asked the Secretary of State for Employment what are the numbers of unemployed, both nationally and regionally; and if he will make a statement.

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

At 10 June the number of people registered as unemployed in the United Kingdom was 3,061,229. Regional figures were published in the press notice issued on 22 June; a copy is in the Library.

Has not the Secretary of State a duty to tell the nation when the suffering of the dole queue will end and the unemployment figures will fall? Does he recall that when the Government came to power they said that they would cut taxes for the wealthy and that the figures would fall; that they would increase taxes for the poor and that the figures would fall; and that they would have a monetarist policy and clobber the nurses and that the figures would fall? All that has proved to be of no avail. Is it not time that the right hon. Gentleman came to the Dispatch Box and told us categorically that the unemployment figures will fall before the end of the year? If he cannot do that, he ought to get out.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for putting his question as courteously as usual, although not, if I may say so, with his usual intellectual rigour or normal clear memory. The hon. Gentleman will remember that although the Government that he supported from time to time more than doubled unemployment, he did not ask that sort of question then.

When will the Secretary of State for unemployment make a genuine attempt to reduce unemployment instead of attacking the trade unions through his Draconian legislation? May I advise and inform the right hon. Gentleman that next Monday in Liverpool the Labour movement will fight and begin—

Order. Question Time is for asking questions, not for giving information.

I wish to tell the Secretary of State that we on Merseyside will fight his Bill next Monday—

Order. I have just said that Question Time is not for making statements.

We shall kill his Bill.

Since the end of the war Labour Governments have presided over a loss of almost 1½ million jobs, while to date, under Conservative Governments, there has been a small increase in the number of jobs. The hon. Gentleman should consider the long-term record.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the stupid strike that the country is suffering at the moment can lead only to increased unemployment? Does he further agree that the action of some union leaders is industrial suicide and will mean only that they are acting against the work force that they are supposed to represent?

I agree with most of what my hon. Friend said, but the leaders are not committing industrial suicide, they are murdering the jobs of their members, and their members will remember it.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that since the general election unemployment has increased by almost two and a half times? Is he aware that the 3 million victims of the Government's policies are becoming sick of his monthly platitudes and hope that he will eventually switch from rhetoric to action? Is he not aware of the CBI's support for the Labour Party's call for massive investment in infrastructure? Will he urge his Cabinet colleagues to generate desperately needed jobs? If not, is it not time that he got on his bike and looked for another job?

The right hon. Gentleman lowers his standards when he refers to the Government being responsible for 3 million unemployed, because he left us with more than 1¼ million of those. Therefore, he had better get the facts right. I again remind him that we inherited not only a doubling of unemployment but a doubling of prices and a massive loss of competitiveness in the middle of a world recession. Britain is not the only country that is affected. For example, in Germany unemployment has increased by 50 per cent. in the past 12 months compared with 14 per cent. here. Vacancies there have halved, while vacancies in Britain have increased.

rose—

Order. This subject comes up repeatedly in later questions.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he is satisfied with the quality of training available to implement his statement of 21 June on training of young workers.

I am satisfied that the support that our training proposals have received from employers, unions and others, and the arrangements for quality assurance proposed by the Manpower Services Commission, will ensure the success of the new scheme.

What discussions has my hon. Friend had with the MSC and similar bodies with regard to the monitoring of the quality of these schemes? Is there any likelihood of any certification or similar proposal at the end of the young person's period of training?

We are closely in touch with the MSC on the monitoring of the schemes. It intends to set up a national supervisory board and local area boards to supervise the schemes, and those boards will include industrialists acting as advisers. The intention is that there should be a certificate at the end of the year.

Does the Minister realise that all our young people now feel that the training that ought to be given is how to enter the dole queue, because that is where the vast majority of them end up? Is that not the reality? What will the Minister do to prevent those young people from going on to the scrap-heap and the dole?

The hon Gentleman is probably not aware that in the last survey more than 70 per cent. of the young people on the youth opportunities programme said that they were very satisfied with the programme. With the increased training element in the youth training scheme, I am sure that that figure will increase substantially.

Will my hon. Friend congratulate employers, particularly the CBI, on the determination and spirit that they have shown in an effort to get the new training initiative off the ground? Does that not compare favourably with the carping and negative attitude of the TUC and Labour Members in their approach to this whole question and with their failure to introduce such a scheme when they had the chance?

I certainly take this opportunity of congratulating employers, not least because they will be the sponsors of the 400,000-plus places that will be needed in September next year. I agree with my hon. Friend that certain Labour Members seem to be out of step with what the rest of the country thinks of this scheme.

It was the TUC which in effect, saved the scheme and gave it the chance to exist. Will the Minister accede to the request of the MSC's task group and merge the young workers scheme with the new training scheme? Is he not apprehensive that £260 million has been earmarked by his Department for the young workers scheme, with no guarantee of any training?

The short answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is "No". The young workers scheme fulfils a different purpose from the youth training scheme, and I believe that each can work alongside the other.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many young people entered the youth opportunities programme in 1981–82.

The number is 553,000.

I thank my hon. and learned Friend for that reply. How successful is YOP in getting young people into employment?

A survey carried out last autumn showed that about 60 per cent. of trainees went either into jobs or further training at the end of their period on YOP. Further improvements seem to be indicated by another survey, which is now being analysed.

Is the Minister aware that recently in a written answer I was supplied with details of the number of injuries sustained by young people on YOP in the last year? What assurance can he give that the health and safety aspects both of YOP, if it continues, and the new training initiative, when it begins, will be improved so that we do not have a doubling of the length of the programme leading to a doubling of the number of injuries?

We are determined to ensure that safety standards are as high for trainees as they are for ordinary employees. There is no reason why they should not be.

Was there any evidence of many young people wilfully choosing not to go on to the YOP if an offer was made to them?

I know of virtually no evidence of that happening.

Does the hon. and learned Gentleman recognise that at the end of these schemes many young people find that there are no opportunities for them to take up, as a result of which they merely become unemployed and completely disillusioned? Does he appreciate that until the Government change their attitude to the economy and embark on a policy of reflation to give more jobs for all, this process will be only a palliative and will not succeed?

I remind the hon. Gentleman of what I have already said. We should like to see every young person go into a permanent job at the end of his training. It seems that the number going into permanent jobs is increasing, and that is a good sign. I disagree entirely with the hon. Gentleman's suggestion about how we might increase employment opportunities. His method would have precisely the reverse effect.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what are the percentages of unemployed in the United Kingdom and in the West Midlands at the latest date and in May 1979.

At June 1982 the rate of unemployment, seasonally adjusted and excluding school leavers, was 12·2 per cent. in the United Kingdom and 14·7 per cent. in the West Midlands region. The corresponding rates at May 1979 were 5·4 per cent. and 5·1 per cent. respectively.

That is a grave indictment of Government policy. Will the Minister take note that, set against the tragedy of millions of our fellow citizens being denied the opportunity to earn their living, the usual jeering remarks of the Secretary of State are a grave insult to the unemployed? Will he also bear in mind that there has been no let-up in the factory closures and massive redundancies that constantly occur in the West Midlands? The people there have paid a dear price for the Tory electoral victory of May 1979.

"To an extent, present unemployment is international"—

We are talking about ours.

I repeat:

"To an extent, present unemployment is international and beyond the control of the United Kingdom Government; record levels are being registered in most industrialised countries."

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many people in my constituency believe that jobs have been lost in the Kidderminster carpet industry because selective help has been given to firms in other parts of the country, with which it competes? Will he discuss that with colleagues and ensure that such discrimination does not continue?

I take note of what my hon. Friend has said and undertake to look into the matter.

Where else in the world has unemployment in an industrial area increased as much as in North Staffordshire in particular, and the West Midlands in general?

As the hon. Gentleman knows only too well, a sad loss of competitiveness was registered as a result—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"]—of our appallingly poor performance in terms of output and unit labour costs in manufacturing industry, which are unmatched anywhere else in the Western world. That explains why we have such high unemployment.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is deep distress in the West Midlands and that until that area recovers properly the economy as a whole is in dire danger? Does he accept that many of us believe that there is a great deal to be said for a Minister with special responsibility for this area, just as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment was given special responsibility for Liverpool?

I note both what my right hon. Friend has said and his strong constituency links and roots in the West Midlands. He will appreciate that the level of manufacturing activity in the West Midlands is much higher than the average for the United Kingdom. That leaves the West Midlands more exposed to the cold wind of recession than any other part of the United Kingdom.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the number of long-term unemployed at the latest available date.

At 15 April the number of people registered as unemployed for over 52 weeks in the United Kingdom was 994,395.

Is that not the highest-ever figure of people who have been unemployed for more than 12 months? Does the Secretary of State agree that the number of long-term unemployed is one of the most significant indicators to the state of the economy? Is he aware that the MSC has forecast that that number will be over 1 million for the next three years? How much evidence do he and the Government require to make fundamental changes in their policies?

We should require evidence that better policies were available, and that evidence is in extremely short supply. If the hon. Gentleman does not believe me, I suggest that he takes a short trip to France to see what has already resulted from the implementation of policies similar to those advocated by the Labour Party and the SDP. Fortunately, that Government have now seen some of the difficulties and their policies are converging with ours.

Does the Secretary of State agree that unemployment and the long-term unemployed are the major issues now facing the country? Therefore, is it not important that we should debate these matters fully in the House? If so, does he agree that it is deplorable that during the debate on unemployment last night only six hon. Members were ever in attendance on the Labour Benches, and that none of the Labour Members voted in the Division last night?

That is probably accounted for by the fact that they had not expected to hear anything new—

From the Government Front Bench?

—from the party that proposed the debate or from those who spoke from the Liberal and SDP Benches.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, after being unemployed for some time, many people wish to take on work within the community, often without pay? However, they are inhibited from doing so by fear of losing benefit. Will my right hon. Friend undertake to review the regulations so that those who genuinely want to help the community while seeking work will be more freely able to do so?

That was one of the principal objectives of the scheme put forward by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We are always anxious to do that, but we are sometimes frustrated by those who believe, rightly or wrongly, that it would damage voluntary institutions, and others who believe that it will lead to widespread undercutting of regular wages. Both those beliefs are misconceived.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that unemployment in France is much lower than it is in the United Kingdom and has stabilised, whereas here, since the Conservative Party came to power, long-term unemployment has risen by two and a half times? Is it not time that the Government increased the community enterprise programme, which accounts for only 30,000 places, when the long-term unemployed number 1 million?

Inflation in France is 14 per cent., it has just devalued its currency for the second time, it has a massive problem of a balance of payments deficit, and it is imposing freezes on prices and incomes. I do not think that its Government can be said to be holding to the policies on which they were elected, policies that are similar to those of the hon. Gentleman and his party.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he has made any assessment of the extent to which flexible retirement for men between the ages of 60 and 65 years would provide job opportunities for younger people.

A recent survey of the job release scheme, which allows people nearing retirement age to give up work early provided that their employer undertakes to recruit an unemployed person as a replacement worker, showed that 40 per cent. of replacement workers are aged under 25.

That is an encouraging start, but is my right hon. Friend aware that over 900,000 men at work are aged between 60 and 65, and that more of them would be willing to take earlier retirement—

Speak for yourself.

—if the State pension scheme could be made fully flexible?

I heard my hon. Friend, but he will agree with me that the conditions of the job release scheme are perhaps the most effective way to get people into work.

Does the Minister agree that the most effective way of getting people back to work would be to allow men to retire at 60 if they wished, allowing some of those thousands of people out of work and desperate for those jobs to get them? Is it not a ludicrous paradox that in constituencies such as mine there are hundreds of men desperate for dignified retirement, while there are thousands of young people in desperate need of those jobs?

As the hon. and learned Gentleman is no doubt aware, if the retirement age for men were reduced to 60 it would result in about another 420,000 jobs, but it would cost £2,500 million, and the Government must have regard to resources.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will meet the officers and board of the Merseyside urban development corporation to discuss measures to reduce unemployment on Merseyside.

Although my right hon. Friend has no plans at present to meet the Merseyside development corporation he would be most interested to discuss with it how this major initiative can contribute towards making Merseyside more attractive to industry and employment.

Will the Minister consider three specific proposals when he meets the Merseyside development corporation, bearing in mind that my constituency has 16 per cent. more unemployed now than at this time last year? First, will he consider giving it urban aid powers to give grants in the same way as local authorities? Secondly, will he consider extending the area covered by the Merseyside development corporation, especially in my constituency? Finally, will he consider with it giving development area grants in Merseyside to service industries and commercial concerns related to the docks, as well as to manufacturing industries?

The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that these are matters far more in the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, but I shall study the points that he has made. I should not like it to be thought that the Merseyside development corporation was not already doing some very important things in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. I have in mind the 45,000 sq ft of advance factory units already put up and the reclamation of 27 acres at Langton goods depot and the Rimrose improvement area.

Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that many of these factory units are empty and that, however desirable trees and shrubs may be, they are no substitute for the 89,000 jobs that have been lost in Liverpool over the past 10 years, where there has been a 200 per cent. increase in unemployment? Is he further aware that the city planning officer estimates that in four years' time a further 30,000 people could become unemployed in Liverpool? What will he do about that? Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that youngsters on Merseyside—

Order. That is more than enough.

The hon. Gentleman is aware that there is no part of the United Kingdom where more Government incentives are available than in Merseyside. There is the Merseyside development corporation, which has already been referred to. There is the special development area, the Speke enterprise zone, the Liverpool inner city partnership area and my right hon. Friend's task force. Abundant aid is being made available, and Liverpool and Merseyside will benefit with the revival of the economy, as will other parts of the country.

Further to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. Carlisle), is my hon. and learned Friend aware of the plight of the disabled and handicapped who are trying to get work? Will he ask the Treasury to revise the rules for people, especially those who have multiple sclerosis, who are trying to work and who are in danger of losing their invalidity benefit because there is no scaling down for people who suffer from this disease and who wish to take part-time work?

I should point out to my hon. Friend that the question is about the Merseyside urban development corporation. I shall, of course, note all that he says and do what I can.

Does the Minister agree that the Mickey Mouse gimmicks introduced by his right hon. Friend the Minister responsible for Merseyside, like the development corporation and the enterprise zone there, will in fact produce few jobs? Will he have a word with his right hon. Friend to see whether he will introduce measures that will make a positive attempt to reduce the 20 per cent. unemployment on Merseyside?

It is difficult to follow what the hon. Member for Liverpool, Scotland Exchange (Mr. Parry) is saying. I thought that most Opposition Members believed in assistance for the regions, and if one looks at the area one sees that it is getting more of that assistance than anywhere else.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will commission a survey to investigate whether, and to what extent, employers are inhibited from recruiting new employees by reason of the level of wages council awards.

It is self-evident that wages are ultimately limited by the ability of employers to pay, which is in turn limited by the prices which, in the light of home and overseas competition, they are able to obtain for their products. There is, therefore, little doubt that the higher the level at which councils set minimum wages the fewer people will be employed, but I am doubtful that a survey could readily quantify this effect.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that encouraging reply. Does he agree that the weekend speech by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in which he referred to the Conservative manifesto commitment to abolish wages councils, will be warmly welcomed by both unemployed people and trade union members alike—[Interruption]—because of the interference by wages councils, which has resulted in the loss of thousands of jobs in the private sector?

Let us be quite clear about what my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor said. He asked: is there really a case for wages councils imposing minimum rates that frustrate market forces? In my opinion, any reasonably minded man must come to the same conclusion as my right hon. and learned Friend. To put it mildly, the answer to the question would appear to be "No".

Does the Secretary of State accept that, of all the methods for reducing unemployment, the most offensive and despicable would be to cut the wages of those who are already receiving the lowest wages in our society?

Scrooge.

I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman understands that no job can exist for long if what it produces is less than what the market is willing to pay for the product. That is the problem of wages councils, when they set wages above what the market will bear.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that our main priority should be the preservation and creation of jobs? If, as many of us believe, wages councils destroy jobs, should we not take prompt action, regardless of the International Labour Organisation? Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is a case for turning a Nelsonian blind eye to that body, in the interests of unemployed people, and especially the young unemployed?

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I draw your attention to the fact that Conservative Members who are asking questions have a vested interest—

Order.

The hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) runs a sweat shop.

Opposition Members could not run a sweet shop—I do not know about a sweat shop.

On the subject of the Minister's theory of job creation by lower wages, has the Secretary of State seen the report issued by his own Department, showing that variations in youth unemployment have little systematic relationship with changes in earnings? Are the Department of Employment Ministers frightened of being confused by the facts?

No, not at all. That is not the central point at issue. The central point of that survey was the relationship between youth wages and adult wages. Here we are talking about the overall level of wages. Unless someone has repealed the law of supply and demand, I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has to accept that the higher the price that is asked for labour, the less labour will be employed.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what are the current numbers and percentage of unemployed persons in the Northern region.

At 10 June the number of people registered as unemployed in the Northern region was 223,010 and the unemployment rate was 16·7 per cent.

Is the Minister aware that, serious as those figures are, male unemployment in my constituency is now 33·3 per cent. and rising? How does that, together with the regional figures that he has just given, reflect the alleged improvement in the national economy about which the Government keep telling us?

I fully appreciate the serious situation in Consett, but I think that Labour Members know that even there people are getting jobs. Indeed, 2,300 former BSC employees have found jobs or gone into training since the plant was closed. That is no mean achievement. Consett remains a special development area. Forty-five new small firms have been established since the steel closure. Other firms in the Consett travel-to-work area have expanded, creating 300 new jobs. So it is quite wrong to say that the situation is hopeless. Consett is recovering from a traumatic and terrible experience.

Does the Minister agree that the three new towns in the Northern region have made a significant contribution in attracting new jobs to the North? In those circumstances, what possible justification can there be for the Secretary of State for the Environment—I realise that this is not the Minister's Department—winding up those three development corporations at the end of 1985? Will he undertake to make the strongest representations to his right hon. Friend to extend the life of those corporations for as long as there is a job need?

I shall, of course, pass on the hon. Gentleman's comments to my right hon. Friend. However, I do not want the House to imagine from what the hon. Gentleman said that no aid is going to the Northern region. Far from it. Only the other day the hon. Gentleman heard that Teesside was to become a special development area.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he has received representations on the need for reform of the traditional apprentice schemes.

Consultations on the new training initiative have shown widespread agreement that traditional approaches to the skill training of young people need to be modernised. The Government have declared their support for the removal of both the time-serving and the age barriers in the apprenticeship system.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that we need to move away from narrowly defined craft-based apprenticeship schemes towards a system that is capable of producing multi-skilled technicians who are more relevant to modern technology? Does he agree that that would help immensely to improve productivity in British industry, by helping to break down demarcation barriers?

The short answer to my hon. Friend is "Yes". We should have a much more flexible approach to skill training in this country. The objectives in the new training initiative, with which the Government agree, are designed to that end.

How much responsibility will industry take for the new training initiative? What proportion of that training does the Minister expect to take place in private industry and what proportion does he expect to have to dump on the further education system because employers are not playing their part?

At this stage the response from industry is very encouraging indeed. To give proportions would be impossible, because we are talking about a scheme that will be launched in full in September next year. Certainly industry is playing its part at the moment.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what arrangements have been made for the process of consultation on the report of the employment services division Rayner scrutiny on the general employment service in Great Britain.

The report was published on 3 June 1982 by the Manpower Services Commission with an invitation to interested organisations and individuals to comment on its conclusions and recommendations by 9 July 1982.

Why has there been such a hole-in-corner approach to the publication of this document, which has such damaging prospects for the jobcentre network?

There has not been a hole-in-corner approach to the publication of the document. The Manpower Services Commission has made it available to whomsoever wanted it. It has been available in the Vote Office and has been given to the Clerk of the Select Committee on Employment. The matter rests at the moment with the Manpower Services Commission and the Government await its conclusions before making their judgment.

As the report makes recommendations which, if implemented, would lead to savings of more than £10 million, will my hon. Friend ensure that in so far as he agrees with them they are implemented as soon as possible?

I certainly wish to see the jobcentre network run in as cost-effective a way as is possible. That is why my right hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior), when he was Secretary of State for Employment, suggested the review to the Manpower Services Commission.

Is the Minister not ashamed that the MSC's employment services division has already sustained a staff cut of 1,700 and a budgetary cut of £60 million? Is it not the case that the disabled, the long-term unemployed and the young blacks will bear the brunt of cuts in jobcentres?

I am certainly not ashamed. I should be ashamed if the jobcentres were not run on a cost-effective basis. The point of the review is to ensure that they are.

Is my hon. Friend aware that, generally speaking, private enterprise can run an employment agency far more efficiently and at far lower cost than a State undertaking? The sooner they are all taken over by private enterprise the better.

There is a place for the private employment agency alongside the public employment service, which should be run on as cost-effective a basis as possible.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many long-term unemployed are registered at East Ham; and what was the comparable figure 12 months ago.

At April 1982 the number of people registered as unemployed for over 52 weeks in the East Ham employment office area was 1,308. The corresponding figure at April 1981 was 491.

Does the Minister recognise that those atrocious figures show an increase in the long-term unemployed over 12 months of well over 100 per cent.? Was that the Government's intention, or is it an indictment of their policies? Does the Minister realise the despair and social tension that such figures cause? What hope can he hold out to those of my constituents who are afflicted by such problems?

One thousand and seventy-three people have been placed in employment by the employment service in the past 12 months. Vacancies are well up compared with a year ago. It is wrong to paint a completely gloomy picture. East Ham and the hon. Gentleman's constituency will, like other parts of Britain, benefit as the Government's policies begin to work out.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the latest unemployment figures.

I refer the hon. Gentleman to my reply to the hon. Members for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and Liverpool, Scotland Exchange (Mr. Parry) earlier today.

Are not those deplorable figures brought about by the deliberate policies of the Government? Is the Secretary of State aware that under Tory rule—nothing to do with the Labour Government—there has been an increase in unemployment in my constituency of almost 200 per cent. and a similar increase in supplementary benefit payments to the unemployed? Is it not madness to cut back on public expenditure and create unemployment that results in over £4 billion being spent each year on supplementary and unemployment benefit? Would it not be better to use that money to create the jobs that the Government promised at the last election than to have their training scheme cosmetics?

In turn, the question might be put to the hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.] The House will notice that I did not ask a question of the hon. Gentleman. I said that, in turn, the question might be put to the hon. Gentleman—[Interruption]—whether he took the view that the increased unemployment in his constituency while he was a Minister in the last Government was his responsibility. The fact of the matter is—[Interruption.]

Order. The Minister must be allowed to reply. Whether hon. Members like the answer or not, he must be allowed to give it.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I refer you to your comment that the Minister is entitled to make a reply? The right hon. Gentleman said that he was going to ask the hon. Gentleman a question.

Order. I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman, but we are taking time from Prime Minister's Questions. The Minister must be allowed to answer.

The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis) did not hear me. I did not ask a question.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the totally inadequate nature of the Secretary of State's reply, I give notice that I intend to raise this matter on the Adjournment. The people of Keighley would like to return to the level of unemployment that existed under the Labour Government.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 6 July.

This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, including one with Sir Anthony Parsons. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen.

I suspect that during my right hon. Friend's busy day she might have occasion to consider the implications of the strike action being undertaken by some train drivers. Can she confirm that, given the acceptance by the work force of the necessity of operating the railways in the most efficient way possible for the benefit of the consumer, the Government would wish to continue their financial support for the railways and see the new investment that could give Britain the railway system of which it could be proud?

I agree with my hon. Friend that we very much want a railway system of which we can be proud.

We have always urged, and will continue to urge, that there should be increased investment in British Rail. As the present crisis is undoubtedly causing great hardship and difficulty to all concerned, could not a settlement of the dispute be sought on the basis of the proposals that the British Railways Board put forward on 25 June?

Investment itself is not necessarily good. It must be productive investment. Unproductive investment merely takes away from investment that could otherwise be made and produce a better return. The board has made every effort to solve the dispute. It is quite right to insist on the introduction of flexible rostering and to insist that there cannot be any more money without greater efficiency.

Will the right hon. Lady answer my question? It is important, because the railways will suffer losses as a result of the strike. Does she favour a settlement on the basis of the proposals made on 25 June? Having put forward those proposals, why did the British Railways Board withdraw them last week? Will the right hon. Lady consider the matter and try to secure a proper settlement?

ASLEF went on strike. The handling of that stike must be left to the British Railways Board. It cannot be handled in the House or at No. 10 Downing Street. However, we can lay down the very important principle that it is totally wrong to try—as the Labour Party has frequently done—to encourage the unions to believe that there will always be more money without more efficiency and better working methods.

We want to overcome this crisis. Will the right hon. Lady say whether she supports the board's proposals, which have now been withdrawn?

I leave the negotiations—rightly—to the British Railways Board. The Government have stood behind the British Railways Board in its negotiations.

Did my right hon. Friend hear Mr. Ray Buckton this morning when he explained to Radio 4 listeners that we live in a democratic country? Is it not about time that he introduced a little democracy into his union and consulted his members about this damaging dispute?

I understand that a number of ASLEF members have made precisely the same point. A considerable number of them are now working because they attach more importance to serving the travelling public—which is quite right—than to insisting on increased pay without improved working practices.

asked the Prime Minister when she intends the inquiry relating to the Falkland Islands to report.

The inquiry must be given whatever time it needs to complete its review, but I hope that it will be able to report within six months, and sooner if possible.

Will the Prime Minister therefore confirm that she has categorically ruled out an October general election, because she realises that before any electoral contest the House and the country should be given the full facts about the causes of the Falklands crisis and about the Government's responsibility for it?

I should be utterly amazed if there were an October election.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that an extremely happy event will take place at 11 am this Sunday when "Canberra" returns home with 3,000 of our fighting men on board? If possible, will she send a message to the ship's captain and perhaps accompany me to the quay at Southampton to welcome the ship back?

I am sure that everyone is extremely grateful for the excellent services provided by the whole of the Merchant Marine during the Falkland Islands crisis. We should like especially to congratulate the captain and crew of "Canberra" on having performed such a wonderful service on behalf of our country.

Might I welcome the Prime Minister—[Interruption.]—to the ranks of those who wish to get rid of the 30-year rule of secrecy for Cabinet documents?

I happen to be very much in favour of the 30-year rule against the publication of Cabinet documents. That is quite a different matter from revealing Cabinet documents, and Cabinet Committee documents, to Privy Councillors for an inquiry that wishes to draw its own conclusions. However, that does not mean that the documents can be published.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 6 July.

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

Does the Prime Minister recall the answer that she gave on 9 February to my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), when he warned her of the serious error of paying off HMS "Endurance" and of the consequences of such action? I believe that it was to be sold for about £3 million. Events in the South Atlantic have, I understand, cost rather more than £3 million. What has been the cost of the killing and maiming? As the Foreign Secretary honourably resigned, is it not time for her to accept, in grace and humility, her share of responsibility and culpability?

HMS "Endurance" was between the Falkland Islands and South Georgia at the time of the invasion. It was there throughout the invasion of the Falkland Islands. The ship has only two 20 mm guns and two Wasp helicopters.

During the course of the day will my right hon. Friend find time to consider the proposed increase in charges that has been announced by British Telecom? It seems to illustrate the insensitivity of the nationalised industries, which pile more and more charges on private industry and individuals.

I entirely agree with the point underlying my hon. Friend's question. We need much greater efficiency from British Telecom and from every other industry. We need to reduce overmanning and restrictive practices. However, much money is being invested in new equipment for British Telecom. Over the year British Telecom's profits are about £450 million, which is only about one-quarter of the amount that we are investing in British Telecom. We trust that that new investment will be used efficiently.

rose—

Hear, hear.

On the Falkland Islands inquiry—[Interruption]—will—

Order. It is very unfair if a right hon. or hon. Member is not allowed to put his question. If the House stands for anything, it stands for freedom of speech.

Can the Prime Minister confirm that the inquiry's terms of reference will not now involve any leisurely ramble over the history of the past two decades, but will concentrate on immediate events, although possibly with a right to look back for the purposes of comparison and clarification?

By kind permission of Mr. Speaker, the answer to a written question from the Leader of the Opposition was published at 2.45 pm today, setting out the terms of reference of the proposed inquiry in the following terms:

"To review the way in which the responsibilities of Government in relation to the Falkland Islands and their dependencies were discharged in the period leading up to the Argentine invasion of the Falkland Islands on 2 April 1982, taking account of all such factors in previous years as are relevant; and to report."

asked the Prime Minister if, pursuant to her reply on 18 June, Official Report, column 353, she is now in a position to announce the result of her consideration of a suitable form of commemoration for the recovery of the Falkland Islands and their dependencies for the British Crown.

As I said in the House on 1 July, a service of thanksgiving and remembrance for those who fell in the campaign will be held in St. Paul's cathedral on Monday 26 July at 11 am. Her Majesty the Queen, together with other members of the Royal Family, will attend. The next-of-kin of those who died will be invited, together with representatives of the Services, Merchant Navy and other direct participants in the conflict. Representatives of those involved in the support of the Falklands operation from Britain will also be invited. Seats will be available for the public and they will be allocated by ballot.

While thanking my right hon. Friend for making those proper and traditional arrangements to commemorate our victory in the Falkland Islands, may I ask whether she will also ensure that our victorious Service men have an opportunity to parade through our capital city?

We have not yet made arrangements for such a parade. It is likely that there will be one in the autumn. In addition to the Government, the lord mayor of the City of London is considering the matter, so that we may provide some entertainment.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not dispute your decision to release the terms of reference of the Falkland Islands inquiry exceptionally at 2.45 pm. Many hon. Members who have questions down for written answer for a specific day would wish the terms of the answers to those questions to be available so that they might put supplementary questions to Ministers in the House. Are you aware, Mr. Speaker, that it is not right that the Government, at their caprice and whim, should be allowed to switch the traditional time for answering questions tabled for written answer simply for their political convenience?

I understand that this was the wish of both the Leader of the House and the Prime Minister and that it meets the wishes of the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "No".] The House has had information that it would not otherwise have received because it could not have been revealed until later. Secondly, I am following precedent; it has been done before. I did not create the precedent and, as the hon. Gentleman knows, from time to time, in the interests of the House, we find the appropriate precedent to follow.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As Prime Minister's Question Time started two or three minutes late, why should the Prime Minister be defended by not allowing it to run for 15 minutes rather than terminating it after 12 minutes?

When the hon. Gentleman is appointed Speaker, he can put that point of view, but in the meantime the House has asked me to accept that responsibility.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As there is some dispute about the flexible rostering of the business of the House, may we have a secret ballot on it?