asked the Secretary of State for Employment when he expects the number of unemployed people to decline.

Given the world situation and the uncompetitive state of parts of British industry, unemployment is bound to rise over the next few months. I cannot usefully forecast when it will fall.

I thought that the Secretary of State might make reference to the timely drop in the figures today, although I understand that the trend in the seasonally adjusted figures continue upwards. That is confirmed by the right hon. Gentleman's answer and I am pleased to note his assent to that view. Does he not agree that the most important thing—and the most distressing aspect of the present situation—is the continuing increase in the number of long-term unemployed? In those circumstances, will not the Government, at long last, consider reversing their present catastrophic policies?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the problems of the long-term unemployed are bad and that the numbers are far too high. We are trying to help with the special temporary employment programme. Perhaps the best thing we can do for the long-term unemployed is to get interest rates down.

Does my right hon. Friend despair of getting the unions to see that increases in wages unaccompanied by increases in production must, inevitably, mean job losses?

I think that we have to go on and on talking about this and bringing home to everyone, trade unionists and non-trade unionists, that unless we can squeeze inflation out of the economy—wages are one of the important factors contributing to the high rate of inflation—we shall have to live with much higher levels of unemployment than are acceptable to the British people.

The right hon. Gentleman referred to the special temporary employment programme when speaking of the long-term unemployed but the Government have cut the special temporary employment programme. When will the Secretary of State stop wringing his hands about the long-term unemployed and take action to deal with the problem?

One of the extraordinary things about the special temporary employment programme was that, until recently, the people for whom it was meant to cater were the long-term unemployed. On the whole, they were not using the programme and it has to be filled by other people. Since we cut back the scheme to the development areas, special development areas and other special areas, the number of eligible people going into the scheme has increased considerably.

rose —

Order. The subject of unemployment comes up in several questions later.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is his estimate of the number of people (a) who voluntarily refused to work on 14 May, and (b) who were unable to get to work, and thus involuntarily lost a day's pay, through political action taken by others.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many working days were lost on 14 May.

My Department's statistics of industrial stoppages relate only to terms and conditions of work, and exclude political action such as that on 14 May. We cannot make a close estimate of numbers of people involved, but such information as is available suggests that more than 90 per cent. of the work force went to work last Wednesday.

Bearing in mind that the day of action certainly did not help to save any jobs or help to sell a single ton of British steel what consultation or measures of co-operation has my right hon. Friend in mind to discuss with trade union leaders in order to put over the point that jobs will be created in Britain only by new industry or will be saved only by higher productivity or more competitive output?

I am always ready to talk to trade union leaders and trade unionists at any time. One of the points that I constantly make, whether in the National Economic Development Council or in other places, is similar to the point mentioned by my hon. Friend.

In the light of what my right hon. Friend has just said, will he consider instituting a new category of days lost in furtherance of political disputes as distinct from days lost in furtherance of trade disputes? Would not that enable the country to tell the difference between real and bogus industrial action?

I should prefer no days to be lost from either occurrence. I certainly hope that the experience of 14 May will mean that we do not have political strikes, which are new to this country. We should seek to solve our political differences in the House and not outside.

Does the Secretary of State agree that the people who stayed at work by no means wanted their action interpreted as a confirmation of their support for the Government's policies? Does he accept that people who make such an interpretation do a disservice to the solution of the problems which must be on the Secretary of State's mind?

The sooner we put 14 May behind us as a nation and learn to live and work together the quicker the country will emerge from its problems.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that some bus drivers in the West Midland were warned by the local branch of the Transport and General Workers Union that if they turned up for work on 14 May they would lose their union cards and, therefore, their jobs? Is my right hon. Friend further aware that the Employment Bill does not really protect anybody from losing a job and that until something is done about that the tyranny about which most of the country is complaining will continue?

I do not agree with my hon. Friend about that. One must ask whether people did lose their union cards. In any case, they should look carefully at their rule books because expulsion under such circumstances is probably not in accordance with union rules. Under the Bill, as it is to be presented this afternoon in another place, there are at least unfair dismissal provisions for people who are excluded or expelled unfairly from a trade union. I believe that they will do a great deal to put the matter right. One of the main practices of extremists, when they want to take people out on strike, is to say that union cards will be taken away. We must refute that under all circumstances.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is his Department's analysis of the underlying unemployment trends in Great Britain in the current year and in 1981.

Unemployment has been rising in recent months and most forecasts agree that it will continue to rise in the near future. Changes in unemployment in the future depend on a number of factors, the most important being the level of pay settlements and developments in world trade.

Is the Under-Secretary aware that all the signs are that by mid-term in the Government's life unemployment will still be rising in manufacturing industry in the most productive parts of the country, such as that which I represent? Is not that a total condemnation of the Government's strategy?

It certainly is not a total condemnation of the Government's strategy. Our strategy is the only one which is likely to provide secure employment in the future.

Does my hon. Friend agree that employment trends will improve if people are encouraged to retire earlier? Therefore, will the Government consider introducing earlier voluntary retirement?

he job release scheme is designed to that end. The scheme is reviewed annually and it can be extended if needed.

Is the Under-Secretary aware that the Northern region, which has always had more than its fair share of unemployment, is rapidly becoming a disaster area? Will he concede that it is high time that the Government did more in terms of temporary employment schemes, and so on?

I am pleased to tell the hon. Gentleman that I was in the Northern area on Saturday, presenting awards to apprentices who are looking ahead to the future in the Northern area in their professions. I recognise that there are great difficulties in the regions. It would be wrong to pretend otherwise. Our policy is to try to assist the regions in terms of infrastructure and by concentrating our aid. That is the only way to help the regions when the economy revives.

When my hon. Friend is considering unemployment trends will he make an estimate of what level it would have reached if Labour's electioneering scheme for vast deficit-financed public expenditure had been adhered to, with the inevitable consequence of even higher inflation and even more punitive interest rates?

Some of us can remember that in the first year of the last Labour Government—1975–76—unemployment was increased by 478,000.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment when he proposes to have further consultations with the Trades Union Congress and the Confederation of British Industry about the long-term improvement of industrial relations.

I have had a number of discussions with both the TUC and CBI about improving industrial relations. If representatives of these organisations wish to discuss their ideas with me I am always ready to devote time to further meetings.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that if there is to be a long-term improvement in industrial relations it is important that employees, especially in large organisations, have a greater say about the destiny of the firm for which they work and their conditions of employment? In view of the reluctance of management and unions to do anything about that, has my right hon. Friend any proposals to encourage greater employee participation?

I constantly urge employers to involve their work forces more in the decisions which affect them. I am urgently considering whether we can take further initiatives to get that message across.

Will the Secretary of State study as a possible initiative—as apparently did the late Sir John Methven—ideas about market socialism which have been put across by various people?

I am not sure what the right hon. Gentleman means by "market socialism." If he is referring to cooperatives and co-operative ventures, I tell him that we have always given our support to such enterprises.

Can my right hon. Friend confirm that it is open to the TUC and the CBI to make representations to him before he publishes draft codes of practice on improvements in industrial relations? Does he expect to publish any such codes before the autumn?

Yes. I welcome any views on codes dealing with the closed shop and picketing that we are likely to bring forward. We shall seek to introduce draft codes or perhaps codes which can be considered and consulted upon before the Summer Recess. The full codes will be introduced in the House in the autumn.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment by what amount he estimates unemployment has risen since May 1979 in the assisted areas of the United Kingdom.

Between May 1979 and April 1980 the number of people registered as unemployed in the assisted areas of Great Britain and in Northern Ireland increased by 146,299.

Will not these ominous figures get worse? Is the Under-Secretary aware that in Flint, which is an assisted area, male unemployment stands in excess of 32 per cent? Does he accept that the assisted areas are vulnerable under the Government's current economic policy?

Assisted areas have been vulnerable for the last 20 years. That is why they were made into assisted areas. Surely the hon. Gentleman will give credit to the Government who declared Shotton a special development area last December. The Welsh Development Agency plans to spend £61.8 million on land and factory building in Wales.

Does the Under-Secretary realise that the calamitous unemployment rate in Wales is hitting young people in particular? Is he aware that 40 per cent. of the unemployed in Wales are 24 years old or younger? What prospects does he hold out for school leavers?

One of the reasons why we expanded the youth opportunities programme was to deal with that serious underlying problem. We continue to review all our measures annually to reflect such situations.

The Forest of Dean is not an assisted area, but because of serious rising unemployment there, will my hon. Friend join me in trying to persuade the Department of Industry to establish some workshop units in that area?

I have enough problems in my own Department without answering for the Department of Industry. However, I shall examine what my hon. Friend says with the Secretary of State for Industry.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many males and females, respectively, were registered as unemployed on the latest available date at the Mexborough and Wombwell employment exchanges.

At 8 May, 1,424 males and 807 females were registered as unemployed in the Mexborough employment office area. The corresponding figures for Wombwell were 631 and 327. The figures are provisional.

Does the Minister realise that among the unemployed in those areas there are many who have a reasonable working life ahead of them but who are condemned to be unemployed for the rest of their lives? Will be bear in mind that the largest section being adversely affected is the young? Is he aware that when the National Coal Board has employed those that it needs, the remainder have no hope of finding reasonable employment? Does he also realise that the girls are in a worse position than the boys because there is no work available for them? When will he do something about that—not only by designating the area as a special development area, but by bringing in industry?

I accept the seriousness of the problem facing young people. However, we should put the matter into perspective. In the last academic year 700,000 youngsters were available for work. The figures today show that 46,000 are without jobs. In the youth opportunities programme, under the guarantees, of those youngsters who have been unemployed for more than six months only 700 have not been offered places. While we agree about the seriousness of the position, we must put it into perspective.

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

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the latest estimate of unemployment in the United Kingdom.

At 8 May, the provisional number of people registered as unemployed in the United Kingdom was 1,509,191.

Will the Secretary of State say whether that figure of 1½ million unemployed—soon to be increased with the next batch of school leavers—represents official policy, showing that the Government are on target, or does he regard it as a failure of Government policy? Does he agree that the tax revenue forgone from those people, had they been productively employed, in addition to the unemployment benefit that they are receiving, is the largest single component of the public sector borrowing requirement?

The figures represent the facts of economic life in Britain and the failure of successive Governments to put the matter right.

Will the Minister confirm that the May unemployment figures are the highest since the war, and that they are the highest seasonally adjusted figures since records began? Since the Government were prepared to do a U-turn yesterday in accordance with the wishes of the House will he try to achieve a U-turn in the Government's economic and financial policies which will, unless changed, lead to a serious crisis in employment in the years ahead?

The policies of the previous Labour Administration, which doubled unemployment in five years and left an unemployment figure that was unacceptably high at the peak of economic activity in 1978–79, have left Britain a serious problem with which we have to deal now.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that a large number of vacancies remains unfilled, and that a considerable number of the unemployed are voluntary unemployed? Many of them cannot afford to work. Has my right hon. Friend made any progress in the investigation that he promised on this matter some months ago?

There is a mismatch, with jobs being available in some parts of the country and the unemployed not being prepared to fill them. For the most part, there are a number of people who wish to have the jobs that are available. My hon. Friend will know that the Government have given a great deal of attention during the past few months to the points that he has raised, and have sought to do as much as they can about them. I am certain that the only answer is greater economic activity to reduce the numbers.

Is it not about time that the Minister stopped using phrases about unemployment and its causes relating to world and technical matters? Is it not a fact that one of the first actions of the Government was to remove exchange controls, thereby allowing money to be invested abroad? Is it not the Conservative Government who have cut public expenditure left, right and centre, thereby reducing the ability of manufacturers to purchase as many goods? Is it not the Government who are changing the leasing controls in the Budget, which will result in a manufacturer in my constituency losing about 40 or 50 jobs in the container industry?

If we followed the economic policies of the hon. Gentleman we should have far higher unemployment than we have now.

Since increases in pay that far outstrip any increase in output are a major cause of unemployment, will my right hon Friend say whether he sees any further justification for retaining the Clegg Commission?

On the subject of the Clegg Commission, all that I wish to say today is that it made a very serious mistake indeed over teachers' salaries. That is bound to be a factor in the consideration of its future that is now taking place. I do not wish to go further than that.

Does the Secretary of State recall that before the general election he said in quite categoric terms that he would set out to reduce the number of unemployed? When is that likely to happen? If it is not to happen, will he admit that he seriously misled the country at that time?

I do not think that I have ever misled the country on that subject. I was one of the few who, when the previous Labour Administration said that they would reduce unemployment to 700,000 by the end of 1979, said that that was an unrealistically low figure. I believe that, given the period of the lifetime of the Government, we shall do considerably better than the Opposition did when they were in Government.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he is satisfied that applicants for compensation under the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers Compensation) Act 1979 are being answered as quickly as possible; and if he will make a statement on those cases which are causing difficulty.

Yes, in all the circumstances. The necessary investigations are requiring very protracted work. Out of the 2,533 applications made before the end of 1979 fewer than a quarter are now outstanding. Over 300 claims made since then have also been cleared. Overall, the main problems have arisen over the requirement that all relevant employers must have ceased to carry on business.

Will not the Minister accept that a figure of 600 outstanding claimants since before last January is an unsatisfactory level, given that the measure has been enacted for almost a year? In circumstances where all the evidence is not forthcoming, will he give the benefit of the doubt to marginal cases? Will he say anything about those who are employed in quarries which may have employed them for only two or three years out of a total quarrying working lifetime of 20 or 30 years? Is he in a position to make a statement on that matter?

The difficulty that we face with the statutory definition of a relevant employer is that we must satisfy ourselves that he was the person by whom the claimant was employed at any time during the period that he was developing the disease, and against whom he might have had a claim for damages in respect of the disablement. There is no such employer still in business. I have reconsidered the extent to which the Act permits some discretion, and it is proving possible to adopt a slightly more favourable approach than had at first seemed necessary.

Will my hon. and learned Friend please remind the House about the circumstances in which the Bill reached the statute book, and what exactly happened under the previous Administration with regard to these matters?

The Act was passed by the House, having been introduced by the previous Labour Government in the very last days of their Administration. Not the least of the difficulties of its application arose from the very short consideration that the House was able to give to the Bill.

Is the Minister aware that the point that he made is correct? The Act has many shortcomings. Is he aware that the pneumoconiosis medical panels have rejected the medical advice of skilled doctors, consultants and pathologists? Those panels should be abolished. Does he agree that the decision of the doctors and consultants in mining areas should be accepted as evidence of pneumoconiosis?

The right hon. Gentleman knows that I have answered that question in the past, and that the pneumoconiosis medical panels are not the responsibility of my Department. He knows also the relevance of their decisions under the terms of the Act passed by the previous Administration.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will introduce a special scheme of retraining for textile and footwear workers who have recently lost their jobs.

I am aware of the problems facing redundant textile and footwear workers, and training facilities from which they may benefit are currently available under the training opportunities scheme. I am informed by the Manpower Services Commission that these facilities are expected to be adequate to meet the retraining needs of these workers. However, if my hon. Friend has evidence of particular training needs which may arise that cannot be met from existing provision, I shall be glad to consider the matter further.

I recognise that my hon. Friend is endeavouring to be helpful. Does he accept that it is extremely difficult for workers in these two industries to transfer to other employment at the age of, say, 50 or between 50 and retirement age? In view of the special pressures on these two industries, would it not be possible for a special scheme to be devised to help them?

The problem mentioned by my hon. Friend applies to all workers in their fifties. I am assured that many of the courses available are designed to take that into account. As I have already said, if my hon. Friend has any evidence of special need, I am prepared to consider it.

Is the Minister aware that the textile and clothing industry is likely to lose 70,000 workers in the next 12 months? In West Yorkshire alone 4,000 or 5,000 workers in the textile industry will probably lose their jobs. Will the Minister assure us that he will look again at the question of selective assistance to industrial areas which are losing jobs in the textile industry and that he will bring industry as well as training to those areas and, therefore, hope to the workers?

The Department of Industry, to which this question is really addressed, has already agreed, over the three-year wind-down of the regional areas, to look carefully before any alterations take place and to take into account changes that have occurred since. I am sure that will be taken into account.

Will my hon. Friend give further consideration to the valid point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Trippier)? Is he aware that thousands of people are losing their jobs each month in the textile industry and that the existing retraining schemes are totally inadequate to provide sufficient places for the numbers being made unemployed? Will he try to persuade his right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department of Trade to take action to ensure that the textile industry survives rather than have to provide costly retraining schemes for those who are made redundant?

None of us can be unaware of the problems of the textile industry, not least because of the effective representations of my hon. Friend. As I have already suggested, I am informed that training places exist for those who seek them. If there is any evidence that that is not the case, naturally we shall look into it.

Retraining facilities are necessary, but is the Minister aware that the real danger is that there will be no firms to receive people, even if they are retrained? Is he further aware that it is not only the textile industry that is suffering badly, but light engineering, building and every industry throughout Lancashire?

Having travelled the area quite frequently, I cannot accept that the situation is as serious as the hon. and learned Gentleman suggested. I understand that the textile industry is already the most protected industry in the country, even though it is experiencing these severe problems. We are all concerned about it. But it is a question of balancing the interests of the home market against the interests of the export market, in which the textile industry does very well.

Is the Minister aware that, despite the helpful answers that he gives to those lion. Members in Tory marginals, the textile industry is being destroyed by the Departments of Trade and Industry? Will he now acknowledge that his Department is simply acquiescing in the destruction of a great industry?

The textile industry is being destroyed by customers in this country who are apparently going to the shops and not buying British textiles.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what were the total number of people out of work in the Northern region on the latest available figures; and what plans he has to reduce the level of unemployment in the region.

At 8 May the provisional number of people registered as unemployed in the Northern region was 128,880.

As we have already suggested, changes in unemployment patterns in the future depend on a number of factors, not least being pay settlements, productivity and correct design of good products that are saleable.

Does the Minister realise that that represents 9.3 per cent. of the insured population, which encompasses levels of 19 per cent. male unemployment in South Shields? Will he take the opportunity now to answer the second part of my question: what plans has he to reduce the level of unemployment in the Northern region?

I accept the figures put forward by the hon. Gentleman. As I said, I was in his area only last weekend. The spending policy of the previous Labour Government did not provide the answers that the hon. Gentleman needs. We are trying to concentrate aid where it is most needed, to reduce Government demands and to create a genuine cycle of employment through real jobs, through people buying real products.

Does the Minister realise that the figure of 9.3 per cent. represents half as much again as the national average and is the highest regional percentage, with the exception of Northern Ireland? Does he accept that it is time that the Government changed their economic and industrial policies in favour of the under-privileged areas of the United Kingdom?

We have already changed our policies to try to concentrate on those under-privileged areas. I think that the right hon. Gentleman should at least admit that we have been successful in obtaining shipbuilding orders through Government assistance in those areas.

There is a serious underlying structural change in the Northern region as bad as anywhere. That has been going on for many more years than this Government have been in power, and we all want to see an end to it.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the influence of pay settlements is one aspect of increased unemployment, a matter which has not been mentioned by any Opposition Members all afternoon?

One of the anomalies in this country is that the highest areas for wages outside London are the Northern region and the North-West.

Is the Minister aware that Government Departments which have promised orders to British shipbuilders have not yet placed those orders with the specific yards that will build them? Will he speak to his colleagues in other Departments which have these orders ready to be put to shipbuilding yards and make sure that they are put immediately to help to alleviate the unemployment problems in the Northern region?

I shall do anything that I possibly can to be helpful.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment, in view of evidence that employment agencies recruit from overseas resident domestics who have dependent children without informing them that they are liable to be removed for failing to declare such dependent children, if he will conduct an inquiry into the practices of these agencies; and if he will make a statement.

If the hon. Member will let me have the evidence to which he refers, I shall be pleased to have the matter investigated.

Does the Minister accept that several hundred of these unfortunate women, who have come to this country without appropriate warnings from his Department, are now under possible threat of expulsion? Should he not talk to Home Office Ministers and ensure that these women are treated with leniency?

I understand that it is a question, not of having appropriate warnings but of people coming to this country on the basis that they have no dependants and no children and, having subsequently got the right to live here, finding that they have got children and dependants. That is the problem.

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that in his answer he makes the first mistake? According to reports that I have read, the people to whom the question refers are ignorant of our customs and would not be asked at the point of reception whether they had dependants. In those circumstances I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that these people find themselves alone and in grave difficulties. Will he consult his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to see whether more compassion and understanding can be injected into this serious problem?

As I have already suggested, if any hon. Member cares to give me the evidence, I shall be pleased to have it investigated.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the future of industrial training boards.

I welcome the fundamental review that the Manpower Services Commission is now making of our industrial training arrangements generally, including the operations of the industrial training boards, and look forward to receiving the report of its review in July. The Government will then consider what action needs to be taken.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. It seems that there is the possibility that the Government will take action. Is my right hon. Friend aware, however, that in my constituency many small employers of labour, particularly of young people and apprentices, resent the manner in which the industrial training boards enforce petty restrictions upon them? Will he bear in mind, when the report of the review is received, that considerable pressure is building up among employers for the abolition of the industrial training boards?

I should like to have chapter and verse of what my hon. Friend has stated about the problems of small companies. I agree that we would be silly not to face the fact that considerable pressure is building up among certain employers about the attitude of the industrial training boards.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that industrial training projects, to which I have referred before, are being hampered as a result of the criteria laid down for the training of young people? Will he use his good offices to approach the Manpower Services Commission with a view to changing the criteria so as to allow indexed training projects to come into force at the earliest possible moment?

I shall certainly consult the Manpower Services Commission to see whether we can meet the hon. Gentleman's point

Has my right hon. Friend studied the staggering arrangements being made for the chief executives of these boards, one of whom is apparently earning more than anyone else in Whitehall, and receiving an index-linked salary as well as an index-linked pension? Is it not time that the contracts of these gentlemen were revised or, preferably, withdrawn?

I have studied the matter We have been studying it for some considerable time. Unfortunately, these index-linked agreements were already in force when we came into office. They apply to one man. Like our predecessors, we are bound by that undertaking. These are matters that bring the boards into great disrepute.

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that many industrial training boards are now running out of money at a time when employers are cutting back on training? Is it not time that the Government took action?

I see no reason why industrial training boards, if they are doing a good job, should be running out of money. They can get a levy from employers, and they do. There is no earthly reason for thinking that the industrial training boards should be short of money.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will state the latest unemployment figures, and percentage rates, for the United Kingdom and the North-West of England.

At 8 May, the provisional number registered as unemployed and the unemployment rates for the United Kingdom were 1,509,191 and 6.2 per cent., and for the North-West region, 226,274 and 7.9 per cent.

Is the Minister aware that, as a result of the Government's policies not a week goes past without an announcement of major closures and redundancies, not only in the textile and footwear industries, but right across the manufacturing heartlands of the the North-West? Will he say by how much more unemployment in the North-West has to rise before the Government change their policy and start to assist industry rather than destroy it?

The hon. Gentleman talks about Government policies that mean massive spending. The previous Government doubled unemployment by pursuing just that approach. Unemployment is increasing in the area due to world prices and the overall situation in the economy. It is not due to Government policies.

Will my hon. Friend agree that if the attitudes announced by Mr. Basnett yesterday were translated into actions this would substantially increase unemployment in the United Kingdom?

There is no question about that. The attitude that we want to see reflected is that of Sir Michael Edwardes, who said in a recent speech that we wanted positive co-operation to produce profitable jobs in British industry.

When the Minister said a few minutes ago that he understood that the textile industry enjoyed a high level of protection was he aware of the letter sent by Mr. Bob Lloyd-Jones, director-general of the British Textile Employers' Association, to his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister pointing out that the greatest exporting force that the world has ever known—the textile industry—is on the point of extinction? Is he aware that it is nonsense, according to Mr. Bob Lloyd-Jones, for Ministers to stand at the Dispatch Box and say that the industry enjoys any measure of effective protection?

The temporary short-time working scheme was kept by my Department particularly because of the needs of the textile industry. The other protection is a matter for the Department of Trade. The hon. Gentleman will know the views that it has put forward. This is a question, as I have said already, of balancing the interests of the home market against the effective exports that the textile industry is able to achieve.

Is my hon. Friend aware that, because of changes in the Government's regional aid policy, many areas of the North-West will not be able to obtain assistance from EEC sources? Will my hon. Friend have a word with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry to see whether a formula can be devised whereby Britain can claim its rightful portion of EEC aid for industry, particularly in the North-West, which is suffering heavy redundancies because of the problems facing the textile and footwear industries?

I understand that a system is already devised and that the Department of Industry will consider carefully all changes in the light of changes since the original decisions were made.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the number of unemployed in the United Kingdom at the latest available date; and what are the figures for women and young people, respectively.

At 8 May, the provisional number of people registered as unemployed in the United Kingdom was 1,509,191 of whom 460,639 were females. An age analysis was last made in April when the number under 20 years of age was 258,210 out of a total of 1.522,927.

Are not these figures reaching near catastrophic proportions, certainly in such areas as South Wales? Do not the Government think that they have done enough damage to the economy already, particularly regarding unemployment? Have not sanctions against Iran disrupted our trade and, therefore, employment prospects?

The figures cause everyone concern. Where we disagree is about the methods for bringing them down. We believe that the figures will be brought down by making British industry more competitive through products that sell. That is the only way, in the end, to provide jobs.

asked the Prime Minister what are the functions of the permanent secretary in the Department of Energy; and whether experience in diplomacy and Oriental languages is a necessary or desirable qualification for this post.

The functions are similar to those of the official head of any Department, namely to be responsible for the efficient management of the Department and to give assistance to Ministers in carrying out their duties. Proficiency in languages, including those spoken in some major oil-producing countries, although not a necessary qualification, is a distinct asset both in bilateral discussions and international conferences.

With all due respect to the talents of Sir Donald Maitland, was not this a special opportunity to appoint someone as head of a Department whose mind has been sharpened by the harsh disciplines of science and engineering? Why do we go on supposing that to know everything about nothing in particular is a good thing?

I shall reply to the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question first. The hon. Gentleman must not assume that, although he and I have either engineering or scientific qualifications, this necessarily puts us above our fellows in administering Departments, although some of us, of course, would claim to be more equal than others. With regard to choosing an engineer or a scientist as head of that Department, there are, I am afraid, very few candidates available. I am convinced that we have chosen the best person to be permanent secretary of that Department.

When the permanent secretary deals with Middle Eastern oil producers does he stress to them that the general directive of Her Majesty's Government is that the State of Israel should continue to exist within secure and defensible borders?

This is always stressed whenever we are dealing with the future of the Middle East. Two things need to go ahead together—the recognition of the right of Israel to exist behind secure boundaries alongside the recognition of the rights of the Palestinian people.

Is the Prime Minister aware that the appointment of an amateur with no training in science and technology might have been tolerable if she had not abolished the energy commission which would have been able to give the Secretary of State much-needed, good technical advice on matters within his responsibility?

I have not the slightest shadow of doubt that the Secretary of State and the permanent secretary will receive excellent advice from well qualified scientific people.

asked the Prime Minister if she will pay an official visit to the Northern region.

I shall do so next Friday.

Is the right hon. Lady aware that unemployment in the Northern region has risen every month since last November and that most people in the region believe that her Government just could not care less?

The hon. Gentleman will remember his own Government's record of more than doubling the level of unemployment.

Will the Prime Minister take note of what is happening in the fishing ports of the North of England? Does she realise that the aid given so far to the industry simply will not last long enough for the fishing industry to survive until the next round of consultations is completed? Is she prepared to make substantial further aid available to the industry?

About £3 million was the amount required by the industry. Its distribution is being handled by the industry, and is being used partly for exploring further waters to which the fishing fleets can go. I recognise that there are particular difficulties facing fleets that fish in distant waters. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is in touch with the fishermen about that matter.

Will my right hon. Friend take time today to talk to the Head of Government of Saudi Arabia—

Order. The hon. Gentleman realises that this is not an open question.

I apologise, Mr. Speaker.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be lucky later, but I cannot guarantee it.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of the athletes who will go to the Olympic Games—

Order. We are dealing with the Northern region.

I was referring to those athletes who come from the Northern region and who are a particularly strong part of our Olympic Games contingent.

Order. I appeal to hon. Members not to try to twist a question into—[ Interruption .] Order. Some of those who are shouting are among those who do this. An open question is fair game, but where it is a substantive question I hope that the House will play the game and try to have it that way.

Before the right hon. Lady goes to the Northern region on Friday, will she please get a decision from the Ministry of Defence on the order for 77 Chieftain tanks so that she can visit Vickers Elswick factory and tell the 350 workers who are now due for redundancy that they will not be made redundant because the order is there?

I shall have to disappoint the hon. Gentleman. I do not think that the decision will be ready before I go north on Friday.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 20 May.

In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be having meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, including one with the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Dr. Kurt Waldheim. This evening I shall be giving a dinner for Dr. Waldheim.

Does the Prime Minister agree that the decision of the Independent Broadcasting Authority to ban the "World in Action" programme on the Government communications headquarters in Hong Kong will suggest to many that serious breaches of security must be involved to justify such a cover-up? Will she say whether she initiated any investigation into these allegations and whether she will make a report to the House in due course?

The decision to which the hon. Gentleman referred had no such implications. It was a decision by the IBA, taken wholly independently for reasons which the IBA spelt out at the time it gave the decision.

With regard to the allegations to which the hon. Gentleman refers they were made some time ago, were taken seriously—as they should be—when they were made, were independently investigated and were found largely to be unfounded. But where they were well founded, the requisite improvements were put into operation.

At a time when the British Government are, correctly, clobbering our growing trade with Iran, will my right hon. Friend point out to President Carter that the American people are again providing money to finance weapons for the Provisional Irish Republican Army at the same time as the American Administration are preventing the Royal Ulster Constabulary from having the handguns that it needs to return the fire?

We are being asked to do everything that we can to help our American allies to try to secure the release of the hostages. At the same time, I am very well aware that we asked them to supply a revolver type of pistol for the RUC. My hon. Friend will know that, on the first matter, the Government thought it best to lay orders which do not have retrospective effect on existing contracts, and that I would expect to be more formally announced shortly. With regard to the latter point, our request has not yet been turned down, but I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding us forcefully that it is still on the table.

Referring to the right hon. Lady's latest reply, may I ask whether she does not agree that the lesson of the last day or two is that U-turns can be conducted with great grace and skill? She is really very good at it when she tries, as we saw over Zimbabwe. May I ask her, therefore, the question which the whole country is asking? When will she start to reverse the policies which have led to the record increase in inflation under her Government?

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his compliment. I recognise that it comes from an expert in these matters. With regard to advice from him on matters such as increasing prices, I really do not think that he is an expert in telling us how to get these down, bearing in mind that he was a member of a Government who raised electricity prices by 169 per cent., who raised postal charges by 148 per cent., rail transport by 172 per cent.—[ Interruption .]

Order. Hon. Member's must listen to things that they do not wish to hear.

—food charges by 120 per cent., and rates and water charges by 148 per cent.

Perhaps I may respond to the right hon. Lady and offer her a few more compliments. When will she be able to bring any prices down? So far, all that she has done is to push them up.

I think that the right hon. Gentleman will find that the retail prices index will come down—[HON. MEMBERS: "When?"] The right hon. Gentleman will know full well when it will come down, for a technical reason. It will come down in July-August. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]

Will the right hon. Lady now tell us when she thinks the RPI will come down to the figure at which it was when she assumed office?

just hope that it will not go up as high as it did under the right hon. Gentleman's Party before it comes down. It might come down faster if the right hon. Gentleman did not urge unions to increase their pay claims and did not urge more spending on the Government, because to urge more spending on the Government is a way of urging more inflation.

My right hon. Friend will be aware that the ACARD has published yet another excellent report on research and development in public purchasing affecting all Departments of State. Have the Cabinet considered the recommendations of that report? Apart from herself, which Minister will have responsibility for ensuring that they are carried out?

The Government's policy towards public purchasing has been announced from this Dispatch Box. Naturally, we wish all of those who make public purchases, as far as possible, to buy British, commensurate with getting the quality and delivery.

In view of tomorrow's visit by the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic, does not the right hon. Lady think it advisable, to avoid misunderstanding and misrepresentation, to reaffirm today that undertaking that she has given on other occasions—namely, that she does not contemplate discussing the internal constitutional affairs of the United Kingdom with external representatives of any Government or politicians?

The future of the constitutional affairs of Northern Ireland is a matter for the people of Northern Ireland, this Government and this Parliament, and no one else.

Will my hon. Friend draw to the attention of the British Olympic Committee the revelation, in today's edition of The Times , of a former KGB official and TASS correspondent that several middle-ranking Soviet officials welcomed the call by President Carter for a boycott on the Olympic Games because they hoped that it would make the Kremlin think again about its disastrous decision to force itself upon Afghanistan? Will my right hon. Friend urge Sir Denis Follows to think again in the interests of the British public and the peace of the world?

I have today written again to Sir Denis Follows urging him to think again about the decision to recommend British athletes to go to Moscow, especially in view of the American decision, the West German decision and the decisions of an increasing number of Governments. I believe that it would be advisable if our International Olympic Committee thought again.

Does the right hon. Lady applaud the decision taken by the President of France to meet the Russian leaders? Would it not have been better, from the point of view of getting the hostages out of Iran and helping President Carter, if we had not been involved in the silly boycott of the Olympic Games?

I have indicated forcefully my view that one way to bring home to the Russian people the enormity of what has happened by their Government invading Afghanistan is to boycott the Olympic Games. That will bring it home to the Russian people more forcefully than anything else. With regard to the President of France, I am not responsible for the President of France.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Do you think it fair, when 60 or 70 hon. Members are seeking to catch your eye, that the de facto Leader of the Opposition should rise in his place repeatedly and catch your eye on no fewer than three or four occasions? It makes it difficult for other hon. Members to get a word in edgeways.

The hon. Gentleman has raised that issue with me before. As he and the House are aware, I have said that some extra latitude is allowed to official Opposition spokesmen.

Further to that point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Will you take note of the fact that because of the tactics employed by one or two Conservative Members there were several hon. Members representing Northern region constituencies that are greatly affected by high unemployment who were unable to question the Minister on that issue?

We must not use points of order to continue the argument.

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to empower the Minister of Transport to waive sections 54 and 56 of the Transport Act 1962 upon specific application by British Railways naming the section of line to be re-opened on a trial basis. It is a great pleasure to see the interest in the extension of our railway system so clearly portrayed by the full Benches around me.

Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman will have even greater interest if he will wait for a moment. I hope that hon. Members leaving the Chamber will do so quietly.

It seems that we have rather more points in the House than there are in the British Rail network. On this journey I merely ask for leave to bring in the most minor and general of regulations. It will allow British Rail to re-open closed lines on an experimental basis without having to go through the costly and time-consuming procedure that now applies, quite correctly, should British Rail seek to close a line.

I cannot believe that any hon. Member does not agree that in times of fuel shortage, high fuel costs and, in the rural area from which I come, quite inadequate roads, it is better to move passengers by train rather than by car.

I accept that the provisions of the 1962 Act are entirely sensible, but should the House be willing to allow British Rail the expediency of being able to reopen a line and, if the experiment is a failure, to close it again—perhaps British Rail would think that 18 months is a reasonable period—I believe that there would be great hope for many small lines that have been killed off post-Beeching. In my area I have in mind the small line from Barnstaple to Bideford. In the area of my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills) I have in mind the line from Exeter to Okehampton.

I am aware that there are more national implications than I first thought when I considered the west country. It is worth a try to encourage passengers back on to the railways. It is worth a try to encourage British Rail to be rather more adventurous. I fully understand its problems. It dare not reopen lines when it cannot afford the cost of later closures.

Question put and agreed to .

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Tony Speller, Mr. Robert Adley, Mr. Jack Aspinwall, Mr. Walter Johnson, Mr. Iain Mills, Mr. Peter Mills, Mr. Ron Lewis and Mr. Peter Snape.

Mr. Tony Speller accordingly presented a Bill to empower the Minister of Transport to waive sections 54 and 56 of the Transport Act 1962 upon specific application by British Railways naming the section of line to reopened on a trial basis: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 4 July and to be printed. [Bill 211.]

I beg to move, that this House do now adjourn.

Leave having been given on Monday 19 May under Standing Order No. 9 to discuss : The breach of the procedure of the House of Commons by the Government in failing to bring forward new legislation on Iran (Temporary Powers) in the light of the Lord Privy Seal's statement and the Government's decision to back-date the imposition of sanctions to 4th November 1979.

I shall be brief, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday you gave leave under the Standing Order No. 9 procedure for a very specific topic to be discussed, namely, the retrospective element in the Iran (Temporary Powers) Act. For reasons that I do not think the House will require me to rehearse, circumstances have changed. It would be an abuse of the procedure of the House if we were to succumb to the temptation to try to raise all sorts of other interesting issues arising from the general issue of sanctions policy.

There is a particular reason for not trying to exploit the Standing Order No. 9 procedure unfairly and to injure it by abusing it at a time when decisions on foreign affairs, especially with our EEC partners, are by nature ever more fast-moving. The Standing Order No. 9 procedure represents the best brake that the the House has over what would otherwise be faits accompli.

The salutary feature about yesterday's episode is that it means that a Minister—however senior and prestigious—before entering into an agreement with our EEC partners, with the Americans or with anyone else, must seriously ask himself "Can I be sure that the House of Commons will wear such a policy? "

I close with the thought that yesterday proved that the House will not be a rubber stamp for any Government, and that a Minister must realise that he or she at any time may have to face the hurdle of the Standing Order No. 9 procedure. It is in that spirit that I ask the House to adjourn.

the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) has played a notable part throughout these proceedings on sanctions. The House will have greatly admired the restraint that he has shown this afternoon. I shall try to be almost as brief as he was, but I hope that the House will understand that I cannot be quite so brief.

After my statement yesterday about decisions taken on the implementation of sanctions against Iran by Foreign Ministers of the European Community meeting informally in Naples over the weekend, the House made its view very clear that the inclusion of retrospection, however limited, was unacceptable.

The Government have therefore decided that sanctions will not be retrospective. No orders will be laid before the House which ban the supply of goods under arrangements made before the date on which those orders were laid. Last night we informed our European Community partners and the Government of the United States that, in view of the opposition of this House to retrospection, we would no longer be prepared to proceed to apply any element of retrospection among the decisions that we agreed to at the meeting in Naples. Arrangements that ban the supply of arms continue in force.

The result of the Government's decision not to go ahead with the retrospective element in the decision of the Nine will now be that the Orders in Council which will be laid before the House to implement sanctions, will not apply to the export of goods under arrangements made before the date of those orders. The Government hope to make these orders as soon as possible. But it is our intention to make sure that the orders cover the same ground as the parallel orders that our partners in the Nine will be making, to give effect to the sanctions measures to which we have all agreed.

I am sure that the House will agree that it is important to make sure that we all go along this road at the same pace and that we cover the same ground. The necessary procedures for co-ordinating with our partners are already in hand.

I can also assure the House that when the orders are laid before the House there will be an opportunity for the House to debate them. As explained to the House during the debate on the Iran (Temporary Powers) Act, any orders made under the Act will lapse if the House does not approve them within 28 days. The House was also given an assurance that any orders made under the 1939 Act will also be made subject to a parallel procedure. That is to say that, although the 1939 Act does not provide for orders made under it to be subject to a resolution by the House, in this case, because of the obvious importance of the question and the clearly expressed views of the House, the Government have undertaken to revoke any orders made under the 1939 Act if the approval of the House for such orders is not forthcoming.

The House has been virtually united in its condemnation of the illegal detention of the American hostages in Iran. The Government thought it right to play a leading part in working towards their release. One of the measures decided upon, in conjunction with our European partners, was the implementation of the sanctions put forward in the vetoed Security Council resolution. Although we recognise that sanctions are of limited value, we continue to believe that the policy of applying them is right, in order to demonstrate our solidarity with our friend and ally, and with the limited objective of securing the release of the hostages.

Our Community partners have hitherto taken the view that the appropriate way of showing such solidarity would be to apply sanctions to contracts concluded after 4 November 1979. But we accept the view of the House that sanctions applied in the United Kingdom should not be retrospective. We shall continue to work for the release of the hostages through what means we have, through quiet diplomacy and insistent persuasion. This is by no means incompatible with the operation of sanctions, and we trust that our efforts and the efforts of our partners will help to bear fruit.

The House is grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) for raising this debate. I echo the words of the Lord Privy Seal in welcoming both the manner and matter of his short but cogent speech. He is entitled to great personal credit for his energy and tenacity in pressing this issue, for the effectiveness of his intervention yesterday, and for his sucess in obtaining a debate under Standing Order No. 9. Not least, credit is due because, he has brought about an almost unprecedented change in Government policy. That change was unprecedented both in the speed with which Ministers reversed their decisions, and in the nature of the change, which affects agreements that were reached with eight other countries only 36 hours earlier.

I, too, will be short. We all know what happened. The story does not simply concern the reaction of the House yesterday to the Lord Privy Seal's statement. When the Government launched a two-day debate on the Iran (Temporary Powers) Bill last week, they had already taken a policy decision to activate the powers under the Iran (Temporary Powers) Bill, if no progress had been made to secure the release of the American hostages. That would have affected future contracts.

Ministers reminded the House that the Government had in reserve the heavier powers contained in the 1939 Act. However, their intention was clear. They indicated that these powers would not be invoked for some time. That was the strong and inescapable impression that they gave. Among other things, that is why no serious response was made in ministerial replies to the anxieties that had been expressed by hon. Members from all parties about the disruption of existing contracts and the problems of compensation.

After the Bill had been enacted, the Foreign Secretary went to Vienna and then to Naples. During the course of his discussions in those cities he was persuaded not only to activate the powers under the Iran (Temporary Powers) Act 1980 from a date to be announced in the relevant order, but to backdate sanctions to 4 November 1979. That was the date on which the American hostages were unlawfully seized. That was contrary to the understanding and wishes of the House. It was also contrary to the terms of the Iran (Temporary Powers) Act.

If 4 November had been contemplated for a moment as the starting date, the Iran (Temporary Powers) Bill would not have excluded—as it did—all contracts that had been signed previously. Clause 1(2)( a ) would have stated that an Order in Council would not apply to any contract made before 4 November. However, the existing text states that an Order in Council shall not apply to any contract made before the date on which the Order is made. Yesterday the House heard the Lord Privy Seal's statement. Hon. Members felt strongly aggrieved. They felt that they had been deceived during those two days of debate. I believe that the Government did not intend to deceive the House last Monday and Tuesday. I believe that they were forced to deceive retrospectively, as a result of agreements that had been reached in Naples on the Saturday and Sunday. There is no reason for me to labour these points. The Government's decision last night has explicitly conceded them.

I have one question to ask the Lord Privy Seal before attempting to draw some lessons from this experience. The question relates to the powers contained in the 1939 Act. If the Government intend at some future stage to seek the approval of the House and to activate any of those powers, I hope that they will lay an affirmative order, rather than one that would reflect the type of order for which provision is contained in the Iran (Temporary Powers) Act. Perhaps the Lord Privy Seal has already agreed to that. However, I should be grateful for confirmation. We might otherwise find ourselves dealing with an order that had come into effect before the House had had a chance to debate it. That would be quite contrary to the wishes of hon. Members.

I warmly endorse the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian about the importance of Standing Order No. 9 procedures. They were introduced about 12 years ago. They have given the House of Commons, under the guidance of Mr. Speaker, an ability to respond immediately to events in a way that was previously inconceivable. They are of great value to all who believe in the authority of the House of Commons and in the central importance of debate on the Floor of the House.

An Adjournment debate which is raised under Standing Order No. 9 serves to remind Ministers that their control over our timetable is far from perfect. It reminds the nation that issues of great interest and importance can be debated without delay. It reminds all hon. Members of the central truth of British parliamentary democracy, namely, that, however large a Government's majority may be, they ultimately depend on the votes of hon. Members.

Secondly, these events have taught a most important lesson about the conduct of British foreign policy. Provided that Ministers have the support of the House of Commons they can conclude firm agreements with other countries on all matters that they think important. But if Ministers think that in their dealings with other countries they are free agents who can safely yield to the pressures of other nations and just assume the consent of the House of Commons, they are profoundly mistaken.

This is important in our relations both with the United States and the EEC. We are friends and allies of the United States, and the whole House has made it plain that the United States has our strong support for concerted, non-military measures to bring about the early release of the hostages. We believe that they have been grievously wronged, and that the Iranians have committed a most serious offence against international law. But we have the right and the duty to decide the nature and timing of the measures that we can take in order to assist the release of the hostages. It is our judgment, and not our obedience, that we offer.

The view of the House and the Government was made clear last week. It was sensible to proceed slowly using modest sanctions as a minor accompaniment to diplomatic and political measures. The use of stronger sanctions was not ruled out in future, but it was not the general view last week of either the Government or the House that this was the time to invoke them. We already knew then that the United States had a different view, but that was in no way sufficient reason for the Foreign Secretary to go further than the House intended.

The lesson for the EEC is also clear. There can be no question of a common foreign policy, of speaking with one voice, except on those occasions when it is the will of the House to do so. The result of the Naples agreement and of last night's reversal is, of course, a shambles. I do not welcome a situation in which our Foreign Ministers, in their dealings with the EEC, can be accused of being uncertain or irresolute. I have said in another context, and I say it again, that British Ministers should say what they mean and mean what they say. We have taken that position on many other matters of great importance, including that of the budget contribution before the Dublin meetings last year.

The Government will have to deal with the problem that they have created. The Foreign Secretary is bound to find it embarrassing. The important thing for the EEC to understand is that in Britain the House of Commons is supreme. That does not mean that British Ministers cannot make firm and binding commitments. It means that in Britain, at least, commitments must be preceded by agreement in the House of Commons.

My third point is practical. Clearly there is a need for greater co-ordination between Foreign Office Ministers than we have had so far. There is a problem here. If Senior Ministers are obliged, as in the case of the Lord Privy Seal and the Foreign Secretary, to undertake a series of overseas visits, and if junior Ministers are given the responsibility of handling sensitive legislation, there is an obvious danger that senior Ministers will become out of touch and insensitive to the opinions and understandings of the House. This is even more a problem when the Foreign Secretary is in another place.

We had a classic example of such in-sensitivity yesterday. The Lord Privy Seal made a number of tart comments to my right hon. and hon. Friends which, had he been able to listen to the debates last week, he would not have made. It is not for me to suggest how this problem can best be dealt with, but it is a problem and Foreign Ministers should seek seriously to overcome it.

I do not wish to carry the matter any further today. The Government were right to bow to the will of the House. There are worth-while lessons to be learnt and our allies and friends may rest assured that in asserting, as we have, the supremacy of the House of Commons we in no way resile from our view of the total unacceptability of the Iranian conduct towards the American hostages. We shall seek to assist their early release in every sensible way.

I wish to ask only two questions, but first, like the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore) and the Lord Privy Seal, I think it proper to pay a tribute to the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell). All the firms that would have been affected by the retrospective legislations should be grateful to him for his action. Very often we are annoyed by the hon. Member's persistence, but on this occasion it has been wholly vindicated.

The Minister emphasised throughout that the Nine seek to move in parallel in bringing the sanctions into effect. Will this position change? Will the Government's decision affect what the other eight Governments do? Presumably the others persuaded us to make the matter retrospective. Will they not now make it retrospective themselves? What is the position?

The right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar described the Government's action as somewhat "shambolic ". I do not know about that, but I do find it very strange. I do not understand why a British Government, in consultation with Foreign Ministers, should enter into a commitment and then go back on it. Either they should decide that, mistakenly or reluctantly, they propose to enter the commitment and adhere to it, or they should tell their European colleagues that they genuinely feel that they cannot take this commitment and therefore they will not enter it. In other words, surely the Government have been guilty of profoundly misjudging the situation. I agree that certainly one cannot accuse them of seeking consciously to deceive, but clearly they have seriously misjudged the situation.

rose —

Order. I believe that it is the will of the House—

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—

Order. I am on my feet I will call the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), but he must wait his turn like anyone else.

I believe that it is the will of the House that we come to a conclusion on this matter quickly. I hope that those hon. Members who, nevertheless, feel that they must speak, will bear that in mind.

I want to ask the Lord Privy Seal one question. Had he given way to me during his speech, all this could have been avoided. My question is on precisely the same point as that made by the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston). This is very important. The right hon. Gentleman said that there would be a co-ordination of activity between the Government and our friends in Europe. Precisely what does that mean? Does it now mean that the EEC countries have agreed that sanctions will not be retrospective for them either, or does it mean that we are actually going it alone? I should be very pleased if it were the latter.

With the leave of the House, I shall answer the questions that have been put to me.

The right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore) asked for an assurance about orders. In my statement I said that although there is no provision in the 1939 Act for making such orders, we shall apply exactly the same procedure for orders under the 1939 Act as for those made under the Act passed last week. I further assure the House that we shall ensure that the debate on those orders, if any, takes place as soon as possible.

That is precisely the point. I did not mishear the right hon. Gentleman. If the Government use the 1939 Act with the affirmative order procedure in the 1980 Act, that order will come into effect before it can be debated. To avoid that difficulty I asked the right hon. Gentleman to use the normal affirmative order procedure, where drafts cannot come into effect until the House has debated and approved them.

I was seeking to make the point that now that any possibility of retrospection has been removed from orders made under the 1939 Act, I do not believe that there is cause to make a distinction between orders made respectively, under the 1939 Act and the Act passed last week. I shall certainly think about the matter, and I have undertaken that debates will take place as soon as possible.

I am sorry that I did not give way to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer). As he knows, I normally give way, but I was hoping to bring the proceedings to a close as soon as possible. The answer to the question proposed by the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) is that it is too soon to know. We notified our partners only last night, and we cannot say what will happen. As I said, we accept the need for co-ordination and for moving at the same pace down the same path.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn .