asked the Paymaster General if he will make a statement about the trend of unemployment over the last six months?

Over the last six months the trend in United Kingdom seasonally adjusted unemployment has been firmly downwards. The average monthly decrease over this period has been 17,000.

In welcoming that fact, will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that there has been a drop in the number of jobless over virtually the whole country and that the drop has been greater in the north than in the south? Will he also confirm that the trend in the number of jobless over the past three months represents the best performance over any three-month period in the last 14 years?

I confirm the last point made by my hon. Friend. The fall in the number of jobless people over the past three months, which has been accelerating, is the fastest since 1973. I am glad to say that unemployment has been decreasing throughout the country, but it has been decreasing fastest in the north, the north-west, the west midlands and Wales, which is very good news.

Is the Minister aware that the rapid pit closure programme has caused economic distress in many areas of the northern region, resulting in a much higher average rate of unemployment than in the rest of Britain? To what extent is he satisfied with the trend in finding jobs for the long-term unemployed, particularly in south Yorkshire and the Barnsley travel-to-work area?

I accept that the impact of the closure of uneconomic and redundant coal mines is quite severe in the parts of south Yorkshire represented by the right hon. Gentleman. Therefore, I trust that the efforts of British Coal Enterprise Ltd. and of everyone else in the region to attract alternative employment will have rapid success. There are signs that new employment is coming along, but it will take a long time to fill the gaps left by the coal industry. I am delighted to say that the increase in the number of self-employed people has been faster in Yorkshire and Humberside than in any other part of England.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm the accuracy of his Department's unemployment figures in the Library and thus show that the statement by the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth) that unemployment in my constituency had risen was totally inaccurate and misleading to the House? The truth of the matter is that the unemployment figures have come down.

I am delighted to confirm that. I followed the exchanges on unemployment in Langburgh between my hon. Friend and Opposition Members. My hon. Friend's knowledge of the area is unrivalled, and I am glad that he has been able to correct the attacks made by the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth).

Does the record not show that in each of the seven years in which the Government have carried out their chosen monetarist policies unemployment has soared and that when the Chancellor announced his U-turn or body-swerve in the autumn statement of increasecl public expenditure, unemployment reached a plateau and dipped ever so slightly? Does that not show that the Conservatives were wrong for seven years, that a small movement towards the Opposition's policies have had a favourable effect and that we need a Government who will carry out those policies with vigour and conviction?

That is an original interpretation, but with his knowledge of these matters the hon. Gentleman knows that the total number of people working in Britain has been steadily rising since 1983. Britain has had a sustained recovery which is steadily producing more new jobs. Indeed, the increase in the number of new jobs is now overtaking the number of people coming into the market for the first time and looking for those jobs.

Our public spending plans could not be described as adopting the Opposition's policies. As I understand it, the Opposition are committed to increasing public spending by at least £10 billion, most of which would be spent on providing new jobs in the more Left-wing town halls up and down the country.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that many skilled jobs are vacant in a number of factories in my constituency and that many people would be happy to come from the north to take up those excellent jobs? Will he try to do more to enable people to move from the north to the south with greater facility?

I accept that skill shortages are already beginning to appear in large areas of the south, including my hon. Friend's constituency. We keep stepping up the adult training programme and increasing the number of people trained and we have just introduced the job training scheme to train those who have been unemployed for more than six months. I know that many people would like to move into my hon. Friend's constituency and take up the jobs, but it is to the housing market, including the private rented sector, that we must look for further reform to make that easier.

First, I apologise to the House for the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), who, unfortunately, has had to seek emergency dental treatment. May I put it to the Paymaster General that, although the nation would welcome a genuine reduction in unemployment, everyone knows that, unfortunately, in the past six months the trend has had more to do with the fiddling of figures, upon which the Government have embarked, and the number of people on Government schemes, who now number nearly 1 million, which is almost as many as were unemployed in 1979 when the Government took office? What discussions has the Paymaster General had with the Prime Minister about her promise of a return to full employment? Can he give us some idea of the time scale envisaged?

First, I send my genuine good wishes to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), who I know is suffering from a painful condition. I only hope that he does not barrack the dentist while he is receiving the treatment of which he is plainly in need.

I shall not use this opportunity yet again to go over the arguments about whether the figures are genuine or whether everything is accounted for by schemes. At an Action for Jobs breakfast my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that she saw no reason why we should not look in the longer term to a return to full employment. If we can sustain the present rate of growth in the conomy, low inflation, good industrial relations and the continuing creation of additional jobs in the economy, that is a perfectly worthwhile objective, but we need to sustain the present recovery for quite a long time yet.

rose—

Order. May we have briefer questions so that we may then have briefer answers?

asked the Paymaster General if he will outline what improvements to the system of vocational qualifications have been made in tourism-related qualifications in the last year.

Good progress is being made to develop vocational qualifications within the tourism industry, in line with the objectives of the National Council for Vocational Qualifications. The Hotel and Catering Training Board is establishing a modular certification system through the Manpower Services Commission funded "Caterbase" project, and the Association of British Travel Agents and City and Guilds are continuing to develop competence-based vocational qualifications in the retail travel and tour operator sectors.

I thank my hon. Friend for that constructive and helpful reply and for the zest and enthusiasm that he brings to tourism as an important economic sector, but may I remind him, if he needs reminding, that far too many people in the tourism industry still have no qualifications? Will my hon. Friend look to the longer term with regard to a wider spread of qualifications?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We start from a position in which 94 per cent. of those employed in the industry have no qualifications whatever, and we need to put that right. That is why we are introducing the new modular Caterbase programme and why I am pleased that the sector has some 9,000 young people on YTS and some 2,000 trainees under the old JTS for 1985–86.

Will the Minister assure the House that in the new ideas on which the Government are now working consideration will be given to having training modules that concentrate on the winter months, so that those involved in tourism, who are far too busy in the summer to take advantage of training, can have some complementary opportunities in the winter so as to balance the year-round opportunities for employment?

I very much welcome the hon. Gentleman's constructive suggestion. I shall be meeting the chairman of the Hotel and Catering Industry Training Board and in the next two weeks I shall certainly discuss that. It is, of course, part of our new policy on tourism to try to extend the tourist season, which the hon. Gentleman, of course, would welcome.

I am delighted at my hon. Friend's announcement. Does that mean that the Government will now carry out the recommendation of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry to extend the tourist season by paying a third of the labour costs of experimental extensions of the season at either end by a total of one month? Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that permanent pensionable employment is needed, not just seasonal peak employment?

I am sorry to have to disappoint my hon. Friend, but I dealt in some detail with the Select Committee report in a full debate on the Floor of the House. As my hon. Friend knows, we were prepared to accept more than half the recommendations, but we had to reject that specific suggestion.

Despite what the Minister says, tourism is a valuable industry, characterised by threadbare training provision. When will the Government expand the leisure and tourist management training courses in colleges of higher education?

I am pleased to say that I shall have an opportunity this Thursday to visit the Dorset Institute of Higher Education, which is one of the leading colleges in this sector. We have also been impressed with the number of places made available at polytechnic and university level. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that if we are to encourage more people to come into the industry and take up important management positions, tourism needs to be recognised as a responsible and respectable sector by those institutes of higher education. I am delighted to tell the hon. Gentleman that I have frequent meetings with my colleagues in the Department of Education and Science on that subject.

asked the Paymaster General if he will make a statement on funding Manpower Services Commission schemes in the east midlands.

It is expected that the Manpower Services Commission will spend about £148 million on programme costs in the east midlands during the financial year 1986–87. The amounts for the major programmes are:

	£ million
Youth training scheme	56
Adult training	11
Community programme	56
Enterprise allowance scheme	11

With every young school leaver in Gainsborough this year being offered, for the first time in history, either a job or further education or training, does my hon. Friend agree that even the Opposition, with their twisted logic, will find it difficult to claim that we do not care about unemployment when, since 1979, in the east midlands alone more than £85 million has been spent on helping 1,500 firms to create 18,000 jobs?

My hon. Friend's figures are absolutely right. I hope that everyone, including the Opposition, will welcome the fact that by Easter everyone under 18 will have a guaranteed training place.

Will the Minister confirm that he has ordered a 20p in the pound cut in funding for community programmes in the east midlands, the west midlands and elsewhere?

As far as the east midlands is concerned, there will be no significant change in funding.

Does my hon. Friend accept that the YTS scheme in the east midlands and elsewhere is one of the most successful schemes in the world and shows that Britain is not only leading Europe in the provision of new jobs, but is leading Europe in the provision of relevant and successful training schemes?

I agree with my hon. Friend. The Government now have in place what are probably the most comprehensive employment and training schemes in the Western world.

asked the Paymaster General how many young people have been followed up by the Manpower Services Commission area office staff since completing their YTS programme.

Since YTS began in 1983, the commission's head office has arranged follow-up surveys asking YTS leavers about their experience on the programme and what they did on leaving. Initially, these were sample surveys conducted by the MSC's own statisticians, but since April 1985 all YTS leavers have been surveyed by an independent research organisation.

How many of those youngsters have progressed to useful jobs in an area related to their YTS training? Does the Minister acknowledge the concern that too many youngsters, especially those in areas of high unemployment, simply move from one scheme to another rather than find permanent employment related to the training that they are supposed to have received?

The facts show that 57 per cent. of those on YTS go into work, 3 per cent. go on to full-time courses at college and training centres, 7 per cent. join another YTS course, 6 per cent. do something else and 28 per cent. register as unemployed.

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that in his part of the world, and in the travel-to-work area that covers his constituency, the percentage of youngsters who actually find work is much higher.

Is my hon. Friend aware that at a time when training is increasingly important in all areas of employment, there has been a wide welcome for the extension of YTS, so that !no young person under the age of 18 need choose to be unemployed?

I very much welcome my hon. Friend's comments. For those aged under 18, unemployment is no longer an option. That is something that we should broadcast from the rooftops.

asked the Paymaster General what plans there are to evaluate and measure the effectiveness of the job training scheme in the 10 pilot areas.

asked the Paymaster General how many people are presently receiving training under the new job training scheme within the pilot areas.

On 26 January 1987, 1,008 people were taking part in the new job training scheme pilots. An interim evaluation of the scheme is already under way. The Manpower Services Commission will continue to monitor and evaluate the new job training scheme as it is extended nationally, and the commission's sub-group will oversee that process.

Does the Paymaster General admit that he did not monitor the pilot schemes before going for expansion, because his purpose was to lower the unemployment figures, not to help the unemployed? Will he confirm that experience of the pilot schemes shows that there was difficulty with recruiting and a high drop-out rate, and that it was impossible to provide proper training with the money made available?

Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman admit that he misled the House about the attitudes of trade unions to the scheme? Their conditional approval was for a higher allowance. As the Government did not comply with that., that means that trade union leaders do not support the scheme.

We carried out sufficient monitoring for it to be quite clear that the scheme was a valuable addition to what we are offering. We found no shortage of trainees wanting to join the scheme, no shortage of work experience and no shortage of managing agents. As for the drop-out rate, as the hon. Lady describes it, 17 per cent. left before the end of the scheme, but that figure includes quite a number of people who left for the excellent reason that they had found a job. We believe this scheme to be a valuable addition that should be introduced as rapidly as possible.

We could have a sterile political debate. It is easy for me to point out to the hon. Lady that she and her hon. Friends want to delay the introduction of training schemes and the reduction of unemployment until after the election, but that is hardly a responsible attitude.

The TUC commissioners did and do support the scheme. They reserved their position on the amount of allowance to be paid, but they were much more supportive of the scheme than the Opposition in their initial reaction.

If, as the Minister says, there is no shortage of applicants for the places available, will he guarantee that people will not be refused benefit if they refuse places on the scheme?

No one is refused benefit just for refusing to take part in a programme or scheme. To be entitled to benefit, Parliament demands, as it has for the past 40 years, that people should demonstrate their continuing availability for work and should not refuse good offers of employment.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it makes sense to expand the new job training scheme as quickly as possible to provide many young people with the training that they need for the jobs that are now becoming available?

I agree with my hon. Friend. It is pointless to tell unemployed people that they must wait for this successful scheme to be extended simply because the Labour party has decided that it needs further monitoring. I think that we are ready to go ahead.

As the job training scheme has been approved by the TUC, will Ron Todd not find it rather strange that Opposition Members are creating such a fuss about it?

Unfortunately, one cannot be a fly on the wall in any discussions between Ron Todd and Opposition Members. The members of the TUC sub-group and the commission supported the scheme and its extension, subject to the proviso that the quality of the scheme should be maintained, a point with which the Government were in total agreement. The TUC reserved its conclusions with regard to the allowance. The Labour party is arguing about how much people will be paid on the scheme. That is entirely in line with the usual Labour party attitude on most of these things, but it does not represent a fundamental objection.

How can the Minister claim success for this trial scheme when he has just confessed that there is a 17 per cent. drop-out rate? That does not make sense. Does he acknowledge that the newly extended training scheme simply will not work while it continues to try to use unemployed people as cheap labour?

With 822 out of 1,008 still receiving training and benefiting from it in the pilot areas, it would be pointless to scrap the scheme or not to extend it because 100 or so have left the scheme, especially when some of them left to take up jobs. I regret the Labour party's attacks on the scheme, which I believe are motivated solely by the fact that the Labour party is perplexed by the fall in unemployment and by the extension of training and new employment prospects and is therefore trying to delay the scheme until after the election for purely political reasons.

When so many people throughout the country and in my consitituency cannot get jobs because they do not have the necessary training, and when employers would otherwise employ them, is it not curious and irresponsible for the Opposition to say that the schemes are not good and to discourage people from obtaining the qualifications that would otherwise get them employment?

My hon. Friend's last point is a very serious one and I agree with him. For years the Labour party opposed YTS and stopped many young people from getting the benefit of that scheme. If the Labour party opposes YTS it will dissuade some long-term unemployed from benefiting from that scheme. The Labour party is against it for purely party political reasons and is continuing to be irresponsible about these projects.

asked the Paymaster General how many referrals have been made to adjudication officers from newly unemployed claimants, from the date when form UB671 was introduced into unemployment benefit offices.

The improved procedures which I announced on 28 October are designed to ensure that new benefit claimants satisfy the long-standing legal requirement for entitlement to benefit that the claimant should be available for work. The new procedures have now been introduced in all but a handful of unemployment benefit offices. By 26 December 1986, the latest date for which information is available, 12,688 cases had been referred to the independent adjudication authorities as a result of the new procedures.

Will the Minister tell us how many of the 12,000-odd people did not pursue their claims, how many claims were disallowed and how many people had bogus interviews on the basis of this form when interviewed for the restart programme?

I hope that I can remember all those points. First, these are people who pursued their claims but had them referred to the adjudication officer because there were doubts about the claims. About 7 per cent. of new applicants do not pursue their claims, and of those who do, some claims are referred. These are early days, but of those referred so far we have adjudicated on about half—6,626—and 2,252 of those had their claims disallowed.

On the hon. Gentleman's final point, a form of this kind has always been used in cases of difficulty in relation to entitlement to benefit. The ancestor of the form that we are now using, and about which so much fuss has been made, can be traced back to 1947. Some of the same questions appear on that remarkably similar form.

Are the Government still using it?

We still use it for guidance for staff where there are doubts about the availability for work, so that we can be consistent in offices up and down the country.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that in my constituency duplicated leaflets, the printing of which is unattributable, have been distributed by pressure groups instructing people how to fill in—or not to fill in, as the case may be—the forms in question. They have also been used to instruct people in, or to discourage them from, filling in necessary information with regard to equal opportunities. Would my right hon. and learned Friend care to comment on that?

I disapprove of people giving set answers. The implication of set answers is to tell the claimant, "Never mind telling the truth about your claim. If you give these answers regardless of the truth, you will get benefit." [Interruption.] My hon. Friend will notice that that was cheered by large numbers of Labour Members. The Labour party appears to have moved to the extraordinary position of saying that anyone is entitled to benefit, if he asks for it, without having to demonstrate that he is entitled to it. No doubt, as the Labour party has a very Left-wing candidate in Greenwich, it will campaign on that basis in the area in the near future. I do not think that it will get the electorate's support.

Will the Paymaster General admit that the leaflets that have been circulated are not "How to claim benefit if you are not entitled to it" but "How not to be tricked by the trick questions framed by the Department of Employment"? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that one of my constituents, who is typical of many, who has been unemployed for three years, who was offered three interviews more than 25 miles away from where he lives and who has no means of transport to those jobs, has had his benefit stopped? That is treating the unemployed with contempt.

The questions on our form are not trick questions. They are remarkably similar to the questions that have always been asked and are wholly consistent with the rules that Parliament has laid down for entitlement to benefit. A Labour Act of Parliament—the last of such legislation—laid down availability for work as a condition of benefit. I am not clear from what the hon. Gentleman said whether he agrees that standard answers should be given. If, like his hon. Friends, he says that standard answers should be given, based on the suggestions of the Claimants' Union or others, he is advocating that people should claim benefit whether or not the claim is genuine and truthful, and that is a remarkable change of policy by the Labour party.

asked the Paymaster General how many people were out of work in the Staffordshire, Moorlands parliamentary constituency at the most recent count.

On 11 December 1986 the number of unemployed claimants in the Staffordshire, Moorlands parliamentary constituency was 3,414.

Is my hon. Friend aware that unemployment in my constituency, although lower than in most constituencies, has risen substantially under Labour and Conservative Governments over the past 13 years? How does he explain that in an area where wages and salaries are low, productivity is high and labour relations are excellent?

I know of my hon. Friend's genuine and deep concern about the problems of unemployment generally in his constituency. The position is improving, even in his constituency. The number of unfilled vacancies is increasing and unemployment is slowly falling. Two job clubs will open soon—at Leek in March and at Cheadle later in the summer. I hope my hon. Friend agrees that there is an increasing skill shortage in his textile industry, just as there is in Lancashire. There is also a shortage of industrial land in his constituency on which firms can expand. I believe that the local authority is addressing its mind to that problem.

asked the Paymaster General whether he will make a statement on skill shortages in British industry.

My right hon. and learned Friend announced in the House last week a major new initiative for re-skilling Britain. The job training scheme will help unemployed people gain the skills now needed by employers in our expanding economy.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his answer, but may I point out that, over the past 10 years, in the engineering and construction industries training for apprentices has almost collapsed, that in two other major key industries the number of trainee schemes has fallen by half and that the Government's schemes, such as those operated by the MSC and YTS, cannot cope with this problem? What will the hon. Gentleman do in the immediate future to rectify this problem?

I think that the hon. Gentleman is guilty of massive exaggeration. No one would seek to deny at the Dispatch Box that there is a skill shortage. I would not even attempt to do so. But the figures show that fewer than 15 per cent. of firms currently expect output to be constrained by a shortage of skilled labour. That compares with 25 per cent. at a comparable point in the previous economic cycle in 1978–79 and with 50 per cent. during the last time the Labour party was in government.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is slightly ironic that the more the Government do to increase the number of people in training to fill skill shortages, the more the Opposition seem to protest?

I could not agree more. The Opposition are in a dilemma. They complain, as the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Mr. Callaghan) has done, that we need skills training, yet when we introduce new programmes, as we did last week, they complain. They cannot have it both ways.

Has the Minister seen the interview with the Secretary of State in today's edition of the Yorkshire Post, in which he said that he would advise young unemployed persons to seek employment in the service sector or in tourism? If that is the case, is it any wonder that we have skill shortages in our manufacturing industry?

I have heard my right hon. Friend say similar things in the past, which I must agree, in the sense that although we all recognise—somebody must say it from the Despatch Box—that manufacturing industry Hs the most important sector of the British economy and it will be the wealth creator, we cannot see in Yorkshire, Lancashire or elsewhere in the United Kingdom that it will be a job creator in the future. Because of higher productivity per man and modern technology, manufacturing industry is more likely to shed labour, even though it is increasing its profitability.

Notwithstanding the £1·5 million that I think the Government have allocated on an annual basis to various relevant training programmes during their period in office, does my hon. Friend accept that there is room for improvement in private sector training? Will he consider recommending to his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer either further tax relief for private sector training or, possibly, adult training allowances of some kind?

I am happy to draw what my hon. Friend has said to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the earlier point that he made. It is important for us to recognise what the private sector is doing in training. Recently, I was greatly impressed by the work that it has been doing, particularly in distance learning. We now see a new module coming off the stocks approximately on a weekly basis.

Will the Minister accept that the Opposition have never been against youth training and that we are not against but are in favour of quality training? We do not believe that a scheme such as the job training scheme, which offers three weeks' training in six months of experience, matches up to the desperate skill shortages that are reported in the engineering, construction, and information and technology industries. Is it not a fact that the Government have destabilised and destroyed skills training and put nothing in its place and that it is about time they started to train people to compete?

The hon. Gentleman must admit that if the JTS leads to a recognised qualification, or part thereof, that is respected by employers it is a move in the direction that he wishes to see. I am well aware of the first point that he made. Her Majesty's Opposition did not oppose the introduction of the MSC scheme or the youth training scheme. Nonetheless, they spend an inordinate length of time trying to rubbish it on every conceivable occasion.

asked the Paymaster General what representations he has received regarding the funding of unemployed centres; and if he will make a statement.

We have received a number of representations from hon. Members and others about the value of funding centres for the unemployed under the community programme.

I am sure that my hon. Friend is as dismayed as I am that he has been unable to receive a categorical assurance that the small minority of Left-wing activists who have wrecked the Harlow unemployed centre will not be involved in the management of it. Will he reassure unemployed people—that is the vulnerable people in Harlow who have been cynically manipulated—that there will be help from the MSC in other ways?

The centre in Harlow was given repeated warnings not to display political literature and was given every opportunity to put its house in order. According to the Wednesday 28 January edition of the Morning Star, a certain Danny Purton of the management committee said:

"We are not prepared to censure posters put up by the unemployed, unless racist or sexist."

In other words, anything of a political nature is acceptable to him. Therefore, the centre will cease to operate, because funding will be withdrawn. My hon. Friend asked about the innocent people who will suffer because of the mindless minority. We shall do everything that we can, via the MSC and existing programmes, to be helpful and sympathetic.

I understand that the Harlow unemployed centre was closed down very largely because of literature that was placed there by the campaign for action for benefits, a worthy organisation that is drawing attention to people who need benefits. Will the Minister ensure that, generally speaking, there is sufficient funding for unemployed centres to ensure that women who have either lost their chance of training in non-traditional skills, or who will never have a chance because of the closure of manual skill courses for women at skillcentres, can be provided with advice?

The hon. Lady's question goes somewhat wider than the question on the Order Paper. Via the MSC, we are continuing to fund 83 unemployed centres, at a cost of around £3·5 million per annum. There are about 670 places and they are equally available to women and men.

asked the Paymaster General how many new jobs have been created since 1983.

There were about 1,119,000 more people in work in September 1986 than there were in March 1983

I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend and, indeed, the whole Government on that achievement. As the labour force is likely to grow very much more slowly in the next five or six years than it has grown since 1983, even if the present trend of job creation is merely maintained, is it not right that we can look forward to a significant reduction in unemployment?

I agree with my hon. Friend. There have been more people in work in every quarter since 1983, and the growth in new jobs is now outstripping the number of school leavers and women who are entering the market for the first time. That is giving rise to this extremely encouraging downward trend in unemployment, and there is every prospect that that trend will be maintained.

Is the Minister aware that instead of creating jobs in my constituency there has been a demolition job, with the ruthless closure of the Caterpillar Tractor Company, without any consultation with the union, and that 1,221 jobs are involved? If the Minister obtains all the information from the Secretary of State for Scotland, he will find that the Department was taken for a buggy ride as well as myself. I notice that there was a £62·5 million development programme, yet at the end of the day the plant was ruthlessly closed. Will the Minister take that on board now and do something about it?

I have been following the case. I agree entirely with all the comments of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland about this very unfortunate proposal. In other cases where there have been unavoidable closures of old, traditional industries that have outlived their competitiveness or have failed to keep their place in the market, there has been the steady replacement of large employers by new jobs, the expansion of existing businesses and particularly a growth in self-employment and small businesses. That has to be encouraged, particularly in Scotland. On balance, in Scotland we are now seeing a growth in the total number of people who are employed. I agree that efforts will have to be redoubled in the hon. Member's constituency if this American firm goes ahead with the proposal about which he and others are arguing.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that in those areas that are covered by inner city task forces the power of local authorities to insert local labour only clauses should be more extensively used?

We have taken advantage of the inner city projects to provide work experience and training for local people as well as to refurbish buildings in a number of places, most notably by means of a large contract in Birmingham. If we could obtain the co-operation of all local authorities in the inner city task force areas, I am sure that we could build on that kind of approach. My hon. and learned Friend knows that in Leicester we continue to face the implacable hostility of the city council and the total indecision of the county council. I keep hoping that that will improve, but undoubtedly it slows up the progress that we are making and slows up the provision of jobs and training for local people.

Does the Minister agree that there are still fewer people in employment in Britain now than there were in 1979, that the decline in employment in manufacturing is more than 2 million and is still continuing, that 500,000 of the so-called new jobs are in self-employment—largely people who had good wages, but who are now struggling to survive—that employment for men is still declining, and has continued to decline since 1983, and that 200,000 of the so-called new jobs are simply an expansion of the community programme?

In 1979 we had hyper-inflation, a great deal of British industry was over-manned and uncompetitive and we entered a severe world recession. Undoubtedly, that permanently lost us many jobs. However, since 1983 there has been a sustained growth in the number of people working in this country. There is nothing wrong with the fact that half those people are in self-employment, despite the fact that the Labour party is hostile to the whole idea that people might work on their own account. There is nothing wrong with the fact that more women are taking up part-time jobs, although that accounts for only about a quarter of the growth that is taking place. Now that we have growth with low inflation and better industrial relations, we are seeing more employment and falling unemployment.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 3 February.

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.

In relation to the Zircon affair, will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Metropolitan police asked the BBC to co-operate but the BBC refused to do so unless the police went through all the legal processes?—[Interruption.] Is she aware that when asked by the police where the relevant tapes and files were held, the BBC replied to the effect, "You will have to take the lot"?—[Interruption.] Can she also confirm that the BBC's solicitor liaised in the drafting of the warrant and that information and the relevant material that was held in Glasgow was disclosed to the police by Duncan Campbell himself?

I am sure that the House will be very interested in what my hon. Friend has to say. However, he will know that these are not matters for Her Majesty's Government—[Interruption.] It is for the police to decide whether to apply for a search warrant and for the courts to decide whether to grant the application. The Government do not give orders to the police as to how—[Interruption]—when, and where the law should be applied.

Does the Prime Minister recall saying 10 days ago that the courts are very rightly concerned to protect the liberties of the people and that they will not just give a blanket injunction not to publish? What is her view of action which results in the blanket confiscation of five films and other material, which nobody ever suggested relate to national security, with all the consequent prohibition of the right to publish?

As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General said in a written reply on 29 January 1987:

"On Friday 23 January 1987 the Director of Public Prosecutions, at the request of the Attorney-General, asked the Metropolitan police to investigate possible breaches of the Official Secrets Act 1911 arising out of the publication in the New Statesman magazine of a report entitled 'The Parliamentary bypass operation'."—[Official Report, 29 January 1987; Vol. 109, c. 320.]

Clearly, it is a criminal case under the Official Secrets Act. As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, in criminal cases it is for the police to decide whether to apply for a search warrant, and it is for the courts to decide whether to grant the application. The police did decide to apply for a search warrant and it was the courts which decided to grant the application. That has never been a matter for the Government, for past Home Secretaries or for past Secretaries of State for Scotland, and it is not a matter for the present Government.

Does that reply not make it clear that, contrary to what the Secretary of State for Scotland said yesterday, all this action has been initiated directly by the Attorney-General, one of the Prime Minister's Ministers? Why is it that a few months ago a discussion with the BBC was, in the Prime Minister's words, sufficient to stop one film, but it is now found necessary to undertake an invasion of the BBC to stop five films? Is it not the case that since 22 January every action by the Government has been prompted, not by considerations of national security, but by an obsession to save the Prime Minister's face?

The right hon. Gentleman is deliberately trying to muddle the injunction with matters of criminal law. He knows full well that decisions to prosecute on matters under the criminal law are for the Attorney-General in his prosecuting capacity, and not for the Government in any way. It would be wholly wrong if they were. The right hon. Gentleman knows full well that it is for the police to decide whether to apply for a search warrant; the police took the decision to apply. It is for the courts to decide whether to grant the application; the courts decided to grant it. I would have thought that, having agreed that a vital matter of national security was at stake, the right hon. Gentleman would also agree that the police were right to investigate how the information was leaked. Instead, he and his party are now once again attacking the police.

The Prime Minister has good cause to know that I shall do everything to safeguard national security—[Interruption.]—but she also has good cause to know that I shall never protect her from the effects of her incompetence and the injustice that she perpetrates.

The right hon. Gentleman will do everything except support the police in carrying out—[Interruption.]—their independent, impartial duties. Their duties are to the law. They carry out their duties impartially, and how they carry them out is not a matter for the Government. The day the Government direct the police about what they do or how they carry out their duties will be the day the rule of law will die, and, with it, freedom.

rose—

No.

Order. This is a serious matter.

rose—

Order. I call Mr. Kinnock.

The Prime Minister is killing the rule of law and with it the reputation of the police. Why does she not stand up and admit that she is the initiator of this action and that it has nothing to do with national security? Is she not big enough to admit that she is trying to cover up her incompetence with this injustice?

As usual, the right hon. Gentleman is completely muddling a civil action or injunction with the issue of the right of the criminal law to investigate how secret information came into unauthorised hands. The latter is a matter for the Attorney-General in his legal capacity; it is not a matter for the Government. [Interruption.] It is no good the right hon. Gentleman shouting at me in that hysterical fashion. The criminal law is a matter for the Attorney-General, not the Government.

Does my right hon. Friend recognise that it is the overwhelming opinion of the House that a serious breach of national security has taken place and that the police are right to investigate it in every way they consider possible? Does she agree that the Leader of the Opposition only reveals his ignorance of government in pretending that it is in some way a political direction which tells the police how to carry out their responsibilities?

Yes, my right hon. Friend is correct. The Government do not give orders to the police as to how, when or where to enforce the law, nor do they wish to have any powers to do so. If any Government wanted to do so, that would be the end of the rule of law and freedom in this country.

As the Prime Minister continues to reject the idea of creating a senior parliamentary Committee on security issues—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]-will she say what objective test there is of what constitutes national security, or do we just have to accept that it is what the Prime Minister says it is at any given moment?

As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition first said that if a Government say that there is a serious matter of national security at stake, their word must be taken, certainly by the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition. The right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel) will also be aware that the Government whom he supported and kept in power issued a White Paper on the Official Secrets Act 1911. That White Paper, issued in 1978, said:

"There is likely to be a broad measure of agreement that information about defence measures and equipment deserves to be protected by the criminal law."

The White Paper continued to state that matters in the legislation that was then proposed for replacing the official Secrets Act:

"should apply to official information relating to matters which concern or affect the defence or security of the realm, including in particular those matters set out in the paragraphs below … military weapons, stores and equipment of all kinds, including nuclear weapons, ships, aircraft, vehicles, communications systems and all means of warfare;"

The Opposition seem to have forgotten that White Paper.

To change the subject, Mr. Speaker, and bearing in mind the firemen's strike at Manchester airport, which is inconveniencing thousands of the travelling public in the north-west of England, does my right hon. Friend think that the time is right to introduce legislation to make such strikes illegal in essential services?

I know that this matter comes up from time to time and that many right hon. and hon. Members would like to introduce such legislation, if it could be made effective. It is not easy to make it effective, as many of us know. The matter is being further reviewed by the Government now because, unlike the Opposition, we believe that the public need protection and that the unions should not hold the public to ransom.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 3 February.

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

Is it not about time that the right hon. Lady came clean about the activities of the Attorney-General and his dining with people who are subject to criminal inquiries? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Is she aware that the Attorney-General had Mr. Duncan Campbell as his guest at the Garrick in 1985 and that on 17 July last year, he had lunch with Mr. Duncan Campbell at the BBC's expense—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh"]—to discuss the "Secret Society" series? Is she further aware that, amidst the documents seized by the special branch, was the Attorney-General's note of thanks and Mr. Campbell's full note of that discussion? Should not that note now be put in the public domain?

I believe that my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General effectively dealt with that matter in the House at the beginning of his speech when we had a debate the other day.

Will my right hon. Friend find time to read the report of yesterday's debate on the Royal Navy? When she does, she will recognise and understand the widespread concern that exists over the decline of our maritime capability. At the same time, she will note many practical suggestions that have been made to reverse that decline. Will she urge those suggestions on her right hon. Friends?

I am aware of the concern caused by that matter. Even during a period when the capital allowances were very generous, many ships were flagged out to different countries. We are particularly concerned that there should be sufficient officers and men of the merchant marine, and for that reason my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport made his announcement a few weeks ago about helping with fares to enable them to fly hack at the Government's expense, to ensure that we have enough.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 3 February.

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

Is the Prime Minister aware of the statement by the Archbishop of Canterbury that there is an inflammable mixture of frustration, lack of hope and helplessness in the urban communities? Is that not a damning condemnation of the policies of her Government?

It so happens that I read the entire—[Interruption.]

Order. I ask the House to give the Prime Minister a fair hearing.

I read the entire report of the debate in another place the other day and found it all interesting, including all the speeches and the reply of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment. I also found interesting the speech of another Member in the other place who said that if in 1979 we had said that £1 billion would be spent on the inner cities to assist them, it would have been thought that that would solve the problems. Since 1979 some £2·2 billion has been spent on the inner cities. That is evidence that it is not money alone that will solve that fundamental problem.

rose—

I hope that hon. Members will raise genuine points of order that I can deal with and that it will not be a continuation of Question Time.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understand the Leader of the Opposition's desperate need to reinforce—[Interruption.]

Order. That is just what I was hoping the hon. Gentleman would not say.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to raise the matter of tabling documents before the House. Before I do so I refer you to page 433 of "Erskine May" where it is written:

"A Minister of the Crown may not read or quote from a despatch or other state paper not before the House, unless he is prepared to lay it upon the Table … A Minister who summarises a correspondence, but does not actually quote from it, is not bound to lay it upon the Table."

I refer you, Mr. Speaker, to the correspondence quoted by the Solicitor-General at the end of Tuesday's debate. You will recall that that was a direct quotation by the Solicitor-General, not a summary of the letter. It is now evident that there were material omissions from the quotation, notably the concluding passage, which states:

"Look forward to seeing you on Thursday. Yours ever, Michael."

I put it to you that it would be appropriate for the House to request that that correspondence be laid upon the Table on two counts. First, such a step would be in accordance with the precedent clearly set out in "Erskine May". Secondly, it has direct and relevant bearing on the debate we are about to commence, in that it demonstrates that last July the Attorney-General was in discussion with Mr. Campbell concerning a film that special branch found it necessary to impound at the weekend. In view of the extraordinary contradiction clearly revealed in the correspondence, is the House not entitled to see both letters?

The hon. Gentleman correctly draws the attention of the House and of myself to "Erskine May". However, the item quoted was a letter and not a state paper or a dispatch. I see no reason why it should he laid.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Bearing in mind your proper ruling that there should not be a continuation of Question Time, and also bearing in mind that we have a debate to follow, which you rightly ruled on, of three hours, is it right that half of Question Time should be taken up with points essentially concerning that debate? How, in a short Question Time, do other important matters get discussed? Is it right for trailers to go on and on and on?

Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that I have no control over what is said provided it is in order, and it was in order.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You are, of course, the defender of the rights of Back Benchers, who make up the majority of this House. Ever since I have been in this House I have noticed that during Question Time, particularly that of the Prime Minister, there has tended to be an average of three questions from the Opposition Front Bench rather than two. May I ask, Mr. Speaker, that you give careful consideration to the average being two questions and the exception being three rather than four?

Order. Let me deal with one thing at a time. I think that the hon. Gentleman's arithmetic is faulty. If he will go to the Library he will see that the average has been much nearer four to five than three, and that is what I try to achieve for Back-Benchers.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Arising out of the response given to the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), who referred to certain alleged lunches at the Garrick club between Mr. Duncan Campbell and the Attorney-General—

Yes, but that is an extension of Question Time, and I have already ruled one hon. Member out of order. I must say to the House that we have a busy day ahead of us, with a very important debate. I can rule only on matters that are directly my responsibility.

rose—

rose—

rose—

Order, Mr. Nicholls.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, arising out of your statement. You have said on many occasions that you are the guardian of Back-Bench liberties. I make no complaint about the fact that I was not able to catch your eye today, but the guidance that I am asking for is this. The fact that I was not able to catch your eye today—and many hon. Members on both sides of the House were not able to do so either—was directly because of the amount of time taken up by the Leader of the Opposition. Surely you should do something about the fact that the Leader of the Opposition cannot control his temper and ask a concise question.

Order. I think I mistook the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) a moment ago. I think I misinterpreted what the hon. Gentleman was saying. The average number of Back Benchers called at Prime Minister's Question Time is five and, on one occasion, as many as 15 on one day. The hon. Gentleman was referring to supplementary questions by the Leader of the Opposition. A certain discretion is and always has been given to the Front Bench.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. When my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) raised his point of order with you and you gave the reply, you may have noticed that, at the point when you were replying to my hon. Friend, the Attorney-General advanced towards the Despatch Box and, having got there, the Prime Minister obviously told him not to open his mouth.

Order. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that I am not responsible for hon. Members who may be entering or leaving the Chamber. As far as I am concerned an hon. Member is called only when I call him from the Chair.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As the procedures of this House are largely based on precedent, could you confirm that the fact that the Leader of the Opposition was called on four occasions during Prime Minister's Question Time—the first time this has ever happened in this House—does not set a precedent for the future?

I have already dealt with that. The House knows that this is not a precedent. Leaders of the Opposition have on occasion—I confess not often—been called four times, and that is perfectly in order.

I have not finished my point of order.

Further to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, on the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook). Would it be of help to the House if you could clarify the distinction between a letter signed by a member of the Government on official business and an official document?

Order. The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) quoted from "Erskine May." That which was quoted by the Solicitor-General was a letter and not a state document or a dispatch. I have nothing further to add to what I have already said.

rose—

Order. I think we should move on because we have an important day ahead of us.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Order. I must tell the hon. Gentleman that he did not get his point of order in order on the first occasion, and it was not a point of order.

It is a point of order.

I am not prepared to take it.