asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many places there are on the youth opportunities programme at the latest available date.

At the end of March 1981 there were some 128,000 young people on the youth opportunities programme.

Does the Minister accept that if young people on the job opportunities programme are to find jobs when their part of the programme is over it is essential that there should be adequate training for them? How much money is available for planned off-the-job training as part of the YOP courses?

I do not think that I can give the hon. Gentleman the figure that he requires, but I agree very much that a bigger element of training is necessary in all youth opportunities programmes. The element of training has risen from about 25 per cent. of YOP places two years ago to more than 40 per cent. now. As the hon. Gentleman will know, we are also increasing the scheme known as unified vocational preparation, which is a scheme for those who are in jobs and who would receive up to a year's training, partly subsidised by Government and partly at the expense of the employer.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is great concern at the lack of take-up of places in our colleges for training for skills and concern that the Manpower Services Commission may be taking up an increasing number of the vacant places rather than those supplied through employers, with the result that a large number of youngsters will take training courses but finish up without any qualifications? Will he look into that problem?

If my hon. Friend wishes to raise any specific point about his own constituency, I shall certainly look into it. Generally speaking, we are giving every encouragement for off-the-job training under the youth opportunities programme, which could include, of course, an element of training in technical colleges and colleges of further education. We must constantly watch that we do not draw people away from those courses to take YOP places which I believe are of less use than the education courses.

When does the Secretary of State expect to be able to begin to fulfil his pledge of last November about extended vocational training for all 16 to 18-year-olds as a major contribution to solving the awful problem of youth unemployment?

I have always said that that will take a considerable time. I think that the increase that we have allocated for UVP for the coining two years, together 'with the additional training element in the youth opportunities programme which has been greatly expanded, will certainly take us some way towards that. I hope that before long the Manpower Services Commission will issue its new training initiative programme which may give us some further indication.

Order. We really must try to move faster with other questions.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many jobcentres there are in England and Wales; what is the total number of staff employed at jobcentres; and how many persons are responsible for the administration of the jobcentre network.

There are 896 jobcentres and employment offices in England and Wales with 9,168 staff.

The administrative, management and specialist support provided for the entire jobcentre and employment office network, including offices in Scotland, totals 1,420 staff.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that information. Is he satisfied that the siting of jobcentres in prime positions and the number of personnel employed in their administration represent the most efficient use of limited resources? Is there not scope for some economy?

As my hon. Friend will be aware, I have had responsibility for jobcentres for only about three months. Like him, I am concerned to save taxpayers' money. He may be assured that I am monitoring very carefully both the siting policy and the administration of jobcentres.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he intends to make any further changes in revising the system of allowances payable to 16 to 18-yearolds.

This is an area that the Government are keeping under review, but we have at present no plans to change the system.

Since the poll published in The Observer at the weekend stated that a massive 84 per cent. of the public would be in favour of some "new-style work-based National Service," will my right hon. Friend consider spending some of the money currently being spent on young people on setting up a voluntary scheme for what Kingman Brewster called an under-compensated, publicly useful service, available to young men and women before they embark on their lifetime careers?

I am constantly looking at new schemes. I have studied the survey in The Observer. A suggestion is made as a result of the poll. That scheme would be expensive, but I do not rule out moving further towards such schemes whenever we can.

Does the Secretary of State realise that many young people left school at Easter because of the allowances system? Does he accept that many of them could have passed examinations at school in the next few months?

I do not know how many young people left school at Easter in order to obtain an allowance, but some may have left. It is a problem with which we must deal alongside the other problems of finding ways of encouraging young people to stay at school.

Is the Secretary of State aware that there would be a good deal of support from this side of the House for education maintenance allowances for pupils who stay on at school or who embark on full-time further education? Does he accept that that must not be introduced at the expense of the youth opportunities allowance because that would put the youth opportunities programme in danger of collapse?

The hon. Gentleman has obviously been reading The Times Educational Supplement.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he is satisfied with the operation of the Employment Act 1980; and if he will make a statement.

The Employment Act 1980 came into force less than nine months ago and I think that it is too soon to make any judgment of its effectiveness.

Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that the step-by-step approach has been vindicated by events so far? Is he aware that most people engaged in industrial relations prefer that no further legislation be introduced in this Parliament so that they have longer to get used to the 1980 Act?

One should not judge the way in which an Act is working by the number of cases which appear in the newspapers. Our wish was never that the Act should result in dramatic legal confrontations. We hoped that gradually it would become apparent that people were heeding the Act. There is growing evidence that that is happening. On my hon. Friend's second point, we shall have to wait until the end of the consultation period following the publication of the Green Paper and weigh up the many representations that will be put to us.

Does my hon. and learned Friend have any contigency plans to amend the closed shop provisions of the 1980 Act if the European Court of Human Rights at Strasbourg hands down its predicted judgment that the dismissal of British Rail employees for not joining a union was a breach of human rights?

It cannot be said too often or too loudly that the court at Strasbourg will pass judgment on the Act in force at the time when the railwaymen were dismissed. The court will not pass judgment on the 1980 Employment Act. Of course we shall have to review the situation in the light of the decision made at Strasbourg. My hon. Friend will not be surprised to hear that we are examining the situation constantly and we are aware of the many options that might be available.

Does the Minister agree that one weakness in the Act is that it does not force employers to recognise trade unions when everyone in one employment wants to join and be represented by a trade union?

It is difficult to argue that it is not easy for a work force which belongs to one union to persuade an employer that bargaining rights should be granted.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment when he last met the chairman of the Manpower Services Commission to discuss apprenticeships.

I shall shortly be meeting the chairman and members of the Manpower Services Commission at their request to discuss apprentice training.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is wide agreement that changes are needed in the industrial apprenticeship arrangements and that timeserving is no longer an appropriate qualification in a modern industrial society? Will the Government give a positive lead in changing apprenticeship arrangements, bearing in mind the fact that many skilled craftsmen do not want their heads to be stuffed with irrelevant book-learning?

I agree. It is not so much a matter of the Government giving a lead as of ensuring that employers and unions are prepared to co-operate in the changes which are recognised generally to be overdue.

Will the Secretary of State also discuss traineeships, as promoted by the West Cumberland Training Association, which are a variation on apprenticeships? Will he arrange for a statement to be made?

I am waiting for the Manpower Services Commission to consider proposals which it has been examining in the last two or three months. Traineeships are one subject of its examination. It has also been examining apprenticeships and retraining for adults. I hope that the three aspects will come together shortly.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the causes of the reduction in the number of apprenticeships is the high starting rate for apprenticeships? Is he aware that apprentices are paid 50 per cent. of a skilled man's wage, going up to 90 per cent.? Will he discuss that problem when he meets the Manpower Services Commission?

The problem is important. It is in marked contrast to what is happening in Germany where there are many more apprenticeships. Apprentices are regarded there as being low-paid mainly because of their value later.

Is not the Employment and Training Bill certain to blight prospects for apprenticeships throughout the decade? Why do the Government not have the courage to drop this miserable measure?

On the contrary, I believe that ensuring that the money available for training is put to proper use—which will be the result of the Employment and Training Bill—will immeasurably strengthen our training programme.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a further statement on his use of defence facilities for industrial training by the Manpower Services Commission.

There are at present 97 programmes of work experience on employers premises under the youth opportunities programme sponsored by the Ministry of Defence, offering some 420 places. The scope for a further contribution by the Armed Services to helping the young unemployed is presently being examined by officials in my Department and the Ministry of Defence.

Will the Minister get to grips with the issue? Is he aware that there would be considerable resentment if the type of scheme envisaged by some of his hon. Friends and The Observer were put into practice? Will he examine in particular the positive element of training within the dockyards where facilities are under-used? At Rosyth, for example, HMS "Caledonia" has under-used facilities for the training of artificers.

Three schemes are already operating in Rosyth dockyard. Perhaps we could do more to use the Ministry of Defence resources. I hope that no one will under-estimate the large number of young people who would be proud indeed to play some part, even in uniform, in the Services for a short time.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that I am delighted that he is still arranging for investigation of the use of defence facilities? Does he accept that over 53 per cent. of the young unemployed in the whole of the county of Kent live in my constituency and adjoining constituencies? Is he aware that we look for the wise use of training facilities in Chatham dockyard which would be of enormous benefit to young people in the area?

I am glad of my hon. Friend's comment. All that I require is the money.

I support the proposals made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Douglas) for the industrial training of workers, but will the Secretary of State reconsider his last remarks about military training? Will he reject flatly the much-publicised proposals by his right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone (Sir H. Fraser) for compulsory National Service, as young people today are anxious for industrial training, not military training?

We have always made it clear that any form of training would be entirely voluntary. If facilities in the Services are under-used and if many young people would like to take advantage of such training, they should be given the opportunity to do so.

But not in uniform.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that as long as young people did not use resources that the Armed Services required, as long as they did not use money from the defence budget and as long as they were volunteers, there could be no possible criticism of any such scheme?

Generally speaking, that is true. However, such schemes would take additional resources. It must be borne in mind that the schemes that have been put to the Manpower Services Commission would be more costly than the ordinary youth opportunities programme. Such schemes would require additional resources. That is one of the points that I am trying to consider.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the total number of registered unemployed persons in the United Kingdom.

At 9 April, the provisional number of people registered as unemployed in the United Kingdom was 2,517,958.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that those are disgraceful figures? Is it not clear from all the forecasts, two of which were published only yesterday, that unemployment will continue to grow substantially unless the Government change their policies? If the right hon. Gentleman cannot get his way in the Cabinet—we are told that he tries to argue a different point of view—why does he not have the guts to resign?

Even after the recession has ended, unemployment will continue to rise. The rate of increase is now beginning to decline and that gives us hope for the future in a difficult and tragic situation.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that once again this month the Scottish unemployment figures rose, in percentage terms, far less than the United Kingdom average? Does that not refute the Opposition's claim that, in employment terms, the Government have sold Scotland down the river?

This month the figure for Scotland increased by only 400. That is a good sign that Scotland is coming through the recession better than it has come through previous recessions and better than some other parts of the United Kingdom.

Given that the Prime Minister and many of her colleagues on the Government Front Bench have consistently said that the best way to cure unemployment is to get inflation down, and given that inflation has fallen since it peaked during this Government's period of office, will he explain his statement that unemployment will continue to rise?

I think that all those who study such matters accept that, even after a recession has ended and output has started to grow, unemployment continues to grow for a period. This time, one of the good things is that there are increases in productivity. In the long run this is the best route by which to achieve better employment figures.

Although I entirely share the concern that my right hon. Friend has expressed about the level of unemployment and the tragedy that it brings to many families, is he aware that certain industries, particularly the clothing and textile industries, are unhappy about the amended rules that have been effective since 1 April and which relate to the temporary short-time working compensation scheme? Is my right hon. Friend aware that tens of thousands of textile and clothing workers may find themselves out of a job unless his Department adopt a more flexible attitude?

The procedures have been tightened up. There is no point in subsidising the same jobs under the temporary short-term compensation scheme if there is no chance of maintaining them in the long run. It is a question of keeping the procedures right. That has necessitated some small changes, but no more than that.

Will the Secretary of State be candid with the House now and frankly admit that for the remainder of this Parliament there is no hope of getting unemployment below the 2·5 million mark of those who are now registered as unemployed? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that, at the end of this Parliament, unemployment will probably not only have doubled since the Government came to power but will stand at around the 3 million mark? Unless there is a change of policy there is no chance of lowering that figure.

I always try to be candid with the House. Candidly, I do not know what the forecasts will show or what the results will be in three years' time. I believe that the figures will peak before too long and I hope that there will then be a decline. Britain will have to live with a higher level of unemployment than was experienced in the 1950s and 1960s. That would be true under any Government.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he is satisfied with progress on implementing community enterprise schemes.

Applications to sponsor schemes under the new community enterprise programme have more than doubled during the past eight weeks.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there is widespread support for the scheme? Is he convinced that sufficient priority is being given to ensuring that the jobs created will become permanent jobs within the private sector, if that is possible?

I am aware of widespread support for the scheme. Like my hon. Friend and the MSC, I believe that what matters is that there should be real jobs in the future.

Does the Minister agree that there is a need to distinguish between genuine community enterprise schemes and schemes that masquerade under that title, such as the youth training projects in Brixton and Liverpool? Will he give the House his views on the Workers' Revolutionary Party, which has put out leaflets advertising courses such as needlework, drama and cookery without saying who promotes them?

In a recent debate the hon. Gentleman raised a point about the Workers' Revolutionary Party and I agreed that I had no sympathy with it. As regards the community enterprise programme, the MSC is concentrating on well-run schemes of community benefit.

Does not the Minister agree that one of the best ways—and in the long run, the only way—of dealing with all revolutionary parties is to remove the misery from which their support grows? Is he aware that in places such as Leicester the community enterprise scheme is doing a good job on minimal funds and could absorb at least treble the number of people? What will the Government offer by way of resources to help people to do the job?

I am glad to hear that the community enterprise programme is doing a good job in Leicester. As the hon. and learned Gentleman will realise, compared with preceding schemes, the number of places has already doubled.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what progress he has made in reducing the number of civil servants employed in his Department.

Since May 1979, savings in staff of 3,820 have been achieved.

Total staffing has, however, increased by 2,535 because the main determinant of the Department's staffing requirement is the level of unemployment; there has been an increase in the staffing of the unemployment benefit service and for special measures.

Is my hon. and learned Fried aware that, although we can all appreciate the need to maintain and, in certain circumstances, to increase the number of field officers in his Department, everything possible should be done to cut the number of employees at headquarters and in Whitehall?

Yes, Sir. There has been an increase in the number of local and regional office staff who are engaged in unemployment benefit work and special measures. In that area, there has been an increase of no fewer than 6,355 persons. Obviously we should keep the situation under review to ensure that there is no waste.

Is not the increase in the number of the Department of Employment's civil servants a reflection of the lengthening dole queues? Was not the question raised by his hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Grist) characteristic of the campaign of denigration that has been carried out against civil servants? His Department has shown that it has an important role and function. Are not the current dispute and the discomfort caused to air travellers the result of the Government's continued attack on the Civil Service and of their continued and determined refusal to send the dispute to arbitration, as civil servants desire?

I recognise no denigration in the question put by my hon. Friend. Any sensible person would obviously be concerned to ensure that there is no waste in our bureaucracy and that the figures are kept down as far as possible. I fail to understand the hon. Gentleman's comments about the discomfort to air travellers. I cannot understand why anyone, in pursuit of an industrial claim, should cause inconvenience—and glory in causing inconvenience—to innocent citizens.

As the civil servants in my hon. and learned Friend's Department and those employed by the Manpower Services Commission are among those in Whitehall who know more about the effects of unemployment than any others, will he try to persuade them to persuade union leaders in the Civil Service to give up their strike in the interests of the country and the unemployed?

I am sure that all those concerned will have heeded the remarks of my hon. Friend. There is no profit for anyone in the continuance of the dispute. I repeat that it is causing hardship to a large number of innocent people.

Why is the Minister permitting the MSC's employment division to lose 1,700 jobs and £80 million in the years ahead? Does not that presage a decline in services for the unemployed who should have an increase in services?

It is inevitable that when economies have to be made every Government Department has to make its contribution. MSC jobs have been cut by 1,927 between 1979 and 1981. That is in proportion to cuts made elsewhere. We do not see the need for a significant decline in the service afforded to the unemployed.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has had from the Trades Union Congress on industrial training since its conference of 13 March; and if he will make a statement.

Since 13 March my right hon. Friend has had a letter from the general secretary of the TUC on the subject of industrial training which forwarded the views of the TUC's printing industries committee.

My right hon. Friend always takes careful note of any views which the TUC expresses to him whether directly or through the Manpower Services Commission.

As the TUC suggested at that conference that apprenticeships systems should be modernised and improved, will my hon. Friend invite it to continue discussions with the Government on this important matter, as it is in the interests of both the Government and the TUC that industrial training becomes more effective?

I agree that apprenticeship schemes should be more flexible. I am certain that conversations will continue on that basis.

What discussions has the Minister had within his Department on the mismatch between the shortage of engineering skills and the number of unemployed? Is he aware that in an inner city area there is a shortage of engineering skills and inadequate apprenticeship training schemes when a large number of people are doing warehousing work?

As my right hon. Friend said earlier, we are constantly concerned that there may be skill shortages. Conversations continue on that basis.

Are the Government aware that continuing uncertainty about a more comprehensive training scheme gives the impression that the Government are not in step with the march of events, to the great distress of the unemployed and to the dismay of many Government supporters?

As my hon. Friend is probably aware, we are hoping shortly to publish a joint document with the Manpower Services Commission on a new training initiative.

Does the Minister agree that, given the wish of both sides of industry for new initiatives, now is the wrong time to encourage voluntarism, which encourages the irresponsible and penalises the responsible employers carrying out industrial training?

No, now is just the right time to encourage voluntarism and to encourage a new, flexible approach.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he is satisfied with the allowances payable under the job release scheme.

Yes, Sir, particularly as they have recently been increased. For example, under the general scheme for men aged 64 and women aged 59, the rate for a married man with a dependent wife, whose net income from all sources does not exceed £11 a week, has been increased from £45·50 a week tax-free to £50·50 a week tax-free.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is it likely that the scheme could be expanded next year?

As my hon. Friend is aware, the scheme and the rates are under review on an annual basis. Both my right hon. Friend and myself have made clear in the past that as and when resources allow—but only as and when resources allow—we want to see a reduction in the age.

In the light of the disgraceful unemployment figures which have just been commented on by the Secretary of State, and which understate the position, is it not urgent that the age at which the job release scheme operates should be reduced to 60 for men and 55 for women? Will the Minister go further and reduce the retirement age for men to 60, on a voluntary basis?

A moment ago the hon. Gentleman heard my reply to the supplementary question of my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Trippier). The Government believe that as and when resources are available we should reduce the age, but only as and when resources are available, otherwise there would be public sector borrowing requirement implications and further inflationary implications.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has any further plans to encourage firms to introduce profit sharing and employee share schemes in the interests of improving industrial relations.

I have repeatedly stressed to employers the importance for industrial relations of developing effective arrangements for greater employee involvement and drawn to their attention the important role which employee share schemes can play in such arrangements in appropriate circumstances. Tax concessions to encourage such schemes were introduced in the Finance Act 1980 and my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has no plans at present for further changes.

I agree with my hon. and learned Friend that employee share schemes play an important role in improving industrial relations and getting responsible wage bargaining. Does he agree that now is the time for the Government to give further inducements to companies to introduce such schemes, because these will play an important role in preventing a wages explosion as the economy moves out of recession?

I appreciate the force of what my hon. Friend has said. He, in his turn, will appreciate that what he has said is more a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I agree that it is most important that we should appreciate the gain that can come throughout industrial relations from better communications and financial participation.

I support the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Cadbury). Does the Minister agree that it would be useful to publicise the scheme more, because although more than 300 firms have already qualified for the scheme, many more do not know about it? Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that a publicity scheme by the Department would induce more firms to take up the benefits that can accrue?

The hon. Gentleman has played his part in publicising the scheme. I am sure that note will be taken of his remarks. I shall bear in mind what he has said. My right hon. Friend has often spoken in the country about the importance of employee financial participation. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we attach the greatest importance to it. However, in the last resort, the initiative must come from industry.

Will the Minister explain to the workers in such a scheme that if they invest their savings—as workers did in a scheme in my constituency—and something goes wrong, they will lose not only their jobs but their savings?

I should have thought that that was obvious. What we are now discussing is a scheme which is an expansion of one introduced by the Labour Government whom the hon. Lady supported. It is common ground between both sides of the House that advantages are to be gained from financial participation.

Would not my hon. and learned Friend agree that, desirable though profit-sharing schemes are, if a company has a poor profit record or poor industrial relations, to introduce profit-sharing schemes compulsorily—as I understand the Liberal Party proposes—would not improve industrial relations but would aggravate them?

My hon. Friend is suggesting that there is no case for the Government to pass legislation. Such a scheme must depend on the circumstances in each company. All the Government can do is to publicise the available opportunities so that companies, having studied the advantages and what is on offer, can make the correct decision.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many people completed training opportunities programme courses in 1980–81.

Final figures for the 1980–81 financial year are not yet available, but the Manpower Services Commission estimates that the total number of people completing courses under the training opportunities programme will be about 67,400.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is the nature of the training provided by the training opportunities programme that is of such immense importance? Is the programme being properly used for training staff in computer technology and in other technicalities which are or will be the subject of shortages?

Yes. There has been some reduction in the numbers taking clerical and managerial courses and a considerable increase in the numbers taking computer and technician courses. The numbers on technician and computer-related courses have increased from 8½ per cent. of the total number on TOPS training courses in 1979–80 to 12 per cent. in 1981–82.

In seeking the money for his voluntary National Service, will the Minister ensure that no money is taken away from the Manpower Services Commission to pay for it, and that if he wants money for it it will come from the Department of Defence allocation?

These are all matters of which I have to take account.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment when he next plans to meet the chairman of the Construction Industry Training Board to discuss training.

I have accepted an invitation from Mr. Leslie Kemp, chairman of the Construction Industry Training Board, to visit the Board's training centre at Bircham Newton. I look forward to discussing training matters with him.

In the meantime, will my hon. Friend acknowledge that many responsible employers in the construction industry are very anxious about the effects of the Employment and Training Bill upon their apprenticeship schemes? What reassurance can he give them in that respect?

As my hon. Friend is aware, the Manpower Services Commission will be reporting with its review on the Construction Industry Training Board, among other training boards, in the middle of June. With regard to apprentices, my hon. Friend is probably also aware that Government funds amounting to about £10 million have been made available to assist the CITB programme in 1980–81.

When my right hon. Friend meets the chairman of the Construction Industry Training Board, will he have discussions with him concerning practical training on sites, which could assist in the completion of the many local authority houses which are lying empty? Such a policy would then provide units of accommodation for the homeless, at the same time as giving the trainees the sort of training that would help them in getting appointments in the future in the construction industry.

The matter raised by my hon. Friend is one that I shall discuss with the chairman of the CITB.

Are not both sides of the construction industry concerned about the absurd and wrecking tactics of the present Government, who on the one hand are destroying the training boards and the formalised training schemes built up over the years, and on the other hand are destroying industry by cutting back public expenditure, thus wrecking the private sector and destroying the very jobs which are created from the apprenticeships? When will the Government do something about getting more construction workers back to work, and giving people the chance to get an apprenticeship?

The hon. Gentleman, as always, anticipates what may happen. I cannot judge what the Manpower Services Commission review will say about the Construction Industry Training Board. We shall have to wait until the middle of June.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he is satisfied that he has now reduced the quantity of information required by his Department from small firms to the minimum necessary and that all the information still required is being put to positive use.

I am proposing to make further substantial reductions in the forms sent to small firms. These arise from the review of statistical services in the Department of Employment and Manpower Services Commission, which is part of the review of the Government statistical service co-ordinated by Sir Derek Rayner.

I am encouraged that my hon. and learned Friend is persisting in this important matter. Is he aware that, judging by the trailers emanating from his own Department, the forthcoming EEC labour costs survey looks like undoing much of his good work? Will he undertake to ensure that this very large survey is reduced to useful and sensible proportions?

I assure my hon. Friend that we are looking into this matter very carefully. The labour costs survey, which has been in existence for some time, provides information on total labour costs, not just wages and salaries, and the information is used in conjunction with the European regional and social funds, so it must not be forgotten that this country gains some advantages from the information thereby provided. The sample has been much reduced, the form has been simplified, and we are negotiating with the Community to make the survey less frequent.

Is the Minister aware that there were about 7,000 firms which last year would have liked to have a piece of paper, however weighty, pushed through the letterbox, but that because of the Government's actions with regard to those industries, small and large, all of them are now bankrupt?

It is not easy to see the connection between the hon. Gentleman's question and what we are now discussing. If my right hon. and hon. Friends are right when they say that business—and small business in particular—has suffered from too much bureaucracy, it is good news that since coming into office we have cut down substantially the form filling which has to be done by business.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 28 April.

This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

May I first congratulate my right hon. Friend on her most successful tour, and particularly on the way in which she stood up for Britain and British interests?

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that legislation passed by this House is not the business of foreign Powers, that the British Nationality Bill is non-racial, that we have the same laws in Britain for black and white, and, above all, that young thugs who riot with Molotov cocktails will be severely punished, regardless of colour?

I thank my right hon. Friend for his congratulations. I confirm that legislation passed by this House about United Kingdom citizens is riot the business of other Powers, although we listen to representations made by old friends. I confirm that the British Nationality Bill will apply equally across all racial boundaries. Indeed, many minority groups here will benefit from its better definition of British citizenship. I confirm that the same laws apply to everyone in the community, and that those who break the law should be punished, irrespective of race or colour.

Since this is the first opportunity that I have had of doing so, may I ask the right hon. Lady—indeed, urge her—to respond to the representations that were made from the Labour Benches yesterday not to proceed with the imposition of the guillotine on the British Nationality Bill? I do so in the interests of good race relations in this country. Will the right hon. Lady recognise that the attempt to force through this Bill, of all Bills, by this means, can only further injure good race relations in this country?

I cannot respond to the appeal made by the right hon. Gentleman. In making such an appeal he should remember that in two years of office the Government have only just passed his record for guillotines in one day.

Does the right hon. Lady understand that this is a constitutional measure, that it should have been taken on the Floor of the House, and if she really is to attempt to deal with a Bill of this nature in this insensitive manner, it shows how unqualified she is to talk on any of these issues?

Will the right hon. Lady now take the opportunity to withdraw the remarks that she made when she was in India, when she said that one of the purposes of the Bill was to stop immigrants from pouring into this country? Does she think that that showed any knowledge of the Bill or any sensitivity about race relations?

I said in India that the purpose of the British Nationality Bill was to enable the British Parliament to define British citizenship. That is a right that almost every other Parliament or Government in the world take unto themselves and which we should also possess. With regard to the right hon. Gentleman's point that this is a constitutional Bill, he guillotined the Scotland and Wales Bills and the European Assembly Elections Bill.

Why is the right hon. Lady so eager to dodge the fact that the Bills to which she refers were taken on the Floor of the House of Commons? Does she not understand, even at this late stage, that race relations are in a somewhat sensitive state in this country and that almost everything that the right hon. Lady does or says apparently contributes to these animosities? Will not she consider once again what we, as an Opposition, have asked her to do in order to give the British Parliament proper time to discuss this major measure?

No, Sir. I believe that what the British Government are doing in the British Nationality Bill, in taking the right to define British citizenship, is correct. I believe that our approach, which is non-racial, will contribute to good race relations and not detract from them. We shall continue the way we are going.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the catastrophic situation regarding the electricity supply in many parts of the East Midlands, where thousands of people have been without power since Saturday night? Will she ensure that the full resources of the State, including the Army, are immediately available to deal with this desperately urgent matter?

I am very much aware of the grievous circumstances in which my hon. Friend's constituents find themselves together with certain people——

And in Derbyshire.

in the Midlands and elsewhere in the country. Ninety five per cent. of people who were without electricity have been connected. That does not alter the difficulties affecting the other 5 per cent. I know that my hon. Friend has been in contact with the Department of Energy and the electricity boards. I confirm that the Army is being brought in to use generators, wherever possible. Where elderly people are particularly affected, measures are being taken to get them to rest centres when they cannot cope. The electricity boards will continue to do everything in their power to help, together with the Army if necessary.

Following the law and order question by her hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) may I ask whether the right hon. Lady is aware that the IRA gun-runner Neil Blaney is to address a meeting in this building this afternoon? Does she deplore the use of the facilities of the Palace of Westminster for the promotion of the interests of a murderous terrorist organisation?

I was aware that such a meeting is to be held. I must point out to the hon. Gentleman that the use of rooms in this House is not a matter for me but for the authorities of the House. It would be wrong for me to interfere.

Is the Prime Minister aware that another of my constituents, Garry Martin, a young policeman with a wife and two baby children, was brutally murdered yesterday and his colleagues seriously injured by Irish republican terrorists? Does she realise that it is heartbreaking and sickening to the Ulster people—particularly to the relatives of the 2,000 people murdered by the IRA—and provocative to all law-abiding people of the Province, that the world's press, including the British media, churn out IRA propaganda about a convicted thug who attempts to commit suicide when even that choice was not given to other people? Will the Government vigorously counter lies with the truth in embassies throughout the world?

I join the hon. Gentleman in condemning totally all organisations in Northern Ireland and anywhere in the world which try to impose their will by terrorism which takes or endangers the lives or limbs of innocent men, women and children. I share his great sympathy for the relatives of the 1,500 civilians and 600 soldiers and policemen who have been murdered since the troubles in Northern Ireland began. Our sympathies are with them. We condemn utterly and totally those who perpetrate these monstrous offences.

asked the Prime Minister when next she intends to visit Greater Manchester.

I have no immediate plans to do so.

When the Prime Minister does have plans to do so, will she visit the new Salford jobcentre which is already dubbed by locals, "Maggie's Joke Shop"? Will she accept that it is a pretty sick joke for her and her Ministers to start talking about an upturn and better days ahead when every responsible commentator thinks that the Government are committing areas such as Greater Manchester to a further 1 million unemployed and the destruction of their industrial base?

I am just as anxious as the hon. Gentleman to see genuine jobs created in this country. They will be created only when industry and commerce start up or expand, so creating either goods or services which people in this country or overseas will buy. However much the hon. Gentleman tries, he cannot get away from that fact.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Conservative-controlled Greater Manchester council has reduced the rates by 5p in the pound this year? Is she aware that the programme put forward by the Labour Party there is extremely expensive and that it would mean an enormous rise in rates with consequent loss of jobs? Would not the electors be well advised to keep Greater Manchester out of the red?

I join my hon. Friend in congratulating the Greater Manchester council on reducing its rate by 5p in the pound. It is clearly aware that sharp increases in rates cost jobs.

Reverting to the question of unemployment in Greater Manchester, will the Prime Minister give her attention to the scandal of unemployment among young people, particularly in the city of Manchester? Is she aware that with unemployment at its current appalling level, 40 per cent. of those unemployed in Manchester are under 25 years of age? Is she aware of the sense of rejection and frustration to which this situation gives rise? What will she do about it?

It is precisely because the Government are aware of the grievous problems as they affect young people that we have put our priorities into the youth opportunities programme, so that all those young people who leave school during the summer term will be promised some work experience by the following Christmas——

Real jobs?

I know that some industries and a number of those engaged in commerce are coming forward with real work experience opportunities. Real jobs can be created not by people muttering from the Front Bench below the Gangway—which is easy—but by creating the sort of conditions under which expansion can take place——

When?

—and producing goods that even the hon. Gentleman may buy.

asked the Prime Minister whether she will list her official engagements for 28 April.

I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Will my right hon. Friend find time today to visit the London borough of Tower Hamlets in view of the serious rioting that broke out there last night between the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) and the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore)? Will not she bring peace and reconciliation to that troubled community?

I am not the referee for the Opposition, although there are times when I feel like blowing the whistle.

In view of the Prime Minister's expressed desire to keep the Polaris fleet afloat, will she investigate, and also ask her Ministers to investigate, the case of Laurence Scott and Electromotors of Manchester which has been taken over and is being closed-at short notice? This firm supplies the flame-proof motors, and maintains them, for Polaris submarines and for most of the coal mines in this country.

I shall bring the hon. Gentleman's question to the attention of my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Defence and for Industry and ask them to look into the point that he raises.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that during her recent Middle East tour the view was expressed that a strongly armed Britain is the best safeguard for world peace?

Yes, very much so. Most nations are beginning to realise that weakness does not give security. We must rely on our own defence for the security and freedom of our people.

I imagine that people think of anything but that in the Middle East slums—as is the case in areas of this country where there is much unemployment. As London has been mentioned, may I draw the Prime Minister's attention to the figure of nearly ¼ million unemployed in Greater London? Would it not be far better to do something for those people and bring peace and prosperity to the deprived areas of inner London?

Yes. I am well aware of the difficulties of finding jobs. If there were no difficulties, industry and commerce would thrive and be competitive with other countries that have not had our problems of overmanning and inflation, and that have not suffered from some of the financial policies carried out by the Labour Party when in Government.

I first pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Opposition Chief Whip and to my colleagues in the Shadow Cabinet for kindly agreeing to donate this part of the Supply day to a discussion on London. I am also grateful to the Government Chief Whip for allowing part of Government time to continue to discuss London matters.

Britain has enjoyed almost two years of unbridled Toryism, and nothing has been allowed to stand in the way of full-blooded free enterprise, least of all any quaint old-fashioned ideas such as justice, fairness and compassion. There is no room in this Tory fairyland for that kind of debilitating and decadent thinking. People must stand on their own two feet—or preferably on some one else's as well. They must keep in the forefront of their minds that under a solid Conservative Government, who follow strictly Conservative principles, lame ducks, the poor, the needy, the sick and the handicapped are a burden on the Exchequer and should best be left to their own devices or to some charitable assistance.

The Government were committed to such principles when they came into office in May 1979, when inflation was in single figures, unemployment was falling month by month, industrial activity was rising and pensions and benefits were keeping pace with changes in prices and incomes—all against a background of a world recession and rising oil prices.

It was not a bad inheritance, but it was based upon a philosophy of a compassionate and caring society established by a Labour Government and, therefore, totally unacceptable to the incoming Tory Administration. After all, during the election they had convinced the majority of people that it was possible to have one's cake and eat it. They said that life would be so much better under the Conservatives. They said that they would lift the burden of taxation, give people their money back, free industry and commerce from their shackles and turn our society into a dynamic purposeful nation where freedom would abound and every family would be part of the property-owning demoocracy. Above all, they would not accept all this rubbish about world recessions but would blame other people for the faults of the Labour Government. They said that they would set the people free, and that became the catch phrase of the advertising campaign. The posters which showed actors playing people in the unemployment queue still remain one of the lingering memories of the Tory election strategy.

Where have we got to after two years and three Budgets? It is true that the Chancellor of the Exchequer reduced income tax as his first action in Budget No. 1, but he has increased income tax in Budget No. 3. I suppose we can call that a draw. However, the whole Tory strategy was based on lowering income tax, so really the people have been cheated. The Tories raised the level of allowances in Budget No. 2 to exclude the lower paid from paying tax, but they have lowered the allowances in Budget No. 3, which brings more of the lower paid back into the tax net. There are no gains to be had there for the lower paid.

What happened to the Tory strategy that all that was needed was a reduction in income tax and that overnight productivity would soar, industry and commerce would thrive and the people would be free? There would be no 7 per cent. or 5 per cent. restriction on wages. The sky was the limit.

I explained then why the strategy would not work, but the Tories were in no mood for the truth. In May 1979, the inflation rate was 9 per cent. By 1980, it had risen to more than 21 per cent. It is said to be 12·6 per cent in 1981. However, the Tory "fiddle factor", the TPI, now shows an increase of 13·4 per cent., even though it was intended to show that inflation was not as high as it really was. By the time the 1981 Budget proposals are taken into account, the rate will be much higher. In any event, it is a far cry from the single figure inflation of 1979. One needs only to ask the housewife whether she has found prices to be falling.

Unemployment has soared to more than 2½ million, but the true figure is nearer 3 million. The rate is about double what it was when the Tories came to power, and it is still rising. There has been a disaster in that regard, but it has been a contrived disaster because the Secretary of State for Industry recently spelt out the Government's philosophy on employment. He said:

"Job loss and high unemployment is a part of the cure for the country's economic ills."

That encapsulates the Tories total rejection of the policy of full employment, established by the Labour Government of 1945 and followed through until the present Government were elected in 1979.

Naturally, the Secretary of State took care not to make that statement in the United Kingdom. Had he done so, his audience would have wished to know why he and his party deliberately misled the people during the election by pretending that they supported full employment. He would have been called upon to explain why those who pointed out that full employment would not be a part of their policy were accused of scaremongering. By making the statement 6,000 miles away in Los Angeles, the right hon. Gentleman avoided the necessity of justifying it, as well as his further assertion that for many years British Governments had overspent, over-taxed, over-borrowed, over-rescued and over-regulated, and had allowed overmanning to remain widespread, and that the Tories had embarked upon the arduous task of correcting the excesses.

I do not deny that the right hon. Gentleman had a right to say it, but the British people are entitled to know why the strategy was denied. Indeed, why did the Tories not make a virtue of such intentions in 1979?

The Sunday Times ran an interesting column in its business news supplement called "Jobless Britain". True, it was tucked away on the back page and did not keep a running total of unemployment, which was a little unhelpful, but it did identify the firms involved, their trade and the numbers of jobs lost. For example, for the week ending 7 November 1980, 13,843 jobs were lost at firms which included ICL computers, Girling brakes, Pirelli tyres, George Fisher engineering, Wellworthy engineering, Lucas CAV, Hotpoint Electric, GKN motor components, Revlon International Corporation, Salter weighing machines, Allan Bradley electronics, and a host of others. That list clearly shows that the firms represent a wide spectrum of the industrial base of Britain. It includes new industries as well as old, large as well as small. It is little wonder that the business community, the CBI and the chamber of commerce are petrified by the magnitude of the damage being inflicted on industry by the monetarist policies of the Tory Government.

Not surprisingly, the Tory Sunday Times dropped that item from its pages. That is why I had to quote figures for November. It could be called a "Timesgate" cover-up. However, I did the editor the courtesy of telephoning him this morning to ask him why the article had been dropped. The deputy editor telephoned me this afternoon and explained that, following inquiries, he thought that it had been a journalistic decision, with no sinister connotations. I hope the The Sunday Times will resume publication of that item as it provides useful information and helps us to follow the sad, sorry story of the Government's activities.

Unemployment in Hackney in 1979 was 4,159. In 1980 it was 5,298, and in January 1981 it was 8,667. The latest information given to me this afternoon puts the unemployment figure in Hackney at 10,924, which represents an average of 13·8 per cent. unemployed. In some parts, including the area that I represent, the level is more than 14 per cent. It is disgraceful that the position of unemployed youngsters in Hackney is worse now than at the severest point of the 1930s depression, in March 1933. In central Hackney in January 430 youngsters were unemployed, with one job vacancy. It has improved a little now that it is April, with 323 youngsters chasing three vacancies. That shows the disastrous position in Hackney.

Last week saw the start of the Tory era of double talk. All the odd job men, the Lord President, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and the other chaps were sent out with their sales patter, properly packaged, and helped by their faithful friends from the media. A great change took place. We were regaled with such headings as "Economy—signs of sunshine", "Signs of hope in economy", "Economy looks brighter again", "Encouraging signs despite jobless passing 2,500,000". We had to look at the small print to see that the economic turnround in Britain remains tentative. The report said:

"Economic improvement has not yet carried far enough to trigger even the first of three major signals used … to confirm a full-fledged recovery."

The Government did not wait for the signals. They went on their way with the story of how good the recovery would be. As always, there is one Christian among them. I am happy to note that the Secretary of State for Employment still maintains his reputation for honesty intact. He is reported as saying:

"The April unemployment figures were 'a personal tragedy' for more than 2,500,000 people, one in 10 of the working population."

He did not view the position in a sunny light.

The London chamber of commerce joined the chorus by claiming that London firms were set for revival. It said that there was fresh evidence that the recession was almost over. I looked for evidence but could not find any. When I contacted the person who had carried out the survey, he said "Well, you know, the firms gave us a feeling that they were set for revival". Is that all the evidence? But, as the House will know, the president of the London chamber of commerce is Earl Jellicoe, a former Conservative Minister. He must have had his package for sale also.

It was a pity that The New Standard, unwisely, printed on one page:

"London firms set for revival";

and on the other side of that page "As small firms quit …" which did not confirm the sunshine——

rose——

Many Members wish to speak and I want to press on.

How long will the hon. Gentleman's speech be?

If the hon. Gentleman will take some notice of my speech, I am sure that he will find it helpful. He is always learning, and he will be able to learn more now.

As I have said, the employment position is disastrous. House building, both public and private, has dried up. The figures are lower than they were 50 years ago. Housing waiting lists in inner city areas are longer than ever and the condition of large numbers of houses is deteriorating at an alarming rate. The New Standard headline last week read "London … the crumbling city". The article said that the capital needs more and more homes and £4,464 million spent on repairs.

The House knows that the four years of Tory rule at County Hall has been distinguished by the new concept that council affairs are no longer to be conducted in committee and subjected to scrutiny by elected members, as we in the House carry out our work. The Tories substituted the press release system so that only the tightly knit, politically motivated groups of the ruling Tory Party know what is happening—although I doubt even that sometimes. Greater London knows only what they want it to know.

That policy was vividly illustrated by the wilful refusal of Sir Horace Cutler to publish the Housing Strategy Appraisal 1981–83. With great effort I finally obtained a copy of it. He not only refused to publish it but he deliberately suppresed it. That is a scandal. It was suppressed because it contained facts that give the lie to the Tory propaganda being prepared to swindle the electors on 7 May. One could ask "Why not?" After all, that is the way that the Tory Party did the trick in 1979. Why should not Sir Horace try his luck with the same game? Yet the Tory Party make a virtue of law and order.

There is no hope for the homeless or those in need of adequate housing for many years in London. All the Tories do is to sell off existing council housing stock in London. Later we shall discuss the order that will force borough councils to accept responsibility for GLC property. If the order is passed by the House, it will destroy the GLC as a strategic housing authority. The Government's deliberate decision to take financial sanctions against Greater London through the rate support grant has been a major factor in the unprecedented rise in rates. Another headline in The New Standard stated:

"Why Tory blames Tory in the block grant backlash".

The leader of the Kensington and Chelsea borough council is reported as having said:

"It gives me no pleasure as a Conservative leader to criticise the Government in this way … I believe what they have done is wrong and I believe that it needs to be corrected."

That view is widely held by many people in London. Yet the Secretary of State for the Environment has nothing but contempt for local government and for those who serve in it.

As the House knows, the right hon. Gentleman has penalised Hackney. He has done so quite wrongly, and the House knows that. He has withdrawn nearly £10 million from Hackney, which is nearly a 30p rate. Hackney's rates have had to be increased by 55p. Conservative Members had great joy in pointing that out to me. However, of that 55p, 30p is directly the responsibility of the Government.

Whatever the Government think about the Hackney council, it has tried desperately hard to meet the needs of the people of Hackney. It has broken no rules, written or unwritten. I am told that the Department of the Environment has wilfully refused to submit its defence to the courts on why it believes it was right to penalise Hackney and other boroughs. It has been so obdurate that I am informed that it has been ordered to present its evidence by 18 May. I am told that 13 July has been set down for the hearing to take place.

Why have the Government caused the borough to employ lawyers in this way? The answer is that they will not answer and produce their defence. This is outrageous. They have chosen to behave in the disgraceful manner that I have described and they have taken the money away from Hackney, which in turn means that people in Hackney are suffering.

The Secretary of State for the Environment is effectively destroying the work of many voluntary bodies, and especially housing associations, which find themselves with empty properties, half-empty properties and properties in appalling condition. They are unable to carry out their work due to the withdrawal of funds.

For about 15 years Hackney has introduced projects at Easter time for disabled children. These projects include puppet shows and library work. The cost this year would have been £900. The council submitted its proposal to the Department in February 1981 and in the normal course of events it was agreed. This wretched Government refused the expenditure of £900 over the Easter holiday this year. That expenditure would have provided puppet shows for the disabled children in Hackney. One cannot get meaner than that. It is disgraceful.

I read the letter that was sent by the Department. One has to be mean to write such a letter on Maundy Thursday to tell the council that it will not be able to put on puppetry for disabled children on Easter Monday, the followng Monday. The letter from the Department caused mayhem because the council had to get in touch with the various groups and bodies that intended to carry out such excellent work over the holiday period.

The Government must take a more aggressive approach to reducing unemployment in London. They must encourage industry to remain in London and to expand. They must take urgent measures to halt the housing disaster and to get the housing programme going again. They must take urgent action to raise the ceiling of the rate rebate entitlement. It is still £6·75. There has been an enormous increase in rates and that is clearly inadequate. Government action must be taken to support plans for establishing a more integrated transport system, to improve transport in London, and to deal with the juggernaut problem. Above all, the Government must stop being such petty tyrants. They must work with local government, with the local people and with local industry. That is the way forward, and that is how we shall achieve a more prosperous London.

The catalogue of infamy of this Tory Government would take hours to complete. I have tried to highlight some of the worst features and to draw attention to the dirty tricks, the double talk and the lengths to which the Tory Party will go to obtain and retain power. If this message gets across, the days of the Tory Party in London and in Britain are numbered.

"You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time."

Notwithstanding the power wielded by the Tories and their friends in the media, 7 May 1981 could be the start of something good and the road back to a more compassionate caring society.

We always enjoy the speeches of the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown). This afternoon he was again in good form and good voice. If now and again his words sounded rather like those of his namesake, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown), we all understand why. After all, local elections are in the air. The hon. Gentleman had to make his party political points. I readily confess that I shall be engaged on a similar exercise this afternoon in support of the Conservative majority at County Hall which, contrary to the hon. Gentleman's view, I believe has made a splendid contribution to the life of London over the past four years.

Although the hon. Gentleman made a passing reference to the GLC elections, he was curiously reluctant to go into any detailed discussion about the issues before Londoners and the sort of campaign that is being waged by the Labour Party at County Hall.

I shall begin by making common cause with the hon. Gentleman. I warmly welcome the now established tradition of regular debates on London's affairs. This Parliament is the first that I can recall in which the capital's problems have been regularly debated. As he rightly said, we should all be grateful for the co-operation between the usual channels that has made this possible.

Our debate on the economic and social problems of London is being held against the backcloth of a crucial GLC election campaign. It is an election that will decide how London's pressing problems are to be tackled from County Hall in the next four years. I shall concentrate almost exclusively on this aspect of London's affairs. The question that every Londoner has to face on 7 May is whether we are to continue with the skill, imagination and flair shown by Sir Horace Cutler and his team since 1977 or revert to the discredited and outdated dogma of Labour's programme.

The Labour manifesto is entitled

"A Socialist Policy for the GLC".

It runs to 164 pages and in my view should be required reading for every Londoner. It is a turbid and terrifying document. It is clear that Labour's leaders at County Hall learnt nothing during their last spell in power but have merely tarted up their old policies of the 1960s and 1970s with the Marxist jargon of the 1980s.

In that manifesto we find all the pathetically familiar phrases about social ownership and producer cooperatives. It includes a concept intriguingly called "London community builders", which turns out to be the latest Left-wing euphemism for the direct labour organisation, a group which was losing nearly £7 million a year when it was closed down by the present Conservative administration at County Hall.

There is a crazy scheme to set up a GLC bus factory. It appears that the ratepayers of London are expected to finance a publicly owned purpose-built loss-making enterprise with an initial investment of hundreds of millions of pounds and an incalculable operational loss from year to year. What a gift such a set-up would be to trade union wage negotiators, who would know that in the Labour leaders at County Hall they have the softest touches of all.

Perhaps the most alarming example of financial irresponsibility in the whole of Labour's programme for London is the madcap proposal to reduce London Transport fares by 25 per cent. and then to freeze them for four years. That is merely a modification of the earlier lunatic plan to abolish fares altogether, a plan which had to be abandoned, not in deference to the long-suffering ratepayers, but because of trade union fears that it would put all London transport ticket collectors on the dole. The latest scheme for fare reductions means that Greater London's ratepayers will be subsidising all those who travel to work from outside the Greater London area—from the plush commuter areas of Sussex, rural Kent and Surrey.

And Bromley.

Not Bromley, because Bromley is already within the Greater London area.

Londoners will be subsidising those who live outside the Greater London area. Therefore, Brixton will be subsidising the travellers from Brighton, and Tottenham will be subsidising those from Tunbridge Wells. On top of that, we shall all be helping to pay the fares of the thousands of tourists who use our tubes and buses every year. It is an indiscriminate subsidy and an open-ended commitment. It is being promoted solely as a squalid means of buying votes. However, happily, London's electors are not quite as naive as some Labour Members would believe. The plan has had a distinctly lukewarm reception and is proving by no means the vote winner that the Labour election strategists at first believed.

To many people in London, the most profoundly disturbing part of Labour's manifesto is that dealing with the police. It clearly states the Labour Party's intention to establish a police committee in order

"to monitor the work of the police force as a prelude to it gaining power to control the police."

Coupled with the further proposal to disband the special patrol group, the Special Branch and the illegal immigration intelligence unit, that represents a charter for every militant and subversive throughout Greater London. It could not have been better composed by Miss Vanessa Redgrave herself.

Significantly, those sinister and far-reaching proposals are not even mentioned in the popular version of Labour's election manifesto which is now being distributed in London, yet they are a major part of the full manifesto. The implication is that if Labour, by any mischance, is returned to County Hall on 7 May, it will claim that it has a clear mandate from the people of London for such sweeping plans. Such is the perversion of democracy by the Left in London.

There are immense dangers in creating a political police force in London. For example, one is bound to speculate on how a police force controlled by a Left-wing GLC would have handled the recent riots in Brixton and Finsbury Park. The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis would have been placed in an impossible position if he had been obliged to seek the approval of his political masters at County Hall before dealing with such street riots.

London's social and economic problems are undoubtedly immense, and they can and will be made immeasurably worse by the sort of Marxist ideology enshrined in Labour's election manifesto. No wonder some Labour Members are privately apprehensive about the effect of such a programme upon London and the future of the Labour Party.

On the other hand, the Conservative administration at County Hall is fighting the election on its record of realism and responsibility. A small but vivid example of the businesslike approach which Sir Horace Cutler has brought to County Hall lies in the fact that, immediately upon taking office, he cut the number of GLC committees from 130 to just 27, bringing a substantial saving both in attendance allowances paid to councillors and in the time of officials, whose numbers have been cut by about 5,000, with a total saving of £50 million a year to ratepayers.

Massive debts of £146 million inherited from the previous Labour administration have been paid off. The rates, which rose by 235 per cent. during the last four years of Labour administration, have risen by less than 10 per cent. in the past four years. However, we know already that, appropriately, one of the first fruits of a Labour victory on 7 May would be the imposition of a supplementary rate in October, a further sharp rise next April and at least a doubling of London's rates within two years. That is a horrifying prospect for industry, commerce and every householder in Greater London. It can only set back the revival and recovery of our capital, which will soon be under way.

When all the political slogans and speeches are over, the real continuing concern of all Londoners is for the quality of life in the capital and for the improvement and enhancement of the environment in which we all live, work and play. In that sphere, too, the GLC's record over the past four years has been impressive. For the first time for many years, a new park has been created in Inner London at Burgess Park, Southwark, where a bombed site has been adapted to serve as a natural history study area. Next to Tower bridge, the William Curtis ecological park has been established on a two-acre site which was previously used for the parking of heavy lorries. Housing development at Thamesmead has provided the opportunity to create new water habitats.

Those are all constructive and imaginative schemes which demonstrate a forward-looking approach by a Conservative GLC and a concern for environmental matters. There is also the exciting development at Covent Garden and in dockland—all further examples of what can be achieved by a partnership between local authorities and private enterprise.

I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his vivid description of the great benefits provided by the GLC. Will he come to East London, to see the Trowbridge estate?

It will cost £15 million to put right, if it can ever be put right. People there are living in squalor and the Tory GLC is totally unconcerned and has reneged on all its promises to deal with their justifiable complaints.

I am not familiar with that example. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not telling the House that that squalor has suddenly arisen over the last four years. I hope that he also directed his attention to the Ministers in his Government as, presumably, there was squalor at that time on that estate.

Did the turbid pages to which my hon. Friend referred contain any proposals to continue to remove the squalor which defaces the Soho area, and which the present GLC has done much to remedy?

I can recall no reference at all to Soho in the Labour Party manifesto, whereas there is a substantial section in the Conservative Party manifesto dealing with pornography and the offence which it causes both to those who live in London and to those who visit it. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing my attention to that point.

The argument that I was trying to make was that the achievements of the GLC in improving the face of London have largely resulted from a partnership with private enterprise. On the other hand, the Labour Party always has a sour and negative approach to such schemes. Its manifesto urges

"a fundamental rejection of the values inherent in capitalist production".

I believe that on Thursday week there will be a fundamental rejection of the values inherent in Labour's election programme. It is a programme of higher spending and higher rates, and is totally irrelevant to the social and economic problems of London that are being highlighted in the debate. They can be overcome only by the blend of financial prudence and innovative expertise which have been the hallmark of the past four years at County Hall, and which, I hope, will be a feature of the next four as well.

Even though I am diametrically opposed to 99·9 per cent. of what the hon. Member for Ravensbourne (Mr. Hunt) said, I hasten to congratulate him on two of the points that he made. He was sincere in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown) on appearing at the Dispatch Box. We all know that no one knows more about London's problems than my hon. Friend both from his experience here and in Greater London. Most of us on the Labour Benches are also delighted to see him at the Dispatch Box. However, the hon. Gentleman was a little unfair to say that my hon. Friend had not dealt with the problems of the GLC. The hon. Gentleman highlighted transport, housing and employment, all of which my hon. Friend dealt with.

Secondly, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on reading the 164—as he called them—turbid pages. My only regret is that he seems to have learnt little from them. I advise closer study. I had a feeling that he was more concerned with one word than with the contents of the 164 pages. The word "Socialist" on the cover was to him like a red rag to a bull—and I am not talking about the hon. Gentleman's girth.

I can live with Socialism. It is Marxism to which I object. The accent of the Labour manifesto goes far beyond Socialism. It is pure, unadulterated Marxism.

I regret that in a short debate I cannot enlighten the hon. Gentleman on either fundamental Socialist philosophy or Marxism, but at any time that he chooses I am willing further to educate him.

The hon. Gentleman also referred to the bus factory, and in doing so entered my constituency. For 50 years double-decker buses were built in my constituency, at Park Royal. The factory closed last year because of management malfunction. British Leyland made a mess of things when it could not make up its mind whether it wanted Minis or buses. When it closed, the factory had just exported 400 buses to Baghdad and was making a profit of £3 million a year. Any bus company that can do that is a good investment for the ratepayers of London.

My hon. Friend will recollect that our own AEC factory—latterly BL—at Southall produced world-renowned vehicles in conjunction with the Park Royal plant.

I acknowledge that. My hon. Friend and I both fought hard to keep the factories open. The management could not make up its mind. In order to rationalise, it opted for Southall at one moment and Park Royal the next. In the end, both factories closed, which was a calamity.

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch, I wish to draw attention to the problems in my own constituency. We have two major difficulties that exacerbate each other. We have all the problems of a run-down, clapped-out inner city area, and we have the largest ethnic minority population in London. About 33 per cent. of my constituents originate from other parts of the Commonwealth. We have the pressures of poverty, unemployment, and so on, because of industries being run down, and the Government doing next to nothing to prevent unemployment, social degradation and personal humiliation of the worst kind being doled out to ethnic minorities in general and, in my constituency, the black population in particular. It is a key question to which the Government should address themselves when considering London.

The Government are failing to take the necessary constructive action. There is a need to develop neighbourhood co-operatives, which one of the most effective quangos—the Co-operative Development Agency—has been fostering in areas with large ethnic minority populations. The basic principle of neighbourhood co-operatives should not be outwith the philosophy of the Conservative or Labour Parties. Self-help and mutual aid, the twin pillars of co-operative democracy, need practical encouragement. The Government should put their money where their mouth is instead of bleating pious platitudes.

The Secretary of State for Employment has shown that his heart is still in the right place, even if at times his head is led astray. However, the Government are taking no national action that will help create jobs in London, and my constituency in particular.

We need to bring communities alive and make them a joy to live in. The British Nationality Bill is a major disaster, especially for my area. The Government cannot see that the problem is not one of numbers and that we must undertake the practical work of integration.

With, for instance, an ethnic minority population in my constituency of 33 per cent., a few numbers more or less is irrelevant. The important thing is to establish one community, irrespective of race, colour or creed, joined together in community activities.

I pay tribute to my borough council for the work that it has done. We had the first community relations council, of which I was a founder member, as was the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet), when he was a candidate for Willesden, East. The council has been doing good work for 23 years, which has been possible only because the ratepayers were prepared for their money to be used to support it, instead of having various groups at loggerheads with all the ever more expensive consequences. I also pay tribute to the outstanding leadership of Councillor John Lebor, who has recently attracted attention from the media.

Is that the Councillor Lebor who has not been reselected by the Left wing in the constituency?

Yes, but the matter is in abeyance, and I shall not wash my local dirty linen in front of the hon. Gentleman. I shall deal with the matter locally, as he may wish to do in Hampstead, though perhaps they do not have so much Tory dirty linen in Hampstead.

I wish to show what practical steps my local council has taken over the problem of ethnic minorities. In addition to the community relations council we have the Brent Indian Association. I had the honour of attending its opening some years ago. The association's total grant-aid in 1981–82 amounts to £36,000.

We also have the West Indian Women's Association, which will receive £41,000 in 1981–82 by way of urban aid and grants from Brent, and the Asian Community Development Centre, which will receive £34,000 capital grant and £37,450 revenue. Those are just some of a much longer list of practical support that the council has given to assist ethnic minority groups. Social services alone will be spending £133,000 revenue on groups that cater mainly for ethnic minorities. We are talking about 33⅓ per cent. of my voters. This is a large area. All these people have rights, and their problems must be looked at and solved by practical means.

Does my hon. Friend not think that, quite apart from the Government's approach on the Nationality Bill, which we all deplore, it is particularly regrettable that the Prime Minister and the appropriate Ministers have not taken the opportunity to rebuke the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Proctor) for the pernicious views that he expressed in suggesting that immigrants and their children should return home? Is it not right that virtually every member of the Government Party now present in the House could equally be convicted of the charge of conspiring with that hon. Member in the disgraceful campaign in which he is indulging?

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend, I hope to see some disclaimers from the Conservative Party on that kind of policy. Had I had the opportunity during Question Time I was going to invite the Prime Minister to find time to address some 6,000 people in the Wembley Conference Centre, in my area, on the sincere convictions, I presume, that she was expressing today about the British Nationality Bill. I would like her to stand up and be counted in front of 6,000 from my community. I guarantee that the Prime Minister would have a full house if she would accept my invitation to come and explain her policy on the British Nationality Bill and listen to the problems with which my constituents are faced.

The hon. Gentleman has raised the question of the views expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Proctor). I utterly repudiate—as I have done throughout my time in politics—any idea that repatriation is the answer to the problem of race relations. I am critical of anyone, wherever he is in politics, who stands for that. I ask the hon. Gentleman one question. Is he as utterly condemnatory of those who are manipulating the democratic process in his constituency to oust the Labour leader by what seems to be an unprincipled campaign as I am of certain people in my party? Does he not agree that people like that are damaging to the Labour Party?

There are a whole lot of questions which it would not be my job to answer without going into all the details, and not just those that the media put forward. The hon. Gentleman does not live with the area, as I do, and he does not know the problem. All he knows is what he reads in the newspapers. When he has been in this place as long as I have he will not believe all that he reads in the newspapers. I would like to point out that as other Members wish to speak I shall not give way again.

I want to deal quickly with what has been done by Brent council on unemployment in my area. The Training Workshop has had 30 young people, 80 per cent. of whom are West Indian, and the number will shortly be increased to 50. The Kilburn Building and Training Co-operative currently has 12 trainees, 90 per cent. of whom are black. Kilburn Skills has 60 trainees, 80 per cent. of whom are black. The council has backed the Multi-Lingual Print Shop to the extent of £30,000 a year. During Question Time we discussed first-year apprenticeships. In 1980–81 the council has helped fund five first-year apprenticeships to the Kingsbury Engineering Group Training Association at a cost of £7,500. All the apprentices happen to have black skins. We have a very proud record of sponsoring the first study in the country into problems faced by black business men. I put this on the record because I am very proud of what has been done. I am pleased to be able to get on to the record, too, my affection and consideration for the work that Councillor John Lebor has done, over his 13 years on the council, in areas like this. His integrity and ability has given Brent a first-class leader.

Park Royal 20 years ago was a hive of industry—engineering and the lot. I have seen it run down, and it is now an industrial slum. I blame the Tory GLC for failing to carry out the agreement that was made by the Labour Administration in 1976 to pour £1 million into the infrastructure, mainly on road reorganisation, to attract more industry and fewer warehouses. The problem is not so much in the numbers who are unemployed, although that is bad enough, as in the terrible mismatch where there is a large number of unemployed and a shortage of skilled engineers. This seems to be nonsense. The Government and the Manpower Services Commission ought to be doing something in depth about that problem, especially as it affects my constituency.

I expect that the hon. Member for Ravensbourne, who read the 164 pages of the Labour manifesto, also read that the Labour GLC will establish a new department, which will be able to go in depth on the way in which this mismatch should be dealt with. This means considering not just the number of jobs but the kind of jobs, and their location. Last week 81 school leavers in my constituency signed on the dole for the first time. Some months ago 112 also signed on, so 193 youngsters have gone straight from school to the dole. What kind of civilisation is that? Last year the total was only one-third of that. Out of the 81 going on the dole this week, at least 30 who were born in my constituency will themselves have parents born either in the Caribbean area or in India. When we look at this problem, which arises in various parts of London, we have to address our minds to the way in which we deal with the fundamental social difficulties rather than look at the surface, as has been done recently.

I wish to direct the attention of the House to another great problem in my area and many other London areas, namely, what is happening in primary medical care. In London there are 3,500 general practitioners, but the situation is approaching crisis point because many family doctors are nearing retirement. A survey in the North-East Thames area has shown that 12 per cent. are over 65. In my area the figure is 13 per cent. Inevitably, one cannot run down a service of this kind without some action. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young), who is concerned about these matters, is no longer in his place.

Unless something is done by the DHSS to help the area health authorities, through national policies and public expenditure, the family doctor service is going to run down even further. In London 90 per cent. of general practitioners do not visit patients at night or at week ends. They use the three deputising services—Air Call, Medi-Call and London Locums. It is to be hoped that when we win the GLC election on 7 May some attention will be paid by the Greater London Council, in consultation with the British Medical Association and others, to what may be done for Londoners who no longer have the right to see their own family doctor during unsocial hours.

The problems with regard to doctors in Brent are that the basic conditions do not attract young doctors to set up their brass plates in Harlesden, Willesden or Kensal Rise. There is a housing problem, because one pays more and also has a job to find a house. The transport services on the North Circular Road or down the Edgware Road are impossible. The high mobility of the population also affects general practitioners. In my area there has been a change of about 20 per cent. over the last two years. The people do not move far—perhaps from Willesden to Paddington, or Paddington to Kensington—but in terms of general practice it creates a problem.

Brent has a good record in terms of the general practitioners' need for premises. We have constantly tried to make available in new developments a place for a group practice or a health centre. That has been a help. But how can the council help this situation, which is acute, with a rate support grant that cuts down the whole of its expenditure to an impossible amount, and where the cuts do not permit this kind of thing?

In regard to the London ambulance service I wish to point out the need to expedite the current pay negotiations.

The answer to a parliamentary question that I asked yesterday showed that the weekly wage of a man who has served for 15 years as a police constable is £150 and that of a fireman £131. Fifteen years ago the police constable was earning £49, the fireman £57 and the ambulance man £56. This matter is causing a great deal of anxiety to ambulance men in London. I urge the Government to expedite the award which the Whitley Council has produced to give a fair deal to ambulance men in the London ambulance service.

London commuters are the most oppressed of all travellers in Great Britain. Wrong policies have produced astronomical fare rises coinciding with cuts in services and standards and deterioration in the way in which our stations and trains are manned and run. My particular problem is the Broad Street—Richmond line. I have been fighting for more than 15 years to keep the line open, and, thanks to the previous Labour administration at County Hall, it is still open.

To the average person who travels in London the division between British Rail and London Transport is absolute nonsense. These two watertight compartments never meet. The traveller is not concerned about whether the vehicle on which he is travelling is operated by British Rail or London Transport. I hope that the new Labour GLC will integrate bus and train services, providing through booking services and interchange, thereby encouraging people to make more use of the railways.

Last year Sir Peter parker introduced a successful experiment. He allowed grandparents to visit their families in all parts of the country for £1 a time. That experiment lasted six weeks, and in that time British Rail earned £1 million extra revenue. London Transport should decrease fares and increase services. With proper organisation more people would use the bus and rail service, and bumper-to-bumper congestion of cars on roads would be reduced. That is one reason why I, for one, will be active all next week until 7 May, in trying to secure the election of a Labour majority at County Hall.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown) on his elevation to the Opposition Front Bench and on giving us the opportunity to speak on the economic and social problems of Greater London. It is an important matter which I wish we could discuss more frequently in the House. I shall not attempt to cover all aspects; I shall concentrate on a limited number of issues.

First, I wish to speak on the level of rates in London. Many London boroughs which have not been fortunate enough to be controlled by a Tory council, as mine has ever since the London Government Act 1963, cannot look forward to the same reduced rate levels. A number of my constituents conduct businesses in inner London where councils have adopted an entirely different view of their rate levels, and much higher rates become payable, to the great distress of the unemployed who would like to find work in industry in inner London but cannot do so because industry has been turned away.

There has been introduced the new system of block grants. I fully support the Government's proposals for assessing the needs element. The old system whereby local authorities concocted their own needs and thereby had the right to dip into the taxpayers' purse was not fair and reasonable. However, I am concerned about the ability of councils in London to pay according to the rateable values of the properties in the capital.

My concern arises from the fact that rateable values were last reviewed many years ago and there are no proposals to revise the rateable value assessment in the near future, if ever. Consequently, as the years go by the situation will get worse. When rateable values were last reassessed they were calculated according to the notional rent applicable to the premises. The system has, to some extent, fallen into disrepute because there is so little rental evidence, particularly in the residential sector on an open market basis.

In industry and commerce rental levels are not constant throughout the country. Certainly in London they have been changing over the years. When the last rate revaluation took place the rest of the country was 30 per cent. behind in income terms. That figure has now narrowed to only 15 per cent., whereas rateable values in London are about 30 per cent. higher than they are in the rest of the country.

Whilst I do not sympathise with the Labour Administration's method of transferring funds from the shires to the city purely and simply for any benefit it might give to them through the electors there, I feel that there was a reason for doing something like that on the side of fairness. This matter must be looked at. If in the future we are not to have five-yearly revaluations for rating purposes as was originally intended we shall have to find some measure to redress the balance. Whether that means giving a special subsidy to London for that purpose, I leave to the Government, but the question must be considered in detail.

On several occasions recently I have tried to obtain a satisfactory answer from Ministers in correspondence on this issue, but I have not so far received a satisfactory reply. If my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg), cannot give me an adequate answer today, I hope that he will consider the matter urgently and let me have something of comfort to tell my constituents. The new system worked out on the computer will give us a clearer idea about where needs arise, and it will be much easier for the electors to see which local authorities give good value for money and which do not. I hope that that will be reflected in the ballot boxes of the future.

I congratulate the GLC on what it is doing in housing. I know that Labour Members take a different view——

Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the total house building figure for the GLC is 35 houses?

I can confirm that since 1977 33,000 GLC families have become owner-occupiers in Greater London, and that, to my mind, is the most important point of all.

Throughout my professional life, during which I have spent a considerable time dealing with housing matters, I have found that the ownership of property has two great side effects. One is that property owners are keen to improve their property for themselves and for the benefit of the nation. If Opposition Members do not believe that, they should look at the do-it-yourself business operations which at the moment are having an all-time boom. We should applaud the ability of people to improve their direct environment, and I want to see that extended in the future.

The second important aspect of home ownership arises from human nature, cynical as it may seem. When people grow old they are, on the whole, far less lonely when they have property to leave to their children than when they do not. I find far fewer cases of this among old people in owner-occupied accommodation than in council-owned accommodation. That is a fact of life. I believe that it is a definite advantage for the future for people to own their own property and to retain those links.

I did not intend to raise the subject of immigration. However, it was mentioned by the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt), for whom I have great admiration and respect. I believe that, like me, he was born in my constituency, or at least lived there for many years. I compliment him on his good sense. However, I must point out that when I was out canvassing last week in connection with the GLC elections I found that the immigrants in my area, albeit less numerous than in the hon. Gentleman's constituency of Brent, South, welcomed the Government's British Nationality Bill for the simple reason that those in Ilford, South are anxious to get on the best possible terms with the indigenous population.

Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to address a meeting of immigrants in my constituency? I shall arrange one the moment he suggests it.

I should be delighted to do so. I willingly accept the invitation. I have addressed many meetings of immigrants in my constituency. Indeed, I have addressed every such meeting to which I was invited with due notice and have extremely pleasant memories of all those meetings. If the hon. Gentleman is having difficulty in his constituency, I shall be delighted to help him out. My constituents are anxious that this matter should settle down. They do not see the Bill as discriminatory. Some of them expressed concern when colleagues at work gave them an entirely false impression of the aims and intentions of the Bill. I am pleased to say, however, that, their fears having been allayed, they believe, as I do, that it is in their own best long-term interests.

With regard to public transport, I consider it particularly stupid to suggest a reduction in fares at the expense of ratepayers. To penalise retired people, local workers and local business and commerce is at best unfortunate and at worst will lead to greater unemployment, because the rate level has a real effect on the level of business activity in a community. Many people seem not to appreciate this. Some seem to be born with the idea that all businesses make a profit. I hope that the events of the last few years have made it clear that that is not always the case. If it is not possible to make a profit, it is not possible to employ people.

To transfer yet further burdens on to the local community purely in pursuit of some political dogma is therefore entirely wrong. If the issue were only thought through, people would realise that it would merely increase the eventual value of property in the centre of the city. By reducing the burden on the commuter in getting to the centre, offices and commercial undertakings in the centre are thus able to pay more in rent. The idea is therefore complete nonsense.

I believe, however, that the Government should consider more carefully giving tax allowances on season tickets. I was disappointed to see that under the Budget proposals season tickets provided by employers are to be taxed. I believe that this is one area in which positive assistance could be given to public transport. I therefore hope that the Government will be prepared to look at the matter again.

The running cost of public transport is mainly that of wages. Wages and salaries in London Transport are no exception, accounting for no less than 80 per cent. of the total running costs. I believe that the only way to get a viable public transport system in the centre of London is through a greater realisation by the unions as well as by management that they must encourage the gradual demanning of the operation. Certainly we must consider the speedy introduction of ticket dispensing and collection machines and single manning. I hope that we shall have the support of the trade unions on those matters.

On a recent trip abroad, I noticed that the penalty for loss or defacement of a railway ticket in Hong Kong was £60. That is a very heavy burden. Nevertheless, some penalty should be imposed on people who do not have a valid ticket to present at the end of their journey. I believe that there is a great deal of swindling at the expense of other public transport users by people who claim to have lost their tickets but who in fact joined the tam some distance down the line. I hope that that, too, will be considered.

With regard to roads, what would be the Labour Party proposals for road improvements if the community were unfortunate enough to find itself with a Labour-controlled GLC next month? Last year less than a penny rate—that is less than £19 million—was spent on the improvement of roads. Under the heading "Financing Labour's Programme", the Labour Party's manifesto says:

"The Tory empires that have been set up … to build urban motorways will be broken up and the staff redeployed. Capital will also be freed, particularly from the road programme".

If that is the Labour Party's intention, it is very regrettable indeed. The manifesto continues:

"The Tory GLC has been quietly shifting resources back in favour of road building … We welcome the stand of the Labour group at County Hall which has opposed this policy shift … to proceed with schemes of this nature in a time of financial restraint and increasing oil costs is beyond understanding."

The Labour Party further states:

"road traffic growth must be curbed".

But nowhere does it say who are to be the second class citizens who will not be permitted to own and run cars, thus restricting the predicted traffic growth. Without adequate transport facilities and road services to businesses, employers cannot continue to employ their staff. It is ridiculous to put forward proposals of that kind. To suggest, on the one hand, that the Labour Party is worried about unemployment but, on the other hand, to make it as difficult as possible to carry on businesses and to create employment is typical of the way in which the Labour Party conducts its affairs.

I hope that the electorate will see the nonsense of those policies and will support Horace Cutler and the return of a Conservative GLC in the forthcoming elections.

If I understood him correctly, the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) objected to the use of public money to subsidise London Transport. As London Transport's total costs are covered by public subsidy only as to about 30 per cent., while the Paris authority is covered as to about 70 per cent., he is making a far greater attack on the French method, and particularly on Mr. Chirac, the mayor of Paris, than on the London Labour Party. I do not know whether the hon. Member regards Mr. Chirac as a Marxist. If he does, Mr. Chirac would resent it probably even more than I would.

The hon. Member for Ilford, South congratulated the GLC on its housing policy. Since it has done nothing, the hon. Gentleman must have modest ideas about how many houses should be built. There is no doubt that Tory housing policy—and in particular the indiscriminate sale of council houses—has produced a housing situation in London that is worse than at any time since the war.

In Wandsworth, in particular, transfers and rehousing have slowed down to a level that is worse than any that I can remember since 1945. One can now offer little help to anyone who requires rehousing. Council houses in many parts of the borough, including a complete new estate in my constituency, are standing empty while the council vainly tries to sell them to people who cannot afford to buy them.

Semi-derelict houses, which urgently need repairs and are owned by housing trusts, are standing empty and deteriorating because the Government refuse to provide money to make them habitable. The record of the Tory GLC is bad. The hon. Member for Ilford, South attempted to compare it with that of the Labour GLC. In 1976, when the Labour Party was still in power at County Hall, the GLC rehoused 11,450 families. In 1980 the Tory GLC rehoused 2,870 families. The figures show clearly what has happened.

I do not know whether Government Members realise what present policies mean in human terms. I could describe hundreds of examples in my constituency, but I shall cite only one. The husband of an old lady in my constituency has been forced temporarily to live elsewhere because he is disabled and unable to climb the stairs to their flat. The old lady is frail. She is left alone. It is impossible to reunite husband and wife until they are rehoused. The old lady says in her letter to me:

"I have not been to bed for three years because of my nerves … I am under the hospital, but now I am getting pain in my side from sleeping on the settee. I am in a very bad way. You are the only person who can help me."—

After months of asking, the council cannot make an offer because too many new and old council flats are being sold. That illustrates the real effect of the sale of council houses.

The policy is made even more squalid because the government are carrying it out not because of a motive connected with housing but because they believe that only owner-occupiers vote Tory. If that were not their motive, the Government and the Tory councils would make two conditions for the sale of council houses. First, they would say that they could be sold only to sitting council tenants and, secondly, that if they were resold they would have to be sold back to the council that owned them. I would support the sale of council houses on those two conditions. I should be glad if sale without the conditions were made a criminal offence, because it causes more human suffering than anything except unemployment.

We are told by the Secretary of State that the GLC is to hand over a large stock of council homes to councils that do not want to buy them. They are doing that hastily, before the elections. The only effect will be to make it even harder for a poor or needy family to move from one part of London to another. The Prime Minister exhorts workers to be more mobile and to leave Wales or Scotland for London. However, present policies make it almost impossible for council tenants to move from one part of London to another.

One of my constituents recently took the Prime Minister's advice. He left Somerset and came to Battersea. He obtained a job with London Transport. When he and his family had to leave their temporary lodgings they were told by the Wandsworth council that they had made themselves intentionally homeless because the man had deliberately left Somerset—at the invitation of the Prime Minister. That is an interesting example of how mobility of labour works.

The right hon. Gentleman referred to the motive behind the sale of council houses. Will he comment on the Labour Party's motive when Herbert Morrison caused massive council estates to be built throughout London?

My motive is a desire for people to be better housed.

I was encouraged when the Secretary of State said that there was to be a housing exchange or mobility scheme between London boroughs. May we have details tonight of how that will work, how applications should be made, and how the scheme can be pushed forward? Under the old scheme, transfers could take place only in exceedingly rare cases. How many families have been rehoused under the new scheme promoted by the Government? How many families were rehoused in any one year under the old scheme? Until such questions are answered I shall be extremely sceptical. I fear that the new transfer scheme will result in even less mobility within London.

Brent is one of the London boroughs under most pressure in terms of housing. Between 500 and 600 transfers from the district took place under the previous mobility scheme. Now, fewer than 100 transfers a year take place.

That confirms the impression that I have received from my constituency.

Until recently there was a children's library in my constituency, in the middle of a large group of council estates. It was popular with both black and white children, and young people used it for reading and school work in the afternoons and evenings. Many people were thankful that at least some facilities existed to keep young people off the streets and to give them an alternative to watching television.

The Wandsworth council decided to close the library in order to save a few hundred pounds a year. So incensed was the entire local community—both white and black, who were united at least on this issue—that it maintained a vigil protest, led by the local vicar, for many weeks. However, the council closed the library.

Is it surprising that there are idle young people on the streets when such policies are pursued? Can anyone doubt that housing conditions and unemployment, caused by the policies of a Tory Government, the GLC and Tory-controlled borough councils, have contributed greatly to the events that took place in Brixton? Incidentally, it was not only black youths who rioted. Of course, there was more than one cause for those deplorable events. It is impossible to prove how much of the trouble was due to one particular cause. However, it is perverse to believe that if thousands of young men are left with nothing to do amidst ever worsening housing conditions, there will be no consequences for public order.

I wonder whether Conservative Members remember that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker)—made an impressive speech in the House only two years ago. He said that if we allowed unemployment to continue, even at the level of two years ago, public order would be threatened. Since then, unemployment has doubled. The right hon. Gentleman was right. His prediction has been fulfilled. It is the latest and greatest condemnation of the Government and of the housing and employment policies that have been followed during the past few years.

A debate on the economic and social problems of Greater London cannot ignore recent events in Brixton. Since my constituency lies within the borough of Lambeth, I have decided to comment on those events.

It would appear that the riot was not principally a racial one. We must all be thankful for that. If anything, it was a riot against authority and society and, principally, against the police. I must bring several charges. First, hostility to the police had been growing in the area for some time and owed much to a deliberate compaign over months, if not years, of anti-police indoctrination of the youth of Brixton, both black and white.

Secondly, those who are guilty of exploiting such youngsters are as morally guilty as those who attacked the police and looted and burnt down houses. Thirdly, some colleagues of Opposition Members must bear part of the guilt, particularly as some had positions of responsibility in the community. I shall substantiate that charge. For some time Lambeth—particularly Brixton—has been a centre for Left-wing organisations and organisations of the extreme Left, which have adopted the usual methods, namely, meetings, rallies, marches and the distribution of leaflets. Such organisations seem to have had a common purpose, namely, to stir up hostility towards our society and institutions, using the police as the whipping-boy.

I agree that there has been a strong police presence in the area, and particularly in Brixton. There is a high rate of crime in the area. However, the vast majority of citizens in Brixton are law-abiding and support the police. I agree that there is an unusual level of deprivation in the area. Whether that deprivation takes the form of housing or lack of jobs, the House deplores it. However, no level of deprivation can excuse what happened in Brixton. If any Opposition Member disagrees with that statement I shall gladly give way to him. The environment created a critical mass, such as can be found in other urban centres in England. The detonator was provided by Left-wing organisations which had been working towards that end for years.

I am surrounded by leaflets, which were picked up in Brixton and sent to me as a result of a question that I asked in the House some weeks ago. Some are old leaflets and some are more recent, but they all have similar things to state. For example, the Caribbean Times states:

"Deptford…Police knew it was a bomb."

In its review the Revolutionary Communist tendency states:

"Police out of Brixton."

There is an inflammatory editorial inside that paper. The Socialist Worker carries one headline:

"Brixton: black and white unite to fight!"

The "Workers News" states:

"Bring them down … The working class response gathers strength."

Here is an odd one: It is a

"Joint Statement: Gay Liberation South London Brixton Gay Housing Co-op."

The statement is unsigned, as many such leaflets are, and is consequently illegal. It states:

"For the past five years the people of Brixton have been the victims of constant police harassment. We unconditionally support the initiative."

The "New Cross Massacre Inquest" states:

"We know the police will try to cover up the real truth. We know from previous experience not to trust the police investigation … Despite their efforts the police have been unable to come up with a black scapegoat."

A leaflet entitled "Brixton—The Communist View" states:

"The uprising against police oppression that took place in Brixton has brought forth many explanations."

The Workers News Group uses the headline "Lessons from Brixton". It continues:

"The spontaneous uprising of the people of Brixton against the intensified police harassment … "

Even the Council for Community Relations in Lambeth issued a press release——

Even?

I said "even" because the CRR is partly funded by Lambeth council. It states:

"CCRL sees the events of last weekend as the inevitable result of long standing and consistently provocative policing policies … the weekend's violence was the only way people could express legitimate resentment at persistent injustice."

All hon. Members will surely disagree with such a shameful statement. The "Brixton Socialist Worker Bulletin" states:

"Frontline news … No one wants rioting, if there is an alternative. But for many people in this area … there is no alternative."

A leaflet entitled "Brixton Socialist Workers' Party Public Meeting" states:

"It was a magnificent way for Brixton to fight back."

I have many more pamphlets, all of which were found in Brixton. Many are given only to coloured youngsters and are often given by white men. Opposition Members may ask what all that has to do with the Labour Party. 'The headline in a leaflet headed "Labour Party Young Socialists" makes the following demand: "Defend Brixton". There is a photograph of Brixton burning. It continues:

"Brixton has erupted with an explosion of pent-up anger. It was provoked by a massive police presence … Responsibility for what happened lies squarely on the shoulders of the police".

Among its demands are the immediate release of those arrested, the dropping of all charges, the disbandment of the Special Patrol Group and democratic control of the police.

I had expected the hon. Member for Lambeth. Central (Mr. Tilley) to be in the Chamber during a debate on Lambeth. If he had been here I would have told him——

He is on the hon. Gentleman's rotten British Nationality Bill upstairs.

I withdraw my implied criticism. I shall tell the hon. Gentleman of my remarks. The "Labour Party Young Socialists" leaflet was published in connection with a meeting at which the hon. Member for Lambeth, Central was to speak.

As regards my hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth, Central (Mr. Tilley), is the hon. Gentleman aware that although the police are no more perfect than hon. Members, many of my hon. Friends and I deplore indiscriminate attacks on them as much as he does?

I am delighted to hear that. If the hon. Member for Lambeth, Central spoke at the meeting, I am sure that he would have said the same. I have no way of knowing what he said. However, his name appears on a leaflet so I presume he must have seen it. I should not allow my name to appear on a leaflet for a meeting at which I was to speak if I had not seen it beforehand.

I return to the subject of the Labour Party's involvement. The working party report on community police relations in Lambeth was commissioned by the Labour-controlled Lambeth council.

I have referred to that before in the House. The first chapter is headed "Army of Occupation". The subheadings include "Intimidation", "Arbitrary arrests", "Misuse of laws", "Continual harassment", and so on. It is a disgraceful report. It was sponsored by the Labour Party through the Lambeth Council. It costs £4. It did not have a wide circulation, but the best parts of it were published in the "Lambeth Local" the borough news sheet, which goes to every home. So the excerpts from that disgraceful report were widely circulated throughout the constituency before the riots in Brixton.

At the ratepayers' expense.

As my hon. Friend says, at the ratepayers' expense.