asked the Secretary of State for Employment when he expects to complete his review of the training boards.

I hope next year to take decisions about the future of individual boards in the light of the findings of the review of the future training needs of each sector of industry, which I have invited the Manpower Services Commission to conduct urgently.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the widespread feeling among a large part of industry that the training boards represent a major burden upon industry and that among all the quangos they are the biggest? When he contemplates his future plans for the boards, will he begin with the assumption that the object must be to reduce the bureaucratic and financial burden that the boards place upon industry without any commensurate results in training?

I begin with the assumption that we need to reduce the level of bureaucracy but also that we need to maintain the level of training. I am well aware of my hon. Friend's views. They are frequently expressed to me. I shall certainly examine each individual board, as I suspect the Manpower Services Commission will do also, with a critical eye to the points that my hon. Friend raised.

Does the Secretary of State accept that often manufacturing industry benefits most from the training boards? Does he further accept that it is not unreasonable that manufacturing industry should make a substantial contribution towards the training costs because, at the end of the day, that industry reaps the benefits?

Manufacturing industry does make a substantial contribution towards costs. We are considering the costs of the operating expenses of the board which are currently paid by the Government. If the boards are to continue, the operating costs should be paid by industry. That should sharpen the views of industry as to whether they wish the boards to continue in their present form.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that we are glad that he is to examine the individual boards, because they vary both in competence and in the respect that they have for their respective industries? Is he further aware that the best boards could survive by charging fees that industry would be glad to pay and that the others should be abolished as soon as possible?

All those points will be taken into account during the course of the review. It would be wrong for me to try in any way to prejudge the findings of the review. The Manpower Services Commission will get on with the matter. It must report by the middle of June. We shall then take fairly quick decisions, taking account of the points mentioned by my hon. Friend.

What is the total amount that the secretary of State is proposing to withdraw from the boards? How much will be the additional burden imposed on industry as a consequence of his proposals? How many fewer training places will there be in industry? When will we have a full, detailed statement about these matters so that we can better understand the legislation that will be introduced?

Legislation will be brought before the House in due course. There is no reason why it should have any effect on the number being trained. We are looking for training to a more fruitful end than some of the present training and expenditure. The operating costs of the training boards, which are paid for by the Manpower Services Commission through Government grant, amount to £40 million or £50 million. On this year's adjusted basis it is about £40 million.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he is satisfied with the progress in reducing the growth of unemployment in the Northern region.

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

The level of unemployment in the Northern region remains much too high. The Government recognise that areas such as the North-East require special help to overcome their particular problems.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there are 168,000 unemployed in the Northern region, which is an increase of 43 per cent. since last year, and that there are further 23,000 on short-time working, which means that unemployment is bound to worsen? When will the Government Front Bench make the Prime Minister understand what is happening? When will it persuade the right hon. Lady to change her policies?

I am aware of those figures. I am also aware that in the Northern region we have established one enterprise zone and that we are currently considering a second one. We have offered substantial help through the Industry Act, amounting to £215 million. There have been 200 advance factories. We have expanded from 41,000 places on the youth opportunities programme this year to 57,000 in 1981–82. Surely, that is a positive response to the figures that the hon. Gentleman has quoted.

Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the appalling figures that my hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Radice) has mentioned include terrible black spots such as Hartlepool, Consett and Sunderland and that in my own constituency one in five of the men are out of work? Does he realise also that he has managed to confirm the image of the Conservative Party as being the party of unemployment? When will he suggest to his right hon. Friend that he should press in the Cabinet for a northern development agency?

The suggestion of a northern development agency is not a matter for my right hon. Friend. Labour Members and some of my hon. Friends have been pressing for an agency. I think that the matter is now being considered by the Department of Industry.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there have been press reports that there may be delays in placing shipbuilding contracts for the Royal Navy? Will he recognise the immense importance of maintaining a viable shipbuilding industry for building warships and of the employment that goes with that?

That question was raised when I went to the North-East, to Swan Hunter. I have taken it up with the Department of Industry.

Does the Minister realise that long before his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister advised people to seek work away from home many men from the North-East went to towns such as King's Lynn in Norfolk to seek work? Is he aware that they now find themselves returning to the North-East without a job, having been declared redundant on the principle of last in, first out? Does he realise that that further underlines the importance of changing the economic policies that are causing the recession in the North-East?

To change the economic policies would create worse problems in the North-East. We have problems now because Governments have been panicked by unemployment figures, which we believe are short-term transitional figures, into reflation. We have ended up with a higher base rate of unemployment than that with which we started.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will state the latest number of registered unemployed in the United Kingdom.

At 13 November, the number of people registered as unemployed in the United Kingdom was 2,162,874.

Do not the figures indicate the appalling level of unemployment, including that in the West Midlands, and the human and national tragedy that is involved? Do not all the indicators demonstrate that unemployment will continue to rise sharply? Bearing in mind that the right hon. Gentleman had such a close connection with the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath), would it not be wise to bear in mind his warning to the Tory Party of the connection between the Conservative Party and unemployment?

I find myself in agreement with the hon. Gentleman in so far as these are appalling figures. They are the result of 20 years of gradual decline. The same sort of questions as are now being asked of myself and my hon. Friends were being asked 20 years ago when unemployment was 3 per cent. It is now nearly 10 per cent. That suggests to my hon. Friends that the policies that have been pursued in the past, to which some Labour Members ask us to return, would be no more successful if pursued again.

Will my right hon. Friend tell the House what he believes are the practical suggestions, if any, put forward by the Labour Party towards curing these terrible figures?

As I have said, it has no policies at all.

Has the right hon. Gentleman told the Cabinet that further cutbacks in steel will add to the miseries of unemployment in the North and in Wales? Is he aware that many of us on the Opposition Benches are apprehensive about the likely outcome of the current review? What is the right hon. Gentleman doing in the Cabinet on behalf of steel workers?

The important thing about the steel industry is that we should sell more steel. If we do that, we can produce more steel. It is in the marketing of steel that the present chairman of the corporation is hoping for and seeking a way out of the serious problems facing the industry. What happens in British Leyland, in the car industry and in the production of consumer durables is reflected directly in the amount of steel that we can produce and, therefore, the number of jobs in the steel industry. That is the crucial element and that is the message that I give to the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friends.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that such is the horrific proportion of unemployment in Scotland that the Scottish Trades Union Congress organised yesterday a national convention on the problem of unemployment, which was attended by about 950 representatives of industry, trade unions, political bodies and other bodies? Will he be prepared to meet the standing commission of the convention to listen sympathetically to any proposals that it might care to advance for the amelioration of unemployment in Scotland?

Subject to the demands of etiquette in my relationship with the Secretary of State for Scotland, I shall be delighted to meet either the Scottish Trades Union Congress or the standing commission. I am glad that the Conservative Party, including Conservative trade unionists, took part in the conference that met yesterday. I gather that it put up a good show.

I accept that the unemployment figures are unbearably high. However, is my right hon. Friend aware that when I visited employment exchanges that cover his constituency I was told by the managers that about one-third of those who are registered as unemployed genuinely wanted to work and that when I visited North-East labour exchanges I was told by the managers that about 45 per cent. genuinely wanted to work? What is my right hon. Friend's estimate of the percentage of those who genuinely want to work?

I can assure my hon. Friend that in my constituency the percentage is a great deal higher than he suggests. I believe that the vast majority of British people want to work. It is a duty of society to seek to provide the maximum number of jobs. I believe also — in this I share some of the anxieties of my hon. Friend — that there are many more in society now who do not mind if they work or if they do not. There are many more who take that view now than 10 or 20 years ago. That should not allow us to forgive or forget the dramatic increase in unemployment in recent years. We must do all that we can to reduce it.

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that by the end of the year he will have presided over the worst and most rapid rise in unemployment of any Secretary of State or Minister of Labour since the early 1930s? I do not believe that he takes any joy from that, but will he confirm that there is a secret report in the Department of Employment that indicates that by this time next year, on the basis of unchanged economic policies, we shall have unemployment reaching 3 million? Does he not regard that as appalling? What will he do to prevent that from coming about?

If it was secret, the right hon. Gentleman would not know about it. However, as there is no such report, it is not secret, and I am able to deny that there is such a report. As for the record in the past 20 months, the number of unemployed doubled in the first two years of Labour Government.

Then it started to fall.

It started to fall very slightly towards the end of that period. However, neither party, nor any Western European country, has succeeded in dealing with the unemployment problem in recent years. Before suggesting the same old policies that failed last time, Labour Members should have a little more patience with the policy that we are pursuing.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will increase the materials allowance under the short-term employment programme and the youth opportunities programme in the European Coal and Steel Community assisted areas and the development and special development areas; and whether he will bring forward measures to reduce the period before eligibility for such schemes, in such areas.

I am informed that the Manpower Services Commission intends to increase from £300 to £400 across the board the per capita materials allowance of the youth opportunities programme from 1 April 1981. The materials allowance of the new community enterprise programme will also be £400, which is £100 more than the allowance available under the special temporary employment programme, which it will replace from 1 April 1981. The six-week rule for entry to the youth opportunities programme will be retained but will be further relaxed for young people in special need.

Does the Minister accept that increasing the material allowances in the DAs, SDAs and ECSC assisted areas will act as a considerable incentive to local authorities to set up special units to help people enter the special temporary employment programme? Does he further accept that, by bringing forward the date of eligibility for STEP, local authorities will be enabled to use the EEC-based readaptations payment scheme, which is available in areas where there have been steel industry closures, to draw people into their schemes from the steel industry?

One is always looking at ways of getting one's hands on European money. However, to try to differentiate the allowances to target them to SDAs, DAs and so on is not helpful. Under existing schemes, they are targeted in a number of places. Over half the places available are already in such areas, which means that the cumulative money available is very much higher. The schemes operate nation-wide to deal with areas that have unemployment equally as Lad as in the SDAs, although that is often concealed in the figures. It is, therefore, not possible to pursue the policy that the hon. Gentleman puts forward to benefit his constituents.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what additional steps he proposes to take to ensure that young people have sufficient skills for industry's future needs.

This year some 25,000 apprenticeships are receiving aid from the Manpower Services Commission, and on 21 November my right hon. Friend announced a major expansion of the youth opportunities programme, which helps to prepare unemployed young people for working life, and an acceleration in the unified vocational preparation pregramme for employed young people. The Government and the MSC are currently considering what further action might be taken to equip young people for industry's future needs.

While welcoming the Government's recent moves to expand and improve the quality of the youth opportunities programme, may I ask my hon. and learned Friend to say what progress is being made to encourage industry and unions to move away from an apprenticeship system which is based more on time saving than on the achievement of certain basic standards?

The achievement of basic standards to equip young people for a life in industry is very important. The unified vocational preparation programme, which began in 1977 on an experimental basis, is being developed by the Manpower Services Commission, with the encouragement of my right hon. Friend. That programme provides training for young people in work aged between 16 and 18 years, and we regard it as being jest as important in its way as the youth opportunities programme.

Is the Minister aware that, given the dramatic drop in apprentice recruitment this year, the number of 25,000 places is totally inadequate? Will the Department resolve to do better next year?

We shall have to wait to see how resources turn out. We shall be guided by what the Manpower Services Commission has to say in that regard. The 25,000 apprenticeships at present aided by the Manpower Services Commission include 1,700 that were added to the programme in response to the rise in youth unemployment.

Allowing for the exceptional and exceptionally important work being done in the application of microelectronics in schools in the Birmingham area, would my hon. and learned Friend care to estimate what proportion of the secondary school population of the United Kingdom is receiving some familiarisation with the technology on which their employment in the next two decades is most likely to depend?

My hon. Friend puts his finger on a vitally important matter. About half our secondary schools now have access to computer technology training. That is not nearly enough, and the number should be increased.

Does the Minister accept that, useful though the youth opportunities programme is, it is no substitute for real training in industry? Will he take on board the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) that, if we are to train to meet industry's future needs, the State should provide further cash incentives because of the poor financial position of industry at present?

What the hon. Gentleman describes as real training in industry is very important, and it is exactly the subject of the unified vocational preparation scheme, under which employers receive incentive payments for a trainee spending a day or a block of days training away from work and, in some cases, also for workplace training. By July 1979, about 3,000 young people had taken part in that scheme. Two industry training boards — the rubber and plastics board and the distributive industry board — have introduced substantial schemes of their own.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the total number of unemployed people in the United Kingdom; and how many are under the age of 25 years.

At 13 November, the number of people registered as unemployed in the United Kingdom was 2,162,874. The latest date for which an age analysis of the unemployed is available is 9 October, when the total was just over 2 million and the number under 25 years of age was 855,023.

When will the Government face the fact that a major cause of unemployment is the failure of their economic dogma, because extreme monetarism, high interest rates, high inflation, high energy costs, an overvalued pound and savage cuts in public expenditure have destroyed thousands of jobs, including jobs for people under 25? As the annual cost of unemployment is about £10 billion, is it not time that the Government invested such a sum in industry and essential services in order to provide more jobs?

I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's premise, and neither did his Government when they were in office. We are trying to help in any way possible. That is why I have announced a massive extension in the youth opportunities programme of up to 440,000 places next year. For the benefit of the hon. Gentleman and the House, may I say that the number of people being covered by various schemes is at present 668,000, which does not include the people whose jobs are being aided in nationalised industries by the additional resources that the Government are having to put into them.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the slight fall in unemployment, which affected relatively few people and occurred just before the Labour Government went out of office, was paid for by rapid price increases for everyone immediately after they went out of office? Will he confirm that he has no intention of taking such a short-term and irresponsible way out of our problems?

I do not believe that taking the short-term course would have any effect on the long-term problems. That is why we are sticking to our policy. The reduction of about 100,000 in the unemployment level in 1978 and the beginning of 1979 reflected the fact that we were at the top of the economic cycle. However, we still had 1·3 million unemployed, which shows the magnitude of the problem that Britain faces.

Is the Secretary of State aware that in some areas, and certainly in my constituency, unemployment is due not simply to the streamlining of numbers in factories but to factory closures? Is he further aware that the unemployment in those areas is likely to be long-term rather than short-term? What proposals do the Government have for attracting industry to those areas? Does he not take the view that he should consult his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry about the possibility of reviewing areas that have development area status?

I am continuously in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry on the question of reviewing areas for development area or intermediate area status. As for the hon. Gentleman's statement that a number of firms are going out of business altogether, I agree that that is one of the problems, particularly in the textile industry. That is why it is important to attract, by every means possible, other industries to take their place. That will depend partly on Britain's ability to control inflation and partly on our ability to sell our goods in overseas markets. That is a greater possibility or probability now than it has been for some years.

Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that there are sufficient incentives for overseas firms to come to this country? Will he have a word with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry and his right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to see whether we could provide the sort of incentives that are given in the United States, for example, and to set up free trade zones—not enterprise zones? Will he also consider with his right hon. Friends the possibility of simplifying and reducing the rate of corporation tax?

Those matters go well beyond my portfolio, but I am prepared at any time to consult my right hon. Friends on those subjects. Of course, I am not satisfied with the present position, but, with regard to corporation tax and taxes generally on companies, we have some of the lowest forms of corporate taxes in the world, and I want everyone to know that so that they can take advantage of it.

Which analysis of the unemployment situation does the Secretary of State prefer—that of his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister or that of his right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath)?

I prefer that of the Government.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he is taking to encourage occupational mobility among the unemployed.

I am informed by the Manpower Services Commission that its plans provide for about 82,500 adults, most of them unemployed, to start training or retraining this year under the training opportunities scheme. Jobcentre self-service vacancy displays give unemployed people ready access to notified vacancies in many different occupations.

Is the Minister aware that, in the 18 months of Conservative Government, unemployment in Huddersfield, for example, has risen by 158 per cent.? Is it not a cruel deception for the Prime Minister to go to areas such as Wales and tell people to move if they want a job? Is he aware that my constituents who are willing to move and who obtain jobs in the South-East cannot get a council house transfer and cannot afford to buy a house because of the Government's policy on housing? The concept of occupational mobility is nonsense.

The Housing Act 1980 has made considerable changes to assist people to be mobile. The Government recognise that housing is one of the major factors in mobility. I remind the hon. Gentleman that when the Labour Government were in power they made no changes in housing policy to assist people to be mobile. With regard to adult retraining, the hon. Gentleman knows that there are skillcentres at Bradford, Wakefield and Leeds and that there are also the Huddersfield technical college and the Dewsbury and Batley technical college.

Does not my hon. Friend agree that labour mobility amongst the employed is as important to the country's future as labour mobility for the unemployed? To that extent, will he encourage the move towards the transferability of occupational pensions, which would make a great contribution to achieving that objective?

I understand that the transferability of occupational pensions is currently under review by the DHSS. Of course, it is true that mobility in a real and reasonable sense has always played a part in this country in solving employment and unemployment problems. Birmingham and the Black Country did not exist until comparatively recently in that respect.

Is the Minister aware of the deep anxiety in North Staffordshire, where unemployment has doubled in the last year, and that the pottery industry, which was highly profitable, has been very badly hit? Instead of trying to shunt people out of these localities, why does he not take action to try to bring work back into the Potteries, where work can be done?

The Department of Industry and the various regional measures that have been introduced exist for that purpose. However, the question concerns occupational guidance — that is, mobility between occupations, not places.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what are the present percentage rates of unemployment for (a) Blackburn, (b) the North-West; and what were the corresponding rates in May 1979.

The unemployment rates in the Blackburn travel-to-work area at 13 November 1980 and 10 May 1979 were 10·6 and 6·0 per cent., respectively. The corresponding rates for the North-West region were 10·9 and 6·7 per cent. The rates are based on figures which include school leavers and are not seasonally adjusted.

Is the Minister aware that over the last 12 months in every town in North-East Lancashire—which is to lose its assistance under the Industry Act—unemployment has doubled, and in one case it has trebled? Is he concerned about that? When his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State asks for patience, and when he describes unemployment as a short-term transitional problem, as he did earlier this afternoon, will he say how long those unemployed in Blackburn and North-East Lancashire will have to wait before the rates are down to the May 1979 level?

If I could answer the hon. Gentleman's last question, I would not be Under-Secretary of State for Employment because I would be possessed of rather magical powers. We are concerned about the problems of the North-West and the problems in those particular towns. The reason why the review of the regional areas was built in was that they could be taken into account. The allocation to the North-West of 82,000 places under the youth opportunities programme in 1981–82 shows how much we recognise the seriousness of the problem.

I recognise the steps that my hon. Friend and his right hon. Friend have taken to reduce unemployment in the North-West and elsewhere, but does he not agree that many of those who have lost their jobs were in the the textile and paper and board industries in the North-West? Does he not also agree that we have opportunities of putting the matter right, like other EEC countries which have acted in their national interest? Will my hon. Friend urge upon the Prime Minister and his right hon. Friends steps that will preserve the manufacturing base of the North-West?

I know how passionately my hon. Friend feels about his constituency and the area around it, and he puts forward his views very strongly. Of course, in our concern for those who are losing their jobs in the textile industry we are constantly in contact with our colleagues in other Departments, putting forward views and trying to support them where we feel there is a sensible way in which we can help the industry. Of course, we are against dumping and illegal labelling, but the textile industry has also needed to rationalise.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what discussions he has had with his European Economic Community counterparts on unemployment in the Community.

I regularly discuss unemployment with my EEC colleagues, at meetings of the Council and in bilateral contacts.

As rising unemployment is a Community, not simply a British, problem, will my right hon. Friend discuss with his Community colleagues and his Government colleagues here the possibility of starting schemes—such as the Channel Tunnel—that could improve the Community infrastructure and provide employment, both in this country and in the Community?

Yes, Sir. Anything that we can do along those lines will be a step forward. Already, I hold regular consultations with Employment Ministers. However, the last conversations that I had 10 days ago were very gloomy all round.

Does the Secretary of State have constructive discussions with his opposite numbers about the expansion of the regional development programme, or does the Government's general opposition to increased public expenditure extend to their attitude towards increased expenditure by the Community on employment measures?

What we should really like to do is to transfer some of the funds which are at the moment devoted to the common agricultural policy to the regional fund and to the social fund. We believe that we must keep up the pressure there before we can agree to an increase in the budget as a whole.

Is it not clear that the Western world is faced with grave unemployment, for reasons of technological change, and is this not a problem which can be tackled only on a continental basis, by means of massive reconversion to more modern industries which can withstand low-cost competition?

There is a great deal in what my hon. Friend says. We should use our influence within the Community, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister did at the recent Community Council, in order to help to bring this about.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he is satisfied with the present level of employment opportunities for the disabled in industry and commerce during the current recession.

We should like to see more. We support the Manpower Services Commission in encouraging and assisting firms to employ disabled people. We regard that as very important. Our support for the fit for work campaign and its awards scheme reflects that concern.

Accepting that long-term unemployment for the able-bodied can be soul destroying, and that long-term unemployment for the disabled is devastating, will my hon. and learned Friend please look into the possibility of giving greater encouragement especially to disabled people who have become unemployed through redundancy?

I think that my hon. Friend knows that the disablement resettlement officers of the Manpower Services Commission do their utmost to encourage employers not to make disabled people redundant. The Manpower Services Commission is conducting a review into the quota scheme under the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944. That review will very shortly be complete, and my right hon. Friend and the Commission will be considering it as soon as it is made available.

Will the Minister accept that there is a sharp increase in the number of unemployed disabled people and, more important, that the placings are falling very considerably and proportionately to other unemployed people? Is not that undermining the very schemes that the Minister mentioned—the "Positive Policies" scheme and the fit for work campaign? When will he come to the House and tell us what are the effects of the Government's cuts on the employment of disabled people and, in particular—since he mentioned them—the effect on the number of specialist disablement resettlement officers that the Government are proposing to cut?

It is true that, regrettably, placings are down this year. There is no concealing the fact that, unfortunately, there is a long way to go before one can convince all employers that disabled people are in very many cases much fitter for work than is commonly supposed. But my right hon. Friend said that he was hoping to preserve the disabled resettlement service from the effects of cuts and that he would come to the House if that were not possible. The point is that these unfortunate people have to be assisted to the best of the Government's ability, and that is a commitment that we shall honour.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what effects he estimates the measures announced in the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the House on Monday 24 November will have on the level of employment.

I cannot give precise estimates as attempts to calculate the employment effects of measures such as these depend on arbitrary assumptions and on the particular economic model used.

But is it not a fact that, even taking into account the totally inadequate palliatives, the effects of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's action will be substantially to increase the level of unemployment by reducing public expenditure and by increasing the burdens on industry? Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that even in the South-East and the most prosperous firms the Government's policy is now regarded as an unmitigated disaster?

I do not recognise the last part of what the hon. Gentleman has said. I recognise that his question reflects the outdated belief that changes in the Government's expenditure and revenues are reflected automatically in the level of unemployment. Most people now recognise that life is not as simple as that, and I should have thought that it was time the hon. Gentleman did.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what calculation he has made of the numbers of people, in particular women, who, although unemployed, are not registered as such.

No such calculaton has been made by my right hon. Friend. However, the general household survey and the EC labour force survey suggest that about ·33 million people, including ¼ million women, may be seeking work though not registered as unemployed and that about two-thirds of those women want work that is part-time.

Does not the hon. and learned Gentleman realise that the real figure of unemployed is much closer to 3 million than the figure given earlier today? Does that not make the disaster far more catastrophic? What will be done in order to put cash into dying industry — the de-industrialisation of steel, for instance—in order to bring people back into work?

The putting of public money into industries that are dying because they have lost their markets — for example, because the markets had disappeared — will not bring down the level of the unemployed. There is only one way in which to bring down the level of the unemployed, and that is for industry to get its house in order and for this country's housekeeping to be put on a sound basis.

By leave of the House, I shall put together the Questions on the five motions relating to Statutory Instruments.