asked the Secretary of State for Employment in view of the statement of the Under-Secretary of State for Employment, the hon. Member for City of Chester (Mr. Morrison), Official Report, 2 June, column 325, that there are signs of success in Government policies to deal with unemployment, whether he can say now when he expects unemployment substantially to decrease.

I agree with the comments of my hon. Friend. It is impossible to make accurate forecasts of the kind requested by the hon. Member.

Will the right hon. Gentleman concede that last week he stated that there was a distinct possibility that unemployment would pass the 3 million mark and that this was accepted, at least in silence, by the Prime Minister? Does he now recognise that, unless there is a change of policy, there will be a continual upward trend in unemployment?

I would not wish to go any further than what I said to the Select Committee about a month ago in relation to unemployment. It is impossible to forecast unemployment to any precise degree of accuracy. That is the position that both the Prime Minister and I have always maintained.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that unemployment will decrease when the slump is over, when British firms are more competitive and when the British public buy more British goods?

Yes, Sir. When we buy more of the goods that we make for ourselves and when we become more competitive, we can stop importing other people's unemployment and get down to work ourselves.

So that we may better understand the trends in unemployment, will the right hon.

Following the hon. Gentleman's speech in the House last Wednesday, I am investigating more fully what he said then. I shall write to him about it.

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

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many representations, corporate and individual, he has so far received on the Green Paper on trade union immunities.

So far, we have received 210 representations on the Green Paper, including 90 from individuals.

Bearing in mind the vicious abuse of the closed shop, as exampled in Walsall and Sandwell, and the overwhelming number of representations received from business organisations urging further legislation, particularly on the closed shop, will my right hon. Friend give a firm commitment to the House this afternoon that further legislation will be announced in the Queen's Speech for the next Session of Parliament so that the people of this country may be rid once and for all of the evils of the closed shop?

I agree with what my hon. Friend said about Sandwell and Walsall councils. Clearly, these and other matters covered by the consultation process on the Green Paper will be taken into account when the Government decide about future legislation. I think that it would be wrong for me in any way to prejudge the Queen's Speech, but I have noted my hon. Friend's point and the points made by many other hon. Friends.

As the Government are opposed in principle to the closed shop as a denial of personal liberty and a protection for restricted practices, how could the present arrangements continue to be justified? Is it not more than a coincidence that, in many of the countries which are more successful internationally than we are, the closed shoo is actually illegal?

Some countries which say that they do not have closed shops in fact have them. We have had a number of closed shops in this country for many years. Particular industries and representations on the Green Paper have asked for the closed shop to be continued. We must take all these things into consideration. It is certainly not acceptable that the closed shop should continue to allow people to be dismissed as at Sandwell and Walsall, and perhaps a number of other places, where clearly the deterrent powers in the 1980 Act are not proving sufficient to deter an employer who is determined to follow that course.

Some hon. Members may be obsessed with attacking the trade unions, but will the Secretary of State also consider lousy employers? Is he aware of he example in the city of Manchester, where Lawrence Scott has unjustifiably attacked the workers and where there is a sit-in of 650 workers? Will the Secretary of State also look at management?

I shall not comment on an individual case. I have always made it plain that I believe that management and unions have both played a part in bad industrial relations in the past 20 years. I am doing all that I can to improve matters. It would help enormously if Opposition Members recognised that the Employment Act is moderate and reasonable. If they want to get industrial relations right, they should support it, not threaten to throw it out.

As the Green Paper covered many important aspects of trade union immunity, going beyond the issue of the closed shop, will my right hon. Friend assure us that the representations that he has received under all heads will be seriously considered when he draws up the legislation that we understand is on the cards for the next Session?

All representations will be carefully considered. They vary from demands for immediate action and for action some time in the future to demands for no action at all. All these matters are extremely difficult and delicate and will be properly considered. In due course, the House will be informed of the Government's decisions.

In contradiction of what the right hon. Gentleman has so often said, has not the Prime Minister encouraged the belief that there will be legislation? If the 1980 Act is moderate and sensible, why pursue further legislation, which presumably will be immoderate and insensible? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House that Joanna Harris already has a statutory remedy, as has anyone else who has been unfairly dismissed, although she has not taken advantage of it? Will he repeat to the House what he has so often said: that the law in this area is unlikely to be effective unless it has the consent of those to whom it applies? Therefore, will he not legislate in defiance of the TUC?

I shall certainly consult fully before introducing any legislation. I make it plain to the House that the way in which the Sandwell and Walsall district councils have used their power to dismiss people in an intolerable manner is unsatisfactory. Changes should be made, but, as I have always said, changes in industrial relations law should be approached step-by-step, and abuses should be dealt with as they are seen to arise.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what initial response he has received to the new training initiative.

I have received a number of generally favourable responses, including several from hon. Members.

Is not this the most relevant document on the subject published since the manpower crisis came upon us? Does my hon. Friend agree that he and his colleagues should take a lead in persuading employers and trade unions that only a radical initiative such as this will enable us to overcome our economic and industrial problems?

The answer is "Yes, Sir" to both questions. The new training initiative has drawn together strands that have floated around during the past two years, which is a great advantage. I hope that the Government and industry will capitalise on it.

Will the Under-Secretary of State concede that, if the initiative is to be successful, he must guarantee large additional sums? Will it not also require statutory underpinning of industrial training? Will he especially bear in mind that 17·7 per cent. of youngsters under 20 are unemployed?

It is not necessarily correct that there must be a guarantee of more money. The Government are already spending £253 million on the TOPS programme and just under £50 million on supporting 25,000 apprentices and others, so they have a major commitment. However, the matter is up for debate.

Is not one underlying cause of the need for a new training initiative the ludicrously high wages that young people receive, which is a direct result of trade union collective bargaining? Should we not put a stop to that?

The difference between the earnings of adults and young people, for example, in Germany, is far greater than in this country, and that fact could have a bearing on the matter. However, we want to make apprenticeship training more flexible, not time serving.

If the new training initiative is to have any value, do we not need to consider the funds required to underpin it? If employers are not prepared to chip in, does that not leave the bill with the Government? Will the money needed to make the initiative viable be forthcoming, particularly for vocational training for all 16 and 17-year-olds?

As I explained, the Government are already spending a substantial amount on training. I agree that employers and trainees will also have to contribute.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he proposes to take before the end of 1981 to increase employment in West Yorkshire.

In West Yorkshire, as in the rest of the country, new jobs will be created by firms producing goods which people want and at a price which they are prepared to pay. Meanwhile, West Yorkshire will continue to benefit from the Government's programme of special employment measures.

Is the Minister aware that only one job is now advertised for every 50 people unemployed in the region and that youth unemployment is set to soar? Will he consider a capital investment programme for West Yorkshire to strengthen regional infrastructure and to create jobs?

One can see the attractions of a capital investment programme, but the money has to come from somewhere. The balance between current and capital expenditure will be one factor considered in the forthcoming annual review of expenditure. But in the short term there is no return from capital investment, and the money has to come from taxes or borrowing.

Will the hon. and learned Gentleman bear in mind that, on the latest figures, more than 4,750 people are unemployed in Halifax and there are only 124 vacancies at the employment office? What advice does he have for those 4,750 people? Is it that they should all move to another area? If he does not agree with the Prime Minister's suggestion, what help can he provide for Halifax, as its assisted area status has been withdrawn?

The advice that I would give is that, unless we tackle inflation and make absolutely sure that British industry emerges from the recession in competitive shape, the situation will be far worse, not better. The hon. Lady knows the emphasis that the Government place on a variety of special measures, most of which are specifically directed towards young people.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Minister said that assisted area status was given to the whole of the Bradford district. That is not true.

Order. The people in Bradford will know whether the Minister is right or wrong. The Minister gave the answer. We must move along.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has any proposals to update the weekly payment of £23·50p in respect of young people participating in the work experience programme to take account of current living costs; and if he will make a statement.

The Manpower Services Commission has written to me requesting additional resources for the youth opportunities programme. I am giving the request urgent consideration.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that if the present figure, which was fixed in November 1979, is updated to retain its purchasing power, it would be in excess of £29 per week? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the present figure has a detrimental effect, particularly in rural areas where the £4 transport claim often leads to problems? Does not the present payment dissuade people from joining the scheme?

We have no evidence to show that the £23·50 dissuades people from joining the scheme. More than 8,000 young people join the scheme each week. The Government intend the money to be treated as a training allowance rather than payment for work. We can help young people by getting them to understand that they must price themselves into, not out of, work. This scheme is an important way of trying to get a better relationship between training and adult working life. Broadly speaking, the figure that my hon. Friend quoted is correct. However, I should not want him to deduce that it would be possible to bring the amount up to that figure.

Does the Secretary of State agree that if we are to give young people a sense of dignity in their work—even if they are on such schemes—they should receive a reasonable level of remuneration? Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the needs of young Londoners on the scheme, as they are almost the only London workers to be without London weighting? Justice demands that that, at least, should be put right.

I cannot accept that. It is important to give young people the opportunity to gain a much greater degree of training. That is what counts and that is what we intend to do. Labour Members do not do any service to young people by constantly saying that they should be paid more.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the heavy burden of transport costs that falls on young people taking part in the youth opportunities programme? Some young people spend between £3 and £4 per week, or even more, on transport. Will my right hon. Friend consider lowering the threshold of £4, above which the taxpayer picks up the bill for transport, to the lower threshold of £2, which has been recommended by some of the MSC's area offices.

No, Sir. The £4 figure has been in operation for several years and has slightly improved its position in relation to the cost of transport. I can see no way in which I can meet the growing obligations towards young people with the resources that are available to me.

Will the Secretary of State stop dodging the question? Will he recognise that hon. Members on both sides of the House are worried about this issue, just as employers and trade union representatives on the MSC are? Indeed, the MSC has urged him to raise the allowance. When will the right hon. Gentleman get to grips with the issue, raise the allowance and avert the mounting charge that too many people use the youth opportunities scheme as a method of cheap labour?

I am amazed that anyone should think that I have tried to dodge the question. I maintain that Labour Members do the dodging.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many under 25-year-olds in Greater London are (a) currently unemployed and (b) have taken part in the youth opportunities programme and other special measures.

At 9 April, the number of people under 25 years of age registered as unemployed in Greater London was 91,652. In 1980–81, 10,600 young people in Greater London participated in the youth opportunities programme and a further 1,400 young people under 25 benefited from other special measures.

Does the Minister accept that there may well be 140,000 to 150,000 young people unemployed in London? What will he do about that? Does he intend only to refer to programmes that the Prime Minister—when she was Leader of the Opposition—used scathingly to call "non-jobs"? Does the hon. Gentleman accept that if such opportunities are treated as "non-jobs", there are about 110,000 unemployed young people in London?

I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's figures. I cannot anticipate the level of unemployment among young people in London or in any other pall of the country. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman appears to sneer at the youth opportunities programme.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Civil and Public Services Association is still vetoing the creation of YOP job experience places in Government offices? Is that not a callous attitude by a union that has largely been insulated from the unemployment and redundancies of the private sector? Will the Government act unilaterally and trust in the good sense and generosity of the overwhelming majority of rank and file civil servants?

We very much regret that some Civil Service unions are not convinced of the value of the youth opportunities programme, despite the TUC's wholehearted support.

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the figures that he read out are extremely important in relation to the problems that Lord Scarman is trying to defuse in Brixton?

Any figure showing the number of unemployed young people is extremely important. That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has put all his weight behind the youth opportunities programme.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his answer of 22 May, Official Report, c. 190, what assistance officials of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service have given in seeking a resolution of the dispute at the Camden Journal and Hornsey Journal newspapers.

I understand that after meeting with officials of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service, the parties have agreed to go into arbitration with a single arbitrator.

Will the Minister convey the thanks of the House to ACAS for the work that it has done in seeking a solution to the dispute? Through his good offices, will he make it clear to ACAS that any long-lasting solution to the dispute must centre on the redeployment and non-victimisation of any journalists involved in the dispute in the past few months?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks about the assistance given by ACAS. It would not be right for me to comment on the issue between the parties. I remind the hon. Gentleman of the independence of ACAS, as guaranteed in schedule 1 of the 1975 Act.

Does my hon. and learned Friend realise how seriously we would view anything that reduced the British public's ability to read about the activities of Camden council?

I have some sympathy with my hon. Friend. I said that I would not comment on the issue between the parties. However, having read the Socialist Worker, I am in no doubt that some unsavoury people have been trying to get in on the act.

Does the Minister accept that the summary closure of those newspapers sprang from the fact that the management objected to a reasonably objective portrayal of the activities of the Haringey and Camden councils? That shows how much the Conservative Party is concerned about the freedom of the press.

That is an example of someone trying to get in on the act. I am leaving it to the parties involved to get on with arbitration.

Will my hon. and learned Friend accept—as one who has been a reader of the Hornsey Journal for many years—that many members of that paper's staff feel most aggrieved by the attitude expressed by some of those working on the Camden Journal? Earlier, the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Race) suggested that there should be no victimisation. Will my hon. and learned Friend ensure that there is no victimisation of those who resigned from the NUJ because of their concern and upset about the union's policies?

My hon. Friend is trying to tempt me, but I must decline to be tempted.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether the Manpower Services Commission has now concluded its consultations with the Department of Education on the subject of providing similar advantages to young people staying in further education as those young people involved in the youth opportunities programme.

Consultations between the Manpower Services Commission and the education service have sought to improve co-operation rather than to standardise provision and are continuing to that end.

I understand that those consultations have been going on for some time. Is my hon. Friend aware that in a few years there will be many places available in colleges of further education and polytechnics? Would it not be sensible to fit young people who wish to opt for further education rather than for job opportunities into those colleges and polytechnics? Instead of cutting back, we could kill two birds with one stone.

I am aware that consultations have been going on, and it is right that they should continue. I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that in 1981–82 just over 45,000 young people are expected to enter the work preparation courses run by the education service.

Does the Minister agree that in regions, such as the Northern region, which are already extremely deprived in terms of employment opportunities for youngsters there is a strong case for examining the possibility of encouraging youngsters to stay on at school by making finance available for them to do so? Would it not be wise, in the same context, for his right hon. Friend to consult his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services, who has gone in for the nonsensical idea of depriving young people of unemployment benefit to force them to leave school at Easter rather than to take examinations?

I am, of course, aware that regions, such as the Northern region, have greater problems than other parts of the country. I accept that the problems should be examined and solved in terms of asking the young people concerned to stay on at school or to take training courses at colleges of further education.

As there is to be a greater training content in the youth opportunities programme, will my hon. Friend encourage the Manpower Services Commission to look to local education authorities for help in supplying qualified instructors on these courses?

My hon. Friend underlines the importance of a strong link between the education service, local education authorities and the Manpower Services Commission in respect of the youth opportunities programme, particularly as the training part of the programme increases.

Does the Minister agree that it would be absurd to have a financial disincentive to boys and girls who wish to pursue sensible further training in the further education system by reason of the complex arrangements and the variety of schemes that exist for the 16 to 19-yearolds?

As my right hon. Friend has already stated, there is a greater emphasis on training. The hon. Gentleman referred to a financial disincentive. We have to consider whether such a disincentive exists. I do not believe that it does.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many people were unemployed in May 1979 and at the latest available date.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the current level of unemployment.

At 10 May 1979, the number of people registered as unemployed in the United Kingdom, seasonally adjusted and excluding school leavers, was 1,312,000, The corresponding figure, which is provisional, was 2,552,400 at 11 June 1981. The non-seasonally adjusted figure, which includes school leavers, was 2,680,977.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recall the fraudulent political poster used in the last general election when Saatchi and Saatchi organised a bogus unemployment queue with the words underneath, "Labour is not working". Is Conservatism working now? What message has the right hon. Gentleman for the thousands of people who will be demonstrating in Cardiff on Saturday against the Government's employment policies?

I hope that the hon. Gentleman recalls the slogan, "Back to work with Labour" in 1974 after which the Labour Government doubled the level of unemployment in two years. I hope that he also recalls the report in The Observer in 1976 prophesying, through a Labour Party committee, a figure of 2·5 million unemployed in 1980.

Will not my right hon. Friend agree that, while there has been some welcome improvement in productivity, the real cause of unemployment is directly related to the fact that output per head in Britain over the last years has been only two-thirds that of our industrial competitors?

A number of factors contribute to the high level of unemployment. Some are within the control of this country. Some are not. In those areas where the Government can help with special employment measures and in other respects, we shall do all that we can to relieve this serious situation.

Is the Secretary of State aware that male unemployment in Wolverhampton in 1979 was 6·2 per cent. and is now 17·1 per cent? Is he also aware that women's unemployment, which was 4·6 per cent., is now 9·6 per cent? When will he produce some policy to reduce this level of unemployment in the West Midlands? When will some resources be invested in creating new industries to replace the old industries that have disappeared?

The West Midlands is suffering very heavily from high unemployment. It is a reflection of the downturn in the motor industry and in car components and other industries associated with engineering. [Interruption.] The hon. Lady will know as well as I do that we are producing about 700,000 fewer cars a year than we were producing 20 years ago. [Interruption.] This is reflected in the level of unemployment in areas such as Wolverhampton. It comes back to the question of our becoming competitive in costs so that we produce goods that people wish to buy.

I am not sure whether my right hon. Friend was referring specifically to British Leyland. I was unable to hear the first part of his answer. Does not the fact that British Leyland has produced 30,000 more cars with a smaller work force illustrate, in a nutshell, the problem of unmodernised British industry, which has suffered from bad industrial relations and low productivity? Will he not agree that, unless and until we deal with the problems, we shall never get the economy right and that in dealing with them there will inevitably be unemployment in the short term? We have to go through the pain of unemployment to get the economy right.

There are some welcome signs of increasing productivity and good sense on the shop floor. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton North-East (Mrs. Short) asks what else we can do. We have allocated, in the space of two years, £930 million to British Leyland, which will have an enormous effect in helping the West Midlands. I believe that this is the right policy, although it is an expensive one from the point of view of the rest of the country.

Why has the Secretary of State given up the fight to reduce unemployment? Is it not pathetic nowadays that, when he appears in the House or on the radio or television, he speculates about when, within the next few months, unemployment will reach 3 million? When will he fight within the Cabinet for economic policies to reduce unemployment, fulfil the terms of his office and give hope to the unemployed in Britain?

I am a member of a Government who are putting over £1,000 million into employment measures that have helped cases such as British Leyland and other nationalised industries with vast sums of money. It takes some time to clear up the mess for which the right hon. Gentleman was responsible.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the greatly unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment, in view of current forecasts that unemployment will continue at or above present levels, what new schemes he intends to introduce to assist job creation.

We have expanded special employment measures significantly and plan to spend almost £1 billion in 1981–82. We are keeping the measures under review and shall be considering later in the year what our programme for next year should be.

Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that the whole House shares the view of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment that the present level of unemployment is completely unacceptable? Is he aware that the House will accept any measures that he and his Department bring forward to reduce it?

I am obliged to my hon. Friend for his remarks. One has to remember the experience of the previous Labour Government who poured a vast sum of money into the economy between 1977 and 1979 and succeeded only in reducing unemployment by 150,000. If that does not show how difficult are these problems, nothing will. We shall not go to the people and pretend that there is any easy solution or panacea.

As the Government have increased unemployment in my constituency by 183 per cent. and as many hundreds of people depend on the temporary short-time working scheme, does not the Minister realise that, if the scheme finishes, there will be getting on for another 1 million people on the dole? His hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price) says that the House will support any schemes to reduce the level of unemployment. Has his Department any ideas for schemes to replace the temporary short-time working scheme to get people off the dole? Or is the truth that the Government do not care and that they are being hypocritical?

The hon. Gentleman represents a part of the country which, like every other part of the country, will benefit if British industry emerges from this recession in good and competitive shape. His part of the country will suffer as much as any part of the country if we allow inflation to run riot again as happened under the previous Government, which he supported.

Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that the best way to help the unemployed is to allow them to price themselves into work? Will not the Government now consider freeing 10 per cent. of the economy by abolishing the wages councils, which have the effect of preventing the weakest sections of the community from applying for jobs at rates that employers can pay?

The wages council system is but one example of the damage that has been done as a result of the narrowing of differentials between the wages of young people and adults. I remain to be convinced whether the wages councils have been setting the trend with their awards or following it. It may well be the latter.

Will the Minister reconsider that reply? Is it necessary to make an unwarranted and disgraceful attack on the concept of the wages council system that bears no resemblance to the facts? Before he makes that sort of assertion should he not hold a full-scale inquiry?

I fear that the hon. Gentleman cannot have been listening to what I said. I said that if one considers the awards made by wages councils one can see that over the years there has been a narrowing of the differentials between the wage paid to young people and the wage paid to adults. That has happened in the economy as a whole, I was therefore not entirely agreeing with my hon. Friend. My hon. Friend seemed to be suggesting that the wages council system was unique in making that mistake.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the current rate of unemployment in the Preston travel-to-work area.

At 11 June, the provisional unemployment rate in the Preston travel-to-work area was 11·4 per cent.

Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that that figure would be intolerable, were it to last for any length of time? Does he further agree with me—with his special knowledge of the Preston area as a local man—that Preston will be well placed when the recession ends to gain great advantage from its geographical location, its communications and the general structure of its industry, especially with successful industries such as British Aerospace?

My hon. Friend is quite correct. Preston is splendidly placed, with its good communications. It has an excellent work force. It is a natural growth point and will be one of the first places to benefit from our anti-inflationary policies and our policies to restore the competitiveness of British industry.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the percentage increase in unemployment in men and women over the last three years.

Between June 1978 and June 1981 the numbers of males and females registered as unemployed in the United Kingdom increased by 87·5 per cent. and 80·3 per cent. respectively.

Is the Minister aware that in the light of those appalling increases our people can no longer believe that the Government are not utterly bereft of new ideas? Does he realise that in my constituency unemployment has been raised by the Government from 3·8 per cent. to 12·6 per cent.? Is he aware that that is appalling and is mostly among young, skilled people in a highly productive area of Britain? Does he realise that the growth of criminality, the growth of the British Movement and the increase in general social disorder that go with unemployment will be on his and the Government's conscience?

I am aware that the Government have reacted by enormously increasing the amount of money that they are prepared to put into special measures. This year, as my right hon. Friend said earlier, it is almost £1 billion. I am also aware that last year over 6 million people found jobs, but that is not the story that one hears from the Opposition.

I welcome the large sum that the Government have devoted to the special measures described earlier by my hon. Friend. However, does he not agree that it would be better to put public money into selective constructive capital projects to give both young and old meaningful long-term employment? Is he aware that much of that money would come back into the private sector, thus benefiting the sector that has been penalised to date?

As my hon. Friend is aware, the Department of Industry invests money in the way that he requires. The Department of Employment also is spending more money than before on special measures, as I pointed out.

Is the Minister aware, that unemployment in the Warrington travel-to-work area has gone from 5·2 per cent. in 1979 to 12·8 per cent now? What message will he give to the people of Warrington about why they should vote Tory in the forthcoming by-election?

I am aware that unemployment in the Warrington area has increased, as the hon. Gentleman said. I am also aware that the amount of money going into the Warrington area in terms of special measures has also increased substantially. I have noticed that, despite the great Liberal and Social Democratic alliance, no Liberal Member has been present for unemployment questions today. I wonder whether that point will be noted in Warrington.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 30 June.

I have been asked to reply.

When my right hon. Friend is next in telephonic communication with the Prime Minister, will he ask her to consult the Home Secretary and other Ministers to ensure the closest co-ordination of policies as they affect London, bearing in mind the unique features and special problems of the Metropolis? As one such problem is the recently elected Labour GLC and the impending massive supplementary rate to be levied on the hard-pressed ratepayer, if he cannot abolish the GLC, will he and the Government redouble their efforts to get rid of the increasingly iniquitous impost that we call the rating system?

On my hon. Friend's first point, in my capacity as Home Secretary I am well aware of the responsibilities that I have in London, and those that other Ministers have. I believe that the policies are well coordinated. Secondly, there is perhaps still a chance that the newly elected Labour GLC will realise the damage that it will cause to London and to employment prospects in London if it continues with the spendthrift plans that it appears to have. Thirdly, my hon. Friend will know that we are publishing a Green Paper on the rating system in the autumn.

Will the Home Secretary tell the Prime Minister that the Secretary of State for Scotland has engineered an unprecedented confrontation between himself and the local authorities in Scotland? Is he aware that the Lothian region, including the city of Edinburgh, has been at a complete standstill today? Can we have a new Secretary of State for Scotland before this summer of discontent goes any further?

I would prefer a new council for the Lothian region, which would be far better.

Can my right hon. Friend say, on behalf of the Prime Minister and the Government, whether he has taken a decision to return the remains of General Sikorski to Poland? If not, will he bear in mind that the wartime Polish Government decided that the remains should stay here until Poland was truly free and independent? Would it not be wrong to take such a step without consultation with those surviving comrades-in-arms of General Sikorski who live in large numbers in this country?

The decision about exhumation of remains is a matter personally for me as Home Secretary. I have taken a decision. I am announcing it today. I am not prepared to allow the remains of General Sikorski to go back to Poland at this time.

As this is the first opportunity that we have had to raise the matter since a reply was given in a written answer at the end of last week, may I ask the Home Secretary about the proposed cuts in the BBC external services? Will the right hon. Gentleman take note that there has been a protest against that from both sides of the House and many parts of the country? Does he not: agree that the question should be taken back to the Cabinet—as it is alleged that the right hon. Gentleman may be one of those who might have a civilising influence—that the Cabinet should reconsider the question, restore the BBC services and allow the BBC to get on with its job?

We have said that under the scheme, including capital investment, we intend to offer to spend more money in real terms. It is better to have 33 audible services than 40 services, some of which are inaudible.

That is an excuse. Of course the services should be made audible, but they should be sustained in all the countries. Will the right hon. Gentleman promise that the Cabinet will reconsider the matter?

I have made it clear that we are spending more money in real terms. I think that that is a sensible proposal.

asked the Prime Minister whether she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 30 June.

I have been asked to reply.

Now that my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Civil Service Department, has announced an independent inquiry into Civil Service pay, does my right hon. Friend agree that there is now no excuse for the disruption not ceasing forthwith? Is my right hon. Friend aware that the disruption is causing widespread resentment, and discomfort to business men, pensioners and holidaymakers throughout the country? Will he urge people who are not in post to return to work forthwith?

It is clear that one of the main considerations of civil servants has been the future determination of their pay. The inquiry that has been announced meets that point. Many civil servants have stayed loyally at their posts throughout the troubles. I hope that those who are on strike will decide to join them and give up the industrial action.

Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the newspaper reports to the effect that the National Health Service faces a £5 million impost because of the public holiday for the Royal Wedding? Does he agree that if the National Health Service has to pay additional overtime rates, plus payments for workers on a 24-hour service that day, the money should come from the Contingency Reserve rather than from the cash already allocated to the NHS?

I have not noticed that report. I believe that there is a widespread feeling in the country that a public holiday on the day of the Royal wedding is right and welcome.

In view of the great importance and serious implications of the statement by the Secretary of State for Defence last week, will my right hon. Friend do his utmost to ensure that both 7 and 8 July are set aside for a debate on defence? Does my right hon. Friend agree that one day is inadequate for the House to express its views in full?

I understand my hon. Friend's special feelings about this subject. After all the years that he has represented Gillingham, it is a matter of great concern to him However, time for a debate is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.

Will the Home Secretary inform the Prime Minister that her insistence at the European summit that strict monetary controls are the only method of controlling unemployment is unacceptable to the majority of our member partners in the EEC, who seem to believe that, although inflation must be tackled, it cannot be tackled in isolation from other economic policies?

The hon. Lady and I share one disadvantage—neither of us was present at the discussions. It would be better to address that question to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. There will be such an opportunity when she returns.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 30 June.

I have been asked to reply.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise the need for full-time employees in industry to be given adequate time off to pursue public duties, whether they are active shop stewards or bus drivers fighting hopeless causes in parliamentary by-elections? Will he examine the case of Mr. Mike Cooley, one of the authors of the corporate plan, who is employed by the Lucas aerospace organisation and who is faced with dismissal from his proper work as an engineer because of the public work that he has been doing. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that that is undesirable? Will he take the opportunity of saying how important it is that people who are employed fulltime in industry should be allowed time off to do other things?

I shall look into the case that the hon. Gentleman mentions and ensure that it is properly examined. On the wider point, of course I agree with what he says. I am looking forward to going to Warrington, where I shall make an excellent speech and greatly enhance the chances of the Conservative candidate.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that his decision to refuse the request of Poland's Communist Government for the return of General Sikorski's ashes, when two Soviet divisions remain in occupation in that country and another dozen or more stand poised to invade round its borders, is most warmly welcomed by the tens of thousands of Poles in Britain and by the Polish ex-combatant's association? May I thank him warmly for that decision?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The decision was an extremely difficult one. Obviously, I believe that I took the right decision, but I do not wish to comment on the circumstances involved.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her engagements for Tuesday 30 June.

I have been asked to reply.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that in developed nations, such as Germany, France, United States, Japan and others, the production rate is far superior to ours because their Governments, banks, managements and employees co-ordinate more than ours? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the Prime Minister when she returns that it is time that she started initiating co-operation between those factions instead of at all times fighting the trade union movement?

As I understand the hon. Gentleman, he is urging that we in Britain should be more productive and more competitive. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has been urging that for a long time.

Will my right hon. Friend undertake that, if the Chatham dockyard really is to be closed, special facilities will be made available for smaller, private firms to undertake fresh work, using the skills of the engineering industry, which employs many of my constituents and many in the two neighbouring constituencies, which are perturbed about the rundown? May we have an assurance that something positive will be done?

Stop whingeing.

I understand my hon. Friend's concern. He is one of the leading Conservative Members in Kent. I shall certainly draw to the attention of my right hon. and hon. Friends his comments, which I regard as important.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that in any free collective bargaining system a disagreement goes to arbitration? As he is an advocate of the former, will he not accept the latter in the Civil Service dispute?

The Government's position on the Civil Service dispute was clearly set out by the Minister of State, Civil Service Department, yesterday. I have nothing further to add.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if those in work press for wage increases in double figures in the forthcoming wage round, without compensating increases in productivity, the number of unemployed can only increase?

That must be right and I hope that many people will pay attention to it.

Will the Home Secretary tell us in confidence, while the Prime Minister is away, what policy his Government would undertake to reduce the appalling level of unemployment if his wing of the Cabinet had its way?

They would be exactly the same measures as the whole Cabinet is taking at present. I am surprised that either the hon. Gentleman, or anyone else on the Opposition Benches, should raise that matter today. They had their opportunity last Wednesday. The Leader of the Opposition had his opportunity. He muffed it. I have learnt in politics and life that it is unwise to reinforce weakness. That is what the hon. Gentleman is doing.

Will my right hon. Friend ask the Prime Minister today to consider the deplorable misrepresentation of our policies regarding Ulster in America, culminating in the deplorable cancellation of the visit of a member of the Royal family? Will he ensure that everything possible is done by the Government to see that the truth is known to our great ally?

That is very important, and the Government will do their best to ensure that that is done.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should like your guidance on a matter which arose yesterday but which is also connected with the laying of a statutory instrument today. My hon. Friend the Member for Easington (M. Dormand) asked the Minister of State, Department of Trade, about the workings of the Films Act 1980, and specifically about the quota for British films. The Minister for Consumer Affairs replied:

"I hope to be making an announcement on quotas before long."

"I have already told the House that I expect to make an announcement about the quota shortly".—[Official Report, 29 June 1981; Vol. 7, c. 563–4.]

I am much obliged to the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer). He will not be surprised if I say that his point of order is too important for me to answer off the cuff. I shall answer it tomorrow.

To save the time of the House, I shall put together the Questions on the two motions relating to statutory instruments.