To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the rate of the fall in unemployment in the last 12 months in the United Kingdom.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the number of people currently unemployed; and what are the comparable figures for 12 months ago.

In March 1988, seasonally adjusted adult unemployment in the United Kingdom was 2,505,000, a fall of 532,500 over the past 12 months. Unemployment has now fallen consistently for 20 months, by 706,000, the largest sustained fall on record.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that unemployment in Basildon has practically halved since 1983? In fact, it has fallen so much that the Socialist-inspired unemployment board has fallen down. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that dramatic fall reflects great credit on the local jobcentres, the enterprise of local businesses and, above all, the success of the Government's policies?

I entirely agree. Above all, it shows the strength of the economy and the fact that new jobs are now being created at an unprecedented rate.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that long-term unemployment has fallen, from January 1987 to January 1988, by 234,000? Will he also confirm that that shows the complete success of the job creation and training measures introduced by the Government? Will he condemn those unions that are not co-operating in full to reduce further the number of unemployed?

Yes, indeed. There was a fall of about 234,000 over those 12 months in long-term unemployment—that is unemployment of more than 12 months. That is the biggest 12-month fall on record. There was also a record fall of about 365,000 over those 12 months in longer-term unemployment—that is unemployment of more than six months. That shows the Government's commitment to reducing unemployment and the success of their policies.

The Secretary of State did not mention the continuing slowing down of numbers of people leaving the jobless queues. Contrary to what his hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) said, is he aware that, in its latest business trend survey, the Sheffield Engineering Employers Association reports that three times as many firms show no improvement, or even a worsening of the numbers of employees, as show an improvement?

There are some special factors associated with Sheffield business which are not the responsibility of Government. Unemployment is falling in all regions. One of the areas in which it has come down fastest over the past 12 months is Yorkshire and Humberside.

Will the Secretary of State give a guarantee that, during the remainder of this Parliament, the unemployment figures will continue to fall? Will he tell the House and those outside why, when unemployment is rising the Government say that it has little or nothing to do with their policies, but when unemployment is falling during an election boom, they claim the credit?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the strength of the economy is one of the real reasons why unemployment is falling and new jobs are being created. There is no doubt about that. I see no reason why unemployment should not continue to fall. I shall not put a figure on that, but the most significant point for the hon. Gentleman is that unemployment has fallen, not just over one, two or three months, but for each of the past 20 months. That is the Government's record.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that one of the most encouraging things for the west midlands, which have suffered under the necessary economic changes, is that only 370 redundancies have been announced, whereas 7,400 new jobs have been created, proving that at long last, in spite of the problems that we have suffered, the midlands are on their way again? Does he agree that, provided the pound stays stable, we have a chance of that record going on and on?

There is no doubt that the midlands, and the west midlands in particular, are very much on their way again. The west midlands have shown the largest decrease of all the regions in the rate of unemployment over the past 12 months.

Is the Secretary of State aware that, cutting out the Government's 20 fiddles of the unemployment figures, the true figure for unemployment in Britain today is 3,305,000? Is he not ashamed that that figure is still almost three times higher than that which the Government inherited in 1979, and higher at 11·9 per cent. than in any other major Western country, except for Spain and Italy? Finally, is he not ashamed that, even where jobs have been created, they have been overwhelmingly low-pay, low-skill, part-time jobs with no future?

The hon. Gentleman, even by his own standards, is being extremely foolish in everything that he has said. Literally every point that he has just made is untrue and does not coincide with the facts. The labour force survey shows that the unemployment position is, if anything, understated. In other words, it shows a better rather than a worse unemployment position.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what information he has on comparable unemployment figures for France, Italy, Belgium, Holland and the United Kingdom.

The latest figures show that unemployment in the United Kingdom is lower than in France, Italy, Belgium and the Netherlands. It is also lower than in Spain and Ireland. Over the past year the unemployment rate in the United Kingdom has fallen faster than in any other industrial country.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. At the risk of upsetting the Opposition further with more good news, will he confirm that average employment in the United Kingdom is higher as a proportion than that of any of our EEC partners? Is he prepared to give the figures for those under 25 who are unemployed?

I agree with my hon. Friend. The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) appears to have a vested interest in high unemployment, not low unemployment.

Is the Minister aware that the bulk of the growth in employment over recent months has been in East Anglia, the south-west, the south-east and the midlands, and that the percentage increase in Scotland is precisely 0·1 per cent.? Will he comment on the position in Glasgow, Maryhill where unemployment is currently, 29 per cent., the position has not improved recently and there is precious little private sector investment?

Unemployment has come down in all regions. That is not to say that there are not areas where we want unemployment to come down even further and I believe that it will. It is inaccurate for the hon. Lady to say that the fall is confined to London and the south-east. The significance of the figures for the past 18 to 20 months is that unemployment has come down literally in every region.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm what the Minister with responsibility for tourism was good enough to say in Lancaster on Thursday namely, that there is a tremendous spin-off from service jobs to manufacturing jobs? Will he also confirm that places which make their service industries thrive also have thriving manufacturing industries? The continentals have known that for years, and we are only just beginning to learn it.

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. Service jobs in tourism, banking or computing have shown some of the biggest increases over past months. These are real jobs. As my hon. Friend has said, in many cases there is a spin-off for manufacturing industry supplying those service industries.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he proposes to take to boost youth employment prospects in Leicester.

The employment prospects for young people in Leicester, as elsewhere, are being boosted by the high quality training and work experience offered by YTS. From September the Government are extending their guarantee of a YTS place to all 16 and 17-year-olds who are not in work or further education. As a result, no young person under 18 need be unemployed.

Is the Minister aware of the existence of the Leicester enterprise board, which was established by Leicester city council, whose guidelines include promoting youth employment and providing grants to local business men? Does he agree that one way to boost the prospects for youth employment in Leicester would be for the Government to provide the local authority with resources to allow it to continue its valuable and important work?

As the hon. Gentleman is aware, substantial amounts of Government money are directed to Leicester for programmes, including the inner city task force. About 80 per cent. of young people leaving YTS in Leicester enter jobs, further training or education against 75 per cent. nationally. Leicester is not doing too badly.

is my hon. Friend aware that in the city of Leicester and in Leicestershire county, including my constituency, there are many excellent youth training schemes and that they are training young people very well? There is no reason why any young person should not get training and go on to decent employment.

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments. He is absolutely right. There are some excellent schemes, not only in Leicestershire, but in the whole country.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the rate of change in unemployment levels in the last 12 months in the east midlands.

In the year to March, seasonally adjusted adult unemployment in the east midlands fell by 33,400, or nearly 18 per cent.

I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. Will he confirm that in Nottingham, East, which covers a large part of the inner city of Nottingham, unemployment has fallen by 13 per cent. in the past year? Can he quantify the rise in unfilled job vacancies that have been registered?

My hon. Friend is entirely correct in what he says about his constituency. Unemployment in the Nottingham travel-to-work area has fallen by more than 7,000–16 per cent.—in the year to March 1988. Vacancies notified to jobcentres in the east midlands region are up by 21·7 per cent. for the year ended March 1987, and they are up by 20·3 per cent. in the Nottingham travel-to-work area over the same period.

That is certainly not the case in the rest of Nottinghamshire. Is the Minister aware that in my coal mining area of Bassetlaw unemployment has not fallen at all but remains at 14 or 15 per cent. ? When will the Government have a proper regional policy in coal mining areas, where there has been a devastating increase in unemployment over the past few years and where very few new jobs are being created?

If the hon. Gentleman wishes to talk about the coal mining industry as such, he will know that the Government have pumped substantial sums of money into mining generally. As to the redundancies that have occurred, the Government have put a considerable amount of money into British Coal Enterprise Ltd. to try to help people through those redundancies. The hon. Gentleman cannot avoid the fact that if he considers the region and unemployment there as a whole he will find that the figures are as I have stated them to be, and they should give even his unemployed constituents considerable hope.

It is true that the east midlands region is one of great opportunity, but I am sure my hon. Friend is aware that there remain some sad pockets of severe unemployment. I draw to his attention the 19,500 people who remain unemployed in the city of Nottingham, which is, after all, at the centre of a very prosperous region. Will my hon. Friend, when considering travel-to-work statistics, ensure that they do not disguise still-stubborn pockets of unemployment?

My hon. Friend is correct. It is obvious that within a general pattern of figures specific areas will take longer to emerge from the recession with which the Government have had to cope.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any plans to extend the range of practical facilities available in jobcentres for use by the unemployed; and if he will make a statement.

The setting up of the employment service brought jobcentres and unemployment benefit offices under a common management. We are now undertaking a series of pilot studies across the country to test various approaches and integrating the range of services offered locally by the employment service. Our aim is to provide better and more coherent help to unemployed people.

I thank the Minister for that reply. I make the plea to him that when those reviews are undertaken he should bear in mind the specific problem of additional overheads which unemployed people face when pursuing available employment in areas such as the Highlands of Scotland. I quote, for example, employment in the offshore oil industry, which is often advertised in Aberdeen. This creates special problems for the unemployed person telephoning or trying to visit Aberdeen for a job interview. Will the Minister bear such factors in mind when making his review?

We shall certainly take into account all the problems that the hon. Gentleman raises, as well as specific problems that arise in rural areas, including the Highlands. In 1982–83 we offered a free telephone service to job seekers. Frankly, it was not a popular scheme and was subject to some abuse, so the service was withdrawn. Jobcentre staff are there to make telephone calls to prospective employers on behalf of those who are unemployed.

Does my hon. Friend accept that in areas such as Mid-Kent, where unemployment is falling very steeply, there may be a temptation, perfectly properly, to cut jobcentre staff, but that many of the people who now need help in finding employment through jobcentres are harder to place and require more counselling and assistance? Will he take those considerations into account when reviewing overall staffing facilities?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are trying to improve and upgrade our service wherever possible. We have about 40,000 permanent staff employed at jobcentres and unemployment benefit offices across the country.

Is the Minister aware that the latest change in the availability for work rules introduced last week will reduce the unemployment figures by, it is estimated, about 50,000 in a full year? Is that not typical of the changes by which the dole figures have been artificially reduced by the Government? If one takes into account all the changes brought about by restart and the availability for work rules, is not at least half the drop in unemployment claimed by the Government explained by such artificial devices?

I think that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has dealt with the ridiculous points that the hon. Gentleman is making, and there is no need for me to add in reply to them.

Will my right hon. Friend accept my congratulations on having identified at least 500 people who, it was announced at the weekend, had been defrauding the social security system by claiming benefit while in employment? Will he accept my wish that he will continue to prosecute that wing of the population? Does he agree that it would be right to bring all those people to justice by taking them to court, just as a small business man who is not registered by the Data Protection Act 1984 will be prosecuted simply for not filling up a form?

Conservative Members are, of course, anxious to ensure that those who are genuinely entitled to employment benefit, and welfare benefits generally, receive them. We are, however, determined to stamp out fraud and abuse, and there have been a number of very successful campaigns recently, including the one mentioned by my hon. Friend.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what training initiatives his Department currently supports specifically for rural areas.

Our training programmes are available nationally to all those who are eligible, irrespective of where they live. The planning and delivery arrangements ensure that all programmes respond to particular local needs.

Has the Minister considered the particular problems that will be faced by those who are eligible for the new employment training scheme in rural areas, particularly as a result of the high cost of transport? If the scheme is not to become a conscript scene in the countryside, does the Minister accept that it must be made more attractive? One way of doing that would be to abolish the £5 travelling cost threshold and at least make all travelling costs free for the applicant.

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point. Under the new training programme, travelling costs in excess of £5will be met. I hope the hon. Gentleman agrees that that is a proper way to proceed. In view of the economic climate generally, and, indeed, the various training programmes that are available, I am sure that he would wish to point out that such programmes have already been particularly successful in his constituency. In the year to March 1988 unemployment fell by 19 per cent. and in the year to January 1988 the number of people under 25 out of work for more than six months fell by 34 per cent. I know how much the hon. Gentleman will welcome that, and I join him in doing so.

With the complete change in agriculture and its outlook for the future, will my hon. Friend look into the prospect of modernising the youth training scheme in so far as it affects agriculture and the changing face of the business?

I am certainly very much aware that YTS has played a major part in the agriculture industry, as it has elsewhere. However, it is fair to point out that nothing is ever set in tablets of stone. If schemes and training can be improved, those are obviously matters that we tend to consider. I can give my hon. Friend an assurance that improving the quality of training is constantly borne in mind.

I realise that the Minister is an expert on rural unemployment, but is he not concerned about trends that are occuring in youth training in rural and other areas? I had evidence only today of a scheme run by a manufacturer in Wiltshire, which is offering £92 a week to young people with no training to come into the industry. Is the Minister aware that that will mean the collapse of youth training in this country, with young people at the age of 16 again going into occupations with no future, training or prospects? What does he propose to do about that collapse?

I am pleased to hear the hon. Gentleman's tacit, if not explicit, support for training programmes in general, and the adult training programme in particular. It should be pointed out that not so many years ago, as a result of the policies of the Labour Government, there would not have been even unskilled jobs for people to go into, because unemployment was rising. At present, it is falling. Even if the hon. Gentleman is a late convert to the Government's policies, the sinner who has repented is welcome.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that in the county of Cornwall unemployment in rural development areas has fallen by 2·9 per cent in 12 months, which is the third largest drop in any English county? Following his visit to Cornwall on Friday, does my hon. Friend agree that the two biggest drawbacks that we face in dealing with unemployment—because the economy is now picking up—are first, a shortage of industrial land, and, secondly, the demand for more skill training?

I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. It needs to be stressed repeatedly that the new adult training programme has a vital role to play and that it deserves support from both sides of the House. As we both come from country constituencies, we have the advantage of knowing what we are talking about.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he plans to introduce fair employment monitoring in Great Britain; and if he will make a statement.

No, Sir.

If there is a need for such a system in Northern Ireland, why does the Minister consider that it is not needed here, in view of the report by the Commission for Racial Equality and the Select Committee on Employment's paper "Discrimination in Employment"? Or does the Minister accept that employment should be provided only on grounds of merit?

I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, and I fully appreciate his anxiety and sincerity, but the situation in Northern Ireland is unique. Northern Ireland is a unique part of the United Kingdom, and, unfortunately, from the hon. Gentleman's point of view, unique remedies have to be applied to it. Therefore, while the system is appropriate in Northern Ireland, we see no reason to extend it to the mainland.

Was the absurd nonsense that is currently proposed for Northern Ireland in our election manifesto? Some of my hon. Friends would not wish to vote against something that had been in our election manifesto.

My hon. Friend knows that if he wishes to take up specific points of policy relating to Northern Ireland he should take them up with our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I do not think that I shall give in to the temptation of being led down the road of considering election manifestos and what conclusions one should draw from them, but I am grateful to my hon. Friend for teasing me.

Given the monitoring of employment that is carried out by the Minister's Department, to which the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) referred a few minutes ago, and the allegations in today's editions of The Guardian, The Times, The Daily Telegraph and the sewer press by the Secretary of State about the claiming of unemployment benefit by my constituents in Coventry and the west midlands, what about the other side of the coin? How many officers at the jobcentres are employed by his Department to ensure that every unemployed person gets his full entitlement to benefit? What is his Department's advertising budget to ensure a full and fair take-up of employment benefit? [Interruption.] If allegations are to be made in the Chamber about unemployed workers moonlighting, which activity is not surprising given the poverty level of benefits, I can only says that when every Tory Member of Parliament has only one job—[Interruption]—it will be a little less hypocritical of them to lecture working-class people about moonlighting.

It clearly falls to me to welcome the hon. Gentleman back to our deliberations. From the welcome that he received from this side of the House, he will have gathered that he is a long-standing favourite with me and my right hon. and hon. Friends. The pity is that being a long-standing favourite does not mean that he talks any sense. It is perfectly obvious that his recent holiday from our deliberations has not helped him.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the number of job vacancies registered at jobcentres.

In March the number of unfilled vacancies at jobcentres in the United Kingdom, seasonally adjusted and excluding community programme vacancies, was 245,500, an increase of 15 per cent. compared with a year ago.

Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the staff of the Bolton, Westhorton and Norwich jobcentres on their efforts during the past 12 months, during which unemployment in my constituency has fallen by 735? Does he agree that the very welcome rise in the number of vacancies registered at those jobcentres does not reflect the full picture? Will he give any information that he has about the number of vacancies in the economy as a whole?

I join my hon. Friend in congratulating the Bolton office, with which my Parliamentary Private Secretary keeps me in touch. We estimate that there are about 700,000 vacancies in the economy. In other words, the vacancies at jobcentres represent only about one third of the total number of vacancies.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider how he might help the many thousands of steel workers who lost their jobs as long ago as 1980 under the closure programme, many of whom left school early and have no skills? One of my constituents has been out of work for many years and has found it necessary to travel to London to find work, and go home about every 10 days. This is a serious matter. He is an industrial gypsy. Will the right hon. Gentleman not be complacent, and say how such men will find work?

I am prepared to look at the case that the hon. Gentleman has put to me. I hope that he in turn will back all the Government's moves to improve adult training. Only if we are able to provide the long-term unemployed with skills through training will they be able to take up the vacancies that are increasingly occurring.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many tourists visited British Nuclear Fuels plc at Sellafield in 1987.

The British Nuclear Fuels site at Sellafield attracted over 104,000 visitors in 1987.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that such a large figure is a tribute to British Nuclear Fuels plc in promoting its tourism, and are there any plans to expand that for 1988? As a general knowledge of industry is obviously beneficial, has my hon. Friend any plans to bring the experience of British Nuclear Fuels plc to other industries and companies?

British Nuclear Fuels plc is opening a new £5 million visitors centre on 6 June, at which His Royal Highness The Duke of Edinburgh will officiate. On my hon. Friend's general point, he will, I hope, know that the encouragement of modern industrial tourism is a personal crusade of mine. We are to hold a major conference at Centre Point in September, to be hosted by the CBI, in which the English Tourist Board will participate, to try to encourage more firms to open themselves up to visitors.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many proposals he has received to date for employer-school compacts; and if he will make a statement.

There has been a good response to my announcement that the Government will back compacts between schools and employers in urban programme areas. I understand that about 40 partnerships are working on the preparation of a compact. The Manpower Services Commission is today launching a formal invitation to all 57 urban programme areas to apply for development funding. We hope initially to launch some 15 compacts throughout Britain and the Government are making available over £3 million a year for this initiative.

I welcome my right hon. Friend's initiative to guarantee YTS training and jobs for young people, particularly in inner cities, and I am pleased that he is making resources available for this programme.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. Under the compact arrangements employers will be asked to guarantee a job, with training, to young people from inner-city schools, and I hope that on this we can take the Opposition with us.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many representations he has received on his plans for the new adult training programme; and if he will make a statement.

I have received a large number of representations about the employment training programme. The programme will go ahead in September on the basis of the unanimous recommendations of the Manpower Services Commission. It will have a budget of nearly £1·5 billion and be able to provide training for up to 600,000 unemployed people each year.

Will my right hon. Friend join me in deploring the decision by many unions not to co-operate with the training schemes and, in some cases, to obstruct them? Does he agree with a Transport and General Workers Union branch secretary who has written to say:

"We cannot just say we are going to wash our hands"——

Order. No quotations, please. It should be paraphrased.

This programme was proposed unanimously by the Manpower Services Commission, on which are three trade union commissioners, including Ron Todd. I hope that in the light of that the trade unions will back this programme, because they have been part of the authorship of it.

Will the Secretary of State consider carefully two of the recommendations that he will have had? Under existing programmes employers can chop up the low training allowance, whereas under the new programme anything over £5 is clawed back by the DHSS. Surely that is perverse and unhelpful, and could he alter it? Secondly, the child care allowance is in itself welcome, but the right hon. Gentleman will know that it is available only for those who can claim unemployment pay for six months, and that means that they have to be available for work. There is a Catch 22 situation. Could he not make the allowance available to all parents who wish to go on the scheme?

I shall look at any of the details of the programme and seek to be as helpful as we conceivably can. I hope that in return the hon. Gentleman, with his long experience of employment matters, will back the major programme that we are putting forward, which will provide training for 600,000 unemployed persons. It would be a great tragedy if he and the trade unions turned their backs on that prospect.

Given the success of the training schemes, what proposals do the Government have, particularly in the light of the success of the television advertising of job vacancies in the north of England, at my request—that is the good thing—for assisting with the re-location of people who, having undergone training and acquired new skills, can find no jobs in the locality and wish to go to other parts of the country?

We shall consider that, but the major issue here is that there are many vacancies in the regions, as shown by the vacancies statistics. Someone does not have to travel from north to south to find a job. The vacancies are often there in the region, provided that people have the skills to fill them. The whole point of the employment training programme is to provide skills for unemployed people.

Has the Secretary of State received representations on the new adult training scheme—or ET, as we are now told to call it—from Windsor, Kensington and Chelsea, Maidenhead and Fylde, which are all Tory local authorities which have decided to boycott the scheme because, they say, it is so under-funded?

I have noted those councils, and if that is the case I hope that they will reconsider their position. What is needed is that people, and particularly the hon. Lady, should stop seeking to sabotage a training programme whose major purpose is to bring unemployed people back into employment.

Has my right hon. Friend read recent press speculation that the TUC might seek to destroy the new training scheme? Can it really be that the TUC would show such callous disregard for 600,000 long-term unemployed people?

I agree with my hon. Friend. It cannot be stated too often that the proposals which the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) is seeking to sabotage are the product of the Manpower Services Commission, on which there are three trade union commissioners, led by Ron Todd. That being so, I very much hope that not only the TUC, but the Labour party, too, will reconsider their destructive attitude.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he is satisfied with the implementation in the private sector of the recommendations of the Commission for Racial Equality concerning ethnic monitoring.

Progress is being made. The indications from recent visits to major private sector employers by the Department's race relations employment advisory service are that one third have introduced, or are considering introducing, ethnic monitoring.

Does the Minister accept the unanimous view of the Employment Committee that discrimination against people because they are black is rampant and rife throughout private industry? Does he not know that people are not treated equally—that is all that anyone asks—and that the ethnic monitoring rules in the code are not being complied with? Why is he not prepared to take action when he has just admitted that the vast majority of private industries have not complied with the code?

I do not accept that analysis, and I am surprised that the hon. and learned Gentleman accepts it. The Government's commitment against racial discrimination is total, and the hon. and learned Gentleman knows that.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 3 May.

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

I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend on embarking today upon her 10th year as Prime Minister, and wish her many more.

I thank my hon. Friend for his congratulations. I share his concern about the decision of the IBA to show a film before an inquest has been held. The report of the interdepartmental committee on the law of contempt as it affects tribunals of inquiry, which was chaired by Lord Salmon, stated:

"One would not wish to see in this country the horror of trial by Press, Television and Radio … We have so far escaped them only because of a high sense of responsibility on the part of the Press, Television and Radio and also because of the law of contempt."

If the Prime Minister takes time today to reflect on the forthcoming local elections, will she recognise that many people will regard them as an opportunity to register their strong opposition to her attempt to transfer all power over local services from local authorities to the Government? Will she state her willingness to arrest that anti-democratic process?

What the hon. Gentleman has said is just not so. Indeed, when I last answered a question on the subject I pointed out that we would not take control of education because I did not think it right that we should do so. Our purpose is to try to give as many people as possible—parents and governors—much more control over their children's education. I believe that that would be greatly to the benefit of children.

Does my right hon. Friend recall meeting, during her tour of Teesside, Mr. Eric Fletcher, the 35-year-old Middlesbrough man who threw 1,000 job applications at her, saying that he had not found a job? Was my right hon. Friend not surprised to read recently that Mr. Fletcher had found a full-time job? Will she give the same advice to others in a similar position?

I saw the news that Mr. Fletcher has a full-time job. I understand that he took my advice and undertook some excellent training, which enabled him to obtain a job. I congratulate him. I thank him for thanking me, which is a rare experience.

A moment ago the Prime Minister spoke of the importance of judging the results of the poll tax. Will she tell us why the Government refuse to publish the figures that show the effect of the poll tax on individuals in England, when they have published the figures for Scotland and Wales?

As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, the actual figures for the poll tax will depend—[Interruption.] for the community charge. I call it the community charge.—[Interruption]

Order. The Prime Minister.

The actual figures for the amount that will be paid to local authorities for their services will depend largely on their expenditure nearer the time.

If the right hon. Lady was able to overcome those difficulties, as well as her verbal confusion, for Scotland and Wales, why can she not do the same for England? Is it not a fact that if the truth about the poll tax were to be published by the Government before Thursday's election the Tory party would have to write off the English boroughs, in the same way as they have written off Wales and Scotland?

No. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we are nearer the introduction of the community charge in Scotland than we are in England. If the community charge is very high, it is likely to be because of high or extravagant expenditure by Left-wing local authorities.

As the right hon. Lady persists in denying other people's figures, without daring to provide figures of her own, will she attempt a straight answer to a simple question? Is she saying "yes" or "no" to whether millions of men and women, including those in Tory boroughs, will pay more under the poll tax than they do under the rates? Will not millions of those men and women be among the low-income groups which have already been so grievously penalised by the Government?

Those who have hitherto paid nothing because they have paid no rates, will, of course, pay something towards the community charge—and so they should. The change is based upon equity, not upon gainers or losers. The real reason why the Opposition are fighting the community charge is that Left-wing authorities and councils will no longer be able to conceal the real cost of their policies.

Will my right hon. Friend find time today to consider further changes in the housing benefit arrangements to take account of the fact that, following the probable sequestration of the assets of the National Union of Seamen, the hon. Members for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott)—[Interruption.]

Order. The hon. Gentleman must not touch on sub judice matters.

Will my right hon. Friend take account of the fact that the hon. Members for Kingston upon Hull, East and for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) face the prospect of losing the advantage of their rental accommodation, at a reported weekly rent of £18?

I think that total expenditure is now about £5·3 billion for housing benefit, and the adjustments that have been made mean that we have it just about right.

Is the Prime Minister aware that, rather than the funds of the National Union of Seamen being sequestrated because it is acting on principle against a cut in wages and an increase in hours of work, it is P and O that should have its funds sequestrated because of the Herald of Free Enterprise disaster at Zeebrugge? The sequestrated money could then be paid to the victims and the relatives of that awful disaster.

Sequestration is a matter for the courts, not for me, as the hon. Gentleman is well aware. I remind him that everyone has a right to go to his place of work without let or hindrance, and we shall uphold that right. With regard to the state of the dispute, I remind the hon. Gentleman that the parties went to ACAS, which pronounced a settlement, which P and O was prepared to accept, but which the National Union of Seamen was not.

Spending on health, education and social security now accounts for over 70 per cent. of Government expenditure, which is the highest ever figure in proportionate or real terms. Does my right hon. Friend agree that to be able to spend such massive sums, without bankrupting the country, is a vindication of the Government's economic policy? Does she regret the fact that the Opposition seem to be more interested in exploiting disadvantaged people for party-political gain——

Order. The Prime Minister can answer only for her responsibilities.

rose——

Order. The hon. Gentleman has asked his question.

I agree with my hon. Friend. The massive amounts now being spent on social security, housing benefit, the Health Service and education are a tribute to enterprise and flourishing industry and commerce, which provide the means for such a high level of services.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 3 May.

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

The Prime Minister said today, as she did last Thursday, that she expects the same level and standard of service, resulting in the same community charge, throughout the United Kingdom. Does the Prime Minister not understand that the massive differences in the levels of unemployment in Britain demand different responses from the local authorities? Does she not understand that, or has no one yet told her?

I have made it quite clear that in each country the same level of community charge would apply. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the grant to Scotland will be much greater proportionately than the grant to England. The community charge will meet only one seventh of local authority expenditure in Scotland, whereas it will meet one quarter in England. The community charge will be the same in different places in England, and in different places in Scotland, if there are the same levels of services and efficiency. The differences to which the hon. Gentleman referred will be taken into account in calculating the grant.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 3 May.

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

My right hon. Friend may not have seen the ridiculous article by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) in The Times today, in which he rubbishes the efforts of honest people——

Order. Before the hon. Lady goes too far down that road, I remind her that questions must be directed to the Prime Minister's responsibilities.

It is to do with the attempts of millions of ordinary people in the United Kingdom to give to those in the United Kingdom and overseas. It is an Opposition figleaf to cover their own inadequacies——

Order. The hon. Lady has been here long enough to know that she must ask a question on a matter for which the Prime Minister has responsibility.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that charitable giving is a proper complement to the enormous amount of state aid that is provided for the under-privileged?

Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. Although we have the highest standard of social services that there has ever been in our history, that should be augmented by charitable giving, particularly bearing in mind the enormous number of voluntary associations that we have. My hon. Friend knows a great deal about this, because for many years she was in charge of raising money for the Save the Children Fund. She, that fund, and many other funds have done wonderful things for those in need.

Does the Prime Minister think it fair competition that British confectionery and chocolate companies cannot buy into Swiss companies, but that the British Fruit Gum and the British Kit Kat are threatened by foreign predators? Will she refer the Nestle bid for Rowntree plc to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission?

I understand perfectly well what the hon. Gentleman is referring to. My right hon. Friend will, of course, await the report of the Office of Fair Trading and then make up his mind whether to refer the matter to the MMC.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 3 May.

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

In welcoming the visit to Britain tomorrow by the Prime Minister of Japan, may I ask my right hon. Friend to make it clear to him that we require action rather than words in terms of free trade between our two countries? In particular, will she make it clear that that applies to further places on the Tokyo stock exchange for British companies, and to the ending of the disgraceful discrimination against Scotch whisky?

The visit by the new Prime Minister of Japan is important. We are very pleased, as I am sure my hon. Friend is, with the increasing amount that Japan is investing in this country. There are, as he suggests, one or two matters over which we still have strong disagreement, although our exports to Japan have gone up by some 50 per cent. over the past two years. I shall, of course, discuss those two matters—seats on the Tokyo stock exchange and a fair regime for the taxation of spirits—with the Japanese Prime Minister, and I hope that they will soon be resolved.