asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he intends to meet his counterparts in the European Economic Community to discuss measures to reduce unemployment through the use of Community mechanisms and resources.

I regularly discuss unemployment with my EC colleagues at meetings of the Council and in bilateral contacts.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. As it has been estimated recently that unemployment in this country would be 20 to 30 per cent. higher if we were not a member of the EEC, is not the mirror image of that the point that we need to build up the social fund in future with our partners, so that we can deploy more resources, particularly for building up employment in future years?

We should like to build up the social fund. We received 23 per cent. of its allocations. In addition, we do 42 per cent. of our trade with the Community. That is an important factor. We are also receiving in one way or another—as announced yesterday—£20 million for help with new jobs. There will be 4,000 new jobs in areas hit by the rundown in coal and steel.

Is the Secretary of State aware that unemployment in North Staffordshire is growing at the incredible rate of over 100 per cent. and that prosperous industries are being shattered? Is not that a strong case for special help from the European fund for those industries, especially as the pottery industry can be a growth point for Britain when the economy revives?

The more help we can get from the Community, the better it will be. We are now receiving more from the social fund and our fair share from the regional funds. We have also agreed to go along with other methods, such as trying to cut back unecessary overtime. Provided that that does not put up unit labour costs, it could be of enormous help.

As my right hon. Friend has said, unemployment is a Community problem, not just a British problem. In this respect, would he not agree that the best chance we have of reducing unemployment is by encouraging an increase of trade within the Community? Will he make certain that the Government stand firmly against import controls and go as hard as possible for fair and competitive trade? In this respect, are not the service industries, such as insurance and banking, important?

Insurance and banking are important and are likely to be growth employment areas. I fully support what my hon. Friend has said. There is a case for certain selective import controls to help industries through a difficult period, but general import controls would invite retaliation and lead us into more trouble.

Will the Minister confirm that since we joined the Common Market in 1973 unemployment has risen by 1½ million? Does he accept that the rest of the Common Market countries are doing albeit not as successfully as they would like, but much better than us in exporting part of their unemployment to Britain?

It is true that one of the problems from which we suffer arises from the fact that, because of our failure to produce the right goods at the right time and at the right price, we have been importing other people's goods and therefore other people's unemployment. The hon. Gentleman makes accusations about the level of unemployment compared with what it was when we joined the Community. He ought to ask himself what that level would be if we had not joined the Community.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will end the requirement for unemployed people to pay the first £1 of travel costs to visit employment offices at the request of his Department.

No, Sir. Those who claim benefit by post and are therefore required to visit the unemployment benefit office only once a quarter now have to pay the first £1 of their travel costs. This change was introduced to bring such claimants more in line with the majority of claimants who live near enough to the office to sign in person fortnightly and who receive no assistance with fares.

With the real value of unemployment benefit plummeting and with people having no hope of a job, is the Minister aware that such a response is piling insult on injury for those in rural areas? Will he accept that I have had many complaints from my constituents, who are suffering hardship as a result of the additional imposition? Will he therefore reconsider this issue?

Those who attend unemployment benefit offices once a quarter and now have to pay £1 per quarter will still almost certainly be better off than the mass of claimants who have to report fortnightly. That surely is a measure of equity.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment when he plans to meet the chairman of the Manpower Services Commission to discuss job training.

My right hon. Friend is in frequent contact with Sir Richard O'Brien on training matters. They are both concerned that Her Majesty's Government develop the most effective policy towards job training.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Government are concerned about the nature of existing apprenticeship schemes, and, if so, does he intend to raise the matter with the chairman of the Manpower Services Commission?

We are considering the existing schemes. Before changes are made, several complicated and difficult factors have to be dealt with. However, the conversations that I have had encourage me to believe that there is now a more flexible attitude.

When the Minister's right hon. Friend next meets the chairman, will he discuss with him what will be done about over 1,000 apprentices losing their jobs since September in the engineering industry alone?

My right hon. Friend is as concerned as the hon. Gentleman. Through the Manpower Services Commission, the Government have set aside £46 million this year to help apprentices.

Can my hon. Friend confirm that the Government will not propose the removal of the statutory basis for the industrial training board for any industry until they are satisfied that the alternative training procedures proposed by the industry will be at least as effective as the existing industrial training board structure?

My hon. Friend's point will be seriously taken into account before decisions are made about industrial training boards.

How on earth can the hon. Gentleman claim that the Government attach great importance to training when they impose a further cut of £77·5 million in public support for training and are planning to cut the number taking advantage of the training opportunities programme, which was 100,000 in 1978 and will be only 55,000 by 1984? Is he aware that under his Government, month by month, the numbers of apprentices being taken into industry have fallen along with the numbers of people generally undergoing training and yet the Government are planning further cuts?

I said earlier that the Government have set aside £46 million this year to help apprentices. Perhaps one reason why there are not so many apprentices is that the attitude is not as flexible as we should both like.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many job vacancies there were in the United Kingdom at the latest available date; and how this compares with the number in May 1979.

At February 1981, the seasonally adjusted number of notified vacancies remaining unfilled at employment offices in the United Kingdom was 96,000 compared with 254,600 at May 1979. Vacancies at careers offices, which are not seasonally adjusted, number 3,721 in February 1981 and 41,265 in May 1979. As not all vacancies are notified to employment offices, it is estimated that there are about 200,000 to 250,000 vacancies in the economy as a whole compared with 700,000 to 800,000 in May 1979.

Does the Secretary of State appreciate that, on a quick calculation, that represents a drop of 70 per cent. in the number of available jobs since May 1979? When will the Conservative strategy on encouraging people to set up their own jobs by giving them more incentives work through into the economy and provide more jobs?

I am glad to say that in the past month in Wales vacancies have started to go up a bit, which is a good sign. Unemployment went up less in Wales in the past month than in most other regions of Britain. I am certain that when we get through the recession we shall have achieved the right balance in the economy and provided more jobs. We shall have more firmly based employment and prosperity than the country has known for 20 years.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, despite the financial difficulties facing employers, new company formations vastly outstrip bankruptcies, particularly among small companies, which is encouraging for job opportunities in the coming months?

That is absolutely correct. The uptake of jobs will come mostly from small companies. We should do everything that we can to give more assistance to them.

Is the Minister aware that, with only a few job vacancies, men in the 55 to 65 age group suffer most severely? Do the Government have special plans for job creation schemes, similar to those for 18-year-olds, for such men, many of whom feel that they are on the scrap heap?

The position of 55 to 65-year-olds is particularly serious. They tend to be the long-term unemployed. The community enterprise programme, which is designed for the long-term unemployed, will be increased to 25,000 places in the coming year, which will take up 40,000 to 45,000 people during the year. Regrettably, at the moment the job release scheme is only for those aged 64 and over. When the funds are available, I believe that it would be an advantage to increase the numbers in the scheme.

Does the Secretary of State realise that the intolerable level of unemployment represents the inevitable collapse of the Government's economic and industrial policies? Will he admit that the situation can be arrested only if the Government introduce bold and imaginative measures to get people back to work and put an end to the industrial shambles?

I do not accept that. The situation represents a failure over 20 years to take the right action at the right time. The Opposition's suggestions would merely put us back in that position.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is his latest estimate of the number of young people who have never had a full-time job since completing their education.

At 12 February, the provisional number of unemployed young people under 18 years of age in the United Kingdom who had not been in employment since completing full-time education was 90,075. This is the group of young people which the youth opportunities programme is designed to help, and in 1981–82 the programme will provide 440,000 opportunities for training and work experience.

Does the Minister agree that the figures are unacceptably high and that we are leaving young people to wander the streets and, perhaps, get in trouble with the law? Can he guarantee that every one of those young people will be found a place on the youth opportunities programme? If so, when?

We want to see every young person with a proper job. Of the 715,000 young people who left school last year, by Christmas 90,000 were still unemployed and 80,000 were in the youth opportunities programme. By Easter, when the guarantee for last year is complete, it should still have been possible to offer all the young people who left school last summer a place on the programme. We are expanding the programme and should be able to do considerably better over guarantees and the time when young people can be on the scheme next year.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that by the end of March 90,000 young people in the Northern region will have been through a job opportunities scheme? Is he further aware that about half of those are now in full employment? Will he suggest that it is an excellent thing to encourage more young people to take part-time employment through the scheme rather than to seek full-time employment and then get into a state of frustration?

Yes. I think that, particularly in a difficult area such as the North-East, it has been remarkable how well the scheme has kept up. We want more employers to take advantage of the scheme. We want a greater element of training in each scheme so that we equip the younger generation at a very difficult time for the jobs of tomorrow.

While congratulating those responsible for the youth opportunities programme on what has been done, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman agrees that the prospects for young people must be extremely bad when there is only one vacancy for every 50 registered unemloyed? When will he tell his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that enough is enough?

The purpose of the schemes that we are running, and of the youth opportunities programmes in particular, is to deal with what would otherwise be an intolerable situation. That is the importance of stepping up the scheme mext year to 440,000 places from the 185,000 places of two years ago. This month, 926,000 people are receiving help in one way or another in their jobs. This shows that the Government are doing all that they can in very difficult circumstances.

On the subject of the careers advice that young people receive during their last year at school, will my right hon. Friend ask the Manpower Services Commission to improve its liaison with schools as the current YOP programmes have a much greater skill content and are of obvious benefit to school leavers?

The more we can stress this, the better it will be. We have appointed a number of additional careers officers with this very much in mind. We shall not be content until everyone has the chance either of a YOP place or of a proper job.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the progress of the youth opportunities programme.

In the first nine months of this financial year, some 230,000 young people had entered YOP and over 320,000 are expected to have entered by the end of March.

Will my hon. Friend consider changing the role of the YOP and moving more towards some kind of one-year citizenship programme incorporating community service and the availability of Outward Bound type training? Will he detach the YOP from the MSC and reestablish it as a body distinct from the Civil Service, capable of self-promotion and under the leadership of some excellent person such as Geoffrey Holland?

I know that my hon. Friend visited YOP for a week last year and that people there were very interested to talk to him and to show him round. He has asked me to give a definitive answer to an idea that he has been floating for some time. As he will be aware, YOP is on a voluntary basis, but certainly the MSC is prepared to be flexible and to look at ideas as and when they are put forward.

Is the Minister aware that at one Liverpool employment office where more than 11,000 people under the age of 19 were registered as unemployed, only 24 vacancies had been notified by the Liverpool careers officer? Will he tell the people of Liverpool whether he believes that youth opportunities programmes and all the rest are any substitute for long-term employment prospects? Will he say whether he is prepared to go on perpetuating a situation in which the best-educated kids are on the dole queue?

As the hon. Gentleman may know, one of the first places to which I went when I became a Minister in the Department of Employment was Liverpool, as I have exactly the same kind of concern as the hon. Gentleman has for his constituents and for the city. Of course there is no substitute for real jobs, but that is what the Government's economic strategy is directed towards and will succeed in achieving.

Does the Minister agree that in many of these schemes, although they are welcome, the miserable pay of £23·50 makes it little short of slave labour? Does he accept that many of the youngsters in these schemes want to work in them but feel that they are being exploited in view of the miserable amount of money that they are paid? When will the Minister look at the scheme again?

The hon. Gentleman uses rather emotive language in referring to slave labour. As both he and I know, it is a voluntary scheme. Already, 230,000 young people have entered it this year. I do not believe that they consider themselves to be slave labour.

In view of the fact that young people under the age of 18, quite properly, cannot take advantage of the employment opportunities which exist on offshore oil rigs, will my hon. Friend, together with the MSC and the oil companies consider providing opportunities for those youngsters so that, as soon as they reach the age of 18, they are in a position to take advantage of those opportunities?

I am certainly prepared to look at this point. I cannot give any commitment this afternoon, but I shall be delighted to look, and I shall let my hon. Friend know the outcome of my search.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment, further to his reply to the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Needham), Official Report, 27 January, c. 371, if he will make a statement on the further action being considered by the Government and the Manpower Services Commission to encourage industry to improve its skill training.

We hope to publish shortly a discussion paper on training for the 1980s, which is intended to lead to a joint programme of action by Government, industry and the education and training services to improve the effectiveness of our national training arrangements. Unless radical change is achieved, the prospects of economic revival, living standards and employment will all be the poorer.

Is the Minister really satisfied that the Government are doing enough to create real jobs? Is he aware, for example, that the CBI has complained of a shortage of skilled labour in this country? I can give the Minister all the details if he wishes, but I am sure that he knows them. Is he aware that many skinflint employers are using youngsters as cheap labour? Is he aware that for many of those employers this is an alternative means of running their companies to produce more and more profit? Is he aware that something must be done about this— [HON. MEMBERS: "TOO long."] Would it not be better for the Government to agree to do something to make apprenticeships compulsory—

Order. The hon. Member must realise that he must sit down when I stand up. I call the Minister to reply.

I am somewhat amazed by the hon. Member and indeed by all Opposition Members when they complain bitterly that we are spending a lot of money on something such as the youth opportunities programme. Certainly, that is the inference that I draw. With regard to skill shortages, I should have thought that the fact that we are looking again at training and that the Government are to produce another paper on the matter would demonstrate that we are concerned about this.

Does my hon. Friend accept that there is very considerable concern in industry and in the training boards themselves that the future of training boards is being considered and the evidence concerning them filtered entirely through the MSC? Can he assure the House that he and his right hon. Friend will acquaint themselves fully and at first hand with the opinions of the training boards and of the firms in industry about the future of training boards before reaching their final decisions?

Yes, Sir.

What urgent action will the Minister take to reduce the sacking of young trainee craftsmen and technicians? Does he realise that this year apprenticeship training has declined by 10 per cent.? Is he aware, for example, that the number of Government-supported apprenticeships in the chemical industry has plummeted from 523 in 1979 to 124 today? Will the Minister protect our industrial seed corn?

As I have already said, we are spending £46 million this year to help apprentices. That accounts for help to 25,000 apprentices. To my way of thinking, that is the right way of looking at it.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he plans to meet the chairman of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service to discuss further employment protection legislation.

My right hon. Friend meets the chairman of ACAS from time to time to discuss questions of mutual interest. He has no plans at present to meet him to discuss further employment protection legislation.

I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for that reply. Is he aware of the growing public concern at the lack of employment protection afforded in practice to such people as Miss Joanna Harris and other victims of politically motivated local government closed shops? Does he consider present legislation adequate and sufficient to protect these people's right to work?

Nothing could be less satisfactory than the spectacle of a decent, hard-working girl being drummed out of her job by a bunch of mean-minded councillors more interested in Socialist doctrine than their own employees. I freely concede that monetary compensation is not enough in that sort of situation. The difficulty is that no one has yet found a way of enforcing reinstatement, and there is no evidence that, for instance, had closed shops been banned or declared void under our legislation, this particular council would have behaved any less irresponsibly. However, these matters are discussed in our Green Paper, and I hope that my hon. Friend will not be backward in coming forward with ideas. They will all be considered.

Is not it scandalous that this Government should talk about this one isolated incident when the same lousy, rotten Government have thrown more than 1 million people out of their jobs in less than two years? Why does not the Minister attack those employers, such as the one at Roakes bridge near Preston—in respect of which a motion will be placed on the Order Paper signed by many Members of Parliament—where 50 people have lost the right to work because of some tinpot, rotten employer who will not allow them to become members of a trade union? Why does not the hon. and learned Gentleman get on his high horse about that?

I do not consider that the right of someone not to join a trade union is an unimportant matter. These are crucially important matters involving individual rights. The hon. Gentleman will have to look again for someone who will ignore this most important matter.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the relationship between industrial disputes and unemployment.

Industrial disputes are bound to have an adverse effect on competitiveness, which can lead to the loss of jobs and even to the closure of firms. There is little doubt, for example, that the recent seamen's dispute will result in job losses in the United Kingdom fleet.

As strikes and bad industrial relations obviously lead to unemployment, will my hon. and learned Friend comment on the proposal in the newspapers today from Mr. Roy Jenkins to penalise strikers through loss of benefits? Does my hon. and learned Friend think that that is likely to lead to improved industrial relations?

I am bound to agree with my hon. Friend that it would be a dangerous course to pursue. I read the proposal with some surprise. My hon. Friend is entirely right to emphasise the fact that unnecessary disputes, excessive wage claims and bad industrial relations have done such damage to our economy.

Is the Minister aware that 13,000 school leavers are unemployed in the Northern region and that only 1,000 jobs have been notified to the careers officers? None of those youngsters has ever had the chance to take industrial action—

Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman had that supplementary question in mind in regard to another question. If the hon. Gentleman wants to relate it to industrial disputes, perhaps he will do so very quickly.

That is exactly the point that I wanted to make. None of those 13,000 youngsters would necessarily want to take part in industrial disputes, but they have not had the opportunity to do so, because of a lack of jobs.

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his ingenuity in relating his supplementary question to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley). I also congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his genuine concern about a real problem. It does not alter the fact that, undoubtedly, another cause of unemployment is unnecessary industrial disputes.

If my hon. and learned Friend accepts that industrial disputes have caused job losses, particularly in manufacturing industry, can we look forward to job losses in the Civil Service if there are unnecessary strikes there?

My hon. Friend has shown almost as much ingenuity as the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, West (Mr. Brown). I do not think that that matter falls within the ambit of this question.

Is not it a fact that Government policy is to browbeat workers into docility and into accepting lower standards of living? Is not it also a fact that the Government have embarked upon an industrial relations policy of smashing the weak into the ground and caving in before the strong?

That is the sort of absurd hyperbole which has brought the opposition into such disrepute in recent months.

Now that the miners have succeeded in installing a Government of pragmatic interventionists, what will the Government do about the water industry dispute? I am sure the Minister will have noted the Secretary of State recording his unstinted admiration for the Prime Minister. What will the two of them do? Will they intervene at this early stage before the situation hardens; or will they sit it out, bring in the troops and try to recover some of their lost virility? It is time that the country was given an answer.

As the hon. Gentleman knows, negotiations are in train and it would be highly irresponsible of me to comment at the present time.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what are the latest numbers and percentage rates of unemployed adults and young people, respectively, in the Mexborough employment exchange areas.

At 12 February, there were 3,746 unemployed people registered in the Mexborough employment office area. The unemployment rate for the Mexborough and Goldthorpe travel-to-work area was 18·1 per cent. Separate rates are not available for adults and young people.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that such deplorable and disgraceful figures will create deep despair in the hearts and minds of the unemployed people in the Mexborough area? As the Minister's Department is unable to provide jobs, will he hold urgent consultations with the Department of Industry to ensure that improved job methods are adopted in the Dearne Valley area? Will he also use his influence with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry to try to make certain that the Japanese motor car industry comes into South Yorkshire?

On the latter point, the hon. Gentleman is rather at variance with his right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley), the Opposition spokesman on industry. Of course I am just as concerned as the hon. Gentleman is—and I know how concerned he is—about his constituents. The truth is that we are helping about 1,300 people through special employment measures in the area, and I know that the Denaby Lane site is being developed. We hope that that will soon bring more jobs to the hon. Gentleman's constituency.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will increase the use by his Department of private training organisations for industrial training and re-training where these organisations provide courses at costs equal to, or less than those of skillcentres.

It is already the policy of the Manpower Services Commission to use private training organisations as opposed to skillcentres for craft training where the standard of training, the comparative costs and the demand for skills justifies it.

Although I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask him to tell me why the MSC has withdrawn support from all the principal private training establishments in the construction industry, when it is well known that there is a shortage of skills in that area?

My hon. Friend might like to know that another of my hon. Friends has brought this matter to my attention as regards Booths training. He does so from the point of view, I believe, of the Brick Development Association. I have asked for the comparative figures. I shall look at the matter very carefully, because we do not want skill shortages in the construction industry. In addition, we must have regard to the expenditure of taxpayers' money.

What will the Government do to provide jobs for the 16 to 65s?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government are following a successful economic strategy, which will bring real jobs, and not the false jobs that the Labour Government brought between 1974 and 1979.

Although I accept the importance of private training for industry, will my hon. Friend confirm that if and when the Employment and Training Bill becomes law, the Government will ensure that skill training—should training boards disappear in any industries—will be continued in those industries at a proper, high level?

Yes, Sir. That is something that my right hon. Friend will have to take into account when he decides whether any particular training board should continue.

The hon. Gentleman is aware that the textile industry is in a deplorable state. Does the hon. Gentleman know that I had word this morning from one of the big companies in my constituency to the effect that the industry suffers from a serious shortage of skilled technicians? Is the hon. Gentleman further aware that in the industry's opinion, that is one reason why it is in such a bad state? Will not the hon. Gentleman reconsider the situation as regards the provision of finance to those industries? At the same time will he restore the cut of £77·5 million to the Manpower Services Commission?

I was not aware that the hon. Gentleman had received that message from a company in his constituency. I shall be happy to look into that particular case. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will do likewise.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will take steps to further reinforce the activities of the Manpower Services Commission in west Cumbria.

My right hon. Friend is at present considering the Manpower Services Commission's corporate plan 1981–85, which envisages some reduction nationally in the employment and training services.

Is not the best way of reinforcing the MSC's operations to increase its £400 material allowance, particularly as that will help local authorities to set up special manpower units and get people back to work? Will the Minister also consider the MSC's provision of money for transport to the same local authorities?

Obviously, we shall look into these matters. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that it is a question of priorities. Increasing sums of money are being spent on the special programmes. One must bear in mind what, in the circumstances, is practical.

Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that when area, district level, and special programme organisations are taken into account, the MSC is too big, and too bureaucratic at all levels—including the local level—and should be slimmed down and streamlined?

I am well aware of that view. The office in Preston is being closed, which shows some evidence of a gradual reduction in the amount of bureaucracy. I do not dissent from my hon. Friend's view, namely, that much more probably needs to be done.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the operation of measures to reduce unemployment.

At the end of January 1981 it is estimated that 926,000 people in Great Britain were covered by the Government's special employment measures and we estimate that in the current financial year 1980–81 these measures will cost about £840 million.

If the Secretary of State has faith that the Government's monetary policies—or, indeed, the revised U-turn policies that recently seem to have been adopted—will lead to an expansion in the economy with the resulting skill blockages, will he not consider subsidising apprenticeships? In that way, young people will not only have jobs now, but will also have an opportunity to use their skills to the benefit of both industry and the communtiy in the future?

This year, we are subsidising about 25,000 apprenticeships. If we were to subsidise all apprenticeships, employers would not undertake any apprenticeship schemes themselves. We must try to maintain a balance. In Scotland alone, about 68,900 people receive help in one way or another through the Government's special employment measures.

Price asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 24 February.

This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen, which will give me an opportunity to——

Resign.

—to express the great pleasure which the news of the engagement of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales has brought—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, Hear"]—to the Government, and, I am sure, to the House as a whole.

Now that—as far as the coal industry is concerned—the Prime Minister has doffed the garb of Iron Maiden and put on that of Jelly Baby, will she make a similar U-turn in her policy of creating unemployment? Will the right hon. Lady answer the question that she refused to answer a few weeks ago when she was faced by her friend Mr. Brian Walden, and tell us what level of unemployment will finally force a U-turn out of her?

I shall give the same reply to the hon. Gentleman as I gave on the occasion to which he referred. To fight inflation is the best way to fight unemployment.

While the Prime Minister prepares for her journey to see President Reagan tomorrow, will she consider urging him to make a positive response to the speech made by President Brezhnev? Is the right hon. Lady aware that throughout the country and among those of all political persuasions, there is growing anxiety about the heightening of East-West tensions, and that the most constructive move would be to secure a summit meeting on the lines suggested by President Brezhnev?

I am sure that President Reagan will look carefully—as we are doing—at that speech. However, the best way of improving East-West relations is not to make speeches but to withdraw the troops from Afghanistan.

As the claim of the water and sewerage workers will obviously command attention today, will my right hon. Friend confirm that any Government influence or intervention will have regard to the merits of the case and not to extraneous considerations? Will my right hon. Friend further confirm that although Ministers—for reasons that we understand—did not pick up the gauntlet thrown down by the miners, they will resist any temptation to prove their machismo by adopting an excessively robust attitude towards this smaller and less powerful group, which nevertheless does valuable social work?

As regards the water industry's claim, I understand that the employers are meeting soon and that the unions will meet shortly. As regards the merits of the claim, there are many people in this country who would like a job with that security and with the increased sum of money that has been offered. I hope that those who press this matter further will bear in mind that the money has to come from many citizens for whom such an increase is not possible. As regards the employers, the water authorities have been most co-operative with the accountants who have gone in. Most of those who have held their statutory meetings have already reduced the water rate substantially from the level that had previously been envisaged. They are to be congratulated on doing so.

With regard to the crisis in the water industry, may we urge the right hon. Lady to be her usual pragmatic, interventionist self?

I have already given one reply to a question about Mr. Brezhnev's speech. I pointed out that the very best thing to improve relations would be for the Soviet Union to withdraw troops from Afghanistan. With regard to the rest of the speech, the proposals concerning confidence-building measures, arms limitation, and the particular point about theatre nuclear forces, the fact is that the Soviet Union has already got much further with the deployment of theatre nuclear forces than we have. One of the factors that we must bear in mind is that there are occasions when it would suit the Soviet Union to stop further deployment immediately.

I am sure that we are all in favour of looking at the facts on the ground, as we did in the coal industry dispute. We are all in favour of the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan. [Interruption.] Oh, yes. We have said so from this Dispatch Box, right from the time when the invasion took place. Since the Western Powers themselves put forward in Madrid some suggestions about arms control, and since the speech in Moscow appears to make some response to those suggestions, surely we should use every endeavour that we can to build on this and to try to get an agreement?

I am showing a thoroughly realistic spirit. As to the proposals to have talks on arms control with regard to theatre nuclear forces, I stress that that proposal was made at NATO, that there was one attempt to discuss the matter, and that it has not been taken any further.

Will my right hon. Friend today tell any Labour local authorities that are going slow on the sale of council houses that this House expects them to obey the law, and that there are powers within the Housing Act to ensure that they do so?

I wholly endorse what my hon. Friend says. If people are given a right by this House to purchase their council houses, we expect every agency and local authority to obey the law. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has reserve powers, but naturally he would be reluctant to use them. I hope that the local authorities will expedite the process of selling houses in accordance with the wishes and rights of their constituents.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 24 February.

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

Is the Prime Minister aware, at long last, of the high price that this nation is paying for the reeducation of her Government? Since so little has been done so late on such a wide area, from high interest rates through to public sector finance, may we now take it that the Government will make industrial re-investment their first priority?

If we were to make our first priority industrial reinvestment—a principle that I find very attractive indeed—we would have to cut down very substantially current expenditure in other areas. I shall be happy to receive the suggestions of the hon. Gentleman.

As I know that my right hon. Friend shares my concern about the increasing unemployment figures in Merseyside—[Interruption.]—Will she find time, before she goes to the United States, to urge upon her right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment the need to expedite the setting up of the enterprise zone and the urban development corporation in Merseyside, as this offers a way of providing new jobs for the hard-pressed people in that area?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We are very anxious that the enterprise zones should become operative as soon as possible. They offer opportunities which no one in this country has had before. We have done almost as much as we possibly can for Merseyside. As my hon. Friend knows, it is a special development area. It has also an inner city partnership scheme. It has an urban development corporation. I hope that that will be expedited, and also the enterprise zone at Speke. I do not think there is much more that one can do on top of that. For the rest, it will be for Merseyside itself to attract new industries.

After the unprecedented and terrifying unemployment figures, will the Prime Minister say whether she regards the jobs created under the Government's special employment schemes as real jobs? If she does, will she create many more of them? If she does not, will she ensure that they are not listed with the official figures of those in employment, thus artificially creating an impression that more people are in work than is the case?

With respect to the hon. Gentleman, we are carrying on schemes that were initiated by the previous Labour Government. Many of them are work experience schemes. It is far better, as the hon. Member knows, for young people to be occupied on those schemes than for them to be on an unemployment register. A considerable number of them are training, because we believe that we can use the interim period to train people for the time when expansion comes. It is better to have those people engaged on work experience and training than to have them on the unemployment register. But there is, of course, a limit to the extent to which we can go. If we add very much more to that area, we have to take the money out of the private sector—money that could otherwise be used to create commercial jobs.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the unease among some of us on the Conservative Back Benches with regard to the excessively generous funding of nationalised industries? Is it not creating the position whereby, at the end of the day, only the nationalised industries will survive, and the private sector, to which we are dedicated, will fall?

My right hon. Friend the Secetary of State for Industry will be making a statement shortly about the steel industry. About 50,000 jobs have been lost in the British Steel Corporation, and one of the purposes of the moneys being injected into it is to get it into a condition and a size where it can be profitable. That is being done by slimming it down, and by paying some of the money for redundancies to ensure that the industry will become profitable. When it is, I believe that we can perhaps denationalise it.

asked the Prime Minister how many representations for an increase in overseas aid she has received since the cuts in the budget were announced.

Over 1,300 since last April.

Why does not the Prime Minister respond to those representations and to the Archbishop of Canterbury's plea to restore our aid in real terms? Even if she dismisses the moral obligations on this country, surely it is in our interest to encourage development in those countries for the benefit of our own devastated economic base.

One would be in a very nice position if one were able to give enormous handouts to overseas aid wherever one wished—

Handouts!

Help, aid, gifts, loans, and anything that can help. This year the sum is about £960 million but with the tremendous burdens on our own Exchequer we must give our people the first priority.

Will my right hon. Friend agree that, for most developing countries, access to the markets of the industrial world is, in general, much more important than official aid? Does she agree that there is a fundamental paradox in the position of many Opposition Members who urge increased aid and also loudly advocate protectionism?

I agree with my hon. Friend that those who are most vociferous in urging increased aid are often those most vociferous in urging reduced trade.