asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he is now in a position to announce a date for the publication of the Press Charter.

I am not yet able to say when the draft Press Charter will be published.

Is it not disgraceful that the Government should hesitate in making clear their attitude towards the freedom of the Press and the closed shop issue before the end of the Session, or, perhaps, before a General Election?

The House debated these matters on 18th May. On that occasion I set out the position very fully. I recalled that it made obvious sense for the Government to wait until the Royal Commission had published its report before setting in hand the very lengthy series of consultations required by the statute, and which it makes good sense to undertake.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that one of the problems is the continuing inability of the Newspaper Publishers Association to speak with a united voice? Will he also confirm that he has no intention of having a provision in the charter which would give a right not to belong to a trade union because of the damaging effect which that would have on industrial relations?

Yes. In the debate on 18th May, I mentioned the way in which the consultations had inevitably been lengthened by the inability of Fleet Street to speak with a single unified voice and by the number of employers and proprietors who wished to make separate representations. I have said repeatedly in the House that I think such a proposal as that advanced by the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior)—to give journalists a statutory right not to belong to a trade union—would not only be to repeat the follies of the Industrial Relations Act but would be quite inconsistent with the provisions of the parent Act.

Does not the Minister of State agree that it would be far better if the National Union of Journalists used its efforts to persuade people to join rather than have to use compulsion as the only means of getting 100 per cent. membership?

I wholly agree with the right hon. Gentleman, and I always have done, that the case for trade unionism and trade union membership must rest on its merits and on its own appeal.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will seek to place on the agenda for his next meeting with his EEC colleagues the question of long-term structural unemployment within the Community.

Social Affairs Ministers of the Community regularly discuss unemployment in all its aspects, including the effects on employment of industrial change and the special problems of particular groups of the workforce.

As unemployment is likely to be long-term and we cannot afford to sit around until world trade takes off, will not the Minister advocate, for example, the extension of facilities for 16-year-old school leavers such as further education, youth training, work sharing with weekly financial income, and a reduction of the working week, which need not be accompanied by inflationary costs, as well as a reduction in the retirement age? Would not these suggestions make substantial reductions in the present unemployment figures?

A number of the matters raised by my hon. Friend are under consideration by our own Government and some of them by Community Governments. Certainly, with regard to work sharing, we are hoping that it will be possible for there to be a Community initiative before the end of the year.

Will my hon. Friend accept that any long-term solution to the problems of structural unemployment can be dealt with successfully only on a Community basis? If we try to tackle these problems on a national basis, we shall end up with a kind of beggar-my-neighbour sterility.

There is a great deal in what my hon. Friend says. Obviously we are not ruling out national measures to deal with structural unemployment, but clearly there is an advantage in doing these things on a Community basis.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what discussions he has had with the CBI and the TUC in regard to the introduction of the 35-hour week throughout industry; and if he will make a statement.

I am in frequent contact with the TUC and the CBI about employment and industrial relations matters, and we have a common interest in clarifying the issues involved in reduction in the working week.

I am aware of the article to which my right hon. Friend refers. Does he recognise that, if manual workers are to take a fair share of the benefits accruing from technical advances, and if we are to increase employment in industry by 10 per cent, to overcome some of the worst unemployment difficulties, politicians must now come together with wage bargainers and trade unionists with a view to reducing the working week to 35 hours?

I agree that one of the benefits that we hope to get from technological advances is the reduction of the working life—possibly the reduction of the number of working hours, as well as consideration of the options for early retirement. In the current situation we must ensure that these possibilities are organised in ways which do not mean additions to unit costs which would otherwise come about. That would militate against the very result that we want to achieve in the reduction of the number of working hours, namely, an increase in the numbers employed.

Would it not be madness to introduce a 35-hour working week when the country cannot produce enough in a 40-hour working week?

We are not proposing at this stage to introduce a 35-hour working week. The discussions that I have had with the CBI and the TUC have been to investigate the ways in which any reduction in the number of hours could be achieved without loss in production and without loss of pay, and preferably to bring about an increase in the numbers employed and a drop in public expenditure.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that what is necessary before there is a general reduction of the working week is some statutory control of overtime to ensure that it is not abused? Before that happens, will he ensure that the reasons for overtime—namely, degenerate payment systems and low basic rates—are also tackled?

I hope I have made clear to the House that I have given priority to considerations of overtime. This was one of the first things that I took up with the CBI and the TUC. I believe that many of the factors leading to overtime working, which my hon. Friend mentioned, could result in difficulties if the cut in hours took place by statute without some proper compensation arrangements being made for those who work overtime only in order to take home a living wage.

Does not the Secretary of State agree that he is doing a disservice in not pointing out that there are many people, particularly in offices, who are on a shorter week than 40 hours? Does he agree that one of the objectives should be to ensure that people who are paid on an hourly rate are given the same conditions and status as office workers?

One of the priorities that one could advance in the matter of hours reduction is the elimination of differences between blue and white collar workers.

What conclusions have the Government drawn on the suggestion that plant and machinery should be used for longer periods but not by the same people on the one shift—in other words, that we should have a different system of shift working?

Certainly this is one of the possibilities, but it must be achieved by consideration plant by plant and industry by industry. It does not lend itself necessarily to a national policy. Among the many pieces of useful advice that the general secretary of the TUC sent to the secretaries of affiliated organisations, following my meeting with the TUC, was one which suggested ways of using greater capacities of the plant to bring more people into employment rather than creating more overtime working.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what are the latest figures for the number of persons unemployed in the United Kingdom; and when the level of unemployment last reached a similar figure.

Does the Secretary of State believe that it is merely a depressing coincidence that each Labour Government have presided over a substantial increase in the level of unemployment during their tenure of office? While he will doubtless wish to blame the rest of the world for this phenomenon, will he not agree that it must be due, at least in part, to the regrettable, if understandable, insistence of Labour Governments on concentrating their energies on protecting non-productive existing jobs rather than seeking to create new productive employment?

The present Labour Government are presiding over a situation in which unemployment has been declining for eight successive months and more people are in employment than in 1971, 1972 or 1973 under the previous Government.

I hope that my right hon. Friend will disregard the highly partisan point of view which has just been put. Bearing in mind the very grave unemployment situation that unfortunately exists in Britain today, however, allied to the development of modern technology, does not my right hon. Friend feel that his Department should give a lead to both sides of industry in introducing a 35-hour week, irrespective of whether it means any statutory ban on overtime?

Certainly I take the view that my Department must be very closely involved, possibly more than any other Government Department, in dealing with employers and unions on the question of hours reduction. The reason for that is that one does not automatically produce an increase in the numbers employed by reducing the number of hours worked. Therefore, a number of factors must be considered which my Department is well equipped to take into account.

Further to the interesting supplementary question put by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), has the Secretary of State any plans for introducing an over-time inspectorate with a proper career structure, proper salaries and index-linked pension?

No. This is a form of job creation that I have not yet contemplated.

As the supplementary question by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) referred to the number of productive jobs lost under the present Government, will my right hon. Friend state how much greater the number would have been had we acquiesced in closing down British Leyland, in not dealing with Chrysler, in not dealing with the shipbuilding industry and in not rescuing Ferranti?

I cannot give a precise figure on that, but, to endorse the point which was implicit in my right hon. Friend's question, I can say that we could add to those figures another 900,000 people who have been assisted by special employment measures run by my Department and the Manpower Services Commission.

Is the Secretary of State aware that I can give him a precise figure? It is clear that for every one person who has become unemployed in the lifetime of Conservative Governments' since 1945. 11 have become unemployed as a result of Socialist Governments since the war. It might be a good idea for the present Government to ask themselves whether it is not Socialist policies rather than a world recession that cause high unemployment.

The right hon. Gentleman goes to the very limit in his presentation of statistics to try to favour his case. That case is not borne out by any practical observations of what has happened in a number of countries faced with similar problems of a world slump and which have either accepted or declined the types of measures that have been used in this country and which have kept a number of industries in existence.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what special measures are being taken to fill the 1,000 places in skillcentres currently vacant.

I am informed by the Manpower Services Commission that local publicity of training opportunities is being intensified. In addition, a national campaign is planned to recruit instructors.

I welcome the efforts which have been made, but is my hon. Friend aware that part of the problem lies in the less-than-inspiring salaries paid to instructors and the difficulty of recruiting instructors on those salaries? Will he examine that aspect of the problem?

That is part of the problem, and it is why the Manpower Services Commission is introducing a national recruiting campaign. I hope that the recent pay increase in the Civil Service, which will benefit the instructors, will help to alleviate the difficulty which my hon. Friend has identified.

Is not the lack of young men wishing to become skilled due to the failure to pay skilled men a higher wage than that paid to ordinary unskilled workers, because of the effects of successive incomes policies?

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that there should not be a pay policy. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman, in common with everybody else, would see the great benefits which the pay policy has brought in the past three years.

Is the Minister aware that the DHSS has apparently stopped collecting statistics on the employment and unemployment of registered blind school leavers? Will he give the House an assurance that his Department knows how many blind school leavers there are, where they are and, therefore, the extent of their training requirements?

My hon. Friend will not expect me to know what has happened in the DHSS in this connection. I shall draw the point he has made to the attention of the Department, and I shall examine it myself. I should have thought that we have the necessary statistical information about blind school leavers through the disablement resettlement officers and similiar people. Nevertheless, I shall examine the matter and write to my hon. Friend in order to put the matter beyond doubt.

Do not vacancies exist not only because of shortages of instructors but because of the siting of skillcentres? Should not the Government examine the possibility of putting on similar courses in existing educational establishments so that these courses can be taken up?

Probably more than half of all trainees who underwent training through the training opportunities scheme received their training in colleges of further and higher education and not in skillcentres. The skillcentres are sited with considerable regard to the market in mind, but some have now been established for 30 years or so. Some of them may need to be examined to see whether they are serving the needs of the market. I shall draw the point to the attention of the chairman of the Manpower Services Commission.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is his estimate, for each of the last five years, of the numbers of firms with over 20 workers which do not employ their 3 per cent. quota of registered disabled people, which do not have Government permits and which may have taken on any new workers who are not disabled.

I am informed by the Manpower Services Commission that it is not possible to say which firms have taken on workers who are not registered as disabled without inspecting the quota compliance records of all the employers who are below quota and without permit.

Why cannot this information be given? Is my hon. Friend aware that I estimate that thousands of employers are now breaking the law? Does he agree with that estimate, and, if so, why cannot such employers be prosecuted in the same way as any other law-breaker? Why cannot Government Departments which are failing to fulfil their quota also be brought into line?

The reason why it would be difficult to take this step is simply that it would require a large increase in manpower. The resources that that would take up are better spent in trying to back up the positive policies programme which has been set up to try to get more disabled people into employment. I know my hon. Friend's views on this subject, but I must repeat that all the independent advice we have received suggests that the approach I have outlined is the best method of getting more disabled people into jobs. It would be wrong to jettison that approach now, but the Manpower Services Commission is committed to review the operation of the system. In that review it will certainly consult, among other bodies, the all-party Disablement Group.

How does a firm which employs 20 people employ 3 per cent. disabled, which appears to be 0·6 of one person?

I do not wish to bandy statistics with the hon. Gentleman, but the facts are that if all the unemployed registered disabled people were spread around it would still be possible for employers to reach only 2·2 per cent., because over the years there has been a considerable fall in the number of registered disabled people.

Does my hon. Friend realise that his reply will cause much disappointment? Could not regional officers do more to monitor the system in regard to companies? Could they also examine the practice in local authorities, because they are not complying with the law either?

The public sector figures have been published for two successive years. I agree that they leave a great deal to be desired. On the point about inspection, we asked the MSC to concentrate its inspections on firms which are below quota and without permit. The investigations are producing some interesting results. It is difficult to find what could be described as flagrant breaches. It is only in cases of flagrant breaches that prosecution is merited. Where flagrant breaches occur, prosecution is considered.

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

While the ninth successive monthly fall in seasonally adjusted unemployment is to be welcomed, the level of unemployment remains too high. The Government's economic and industrial strategy will help to secure a high and stable level of employment and rising living standards, and the special employment measures and youth opportunities programme also have an important part to play in tackling unemployment.

Will my right hon. Friend comment on the allegations that the employment protection legislation is inhibiting employment and industrial recovery? Is this a fact, or is it a myth perpetuated by the Conservative Party and its supporters?

I am most concerned about those allegations, and I joined the Manpower Services Commission in commissioning a study of the effects of employment legislation. That study was undertaken by the Policy Studies Institute. Its report, which was published on 28th June, found that the legislation was not having a significant effect on the number of additional staff taken on by firms. The report went on to point out that most British manufacturers find that employment legislation does not discourage firms from taking on new people. Indeed, the majority of employers do not find such legislation an obstacle to shedding surplus labour either. There is very little sign that the legislation inhibits recovery. I have made copies of this report widely available, and hon. Members who have not a copy are invited to study it in the Library.

Since the Manpower Services Commission and the Government thought it worth while only to survey firms employing more than 50 people, will they exempt from the effects of the Employment Protection Act firms employing fewer than 50 people?

It is not the case that we thought it worth while to study only large firms. A further survey is being conducted into the operations of small firms, and we want to examine other matters in addition to the effects of legislation.

In view of the high level of unemployment on Merseyside, will my right hon. Friend say what will happen if the CPSA goes on strike in my constituency? If the Walton labour exchange closes on Friday, it will mean that workers who are unemployed will be unable to receive unemployment benefit. What is being done on this matter by the Department? Are any efforts being made to solve the dispute, and what will happen if the DHSS workers carry out their threat to support the CPSA workers? Is it not clear that immediate action must be taken by the Department to settle this dispute, which will affect fortnightly payments of unemployment benefit?

I have been making efforts over a long period to secure the total cooperation of the CPSA and other unions involved in the fortnightly signing experiment. All the other unions have agreed, whereas the CPSA has not agreed to this experiment. Despite the holding of meetings as recently as yesterday morning, when I met the general secretary of the CPSA, I must tell the House that that union is still determined on a course of strike action which will close four benefit offices next week. I acknowledge that one of them is the Walton office. This could have repercussions on supplementary benefit offices since CPSA members are employed there.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many disabled persons were registered as unemployed at each of the employment exchanges in the South Yorkshire area at the latest available date.

As the reply consists of a table of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the Official Report. However, I am advised by the Manpower Services Commission that the total numbers of disabled people unemployed on 8th June 1978 in the area were 1,498 registered disabled and 3,116 unregistered disabled.

Does my hon. Friend realise that it is almost impossible for these people to get a job when there is such a high rate of general unemployment? Will he, therefore, make certain that every employer employs at least the 3 per cent. quota of disabled people, and will he discuss with the Secretary of State for Industry ways of bringing more jobs to the Dearne Valley constituency?

The rate of unemployment among registered disabled people in South Yorkshire is lower than the national rate, though it is higher in the Dearne Valley constituency. I have previously drawn attention to the Manpower Services Commission's programme for getting more disabled people into employment, and that is the best way to proceed. I certainly note my hon. Friend's remarks about discussions with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry.

Is my hon. Friend aware that some of us are rather puzzled about his earlier reply that serious action could be taken only against flagrant breaches by employers? When an ordinary citizen breaks the law, he is prosecuted. Is it not time that when the law is broken in regard to quotas of registered disabled employees and firms are not carrying out their obligations, prosecution should follow?

There is always some discretion for authorities whether they proceed to prosecution when someone is found committing an offence. For example, many people have been caught speeding but they have not all found themselves in court.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment when he next plans to visit Brussels to discuss the workings of the Social Fund with his counterparts in the other member States' Governments.

I represented the Government at the Council of Ministers of Labour and Social Affairs on 29th June, when a new category of Social Fund aid to promote the employment of young people was discussed. I very much regret that, due to the opposition of one delegation, it was not possible to reach agreement then.

I thank the Minister for that reply and I share his regret. Since these are Community funds and not national public spending, would it not be a good idea to put into the Social Fund a much greater amount of money to deal with unemployment problems in the underdeveloped areas of member States, particularly such areas in this country? Will the Government undertake to press that the Social Fund should be made larger in future?

We have considered for some time that a sizeable Social Fund is desirable, though many measures, particularly those relating to youth unemployment, are best conducted on a national basis. In general, we are in favour of a sizeable Social Fund and we have pressed for an increase.

Does my hon. Friend agree that one way of increasing the size of the Social Fund would be to transfer to it a substantial amount of the CAP? When he next visits Brussels, will my hon. Friend take up the future of the Community shipbuilding and ship repairing industries and make clear that, in relation to the proposal that 100,000 jobs in those industries should disappear between now and 1981, any restructuring will be subject to consultations between British Shipbuilders and the Government and not with the Commission?

The CAP is clearly a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture. I know that shipbuilding is the very active concern of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what were the respective percentages of the population in employment in 1976 and 1977 employed by (a) public corporations, including nationalised industries, (b) central Government, including Her Majesty's Forces, and (c) local authorities; and how this compares with the total figures of 27·1 per cent. in 1973.

In 1976, the latest year for which information is available, 7·9 per cent. of the United Kingdom employed labour force was employed by public corporations, 9·5 per cent. by central Government and 12·2 per cent. by local authorities, giving a total of 29·5 per cent.

As the Minister's reply shows a fair increase on the 1973 figures, can he tell me whether it is the Government's policy that these figures should continue to rise? How is it that figures after 1976, including those for the whole of 1977, are not available although we are now in the middle of 1978?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman shares the view of many hon. Members that perhaps there is too much seeking of statistical information and too many censuses and surveys. I wish that Conservative Members would make up their minds whether they want the inquiries that will provide the information they seek or want the number of surveys and inquiries reduced. On the more substantial point, it is interesting that the hon. Gentleman carefully selected 1973 as a comparison, but the increases to which I have referred are consistent with the general rate of increase over the whole of the last decade. There seems to be a fairly constant increase over the years.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any immediate plans to meet the chairman of the Manpower Services Commission.

I am in constant touch with the chairman of the Manpower Services Commission.

When the Minister next meets the chairman, will he discuss the working of the training opportunities scheme? Is he aware that I have a constituent who took a course but found that there was no immediate job for him, and another who found that the qualifications he gained on the course were not adequate for the job he was offered? Will the Secretary of State also discuss with the chairman the work of the jobcentres and emphasise to him that their role is to find work for people and not merely to satisfy employers' demands?

There would be no disagreement between the MSC, its chairman and myself about the role of job-centres. Their main function is that described by the hon. Gentleman. Discussions are taking place between toy Department and the Commission about the training opportunities scheme. I have looked at a number of aspects of the scheme with the chairman, but I have not sought to persuade him or the Commission that they should offer courses only to people for whom there are immediate vacancies. It is right that people should be able to train for skills and the upgrading of their skills even if there is no immediate vacancy in an area for them, provided that there is a general indication that that sort of skill will be required in future.

When the Secretary of State next meets the chairman, will he discuss the curious and contradictory attitude of the Tory Party in this matter? Is he aware that, while the Leader of the Opposition and her Right-wing lieutenants have been scathing about the misuse of taxpayers' money in the job creation scheme, Conservative Central Office has been busily applying for help under the scheme and has taken £11,000 in the process?

Interesting as the subject is, I have better uses to which to put my time in discussions with the chairman than in discussing the curious and contradictory policies of the Opposition.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many school leavers are unemployed.

At 8th June, 139,254 school leavers aged under 18 years were registered as unemployed in Great Britain.

Is the Minister satisfied with progress on the implementation of the youth opportunities programme? In particular, is he satisfied with the quality of projects being approved, or is the Manpower Services Commission concerned only with the quantity of projects in order to reduce the unemployment statistics?

The scheme does not come into operation until 1st September, but the Commission is most concerned that the schemes should have quality as well as quantity.

Does my hon. Friend realise that in towns such as Swindon, which is an extended town with a young population, the problem of unemployed school leavers is acute? What measures does he intend to take to alleviate the problem in such areas?

When I visited Swindon, my hon. Friend made clear the concern that he feels for the young unemployed. The Government have placed upon the Manpower Services Commission a commitment that any youngster having left school from Easter who is unable to obtain regular work or training will be offered a place in the youth opportunities scheme by next Easter. That will be the position in Swindon as elsewhere.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what discussions he has had with the TUC and the CBI about the operation of the closed shop.

None, Sir.

Does the hon. Gentleman understand that there should be discussion between his Department and the TUC about the way in which the closed shop is being operated? Will he consider the way in which 40 former employees of British Rail were dismissed because they refused to join a trade union and how two other employees of British Rail were dismissed because they resigned from a union? Does he think that that is a fair operation of the closed shop?

The hon. Gentleman repeatedly raises this issue in the House. I must tell him what I have said on every previous occasion—namely, that these are matters for the collective bargaining process and for decisions between employers and unions.

What is the hon. Gentleman's opinion?

As for British Rail—

What does the Minister think about it?

The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) will know that British Rail cases have been lodged with, and are immediately before, the European Courts of Human Rights. Therefore, it might be inadvisable for me to comment on the cases. I am sure that the TUC and the CBI are well aware of the views of the hon. Gentleman and myself. I again express the view that those engaged in negotiating for union membership agreements and in implementing them will seek to do so in the traditional, reasonable, flexible and tolerant manner.

Will my hon. Friend refute the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Silvester) at the beginning of Question Time that trade union membership agreements in the Press industry have some sort of connection with a lack of freedom of the Press? Will he make it clear that we do not have a free Press because the hulk of the newspapers are controlled by a small number of powerful individuals, and that that has nothing to do with trade union membership agreements?

Yes. I remind the House that the statutory requirement to produce a Press charter goes beyond the application of the Press charter to closed shops and the Press. It deals with the wider issues of Press freedom and improper pressures from any source. When we lay the draft charter before the House, I assure the House that it will contain provisions to avoid improper pressures from whatever source. I hope that those concerned about the closed shop will not allow that concern to be used in a way that will reject the valuable safeguards for the freedom of the Press that we shall propose.

If it were the decision of the European Court to go against British. Rail, what action would the Government be prepared to take that they are not prepared to take now?

The House will recognise that it would be most imprudent for me to speculate on the possible outcome of judicial proceedings that have yet to take place.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he is satisfied with the level of unemployment in the Northern Region.

No, Sir. Unemployment in the Northern Region is far, far too high. That is why the whole region has development or special development area status so that the full range of assistance under the Industry Act is available to help create new jobs and safeguard existing ones. In the short term, unemployment has been reduced by the Government's special measures, which have so far helped 72,000 persons in the Northern Region.

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's answer. Is he aware that in recent weeks, despite all that the Government have done, there have been too many announcements of closures and redundancies involving thousands of workers in the Northern Region, including Howard Rotavator in my constituency? In conjunction with his colleagues in the Department of Industry, will he take another look at the situation in the Northern Region to ascertain what can be done?

I share my hon. Friend's concern about Howard Rotavator and his general concern about redundancies. The only hope that my Department can offer is through the temporary employment subsidy. The company is well aware that that is open to it.

I know that the Minister wants to be fair. Will he be good enough to tell the House—the figures are obviously in his brief—how the present unemployment figures in the Northern Region contrast with those in 1973?

The figures are higher than they were in 1973.

Is my hon. Friend aware that both unions and management at ICI on Teesside are grateful to the Department for the efforts that it has been making to help overcome the problems created by the shortage of instrument artificers at the plant on Teesside? Is he yet in a position to tell the House whether he has been able to make any progress to stop further shutdowns of plant and more people being thrown out of work?

My hon. Friend the Minister of State is making strenuous efforts to avert the difficulties with which we are faced. As late as last evening he was having informal talks with the unions concerned.

asked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 4th July.

In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be holding meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. Later today I have a number of engagements with Chancellor Kreisky of Austria, including the opening of the new offices of the Anglo-Austrian Society, and this evening I shall be giving a dinner in his honour.

Now that the Government have shown such concern for top-salaried people, will my right hon. Friend find time today to consider the plight of low-paid workers, especially homeworkers, and support the concept of a national minimum wage, which has been recommended by the TUC but rejected by the Government? Will he bear in mind that some homeworkers are receiving less than £10 for a 50-hour week and that the argument against a national minimum wage —on the ground that differentials would be reduced—is now quite bogus in view of the gains made by, and the claims of, many better-paid workers?

I understand that an announcement on homeworkers will be made tomorrow. However, the complications of incomes policy and pay cannot be discussed in a reply to a supplementary question.

During the right hon. Gentleman's busy day, will he find time to comment on the speech made yesterday at Newcastle by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he said that the long-awaited economic miracle is within our grasp? Will he compare and contrast that with the CBI report, which forecasts that productivity will drop in the next four months? Which is right?

I never know about forecasts. That is why I always mistrust them when I am asked about forecasts of this sort, and I advise the hon. Gentleman to do the same. I am sure that my right hon. Friend made an excellent speech yesterday that will repay everybody's attention. I look forward to reading it. I noticed the CBI forecast this morning and gave it all the attention that I give to all the other forecasts that I see.

Will my right hon. Friend take time today to study the recent proposals of the Highlands and Islands Development Board on land ownership in that part of the country, especially the taking of compulsory purchase powers for sporting estates? Will he remember that one of the most popular policies that could be put forward for that part of the country would be the nationalisation of all such estates?

I know that that has been a proposal that has found a great deal of favour with a great many people over many years, and it would repay much study. I shall ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland to consider it.

Although the Prime Minister says that he does not make forecasts, he does become involved in forecasts, especially on inflation. Now that he knows that he has a year-on-year average increase in wages of 14 per cent. and virtually flat output, what is his forecast for inflation for next year?

I did not say that I did not use forecasts. I said that I always add caution to what I am told in the forecasts that I see. I am glad to see that a considerable amount of scepticism is now appearing, even in the columns of the newspapers, about some of the forecasts, and perhaps about some of the forecasters, who might be redeployed for more profitable work at some time.

Does the Prime Minister recall that he was exact in the mathematics he used in his New Year's Day broadcast, when he said that if wage increases went up by 10 per cent. price increases would follow at 10 per cent., and that if wages went up by 30 per cent. price increases would follow at 30 per cent.? Does he accept that average wages have increased by 14 per cent.? What is his forecast for price increases?

There is a rough relationship between the two. [HON. MEMBERS: "0h."] That is why the Government were anxious to secure a 10 per cent increase this year to keep it within single figures. That it might turn out much higher than that clearly worsens inflation.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Leader of the Opposition's argument, which she attributed to him, about the direct relationship between wages and prices can never be solved because wages constitute only a part of costs and that, therefore, there can never be a 10-to-10 or 30-to-30 relationship between the two?

That is correct. I said something to that effect during my New Year's Day broadcast. When one is broadcasting, it is right to get across the simplicities. The simplicity is that there is a direct relationship between an increase in wages and an increase in the cost of living. The Opposition can disentangle the question of whether it is exactly the same arithmetically. The people understand the relationship. They understand well that when wages went up by 27 per cent. the retail price index went up by about the same amount. They now see that the retail price index is much lower because the increase in wages has come down. That is not the whole element. Sometimes I really believe that I shall get that into the Opposition's heads.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will list his official engagements for 4th July.

I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I have just given to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley).

Why have the Government again today funked facing up to the problem of pay differentials by deferring yet another legitimate public service award until after the general election? Does the Prime Minister realise that Britain's failure to achieve peak performance is attributable largely to ministerial cowardice in refusing to allow people to b. paid what their skills, responsibilities and contributions deserve?

The hon. Member is entitled to his opinion that it was an act of cowardice to endeavour to keep people within the 10 per cent. limit when we have influence over that. But it is not usually regarded in that way. It is generally accepted that the Government are right. The jeers from the Opposition Benches to my last answer showed that there is a great deal of anxiety when the Government cannot succeed in keeping people within the 10 per cent. limit. That is what we are proposing to do for the Boards of nationalised industries and elsewhere. The Opposition should make up their minds whether they support that policy. From there we have said that we shall stage the increases that have been proposed in the following two years. I believe that in a difficult situation this will probably meet with considerable support.

Will my right hon. Friend find time to explain to the people why we must spend three days of our time this week and public money considering Lords amendments to the Scotland Bill when the Lords speak for no one and represent no one and will be abolished next year anyway?

The only reply that I can give is that this is the way in which the constitution operates at present. I am bound to say that a number of the amendments that the Lords have proposed would not be accepted in Scotland or Wales and, I trust, will be removed by the House of Commons in due course.

asked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with coordination between the Departments of Industry and Employment in connection with procedures for issuing industrial development certificates.

Yes.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is part of the Opposition's mythology that IDCs are difficult to obtain, especially in the West Midlands? But, if I mention firms such as Laystall Engineering, Lucas Aerospace and Bilston Steel he will be aware that in Wolverhampton, as in other parts of the West Midlands, there is a considerable reservoir of skill and experience. Is there any possibility that the National Enterprise Board will set up new, modern industries in the West Midlands based on new techniques, such as micro-electronics?

During the past two years, few IDCs have been refused in the West Midlands. I believe that only one has been refused. That is because of the changing situation there. The National Enterprise Board is always ready to consider enterprises out of which productive improvement can take place, if the company is taken over and has a fresh injection of capital, or if there is a new feature, such as micro-processing, which can help the country.

Is the Prime Minister aware that an IDC was refused in Stafford and that this led to the loss of 300 jobs, not only in Stafford but in the country as a whole? Will he examine the question of IDCs to see whether they serve a useful purpose today? Will he either abolish them and stop all the nonsense about co-ordination or, at least, raise the level to 20,000 sq. ft., especially in the West Midlands?

I am not sure to which company the right hon. Member is referring. No doubt he will table a Question about it since he has not mentioned its name. I have asked myself why it is necessary to keep this control when so few IDCs are refused. There is a case for saying that the Department of Industry needs to keep surveillance on the situation so that genuinely mobile new enterprises can be directed to areas with heavy unemployment.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many areas of inner London, which also have difficulty in obtaining IDCs, are in as bad a position in terms of attracting industry as many of the development areas? Will my right hon. Friend examine this problem, not only from Birmingham's point of view but from the point of view of London, particularly dockland?

I understand the problem. As was made clear in the White Paper on the inner cities, London —where partnership agreements exist—ranks immediately after the assisted areas for the issue of these certificates.

asked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4th July.

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

I am sure that the significance of today's debate has not escaped the attention of the Prime Minister. Will he reflect on the number of former dependencies that have been granted independence by the House and take this opportunity of joining the Scottish National Party in condemning the antics of the official Opposition in their attempt to destroy the Scotland Bill and his own anti-devolutionist Back Benchers who are hiding behind the skirts of Members of the House of Lords?

I hope that when the Bill comes back we shall have the support of the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mrs. Bain) and her colleagues in getting it through. I understand that we shall. But if the hon. Member had had her way with the votes that she cast with the Opposition there would have been no chance of getting the Bill on to the statute book.

Which Lords amendments does the Prime Minister wish to be removed from the Scotland Bill?

That will be made clear in due course.

Does the Prime Minister think that it will be satisfactory to have on the statute book a Bill which provides that Scottish Members may vote about education, housing and health in England but that neither English nor Scottish Members may vote about such matters as they affect Scotland?

These issues have been debated many times in the House. The House has reached a conclusion.

Has my right hon. Friend had any news today or recently from the United Nations, in particular with reference to whether it is to accept any of the excellent suggestions that my right hon. Friend made in his fine speech to the Special Session on Disarmament on 2nd June?

I am much obliged to my hon. Friend for his comments. The British contribution throughout the whole of this session has been extremely valuable and a number of proposals have been taken up. In particular, for example, one has resulted in France returning to the general disarmament discussions in a way in which it has not for some time, and there are other issues on which believe we shall find considerable progress. Perhaps the most important is general acceptance of the proposition that no nuclear attack should take place in areas and countries which do not themselves possess nuclear weapons and which are not joined with others in an attack on countries which do.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Did you notice that today no fewer than 35 Members wanted to know what the Prime Minister was doing today? Do you not think that the time has come when this circus act should be changed and when the Prime Minister should not be asked to go through this ridiculous hoop? Should we not be able to ask the Prime Minister Questions directly without this preamble?

rose—

Is the hon. Gentleman rising on the same point of order?

No, Mr. Speaker.

Then may I deal with this point of order first?

I was simply drawing your attention to the fact, Mr. Speaker, that yesterday you said that normally you took points of order after statements.

Order. This point of order arises out of Questions.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I want to know whether you can protect the rights of Back Benchers. In response to my supplementary question on Question No. Ql, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, in a display of arrogance, refused to answer the question. He brushed it aside. It is understandable that apart from the most enthusiastic party points, the Prime Minister may not wish to deal with critical points from the Government side, especially if they relate to the problems of low-paid workers. May I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that there is no point in Back Benchers putting down Questions if the Prime Minister is to act in this arrogant and ill-considered manner? May I therefore ask what you can do to intervene? If the Prime Minister is to be so patronising, we object.

Will the hon. Member be kind enough to put a point of order with which I can deal? A protest is not a point of order, but if the hon. Member will make his point of order I shall try to deal with it.

I was hoping to make a protest and a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My point of order concerns how you can protect the rights of hon. Members when they put questions. The second part of my point of order is that there is a growing tendency among Ministers who group Questions and thereby evade and avoid them. Although you are not responsible for ministerial answers, Mr. Speaker, are you aware that this practice is interfering with the rights of Back Benchers to receive information from Ministers? I therefore seek your guidance.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker, I should like to take up precisely the same point. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that he felt that it was wrong to reply to a question about top salaries or low pay in terms of income policy in the course of a supplementary answer during Question Time. I do not disagree with that, but since the Government are issuing a reply to a Written Question and are not making a statement in the House on this matter, how, other than by questioning Ministers, are Back Benchers to get the opportunity to raise the matter? We try to question Ministers on the matter, but we are told that it is not possible for it to be dealt with in that way. This is a question for the House, not just for Ministers.

I must tell the hon Member, first, that I do not know whether the Government are answering Questions tabled for Written Answer. That is not within my knowledge. Secondly, the content of a Minister's reply is not my concern. Since I have been here, and I am sure long before that, there have been Members who have been dissatisfied with both the tone and content of replies that they have received

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the remarks by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heifer) I want you to consider a little further the problem of Back Benchers on matters of this kind when controversial issues are at stake but when there is no apparent variance between the views of the two Front Benches The Tory Opposition, it seems, agree with the general line taken by the Government in their statement last night, and they therefore do not attempt to ask suppementary questions on the matter. That means that Back Benchers—at least those who want to participate in the argument—are disfranchised in the sense that they are not permitted to raise the matter. That situation arises because the two Front Benches have agreed not to raise the matter, as witness the fact that the Leader of the Opposition did not choose to raise the matter. That has meant that we on the Back Benches have been denied the opportunity to deal with the issue.

I am deeply conscious that a major part of my responsibility is to guard the rights of Back Benchers, but the hon. Member is aware that hon. Members may table their Questions on the Order Paper. No one is stopping them from doing that.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

I shall take this point of order, but I hope that that will be an end to the business.

The Prime Minister told us that he was meeting Chancellor Kreisky, but none of us was able to catch your eye to pursue the matter through supplementary questions. Does that not indicate that a solution to the problem might be to have two sessions of 15 minutes? In the first the House could deal with anything that anyone wished to raise. In the second we could ask questions relating to the Prime Minister's business.

I am sure that if there was an allocation of an hour that would not be long enough in which to call everyone who wanted to be called. One of my weaknesses is that I cannot read the thoughts of hon. Members who want to ask supplementary questions.