asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether his Department and the Department of Education and Science have completed their consideration of the application by the Trades Union Congress for support for trade unions' education and training in 1981–82.

Our consideration has nearly been concluded, and my right hon. Friend hopes to write to the TUC shortly.

If my hon. and learned Friend cannot give me the figures for next year, will he give me the correct figure for 1980–81, which I understand was over £1 million? The TUC distributes the money downwards to various affiliated unions, including the WEA. Is my hon. and learned Friend satisfied that State support is not going to unions which are acting militantly against the State—for example, the Civil Service unions? Would not it be proper for my hon. and learned Friend to consider this year's distribution in that light?

A total of £1.67 million was involved in 1980–81. I can assure my hon. Friend that the money is used for the education and training of shop stewards and workplace representatives. Proper training in that area is of great importance in industrial relations. Her Majesty's inspectorate has the opportunity to examine the way in which the money is spent. To the best of our knowledge, it is being spent properly and to the benefit of unions and managements.

How much money has been spent in educating the various Soviet knights, such as Sir Anthony Blunt and Sir Roger Hollis, who seem to have received good educations and been given good knighthoods? How much money do they get?

Order. The hon. Gentleman's supplementary question does not arise from the main question.

It does.

Mr. Morris——

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker——

Order. I will take the hon. Gentleman's point of order at the end of Question Time as I wish to give other hon. Members the opportunity to participate in questions.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the latest figure for the number of people being helped under the youth opportunities programme.

At the end of January 1981, there were about 136,000 young people taking part in the youth opportunities programme. The programme has been expanded to help 440,000 young people in 1981–82.

Is my hon. Friend aware how encouraging those figures are? Does he accept that there appears to be a problem of co-ordination in further education between the Department of Education and Science and the Department of Employment? Can he assure me that there is some co-ordination between these two arms of the youth programme?

I am delighted that my hon. Friend thinks that the figures are encouraging. I can assure him that the co-ordination between the Departments of Education and Science and of Employment is as close as it can be. If there is any problem that he would like me to consider, I shall be delighted to do so.

When does the Minister expect to be able to provide real jobs, including skilled apprenticeships, for the many hundreds of thousands of young people who cannot find real jobs?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that many real jobs are being created thanks to the economic climate of realism that now exists. He will know that the provision of apprenticeships is a matter of great concern both to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and to the Prime Minister.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that he expects significant numbers of skill shortages next year? Is he satisfied that everything possible is being done to ensure that training for young people relates as closely as possible to real job opportunities?

I assure my hon. Friend that where skill shortages appear to exist in future the Department and my right hon. Friend will take notice and will do what they can to help.

Does the Minister accept that the youth unemployment problem is crucial, but that the Opposition remain fully committed to the youth opportunities programme? Having said that, however, may I express our deep concern at the increasing strain on the programme as a result of the huge numbers of young people who have to resort to it? In particular, will he comment on the difficulties being experienced in job substitution and the abuse of the scheme by some employers through the Government's failure to raise the allowance to the level that the Manpower Services Commission wanted and the increasing difficulty of maintaining the scheme's credibility when young people passing through it can no longer be placed in employment? Will he further tell the House when the Secretary of State will implement his pledge of vocational training of quality for all young people. If that was only a pious hope, it was a cruel deception at the expense of young people?

Order. The Minister need feel obliged to answer one supplementary question only.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I shall attempt to answer two. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, there is still a substantial difference between the YOP allowance and what a school leaver would receive if he were unemployed. I assure the hon. Gentleman that, if and when substitution occurs, the Manpower Services Commission immediately withdraws the scheme. Finally, I am delighted that the Opposition support the youth opportunities programme.

Will my hon. Friend consider the differential between the YOP allowance and the amount that young people receive in supplementary benefit? Within the total amount paid, will he investigate the possibility of increasing the allowance, with perhaps a slight reduction in supplementary benefit?

I believe that the difference is about £8·25. This is being looked at. One has to see exactly how the market forces, as it were, work in this context. But I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that the difference is substantial.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many representations he has received on the Green Paper on trade union immunities.

So far, I have received representations from about 30 organisations and individuals. However, consultations are due to last until 30 June. In view of the importance and complexity of the issues raised in the Green Paper, I do not expect to receive comments from the major organisations in industry until later in the consultative period.

Bearing in mind the strong wish of many trade unionists for further action to limit the closed shop and for compulsory secret ballots before some strikes, do my hon. and learned Friend and his Front Bench colleagues intend to introduce further legislation on trade union immunities in the life of this Parliament?

I know how concerned people are about the closed shop, which may have come into prominence particularly as a result of what has happened at Sandwell, and about secret ballots. We are not committed to legislate during the course of this Parliament, but neither are we committed not to legislate. This is genuine consultation. We shall consider arguments and representations during this period and then decide in the light of all the evidence what it is correct to do.

Does the Minister agree that the legal position of trade unions barely allows them to function and that their allegedly powerful position has apparently not stopped unemployment rising to 2 ½ million? Does he further agree that this is eroding the position of the trade unions, and that that is part of the Tory Government's policy? Is it not true that the Tory Government wish to see free trade unions operating only in Poland, and not here in the United Kingdom?

It is bizarre to assert that the present law barely allows trade unions to operate. Trade unions in this country have privileges which are not granted to trade unions in almost any other country in the world. We are glad that they can operate effectively to look after the interests of their members, but we do not consider that they should have carte blanche to inconvenience and damage the community as a whole.

Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that many industrial managers are very satisfied with the Employment Act 1980 as it affects trade union immunities, and that, in view of the employment difficulties and the need for co-operation with the trade unions, such managers are very cautious about whether the Government need to take any further action for the time being?

My hon. Friend is entirely right if he is saying that we must carefully assess the practical effect of further measures before introducing them. It is no use putting new laws on to the statute book if they do not advance industrial relations or the liberty of the individual trade unionist. But that does not mean that we should just sit and do nothing. We must listen to the representations, hear all the arguments and then decide what is right.

Does the Minister recall that, before the introduction of the recent picketing laws, Tory spokesmen were saying that those laws would enable them to curb any actions in industrial disputes? Does he now accept that, arising out of the unofficial miners' strike, particularly in Wales, the picketing laws then on the statute book were swept away in respect of both secondary and tertiary picketing? Would it not be sensible to drop any proposals to introduce further laws and to get rid of those already on the statute book?

My right hon. Friends said nothing of the sort. They said that there were abuses which had to be dealt with, that it was outrageous that masses of people should be picketing outside workplaces other than their own. We came to power, and we have dealt with that abuse, as with other abuses. That is what we set out to do, and that is what we have achieved.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the progress in his Department's consideration of the granting of concessionary fares to the unemployed.

As the right hon. Member may know, the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) and myself have been involved in this question. I am pleased to say that, following discussions with my department and the National Bus Company, a trial scheme is currently operating in South Wales. I hope that it will be a success.

Does the Minister consider a trial scheme to be satisfactory when millions of people are in continuing unemployment? Should not action be taken to increase mobility to assist the unemployed and to reduce their tremendous burden of expenditure in seeking alternative employment, in travelling not only long distances around the country but even within striking distance of their own homes?

I am somewhat surprised at the right hon. Gentleman's reaction. I should have thought that he would welcome the trial scheme. If he were to propose a scheme for his own area, we should be prepared to consider it, provided that no additional staff costs were involved. I do not recall his having done so.

As this is the International Year of Disabled People, will my hon. Friend consider approaching our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services to see whether disabled persons may be allowed concessionary travel on public transport?

As my hon. Friend knows, my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Employment and for Social Services are always talking about such matters. Now that my hon. Friend has raised this point, I am sure that they will talk about it in future.

Is the Minister aware that, since he personally authorised the trial scheme less than a month ago, more than 600 "job seeker" tickets have been issued in the South Wales transport area and I am assured by the company that no administrative problems have arisen? In the light of that monitoring process, will he consider extending the scheme to other appropriate areas?

Perhaps I may first say how grateful I am to the hon. Member for bringing the matter to my attention originally. As he knows, he and I worked on this and we hope that we have reached a satisfactory conclusion in his area. I have already said that if other hon. Members, from whatever part of the House, wish to approach me on the matter, provided that no additional staff costs are involved, we are prepared to look at other schemes.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the latest number of registered unemployed in the United Kingdom.

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

At 12 March, the provisional number of people registered as unemployed in the United Kingdom was 2,484,712. The seasonally adjusted rise of 77,000, announced today, confirms that the rate of increase in recent months is slower than it was at the end of the last year. Despite this better trend, we remain deeply concerned at the rapid increase and high level.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that those figures are an appalling indictment of the bankrupt Government of which he remains a member? Is it true that the Treasury has forecast that unemployment will rise to more than 3½ million in 1983? How long does the right hon. Gentleman intend to go along with such disastrous policies?

It is not true that the Treasury has forecast 3 ½ million unemployed by 1982 or 1983. The figures are still serious, but whether or not we get out of our problems quickly depends very much on the state of the world recession.

How many further jobs will be destroyed as a consequence of the Budget?

It is not necessary for any further jobs to be destroyed as a result of the Budget. In fact, the reductions in interest rates which have already taken place, together with further reductions which may take place in line with our policy, could result in more jobs being available than would otherwise be the case.

Many of us welcome today's news that the overall unemployment figure in Scotland has fallen this month. While not wishing to read too much into one month's figures, does my right hon. Friend not agree that yet again that emphasises the underlying resilience of the Scottish economy and that it bodes well for the future?

One is pleased that the increase in unemployment in Scotland over recent months has not been as severe as in other parts of the United Kingdom. Of course, Scotland has the advantage of extra jobs created by North Sea oil. It is a good sign that at last Scotland is beginning to see some benefit from past investment.

As many women workers in industries such as the pottery industry do not register when they become unemployed, does the Secretary of State agree that the real level of unemployment is now more than 3 million? If so, should not any responsible Minister either fight in Cabinet to reverse the Government's economic policies or resign?

I do not accept that the right hon. Gentleman has got the figures right. It is always the case that a number of people do not register when they lose their jobs. Similarly, a number of people who register are not available for work. The Government are now supporting about 1,214,000 people in jobs through various schemes, such as temporary short-time working and so on. That clearly shows that the Government care about the level of unemployment.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that trade union practices have contributed massively to the present level of unemployment? Should the review of the Green Paper on trade union immunities show that further legislation is necessary to improve those practices, will he confirm that it will be possible to introduce such legislation in the next Queen's Speech?

Unemployment is caused not only by trade union practices but by many other practices as well, for which Government and management over 20 years or more must take their share of responsibility.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that an additional contributry factor to the scandalous level of unemployment to which he has just referred is the buying policy of Government Departments and huge industries such as British Leyland which are being financed by taxpayers' capital? For example, the Ministry of Defence establishment at Bath is purchasing goods from abroad which have previously been purchased from a British textile company. Even in the last seven days, British Leyland has placed an order in France, whereas up to this year that order was placed with a British textile company. What are the Government doing about their buying policy?

Government Departments are instructed to buy British goods wherever possible. If any hon. Member believes that goods are being bought abroad by a Government concern which could buy those goods at home, I hope that he will let me know and I shall see that the necessary action is taken.

Is my right hon. Friend convinced that during this deep and tragic recession the Manpower Services Commission in particular can do enough to train and retrain many of the unemployed? Is he aware that at present, according to my figures, the total number of people trained and retrained by the MSC is 92,000, which represents one-third of 1 per cent. of the working population? Can we not do more in that regard?

Most training needs to be done by employers on their own premises. Where employers cannot carry out that training, it must be subsidised and aided by training by the MSC. I am not satisfied that we are doing enough training, but I am well satisfied that, rather than the Government providing money, employers should recognise that unless they maintain their training we shall suffer from a further shortage of skills when we come out of the recession.

When does the right hon. Gentleman expect unemployment to fall in the remainder of this Parliament to the level which he inherited when he was appointed to his present job?

I cannot give such an answer, any more than the Labour Government could say when they thought unemployment would fall to the level which they inherited.

Is it not more accurate to say that the Government's economic policy is now in ruins and that it is more likely that the Secretary of State will preside over unemployment of 3 million or more before this Parliament finishes?

It is totally incorrect to say that Government policy is not succeeding. Labour Members should recognise and understand that the present level of unemployment is due just as much to a failure to pursue the right policies over a number of years when they were in office as it is to anything which has happened in the last two years.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment when he plans to meet the chairman of the Health and Safety Commission to discuss noise levels in industry.

I meet the chairman frequently, but have no plans at present to discuss this particular matter.

Will my hon. and learned friend bear in mind the fact that keeping within reasonable noise levels in factories is important not only to the health of employees but also to residents who live nearby, especially at night if factories work a shift system? Will he consult other appropriate Ministers as well as the chairman of the Health and Safety Commission? does he accept that a wider environmental dimension is increasingly important?

The Health and Safety Commission will shortly publish a consultative document on the protection of the hearing of people at work. Clearly, in certain circumstances, noise reductions at work for the protection of employees may also benefit the general public. The prime responsibility for combating nuisance to the public as a result of noise rests not with my Department but with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, as well as with local authorities, which were given new powers in the Control of Pollution Act 1974. I shall certainly pass on my hon. Friend's remarks to the Secretary of State for the Environment. I can assure him that we all treat seriously the pollution of the environment by noise.

In the International Year of Disabled People. is the Minister aware that, unless the noise threshold is reduced to 80 decibels within a short time, thousands of people will become deaf? Will he hold an urgent meeting with the chairman of the Health and Safety Commission and the CBI about taking preventive measures, such as those operated by Heinz in my constituency?

The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that the consultative document will be published before long. I understand that it will contain draft regulations dealing with noise levels at work and a draft code of practice. He will be able to state his views, as the matter will no doubt be thoroughly discussed and debated.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has received any representations with a view to the foundation of a European Community youth service scheme; and what is the Government's policy towards the project.

My noble Friend the Minister of State, Department of Employment, has been in correspondence with the Young European Democrats' Organisation about a proposed European youth service scheme. The Government recognise the value of youth exchanges of this kind but are primarily concerned to develop schemes that already exist to encourage voluntary work by young people, including the unemployed, in this country.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. As the Department has been progressive and forward-looking about the extension of schemes for the young unemployed, does not my hon. Friend accept that this is a logical extension? Does he not agree that the EEC budget funds could do a great deal to help, if only member States held a common view?

There is a lot in what my hon. Friend has said. However, I hope that he agrees that some difficulties would be raised by increasing the number of foreign volunteers coming into this country.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment when he plans to meet the director-general of the Confederation of British Industry to discuss the long-term improvement of industrial relations.

I have had a number of discussions with representatives of the Confederation of British Industry about the long-term improvement of industrial relations. I shall be addressing a CBI conference on the Green Paper on trade union immunities tomorrow.

When my right hon. Friend next meets the director-general, will he impress on him the importance of greater employee participation in the long-term improvement of industrial relations? Will he also impress upon him the danger of doing nothing?

Yes, Sir. The CBI and the director-general are well aware of the importance of bigger and better schemes for communication, information and involvement in matters that concern work forces in their places of work. I hope that the code of practice that the CBI has issued in conjunction with the Industrial Society and other organisations will be followed.

Although I recognise the importance of a long-term policy, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman accepts that the immediate need is to help industry? When he says that unemployment can best be solved by tackling the problem of over-payments, is he saying that he favours an incomes policy rather than the massive deflation that the Budget offers?

I do not think that that question has any relevance to the original question.

Would it be helpful to have a system of monitoring voluntary progress towards the creation of satisfactory schemes for employee participation? Might not that encourage those companies that move rather slowly?

The CBI has a monitoring scheme. My Department is carrying out a survey, which I hope will be available later in the spring. I cannot stress too strongly that the maximum amount of importance should be attached to further schemes for involvement. When we come out of the recession, we shall need, above all, to communicate better with employees than we have done in recent years.

Is it not time that the Secretary of State accepted that industrial relations involve both sides of industry and that they cannot be improved by repressive anti-trade union legislation?

No one is suggesting that industrial relations can be improved by repressive anti-trade union legislation. Nor is anyone suggesting that the law does not have an important part to play in the conduct of industrial relations. Those hon. Members who seem to think that the law should be concerned entirely with giving trade unions advantages that are not available to ordinary people need only consider what has happened in recent years to realise that the working people have done badly.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment when last he met the chairman of the Engineering Industry Training Board to discuss training in the engineering industry.

My right hon. Friend last met Lord Scanlon, chairman of the Engineering Industry Training Board, on 19 March. My right hon. Friend's last full discussion with him on training in the engineering industry took place on 22 October 1980.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that Ministers were impressed by the account that Lord Scanlon gave them of the work done by the Engineering Industry Training Board in supporting training schemes—particularly apprenticeship schemes—at a time of recession when employers are cutting such schemes? When he makes up his mind about a more efficient and streamlined training system, will he bear that in mind?

The Department applauds the Engineering Industry Training Board's attitude towards apprenticeships, which is one of moving towards the setting of standards rather than time serving. As my hon. Friend probably knows, the MSC has already offered the Engineering Industry Training Board funds this year for 2,000 additional craft and technican trainees.

Is it not a fact that even in the depths of the recession in the 1930s we did not have enough engineering apprentices? Is it not disgraceful that all engineering training centres feel that they are in danger? The centre in Sheffield has had to be helped by South Yorkshire county council to maintain its training facilities. Does not the Minister accept that we need more cash if we are to train apprentices? Is he aware that if we do not get that cash we shall not be able to produce goods for the world market when the upswing comes?

The hon. Gentleman may know that my right hon. Friend has not made any decision about the future of any of the training boards, and least of all about the future of the Engineering Industry Training Board. He will not make any decision until the MSC has made its recommendations. As I have said, an extra 2,000 trainees have been helped through the MSC. Therefore, we are aware of the problem.

Does my hon. Friend accept that some employers use the Government-backed schemes run through the MSC or industrial training boards to provide substitute labour? Will he give an assurance that the worries and concerns of many people on this matter are being properly looked after?

I have already spoken about substitution. The MSC and the Government are keeping that under close scrutiny. I cannot say more than that.

Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that by 1984 the Government will have imposed a further cut of £77·5 million in public support for industrial training? Does the Minister recall that on Second Reading of the Employment and Training Bill on 9 February he promised to consider carefully the extension of the period for Government withdrawal of financial support for the operating costs of training boards after 1983? Why is it now proposed that financial support should come to an end by 31 December 1981?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, on Second Reading my right hon. Friend and I said that we were aware of the difficulties facing industry as a result of the transfer of operating costs to the remaining statutory boards. That remains our position.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment, further to his reply of 24 February, Official Report, col.315–6, what proposals have now been discussed between the Manpower Services Commission and the Ministry of Defence involving unemployed young people.

The Manpower Services Commission is currently considering proposals for a pilot scheme under which 1,000 unemployed young people would receive training in the Army for periods of up to six months. I expect to receive the views of the commission shortly.

Do not school leavers need industrial rather than military training? Do they not need training for life rather than training for killing? What type of Government or system is it that offers 17-year-olds a choice of unemployment or entrance into the Army?

The hon. Gentleman should not allow his prejudices to run away with him. Such a scheme would be entirely voluntary. Many young people would like to have the opportunity of spending a bit of time with Her Majesty's Forces. It would be entirely voluntary. I am by no means certain that the Manpower Services Commission will recommend it. Speaking from my own experience, I know that many young people would like to take part.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is no better experience for young people than a period of time spent serving the Queen, when they will learn loyalty, self-discipline, self-respect and esprit de corps?

Apart from all those estimable qualities, which my hon. Friend has to the full, and about which I fully agree, the fact is that young people could have training for a whole range of skills which they are more likely to get through this scheme than through many other schemes.

Will the Secretary of State treat the matter more seriously? Does he recognise that there would be a great objection if the aura of the scheme is surrounded by what we might loosely call square bashing? Does he agree that we should consider the facilities available in the Royal dockyards, such as Rosyth, for apprentice training? Is he aware that the facilities are already there, so that no new facilities would be created? They could be much more intensively used and the essential ingredient of giving young people a skill would be foremost in mind and not secondary.

I hope that no one in the House will think that I am not taking the matter seriously. I believe emphatically that this is the type of scheme that we should consider carefully. There are some difficulties about the recruitment of apprentices into Royal Naval Dockyards and other defence establishments, but generally we need to encourage as many apprenticeships as we can afford.

Does the Secretary of State realise that what he has said has many serious implications? We shall want to know a lot more about the proposed scheme before the Opposition give it their approval. Will he give the undertaking that if the Manpower Services Commission goes ahead and approves the scheme he will make a statement so that we can discuss the matter thoroughly before committing our young people to it? Is he aware that a record number of young people want not necessarily military experience but proper long-term jobs?

As I said in my original answer, I expect to receive the views of the Manpower Services Commission before long. I do not know what those views will be but if the commission suggests that we can go ahead with a scheme of that nature I shall report to the House.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment. This is the thin end of the wedge.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will initiate an inquiry into the impact on employment in the United Kingdom of membership of the EEC.

No, Sir. Such a study would hold value only if it were possible to quantify with certainty the separate effects of the many different factors influencing employment levels. We can, however, be certain that withdrawal from the Community, into which at present we sell over 40 per cent. of our exports, would generally have a most adverse effect on employment.

As Britain's performance on employment and growth under Governments of both parties since 1973 has, on the Minister's own figures, been a lot worse than that of our EEC partners, and considerably worse than those European countries which did not join the EEC, would it not be wise to have such a study to enable us to identify the changes we need to make to promote employment and growth?

If my hon. Friend considers the matter, I am sure that he will recognise the changing patterns of trade that have taken place, not just since we joined the Community but for many years before that. Not so many years ago, 40 per cent. or more of our trade was with the Commonwealth and America. Today, only 20 per cent. of our trade is there and 40 per cent. is with Europe. How can we contemplate cutting ourselves off from that market?

Does the Minister appreciate that the loss of cheap food to the British housewife has had the effect of driving up wages in this country, which in turn has made our products less competitive in the markets of the world? In addition, we have had to get rid of our small tariff barriers which were effective. Is he aware that their loss has driven many industries to the wall? As regards trade with the Common Market, will he bear in mind that many of our imports are being paid for by North Sea oil?

I do not accept for one moment that the abolition of tariff barriers against imports from European countries has led to the present unemployment. The truth is that we have free access to the most rapidly expanding consumer market in the world, into which at present we sell well over 40 per cent. of our exports.

asked the Prime Minister what are her official engagements for 24 March.

I have been asked to reply.

Is it sheer coincidence that when, for the first time in the lifetime of this Parliament, I have landed question No. 1 to the Prime Minister, she has hopped off to Holland for a Common Market meeting? As the Prime Minister is primarily responsible for today's announcement of yet another appalling record unemployment total, will the Home Secretary send an urgent message to the Prime Minister telling her not to bother to come back because we shall all be better off without her?

I will do my best.—[Interruption.] I will do my best to hear the hon. Gentleman. If he wishes to refer to the unemployment figures, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment has made the position clear. If the policies that his party proposes were to be followed, the situation would be a great deal worse and he and his party know that.

Will my right hon. Friend take time today to remind the public sector unions that, if their policy of obstructing the collection of revenue is successful, it could well lead to increasing pressure on the Government to suspend the inflation-proofing of public sector pensions?

I hope that all those taking part in this unfortunate dispute will realise their great responsibilities to the public.

Has the Home Secretary seen the reports of what the Prime Minister has said today in Holland about the fisheries dispute? While he may welcome, as most of us will, an attempt to resolve that dispute, will he assure the Prime Minister that there will be great anger in the fishing community if she gives way on access in order to secure a settlement?

It is clear from the reports from Maastricht that my right hon. Friend has made the position of this country's fishing industry very clear. She will make a statement when she returns.

Will my right hon. Friend take time today to spell out to those who want to share equally in the country's wealth that they have another 10 days in which to apply to buy their homes at the prices set in August last year?

I agree with my hon. Friend. No doubt some of those Labour councils which have been trying to obstruct the development will realise how stupid they have been.

Bearing in mind the remarks of the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner) to the effect that a number of his Conservative colleagues are trying to replace the Prime Minister as leader, will the right hon. Gentleman say whether such plotting has minority or, by now, majority support in the Cabinet?

If any people are taking that view, they are very stupid indeed.

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

I have been asked to reply.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that BSC at Stanton and Staveley is setting up a Companies Act company with a separate board of directors? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that that is the beginning of a massive programme of denationalisation and that, as that takes place, workers and employees in the nationalised industries will be able to buy a stake in their companies and participate? Does he agree that they will then have a stake in their workplace and that the nationalised industries will have a rather lower stake in the taxpayers' pocket?

As my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Industry, said on 19 March, the proposals made in that case will pave the way For privatisation.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the serious situation facing many of London's postgraduate medical institutions? Is he aware that the Royal postgraduate school at Hammersmith lost £941,000 this year and that the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine lost about £750,000 because of the decline in the number of overseas doctors coming here as a result of the increase in students' fees?

This matter has been argued exhaustively. The Government position has been made clear. I shall draw my right hon. Friend's attention to what the hon. Lady has said.

Would it not have been better if the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) had acknowledged that the unemployment figures for Scotland this month show a slight but nonetheless welcome decline?

It would indeed have been better, but it would not have been reasonable to expect him to do so.

Will the right hon. Gentleman exercise his well-known chivalry on behalf of the fair sex following the insensitivity of the Prime Minister in reply to questions about private medicine and the National Health Service? Is he aware that the Prime Minister's answer last week indicated her lack of understanding that women at the change of life are penalised unless they have the power of the purse to relieve them of their pain and misery? Will the right hon. Gentleman persuade the Prime Minister to take a different attitude?

I shall speak to my right hon. Friend and tell her what the hon. Gentleman has said.

With reference to his earlier reply, will my right hon. Friend welcome the fact that in the 18 months since the Government took office 120,000 council and new town houses have been sold to their tenants? Is he aware that since 3 October, when the right to buy arose, and 31 December, another 100,000 tenants have applied to buy their own homes? Does he agree that that represents a complete endorsement of the Government's policy to sell council houses and is in line with the desire of the people? Does he agree that the measure will be heralded by future generations as being one of the major social advances of this century?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I find it extraordinary that some Labour councils are apparently against something which so many people in their areas want. Why are they against it? Nobody can explain except them.

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

I have been asked to reply.

It is assumed that unemployment will rise to 3 million and stay there for two years. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that implies that there will be 700,000 long-term unemployed? What is the Government's policy for the long-term unemployed, apart from reducing their benefits and hounding them with the DHSS fraud squad? What message of hope can we give to the long-term unemployed in the Northern region?

I shall not indulge in forecasting nor will I accept some of the forecasts that have been made. I represent a constituency in the North and I take the Northern region's position very seriously indeed. The most important factor that will help the long-term unemployed in the Northern region and elsewhere is a reduction in inflation, which the Government are determined to achieve.

Will my right hon. Friend try to explain the practical purpose of the proposed new Common Market format burgundy passport?

The proposed passport has been under discussion for a considerable time. The discussions were initiated by the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) when he was Prime Minister. Discussions are still continuing. We shall have to see how we get on and how eventually we plan the passport.

asked the Prime Minister whether she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 24 March.

I have been asked to reply.

Will the right hon. Gentleman draw the Prime Minister's attention to the very high unemployment level in areas such as Leicester, which were until recently prosperous, but where over 10 per cent. are now unemployed and where over 15 per cent. of the workers are on short time? Is he aware that in one school in Leicester parental unemployment is over 40 per cent.? What will he do to help areas which were prosperous but which are now sinking fast under his Administration?

I certainly accept the serious position of Leicester, which I visited recently. I say to the hon. and learned Gentleman what my right hon. Friends and I have said consistently—that the policy of bringing down inflation is the best means of finding jobs for such people.

What is the purpose of the burgundy-coloured Common Market passport?

The purpose, as originally proposed when discussions were first undertaken, was to have a common passport throughout the European Community.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on the radio at lunchtime the Secretary of State for Employmnent said that he was constantly raising the unemployment situation within the Cabinet. In the absence of the Prime Minister, will the Home Secretary arrange for the Secretary of State for Employment to have a more sympathetic hearing?

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment has always had a sympathetic hearing. What people do or do not raise in the Cabinet is a matter for members of the Cabinet and nobody else.

Can my right hon. Friend say whether it is a fact that the burgundy-coloured passport was the brainchild of that noted "vinophile" Mr. Roy Jenkins?

I do not wish to comment on its parentage. Let us see how the child gets on.

Since the right hon. Gentleman has been so reticent about what takes place in the Cabinet, can he give us his view, or that of the Prime Minister, on the speeches at the weekend by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food? Without revealing any Cabinet secrets, can he say whether he belongs to that half of the Cabinet that agrees with the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food?

I note that my right hon. Friend said in his speech at Worcester that the Conservative Party will be the governing party of Britain for the next half century. I entirely agree. I only wish that I could be there to see it.

I invite the right hon. Gentleman to stick around for a little longer. Did he also read those sections of the speech attributed to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in which he said that if it had not been for public expenditure over a whole range of Government policies unemployment would be very much higher than it is? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with all that public expenditure? Does he wholeheartedly approve the whole of that speech?

Certainly I agree with my right hon. Friend's remarks about expenditure on different industries. If it had not been for our support for British Leyland, not only would many jobs have been lost at British Leyland but many more jobs would have been lost in component industries throughout the West Midlands. If it had not been for public expenditure on the youth unemployment and training programmes the situation would have been very much worse. Everybody in the House will agree with those two examples.

Will my right hon. Friend get a message to the Prime Minister while she is in Holland indicating that harmonisation of Excise duties on beer and wine are putting many brewery workers in this country out of work? We are merely soaking up the wine lake of Europe. Will the Government slow down the harmonisation so that we do not drink so much wine but drink more beer?

I do not think that I would seek to comment on the relative merits of drinking more wine as opposed to drinking more beer. I shall refer the remarks of my hon. Friend to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister when she returns.

If the right hon. Gentleman gets time today to read my local paper he will see a report of the death of a youth who committed suicide because he was unable to find a job. In view of the seriousness of unemployment among young people, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to say to what level inflation has to fall before a decrease in unemployment can be expected?

The hon. Lady has referred to a most tragic case reported in her local paper. I recognise the seriousness of that matter. I can only repeat what I believe to be the absolutely fundamental truth, that if we get inflation down we shall provide real and sensible jobs for our people in the future. There is no other way. The policies of the Opposition would make the situation a great deal worse.