asked the Paymaster General what funds he proposes to allocate to each of the Government's employment creation programmes in 1987–88; and if he will make a statement.

The public expenditure White Paper provides for total expenditure in 1987–88 of over £3,000 million on employment, enterprise and training measures. Details of the expenditure proposed for each of the measures will be published shortly in the Supply Estimates.

Will the Paymaster General admit that the funding for the new job training scheme which he suggests has been transferred from existing adult training programmes? Is it not true that a number of the major trade unions have expressed reservations regarding the safeguarding of quality training and that the quality training has been abandoned?

The new job training scheme, to which the hon. Gentleman refers, will cost £216 million, and of that £102 million will be in addition to the adult training budget. There will be some switching from other parts of the programme to the extent that the new scheme provides a better option for some of the people being trained. However, we are still greatly increasing the number being trained and we will certainly be giving them quality training. The Trades Union Congress is not expressing reservations generally of the sort that the hon. Gentleman has described, despite the attempts of some Opposition spokesmen to persuade the TUC to oppose it.

Did not the Labour Government propose a youth training scheme, but disregard it as being too expensive and beyond their capabilities?

I believe that to be the case. The present youth training scheme, which now costs £1 billion, is a high quality scheme that was devised, introduced and improved by the Government in the face of constant carping by most of the official Opposition spokesmen.

If the right hon. and learned Gentleman will examine the matter again, he will discover that what he has just said is false. There was no scrapping of such a scheme by the previous Labour Government, so would he get the facts right about that? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us how much of the extra burden for the new programme is to fall on local authorities? Some of it is being paid for by the local authorities and we would like to know how much.

There is absolutely no extra cost to fall on local authorities. It is up to local authorities to decide whether they are going to be managing agents in the ordinary way.

asked the Paymaster General what recent initiatives he has taken to promote employment in the inner cities.

So far I have approved some 75 projects committing around £4 million in our eight inner city task force areas, which will encourage enterprise training and job creation. We have also concentrated the efforts and programmes of the Manpower Services Commission and other Government Departments on the eight areas and their residents. We are also making progress on the greater use of local labour on inner city building work and targeted training schemes which link training with specific job opportunities for local people.

When we welcomed my right hon. and learned Friend to Leicester recently in the inner area, did he notice the increase in the number of small businesses and the amount of training available, which has given rise to a large increase in jobs? Does he not think that the time has come for the city council to put its opposition to the Highfields task force on one side and show where its compassion really lies?

I agree that the hostility of the extreme council in Leicester has slowed up progress in the early stages in that city. I have been told that the latest example of that is that the city council is refusing to co-operate with the Industrial Society in introducing the head start programme for training for young people, so its officers, in effect, cannot discuss the matter with the Industrial Society's officers. However, we are getting on without them and finding the sponsors we require. On my recent visit to Leicester, I was extremely grateful to my hon. Friends for introducing me to those who wish to take advantage of the scheme. I was also delighted to announce grants to the textile arts centre to increase the training of many more young people in the skills which are in desperately short supply in Leicester in the textile industry.

With regard to promoting employment, is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that since the Government changed the assisted area status map more than two years ago, there have been massive job losses, especially in coal mining areas due to pit closure programmes? If he wants to promote employment will he now consider changing the assisted area status map once again and—

Order. The question is about inner cities.

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman consider areas, such as Barnsley, which have suffered drastically from job losses and give them development area status so that they can benefit from the new investment that goes with it?

Development area status is, of course, a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. The job losses that have been caused in south Yorkshire have been largely the consequence of the closure of uneconomic coal mines taking place in a short space of time. Certainly my Department will consider the problems being created in some of those south Yorkshire towns, and, if any of them could benefit from the inner city initiative, I will certainly consider that.

My right hon. and learned Friend has often acknowledged that the promotion of employment, particularly in our inner cities, is a most complex matter which is not often helped by the actions and words of Opposition Members. Does he agree that one area of action is in real estate and land development? My right hon. and learned Friend has been most kind in meeting business men and others from the city of Nottingham. Will he comment on the degree of interdepartmental co-operation in that area?

I made a special visit to the part of Nottingham represented by my hon. Friend. Indeed, my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Employment and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment have recently paid visits to the city. We have seen the vast extent of unoccupied land and the need for more work experience and training of people living in the centre of Nottingham. I assure my hon. Friend that we are all working closely together to consider how to take further forward the present encouraging signs of a desire to take an initiative within the city.

asked the Paymaster General how many people under the age of 25 years are currently unemployed in the United Kingdom.

On 8 January 1987 the number of unemployed claimants in the United Kingdom aged under 25 years was 1,133,000.

Judging from the figures obviously the Minister must realise that many youngsters these days leave school with no job, hope or future. Does he realise—I am sure he does—that in Leith 40 per cent. of the long-term unemployed are under the age of 25? Will he therefore use YTS funds to create real jobs, for example, by investing in engineering apprenticeships? Will he follow that constructive line, which has been taken in Germany?

The Government are spending overall about £3·5 billion a year on employment and training measures. We now have in place probably the most comprehensive range of training measures almost anywhere in the western world.

Has my hon. Friend read the Audit Commission report, which says that in parts of inner London 45 per cent. of young people are unemployed and 60 per cent. of young blacks are unemployed? My hon. Friend will know that London is awash with work opportunities. He will also know that the Inner London education authority spends twice as much per head in educating the young people in London. They are therefore obviously properly educated. Why do they not get some work? What will my hon. Friend do to ensure that they take jobs when they are available?

Certainly in the past, across the political divide, we have failed to educate and train our people properly. There are job opportunities in inner city London. Indeed, I noticed in the Manchester Evening News last Thursday that there were no fewer than 28 pages of jobs available in that inner city.

Can the Minister explain why the Government are cutting, economising on and thereby damaging, the community programme? Is it so that he can steer the 18 to 25-year-olds away from the community programme and on to the new job training scheme which is an even cheaper way of taking people off the register? Has not the Manpower Services Commission been told to make cuts of 10 per cent. across the board in the community programme? Is he aware that I have been told by local MSC staff that even people now on the programme could be made redundant? Would not that be an appalling experience for them?

We are not reducing the funding for the community programme, although it is true that overall the programme has plateaued and there is a slight reduction in places. Nevertheless, the job training scheme that is coming through will present new opportunities.

Has not unemployment among those under 25 actually fallen by 80,000 over the last year, and as a percentage of total unemployment has it not also fallen? Is this not a reflection of the success of YTS as an employment-creating scheme?

My hon. Friend is right. Unemployment for the under-25s fell from about 20 per cent. in 1983 to 18 per cent. in 1986, and we are now below the EC average of 22 per cent.

asked the Paymaster General if he has any plans to improve programmes to tackle skill shortages in the economy.

asked the Paymaster General what steps he has taken to alleviate skill shortages in British industry.

The Government continually review their training programmes to ensure that they are relevant to the needs of the economy. We have increased spending by the taxpayer on training and retraining from £460 million in 1979 to some £1·5 billion and reduced the proportion of employers' expected output to be constrained by skill shortages from over 25 per cent. to 9 per cent. in January this year. A major new job training scheme has just been introduced which will provide further help for unemployed people to gain the skills required by industry.

Has the Minister yet had an opportunity to examine the Audit Commission report which was published at the end of last month? That report is highly critical. It says that the MSC is not keeping adequate records about the kind of skills that are required. This is at a time when 20 per cent. of employers say that they could create more jobs if the right kind of skills, such as new technologies, professional engineers and computer engineers were available. Are not the Government failing to find the right skills for the people that are needed by industry?

It is important to tell the hon. Gentleman that the Audit Commission report about which he spoke covers the period from 1981 to April 1986. Since that time we have introduced three measures which have helped to relieve the problem that he has identified. First, we have introduced a computer-assisted local labour market information system; secondly we have introduced a skills unit which has been set up by the MSC to provide a clear focus for work on skills, including specific changes in skill needs; and, thirdly, local employer networks which specifically deal with the problem that the hon. Gentleman mentioned.

How can the Minister be so complacent about this? In their eight years in office the Government have closed most of the training boards and skill centres and sat idly by and seen the virtual disappearance of apprenticeships. When will he get on his feet and help employers in the west midlands and elsewhere who regularly report to his Department that their output is being affected by the lack of suitably skilled people?

I do not think that it is in any way complacent to have increased substantially the amount of money that the Government are spending on training, now reaching the record figure of £1·5 billion, compared with the paltry sum that the Labour Government spent on training. The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. He and his colleagues are quick to criticise the introduction of a new job training scheme to deal with the problems that his hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Eastham) has identified. As soon as we bring out such a scheme, the Opposition try to rubbish it, even though it is devised to meet the skill shortages that we all too clearly see.

Can my hon. Friend explain what efforts are made to identify skill shortages in each jobcentre area and to feed the information to the local training initiatives? In Wells there seems to be a mismatch between some skill shortages and the training places available, even in quite basic skills such as those in some construction trades.

My hon. Friend is right to identify the fact that we obviously have those skill shortages. As I said at the last Question Time, there are undoubtedly skill shortages, but I suggest that the percentage of skill shortages is now much lower than it was during the last few years of the Labour Government.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the existence of skill shortages is a symptom of the rapid economic growth in the British economy? Does he also agree that, contrary to the experience of the Labour Government, this Government have invested large amounts of taxpayers' money to help to meet those skill shortages? Will my hon. Friend remind the House of the range of Government funded schemes available to help meet the skill shortages now and compare that to 1978–79?

In fact, as my hon. Friend has suggested, they bear favourable comparison. One of the problems that we have identified is that the apprenticeships, which all hon. Members have come to know over a number of years, are perhaps outmoded and not as appropriate in the 1980s as they were in the 1960s—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) may pour scorn on that, but he should listen to what Mr. Eric Hammond the general secretary of the Electrical, Electronic, Telecommunication and Plumbing Union, said when he was talking about the success that the union had achieved because its contribution has been to scale down wage rates to bring them into line with YTS allowances. He said:

"Of course, we had considerable criticisms from other trade unions … But at the end of four years, with thousands under training, thousands becoming skilled, we can feel justly proud to have provided hope for so many."

Does the Minister agree that the truth of the matter is that the present skill shortages demonstrate what has happened during eight wasted years? In those eight wasted years, we have seen the Government concentrate on schemes for 1 million people, which give them a thin layer of training, whereas in fact real training for people in work, on which our productivity is based, has been allowed to go to the wall. Less than 7 per cent. of people in work receive any training. How do we compete on that basis in skills?

That is an amazing allegation. The hon. Gentleman could not have heard what I said in reply to the substantive question from his hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Eastham). There is a contrast now of a shortage of skilled places of about 9 per cent., which contrasts with a shortage of 25 per cent. during the last three years of the Labour Administration. His hon. Friend the Member for Blackley summed it up remarkably well in a speech in this House on 12 February, when he made the lunatic suggestion :

"We have got training schemes coming out of our ears."—[Official Report, 12 February 1987; Vol. 110, c. 526.]

asked the Paymaster General, during the last monthly period for which figures are available, how many listed as unemployed were unemployed for less than a week.

On 8 January 1987, the number of claimants in the United Kingdom who had been unemployed for one week or less was 113,600.

Does my hon. Friend agree that there are several anomalies behind even those figures? Does he agree that if a man worked for two days every week, but not for the same two days every week, he would have worked for 40 per cent. of that week, but be recorded as 100 per cent. unemployed? If the unemployment figures are to be a record of all those who are unemployed should they not be adjusted to take account of anomalies like that?

If a person is working on a regular part-time basis, the full extent normal rule applies; in other words, he is excluded from unemployment benefit. If the part-time work is not regular, unemployment benefit is payable for the unworked days. Therefore, he is on the count. But I have to say that we do not statistically calculate parts of people.

Should not that answer be compared with the reply that the Minister recently gave to me in which I was informed that 158,000 people in the west midlands have been unemployed for 12 months or more, compared with 34,000 in April 1979? Does that not show the devastation and misery that has taken place in the west midlands?

Eight per cent. of the new claimants leave the count within a week, a quarter of those becoming unemployed leave the count within a month, one half within three months and two thirds within six months. Each day 30,000 people start new jobs.

asked the Paymaster General if he will give the latest figures for the number of local enterprise agencies.

There are currently 368 local enterprise agencies throughout the United Kingdom, of which 294 are approved under the terms of the Finance Act 1982 which allows business sector sponsors tax relief on their contributions to such bodies.

Does my hon. Friend have plans to extend the local enterprise agency grants scheme, operating during the past year — [HON MEMBERS: "Reading."] Does my hon. Friend propose to extend the LEAG scheme to embrace larger and perhaps more successful local enterprise agencies, such as the Medway enterprise agency? [Interruption.] Does my hon. Friend not think that those larger agencies may also benefit by being taken into the LEAG scheme and that that may catalyse the creation of even more new jobs?

The local enterprise agency grants scheme was not introduced to help and support the more successful enterprise agencies, such as the one in the Medway, which has an excellent reputation and to which I am happy to pay tribute. If we had done that, we might have been in danger of supporting the London enterprise agency, which has a vast number of sponsors. We had to draw the line somewhere. Although I am happy to pay tribute to the enterprise agency and its director, we cannot help in the immediate future. However, we shall continue to monitor the position.

Does the Minister accept that the development of enterprise agencies and similar organisations is a crucial way to develop small businesses further? I know that he is to visit Aberdeen on Monday to open the new offices of the Aberdeen enterprise trust. Will he acknowledge that these agencies have identified the need for finance to be pulled in behind them in a way which caters for the needs of small businesses, particularly for venture capital?

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and I am glad that the enterprise agency movement is playing a part in this. I am impressed at the way in which some enterprise agencies are joining together to form local business expansion scheme funds. Some enterprise agencies are acting as marriage brokers, trying to indentify investors and target companies. I hope to see that develop, particularly in Aberdeen.

Is my hon. Friend aware that since the west Norfolk enterprise agency was set up it has overseen more than 600 individual clients, and that of those more than 70 have set up businesses of their own creating more than 100 new jobs? Is that not a perfect example of the way in which local enterprise agencies can inject new vigour into a community?

I am bound to say that Question Time would not be the same if my hon. Friend did not have the opportunity to pay tribute to his local enterprise agency, which he played a significant part in forming in the first place. I am impressed with the success of that enterprise, particularly as it has been formed for only a relatively short time.

asked the Paymaster General how many new jobs he estimates have been created by the deregulation contained in the Wages Act.

Attempts to estimate the job creation effects of these particular reforms are not likely to be fruitful. However, in my opinion the adverse effects of over-regulation on business enterprise are such that the provisions of the Act can only increase employment beyond what it would otherwise have been.

In view of that answer, is the Minister prepared to tell the Chancellor of the Exchequer to eat his words, introducing the last Budget, when he said that "lower wages mean more jobs"? Does he agree that the real reason for the Wages Act was to cut the wages of the lowest paid workers in order to increase the profits of friends of the Tory party who contribute huge sums to Tory party funds?

I am certainly not in a position to ask my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to eat his own words, nor would I ever dare to do so. But the hon. Gentleman has given the House the incorrect impression that the legislation which we introduced took everyone out of the purview of the wages councils orders. That is not the case. We took only those under 21 out of that purview. The purpose of introducing that legislation was to give those young people a chance to get on the first rung of the employment ladder, a chance that we do not think that they would have had without that sort of legislation.

Does my hon. Friend not agree that, if the partial deregulation of the Wages Act has been successful in creating new jobs, that is an argument for deregulating the entire Act?

My hon. Friend's question shows the dilemma that the Government were in when they were reviewing this position not that long ago. On the one hand some Labour Members wanted to keep the wages council orders in their old form and on the other hand some Conservative Members wished to scrap them altogether. As a responsible Government, we listened to the representations made by industry during the consultation process. We decided to retain the purview to which I referred earlier for those over 21. We believe that we have got the balance right.

Does my hon. Friend accept that over-regulation is far more of a disincentive to new enterprise and to new employment than are either access to capital or high interest rates? Will he reaffirm that the Government will continue their drive towards deregulation and the encouragement of enterprise and creating even more new employment than is contained in their fine record to date?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am happy to confirm that our latest White Paper, "Building Businesses …Not Barriers", was simply the second chapter of what will be a long-running novel.

Will the Minister answer a simple question? Why, through deregulation under the Wages Act and under the Sex Discrimination Act 1986, is he dragging more people, especially women, into low pay?

As I have already told the House, women over the age of 21 are not affected by the legislation to which we have referred. We are talking about those who are aged 21 and under.

Does not my hon. Friend agree with me that it was trade union negotiators who, in the 1970s, took youth wages to such an unrealistically high level that denied young people the opportunity of work then and even now?

The result of that, as my hon. Friend implies, is that those young people could not price themselves into jobs. With this legislation we are giving those young people an opportunity that they otherwise would not get.

asked the Paymaster General what reduction in registered unemployment he expects as a result of job training scheme by summer 1987.

Our new JTS aims to provide quality training for the long-term unemployed and its impact on unemployment will depend on its rate of expansion, its take-up and its success in providing the skills necessary to help participants back into jobs.

Is the Paymaster General concerned about people recruited under the job training scheme replacing people already in employment and, if he is, what safeguards has he adopted to ensure that job displacement does not take place? The right hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned quality in his reply. What, in practical terms, does that mean?

Work experience is provided by one or more employer. The training will also include quite a bit of training off the job. Therefore there is little risk of the new trainees displacing existing jobs, as the hon. Gentleman fears. We are certainly making sure that the MSC and all concerned work towards good quality schemes, because we are aiming to raise skill levels in this country. That means that we need good quality training.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the one thing that unemployed people want, on the road to a proper job, is good training and that a job training scheme is an essential step in this direction in that it provides training for the unemployed if they so wish it? Will he give an account to the House of how this new scheme is progressing?

Certainly. So far almost 2,000 people have been entered into the scheme—1,992 in fact. However, it is expanding steadily and it is well on course to get up to over 200,000 trainees a year if it continues to expand at the present rate. We should like to maintain that rate of expansion, so long as we can ensure that the quality of training being given will indeed steer unemployed people back towards jobs.

Are there not structural weaknesses in the scheme which allow disreputable employers to exploit it and, by so doing, harm the interests of their employees?

As far as I am aware, the answer is no. If the hon. Gentleman knows of any example of a disreputable employer being taken on to the scheme, I should be anxious to hear about it. We hope that as soon as possible we shall move to a situation whereby all the managing agents will be approved training agencies.

Are not the problems of the unemployed so often compounded by the Labour party's cynical and negative attitude? Would not the Labour party be better advised to follow the example of its brothers and sisters in the TUC whose representatives, I understand, endorse the MSC's job training scheme?

I entirely agree. We could probably offer a year's free supply of beer to all the unemployed and the Opposition would oppose it. Their reaction to every positive idea which we put forward is one of carping criticism and negative attitudes.

Will the Paymaster General admit that the funding for the job training scheme at YTS equivalent costs provides for only three weeks' training in six months? That reveals the cynicism behind the scheme. It is not real training. It requires the unemployed to work for supplementary benefits. And to pay for the scheme — because there is no new money — TOPS, which provides real training, has been cut.

I am afraid that the hon. Lady has chosen an incorrect route to guide her towards an assessment of the amount of off-the-job training. In practice, for most individuals it will be substantially more than that. Of course, the length of the scheme will vary from individual to individual according to the needs of the individual and of the local labour market.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that Opposition attempts to rubbish the Government's initiatives on training schemes, such as the attempt which will be made tonight by Labour-controlled Norwich city council, will completely fail to conceal the success of the Government's measures in helping our young people and the long-term unemployed?

Some Labour-controlled councils turn away job experience, training opportunities and cash from the Government which would assist the inhabitants of their areas. No doubt they are encouraged in that by the totally negative attitude of the Labour Front Bench to whatever we propose.

asked the Paymaster General what percentage of disabled people are unemployed compared with the national average rate of unemployment.

Figures on unemployment among handicapped or disabled persons are not available from the unemployment count. However, the 1985 labour force survey showed an unemployment rate of 23·4 per cent. among those whose work would be limited by health problems or disabilities, compared with a rate for all persons of 10·6 per cent.

Will the Minister acknowledge that the rate of 23·4 per cent. is shocking and disturbing and is a clear sign that the Government's reliance on purely voluntary policies is grossly mistaken? Does he recognise that Western Germany has a tough, realistic and statutory provision which is enforced and which works? Why can there not be the same kind of legislation for disabled workers in Britain?

The problem with the labour force survey is that, essentially, it is a self-assessment of health problems and disabilities and is not very satisfactory. We do not favour a legislative approach. We much prefer a code of good practice and specific help. Government are spending about £118 million a year on specific programmes for the disabled.

Does my hon. Friend agree that far too many employers are unaware of many of the excellent schemes available—for instance, the £6,000 in grants to adapt premises and the £45 a week for the job introduction trial scheme?

I agree with my hon. Friend that many employers are not aware of what is available. The MSC is conducting major research into the numbers, characteristics and attitudes of the disabled work force and will also take into account the attitude of employers to the quota.

rose—

Speak up.

Order. I want to hear too.

Is the Minister aware that so many disabled people are unemployed simply because big business will not take them on? Is the Minister further aware that there is a firm called Metal Box in my constituency that does very well in employing disabled people? I suggest to the Minister that he gets off his backside in his Office and goes into the Paymaster General's Office and does something about employing the disabled, instead of sitting around a table with the Paymaster General organising the unemployment figures to be announced in here.

Although that question may well have been in character, it really was unworthy of the hon. Gentleman. I could not comment on Metal Box and its approach, although I will look into that case. I repeat that the Government are spending something like £118 million on specific measures to help the disabled into employment.

asked the Paymaster General if he will make a statement on the current level of unemployment.

Unemployment is lower now than a year ago, and has fallen 100,000 over the last six months.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that in the last quarter of 1986 unemployment fell faster in this country than in any other country in the western world? Would he care to speculate on why the now silent hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) cared to mock this good news for those seeking jobs?

I cannot answer the last part of my hon. Friend's question. The fall in unemployment over the last six months is the best we have known since 1973 and it seems to have reduced the official spokesman for the Opposition to total silence.

Is the Paymaster General aware that, although unemployment has fallen a little in the Sheffield travel-to-work area, that is accounted for almost entirely by the expansion of special job schemes and there is scant evidence of any relief of unemployment arising from economic activity?

I share what I have no doubt is the hon. Gentleman's pleasure that unemployment has been falling in Sheffield. I would expect schemes in Sheffield to help people get back into regular employment, as they are doing elsewhere. I would be very surprised if there was not an increase in the total number of jobs in Sheffield, as is now happening across the country.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that one very helpful measure which would cut unemployment even further would be to reduce the amount of taxation paid by lower paid employees? In this context, will he urge his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to introduce tax cuts—which we are all looking forward to in two weeks' time—directed to reducing the burden of tax on low-paid workers?

I agree with my hon. Friend that the burden of tax on low-paid workers is still too high. I will commend my hon. Friend's remarks to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, I am sure, will have regard to the job-creating potential that tax reductions could have.

I think the country accepts that all the claims based on the unemployment figures are part of a mass fiddle of the statistics. Does the Paymaster General accept that the claim of a million new jobs since 1983 is equally fraudulent? The recent Oxford study has shown that those jobs are made up of a quarter of a million second jobs, a quarter of a million through schemes, and half a million based on a dubious statistical survey of the self-employed and other equally fraudulent figures?

Firstly, the Oxford study that appeared in New Society is not very good research and its figures are wrong. There are over a million more people in work currently than in March 1983. On the question of figures, during the hon. Gentleman's unexpected absence from our exchanges on unemployment matters in this House, I have been studying what he has been saying in print. In the 27 February edition of Tribune, he is reported as saying, in answer to the question :

"Would Labour put the unemployment figures back on their old basis?"

"No. They are becoming increasingly meaningless."

asked the Paymaster General when he next proposes to meet trades union leaders to discuss industrial relations legislation.

I meet trade union leaders from time to time to discuss a variety of subjects. I have invited the trade unions to let me have their comments on our Green Paper "Trade Unions and their Members", but I do not yet have any specific meetings arranged on the subject.

When the Paymaster General meets the trade union leadership, will he take the time to explain to them what principle underlies the decision to make the leader of the National Union of Public Employees, for example, seek election when that same principle is clearly not being put into practice in the case of the non-elected Secretary of State for Employment?

The principle that is being applied is that of democracy and accountability to the membership of the trade unions. It is probable that the present leadership of the National Union of Public Employees will be re-elected. Mr. Rodney Bickerstaffe has a reasonably safe seat. When hon. Members are returned by their constituents it is, nevertheless, the case that their relationship with them is affected by the need to get their support. The relationship of trade union leaders with their members will be improved by the need for periodic re-election.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 3 March 1987.

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

Does my right hon. Friend welcome the constructive disarmament proposals that were put forward by Mr. Gorbachev? Does she accept that it is only because of the stalwart refusal of her own and other Western Governments to remove the weapons that defend us that the USSR is now prepared to offer to remove those that threaten us?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. An agreement on intermediate range nuclear weapons was singled out for progress when I met President Reagan last November. It is a useful step—[Interruption.]

Order.

It is a useful step forward that Mr. Gorbachov has now accepted this without making any link with SDI, but a great deal of work remains to be done. I agree with my hon. Friend absolutely in the view that Western strength and resolve have been crucial in bringing the matter to this point.

Is the Prime Minister aware that her latter point is somewhat difficult to sustain, given the 3:1 superiority in intermediate nuclear forces of the Soviet Union in Europe? Given that she welcomes Mr. Gorbachev's proposals and the positive response of the United States to such proposals, does she agree that it would be wrong now to make the elimination of intermediate nuclear forces conditional upon an agreement to reduce short-range and tactical nuclear forces? Does she agree that the best route now to the reduction of tactical and shorter range forces is through the elimination of intermediate forces?

First, the right hon. Gentleman would abolish all our nuclear weapons and leave the Soviet Union with all of theirs, and then he actually complains—[Interruption]

Order. This noise is unseemly.

The right hon. Gentleman then complains that we looked at the small print of a proposal that has been put to us. I shall quote from the communiqué that was issued after my meeting with President Reagan at Camp David. It states :

"We agreed that priority should be given to:—an INF agreement, with restraints on shorter range systems,"

"effective verification would be an essential element.

We also agreed on the need to press ahead with the SDI research programme … At the same time, reductions in nuclear weapons would increase the importance of eliminating conventional disparities. Nuclear weapons cannot be dealt with in isolation, given the need for stable overall balance at all times."

Obviously when such important matters are concerned it is worth looking, as the Prime Minister suggests, at the small print, but knowing that Mr. Gorbachev's various initiatives stem almost entirely from the pressures on his economy and the need for alternative technological development, will the Prime Minister now say whether she is to turn her back on the current opportunity or encourage its use, bearing in mind the fact that she once said, quite rightly, that no weapons would be better than some but few are better than more?

I believe that the proposals that have come from Moscow stem from the resolve of the West to stand firm and that they would never have come from any of the right hon. Gentleman's policies. It is, nevertheless, absolutely vital that we have strict verification arrangements and negotiations to correct the huge imbalance in the Soviet Union's favour in shorter range systems. The right hon. Gentleman would throw away the security of our defence system too easily. We look at it very carefully, and we shall consider it extremely carefully where it should be considered — in the negotiations in Geneva.

Yes, but—[Interruption.]

Order.

Are those matters relating to other force reductions a precondition, as far as as the Prime Minister is concerned, of intermediate force elimination, or are they not? Yes or no.

The right hon. Gentleman would have heard, had he listened—[Interruption.]

Order. The Prime Minister must be given an opportunity to answer.

The right hon. Gentleman would have heard, had he listened to what I said earlier, that the Soviet Union has total superiority in shorter range systems. We in this country are within range of those shorter range nuclear systems. He would throw away our own security and defence. I would consider those shorter range systems, as well as the intermediate ones.

Quite contrary to what the Leader of the Opposition has suggested, does my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister recall what she said last November on her return from Washington? In her own words she said—

Order. The right hon. Gentleman must paraphrase, please.

My right hon. Friend said that a reduction in short range missiles would have to be negotiated at the same time as those on INF. Has the Government's position changed since then?

Unless we deal with shorter range systems at the same time, we are left with a total preponderance of shorter range systems in the hands of the Soviet Union and very, very few in the hands of Western Europe. That would not be enhancing our security. It would be taking certain risks.

Could anything be more absurd than lessons in arms control and nuclear negotiations from the leader of the Labour party? [Interruption.]

Order. We often hear things in this Chamber that we do not agree with. [Interruption.] Order. Dr. David Owen.

rose—[Interruption.]

Order. Dr. David Owen.

Does the Prime Minister not agree that it would be extremely foolish to link the INF negotiations either with conventional force reductions, desirable though they are, or with a chemical weapons ban, desirable though that is? Will she make it clear to other European countries that the INF negotiation stands on its own as part of the zero-zero option?

I believe that to keep the security of the West and NATO, we must look at all of them together. In particular, I believe that we can go ahead as a matter of priority with intermediate range nuclear weapons, but at the same time we must also look at the shorter range ones. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that if we succeed in getting an agreement upon that matter there is an enhanced importance for our own nuclear deterrent. I shall be delighted, therefore, when he agrees to update Polaris with Trident.

Is it not clear, from Mr. Gorbachev's proposals, that he sees no prospect of one-sided western nuclear disarmament, and that, therefore, he must have written off any prospect of a Labour general election victory?

As my right hon. Friend says, there would have been no point in coming to negotiate had we, like the Labour party, unilaterally given up own powers, with the result that Russia would have kept all of hers.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 3 March 1987.

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

In the course of a busy day, will the Prime Minister reflect on news items in the United States media to the effect that Colonel Oliver North had drawn up plans for shipping Blowpipe missiles and launchers to the Nicaraguan Contra terrorists, from Short Brothers in Belfast—

Order. Is that a Prime Ministerial responsibility?

It was a fact that was denied last July by Baroness Young, the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Is it not a fact that the only way in which we will break this sinister and undemocratic link between this Government and the— [Interruption.]—warmongering of Reagan is the calling of an early general election?

I could not hear all of the question, but I got the gist of the early part, which referred to a report in the United States media that we had given approval to the supply of Blowpipe to the Contras. Those allegations are totally unfounded. We have clearly demonstrated our support for political and not military solutions to the problems of central America.

Will my right hon. Friend find time today to tell the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much we in Ealing are looking forward to his Budget on 17 March, and how we hope it will help us to pay for the Labour budget on Thursday when our rates are forecast to go up by 80 per cent? Can she think of any better way of underlining the difference between the two major parties in this House than by giving the widest possible publicity to these two contrasting budgets?

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for having done just that. The difference is that we trust the people to spend the greatest share of their earnings, whereas the Labour party wants to maximise the amount which it takes out of people's pockets.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 3 March 1987.

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

Will the Prime Minister take time today to explain why her Government are so reluctant to grant asylum to the Tamil refugees, despite the evidence that they have fled the bombing of their homes and the torture and murder of their families and neighbours, while six ex-Nazi war criminals are allowed to live here freely as she waits for sufficient evidence to be collected against them? What is that? Racism or hypocrisy?

A bit of both.

As the hon. Gentleman is aware, there will be a statement on the Tamils after Question Time, and therefore I leave comments on the Tamils to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. On the question of asylum abuse generally, this country has an excellent record of hospitality towards genuine refugees. We are entitled, however, to take firm action to deal effectively with the large increase in the number of passengers who are arriving here with forged documents, or who have destroyed their documents and who are making asylum claims that prove to be baseless.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the growing concern over the delay in responding to the proposals on future space policy of the British National Space Centre? Is she further aware of the opportunities which are open to us through the European Space Agency and NASA? Will she bend her efforts to reaching an early decision on this important matter?

Yes. One has to look at those space proposals carefully to see what part of them would benefit the United Kingdom. Many people want more to be spent on research and development. It is not just extra expenditure that would yield returns, but being selective in the amount of expenditure one makes. We must look at the proposals in that light.

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

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

In view of the magnificent and resounding SDP-Liberal alliance triumph in the Greenwich by-election last week, will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to congratulate and welcome an excellent new Member of Parliament for the constituency? Will she have a wee word with her party chairman, whose advice to the electorate is clearly as discredited as that of the leader of the Labour party? [Interruption.] An alliance vote—

Order. We shall have all of this in a minute. The hon. Gentleman must relate this to the Prime Minister's responsibilities.

Will the Prime Minister exercise her responsibilities over her Cabinet Minister and remind him that an alliance vote, far from letting in Labour, keeps out Labour and Conservative and will help to elect an alliance Government after the next general election?

I remind the young Member of what happened to the alliance Member who was returned for Crosby when it came to the general election.