asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will seek to meet the president of the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers to discuss the provision of money for ballots of its membership.

I have no plans for such a meeting, although I am always ready to meet trade union leaders.

Will my right hon. Friend not agree that this is one aspect of public expenditure available to trade unions that would assist them in providing a better and more informed service for their members?

Yes, Sir. I hope very much that trade unions and their leaders will do all that they can to encourage the holding of secret ballots, if necessary by post, recognising that the Government will pay the cost of those ballots while not wishing to interfere in the manner in which trade unions organise their affairs.

The Secretary of State must be aware that this proposal was put to the national committee of the AUEW, representing the rank and file in the industry, by the union's executive. The national committee took a democratic decision and rejected the proposal out of hand. Is this not an example of democracy working?

I am also aware that many members of the executive, including the leadership, were keen to take part in the scheme. I regret that they did not do so. I am, however, prepared to accept the view that was taken and I make no further comment about it.

Does my right hon. Friend not think that it would have been better if the Civil Service unions had taken advantage of the ballot procedure? Since more than half of the members of the Civil Service are not in favour of striking, the dispute might then have been settled a long time ago.

There is a great deal to be said for secret ballots. That is why the Government introduced the measure and why it received a good deal of support from Opposition Members. I should like to see it used far more than at present.

Will the Secretary of State concede that the AUEW elects all its officers by secret ballot and does not require Government money for this purpose? Is not the real reason why the AUEW, along with other unions, will not accept money from this Government the fact that they are an anti-trade union Government?

I do not accept the latter point. Last year, ballots cost the AUEW about £293,000. I should have thought that the union would wish to take part in the scheme. If it prefers to spend its own money, who I am to complain?

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any plans to meet the general secretary of the Trades Union Congress to discuss the encouragement of legally enforceable agreements in industry.

Legally enforceable agreements are one of the issues discussed in our Green Paper on trade union immunities. My right hon. Friend has no immediate plans to meet the general secretary of the TUC, but we are, of course, ready to meet him at any time to discuss this or any of the issues discussed in the Green Paper.

Will my hon. and learned Friend not agree that while trade union leadership is always ready to criticise management for failing to consult, it is often reluctant to accept its responsibilities for ensuring that freely negotiated agreements are fully observed?

This is perhaps not the most appropriate moment to apportion blame. All hon. Members, I believe, will agree that great benefits would accrue to management and employees if collective agreements were enforceable. Management would be able to plan with some knowledge of wage costs over a long period and employees would benefit from the increased productivity that would result.

Will the Minister not accept that this provision was contained in the Industrial Relations Act 1971 of a previous Conservative Government? The only effect was that trade unions stated on the bottom of every piece of headed notepaper "This communication is not legally enforceable." In other words, this simplistic idea is completely impracticable.

Under the 1971 Act, it was stated that there was a presumption that a collective agreement would be enforceable unless the contrary was stated. The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that few were prepared to accept legal enforceability. That does not mean that we should not now bend all our efforts towards persuading people to accept legal enforceability or that we should not investigate various methods by which this can be brought about.

Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that the most important type of agreement that we need to negotiate is the no-strike agreement, both in the public and the private sector? Will his Department open discussions with the TUC to explore formulae to incorporate no-strike agreements?

That matter clearly goes beyond this question, but I assure my hon. Friend that we are well aware of its importance. Again, it is one of the many matters touched upon in the Green Paper.

Does the Minister appreciate that measures of this kind have been tried and talked about for a long time in this country but that they are doomed to failure from the start because the right to withdraw labour is the prerogative of a free man and distinguishes him from the serf?

The hon. Gentleman cannot have been listening to what I said. I said nothing that could have conveyed the impression that I wished to deny the right to withdraw one's labour. I was careful to point out that we should encourage people to accept responsibility for their own actions and agree on legal enforceability.

Will the hon. and learned Gentleman accept that what we really need, whether legally enforceable or not, is a readiness on the part of both employers and workers to accept and abide by collective agreements honourably entered into? Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that if the Government as employers had done that with the Civil Service, instead of unilaterally breaching their agreement, there would be no dispute with the Civil Service?

Of course, the Civil Service agreements are collective agreements within the meaning of the 1974 Act and are therefore not enforceable. Perhaps the trade unions concerned will draw one or two lessons from that. On the merits of the matter, notice was given by the Government in August 1980 that cash limits would be the main determinant of the Civil Service settlement this year, and formal action to suspend the pay agreement was taken in October.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if the responses he has so far received following the publication of the Green Paper on trade union immunities indicate that the set period of consultation is adequate; and if he will make a statement.

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

So far we have received representations on the Green Paper from over 80 organisations and individuals. The consultative period ends on 30 June, and we are still awaiting comments from many of the major organisations in industry. I am satisfied that the period of nearly six months set aside for consultations is adequate and that most of those who wish to comment will be able to do so in the time allowed.

Will my right hon. Friend undertake to do two things? First, will he reassure the House that the period of consultation is genuine? Secondly, before reaching a decision about the advisability of further legislation, will he take into account the strong feeling that undoubtedly exists about the closed shop?

The answer to both my hon. Friend's questions is "Yes, Sir". I am particularly aware of the second matter.

To what extent have the representations already received covered the apparent misuse of trade union funds, notably political funds used to buy swollen numbers of votes at Labour Party conferences, and general funds used to finance the building of the new Labour Party headquarters? Does my right hon. Friend believe that ordinary trade unionists would benefit from a more open, public and quick audit of trade union accounts?

These matters are not strictly relevant to the subject of the Green Paper. They are more relevant to the activities of the certification officer, as set out in the 1974 Act introduced by the Labour Government. I suggest that individual trade unionists should make certain that the funds of their trade unions are used for the proper purpose, and act accordingly.

Does the right Gentleman realise that last year, although 29 million days were lost through strike action, 674 million days were lost through unemployment? Is it not time that he started doing the job for which he is paid, and created employment instead of trying to curb the unions?

There is no question of trying to blame working people alone for the problems facing the Government and the country. We all have to fight together for higher and better employment. Better industrial relations could do more to improve the position of this country than almost any other single factor.

As some major organisations are involved in intensive discussions with trade unions on manning levels and training, may not more time be necessary for consultation to get the right result in the end?

It is vital to get the right result in the end, and that is why we published a consultative Green Paper. From that will come valuable suggestions which will either be taken up in the form of legislation, or will need further work.

Will the Secretary of State consider the question of the legally enforced immunity of the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton), who ordered dining rooms A and C for the semi-National Front Democratic Association yesterday in the House, and then had his name blanked out on the circular? Will the right hon. Gentleman examine that, too?

The hon. Gentleman's question is about as relevant as most of his questions.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Will the hon. Gentleman leave it till after Question Time?

It is relevant, Sir.

Very well.

Thank you, Sir. May I raise on a point or order the fact that obviously the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) does not know and has not sought to know that I did not book any dining rooms in the House of Commons yesterday, and that, when to sponsor——

Order. I think that makes the position clear.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the latest total number of those taking advantage of the job release scheme.

At 28 April 1981, 58,251 people in Great Britain were in receipt of allowances under the job release scheme.

Is not that a ludicrously low number? If the scheme were altered to bring the qualifying age for men down to 60 and for women to 55, would it not cost only £165 million in 1982–83? Would it not be better if the Secretary of State, instead of wringing his hands to the people's march for jobs, like some latter-day Chamberlain, got down to doing something real about unemployment, and amended the job release scheme in the way suggested?

There has been a massive increase in the youth opportunities programme this year, which has made it impossible to extend job release in 1981–82. I do not deny that this is a good scheme. One would like it to be extended. However, there would be a substantial net cost, and I am afraid that I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman's figures. The existing scheme costs £130 million gross and £75 million net. The hon. Gentleman is referring to 1981–82, but not to the first full year. In the year 1982–83, the gross cost would be £600 million and the net cost £300 million. It is a question of resources.

rose——

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it right that the Minister should alter figures that were given to me in a written answer on Friday 8 May——

Order. We usually leave points of order until after Question Time. Ministers, like other hon. Members, always seem to find the appropriate figures.

Will not Ministers, particularly the Secretary of State before he is reshuffled, have another look at this scheme with a view—at the very least—to restoring the cuts that have been made in it, bearing in mind the fact that, despite the figures given, it is extremely cost-effective and could do much to relieve unemployment? Would that not be better than waiting for the figure of 3 million unemployed to rise, as the Secretary of State has now confirmed is likely?

First, I was in error. In fairness to the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Stoddart), I must point out that the first full year would be 1983–84. My figures are correct for that, but not for the year 1982–83. The figures then would be £600 million and £300 million. So the point I made is still a good one. [Laughter] I can only repeat that the Government agree that the scheme is a good one. There would be many advantages in extending it. However, it is another example of having to choose priorities. In view of the availability of resources it is not possible to grant the extension asked for by the hon. Member in this year.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment when he expects unemployment in the Northern region to fall.

A substantial fall in unemployment in the Northern region, as elsewhere in the country, depends largely upon an upturn in world trade. The Government's policies are aimed at creating the economic conditions in which firms can take advantage of such an upturn and create the new jobs which are so much needed.

Is the Minister aware that 200,000 people in the Northern region are unemployed and that they are outraged at the Secretary of State disclaiming responsibility for unemployment? Is he further aware that nowhere in the developed world has unemployment increased so steeply? Does he accept that, if the Government were to invest now in British Rail, British Telecom and British Gas, not only would there be a negligible effect on the inflation rate but jobs would be created directly in Shildon and Newton Aycliffe in my constituency?

I have visited the hon. Gentleman's constituency and the North-East twice in the last two months. My right hon. Friend and I are more than aware of the difficult position in the North-East. The hon. Gentleman will also be aware that, thanks to the Government's programmes, 21,861 people are benefiting from the temporary short-time working compensation scheme. Without that scheme they would be redundant.

Is my hon. Friend aware that, because of Government policies, last year three times as many factories were opened in the Northern region's trading estates as were closed? Does he accept that, if Opposition Members looked at hard facts, they would discover, as I have, that as many jobs were created on the trading estates in the last 12 months as were lost? Is he aware that in addition many new inquiries have been made? Surely we need a bit of optimism, not pessimism.

I agree with my hon. Friend. The attitude which I have discovered in the North-East is optimistic. I have discovered optimism amongst those who want to go out, make something and create jobs. Optimism is there. I am sure that Opposition Members do not want to rock their supporters. As my hon. Friend says, jobs come not out of mid-air but from new orders. Many new orders are going to firms in the North-East.

Is the Minister aware that at least one firm in the Consett area of the North-East is refusing to employ anyone except ex-BSC workers because it does not receive extra subsidies for employing workers who are not former steel workers? How can such discrimination be justified, especially since in my constituency, which is heavily hit by steel closures, only half of the total unemployed are ex-BSC workers? How can that discrimination be justified? Will the Minister investigate?

I am not aware of the firm to which the hon. Gentleman refers. If he gets in touch with me I shall examine the position.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he is satisfied that employees dismissed under closed shop agreements are adequately compensated under the Employment Act 1980.

As yet there have been no reported industrial tribunal decisions on cases of unfair dismissal arising under the Employment Act's closed shop provisions. We are keeping the operation of the Act under close review and we shall not hesitate to make further changes in the law, if they are shown to be necessary.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the strong feeling in the country that simply to increase industrial compensation is far from satisfactory and that the only real answer is reinstatement of employment?

I am aware of the strong feelings, particularly about the actions of Sandwell and Walsall council, and the people dismissed under such circumstances. An industrial tribunal has the right to demand reinstatement. However, it has never been part of our tradition or law that employers should be forced to take back people whom they do not wish to employ. That is why there is a third part to industrial tribunal compensation which allows additional compensation in such cases.

Will the Secretary of State comment about the many hundreds of workers who every year lose their jobs because of their trade union activities? Will he legislate along those lines?

Such people can also go to industrial tribunals.

Will my right hon. Friend bear it in mind that it is possible to sustain the proposition that the outlawing of the closed shop would serve no purpose and at the same time feel that the way in which Labour-controlled local authorities are using tenders as a means of forcing the extension of the closed shop without any regard to the views of those involved and affected is something with which the Government must deal?

I agree that there is abuse. It is covered by the discussions on the Green Paper. It might also—I cannot go further than this—be a breach of the Competition Act. It is a matter that has to be dealt with.

Have not the Minister and the Government a cheek to talk about a few people who have been dismissed under closed shop agreements when in the last 12 months the Government have sacked 1 million workers through their economic policies? Is he aware that that has resulted in more than 2½ million people being out of work and the massive people's march which took place in the last month? Why is the Secretary of State not encouraging the Prime Minister to hold an industrial tribunal for the sacked Navy Minister?

Most hon. Members think that the sacking, at a time of high unemployment, of tea ladies and dinner ladies and people dismissed under such circumstances as those prevailing at Sandwell and Walsall, simply because they refused to join a trade union, is utterly wrong and should be condemned.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if his Department will take steps to assist workers who lose their jobs as a result of the proposed plant closure of Laurence Scott Electromotors Ltd., Openshaw, Manchester.

The employment and training services of the Manpower Services Commission will be available to those who wish to take advantage of them. The Commission will make every effort within the limit of its resources to assist those affected to find alternative opportunities for work or training.

Is the Minister aware of the shabby treatment being doled out by the company which recently took over Laurence Scott? Is he aware that only months ago that firm announced that the jobs of 650 workers would be protected? Is he further aware that the factory has been established for 100 years? Does he accept that we are now witnessing the classic case of a firm being smashed to the wall by asset-stripping? Is the Minister prepared to conduct an immediate inquiry since unemployment in Manchester is running at 15·5 per cent?

I am not prepared to conduct an inquiry. It is not Government policy to intervene in such matters.

Will the Minister confirm the statement made to my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks) and to Paul Foot of theDaily Mirror that the directors of the company made the decision to close the plant on 10 February without any consultation with the trade unions or the work force? Does the Minister accept that such appalling behaviour is contrary to the code of practice in the Employment Protection Act?

No, Sir, I shall not confirm that. I know that the right hon. Gentleman has been to see my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about the temporary short-time working compensation scheme. I remind him that payments are made to the employees, not to the employers. My Department has written to the company about this matter.

Is the Minister aware that employees who have been with the firm for less than 12 years will lose not only their jobs but their redundancy money? Since many are parents of young children and under great stress, will the Minister undertake to examine that aspect?

If there is anything that we can do under existing legislation we shall consider the matter further. The hon. Gentleman is bringing to my attention a matter of which I was unaware.

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

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the latest figure available for the number of people unemployed; what percentage this represents of the working population; and if he will give an age and sex breakdown of this figure in theOfficial Report.

At 14 May, the provisional number of people registered as unemployed in the United Kingdom was 2,558,405, which represents an unemployment rate of 10·6 per cent.

Is it not clear that the month-by-month increase in the registered unemployed and the devastation caused to such industrial areas as the West Midlands mean that the total number of registered jobless could rise to 3 million in the near future? Is the Secretary of State aware that the enthusiastic reception given to those who marched from Liverpool to London in protest against unemployment shows only too clearly that the British public will, at the first opportunity, reject a Government who have brought back to Britain mass unemployment, with all the humiliation and misery associated with such large-scale joblessness?

We had better wait for a general election before accepting the hon. Gentleman's prophecy. Unemployment did not start in 1979. If there were some simple answer to the problem of unemployment, presumably the Labour Government would have found it. Britain is facing problems that the remainder of the world is also facing. Yet for the past 20 years we have failed to face up to them.

Does not the Secretary of State accept that, because of our oil resources, Britain is in a different position from other industrialised countries? Does not every analysis show that the 1·3 million that the Government have added to the dole queue are mainly the result of the Government's policies? Does not he accept that unless the Government decide soon to devote much of the financial resources gained from oil to regenerate industry, not only will there be unemployment of 3 million, but 3½ million in the near future?

I do not believe that the availability of oil in any way places Britain in a better employment position than it would otherwise be. We must export more goods. Through better production we must prevent the importation of more manufactured goods. Those factors show how uncompetitive Britain has become during the past 20 years and the need to tighten up considerably in industry if we are to compete. The hon. Gentleman must recognise that the problems have been coming to Britain for a long time. The position has become worse during the past 20 years. That is one reason why our recession is deeper than that of a number of other countries.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that if we are to achieve the increased employment that we all desire it will be sensible for the Opposition Front and Back Benches to agree to lower the general rate of pay increases, which would be better than continuing even at 7 per cent: next year?

As we all know, pay is an important part of trying to keep down our costs and improve our competitive position. The Labour Government found that as much as this Government are finding that. If some people pay themselves more it will create unemployment in other places. That is the inevitable and regrettable consequence.

Was the Secretary of State serious when he said that oil did not affect the position? Is he saying that without oil we would be better off? Does not he agree that he should use Government resources to ensure that industries such as the foundry and glass industries, and many others, do not continue to pay far more for their energy than their competitors pay in Europe? Is not that one aspect in which the Government could intervene, and should not they do so now?

Without oil we would be in an even worse position. There is no doubt about that. I do not think that Opposition Members can take any credit from that position. Energy costs are matters for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy. Evidence shows that our oil prices have been reasonably competitive with the remainder of Europe.

Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that unemployment will fall only if British industry and commerce provide the goods and services that the British public want to buy? It is regrettable that at present they often prefer foreign goods.

All too often the British public prefer to buy other people's goods rather than those which they produce themselves. Why on earth they should expect other people to buy their goods when they are not prepared to buy them themselves is a mystery to me.

As unemployment has reached a catastrophic level and, tragically, will become even worse on the basis of present policies, will the Secretary of State assure the House that during the forthcoming full-scale Cabinet debate on economic policy—which was foreshadowed in today's newspapers—he will demand, as the Minister principally responsible, immediate measures not only to arrest and reverse that trend but to stop such a waste of human resources? Does he agree that the only way to get out of the current position is to ensure that the Governments can influence the level of employment and output? Public spending and public works must be at the heart of that.

There are many factors, as the right hon. Gentleman knows well, that influence the level of unmployment in Britain. One of the most important of those is the level of world trade. There is little that the Government can do about that. On the question of consultation with my colleagues, I am sure that he will find that the Cabinet is in full agreement about its policy:

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the average delay in reimbursing those firms participating in the work experience programme for their outlay of the standard remuneration.

In May 1981 the average delay in reimbursing firms participating in the youth opportunities programme was between three and four weeks. Steps are being taken to speed reimbursement of sponsoring firms.

Because the period in some parts of the country can be as long as three months, is my hon. Friend prepared to consider some form of bankers order for the firms participating in such a scheme so that payments are not held up by a shortage of civil servants?

As my hon. Friend will be aware, there has been a significant increase in the number of places in the youth opportunities programme. Last year the planned number was 250,000 and the outturn was 360,000. This year, it is 450,000. More staff have now been allocated and I hope that the position to which he referred will not occur again.

While the Minister is considering quicker reimbursement for companies for the work experience aspect of the youth opportunities programme, will he bear in mind that local education authorities are in exactly the same position?

Yes, Sir.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment when last he met the president of the Confederation of British Industry to discuss productivity.

My right hon. Friend has not had a recent meeting with the president of the CBI to deal with this specific topic, but productivity is regularly discussed at meetings of the National Economic Development Council of which both the president of the CBI and my right hon. Friend are members.

Does not my hon. and learned Friend accept that the recent increases in productivity in British Steel and British Leyland show that significant increases can be achieved in the public as well as the private sector? Is not an increase in productivity the only hope for sustained economic recovery?

Yes, indeed. We can all take cheer from the fact that, even at this time of economic difficulties, there have been some most important developments in British Steel and British Leyland in the areas of restrictive practices and increased productivity.

What would the Secretary of State say to the president of the CBI about DJB Engineering Limited in my constituency, which holds three recent export awards and is recognised as a major success story in the Northern region? Is he aware that that company has decided to expand in the United States, but that although it is selling all its products it is, nevertheless, experiencing considerable difficulties? Is he aware that that company has excellent management and a dedicated and cooperative work force? Will he consult not only the CBI but his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry to decide what can be done about that issue? Is not that a classic case of the utter failure of the Government's policies?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is doing a service by highlighting that company's difficulties. However, it is not easy to relate those difficulties to the question and he will not expect me to answer his supplementary question now. I shall ensure that his remarks are drawn to the attention of the Secretary of State for Industry.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what discussions have taken place in the European Council of Ministers on the proposals for a European youth service scheme.

None, Sir, although the European Parliament has shown its concern to encourage exchanges of young people. The Government fully support the Community's programme of young worker exchanges.

Has my right hon. Friend yet been able to give any thought to the form that such service should take? Does he see it as an extension of the young workers' exchange scheme or does he visualise an involvement in certain social projects within the Community?

I think that it is more likely to be an extension of the exchange scheme than anything else. There is not much money available for such a scheme at present. We have to consider our contribution and our returns from the Community much more in terms of what can be done for young people within the United Kingdom.

What urgent action can the right hon. Gentleman take to halt the shortfall in apprenticeships and apprenticeship redundancies? Is not it likely that there will be an alarming collapse in provision from about 80,000 to 60,000 this year? Does he agree that only the dole waits for one in two school leavers this coming autumn?

That is rather a wider question. Yes, I am worried about the probable failure to take up apprenticeships this September. As the House will know, the Manpower Services Commission has put proposals to the Government and these are now being considered.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will meet the chairman of the Peterborough youth opportunities council to discuss provision under the Manpower Services Commission for youth in Peterborough.

As my hon. Friend knows, I shall, at his invitation, be speaking to the Peterborough youth opportunities council on the 18th of this month. I shall listen carefully to what it has to tell me.

My hon. Friend will be welcome in Peterborough. When he is there, will he take the opportunity to get briefed on the Phoenix farm project under the youth opportunities programme, which is being seriously hampered—income is being lost to the scheme—because of the bureaucratic procedures and inflexibility of the Manpower Services Commission?

I know of the valuable contribution that the Phoenix training workshop farm has made to the YOP. I appreciate the problems that it has had. I have asked the Commission to consider the issue again and to be as flexible as possible in its approach to the problem.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will discuss with his European counterparts the possibility of a special Council of Ministers meeting on unemployment in the Community.

Unemployment was one of the major issues discussed at the meeting of the European Council in Maastricht on 23–24 March, and also at an informal meeting of Community Employment Ministers on 6–7 April. I expect the next meeting of the Council of Ministers, Labour and Social Affairs, to have an opportunity to consider a Commission paper on the problems of unemployment.

I thank my hon. and learned Friend for that reply. Bearing in mind the shocking total of 8 million unemployed in the Community, will he undertake to examine the possibility of joint stimulatory action in the member States to try to reduce unemployment as soon as possible?

I have no doubt that this is one of the matters that will be discussed during coming meetings and especially when the Commission's paper is discussed.

Did the British Government's representative acknowledge at the meeting of the Council of Ministers to which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred that unemployment in Britain during the past 12 months has risen at a faster rate than in any country in the developed world? If so, will the Minister tell us why that has happened?

I am sure that all those present discussed the problems that are being faced by their respective countries as a result of the world recession. I have no doubt that our Minister made it plain that for many years, largely because of our own folly, we have allowed ourselves to become less and less competitive.

Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that an important part of the Community's unemployment is in Stoke-on-Trent, where the rate has doubled during the past year? Am I now to tell those people that the Government's response to the charge of creating unemployment is that they are not guilty due to diminished responsibility?

The right hon. Gentleman knows that when the Government took office they inherited unemployment of 1½ million. He knows that the trend was a rising one. He knew that the deep-seated ills of the British economy would not be removed or cured in a short time.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what assistance has been forthcoming from the European Community to help training opportunites for the young unemployed in the United Kingdom in each year since 1973.

Specific assistance for schemes of training, retraining and resettlement for young people under 25 years of age who are unemployed or seeking employment has been available under the European social fund since August 1975, rising from £2·2 million in that year to £71·9 million in 1980. The total assistance allocated from the fund in this period was £202·7 million.

Does my hon. Friend agree that Britain has been a substantial net beneficiary of the European social fund and that this fact is overlooked, as are so many, by those who seek to oppose the Community?

Yes, I do. Last year Britain was allocated £71·9 million, which was 30 per cent. of the budget available, compared with our contribution of 21 per cent.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her offical engagements for Tuesday 2 June.

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, including one with the Sultan of Brunei.

Has my right hon. Friend fad an opportunity today of reading theLondon Labour Briefing of yesterday, a leading light of which, I believe, is Mr. Kenneth Livingstone? The chairman of the Lambeth community affairs council said in it, about the Brixton riots, that the Metropolitan Police were an intimidatory army of occupation and that on some occasions insurrectionary methods were necessary. Does my right hon. Friend believe that such articles will do anything to help the relationship between the police and the immigrant communities?

I saw the publication to which my hon. Friend refers. Such language and attitudes are totally irresponsible and dangerous and are tantamount to encouraging anarchy. I hope that they will be rejected by most Labour Members. I am sure that they are repugnant to most people in Britain. Fortunately, responsibility for the Metropolitan Police lies with the Home Secretary and it will stay there.

Will the right hon. Lady take the first opportunity on the House meeting after the recess to tell us what are her latest views about the so-called upturn in the economy, which she has sometimes prophesied? Will she tell us when she last made this prophecy and say how she squares the appalling unemployment figures published a few days ago and the figures about continuing falls in production with her own prophecies about an upturn? When is the upturn going to take place? When will the unemployment figures begin to fall?

I think that most of the recent forecasts agree about two things—first, that the level of inflation will continue to fall and, secondly, that the recession has just about reached bottom——

Again?

I would have thought that Labour Members would find that encouraging. Of course, forecasts do not wholly agree about when the expansion will come for the simple reason that when the expansion comes depends on how far we take advantage of the opportunities that are available. Much depends on how far wage increases go hand in hand with productivity increases and, therefore, what proportion of orders we get on the home market and the export market.

Will the right hon. Lady be more specific in translating her statement about the turn-round which is about to happen—I forget the exact term that she used—into some effect on the unemployment figures? Does she agree with the extraordinary statement made by the Secretary of State for Employment to the representatives of the People's March for Jobs, when the right hon. Gentleman tried to pretend that unemployment was nothing to do with him and his Government? How can she make that accord with the fact that unemployment has been going up more severely in this country than in any other industrial country?

As the right hon. Gentleman made such a point of comparing unemployment and jobs in this country with those in Europe, may I point out to him that in this country a higher proportion of the population are in jobs, in work, than in any other country in Europe save Denmark?

asked the Prime Minister whether she will list her official engagements for 2 June.

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

Does the Prime Minister accept that her Government have done even less than previous Governments to publicise information about available DHSS benefits? Would she consider the comparative villainies between people trying to claim benefits to which they are not entitled which costs the country £40 million, and withholding sufficient information for people to claim benefits to which they are entitled, which saves the country £500 million

I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's premise in any way. This Government are operating the benefits which are available to ordinary people in the same way as previous Governments. I trust that the hon. Gentleman will agree that if people wrongly claim benefits to which they are not entitled that reduces the amount of money available for people who are really in need.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that if, during the last five years, the unions had not demanded, and employers had not conceded, increases in manufacturing earnings, which have doubled in five years while production has declined, many more people would be at work today? Does my right hon. Friend also agree that if the Opposition's policies were carried out they would inexorably lead not only to rip-roaring inflation but to even greater unemployment?

I wholly agree with my hon. Friend. In this country over the last five years pay has doubled, whereas output has slightly fallen. That is totally different from the position with many of our competitors. Pay in those countries has gone up hand in hand with productivity. Consequently, they have the jobs and we have a larger proportion of the unemployment.

Will the right hon. Lady tell the House at what period during the remainder of this Parliament unemployment will fall to the level that she inherited?

The future course of unemployment will depend upon the advantage which is taken of the opportunities available. A very important matter is the level of pay in relation to the level of output. The right hon. Gentleman may shake his head but it is because he tried to run away from the realities that the decline in industrial production was so sharp.

When my right hon. Friend, meets his Highness the Sultan of Brunei later today, will she give him an assurance about the future of the battalion of Gurkhas after final independence in 1983?

That is a handy diversion.

That battalion is an excellent part of our defence forces. I shall, of course, discuss that matter with the Sultan.

During her day, will the Prime Minister bear in mind that when she last visited Halifax it was during the general election campaign to try to persuade people to vote Conservative? Will she now pay another visit and explain to the people of Halifax why, under her Government's policies, unemployment has risen by 175 per cent. and the whole manufacturing base of the town is being gradually eroded?

I have been trying to give an explanation to the House. One of the reasons is that in the past five years we have continually paid ourselves more for doing the same amount of work. If prices go up, the orders go elsewhere.

Notwithstanding the way in which they were released, will the Prime Minister find time today, or on some subsequent day, to consider whether this country could give political asylum to a handful of former Pakistani Members of Parliament who are stranded in Damascus, Syria, seeking to come to this country?

That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. As my hon. Friend must remember, many people have been waiting to come into this country for a long time.

Does the right hon. Lady recall describing the level of youth unemployment as tragic? Does she realise that she could do something about it by persuading her right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment that he should alter the job release scheme to bring down the age limit to 60 for men and 55 for women, since that is the most cost effective way of providing jobs for young people?

Anxious as I am, and anxious as the hon. Gentleman is, to reduce the level of unemployment, particularly youth unemployment, that suggestion would not be at a low cost. It would be extremely expensive because of the amount of social security benefits which would have to be paid to those whose jobs are released, particularly if the age limit were brought down to 60 for men and 55 for women. Instead, my right hon. Friend is trying to work towards a scheme under which young people will be in full-time education, in jobs or in training, so that unemployment is not an option.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 2 June.

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

Will my right hon. Friend re-emphasise today that, much as we all deplore the appalling increase in the rate of unemployment, that is due, no more and no less, to self-inflicted wounds under successive Governments? Does she agree that the answer does not lie in throwing money at the problem for the simple reason that we do not have that money in the first place? Does my right hon. Friend further agree that the only answer—and there is an increasing acknowledgment of this—lies in every working man making himself more productive and more competitive to help his unemployed colleagues?

I agree with my hon. Friend. The answer to unemployment lies in people giving good value either for products or services—such good value that the British housewife will buy those products or services in preference to foreign goods.

In at least four previous answers to questions on unemployment the Prime Minister has referred to the level of incomes. Does she believe that her hectoring on that subject is any substitute for a properly worked-out incomes policy?

It has been an incomes policy that has led to people demanding more pay regardless of extra productivity.

Will my right hon. Friend take time today to commiserate with the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart), who lost the fight for the presidency of the SNP and also now leads a party which no longer believes in democratic Government but in civil disobedience?

The right hon. Gentleman can perhaps look after himself.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 2 June.

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

Will the right hon. Lady spend a little of today considering the problems of private tenants, in London in particular, and long leaseholders, who are facing traumatic demands for an increase in rents and repairs of about 3½ or four times? Does she agree that the Secretary of State's housing policy is in total ruins and that it is time she replaced him and did something to help people to obtain a home at a reasonable rent or ac a reasonable price?

No, Sir. My right hon. Friend's housing policy is excellent and is bringing the benefits of home ownership to many people who have never had that opportunity. It has also made houses available for those who wish to move from one area to another. With regard to people who have to suffer increased rents, as the hon. Gentleman knows, those who are the poorest and who cannot afford them can obtain rent rebates. The hon. Gentleman is fully aware of that.

Will my right hon. Friend find to consider the serious constitutional implications of depriving the individual Services of their political chief? Does she agree that, with the best will in the world, a Minister of State and his Under-Secretary will find it extremely difficult to be as accessible to middle rank officers in the way that previous Service Ministers were?

No, Sir. A long time ago we changed from a three-Service Ministry to one Ministry of Defence. That reorganisation had not been completed. We and the Service chiefs are interested in a policy for the defence of the realm, and all the Services are involved.

The Prime Minister said that the Secretary of State for the Environment had made houses available for people who wanted to move from one area to another. Does she recall that a constituent of mine took her advice and moved to Guildford to get a job? Does she recollect that he could not obtain a house, so I wrote to her, and her reply was to the effect that the fact that my constituent could not find a house in Guildford after taking her advice had nothing to do with her?

There would be something very wrong with Government if every Prime Minister took on the responsibility of getting a job for every person. It would be ridiculous to get a particular job in a particular way. The Secretary of State for the Environment introduced a scheme under which local authorities make a certain proportion of houses available for people who move from one area to another. That scheme is working and it is the first time that such a scheme has been introduced.