required, the Government will be ready to look into the matter.

May I ask my right hon. Friend, instead of dismissing the Secretary of State for the Environment, to consult him about the question of the resources that are made available by Government to local authorities? Is he aware that I believe that these resources require greater scrutiny and that the present situation is quite ridiculous because certain local authorities have a surplus of unused capital for housing, whereas other areas, with great housing stress, are in need of such finance?

I shall certainly take up that point with my right hon. Friend. He is at present meeting local authorities on the subject of the rate support grant for next year. I do not know whether local authorities have raised this matter with him at those meetings, but clearly he will want to take all these factors into account when he makes his announcement.

Will the Prime Minister ask the Secretary of State for the Environment to visit the Lancashire coast to see the abject misery from which many of my constituents are now suffering? I do not think my constituents find this a laughing matter when they have spring water flooding through their houses. I am anxious that a Minister should see the situation, because it is still dangerous.

I shall certainly convey that request to my right hon. Friend, but I believe that the local authorities have acted with great speed on the matter. A number of people have had their homes flooded, and a great deal of damage has been done. The House will sympathise with those who have suffered in this way. I cannot go further now than to say that when we receive further information about the extent of the damage, and the sums of money involved, the Government will give careful consideration to what is proposed.

If the Prime Minister is not willing to sack the Secretary of State for the Environment, has he noticed the Early-Day Motion inviting him to sack the Secretary of State for Energy? Is it the Prime Minister's judgment that the Secretary of State for Energy has done more damage by keeping quiet, as in the case of the miners' productivity bonus—

Order. That is a separate question and should be put on the Order Paper.

asked the Prime Minister when he next plans to meet the CBI.

I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) on 10th November.

No doubt the Prime Minister is studying reports of the proceedings at this week's CBI conference. Does he agree with the general view, expressed yesterday, that the present pay bargaining system is a total failure, in that it has failed to raise living standards in this country and has contributed to inflation, low productivity and high unemployment?

I do not know that I am called upon to express a view on the opinions of the Director General, but, whoever expressed such views, it would be unfortunate to dismiss the collective bargaining system that exists until somebody brought forward something that would be both better and acceptable to put in its place.

When the Prime Minister next meets the CBI, will he impress upon it the need for all sections of British industry to use British steel in the manufacture of their products, so that thereby we may avoid in future reports such as those currently appearing in the Press that the BSC is again contemplating making 20,000 steelworkers redundant?

Yes, Sir. I shall certainly draw that to the attention of all manufacturers and industrialists who are at present using steel. A very difficult situation has grown up in the steel industry throughout the world, and the Government are giving the matter a great deal of urgent attention.

asked the Prime Minister if he will list his engagements for Tuesday 15th November 1977.

In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be holding meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, including one with the Foreign Minister of Romania.

Will the Prime Minister be able to take time off this afternoon to ponder the fact that the British Steel Corporation has, since it was nationalised, lost its share of the market? Its share of the United Kingdom market has gone down from 76 per cent. to 53 per cent. while the Corporation has taken £3,000 million of our capital and has lost billions on revenue account, too. Will the Prime Minister consider that it might have been possible to restore the cuts in education, to have enough kidney machines and to look after the social services properly if it had not been for the extraordinary failure of nationalisation in this instance?

No, Sir. The hon. Gentleman is pursuing his usual vendetta, but it does not bear much relation to the facts. The steel industry throughout the world, as he knows very well, is suffering a very great deal from the recession. Indeed, I read in the Economist last weekend that the Bethlehem Steel Company alone—just one company in the United States—had lost over $400 million in the third quarter. This is an international problem and cannot be solved by any party claptrap about nationalisation.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many people are aware of the policies of the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) on the nationalised industries, and that had it not been for the commitment of the Labour Government to the steel industry, which we hope will continue and grow more generous and more definite, we should have had a decimated steel industry that would have been neither able to produce the materials to make kidney machines nor the money for this country to be able to pay for their production, servicing, maintenance and provision?

The steel industry is an efficient industry, but there is room for substantially increased productivity. Certainly nationalisation has nothing to do with this matter—

Oh, yes, it has.

I cannot remember whether the hon. Member had been dismissed from the Department of Industry before Rolls-Royce was nationalised.

Would it be in order to ask the Prime Minister to find time today not only to express the congratulations of the Government to Princess Anne on the birth of her child but to express the congratulations of the House?

I shall be very happy indeed to do so, because I am sure that that would be the general wish and view of the House. Whether a child be a commoner or a Royal child, the birth of a child to a family is always something which everybody is delighted to welcome. I have already conveyed a formal message to Princess Anne on behalf of the Government, and I have myself written to Her Majesty the Queen. I shall be very happy indeed to reinforce that.

I should inform the House that as Speaker I sent a telegram of congratulations to the Royal Family.

To save the time of the House, unless there is objection I propose to put the Question on the two motions together.