asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he plans to reduce the male qualifying age under the job release scheme from 64 to 62 years; and if he will make a statement about early retirement in this context.

Yes, Sir. I refer my hon. Friend to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister yesterday. The qualifying age for men will be reduced to 63 in November 1981 and to 62 in February next year.

We welcome the Government's measures, announced yesterday, including the changes in the job release scheme to enable elderly workers to retire and to make their jobs available for unemployed young people. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this sort of proposal is a more effective long-term solution to unemployment than the shorter-term palliatives of schemes such as the job opportunities programme? Will he give us some idea when we may see a lowering of the general male retirement age to bring it into line with that for women and that in other countries?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he said. However, I can see no likelihood in the near future of the retirement age for men being lowered to bring it into line with that for women. Experience in a number of countries is to equate the retirement age for both men and women at 65 or, perhaps, as in the United States, to consider putting up the retirement age to 68. We should be in terrible trouble if we were to think that a smaller number of workers could pay for far more elderly and retired workers than hitherto.

Long-term arrangements may be desirable, but is it not necessary that our short—term measures should be more wholehearted and decisive than they appear? Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the arrangements announced yesterday will have a significant effect in South Yorkshire, where there are 81,000 people unemployed and only 77 vacancies in careers offices?

Yes, I am satisfied that the measures announced yesterday will have an effect, but we still face extremely serious prospects. The more we can do to help young people to obtain work and those reaching retirement age to retire early, the better it will be for those who must work.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many jobs in Yorkshire and Humberside are dependent on the temporary short-time working subsidy.

In June 1981, 45,576 potentially redundant jobs in the Yorkshire and Humberside region were included in claims that were forwarded for payment under the temporary short-time working compensation scheme.

Is the Minister aware that in Sheffield alone 16,000 jobs are dependent on the scheme? Is that not an appalling indictment of the Government's economic policy? Can the Minister give an assurance that for as long as the Prime Minister continues with her present grotesque management of the economy this subsidy will be retained unaltered so that thousands of jobs are not lost unnecessarily?

I am aware of the figures for unemployment is Sheffield, because the hon. Gentleman came to see me about another problem and made that point. He will be aware that just over 10,000 people in the Sheffield and Woodhouse employment office area are covered by the scheme. He will also be aware that the scheme is open until 31 March next year.

Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that for many thousands of workers in South Yorkshire and elsewhere the limited nature of the scheme means that the benefit is now about to expire and, thus, is likely to precipitate a further significant rise in the number of unemployed, unless the scheme can in some way be extended? Will the hon. Gentleman also bear in mind that it was intended as a temporary stop-gap pending the introduction of the more generous and ambitious scheme that was dropped by the Government when they took office? Does he recall that it was introduced because the EEC objected to the temporary employment subsidy, which was its precursor, which had characteristics in line with the £15 job subsidy announced yesterday? Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the EEC has now cleared the proposals for the £15 subsidy for young people?

The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the scheme was extended from six months to nine months and that it is reviewed. He will be further aware that the intention of the scheme is not to subsidise a job more than once. The EEC is aware of the new subsidy because it has been informed about it.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has any plans for further support for community industry units.

For 1981–82 the number of available places on the community industry scheme is being increased by 1,000, bringing the national complement to a total of 7,000 places. Yesterday, my right hon. Friend announced further measures to help the unemployed, and I would expect community industry to continue to play its part in helping young people.

Does the Minister agree that the scheme has three merits: first, that its cost is equal to or less than the better known youth opportunities programme; secondly, that it caters for young people most in need; and, thirdly, that the work is connected especially with community projects? In view of that, and if he agrees, will the Minister undertake that any proper applications for an extension of the scheme will be granted as part of the Government's recent proposals?

The Government agree that this scheme fulfils a most important function. The extent to which it can be extended will be considered when all the various special measures to reduce unemployment are considered.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment when next he expects to have discussions with the chairman of the Manpower Services Commission about industrial training.

I have no immediate plans to do so, but I regularly meet the chairman of the Manpower Services Commission to discuss issues of mutual concern, including industrial training.

When my right hon. Friend next meets the chairman will he emphasise the importance of the new industrial training package announced yesterday for ensuring that the training will be for the skills that will be needed in the future, so that when the upturn in the economy take; place it will not be held back by the constraint of lack of skilled labour, as has so often happened in the past?

I think that my hon. Friend is correct. We are trying to improve the youth opportunities programme so that it contains a greater element of training and more off-the-job training. The purpose of the new training initiative is to ensure that we have the skilled labour available as and when it is required.

Does the Secretary of State accept that there is now a dire need for young people to be trained effectively, particularly in engineering, where the heavy engineering skills are being lost in cities such as Birmingham, if we are to have the promised industrial recovery? Is the Secretary of State aware that that will not be achieved unless young people have adequate training? Will he ask the MSC to do everything possible to increase its programmes?

Yes. The MSC is doing everything possible. Recently, it asked the Government for an additional £20 million to aid apprenticeships over the next two years. That is in addition to the £30 million a year that we are already providing, making a total of £40 million for each of the next two years. The youth opportunities programme and what will flow from the new training initiatives are of vital importance.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that once he has received the sectoral review of the Manpower Services Commission on the future of the industrial training boards, it will be important for the morale of those employed by the boards and for industry generally that he announces his decision as soon as possible?

Yes. We need to get on with that and to remove uncertainty as soon as we can. I hope to be able to make a statement to Parliament soon after our return in the new Session.

Does the Secretary of State agree that if there is an upturn in the economy and the current amount of training in engineering and similar industries is maintained, the recovery is bound to be strangled virtually at birth by an overwhelming lack of skilled personnel?

No, I do not accept that. The skills have not suddenly disappeard from this country in the past two years. We are training enormous numbers of people. The Manpower Services Commission's report and consultations on the future of industrial training boards will be published on Thursday.

In the discussions with Sir Richard O'Brien will my right hon. Friend try to find ways of encouraging a greater number of acceptances of apprenticeships in industry and how to remove some of the restrictive practices that unions still operate towards apprenticeships? Will he explain the amount of money that can be paid to an employee under the new scheme to encourage employers to take on apprentices?

The Government are aiding a great number of first-year apprenticeships. The importance that my hon. Friend attaches to moving away from apprenticeships based on years to apprenticeships based on reaching a standard is coming through strongly in the new training initiative. It is supported by both employers and trade unions at national level. We require a little support from the House to ensure that it is also supported at local level.

Will the right hon. Gentleman guarantee that the decisions that he proposes to take on the MSC sectoral review will not be taken during the recess and that he will make a statement to the House before he takes action? May we assume that after yesterday's speech by the Prime Minister the funding difficulties connected with the initiatives for training are now ended?

I have already said that the MSC report will be published on Thursday. Further consultations will take place in the summer. I shall make a statement to the House in the new Session of Parliament about the Government 's decisions on the issue.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many applications for pre-hearing assessments there have been since their introduction; how many such applications have been granted; and of those granted how many have been disposed of before going on to a full industrial tribunal.

From l October 1980 to 30 April 1981, 927 pre-hearing assessments were called, of which 413 were on the application of a party. No information is available on the number of applications refused. 518 of the 927 cases were disposed of before going to a full tribunal hearing.

Is it not clear that the biggest deterrent to the bringing of unfair dismissal claims is that people know that once they have brought such claims they are unlikely ever to get another job?

I do not think that is true. There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that when a person has brought an unfair dismissal claim against one employer, he finds difficulty getting employment with another. I have given the hon. and learned Gentleman the figures that he wanted. The presidents of the industrial tribunals are pleased with the way that the pre-hearing assessments are working.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many persons under 18 years are currently unemployed in the London area; and how many of these are black.

At 9 April, the number of people under 18 years of age registered as unemployed in Greater London was 15,163. The number of black people included in this figure is not available. However, on 12 February, the latest date for which information is available, there were about 2,600 unemployed young people who were born in, or whose parent or parents were born in, the new Commonwealth and Pakistan.

Given the Secretary of State's statement many months ago about an expansion in the youth opportunities programme, can the Minister say why the 15,000 unemployed young people have not been offered YOP places? Is it because there is a lack of money to finance the scheme or is it that not enough suitable employers can be found to provide the places?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister yesterday announced an expansion of the youth opportunities programme. I do not have at my fingertips the number of young school leavers who were not taken up by the YOP scheme last year. The numbers would be small. The figure for the country as a whole was about 5,000. This year our Christmas commitment remains.

Would it not be apposite, when people express concern about unemployment in London, to point out that the so-called "capital" project—a computer system to facilitate the placing of people in jobs through employment offices throughout London—had to be abandoned because of union resistance?

My hon. Friend and others have written to me about that matter. It is fair to say that the jobcentres do everything that they possibly can to place young unemployed people in jobs.

In view of the troubles on the colour front in London will the Minister tell the House when the figures will be properly delineated so that we can tell how many blacks are unemployed?

That is racialism.

The hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Kerr) is a regular attender at Question Time and often puts questions to my right hon. and hon. Friends. The figures are updated and published at six-monthly intervals.

Is my hon. Friend not concerned that in the outer London boroughs, which are traditionally areas of high employment, there are signs of unduly long-lasting unemployment developing among young people? Is he confident that the new measures will help such areas—in particular, the London borough of Harrow?

I am aware that the situation in the outer London boroughs has deteriorated somewhat. I am confident that the measures announced yesterday by the Prime Minister will work.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what advice he has received from the Manpower Services Commission about the quota system for the employment of disabled people; and if he will make a statement.

I apologise for the rather long reply.

Does the Secretary of State recognise that in view of the savage cuts in the MSC's budget it is difficult to have any confidence that the Government will make sufficient resources available to improve the existing scheme or to make any new scheme effective? The Secretary of State said that there will be consultation. Can he assure the House that, before he comes to the House with any legislative proposals, it will be possible to have a debate on the matter?

I shall refer the latter question to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. I should have thought that the answer must be "Yes." We have been extremely careful to ensure that help for the disabled is not cut.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that all the organisations representing disabled persons are opposed to the abolition of the quota system? Will he examine more closely the possibility of strengthening the register for disabled people instead of abolishing a system which could be made to work more effectively, as it does in Germany?

There are mixed views on the matter. That is one of the reasons why a further period of consultation is necessary before asking the House to discuss the matter or the Government to make up their minds.

Is the Secretary of State aware that, in the view of many specialists, unemployment among disabled people who are actively seeking work is now effectively twice as high as for people generally and that it is as high as 80 per cent. in some parts of the United Kingdom? In reminding the right hon. Gentleman that unemployment for a disabled person is a double handicap that often leads to double despair, may I urge him not only to consult organisations representing disabled people but to be guided by their advice?

I always listen carefully to all that is said to me. The right hon. Gentleman's figures for unemployment among disabled people are not correct. The figure—which I agree is far too high—is 15·7 per cent. compared with 10·5 per cent. for the nation as a whole.

Is the Secretary of State aware that any weakening in the quota provision during the International Year of Disabled People would be regarded as wholly unacceptable? Is he further aware that there is a fear that the pressure on the Manpower Services Commission in this regard comes from people who want to employ fewer disabled people and that any new proposals by the MSC will therefore be weaker? Will he examine the possibility of ensuring that there is riot only a proper sanction but a carrot in the form of financial help to employers who employ disabled people?

All these matters are relevant. Many of the points were raised during the consultation undertaken by the Manpower Services Commission. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and the House will consider carefully what the commission says in its report because many of these points are fully discussed.

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

The unemployment figures announced by my Department last week are a cause for deep concern. We are continuing to do all we can to help those worst affected by unemployment, particularly young people. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced to the House yesterday the additional measures the Government are taking.

Does the Secretary of State acknowledge the appalling economic policies that have brought about this massive increase in unemployment? The increase amounts to over 183 per cent. in my constituency since the Tories came to power two years ago. Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that the crisis measures announced yesterday will have only a marginal effect on this appalling position? Will he say when the entrepeneurs, who received all the tax concessions when the Government came to office, are to provide the proper jobs promised by the Government and by the Conservatives so glibly during the 1979 election?

I acknowledge the seriousness of the problems of unemployment that have been coming to this country for the last 20 years. I have acknowledged on more than one occasion that everyone has a share of responsibility, including unions, management and Governments of all political parties. Hon. Members would do better to look at the underlying causes of unemployment rather than indulge in the sort of statement made by the hon. Gentleman.

Will not my right hon. Friend agree that the problems of youth unemployment present an opportunity for his Department to encourage trade unions and management to get together to agree radical solutions and changes in our present system of transition from school to work and of training and apprenticeships? Will not he agree that if such encouragement requires the expenditure of more money, as it will, such expenditure is likely to prove very cost-effective?

I do not think that there is any doubt that if money is needed to bring about a radical change in the vocational preparation of young people after they leave school and also to improve the situation in the years before they leave school the Government will play their full part in bringing this about. It underlines much of our bad economic performance over the last 20 years that we have a worse record in training young people than any other advanced society.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say what further increase has to occur in the already horrifying figures of unemployment before this insensitive Government decide to reflate and to cut unemployment.

I welcome the hon. Gentleman to the House, although I do not welcome his question. He seems to be getting back into his old ways only too quickly.

Which does my right hon. Friend believe to be the greatest threat to jobs in the public sector—the behaviour of Labour councillors like Mr. Livingstone, withdrawal from the Common Market, or the refusal of some trade union negotiators to see the link between wage increases unjustified by productivity and unemployment?

I do not wish to compare them. They can be equally damaging. I respect enormously, however, those trade union leaders who have negotiated sensible settlements in the past year. That should not be forgotten. I await the Opposition's views on Mr. Livingstone. I hope that they will have the courage to give them.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that on the basis of Government policies the Manpower Services Commission estimates that by 1983 two-thirds of those under 18 at that time will be without a proper job? Will not he agree that if this happens the scale of the disaster will be devastating? Should not the Secretary of State, instead of going along with some of his colleagues in putting people out of work, be providing jobs and so contributing towards social cohesion and harmony? Is he further aware that the Opposition regard the measures announced by the Prime Minister yesterday as wholly inadequate to deal with a most serious problem afflicting the nation, namely, youth unemployment?

If ever there was an inadequate response to the serious problems of unemployment it was the speech of the Leader of the Opposition yesterday. I ant disappointed that the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley) has not replied to the challenge that I issued on Mr. Livingstone. Of course, it would be better if real, proper jobs could be provided for all young people. That is our intention. [HON. MEMBERS: "When?"] One of the ways in which we can help towards that situation is to see that they are better trained to take jobs.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity, which, if I had my way, would be tomorrow.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the present number of Government training centres in England and Wales; and what was the number on 1 May 1979.

There are at present 60 skill-centres and 21 annexes in England and Wales. On 1 May 1979, there were 60 skillcentres and 29 annexes.

Is the Minister aware that he has given a most deplorable reply? Does he agree that as a result of the massive increase in unemployment under the Government there should also have occurred a massive extension of Government training centres, which would have led to meaningful training being given to unemployed people and would have provided them in time with the opportunity to obtain proper jobs? When are the Government intending to tackle the issue? When will they stop the kind of camouflage measures announced yesterday?

The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that simply to spend one's way out of trouble will create greater trouble. The skillcentre programme was agreed with the Manpower Services Commission, which includes TUC commissioners as well as CBI commissioners.

While the majority responsibility for industrial and commercial training must remain with the private sector, may I ask my hon. Friend to give the House the assurance that the next priority to which his Department will turn its attention urgently is the plight of the long-term unemployed—those who have been unemployed for over six-months or, in some cases, over 12 months, since the forecasts given by the Manpower Services Commission have been alarmingly high?

I agree with my hon. Friend. The issue of the long-term unemployed is a matter to which we in the Department and those in the Manpower Services Commission devote our attention. That is why we have the community enterprise programme.

In view of the fact that there must be a great deal more industrial training, particularly for young people, what steps have the Government taken to enter into serious discussion with the Trades Union Congress and the trade unions in order to reach an amicable agreement to bring about the expansion that is required at the earliest moment?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the apprenticeship programme is important for young school leavers. That is why the Government lay great store by the new training initiative published by the Manpower Services Commission, together with the TUC commissioners concerned.

Is my hon. Friend aware that many of the trade associations that thought that they could replace industrial training boards now seem unwilling to take part in new training initiatives? Will he assure the House that before any ITBs are abolished there will be means incorporated in the alternative arrangements to ensure that new training initiatives can be carried out effectively?

I agree with my hon. Friend that it is important that the trade associations make a constructive approach to the new training initiative. Anything that he or I can do to make sure that this is the case will be a worthwhile exercise.

Will the Government stop misleading the House and the country about their attitude and intentions towards industrial training? Their words suggest that they are backing industrial training, but between now and 1984 they will cut Government support for industrial training by £77·5 million. The training opportunities programme provided for nearly 100,000 trainees in 1978, but this year it is likely to make provision for fewer than 60,000. Why do not the Government come clean?

I do not know where the right hon. Gentleman gets his figure of £77·5 million. I am sure that he listened to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister yesterday. A large part of her statement was devoted to training and industrial training.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will institute a scheme for trained young people who still cannot get employment after qualifying whereby their unemployment benefit is paid to an employer who agrees to take them on for a period.

I refer my hon. Friend to the announcement made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister yesterday. We intend to introduce a subsidy scheme to benefit young people, details of which will be announced as soon as possible.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for her initiatives. Does my right hon. Friend agree that many skilled young people cannot get employment because they do not have experience and employers will not take them on? Would not my suggestion give them that experience? Would it not take them off the dole queues at the same time? Would not that be achieved at no cost to the Exchequer?

I think that there would be some cost to the Exchequer. It is a modified form of my hon. Friend's scheme that the Prime Minister announced yesterday. We are giving further consideration to the Layard proposals and the Reading proposals. There are certain disadvantages in the proposals that have to be overcome.

The Prime Minister announced a new Speenhamland system yesterday that turns on a maximum wage of £40 a week, of which the Government will pay £15. What guarantees are there that will prevent an unscrupulous set of employers from setting on young people in receipt of wages of less than £40 a week and at some later stage sacking some adults?

The hon. Gentleman had better wait for the details of the scheme.

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

At 9 July, the provisional rate of unemployment in the Consett travel-to-work area, which includes Stanley, was 26·6 per cent.

Is the Minister aware that that is one of the highest unemployment rates in the entire United Kingdom and that it includes almost 600 school leavers, for whom there are only three jobs available? Can we expect any improvement as a result of the measures announced yesterday?

The principal reason for the very bad figures is the closure of the steelworks in September 1980 with the loss of no fewer than 3,600 jobs. The problems of the steel industry were not created by the Government. I can hold out hope for the hon. Gentleman. I understand that 1,100 former BSC workers have found new jobs or training since the closure of the works. Consett lies in the North-East special development area and the maximum financial assistance is available from the Department of Industry. Some small firms have set up in the area and the business opportunities programme should persuade many more to go to the area.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to assist young persons who have completed a youth opportunities programme and are unable to find work.

The youth opportunities programme is designed to equip young people for employment. The training content is currently being improved so that participants are better fitted for a wider range of job opportunities.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is unhelpful, to say the least, that many of the public service unions are refusing to accept youth opportunities candidates into the public service? Is he making any progress in persuading the unions to accept such candidates? In le long run the scheme might bring into the public service for permanent employment many young people who, having had experience in the service, might wish to join it.

I agree with my hon. Friend. It would be far more profitable for the public service unions and for young school leavers if the unions took a more positive attitude towards the youth opportunities programme.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the growing discontent among trainees on the youth opportunities programme with the level of the allowance that is paid to them, which has remained the same for over 18 months? It is an allowance that compares unfavourably with the amount that is made available to those who are unemployed. What action does he propose taking to increase the allowance?

At least 10,000 young people are entering the scheme every week. The growing discontent to which the hon. Gentleman refers cannot be as bad as all that. However, the difference between the allowance and unemployment benefit is £8·25. My right hon. Friend has been saying for some time that he is prepared to review the £23 allowance.

When?

asked the Prime Minister if she will pay an official visit to Bedfordshire.

I have at present no plans to do so.

The new employment and training measures will help industry in Bedfordshire, but is my right hon. Friend aware that if the Labour and Liberal parties on the county council succeed in imposing a supplementary rate this autumn domestic and industrial ratepayers will be hurt and employment prospects in Bedfordshire will be severely hampered?

I agree with my hon. Friend. However much councils may wish to in local authorities, they should not impose rates that are too high for their industry and commerce to bear. It is industry and commerce that provide the jobs. Higher rates can mean more unemployment. I hope that my hon. Friend's council will take that into account when considering what to do.

asked the Prime Minister if she will pay an official visit to King Edward in the East Aberdeenshire constituency.

I have at present no plans to do so.

I regret that my right hon. Friend is unable to visit King Edward in my constituency. She would have been most welcome. However, she will be aware that a much more serious problem is affecting my constituency and others. I refer to the decision yesterday taken by the European Commission on herring quotas. I do not wish to pre-empt the statement that will be made later this afternoon. However, is my right hon. Friend able to give the House an assurance that the herring stocks in British waters will be fully protected at all times, in the interests of the British herring fisheries industry?

I agree with my hon. Friend about the need for adequate protection of herring stocks. I understand that arrangements have been made for reports on herring catches. I understand that the arrangements involve making full reports twice weekly. The United Kingdom fisheries protection services will increase their surveillance of herring fisheries. We intend to close the fisheries when a scientifically recommended total allowable catch has been taken.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 28 July.

This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, including the President of Cyprus, the Prime Minister of Barbados and Mr. Rajiv Ghandi. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having a meeting later today with the President of the Federal Republic of Germany. This evening I shall attend a supper given by Her Majesty the Queen on the eve of the marriage of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales to the Lady Diana Spencer.

Following the speech made yesterday by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government are carrying out a review of all wages councils? Is she aware that many of my hon. Friends and I believe that their activities can be an obstacle towards making jobs available, and that without them there could be fuller employment?

We have no immediate plans for legislation on wages councils. The minimum wages that most councils prescribe for 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds vary from about £32 to £50. We hope that the wages councils will take into account the statement that was made yesterday about help for those who are employed and in receipt of a wage of less than £40, so that they may take the same approach as the Government. It is vital to get more young people into jobs.

When the Cabinet had before it the proposals that the right hon. Lady announced yesterday, had it also before it the unpublished forecasts of the Manpower Services Commission, which are reported in The Times today and which predict that for the next 30 months there will be an increase in unemployment, including, at the end of that period, over 1 million who have been unemployed for a year? Did the Cabinet have those forecasts before it? Does the right hon. Lady agree with them? Does not she think that it would have been a good idea to report the matter to the House?

We had no new forecasts before us. If there are any such forecasts from the Manpower Services Commission—I saw the report in The Times—I do not know of their existence. We wished to take the measures that we took and reported to the House yesterday because we wanted to do everything possible to reduce unemployment among young people and to help older people who are without jobs. We thought that the best way to do that was to proceed, as we said, with the extension of the job release scheme.

Does not the right hon. Lady agree that those figures are extremely serious? Will she report to the House on them before the House adjourns for the Summer Recess? The right hon. Lady has not told us whether she has considered those reports. It is a most serious forecast from the commission about unemployment over the next two or three years. When will the right hon. Lady face the situation?

I understand, and I tried to point out to the right hon. Gentleman, that there are no new forecasts. We are naturally concerned about the present situation and about the fact that more school leavers will come on to the register. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman should also take into account the fact that some hon. Gentlemen behind him spoke in the debate yesterday and said that they are just as concerned as we are about the present position. They had no immediate solutions.

Does my right hon. Friend recall the last occasion on which the Leader of the Opposition did something other than rend his garments like a rather untidy Old Testament prophet, and actually make a Constructive suggestion?

Whatever the right hon. Gentleman does or does not do, we believe in tackling the problem in two ways. We try to tackle the problem of unemployment at its root by increasing competitiveness and getting more jobs. In the meantime, in the shorter term, we must try to relieve hardship and suffering, as we said yesterday.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that since the wages councils cover about 10 per cent. of employment, their abolition would probably do more for employment, even than the useful measures that she announced yesterday?

I said earlier that we have no immediate plans for legislation on wages councils. I hope that they will take into account the measures that we proposed yesterday and the fact that many of us are very concerned to get more young people into employment, and also to provide employment for older people, by ensuring that firms become competitive. That must mean that people price themselves into jobs, because that is the only way to long and lasting full employment.

How much longer will the Prime Minister tolerate the open criticism and rebellion against her policies by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food?

The Minister of Agriculture is quite capable of answering for himself.

May I congratulate the Prime Minister on the Government's highly relevant and important decision to establish 80 new centres of information technology? An unfortunate and inaccurate impression exists, particularly in the Portsmouth and Havant area, that the Government are not greatly concerned about the consequences of the dockyard closure. Will she therefore consider most carefully establishing one such centre in that area?

I shall certainly communicate what my hon. Friend has said to the Minister for Industry and Information Technology. On the general point, we are anxious that there will be sufficient properly trained people in this country for the new technology, because that is the kind of industry that this country must have if we are to increase the standard of living and the prosperity of our people.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 28 July.

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

Will the Prime Minister explain how she can continue in office presiding over an Administration that are now raising £6 billion from North Seal oil revenues and frittering it away on £8¾ billion on the dole queues?

The hon. Gentleman has over-assessed the amount that goes on unemployment and social security benefits. My recollection—I speak from memory—is that the sum paid out in unemployment and social security benefits for the first three months this year was about £750 million. It is much easier to pose the problem than it is to provide permanent, good jobs for our people. There is only one way to do that, and it is the way that the right hon. Gentleman refuses to follow. May I quote:

"There is in fact only one way to stop our industrial decline. We must prevent our unit costs from rising so much faster than our competitors. By far the best way to reduce unit costs is to increase productivity by increasing output per head. Unfortunately, this can be achieved only on the shop floor of the individual firm There is no general policy through which the Government can perform the miracle".

Did my right hon. Friend notice during the course of, yesterday's debate that when the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore) was asked about the cost of the spendthrift programme put forward by the Leader of the Opposition earlier in the afternoon, he admitted that the programme had not been costed? Is that a sensible way for Her Majesty's official Opposition to embark on policy-making?

The answer is "No, Sir", but it is the way that we have come to expect from the Leader of the Opposition.

Will the Prime Minister tell us today, and preferably now, why one major aspect of her Government's policy—of any Government policy—was not mentioned in her speech yesterday, and that is regional policy? Is it because it is such a monumental flop? In the Northern region last week unemployment rose to 15·6 per cent., which is the highest rate in the United Kingdom. Is she aware that it has risen every month since her Government came to power? What does she intend to do about it? Will she do something new to change the policies that she repeatedly told us yesterday were so successful?

The hon. Gentleman is not correct. Grants under regional policy were included in the £1 billion which at present goes largely to the private sector.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that those of us who for many years have visited Keswick were shattered by what happened to the town and its theatre? Does not she believe, despite the superb effort by the police, that the arrest of 14 is barely a deterrent, and that many of those roving gangs will continue to pose a threat to helpless communities unless they are told that their bikes will be impounded if they go on in this way?

If my memory is correct, I understand that those young people were fined £1,000 each by the magistrates' court. Doubtless, the magistrates regarded that as a deterrent sentence. We must leave law and order to the police, and the law to the magistrates.

In view of the enormous sacrifices that have been made by Scottish fishermen since 1977 to conserve herring stocks, and in view of the notorious inaccuracies in the reporting process by foreign fleets, will the Prime Minister take a leaf out of the Icelandic book and take all means at the Government's disposal to protect Scotland's herring industry?

I answered a question on that subject earlier this afternoon. The surveillance by the United Kingdom fisheries protection fleet will be increased. The fisheries catches will be reported twice a week. We intend to close the fishery when the scientifically recommended total allowable catch is taken.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm today that before we come back in October Ministers will have published specific proposals to defend commercial and domestic ratepayers against the depredations of the likes of Mr. Ken Livingstone and his grizzly friends throughout the country?

It is quite clear that some defence is needed against the reported activities of Mr. Ken Livingstone. I believe that the consultative document will have been published by that time. I shall endeavour to see that it is done.

Has the Prime Minister noticed that the building industry is forecasting a still further increase in unused resources? Should we not therefore distinguish more sharply between current and capital expenditure? While keeping current expenditure under strict control, has not the time come to encourage productive investment?

A good deal of current expenditure is spent on maintenance, which affects the building industry. We have encouraged capital expenditure by a number of measures. We have increased the capital allowances on industrial buildings from 50 per cent. to 75 per cent., with the specific intent of helping industry and increasing the amount of work available to the construction industry. The rate of development land tax has been lowered to a single figure of 60 per cent.—a further help to the construction industry. The capital programme of 30 new town development corporations will cost £275 million this year. Two nuclear power stations are being constructed. There is a heavy hospital building programme and the roads programme is costing more than £900 million. All that is for the building and construction industry.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is to be sacked, can we be notified to that effect before we rise for the Summer Recess, in view of what happened during the Christmas Recess?

Whoever that is a question for, it is certainly not for me.