asked the Secretary or State for Employment what is the percentage of young people under the age of 25 years currently unemployed in England and in Wales, respectively.

This information is not available for England and Wales separately. The latest reliable estimates for Great Britain relate to July 1977, when 13·6 per cent. of those available for work aged under 25 were unemployed.

Is the Secretary of State aware that it is widely believed that there is a major structural problem and that structural alterations are necessary in our modern industrial society before we can relieve the youth unemployment problem and prevent it from being sustained through a new era? Will he propose to his Cabinet colleagues that revenue from North Sea oil should be used partially to finance these structural changes in our society?

I am a little afraid of the term "structural," because some people use it to include demographic circumstances and others do not. Certainly, part of the problem arises from a structural change—the change in industrial demand for labour. Part of it also arises from the huge increase in the number of school leavers. I shall certainly put to my Cabinet colleagues the hon. and learned Gentleman's suggestion that there should be a specific call upon the revenue from North Sea oil to deal with this problem. As a Government, we are already committed to doubling the provision for the 16-to-18 age group beginning in April this year, because so much of the high level of unemployment among those who are under 25 arises in the lower age group. I believe that we shall have a considerable impact on the problem and that we shall reduce the number of unemployed young people in the coming year.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that a reduction in youth unemployment can be achieved only by a planned Socialist change—by ensuring that we have early retirement at 60 and shorter working hours and by restoring cuts in public expenditure? Is he aware that he should be looking at the problem not with the Tories and the Liberals but in terms of a planned Socialist economy which will get these youngsters to work?

Certainly, all the things that my hon. Friend mentioned are important components in a total solution of our unemployment problem. In addition to that, however, we still have special measures to deal with the massive increase in the number of young people leaving school while structural changes are taking place in employment.

What construction would the Secretary of State advise young people to put on the headline

"A million new jobs by 1980, says Chancellor?"

One of the pieces of advice I offer young people is to take every advantage of the training that will be offered by the youth opportunities programme, since, whatever new jobs will be forthcoming as a result of our successes in overcoming economic problems, a higher degree of training and a greater range of skills will be of advantage to young people.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he is aware that the unemployment in the Mexborough and district employment exchange area is now in the region of 10 per cent. and that there are threatened redundancies of 200 employees at the Manvers Main chemical plant; and if he will make a statement on his future plans to find work for these unemployed persons.

At the latest count the unemployment rate in the Mexborough travel-to-work area was 9·7 per cent., which is a matter for serious concern. I have seen reports of a possible reduction of capacity at the Manvers coking plant which suggests that any reduction of manpower which may be necessary will be achieved by natural wastage or by special arrangements for older men. So far, I understand, no decisions have been taken and discussions between National Smokeless Fuels Ltd. and local union officials continue.

Is my hon. Friend aware that when redundancies of this kind are declared the whole work force fears that the plant itself might close? Is he aware that the promise was made that the plant would be rebuilt to replace obsolete equipment but that no action has been taken? Will my hon. Friend do everything in his power to make certain that the old plant is replaced, thus ensuring employment in the district?

I appreciate my hon. Friend's anxieties. I have seen reports only that the firm must reduce its manpower, and I hope that it can do that by means other than redundancies. On the second part of the question, I shall draw my hon. Friend's points to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy.

May I endorse my hon. Friend's diligent concern for unemployment in this and the surrounding parts of the Yorkshire coalfield area? Will he look again at the problem, because it is most serious and is likely to last a considerable time unless action is taken?

I shall draw to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy the remarks by both my hon. Friends.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many women in employment are covered by protective legislation.

About 9 million women—all those in employment with the exception of domestic servants in private households—are covered by the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. Of these, about 1½ million are subject to the relevant statutory provisions which differentiate in their treatment of men and women.

I am obliged for that information. Is my hon. Friend aware that that figures includes women working in bakeries and laundries and working as office cleaners and so on who are outside the scope of the 1961 Act as it deals with long and unsocial hours? Ought not my hon. Friend to look at this whole question of unsocial hours as it affects particularly women, but men as well because they, too, are affected?

I know that my hon. Friend has had a long-standing interest in unsocial hours of work, including unsocial hours in this place. I have much sympathy for her views. However, the whole question is currently being reviewed by the Equal Opportunities Commission, which has a responsibility under the Sex Discrimination Act to keep the matter under review. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has asked for its report and findings by the end of this year.

Will my hon. Friend make quite sure that no changes are made which will make it easier for bad employers to exploit women, because women are in many ways still at a disadvantage in the labour market? Equality should not mean any worsening of conditions for anybody. Let men have the same conditions as women.

The Commission is taking evidence from a wide range of bodies and individuals, including the TUC and the CBI and, of course, the Health and Safety Executive. Therefore, my hon. Friend's point will be covered and taken very much into account.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment to what extent reductions in working hours are taken into account by the Government in deciding whether a particular pay settlement is within the Government's pay guidelines.

Reductions in working hours, unless accompanied by corresponding reductions in pay, should be taken into account in determining whether a settlement is within the pay guidelines.

The Minister may feel that they should be taken into account, but to what extent do the Government do that in deciding whether a settlement is consistent with the guidelines? Will he place in the Library a list of major settlements where there has been a significant reduction in working hours during the period of pay policy?

As I have said, we take them into account in monitoring settlements. I am not sure about the hon. Gentleman's second point. We would have to reflect carefully about that, and that I shall do.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a suspicion in the public sector that so-called productivity deals in the private sector, which include a reduction of hours and a redesignation or reclassification of posts, are causing serious difficulties for those who work in the public sector?

Yes, I understand that anxiety. I am glad to have this opportunity to reassure my hon. Friend that we seek to apply the guidelines just as strictly in the private sector and in the implementation of self-financing productivity deals as elsewhere. My hon. Friend will have noted from the publicity given to one or two cases recently how firmly the Government are seeking to sustain the application of the guidelines there.

How much longer will the Minister and his Department go on covering up the sanctions black list?

I think I know to what the hon. Member is referring. The so-called black list is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has spoken in the House about it.

On the question of monitoring pay settlements, is all the monitoring clone by officials in the Department or is some of the work farmed out to market research organisations? If so, how many of the organisations are involved, and what is the cost to public funds?

No, there is no farming out to organisations outside the Government. The monitoring is done for the private sector in the main by the Department of Employment and the Treasury. With the public sector it is done mainly by the appropriate sponsoring Departments.

Will the Minister say something about the agreement reached for the electrical contracting industry by the joint industry board on behalf of the employers and unions? Is he satisfied that the productivity agreement there is anything other than "phoney", and will he say how small employers will be able to cope with increases of up to 35 per cent., as have been agreed by both sides?

My Department has not approved this settlement. Among other things, the agreement provides for the payment of lieu bonuses, which is a payment in lieu of productivity that is not evidenced. We have withheld approval for that part of the settlement, making it clear that we are prepared to approve payment of lieu bonuses up to 25 per cent., and we have asked the parties in the JIB to take another look at the settlement.

Is not my hon. Friend confused by the Opposition saying at one moment that they want free negotiation while complaining the next moment when the guidelines are not observed? What do they want?

It is a confusing task to try to understand the Opposition's attitude when they are constantly pressing the Government to apply pay restraint yet complaining every time we do so.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what was the total number of days lost through industrial action and unemployment expressed as a single figure in 1977; and what was the corresponding figure for 1973.

About 340 million in 1977 and 145 million in 1973.

Is the Labour Party slogan at the next General Election to be "Back to work with Labour" or "Labour brings industrial peace"?

I assumed when I saw the Question that it had probably been tabled at the prompting of Tory Party Central Office to provide propaganda. That kind of approach helps neither industrial relations nor the unfortunate people who are unemployed

Will my hon. Friend accept that my constituents at Otis Elevators in Kirkby are extremely grateful to his Department for the payment of temporary employment subsidy, which saved 1,000 jobs there? Will he also accept that, if the contract for lifts at the new Manpower Services Commission building in Sheffield were to go to a foreign competitor, a Swiss-based firm, we should be in the ludicrous position of the Department of Employment on the one hand paying out a subsidy to retain jobs in my constituency and on the other hand giving a contract to foreign competitors? Will he do something about it?

I am grateful for the first part of my hon. Friend's question. I have just been assured by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that he has already entered into discussions with the Chairman of the Manpower Services Commission about the lifts to be fitted at the new headquarters at Sheffield.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what are the latest unemployment figures for the Birmingham travel-to-work area.

At 12th January, 42,691 people were registered as unemployed in the Birmingham travel-to-work area.

Does my hon. Friend share my concern that there will be a possible increase of another 600 if the Cadbury-Typhoo Tea factory is closed, especially in view of its inner city location? It would be contrary to Government policy to move it out, especially as it provides much-needed non-engineering jobs in Birmingham.

I share my hon. Friend's concern about any loss of jobs from the inner area of Birmingham. I am not certain that the firm has taken any final decision on the matter. I understand that the city council is in touch with the firm to try to find alternative sites in the city.

Does the Minister realise that Government policy on assisted areas offers heavy inducements for the movement of work from the inner area of Birmingham to the Cheshire area? Does he realise that the Government's policy on assisted areas is therefore greatly in conflict with the interests of dealing with areas of great unemployment in the inner areas, such as that in which this factory is sited? Therefore, will he urgently review that conflict?

It was the last Tory Government who designated South Cheshire as an intermediate area, causing antagonism in my constituency and throughout thet West Midlands. Between June 1976 and 1977, employment in manufacturing in the West Midlands increased by 20,000, but the last Conservative Administration created a problem by doing what it did.

Does my hon. Friend accept that the unemployment problems of Birmingham are reflected in areas such as Cannock, which has much greater unemployment than Birmingham? Does he also accept that in some of the pockets of high unemployment on the borders of conurbations there is an urgent need for special help?

I think that the centre of Birmingham has severe employment problems, but I certainly recognise the problems that exist in Cannock and in Rugeley in Staffordshire, and my Department has to deal with both.

Does not the Minister agree that the Government's disastrous regional policy is rapidly making the West Midlands into an economic desert? Does he also agree that, if we are not very careful, more than the Typhoo Tea jobs will be lost and there will be mass unemployment for the first time for many years in the West Midlands?

The assistance that this Government have given to the motor car, machine tool and foundry industries, which was opposed by Conservative Members, has stopped the West Midlands from becoming an industrial desert and has created 20,000 additional jobs.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the total number of persons in employment in the United Kingdom at the latest available date.

At September 1977, there were 22,721,000 employees in employment in the United Kingdom. This figure is provisional.

Whilst unemployment has continued to cause concern, is it not to the Government's credit that, despite the urgings of the Opposition, they have taken action so that, despite the recession, more people are in employment than when the Conservatives were in office?

It is certainly true that, as my hon. Friend says, there are more people in employment now than in September 1971 or September 1972, and there are almost as many as there were in employment in September 1973. However, I do not think that we can in any way be satisfied with this performance, bearing in mind the enormous number of additional jobs that we shall need in view of the much lower rate of retirement that we expect in the next year or two and the vastly greater number of young people coming from school to seek jobs.

What does the Secretary of State think would be the effect on the unemployment figures if the money spent by his Department on job subsidisation were transferred to other public services such as education, health and defence?

The effect would be to reduce slightly the number of jobs available. All the special job measures operated by my Department are tested for their cost-effectiveness and the labour-intensive effect that they can produce against expenditure in the public services. The expenditure of money in certain public services is extremely labour-intensive. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will support any measures that the Government bring before the House to spend money in spheres such as the Health Service, education or others which will produce many more jobs.

Does the right hon. Gentleman's last answer but one imply that the Government are to lower the retirement age in the next year or two? If so, they have estimated how this will reduce unemployment? For example, have they worked out how it would affect unemployment at present if the male retirement age were reduced to 60, and what it would cost?

The Government certainly have worked out the cost and the effect on employment. The costs figure has been given in the House more than once by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. The effect now, as compared with the effect a period of full employment, would be about half, and the cost would be correspondingly reduced.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the temporary employment subsidy were withdrawn it would have a devastating effect on the current level of employment? Will he resist attempts by the Common Market Commissioners to have the Government withdraw this subsidy? Will he suggest what alternative legislation can be introduced if this is foisted upon us by the Common Market?

I can assure my hon. Friend that the withdrawal of TES would have a serious adverse effect on employment, particularly in certain industries in the area that he represents. In fact, I would expect that its total withdrawal might increase unemployment by about 200,000. As for resisting the attempts of the Common Market Commission to restrict the application of TES, I shall do my utmost to prevent that. I undertook yesterday to lay before the House legislation which would give us an undisputed right, I trust, to introduce measures to offset any action by the Commission to reduce the effect of temporary employment subsidy.

Will the Secretary of State take this early opportunity to correct the very misleading information that he gave to the House yesterday, when he used OECD figures to try to say that we were seventh in the league of unemployment, when in fact he was quoting from Table 7 on page 29 of the latest OECD Economic Outlook, which has a footnote which says

"These rates are not comparable between countries."

Too long.

Order. The hon. Gentleman really must ask a question.

I am asking the Secretary of State whether he will correct this very misleading information and quote from the table in which the figures are adjusted which fully sustains the position put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) that unemployment is worse than in all the other OECD countries except Canada.

If the hon. Gentleman is to hand out advice about reading footnotes, he might first direct his attention to his right hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior). The figures I quoted in the House yesterday give a far more accurate reflection of the position than did those of his right hon. Friend. I very much resent the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that I misled the House in this matter.

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

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what new measures he intends to propose to alleviate unemployment.

I would refer the hon. Members to the speech I gave in the House yesterday, and in particular to the references concerning the small firms employment subsidy, the temporary employment subsidy and the job release scheme.

Will the Secretary of State accept that most of the measures to which he referred have a short-term effect and that, important though they may be, they do nothing towards solving the long-term problem of productivity? In view of the survey of 82 manufacturing industries that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned in his speech yesterday, which showed that the 10 industries with the fastest growing productivity increased employment by 165,000, compared with a fall of 600,000 in the 82 as a whole, does he agree that productivity is the friend rather than the enemy of employment and that it should be assisted rather than obstructed by Government policy?

I entirely agree with one proposition only that the hon. Gentleman put, namely, that productivity is the friend of employment. I disagree with virtually everything else he said. I believe that the small firms employment subsidy scheme can considerably help to increase employment opportunities and raise productivity in small firms. I also believe that the temporary employment subsidy can enable firms to restructure in a way that improves their productivity and their chances of maintaining employment. I believe that the job release scheme, by enabling older employees to leave and younger employees to come into their places, can also help productivity. Even where it does not help, it certainly cannot be contended that it in any way hinders productivity.

It seems that the House has forgotten how to ask a brief question and how to get a brief reply. That means that hon. Members who thought that they would be called to ask a Question will not be called.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that deep-seated and long-term unemployment will not be solved in manufacturing industry alone but will need social action as well? Is he aware that if we reduced the retirement age for men to 64 there would be potentially another 250,000 jobs for young people? Will not the Government—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."]—now take immediate action on this matter?

The hon. Gentleman could not have heard what I said. He has asked three questions instead of one.

The last two of my hon. Friend's three questions are really for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. The answer to the one that falls directly to me is that I certainly believe that my Department is aiding by the extension of the job release scheme that I announced yesterday. I hope that my hon. Friend will join me in persuading people to make the maximum use of it.

Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly answer the question put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison)—namely, how much extra employment would be created if the money spent on job sub- sidy were diverted to conventional methods of increasing public expenditure? Secondly—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order."]—will he say how much extra—

Order. Hon. Members must play the game or we shall never reach Question No. 15.

The answer is "None Sir".

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, despite the invaluable help given by the TES, unemployment is still increasing in the textile industry, and that what is needed is more purchasing power, which must mean a return to free collective bargaining?

That is a bit better.

I cannot agree with my hon. Friend if he implies that increases in wages without regard to their true purchasing effect are a solution. We must have an increase in real purchasing power, I agree, but that will depend on a permanent relationship between increases in wages and increases in prices.

Why did not the right hon. Gentleman's proposals include an effort to reduce the amount of overtime being worked?

The amount of overtime worked is principally a matter for negotiation between employers and unions, but I would certainly urge those considering any arrangements which would enable them to reduce overtime and increase employment to give this a maximum priority.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what possibilities he sees for an increase in manufacturing employment in the United Kingdom in 1978.

As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said, the sector working parties in manufacturing industry have come to the conclusion that it is possible to increase the productivity of their sectors sufficiently to improve our balance of payments by some £2½ billion by 1980. Although in these sectors employment overall is not likely to increase dramatically from such improvements in productivity, the balance of payments benefit they generate should enable the Government to run the economy at a level of demand sufficient to produce between ½ million and 1 million additional jobs, although many of these jobs will be in the service sectors.

Will the hon. Gentleman answer a question that his right hon. Friend did not answer in the debate yesterday? Did the Chancellor of the Exchequer consult the Secretary of State before quoting his figure of a 1 million increase in new jobs over the next two years? How many of those jobs will be in the manufacturing sector?

If the hon. Gentleman does not take for granted the close liaison between members of the Cabinet, he is thicker than he looks.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is hypocritical of the Conservative Party to assert out of one side of its mouth that unemployment in Britain is higher than in any other industrial country of the world whilst out of the other side—the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) and the sect that follows him—it asserts that British unemployment statistics exaggerate the level of unemployment? Is not that cynical opportunism?

I do not dissent from what my hon. Friend says.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what further steps he is taking to reduce unemployment on Merseyside.

Merseyside will continue to benefit from the special measures which the Government have introduced to relieve unemployment and which have so far benefited over 41,000 people on Merseyside. In coming months, Merseyside should also benefit from the special temporary employment programme and the youth opportunities programme.

Does my hon. Friend accept that the unemployment position on Merseyside still causes grave concern and that many of us are concerned about the rate of progress? As his Department is the Department of Employment, will he ask the Secretary of State to resist any measures that may be taken in the near future to increase Merseyside unemployment by the closure of any Leyland plant in that area?

I cannot anticipate discussions that, I understand, will take place tomorrow between the chairman and the unions and management at British Leyland, but certainly I and the Government appreciate the earlier point that my hon. Friend raised. Merseyside already has special development area status and so qualifies for the highest levels regional assistance under the Industry Act. However, I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry in particular continues to give the area high priority.

Does my hon. Friend accept that within Merseyside, Kirkby is the unemployment black spot—indeed, one of the three in the country—and that, given the nature of its problems, what is needed there are special measures tailored to meet its particular needs?

If I were not aware of Kirkby's being a particular black spot, I should be aware as a result of my hon. Friend's efforts to draw the Government's attention to the matter. But many other areas would claim special attention. Kirkby, like other parts of Merseyside, must benefit from the measures I have already outlined.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many applications were made in the last period for which figures are available for places on training opportunities scheme courses; how this compares with the period 12 months earlier; and whether he will make a statement on the provision of training opportunities scheme courses and places.

I am informed by the Manpower Services Commission that in the three months ended 31st December 1977 48,803 applications were received for TOPS courses. In the same period 12 months earlier, the number of applications received was 56,851. The Manpower Services Commission is currently reviewing the training opportunities scheme and will be considering its future scale and balance in the light or the review.

Will my hon. Friend ask the Manpower Services Commission to pay particular attention to the handling of applications and the speedy placing of those who apply, especially in areas of higher-than-average unemployment, against the background of the growing need for a number of people now out of work to retrain if they are to obtain jobs?

I shall certainly do so.

Will the Minister look at the administrative and bureaucratic elements within the training opportunities scheme, which seem to be growing rather faster than is justified?

I shall draw the attention of the Manpower Services Commission to the hon. Gentleman's remarks.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the total number of registered unemployed young people in the United Kingdom; how many of these are in Scotland, England and Wales; what is the total number of registered vacancies in the United Kingdom for such age groups; and how many of these vacancies are in Scotland, England and Wales, respectively.

The latest information available is for July 1977, when there were 708,517 young people under 25 unemployed in Great Britain, of whom 89,627 were in Scotland, 575,710 in England and 43,180 in Wales. As I told the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) earlier, these figures reflect the inclusion of about 240,000 school leavers Since then, this number has fallen by over 180,000.

Irrespective of any decline which may have occurred, in view of the earlier answer given to the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) concerning North Sea oil revenues, and in view of the right hon. Gentleman's own commitment yesterday to doubling the youth opportunities programme, will he now tell us exactly what level of funds will be made available for this programme? Will he also indicate whether any discussions are taking place to ensure that training undertaken during this period will be recognised as training towards apprenticeships?

Yes; the funding which we have estimated as being the requirement of the youth opportunities programme is in the order of £160 million a year. The existing programmes in Scotland have produced more than 38,000 job creation places, as the hon. Lady knows, and nearly 6,000 work experience places. The limitations on these have not been from funding. I think the hon. Lady will appreciate that wherever a worthwhile scheme has been proposed, my Department has made arrangements to fund it.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that in all parts of the United Kingdom there is still a grave shortage of personnel in the professions supplemental to medicine? Will he have urgent talks with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services in order to set up a crash programme to get young people recruited and absorbed into that sector?

I shall certainly discuss with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services how far I can assist in this through the programmes that my Department is running for young people.

If in the years ahead there are to be a million more jobs, as I understand the Government have said, I urge them to use again their slogan "Back to work with Labour" at the next General Election, so that we can have a very fair debate on promise and performance.

Whatever slogans parties may choose in the next General Election. I hope that all parties which promote candidates will put forward their proposals and their assurances concerning job creation. When we initially proposed these schemes from the Government side, many of them were condemned very harshly in debate by Opposition Members, who now suggest that they should be extended.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many workers were employed in the textile industry in Lancashire or the North-West of England during the years 1973–74, 1974–75, 1975–76, 1976–77 and 1977 to the latest date for which there are statistics.

At June in each of the years 1973, 1974, 1975 and 1976, the numbers of employees in employment in the textiles industries in Lancashire were 44,000, 44,300, 40,000 and 39,300 respectively. Figures for 1977 are not yet available.

I recognise that those figures would be worse without the temporary employment subsidy, but will the Minister indicate what other steps can be taken to avoid the ultimate death of textiles in Lancashire?

The Government are already to be congratulated, I believe, on the conclusion of the new Multi-Fibre Arrangement. The aim is to create a competitive industry in Lancashire, to compete with the industries of other countries.

My hon. Friend will have noticed that the only response from the Tories to the success of the Government in the renegotiated Multi-Fibre Arrangement, and the success of the Government in maintaining jobs in Lancashire through the temporary employment subsidy, has been to decry and object to both these measures. Does he not think that Lancashire textile workers should take careful note of that?

I have noted that both employers and workers in Lancashire and Yorkshire have supported the Government very strongly in their endeavours to save the textile industry.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will list his official engagements for 31st January.

In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be holding meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. This evening I shall be the guest of the Indian Journalists Association at the Indian Republic Day Dinner.

With reference to the Prime Minister's undertaking, to read the speech of the Secretary of State for Energy at the School of African and Oriental Studies, may I ask whether he has found time today to do so?

I read only the headlines, as I told the House last week. I found some of them this morning pretty disquieting.

In what is obviously a busy day, will my right hon. Friend find a few minutes in which to call in the Leader of the Opposition and to explain to her that, if she is complaining that political parties are not discussing immigration, she has a remedy in her own hands? Since she became Leader of the Opposition, she has had many opportunities to choose a Supply Day for this debate. Will my right hon. Friend perhaps inform her of this?

I should be very happy to do so. Indeed, I think it is appropriate, now that the right hon. Lady has opened up the subject in the manner she has, that there should be the fullest possible discussion of it. I go further and say that I think the right hon. Lady now has a responsibility to make absolutely clear what she is proposing to do and not to take refuge three times in the statement that what she wants is a clear prospect of ending immigration. If that is her object, she owes it to all of us to tell us how she will do it.

rose—

Mr. David Steel.

rose—

Does the Prime Minister recall an occasion when, from that Dispatch Box, he said that numbers entering were an important element in racial harmony? Does he still take that view, in which case is he saying—

How would the right hon. Lady end immigration?

It is the Prime Minister's job to answer questions. When I am asked a straight question on television, I try to give a straight answer. I wish that the Prime Minister would do the same. Does he still take that view, in which case is he saying, 18 months later, that he proposes to take no action whatsoever to tighten up the immigration rules?

I have never wavered in my view on the significance and importance of limiting immigration in order that we should have good race relations. Indeed, I introduced a Bill, which became an Act, to that effect. What I am now saying is that the loopholes have been closed and that the only way in which the right hon. Lady can fulfil her undertaking is to take away the rights of wives and children or United Kingdom passport holders or elderly relatives to enter this country. [Interruption.] We had better get the facts clear. Let us get it quite clearly on the record. There were 28,000 new immigrants to this country last year. Only 750, up to 1st October, came in on the basis of work vouchers. The rest came under the headings that I have already outlined.

rose—

Mr. David Steel.

May I take up the Prime Minister on one of those figures? [Interruption.] He has given the impression that there were only 28,000 immigrants last year. I do not think that that is the full number. Will he give us the full number and, further, will he give us the full number who have the entitlement to come here under the present rules? We have frequently asked for this figure. In fact, the Franks Committee was set up to determine the number. Will the Prime Minister confirm that he intends to take no action whatsoever further to tighten up the present rules of immigration?

As regards the right hon. Lady's last question, there is such rigid control over immigration now that it is very difficult to think of ways of tightening it further, unless the Conservative Party goes back on its commitment. The right hon. Lady is quite correct—thought not in the way she has put it—about the numbers. I said that 28,000 people entered the country last year. There were 16,200 already living here for several years who were given citizenship. Is it proposed that they should be sent away? Is that what the Conservatives propose? What are the Opposition going to do? As I see it, they have two choices. They can send back people who have been living here for years—those 16,000 who were given citizenship—or they can go back on their clear pledges to wives and children, elderly relatives and United Kingdom passport holders. Which is it to be?

Answer.

rose—

Order. I had called the Leader of the Liberal Party when the right hon. Lady rose last time.

Will the Prime Minister tell the House whether he has received any specific proposal from the official Opposition for reducing immigration? If not, will he agree that simply talking in a vague way about reducing it, far from improving race relations, merely encourages fear, uncertainty and prejudice? Does the Prime Minister agree that all of us in this House, but the Government in particular, should concentrate instead on bad housing, poor schooling, and high unemployment, particularly among second generation immigrants? Is this not the best way of improving race relations?

The Home Secretary tells me that he has received no detailed proposals—indeed, no proposals at all—from the Conservative Party for reducing immigration. Therefore, I have to base my view of Conservative Party policy on the statement made to the party conference last October by the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border. He said:

"It would be dangerous to society and to good race relations to refuse a man the company of his wife and children."

My right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw) set out the policy at the party conference by saying that it was important that we should hold out the clear prospect of an end to immigration.

Why does not the right hon. Lady give the job to the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell)?

Will the Prime Minister say how many immigrants are entitled to come in under the present law? If he does not know how many but proposes to admit all of them regardless, he cannot stand by—

That is what we would expect from the Leader of the Opposition. What is she going to do about it?

Order. The hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) must control himself.

With that bloody woman in the House, how can you expect it?

Order. The hon. Gentleman must not tempt me too far. We must listen to the points of view with which we do not agree. That is what this House is all about.

If the Prime Minister does not know how many there are, and if he admits them all, regardless of numbers, he cannot agree with his previous statement that the numbers entering are an element in good race relations.

I would beg the House once again not to engender too much heat on this matter. I am not speaking to any particular hon. Member.

May I say that I do not regard the Leader of the Opposition as a racialist, but I do regard her as an extremely muddled woman on this question who does not have the good grace to await the work of her hon. Friends and my hon. Friends on the Select Committee considering this matter which is now nearing the time when it will report.

Order.

whether the right hon. Lady would be—

Order.

Britain's first woman Prime Minister.

Order. The hon. Gentleman obviously did not see that I was on my feet. Will he please ask a question?

Does the Prime Minister agree that, by the way things are going, the majority of people in this country would give him the benefit of the doubt as he seems to be Hobson's choice when one looks at the capacity of the Leader of the Opposition?

I am not sure who is supposed to be most flattered by my hon. Friend's last comment, but I shall not leap to his defence and refer to him as a philosophical anarchist when he is under attack next time.