asked the Secretary of State for Employment what are the latest figures for unemployment in Great Britain, and the North-West.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he expects unemployment to increase or decrease in the North-West.

At 14 June, the numbers of people registered as unemployed in Great Britain and the North-West region were 1,281,102 and 200,701 respectively.

Is the Minister aware that the cuts in local authority spending which have been announced will certainly lead to the loss of 10,000 jobs in the North-West? Is he aware that any cuts in regional aid will place many thousands more jobs at risk? What estimate does he have of future unemployment in the North-West in the next year? What hope does he hold out to the 1,700 school leavers in my constituency and the 91,000 in the North-West as a whole who will be looking for jobs during the next month?

The youth opportunities programme is being expanded. The policies of the previous Government increased unemployment in the hon. Member's constituency by 246 per cent. Clearly, the policies of this Government are changing the whole atmosphere. We want to create real jobs based on services which people want.

Is the Minister aware that deindustrialisation has taken place at a faster rate in the North-West than in any other region of the country? Does he realise that his Government's policies are only adding to that process, with a consequential leap in unemployment which will take place in the North-West in the next 12 months?

As the hon. Member knows, I spent three days on Merseyside last week, during which time I visited his constituency. I was pleased to see that in his constituency, particularly, there were signs of useful industrial regeneration, some of which was being carried out without the aid of Government grants.

May we have a breakdown of the unemployment figures in North-East Lancashire, from Blackburn to Barnoldswick?

I shall arrange for those figures to be given to the hon. Member if they are available.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is his forecast of the number of young people who will be unemployed in the North-West, on Merseyside, in Kirkby and in Ormskirk at the end of 1979.

My right hon. Friend has no such forecast, nor is it the Government's practice to issue this kind of forecast.

Is the Minister really saying that he has not had any discussions with the Secretary of State for Industry about the likely increase in unemployment in Ormskirk, which will result from the measures being announced today? Is that not a disgraceful admission which shows a cavalier and callous disregard for the future of young people in my constituency? Is it not also a sign of the Minister's own incompetence?

It would help the hon. Member's constituency if, instead of making rather wild statements in the House, he actually obtained the co-operation of trade unionists in Kirkby to allow the local authority there to take its full part in the youth opportunities programme. It is not able to do so at present, and it cannot spend its budget.

Does my hon. Friend recognise the the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) does not represent the North-West as much as he believes? Many hon. Members who represent North-West constituencies recall that under the Labour Government unemployment rose and every constituency in the area was affected.

I thank my hon. Friend for those remarks. Under the previous Administration unemployment in the North-West rose by 40,000. The Government are taking the problem seriously. My right hon. Friend and I visited the area for three days, which was the longest ministerial visit that has been made under any Administration.

Does the Minister recognise that the slashing of regional grants will add substantially to youth unemployment, not only in the North-West but elsewhere? The withdrawal of the special temporary employment programme for many towns will bring great hardship to the many young people who are unemployed in those towns.

I do not wish to anticipate my right hon. Friend's statement, but the hon. Gentleman may find that some of the measures that he will refer to will help those areas of high unemployment.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many job vacancies for skilled men are currently notified to the Ponders End jobcentre.

The precise information is not available, but on 8 June there were 238 notified vacancies in the craft and similar occupations group remaining unfilled at the Enfield employment office, which serves the Ponders End area. That group does not necessarily include all skilled occupations.

Is my hon. Friend aware that as a direct result of the previous Government's policies, which caused high taxation and a narrowing of wage differentials, there is a severe shortage of skilled workers in my constituency? Is he further aware that there is a great deal of support among skilled workers for the Government's trade union reforms?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. It is true, and the fact has been supported by many speeches from Labour Members, that the previous Administration's tax policies forced many skilled workers to take unskilled work because those jobs provided better rewards.

Is the Minister aware that the shortage of skilled workers has been an endemic problem for the past 10 or 15 years? In the light of that, is it not stupid to cut back on the work of the Manpower Services Commission and to hamper its sensible reorganisation, which involves moving the headquarters to Sheffield?

There has been a serious shortage of skilled workers for longer than the past 15 years and a great deal is being done to try to correct that mismatch. Part of that work is looking at and renewing our training methods which, clearly, are not satisfying the demand.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what further discussions he has had with Lord Thomson of Fleet about the future of Times Newspapers Ltd.

I have had no discussions with Lord Thomson, but I am willing to meet all interested parties at any time.

Will the right hon. Gentleman re-read the pledges given 13 years ago by Lord Thomson's father to the Monopolies Commission about putting the Thomson wealth behind The Times in the future? Now that there are rumours that Times Newspapers Limited may be sold to Rupert Murdoch or to somebody else, what action will the Minister take, using his statutory powers, if such a proposal is made?

That is a hypothetical question. I believe that it would be better to allow negotiations to proceed, in the hope that they will come to a satisfactory conclusion.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he is satisfied with the work of the jobcentres; and if he will make a statement.

Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend is generally satisfied with the performance of jobcentres and he supports the plans of the Manpower Services Commission to modernise the employmnt service.

I am grateful for that reply, but there have been rumours about the possible curtailment of jobcentres. Will the Minister take it from me that jobcentres perform useful functions by looking after the interests of small employers who do not have the resources of large employers to carry out that important work? Will he make sure that the Government stand firm on retaining the jobcentres?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman's remarks. I have visited many jobcentres during the last few weeks. They do an excellent job and they work with good motivation.

On the question of placing disabled people in work as a result of the research done by jobcentres, will my right hon. Friend say what has been done to assist with fares for disabled people travelling from rural areas to their jobs?

I cannot answer that question directly, but I shall look into it and let my hon. Friend have a reply.

I agree with my hon. Friend that jobcentres do useful jobs. Nevertheless, does he agree that in small rural areas and market towns to have a jobcentre and an employment centre within 200 or 300 yards of each other is a waste of manpower, resources, buildings and equipment?

That would seem to be the case. If my hon. Friend will give me the details I shall look into the matter.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment when he plans next to meet members of the Trades Union Congress to discuss unemployment problems.

I keep in regular contact with members of the TUC and we discuss a wide range of issues, including unemployment.

Instead of attempting to restrict the hard-won rights of the trade unions, would it not be better to restrict the efforts of the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) whose demented policies, such as withdrawing financial aid to the hard-pressed steel industry, together with major cuts in assistance to development areas, are likely to exacerbate the already serious unemployment problem?

I hope that the hon. Gentleman, instead of making those unfounded attacks upon my right hon. Friend, will take time off to help his constituents and the country to achieve full employment, which is what his Government failed singularly to do.

What explanation can my right hon. Friend give for the fact that at a time of high and increasing unemployment there are thousands of unfilled jobs throughout the country? In London, the Post Office is 2,000 short although the post service is notorious. What action will the Government take to get those people off unemployment benefit and into unfilled jobs?

There is not a large enough gap between what people can earn in a job and what they can obtain by not working. By restoring differentials and decreasing the amount of tax that is paid and, perhaps, in the long run, by bringing short-term benefits within the tax net, a better balance will be achieved.

What special consideration is being given to the older unemployed worker who, especially in areas of high unemployment, is demoralised at the prospect of being unemployed for the rest of his life?

That is a serious problem. The job release scheme that was introduced by the previous Government, and extended towards the end of their period of office, is being maintained. That will help the older unemployed person. Other than that, only a general improvement in the state of the economy will result in older unemployed persons obtaining jobs.

Reverting to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Neubert) about the work-shy, will my right hon. Friend give consideration at some stage to the possibility of reducing unemployment benefit after a period of, say, six months to those who have been offered jobs and not accepted them although they could have done so?

We should keep the matter in proportion—[HON. MEMBERS " Hear, hear ".] When Labour Members start to cheer that sort of remark they should remember the great indignation that is felt by those who work hard about those who do not bother to work at all. The Government are trying to see that more people are called in for reviews of their unemployment benefit where they have refused to take jobs, in the hope that that will encourage them to make more effort.

Has the Secretary of State given consideration to the TUC argument about the flood of manufactured imports that are financed by our oil revenue that have led to a major balance of payments deficit, combined with the withdrawal of Government support for British industry? That withdrawal will accelerate de-industrialisation and ultimately prevent the country from earning its living or employing its people.

Without accepting the last part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, the House will remember that he was singularly unable to convince his own colleagues about his alternative strategy. Therefore, I do not know why he is trying to convince me.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the current rate of unemployment.

At 14 June, the unemployment rate in Great Britain was 5·4 per cent.

Does the Minister admit that well over 100,000 jobs will be destroyed as a direct result of the regional development cuts, redundancies in steel and shipbuilding, and the emasculation of the National Enterprise Board and Scottish Development Agency? Is it not about time that the Minister got off his knees and started to fight unemployment, instead of genuflecting to the insane doctrines of the mad monk, who initially did not even have the guts to come to this House and meet Members of Parliament face to face?

No, Sir, I do not admit any such thing. I believe that the hon. Gentleman could do his constituents more of a service if he debated these matters seriously rather than make the kind of Pavlovian noises that we just heard.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the unemployment rate in the Amble and Alnwick area of Northumberland is substantially above the national rate that he quoted and that this is not a special development area? Is there some process by which the Department can apprise the Development of Industry of unemployment black spots in order to get something done about the position?

Yes, Sir, I am in constant touch with my right hon. Friend to see that regional policy takes into account the problems of unemployment. The present problem of regional policy is that it seems to have been designed more to suit by-elections held during the lifetime of the Labour Government than to solve the serious problems of unemployment.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give a categoric assurance to the House that he will not further increase unemployment by further reducing the job protection rights of employees beyond those already in the pipeline, and that he will neither reduce nor abolish the maternity leave provisions in the Employment Protection Act?

On the last point, the hon. Lady should wait until we produce our proposals for changes in the Employment Protection Act. I should have thought that that legislation was recognised by many employers, and indeed trade unionists, to be one of the greatest deterrents to full employment.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment when he next expects to meet his EEC colleagues; and if he will make a statement.

I expect to meet my EEC colleagues at the next Council of Ministers for Labour and Social Affairs. This is planned for Tuesday 27 November 1979.

Will the Minister tell the people over there that while the Common Market gravy train lumbers on, with its newest passengers on board today, the so-called MEPs, the Common Market policies on subjects such as steel, together with the Tory policies that are being carried out in this House, are resulting in the devastation of towns such as Shotton and Corby? Is it not a fact that a Tory Government are interested in job creation schemes for those in the Common Market and dole queues for British workers?

The answer to that supplementary question is " Rubbish "

Will my right hon. Friend consider, when he next meets his Community colleagues, whether the time is ripe for some initiative on a Community-wide training scheme for young people, under which young people can travel within the Community to obtain experience, thus achieving common European standards of training?

Yes, Sir. There is a small scheme which is now operated and which we should like to see expanded. There is also a need to see that our schemes for the training of young people and for helping the older unemployed fit more readily into the schemes which the EEC social fund will support. I believe that we can do a lot better than we have been doing in the last year or two, although we did very well before that.

In view of the enormous imbalance in the Community budget and its adverse effect on this country, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman, when he attends the next Council of Ministers for Labour and Social Affairs, to press for a bigger and better share of the European social fund? Will he bear in mind that the announcement that is to be made later today by the Secretary of State for Industry will make that kind of assistance even more desirable?

I do not wish to say anything about my right hon. Friend's statement which will be made later today. However, the hon. Gentleman is right to make that comment. We need to obtain more resources out of the social fund. This will mean changing to some extent some of our statistical evidence and also tailoring our policies more to suit the social fund. We must seek to achieve that end, and we shall do so.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what consideration is being given to the compiling of statistics related to unemployment arising out of developments in the use of microprocessing technology.

It would not be practicable to compile unemployment statistics to relate to particular causes of unemployment. The greater threat to employment is if United Kingdom industry fails to adapt to new technology, and I welcome the TUC's recognition of this in its report " Employment and Technology ".

In view of the statement that this would not be practicable, may I remind the Minister that this process is already undertaken in France? Is he aware that, taken together with the devastating Tory cuts in industry, the unemployment to which I refer in my original question is one of the most serious matters the nation faces? We are importing as much microtechnology as we are exporting, and the Government are showing appalling complacency.

The Government are not complacent, because my Department set up a study group in microelectronics last July, the report of which we expect in the next two or three months.

Although the social problems inherent in any structural unemployment must always be taken seriously, may I ask the Minister to take every opportunity to emphasise the enormous potential which this device offers the human race for eliminating both intellectual and physical drudgery?

I agree with my hon. Friend. We believe that British industry, by using its initiative, will be able to adapt better to this technology than will our competitors.

Is the Minister aware that against a background of policies that can lead only to a massive increase in unemployment the statement by his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State this morning, and his own modest support for the TUC's recent report on microelectronics, represent small steps in the right direction? Will he assure the House that the Government will not sabotage the Labour Government's announcement on this area? Will the Government put their weight behind efforts to modernise British industry in applying these developments to important industries, such as machine tools?

I am pleased to give that assurance.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment when he will be discussing with the trades union leadership the financing of strikes.

During the course of future discussions, but not immediately.

In view of the fact that my constituents, in common with many others, resent paying taxes to the families of strikers for strikes that will increase the prices that most people will have to pay, in view of the fact that the trade unions in this country are worth more than £300 million, in view of the fact that before the changes which the Labour Party introduced strikers' families did not starve, in view of the fact that power is money and that the more Government money the unions get the better able are irresponsible unions to sustain strikes, will my hon. and learned Friend reassure my constituents and the House that as soon as it is proper to do so he will introduce measures to make sure that the trade unions have to finance their own strikes to a larger extent?

I am aware of my hon. Friend's interest in this matter and of the early-day motion which was tabled in his name. Many people consider it only right that trade unions should bear a fair share of supporting the families of members on strike. We shall be discussing this matter with the TUC. For the moment, the discussions in which my right hon. Friend is engaged relate to even more important matters.

Does the Minister not realise that the introduction of Draconian measures against wives and children of strikers can only deepen the terrible problems towards which the present Government are now moving? Does he also appreciate that it would be far more sensible to try to abolish the lousy conditions in many workshops to ensure that working people have a reasonable wage, instead of having to put up with measures which the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) has wanted all his life?

Nobody is suggesting that the families of people on strike should receive less support. All that is being suggested is that the trade unions whose members initiate a strike should bear a fair share of the contributions.

I recognise the undoubtedly strong feelings of my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), but does the Minister accept that the Government need the co-operation of trade unions in ensuring support for a broad measure of their policies? Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that it is more important to secure that co-operation than to seek agreement on the measures proposed by my hon. Friend?

The Government believe that all their proposals are sensible. By discussing these matters with all concerned we hope to achieve a wide measure of support.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to stimulate employment in South Shields.

It is the Government's policy to stimulate the creation of new jobs by restoring incentives, encouraging efficiency and creating the climate in which industry and commerce can flourish. South Shields continues to benefit from the full range of special employment and training measures, and from assistance under the Industry Act.

I find myself perplexed at the answer. Bearing in mind that local government and shipbuilding are the two key employment areas in South Shields, can the Minister explain how the Government's plans to cut back public expenditure in local government and shipbuilding will help employment prospects in South Shields where almost one man in six is already without a job?

It is difficult to comment on the specific question of local government in South Shields. Surely the hon. Gentleman recognises that shipbuilding is a national and European problem. There is no way one can protect shipbuilding when people do not require ships. What is important is that all the measures exist to try achieve a better base for industry in his constituency.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what consultations he has had on forthcoming legislation with the TUC.

My right hon. Friend has already had a number of informal discussions with the TUC and hopes to have further discussions shortly on the basis of the working papers which were published last week.

I thank my hon. and learned Friend for that reply, but is he aware that there is a great deal more support in the rank and file of the trade union movement for the Government's proposals than might appear from the pronouncements of leaders of unions affiliated to the TUC? What practical steps can my hon. and learned Friend take to ensure that the voice of the rank and file trade unionists who support these proposals is listened to?

My hon. Friend is correct in pointing to the wide degree of support among trade union members for these proposals. The measure of that support was seen in the result of the general election when millions of trade union members voted for the Conservative Party whose manifesto set out exactly the proposals which are the subject of the working papers.

In view of the Government's hope that the trade unions will exercise restraint on wages in the forthcoming year, can the hon. and learned Gentleman say what consultation the Government have had with the trade unions about the proposed abolition of the Price Commission in a Bill published last week?

I am not able at this point to give a detailed answer to the hon. Gentleman, but I will write to him about the matter. It was made clear in our manifesto and in the election campaign that we did not support the Price Commission and that its days were very probably numbered.

Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that to get the right balance in these measures proposed for discuscussion with the TUC negotiations will need to take a substantial time? It would be wise to reach final decisions later rather than sooner.

The Government are determined that there should be ample time for genuine and substantial consultations. I agree with my hon. Friend.

Will the hon. and learned Gentleman make clear the status of these working papers? Are they Green Papers? Are they consultative documents? Are they White Papers? To what extent will they form the basis for genuine consultation rather than a mere willingness to listen by the Government with no change? Will the hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that the contents of these working papers represent only a small part of the subjects under review by the Government, including maternity provisions, guaranteed pay, the appointment of worker safety representatives and the terms of reference of ACAS?

The right hon. Gentleman should know that the working papers are exactly what they say. They are working papers representing the Government's proposals for the implementation of measures set out in their election manifesto. They are genuine working papers and a basis for genuine discussions. As my right hon. Friend has said this afternoon, we shall also be bringing forward shortly proposals with regard to reform of the Employment Protection Act, especially those provisions which bear damagingly on employment.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many people were out of work at the most recent count.

At 14 June, the number of people registered as unemployed in Great Britain was 1,281,102.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the figure would have been exactly the same if the Labour Party had won the general election? Will he also confirm that an extra person joined the dole queue every three and a half minutes when the Labour Government were in office?

I confirm the second part of what my hon. Friend says. On the first part of his question, I sometimes wonder whether the Budget and the arrival of a Conservative Government have not helped the figures rather than hindered them.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say by how much that figure will increase following the written answer to be given later today to the hon. Member for Havant and Waterloo (Mr. Lloyd) about the Government's proposals on Meriden?

All I know is that, despite the frantic efforts by the Labour Party in government to save a number of jobs for a short period of time, the number of unemployed went inexorably upwards. That is a situation that we do not wish to see.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has for an inquiry into the activities of the Society of Lithographic Artists, Designers and Engravers; and if he will make a statement.

My right hon. Friend appointed Mr. Andrew Leggatt QC on 7 June to inquire into

" recent industrial relations development, including in particular union recruitment activities, in the artwork, advertising and associated industries; and to report ".

I welcome my hon. and learned Friend's reply, but does he accept that the activities of the Society of Lithographic Artists, Designers and Engravers have shown that our present labour laws allow trade unions to force employees to join by threatening their jobs? Will he undertake, as part of this inquiry, to receive evidence from management which is prevented from managing by the unions, which even determine the customers with whom management is allowed to deal?

The question of the evidence to be received is a matter for Mr. Leggatt. It would not be right for the Government to intervene. I would expect, however, that evidence from the quarter suggested by my hon. Friend will certainly be given. On the first part of his question, it was the widespread unease about recruiting activities of the two unions concerned that led to the commitment to set up a similar inquiry to this.

Is this inquiry part of the general attack by the Conservative Government on the trade union movement? Will the Minister explain how the Government intend to meet representations from the trade union movement on proposed changes in the legislation set out in the consultation document? Is he prepared to assure the House that if the trade union movement makes strong representations against the Government's iniquitous proposals the Government will change their views?

The Government have no reason to attack a movement that contains so many millions of their own supporters. If representations are made to the Government against any of the proposals, they will be carefully and genuinely considered. The hon. Gentleman will recognise that these working papers contain no proposal that was not foreshadowed in the manifesto. There is a commitment to the broad strategy of the proposals. At the same time, there is a genuine willingness and anxiety to listen to what is said to us about them.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received about the future of the special temporary employment programme.

I have received various representations from organisations and scheme sponsors.

Has not the special temporary employment programme always had a dubious validity? Would it not be better to concentrate resources on the training of young people between the ages of 16 and 18 in the hope that they would either then get jobs or, benefiting from the experience, take up some of the vacant places in our polytechnics?

I believe that the programme has a valuable contribution to make. We have concentrated the programme in areas with deep-seated problems. It is interesting that only 44 per cent. of the cases last year came from the ranks of long-term unemployed. I intend to improve on that.

Is the Minister aware that the special temporary employment programme was of inestimable value in North-East Lancashire? It had the support of employers; it had the support of the trade unions. It undoubtedly helped to bring down unemployment and create jobs in that area. Will the Minister consider that in the light of the general plan to diminish the programme in intermediate areas?

I do not promise that I will look at that question. I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman recognises the overall point that we are concentrating more places in areas where the need is greatest.

It may be the case that effort is being concentrated where the need is greatest, but many areas, where the need is very great indeed, are being totally ignored. Young people over 19 in those areas will suffer very much in the coming winter as a result of the withdrawal of the special temporary employment programme.

As the hon. Member knows, all the schemes are reviewed annually. If what the hon. Gentleman says is true, it will show in next year's review.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what are the numbers of males, females, boys and girls, respectively, registered as unemployed at the latest available date; and if he will make a statement on what action he is taking to find suitable jobs for these unemployed persons.

At 14 June, 887,211 males and 393,891 females were registered as unemployed in Great Britain. These figures include 74,731 male and 62,379 female school leavers under 18 years of age. The Manpower Services Commission helps to find suitable jobs for unemployed people by placing them directly into permanent employment through its advisory and placement services, by supporting—either directly or indirectly—a wide range of traning facilities and, together with my Department, by operating the special employment and training measures which provide worthwhile training, work experience and jobs which are concentrated in areas of greatest need.

Does the hon. Gentleman believe that the Government's policies as outlined in the Budget will provide more jobs in the future and therefore help his Department? What is the Department doing, in discussions with the Cabinet, to ensure that more jobs are provided in areas such as mine where the unemployment rate is 9 or 10 per cent.? That rate has been high for some time and is bound to rise unless the Government change their policies.

I believe that our policies will provide more jobs. Certainly the Labour Government's policies did not do that. They doubled unemployment in five years.

Since many industries are still crying out for skilled labour, will my hon. Friend guarantee the role of the training advisers at the industrial training boards? Will he ensure that they continue to be recruited since they represent the cutting edge of the training programme? They are suffering cutbacks, while the Manpower Services Commission's staff are being protected.

I shall examine that question.

When will unemployment reach 2 million?

One does not make forecasts.

How many of the unemployed men are aged between 60 and 65?

It is impossible to estimate the numbers while at the Dispatch Box. I shall give the hon. and learned Gentleman accurate figures later.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what role he envisages for the Manpower Services Commission in the next five years.

When I met the Manpower Services Commissioners on 20 June I made it clear to them that I saw an important role for MSC in operating its important and continuing employment and training programmes.

Does the Secretary of State agree that the training, retraining and redeployment of workers is of cardinal importance for our future prosperity and effectiveness as an industrial nation? Does he also agree that the Manpower Services Commission will function more effectively if it is allowed to concentrate its work in the specially built building in Sheffield, which was designed for that purpose, rather than its staff being scattered around odd premises in London?

The hon. Gentleman forgets that there must be some real incentives and differentials if skilled people are to follow a skill. It is no good training many people for skills if they then do unskilled jobs. A review of dispersal policy has been taking place. Recently I met the unions involved. I have been examining carefully and sympathetically the views of those unions. An announcement will be made shortly.

Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that he has sufficient control over the activities and expenditure of the Manpower Services Commission?

I do not think that I could ever he satisfied with that. However, I am very satisfied indeed with the work of the chairman of that Commission and of the Commissioners. There is always room for improvement in Government service and in organisations such as the MSC.

Does the Secretary of State recall that when he met the Society of Civil and Public Servants on 29 June to discuss MSC dispersal he said that he would press his Cabinet colleagues to complete the review quickly and that he would give it a decision before the end of July? Will he keep that promise?

Yes, Sir.

Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the Manpower Services Commission is performing the right role? Is he aware that while it is building jobcentres at vast expense in city centres, where the private sector could achieve the same purpose more effectively, it is reluctant to provide any form of employment service in isolated large housing estates such as that at Partington in my constituency, which it has totally ignored?

Nobody should consider that a Government body, or an extra-Government body, is working perfectly. I think that there is room for improvement and perhaps a different emphasis from the Commission.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 17 July.

In addition to duties in this House I shall have meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. This evening I hope to have an Audience of Her Majesty The Queen.

Will the Prime Minister confirm that she has had the opportunity of reading press reports of the decision by 1,300 members of the Transport and General Workers' Union to participate in a private health scheme offered by their employers? Does she agree that this is yet another indication of the widespread view that there should be greater freedom of choice to participate in health schemes and similar enterprises?

I read the reports. I think that it is an excellent arrangement, and I hope that other branches will follow suit. The arrangement will bring great benefit to the members of that union and will also bring more money into the National Health Service.

During her busy day, will the Prime Minister take time to read again the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Budget speech on 12 June, and in particular the moving and emotional part of it in which he said that he did not propose to increase the duty on paraffin because it was used primarily and domestically by pensioners? How does the right hon. Lady reconcile that speech with the action of the Secretary of State for Energy who, on 11 July, removed all price control from domestic paraffin? Is this the first and fastest U-turn of the present Administration?

I am only too happy to read my right hon. and learned Friend's excellent speech again. The Sec- retary of State for Energy did not put a tax on paraffin. However, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, there was a great shortage of paraffin in the shops. The choice was either to release price control or not to have paraffin at all.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 17 July.

I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave earlier.

Will the Prime Minister find time to remind herself of the commitment in the Conservative Party manifesto not to cut spending on the National Health Service? Will she reimburse the National Health Service for the extra burden of VAT on its purchases of equipment and supplies?

We shall honour the commitment to maintain expenditure on the National Health Service in real terms. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have to raise money to spend on these expensive health services. We chose to raise that money through indirect rather than direct tax.

Will my right hon. Friend have time today, on behalf of the vast majority of trade union members whose views and aspirations she, above all in the country, represents, to suggest that trade unionists might spend some time this summer in Germany examining the standards of living of trade unionists in that country? Will she urge them to make comparisons between the standards of living there and here, to examine the role and activities of trade unions in Germany and to draw the necessary lessons? Perhaps my right hon. Friend might also be able to provide a little precious Government money to help them in that task.

A trainee SS man.

I hope that increasing numbers of trade unionists will make such visits. I have said frequently from this Dispatch Box that if we want a German standard of living we must have a German standard of work.

Has the Prime Minister, during the day, come to a decision on the Government's policy on the admission of more refugees from Vietnam, including some of those whom we hope will be picked up from the sea by the mercy ship? When will the House have a statement on the Government's policy in this respect?

I saw the small petition that was handed in to me at No. 10 this morning by some of the children. We hope and expect that there will be a statement tomorrow.

On the question of trade union membership, what plans does my right hon. Friend have to ensure that people outside the hierarchy of the TUC have an opportunity to express their views to the Government on the Government's proposals for trade union reform?

Judging by the numbers of people who come to see me and my right hon. Friend, I believe that they have an opportunity to express their views. However, I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment to the request that others as well as the TUC should have the chance to represent their views.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 17 July.

I refer the right hon. Member to the reply which I gave earlier.

Is the right hon. Lady aware that her Government's policies will divide the United Kingdom into two nations in a way unknown since Disraeli's day, and that the impending regional aid cuts will accentuate that trend? Is the country to be carved up, with the South-East of England being set against the rest?

I cannot accept the right hon. Gentleman's views for one moment. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry will be making a statement shortly, and it would be better not to comment further until we have heard that statement.

Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity today to make a statement about immigration? Does she agree that one of the reasons why many people, particularly in the urban areas, voted Conservative at the last election was that they agreed with the detailed promises in the Tory Party's manifesto? Does she agree also that there should be an announcement about a change in the immigration rules before the House rises for the Summer Recess?

We shall, of course, be implementing the promises that were made in the Conservative manifesto, but I cannot promise an announcement before the Summer Recess. I shall be frank with my hon. Friend. We do not plan to have an announcement on immigration before the recess.

Will the Prime Minister have time to meet the chairman of the Tote to discuss with him the accusation that bets have been placed by a subsidiary of the Tote after the result of a race has been known, whether there is a secret laundering system for these late bets and how many punters have been swindled out of their rightful winnings? Will she arrange for a public inquiry to be held into the allegations of malpractice at the Tote?

I am not very expert at betting. May I therefore pass the buck to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who may know a little more about it?

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 17 July.

I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave earlier.

Will my right hon. Friend find time today to intervene to prevent the threatened closure of an important regional airline company, Air Kent? Is she aware that this successful company, which does not need public money, is endangered only because of minor administrative interdepartmental squabbles? Will she take the opportunity to remind officialdom that it is now a priority of Government policy to assist small businesses and private enterprise by cutting through red tape wherever possible?

I have received representations from my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, East (Mr. Aitken) and a number of my other hon. Friends about this company and about the position that obtains at the airfield from which it operates. I understand that the problem is that it can operate successfully and profitably, but that it will not be allowed to do so unless there is an immigration officer on duty. If that is the case, it is one of which I am aware. I am looking into the matter personally in such a way that I hope it will not be necessary for my hon. Friend to repeat his question again before the House rises for the recess.

Is the Prime Minister aware that many people are saying that if so much damage has been done in two and a half months in terms of jobs, cuts and prices, what on earth will be Britain's position in four or five years if the right hon. Lady and her crew remain in office? Would it not be in the country's interest for her to give way to someone who is less of an extremist than she is?

The damage in terms of jobs and increasing taxes was inflicted by the previous Government, who doubled unemployment, increased taxes and landed this country in the position where our growfth, compared with that of our competitors, was a disgrace. It is because of that Government's record that we are changing the whole strategy in a more positive direction.

Has my right hon. Friend read the report in some of today's press that the TUC intends to oppose the Government's changes in industrial relations law on the ground that the proposals, with the banning of secondary picketing, might lead to an overall curtailment of the right to strike? Will she make it clear to the TUC that that is not the Government's intention and that, moreover, it is the wish of the Secretary of State for Employment to be open for consultation on the detail of these changes, if not on the principle?

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has put a consultative document to the TUC, but I must make it clear that we are pledged to bring in legislation against secondary picketing. Most people who remember what happened last winter will be fully behind that determination. The precise detail is a matter for consultation.

asked the Prime Minister when she intends next to meet representatives of the Confederation of British Industry.

No dates have yet been arranged.

When the Prime Minister eventually meets the CBI, what reply will she give it to its letter—[HON. MEMBERS: " Reading."] Of course I am reading. It is the letter that the CBI wrote to the Secretary of State for Industry. What reply will she give to the CBI's letter which says that the CBI opposes any reduction in regional development grants? What does she think of friends like that who are so quick to desert her and her right hon. Friend in their hour of need?

I take more notice of letters when they are written after a statement rather than before. The hon. Gentleman asked what reply I shall send. The CBI welcomed the Budget's provisions and is doing everything that it can to operate the Budget strategy, knowing that the successful manufacturing and commercial industries of this country have to supply the subsidies which so many people want.

How will the Prime Minister explain to the CBI or anybody else the discrepancy between the Conservative Party's election commitment to encourage the development of new industries in certain parts of the country and the downgrading of those areas from development area status, as will be announced this afternoon, and the fact that market interest rates have gone up to 16 per cent?

The right hon. Gentleman asked his question as though the only way in which a small business can get started is with a Government subsidy. If that were so, this country would never have been a highly successful industrial nation.

If my right hon. Friend does not intend to authorise a statement about changes in the immigration rules until the winter, will not that lead to a possible beat-the-ban rush, given the long time that will elapse before the announcement is made, which will heighten the anxieties and possibly the disillusionment in the areas most affected?

I can only reply that it is our intention to make a statement when we return after the recess.

Is the Prime Minister aware that many of us are worried by the threats from non-parliamentary bodies to push her around? Is she further aware that I have just had a letter from the CBI stating that it expects her to take firm action on labour relations, and goes on to say that unless she does she will be very sharply pushed by that body?

It will find it very difficult.

A moment ago the Prime Minister said that she welcomed letters after statements, not before. Does she mean that any consultations with the TUC are merely cosmetic, that she has entirely made up her mind to attack the trade union movement through legislation, and that, whatever the trade union movement says in making reasonable representations she will take no notice of it until the statement on the legislation is made?

I have made up my mind to carry out the Conservative Party manifesto. The details are for consultation.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not wish to delay the House, and I know that you, Sir, are not responsible for answers from the Dispatch Box, but you will have heard the Leader of the House say distinctly, yesterday—since you were in the Chair at the time—that no more crucial statements would be made by written answer. Yet today, Mr. Speaker, via a written answer to the hon. Member for Havant and Waterloo (Mr. Lloyd), the Government have made an announcement about Meriden which, in effect, will cause it to close and increase joblessness in the West Midlands. What protection do we on the Opposition Benches have when that sort of policy is pursued by the Secretary of State—

Order. The way that the Government answer questions is not my responsibility.