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

Yes, Sir, I am satisfied with the operation of the industrial tribunals. Last week, my right hon. Friend laid some amendments to their procedure regulations which I hope will enable them to operate better still.

If the Minister is satisfied, is he aware that he is the only person who is? Most people think this is biased as a system of justice. Having admitted in "Into the Eighties" that some legal points need amending in the Employment Protection Act, will he now consider transferring administration under that Act to the courts, where we can at least be assured of impartiality?

I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman continues to display his utter ignorance and insensitivity about these matters. First, the question is not about the Employment Protection Act but about the industrial tribunals. The industrial tribunals have been established since the Industrial Training Act 1964 and have a wide range of functions under different statutes.

Does not the Minister agree that we on the Labour Benches deprecate the attempts being made by the Opposition to destroy not only the industrial tribunals but organisations such as ACAS? Although criticisms may be made about the operation of the tribunals and ACAS, it would be more in the interests of the House and of working people and employers if these improvements were looked at constructively rather than destructively.

My hon. Friend is quite right. I hope he has noticed that there seems to be a sustained and orchestrated campaign to denounce not only the industrial tribunals and ACAS but the whole range of employment protection legislation which was constructed in recent years and which has resulted in an enormous improvement in industrial relations.

The Minister referred just now to making the operation of tribunals even better. In that regard, will he, when making appointments to fill casual vacancies through retirement and the like, consider especially appointing those with a background in smaller businesses?

The hon. Gentleman will know that appointments are made through nominations from a wide range of bodies, and I hope that those bodies will take account of the point he has made. It is important that on the panels we have people with the experience to which he referred.

Does my hon. Friend accept that redress for unfair dismissal is a fundamental and basic right that must be preserved? Does he accept also that the industrial tribunals unfortunately have become somewhat legalistic, basically because employers are using lawyers increasingly to promote their cause? Does he accept, finally, that there may be adequate cause for awarding costs out of public funds in certain cases that are brought frivolously?

I agree with the point made by my hon. Friend about the importance of the unfair dismissals provisions, which, incidentally, were introduced by the Conservative Party in the Industrial Relations Act, one part of which we preserved.

Is the Minister aware that we welcome the changes which have been made in industrial tribunal procedures which somewhat belatedly meet some of the criticisms that were made during the debate last November? Does the Minister also appreciate that further major changes are needed both in the composition of tribunals and the way in which they operate in order to ensure fairness for all concerned, both employees and employers?

The hon. Gentleman reminds us that we had a full debate in November last year. In June this year we had a debate on the Adjournment when my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) raised some of the points about which anxiety has been expressed.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment—probably next week or the week after.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many times since March 1974 monthly unemployment figures have shown an increase and how many times a decrease.

For Great Britain, based on seasonally adjusted figures which exclude school leavers, there were 34 increases and 14 decreases.

Is not the hon. Gentleman ashamed of that disgraceful performance? Can he estimate what will happen to unemployment figures over the next two or three years?

As to the reasons for the unemployment, I am certainly not ashamed—concerned, yes, but not ashamed. We are not prepared to make an estimate. The figures will depend upon the co-operation we receive from the country in our anti-inflation policies.

Does my hon. Friend accept that in the past four years the work force has grown by over 750,000? That being the case, and as it was known during the period of the last Government, what plans, if any, did he find in his Department for dealing with it? If there were no plans, does it not show that the Saatchi and Saatchi cover-up is the grossest of hypocrisy?

The answer must be that no plans were prepared for the very large increase in the work force. It is significant that even last month the rise in unemployment was the result of female unemployment increasing by a far greater amount than the drop in male unemployment.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment when the figure for the total number of unemployed was last over 1½ million.

The figure for the total number of unemployed was last over 1½ million at September 1977.

Does the Secretary of State believe that it is just an extraordinary coincidence that every Labour Government since the 1920s have experienced a substantial growth in unemployment during their tenure of office? Given that these periods of Labour Government have not always coincided with world recessions, is it not about time that the Government began to consider whether it might be the policies of Labour Governments that create this phenomenon?

I do not think it was any more a coincidence than that it was a coincidence that unemployment rose very rapidly under the last Conservative Government.

Does not the Secretary of State agree that the use of bogus unemployed people in advertising material by PR men plugging the Tory Party does nothing to lessen the cynicism among real unemployed people about the lack of determination by some politicians to combat unemployment?

Yes, I certainly agree with my lion. Friend. It is possibly to be regretted that the advertising agency involved used its existing employees and did not take on additional employees, which might have had a slight element of merit.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that one of the greatest growth areas in unemployment is among females and that that is caused mainly by the effect of the sex discrimination legislation?

It is certainly true that the change in the unemployment figures over the past month was due to a rise in the number of unemployed females. In fact, there was a drop in the male unemployment figures. I do not agree that the sex discrimination legislation is the reason. It may owe something more to the new method of national insurance collection which, very properly, encourages women to register as unemployed when they are seeking work.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, while the Opposition display hypocrisy and cant on this issue, the Labour Government have the responsibility of dealing with the urgent problem of unemployment? Does he also agree that we cannot wait for long-term solutions, and that immediate short-term solutions are necessary, particularly in those regions where unemployment is high at the moment?

Yes, I accept that. There is no justification for reliance wholly on short-term or on longer-term solutions. We must have a proper combination of both, and proper regard must be paid to those areas which are suffering the most severe effects of unemployment.

But is the right hon. Gentleman aware that over a period of about four and a half years he has been appearing at that Dispatch Box and producing every month the same sort of shuffling off of responsibilities that he has shown again this afternoon? Is that the best that he and his hon. Friends can do—to criticise a rather good advertisement put out by the Conservative Party, which ought to shame the Labour Party for its miserable economic performance over the past four and a half years? Surely he can do better than that.

Our concern about the social, individual and economic effects of unemployment is such that nothing that the Conservative Party is likely to produce in the way of advertisements will in any way affect our determination to deal with the problem in a thorough-going way.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the current level of unemployment; and by what percentage it exceeds the figure for February 1974.

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

At 6th July, 1,512,487 people were registered as unemployed in Great Britain.

Does not the Secretary of State agree that there is one simple fact apparent to the British people? Is it not true that, despite all the bogus compassion of this Government, unemployment is now 1383 per cent. higher than when the Conservative Government left office?

I do not know whether that simple fact it apparent to the British people. If it is, I hope that another simple fact will be made equally apparent by those who want to publicise that figure, and that is that there are more than 500,000 more people in employment now—men and women employed part-time and full-time—than there were in 1971 and 1972 when the Conservative Government were in office.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that no one on this side of the House yields to any Member on the other side in his concern to reduce the current unemployment level, and that the vast majority of people in the land do not believe that a Tory Government would do better than the present Government in their endeavours?

I certainly agree with my hon. Friend, and if people had any doubts about that they would only need to reflect on some of the courses advocated by leading members of the Opposition over the past four years.

Why is not the right hon. Gentleman reacting to these disgraceful figures in the same manner as he reacted when employment reached about two-thirds of its present level for a very brief period when the previous Conservative Government were in power?

Possibly one of the reasons that the hon. Gentleman might care to consider is that part of my reaction was reflected in the announcement that the area boards have approved 200,000 places to come into effect under the youth opportunities programme. In other words, we are doing something about unemployment that was not done by a Conservative Government in 1971 to 1974 facing a rapidly rising rate of unemployment.

Has my right hon. Friend any assessment of what the level of unemployment would have been had the Government accepted the pressures from the Opposition with regard to, for example, British Leyland and Chrysler? What would have been the effects on the economy if the NEB had not intervened in those two cases'?

There is little doubt that in those two areas alone more than 100,000 jobs could have been lost, but, as to the total effect of our measures, one would have to take into account the fact that today in this country 300,000 people are being assisted by Department of Employment measures.

Is the Secretary of State aware that there would be 170,000 more people working under Labour but for the defence cuts, and that another 143,000 people are projected to be unemployed in the next year in the defence sphere? How on earth does that square with the Secretary of State's assertion that the Government are doing everything to increase employment?

If we are talking of squaring assertions, I should like to hear someone on the Conservative side of the House square the assertion that public expenditure cuts in defence create unemployment while public expenditure cuts in the social services help to sustain employment.

Does my right hon. Friend realise that the announcement by the Manpower Services Commission that 200,000 jobs will be provided for young people under the youth opportunities programme is to be welcomed, but will he ensure that there is full co-operation from the trade union movement and also from employers working through the CBI?

The 200,000 figure to which I referred means 200,000 places, and therefore I hope to see in the course of the full development of the programme some further provision for these young people. But I agree with my hon. Friend that it is of the greatest importance that we have the co-operation of employers and trade unions in maximising the benefit to be derived from the programme. That is why I welcome the commitment of CBI and TUC commissioners within the Manpower Services Commission to making this programme the most effective that has ever been introduced for unemployed youngsters in this country.

rose—

Mr. James Prior.

I never miss an opportunity of bashing this Government when I get the chance to do so. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that what sticks in the gullet of the British people is the hypocrisy of the Labour Party which takes one view in Government and a totally different view in Opposition? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us how many of the 100,000 opportunities now available through the youth opportunities scheme—which we welcome—are likely to be taken up within the next month or so and, therefore, what fall he expects in the number of young unemployed between, say, now and the middle of October?

I expect very few of them to be taken up in the next month, because the programme will not start over the country as a whole until 1st September. There are some areas where we have made exceptions to this general rule because of special problems. I expect that beyond 1st September there will be a fairly even take-up, month by month, leading through to next Easter, by which time I hope the programme will have covered more than 200,000 youngsters. Our plan is to get an even entry into the places, so that the places are fully manned throughout the 12-month period.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment by what percentages he estimates a shorter working week in manufacturing industry would increase employment and also costs per unit of output.

Calculations of the effect on employment and costs per unit of output of any reduction in the working week are sensitive to variations in assumptions about overtime, productivity, competitiveness and other factors. However. I would refer the hon. Member to the article on work-sharing which appeared in the April edition of the Department of Employment Gazette and which illustrates the range of effects which might result from work-sharing.

I thank the Secretary of State for his reply, but does he agree that it is very important to increase this country's utilisation of installed capacity and the efficiency of production? Can he point to a single measure taken by his Department that is aimed in that direction?

Certainly. A whole series of measures were introduced by my Department to do that. The special temporary employment programme and the temporary employment subsidy have enabled a number of firms to use and adapt capacity for better utilisation. On the specific question of work-sharing, I entirely agree that if work-sharing arrangements can lead to a better utilisation of capacity they are to be encouraged. Double-shift working in place of single-shift working would be a classic example of something that both shared work and led to a greater utilisation of capacity. But I believe that it is better to negotiate changes of that kind plant by plant than to lay them down as a matter of national policy.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, despite the grand melodrama of the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior), every endeavour of the Labour Government to create more employment has been opposed by the Tory Party? Does he agree that if the Tory Party had been in power and had had its way on more and more massive public expenditure cuts, unemployment in this country would have been massively higher?

Had we followed the advice of many spokesmen in the Tory Party, we should have seen a massive under-utilisation of capacity to the extent that a number of firms which are now open and working would have had to close down.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the progress in formulating the press charter.

I have nothing to add at this stage to what I told the House on 4th July.

Does the Minister accept that it is a matter of very grave regret and concern to a wide range of people that there is no positive expression of opinion from the Government on the particularly urgent matter of the need to protect the right to supply information by journalists and editors on matters such as trade union affairs, immigration practice and policies and, indeed, on the affairs of Southern Africa? All these matters are in urgent need of clarification to ensure that journalists can put forward a clear point of view without sanctions being applied against them.

I am not sure whether I or the House will have followed that supplementary question. If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that the press and the newspapers should be free from improper pressures to distort news, I wholly agree with him. That is one of the obligations which will be laid by the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Amendment) Act 1976 on my right hon. Friend when he prepares and lays the charter before the House.

Does not the Minister agree that the real threat to press freedom comes from the fact that more and more newspapers are owned by a small group of powerful individuals and that it is really a nonsense to link press freedom with the legitimate rights of a trade union to sign a union membership agreement?

It would be unwise for me to try to anticipate the contents of the proposed charter that my right hon. Friend will lay before the House, but I think that it is important to safeguard the freedom of the press from improper pressure from any quarter whatsoever.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment when he last met the TUC.

On 18th July.

When my right hon. Friend next meets the TUC, will he press the importance of getting its affiliated organisations to make sure that the maximum number of workers' safety representatives are appointed and in situ by 1st October this year so that we shall see the greatest advance in industrial safety under this Labour Government since the first Factories Acts? No amount of lying and cheating by the Tory Party and its outside representatives will then alter that, and the point should be put across to the British people and to the millions of workers in industry and in the offices and shops who will benefit from this legislation.

I had hoped that most employers in this country would have been able to arrange that safety representatives were appointed in advance of the statutory obligation to do so, to which my hon. Friend referred. But, as they have not, I shall gladly act upon his suggestion and raise the matter with the TUC and the CBI when I see them.

In view of the earlier reply that unemployment will he drastically affected by the Government's anti-inflation policy, could the Secretary of State tell the House what the TUC's response has been to the 5 per cent. pay limit?

The TUC has been considering its response to the 5 per cent. pay limit in the light of considerations put forward by a whole number of sectional interests very properly represented there. We shall see how the TUC deals with this when claims come to be presented during the next round.

When the Secretary of State next meets the TUC, will he undertake to discuss the amendments the TUC and perhaps he himself might think are now necessary to the Employment Protection Act, so that the practice of blacklisting is outlawed and men such as Victor Matthews, the owner and boss man of the Daily Express, who is so vociferous about the rights of individuals and who also participates in this as a member of the governing council of the Economic League, will not be allowed to carry on doing that?

The problem of blacklisting by employers has been with us for a very long time. So far no Government have devised an effective way within employment legislation to deal with this entirely. I think that we should continue to search for a solution and that those who organise workers should also seek to use their industrial strength where necessary to ensure that people are not blacklisted up and down this country because they pursue proper trade union rights.

Will the Secretary of State condemn the blacking and blockading activities of the union SLADE which is putting people out of work? Is he aware that many of those affected are independent photographers, designers, and so on, who are being put out of work by one of the affiliated TUC unions et a time of high unemployment? Cannot he use his influence with the general council of the TUC to get the activities of SLADE modified in a major way?

When this matter was debated in the House my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Employment made perfectly clear his view—and mine—on the activities of SLADE.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he is satisfied with the trend in unemployment so far in the current year.

The level of unemployment is still much too high and I would, therefore, prefer to see a stronger downward trend.

Will the Minister promise not to answer with the usual waffle that we get from his Department? To show how badly we are doing, will he give the present specific figure for unemployment in France and Germany, together with the figure for this country?

The resources of my Department are not available to give precise figures of unemployment today in France and other countries.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, in spite of the apoplectic approach of the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) on the matter of unemployment, if the policies of the Opposition were carried into erect—policies of cutting public expenditure and disbanding aid to industry—the unemployment figure would go up to 2½ million or 3 million?

I would not want to quantify the amount. I can confirm that, if the policies advocated from the Opposition Front Bench were implemented, unemployment would be substantially higher today than it is.

Does not the Minister appreciate that in answering a Question from me yesterday he gave the comparative figures for unemployment? Is he aware that those figures show that unemployment is running at a higher level in this country than in the United States, Japan, France or Western Germany?

And international comparisons do not solve our problems. Later we shall be showing that there are more countries which have higher unemployment rates than we have. Certainly, if we are talking in terms of increases in levels of the unemployment rate, those have been substantially higher in France than in this country in recent years.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he intends to strengthen the employment retraining schemes.

The Government have promised financial support to the Manpower Services Commission for the implementation of the proposals contained in the commission's report "Training for Skills—A programme for Action", which aims to improve the amount and quality of training in key skills. The commission is also undertaking a major review of the training opportunities scheme and is considering the future scale and balance of the scheme in relation to industrial training generally.

What can be the real success of employment retraining schemes, however good the idea behind them, until there is labour mobility? How can there be labour mobility until accommodation is easily available throughout the country? Does not the Minister agree that that is where the real failure of the Labour Government lies—that, at a time of rapidly rising unemployment, people have stayed in areas where there are no jobs because they are fearful of not getting housing in areas where there are jobs?

That is a very valid point, but it is not a problem that this Government alone have encountered. This has been a problem over many years. Most hon. Members have encountered it in their constituencies, and there is no easy solution to it.

With regard to the MSC's statement this morning, is the Minister aware that it is stated therein that fewer than half of the work experience places available will be in employers' premises by March 1979? Does not he regard that as a retrograde step, since most youngsters prefer to get their training at a place of work rather than in establishments outside? Further, will he explain why there are only these limited areas of exemption where the schemes can start earlier than September, because there are many places with more than 10 per cent. unemployment, including 14 work areas in Wales?

It will be wider. On the basic point raised by the hon. Gentleman, we shall have to wait and see how it works out in practice. I do not see a difficulty on the basis of the figures cited by the hon. Gentleman. Indeed, many of the people who do not receive their work experience at their place of employment to begin with will clearly go on to that situation.

Will my hon. Friend take into account the fact that more and more retraining, if jobs are not available, is not too helpful? Will he therefore consider a mobility allowance to encourage people to move from districts where there is unemployment to districts where there is work? Will my hon. Friend also take into account our young people, who have difficulty in finding jobs, who are untrained, and who probably will have to change jobs three or four times in the next 30 years without having the necessary training?

There is a mobility problem. There is, of course, the employment transfer scheme which helps considerably in that way.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many vacancies exist for instructors in skillcentres in the Yorkshire and Humberside region; and how this figure compares with other regions in England.

I am informed by the Manpower Services Commission that there are currently 21 immediate vacancies for skillcentre instructors in the Yorkshire and Humberside region. There are 120 immediate vacancies in the remaining six regions of England.

I am obliged to my hon. Friend for that information. Is he aware that there is a serious under-use of skill-centres, and that part of that derives from the lack of success in recruiting instructors? What is my hon. Friend doing to look at the pay scales and conditions of service for instructors to put this right?

My hon. Friend raised this at Question Time last month, since when I have looked carefully at the pay scales and to what extent they may be a deterrent in recruitment. I do not think that they are. I think the pay scales compare fairly with comparable occupations in industry and with comparable occupations in colleges of further education.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what recent discussions he has had with the International Labour Oragnisation about the recognition by that body of the Association of Free Trade Union Workers in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics since his reply to the hon. Member for Blackpool, South on 6th June.

The ILO has confirmed that its constitution does not provide for formal recognition of any trade union or organisation of workers or employers. It has, however, machinery for investigating allegations of infringement of the basic right to establish and join such organisations and, as I informed the House on 6th June, the case is now under investigation, but we cannot expect any report before the next meeting of the ILO governing body in November.

Are not the rights which this association is claiming guaranteed to its members by an international convention which has been ratified by the Soviet Union? In view of the increasing concern felt in this country about breaches of human rights by the Soviet Union, will the Government represent to the United Kingdom members of the governing body of the ILO that any unnecessary delay in following up this important matter would be very regrettable?

We should not want to see any unnecessary delay. The United Kingdom Government's views on this are very clear, as they are generally on human rights. But it would be equally wrong for us to try to breach the due process of the ILO. It is a matter on which we have stood firm in the past and on which we want to continue to stand firm. All I can suggest to the hon. Gentleman is that he tables another Question which I can answer in November.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment he has made of the effects of recent employment protection legislation on recruitment by small firms.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment he has made of the effects of recent employment protection legislation on recruitment by small firms.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the effect of the Employment Protection Act on the level of employment, and particularly as it affects, or does not affect, small firms.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment he has made of the effects of recent employment protection legislation on recruitment by small firms.

The recent report by the Policy Studies Institute "The impact of Employment Protection Laws" indicated that, in general, employment protection legislation is not having a significant effect on recruitment. That report coveted establishments with between 50 and 5,000 employees in manufacturing industry. The effect of the legislation on smaller independent firms in the sample was not significantly different from that on larger firms. Research has also been commissioned to examine in particular the effects of employment legislation on firms with fewer than 50 employees.

rose—

Order. I shall call first those whose Questions are being answered.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the information which he has now given answers completely the misleading propaganda put out by the Tory Party and that this Government have in fact done a tremendous amount to help small firms? Will he refer to the fact that there has been a small firms employment subsidy which has helped small firms to retain existing labour and has not hampered them as the Tory Party has suggested?

The small firms employment subsidy is to direct aid to small firms which take on additional labour. The size of the qualifying firm has been increased to 200, applying right across development areas and the special partnership areas. As to the effect of the legislation, those who would try to erect a myth to suggest that this legislation deters employers from taking on additional employees are doing a grave disservice to the efforts that are being made by people to solve problems of unemployment.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that pseudo political organisations such as NAFF and crypto trade unions such as the National Federation for the Self-Employed have tried to do a great deal of damage to legitimate employment protection legislation through their activities in the small business sector? What plans does my right hon. Friend have to ensure that trade unionists are informed of this through trade union branches and trades councils?

I hope that trade union branches and trades councils will he among the first to examine the report I have published of the survey made of these firms. When it is available, the special inquiry that is being conducted by Opinion Research Centre as a first step will be followed by a study in depth of individual cases of effect in small firms. I hope that until that is studied people will refrain from taking actions which clearly will militate against the best interests of people now seeking employment.

In the light of the answer that the Secretary of State has now given the House, does he not agree that it would be greatly to the advantage of the Labour Party if the Conservative Party persisted in its opposition to the provisions of the Employment Protection Act, in that it would confirm, yet again, the general impression in the country that the Tories are opposed to all progressive protective legislation for working people?

I trust that my hon. Friend will agree that it is significant that, although members of the Opposition decry the effects of the Employment Protection Act in general, they have yet to put proposals in particular as to what parts of the Act they would repeal if they ever got the opportunity to do so.

rose—

Order. I propose to exercise my discretion. I intend to call the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Madden) and two Opposition Members before we go on to Prime Minister's Questions.

Does not the Secretary of State agree that certain Tory politicians and Tory front organisations have caused needless anxiety and confusion among small businesses, particularly about employment legislation? Will he ensure that the facts are sent to Saatchi and Saatchi so that there can be no excuses should that firm get its future advertisements wrong?

I can give the assurance that the facts will be sent to Saatchi and Saatchi, but I cannot assure the House, in so far as that firm acts as agent for the Conservative Party, that those facts would ever be reflected in its advertising.

Will the Secretary of State get some personal experience before the next General Election and find time to visit, with me, small firms in my constituency to hear directly front them the extent to which recent employment protection legislation is stopping them from taking on more workers?

I am concerned about employment prospects in small firms in whatever constituency they happen to be situated. It is those in development areas and inner city partnership areas that have been particularly aided by measures put forward by my Department. I hope that they would be among the first to acknowledge that in doing what we have done to assist them we have not only brought about an improvement in the employment situation in their areas but have helped a number of small businesses to grow in circumstances in which they could not otherwise have done so.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if his party had paid more attention to the creation of real jobs in society over the past four years the Government would not be so worried now about the excellent advertisements by Saatchi and Saatchi which seems to sting them into rather guilty laughter?

At least those jobs in the small firms which have been aided by the small firms employment subsidies are what I would regard as real jobs. I doubt whether some of the jobs of those photographed in the Saatchi and Saatchi advertisements are any more real.

rose—

Order. I propose to continue Prime Minister's Questions until 3.32 p.m.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will list his public appointments for 1st August.

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

During his busy day will the Prime Minister try to explain to the British people why food prices have doubled in the past four years under a Socialist Government?

Answer!

The answer has been given so often that I could not believe that the hon. Gentleman had brought his supplementary question to an end. As he knows, during the past 12 months food prices have increased by only 6·7 per cent., if my recollection is correct. That means that we have overtaken the irresponsibility of the Conservative Government, who left us with a legacy of an increased money supply that was totally intolerable.

Could my right hon. Friend, during a very busy day, have talks with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry to see whether something can be done to overcome the problems of the collaborative programme with the Americans concerning future projects in the aircraft industry? This matter is most pressing, as the Prime Minister knows.

Yes, Sir. Discussions with United States firms and with European Governments and firms are actively taking place now. Indeed, the most recent discussions with the European industry have been g encouragin and I hope that decisions will be reached before long.

Does the Prime Minister agree with the Labour Party that it should be made harder for council tenants to buy their own homes?

It depends on the circumstances. Where there are enough council houses, it is the party's policy and the Government's policy that they should be sold, and, where there are not enough council houses, that they should be retained. It is a perfectly sensible approach.

The question refers to discounts. Does the Prime Minister agree that council tenants will still be able to purchase their homes at a discount?

That depends on the circumstances again. There are no general rules about these matters. It depends upon the financial circumstances of the council and of the occupier.

So the Prime Minister is prepared to deprive tenants of the discount they already have.

Answer.

asked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 1st August.

I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I have just given to the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart).

Will my right hon. Friend give some thought today to the economy and jobs? Does he not agree that Summit meetings relate to long-term problems, but that there is a need for immediate action? Will he consider what steps can be taken by a State enterprise to develop at an accelerated rate gas on the north-west coast that would revive the economy in that area and provide jobs in the construction and shipbuilding industries?

As my hon. Friend knows, considerable assistance has been given to the Merseyside area—indeed, a total of more than £300 million—which has safeguarded about 24,000 jobs. The progress report issued today by the Manpower Services Commission also shows some special facilities available, I believe, for Merseyside and Ellesmere Port.

May I ask a question about today's engagements? If the Prime Minister is having a meeting with the Secretary of State for Industry, as was suggested a few moments ago, will he discuss with him the continued dispute in the Post Office? Is he aware that, with the House going into recess, this matter affects constituents of every Member of the House? Indeed, a few weeks ago the right hon. Gentleman said that he would have a word with the Secretary of State about it. I wonder whether those talks produced any result.

The Secretary of State for Industry is paying very close attention to this matter and is handling it as best he can.

During his busy day today, will the Prime Minister look at a situation which is becoming increasingly bad, a propos what the Leader of the Opposition just asked him—namely, that hundreds and hundreds of those living in inner London who would normally have had the right to transfer to outer London boroughs are now being denied that right because the present Tory GLC policy is to sell? If this is to become a General Election challenge, many of us on this side of the House will willingly accept it.

I am glad that my right hon. Friend has drawn attention to the important qualification that I made —namely, that it is foolish policy, and the Conservative Party should not adopt it, that council houses should in all circumstances be sold irrespective of the needs of the people.

Doubtless the Prime Minister will have in mind today the forthcoming General Election and, in particular, his party's manifesto. Can he give an assurance to the House and the country now that his manifesto will not be based on the Marxist-inspired "Labour's Programme for Britain 1976", which he himself described as the total sum of all his hopes?

The hon. Gentleman asks whether I shall be considering a General Election today. The answer to that supplementary question is "No, I shall not." I am aware that the Conservative Party has made certain assumptions about an election. It is upon those assumptions that it is launching this huge advertising programme costing £2 million —unprecedented in British history—with which to beguile the public. I hope that, whatever may appear in anybody's manifesto, those firms, breweries and others, which are contributing freely by giving up poster sites will declare themselves, so that we shall know what benefits they hope to get from a Conservative Government.

Has my right hon. friend had time to consider the reactions in this House, in another place and in the press to the Government's White Paper on the Official Secrets Act? Is he aware that the general view is that the proposals for section 2 will make criminal prosecutions for releasing information more likely, while doing nothing to make available to the public the information to which they have a right? Will he withdraw the White Paper and introduce proposals for a freedom of information Act?

It is quite true that the reform of section 2 has no bearing upon the release of information. The two things are quite separate. That has always been so; I do not think that my right hon. Friend can just have discovered it. I originally gave evidence to the Franks Committeee in which I said that I thought there was no need to reform section 2, because its operation was clearly understood. However, the Franks Committee recommended it and the Government accepted that recommendation. If the House does not wish to reform section 2, the House must, in due course, say so. My views about this have been very ambivalent, since the section has operated with considerable satisfaction for so long, but the Government have reached their conclusion on it and will submit it to the House.

asked the Prime Minister if he will pay an official visit to Dundee.

I have at present no plans to visit Dundee.

In view of the widespread and mounting concern many people feel about the infiltration of the Labour Party by extreme Left-wingers, Marxists, Communists and Trotskyists, is the Prime Minister aware that many people will be disappointed that he chose to leave the meeting of the NEC last week before being able to support his hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) and Leicester, East (Mr. Bradley) in opposing the candidature of Mr. Jimmy Reid, who is to be the candidate of the Prime Minister's party for Dundee, East at the next Election? What are the Prime Minister's views on this, specifically and in general?

As you know, Mr. Speaker, there is no ministerial responsibility for the selection of candidates. The type of McCarthyite sneer with which the hon. Gentleman always distinguishes himself may well rebound on his own head, because it may lead others to ask whether there are any former Communists employed in the Centre for Policy Studies of the Conservative Party.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that what is important, as the people from Dundee and every other constituency in this United Kingdom appreciate, is that the policy of this Government at home in the fight against inflation is to seek sensible co-operation from all sides of industry, and that overseas they seek sensible co-operation amongst all the industrial nations—

Order. I cannot hear the hon. Gentleman—[Hon MEMBERS: "You are not missing much."!] I do not know if I cannot hear the hon. Gentleman.

In this endeavour, in seeking international co-operation in the fight against inflation, my right hon. Friend has played a pre-eminent part, and the only recalcitrants seem to be the Japanese Government, some Common Market commissioners and the right hon. Lady.

My hon. Friend is correct, because if Conservative Party policies were adopted in Dundee there would be about 1,900 extra people out of work who are now in jobs. These are the people for whom special measures have been adopted under the various employment proposals. Indeed, if the Conservatives had the opportunity today in the country as a whole and all grants and subsidies which are said to be harmful were abandoned there would be 425,000 more people out of work.

Is the Prime Minister aware that he has just produced a totally unjustified smear and that all the laughter of Labour Members will not sound very good to the 1½ million unemployed that there are now in this country?

If it is a smear, I shall of course be willing to withdraw it, but what I never have had denied is the statement made in a speech by the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), which I have repeated time after time, that all subsidies and grants are harmful. That was his statement, and the conclusion is that subsidies and grants should be abandoned. That would lead to the unemployment of at least half a million more people.

As the nomination of Jimmy Reid is virtually irrelevant to the future representation of Dundee, East in this House, can the Prime Minister, if he manages a visit to Dundee, concentrate on more serious matters? Will he first explain to the unemployed in Dundee why this Government have consistently set their face against an oil fund, the revenues from which could alleviate unemployment? Secondly, does he not agree that Dundee would be an ideal place to name the date of the referendum, or at the very least to name the date on which he will name the date?

In fact, in Dundee under various Acts a total of about 7,000 jobs have been safeguarded during the lifetime of this Government. I believe that that is fully appreciated by the people of Dundee.