asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will now answer questions relating to forecasts of future levels of unemployment.

I am prepared to respond to such questions on the same basis as my predecessors.

Does the Secretary of State agree that now is the time to take positive action about unemployment, because it has increased by almost 1 million during the past year? Unless the idiotic economic policies of the Government are reversed, and if by mischance they run their full term, by May 1984 unemployment will be nearly 5 million. Slimly even the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to do something about that.

I do not think that that arises from the question on the Order Paper. But the hon. Gentleman has forgotten a number of factors: first, that short-time working is on the decline; secondly, that overtime working in on the increase; and, thirdly, that the trend of notified vacancies is now rather more firm. Productivity is rising sharply and competitiveness in British industry is increasing. That should suggest to the hon. Gentleman that there is some cause for hope.

If forecasts in my right hon. Friend's Department or in the Manpower Services Commission showed further significant increases in unmployment, would he consider it his first duty to ensure that those forecasts were not achieved in practice and that the trend should soon be downwards?

Yes, of course. But the only way to achieve those downwards trends is to regain the markets that we have lost and to become more competitive than our rivals.

If the Secretary of State cannot or will not forecast unemployment levels, how can he expect his right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to get his Budget right and get us out of the mess into which he has got us?

Forecasts are difficult to make. recollect putting a similar question to the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth), the then Secretary of State for Employment, to which he replied:

"it is not possible to predict the trend of unemployment with any hope of accuracy".—[Official Report, 14 June 1977; Vol. 933, c. 213.]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the suggestion that there is an easy solution to the problem of unemployment is a cruel deception of the millions of people who are unemployed? Does he further agree that there is a growing awareness today that the solution of the problem lies less within the gift of the Government that has previously been recognised?

My hon. Friend is right. Although we are doing well in a number of areas in industry these days—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] The recent orders for British Shipbuilders, the orders taken in Brazil, the orders for new steel mills in India and for a new power station in Hong Kong are typical examples. Although we are doing well in a number of areas, it is a cruel deception to suggest that while it takes 41 man-hours to make a Ford Escort at Dagenham compared with 21 man-hours to make a Ford Escort in Saarlouis, Germany, with similar equipment, we can solve the problem of unemployment with a slick and easy answer.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is his latest estimate of the proportion of 16 and 17-year-olds not in higher or further education who are receiving more than one day per week of vocational training.

I regret that the information is not available in the form requested. However, it is estimated that of those 16 and 17-year-olds who entered employment in England and Wales in 1979, about 40 per cent. entered jobs which offered training extending over eight weeks or more. The Manpower Services Commission's youth opportunities programme provides basic training and work experience for unemployed 16 and 17-year-olds. Currently, about 259,000 young people are participating in the programme.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. In view of the importance of vocational training if we are to have a labour force with the skills and flexibility necessary for the age in which it must work, is it worth reviewing the availability of information on how widespread vocational training is? Does my right hon. Friend agree that we should move to the stage when such training is made available to all school leavers who do not move to higher or further education?

I confirm that we have all the statistics that we need. I shall check what my hon. Friend said in the first part of his question. I endorse the objective that he outlined. It is one of the primary aims of "A New Training Initiative" which will develop on a large scale in the new year.

What action does the Minister propose to uphold the Prime Minister's pledge that every unemployed school leaver should have a place on the youth opportunities programme by Christmas, bearing in mind the Manpower Services Commission report that that is unlikely to be achieved, especially in areas of recent high unemployment, such as London and the South-East?

We are vigorously pursuing the undertaking that we gave. We are optimistic that the majority will be able to obtain posts. The latest position cannot be stated categorically because the most recent count, which took place on 12 November, has not yet been assimilated. We shall be in a position to give an answer later.

While my right hon. Friend is considering the whole range of plans for young people aged 16, 17 and 18, will he leave a possible opening for the development of a scheme for national community service should it appear later that that is something with which the Government would like to proceed?

I know of my hon. Friend's deep interest in the idea of community service. The YOP already features about 30 per cent. of entrants on community schemes. I take note of the interest that my hon. Friend takes in a further extension of that scheme.

Why has the Minister not insisted on a component for training in the new and controversial young workers' scheme? Has he not sold these youngsters short?

Late last night the hon. Gentleman heard the answer to that question. I shall repeat it for him. In the young workers' scheme it is essential to concentrate on a single, narrow and realisable objective—the creation of new jobs for youngsters. The insertion of a training dimension separate from that which is already available would be a diffusion from that aim. We mean to stick to the simple aim.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on his plans for further legislation on industrial relations.

I hope to announce the Government's proposals for further legislation on industrial relations shortly.

In view of the representations following the Green Paper on trade union immunities, does my right hon. Friend feel inclined to bring in measures to curb further the power of the trade unions?

Yes, Sir. The thrust of the majority of reactions to the Green Paper is that it is time for a further step forward in this area. [Interruption.] I hope to make a statement about that matter before long.

The Secretary of State has had a busy time since he was appointed. But has he had the opportunity to read the speech by Lord Scanlon in another place last Thursday, since much of it was devoted to this subject? If the right hon. Gentleman has not read the speech, might I suggest that he does, because he might learn something to help him to deal with the trade unions on behalf of the nation as a whole, not just on behalf of those who responded to the Green Paper?

I accept the right hon. Gentleman's invitation to read the speech. I am sure that I shall find in it much to buttress my conclusions.

I recognise that the Institute of Directors runs a good club and produces a good magazine. But does my right hon. Friend recognise that, when dealing with employers' views on industrial relations, he is more likely to hear the authentic voice of British industry from the CBI than from the dining hall?

I note what my hon. Friend said. It is right that I should consult widely and listen to people who wish to put forward their views, whether it be the Institute of Directors or the TUC.

Is the Secretary of State as enthusiastic now about worker participation in industry—which is not unrelated to industrial relations—as he was when, in Opposition, he made speeches in support of it?

Yes. The more participation that there is by management and workers, the better for industry. However, I am not sure whether it is appropriate to legislate and force a framework on employers and unions. Good employers should have the common sense to realise that participation is the way to get the most out of their employees.

What legislation is planned to increase the compensation to workers who are unfairly dismissed by their employers?

The hon. Gentleman will have to await my statement. I do not propose to unpick the parcel bit by bit at this stage.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will review the level of cash reserves held by the industrial training boards.

Yes, Sir.

I thank my hon. Friend for that brief reply. Will he return to the subscribers the £30 million paid to the boards which were so wisely abandoned yesterday? Will he also ensure that the £50 million cash reserves of the remaining boards will be promptly employed to train people who want training now rather than held to earn interest year after year as they have in the past?

As my right hon. Friend made clear yesterday, the Government will pay the balance of the net winding-up and operating costs of the boards that are to be abolished by March 1983. The reserves of the boards will go towards paying the operating costs and winding-up costs. When we come to examine the levy proposals for the boards that are retained, we shall take into account the reserves and ensure that they are used for training.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the latest figure for the number of registered unemployed persons.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the latest rate of unemployment.

At 8 October the number of people registered as unemployed in the United Kingdom was 2,988,644, or 12·4 per cent.

In the face of those appalling figures, what possible justification can there be for the complacency expressed by the Secretary of State in the House today? Is he aware that the offer of hope that he said exists in working further overtime and so on represents nothing in the way of hope to the majority of the unemployed? Is there not a case for further reflation or Government action?

There is no case for any major further reflation. The hon. Gentleman must understand the events that led to the high levels of unemployment.

Answer.

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will listen to someone other than himself for a moment. Between 1970 and 1981 unit labour costs in British industry rose twice as fast as they did in countries that are our principal competitors. The consequence could only be a massive loss of jobs. In 1980–81 our costs came down nearer to those of our competitors. This year the level is almost static. That is the only way to regain our competitive position and recreate jobs.

How many of the unemployed are unemployed, despite there being employers who wish to employ them, simply because they are denied a 714 certificate as it is less than three years since they left school? Without a three-year employment record, the Inland Revenue will refuse to issue a 714 certificate.

My hon. Friend raises a serious point. It would be impossible to produce the figure that he requests under the normal convention of statistics. However, I shall consider the matter. No doubt he will raise it with my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Does the Secretary of State agree that the rate of increase in unemployment can have as serious an impact upon a town such as Halifax as the level of unemployment? Is he aware that unemployment in Halifax has increased by 136 per cent. in the past year? If he agrees with me, will be convey that view to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry and ask him to take that into account when help for industry and employers is being considered?

That matter is among the many matters to be taken into consideration when we assess whether an area should be designated for assisted area status. It is not the only criterion. Many criteria are taken into consideration by my right hon. Friend when reaching his conclusions.

Has my right hon. Friend made an estimate of the increase in unemployment that would follow the Opposition's planned renationalisation, in the event of the disaster of a Labour Government taking power `again?

Contingency planning is a good thing, but not for contingencies so outrageously improbable as a Government led by the Leader of the Opposition.

Is the Secretary of State aware that he has shown today the same stupidity and ignorance about unemployment as he showed when he attacked workers in Liverpool in his speech at the Tory Party conference? Is it not time that he learnt something about simple economics—that it is better to put people back to work than to pay out enormous sums in unemployment benefit, as the Government are now doing?

I understand that the hon. Gentleman wants things made simple. I remind him that in the past Merseyside had an especially poor strike record compared with the remainder of Britain. Between 1975 and 1978 Merseyside accounted for 10 per cent. of all working days lost through industrial stoppages in the whole of the United Kingdom. Happily, things have improved greatly since then. I hope that they will continue to improve so that the people of Merseyside can overcome that bad reputation, which has done them so much damage.

Following the valid point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), will my right hon. Friend add his weight to the pressure on the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make the three-year waiting period more flexible?

I take careful note of my hon. Friend's request. I shall consider the matter carefully.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that during the short period that he has held the office of Secretary of State for Employment, and the short period during which he has answered questions—this is the first employment Question Time for him—he has effectively demonstrated that there is no way in which the inexorable rise in unemployment will be stopped while he holds office? Would it not be better to put people back to work than to take away their jobs? Would not that, rather than the destructive policies that he is about to pursue, make for social cohesion and harmony?

When the right hon. Gentleman understands that customers who buy create jobs and customers who walk away destroy jobs, he will be more fitted to hold office.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will provide travelling expenses for those young people taking part in the youth opportunities programme.

Young people taking part in the youth opportunities programme can claim travelling expenses over £4 a week.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that a number of local youth organisations and MSC representatives have said that youngsters faced with travelling costs of £2, £3 or £4 per week are opting out of the YOP? Will he reconsider the matter and extend the travelling costs provision to those further down the scale?

I have no evidence of youngsters opting out of the YOP because of travelling costs. We have the opposite evidence of huge numbers wanting to join the programme. I shall study my hon. Friend's point. He knows that it is possible for the MSC to help people, especially from rural areas, with travel by means of minibuses.

As well as taking note of the point about travelling expenses, will the Minister take cognisance of the MSC's recommendation that the £23·50 should be increased to £28? Is he aware that in Bothwell many youngsters are being exploited? The sooner an investigation is carried out, the better it will be for all concerned.

I note the hon. Gentleman's point. The main question relates to travelling expenses. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to table a question about the YOP allowance, I shall seek to answer it.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what are the latest figures available in respect of unemployed males and females in the Preston travel-to-work area.

On 8 October there were 12,003 males and 5,899 females registered as unemployed in the Preston travel-to-work area.

In view of the remarkable increase in the number of unemployed in the Preston travel-to-work area, will the Under-Secretary of State explain how he justifies the cutting of industrial training boards? As there is no early opportunity of re-employment, industrial training provides a good alternative for many youngsters in the area.

I am not aware that industrial training boards have created any jobs. They have provided training for industry. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Government are helping thousands of people in Preston through the temporary short-time working compensation scheme, the youth opportunities programme and the job release scheme.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will have discussions with the Trades Union Congress about the practice of reaching strike decisions at mass meetings.

My right hon. Friend is always happy to meet the TUC and would welcome the opportunity to discuss the widespread concern felt about this practice.

Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that it is offensive to our ideals of democracy, injurious to personal liberties and livelihoods and, in the case of a major dispute, such as British Leyland, prejudicial to the whole economy, that such decisions should be reached at open meetings, in open parks, with no check on those attending? Does he agree that something should be done to rectify that situation?

The Government feel that strike decisions should not be taken at huge outdoor meetings. There is too much risk of intimidation and vote rigging. The time has certainly come for the TUC to remove its absurd boycott on the provision of Government funds for secret ballots. That is absurd and irresponsible when the TUC is prepared to accept money from the Government for training and for the Welsh TUC to take a trip to Spain.

By what democratic process did British Leyland decide to cut the relaxation time of its workers from one hour to 51 minutes? Is it not true that all too often car manufacturers, when they have surplus stocks, deliberately create strikes on the shop floor to run down those stocks? There is a strong feeling that British Leyland is doing exactly that now to get rid of its stockpile.

Order. That question is not related to the main question. It is a separate question.

Will the Under-Secretary take this opportunity to explain to his hon. Friends that if the Government, through legislation, insist that ballots take place before strikes are called, there will have to be ballots to call off strikes? Would that not lead to a dangerous position for industry, the trade union movement and industrial relations?

The hon. Gentleman will have to contain his impatience and await the announcement of my right hon. Friend's proposals.

Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that employment in the motor car industry depends on the number of motor cars that are sold? How can we get across to employees that strikes merely stop the public buying motor cars and cause more unemployment?

It may be that the message has come across to employees. The difficulty is to ensure that true democracy is restored within trade unions.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will take steps to ensure that the youth opportunities programme provides an increased amount of training for participants and an appropriate grounding for apprenticeships.

The Prime Minister announced on 27 July that the Government were considering an improved training scheme for young people and I expect to make an announcement by the turn of the year.

I thank the Secretary of State for that reply. As many of the training boards are to be wound up, will he be prepared to ensure that some resources are redeployed from job creation into training schemes? Is he aware that in the North-West of England 170,000 young people are unemployed and that 41 per cent. of them are under the age of 25 years? Is he not concerned that many of these young people are being preyed upon by those in extreme Left-wing groups, especially by those involved in the so-called youth training centres in many cities?

Yes. The hon. Gentleman draws attention to a serious problem. I assure him that I want to get ahead with developing YOP into a much more comprehensive training programme as soon as possible. I hope to make a further statement on the new training initiative and on that scheme before too long.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that one of the flaws in YOP has been the lack of contact that the schemes have with reality in the world of industry? Will he confirm that one of the prime aims of the new training initiative is to bring the schemes much more into contact with jobs in the real world? Does he accept that in so doing the schemes will need to have a large vocational content?

Yes. I accept my hon. Friend's contention. The schemes will have to provide for different types of training in different areas to meet the demands of the local labour market. It is important that we involve all those who are concerned in industry in ensuring that that is achieved.

Is the right hon. Gentleman proposing a training tax on employers because he cannot fund the new training initiative?

No. I am not making any such proposal. I shall not make a. positive proposal in that direction. I have suggested in various speeches that it would not be a bad idea if we considered all the options in the longer term, including a remissible training tax of the sort that is levied in France.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he is satisfied with the present arrangements for dealing with picketing during a strike.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he is satisfied that the code of practice in the formation of picket lines is being observed.

The code of practice makes it clear that pickets are not immune from the provisions of the criminal law. If pickets act in a violent or disorderly manner, or by sheer numbers seek to stop people going to work, those responsible may be committing criminal offences. They may also lose any immunity that they may have under the civil law. In general the code is being observed, but I deplore the recent cases where it has not been observed.

I thank my hon. and learned Friend for that reply. Is he aware that considerable alarm was caused by the huge number of pickets outside some of the BL works during the strike, which intimidated and alarmed many people, both employees and those living nearby? Does he accept that the present arrangements are not working?

Disorderly picketing of the sort that has occurred at some of the BL plants is a matter for the criminal law. The law has never protected pickets who use threatening behaviour, act in a disorderly manner or obstruct the highway to prevent ordinary people from exercising their right to go to work. The enforcement of the criminal law is a matter for the police.

Following the trouble at British Leyland, is my hon. and learned Friend aware that intimidation took place during the recent one-day strike at Vauxhalls at Luton and that some of my constituents who attempted to cross the picket line were subjected to threats to tear up their union cards? Surely it is time to bring under the control of legislation the thugs who completely ignore the code of practice and for my hon. and learned Friend to bring the appropriate legislation before the House.

The code of practice gives guidance, but it does not impose rules or regulations. This is primarily an issue for the criminal law. The police are responsible for the enforcement of that law. Throughout the past year the code has, in general, been observed. On certain occasions during the Civil Service strike picket leaders handed to pickets copies of the code of practice so that they would know how to behave.

Will the hon. and learned Gentleman comment on the continuous vilification that we hear from Conservative Members in their attacks on strikers? Does he recognise that we are aware of bandit employers in some cities? Is he aware that one such employer in Manchester used low-flying helicopters and thereby put life and property in grave danger? Surely it is time to introduce a code of practice for some employers.

If a man decides to use a helicopter rather than a horse and cart to move his own goods he is entitled to do so, providing that he does not break the law of the land. The hon. Gentleman would be better employed in helping the police to discover those responsible for causing £500,000-worth of damage by looting within the works.

Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that the Government should do all that they can to encourage moderation in wage claims? Will he acknowledge that one way to do so would be to legislate to make it easier for employees to break strikes? Will he therefore give consideration to the closed shop?

Once again, my hon. Friend is tempting me. He will have to await my right hon. Friend's statement.

Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that during the passage of the 1980 legislation the Government were warned by the Opposition that the code would not work in emotional situations such as those that arose at BL? How is he proposing that the police should enforce that legislation? Alternatively, is he proposing further legislation in that direction?

I thought that I had explained in words of one syllable that what went wrong at certain BL plants was that a number of people defied the law of the land and committed criminal offences. They committed offences that were contrary to the law of the land before the enactment of the 1980 legislation and, that remains the law of the land today.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the current rate of unemployment in Greater London.

At 8 October the rate of unemployment in Greater London was 8·9 per cent.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply. Does he accept the report of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, which states that each unemployed person costs the Government £4,500? If he does, does he accept also that a policy of economic regeneration, including investment in jobs rather than the dole, would be a far better investment of Government money?

I am delighted that representatives of the Liberal Party are present in the Chamber. During the debate on the Queen's Speech last week there was one occasion when for three-quarters of an hour only one Liberal Member was present in the Chamber. It is interesting that Liberals are now taking an interest in employment. I do not necessarily accept the report to which the hon. Gentleman refers. Reflation creates a loss of jobs.

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the greatest threats to employment in Greater London consists of the heavy rates that are levied on employers by the Greater London Council?

Yes. There can be no doubt about that. There is some evidence that firms are moving out of, London because of the increased rates in the London area.

Will the Government do something for the inner city areas of London, such as Willesden, in which unemployment has doubled in the past 12 months? Is he aware that the Guiness company, a large firm in my constituency, has 250 redundancies in the pipeline? I understand that Heinz has 200 redundancies in prospect and that Associated Automation will close with the loss of 500 jobs. Will the hon. Gentleman take some new initiatives?

There are already two inner city partnerships in London, with a budget of £24 million this year. There is also an urban development corporation, with a budget of £65 million. With respect, I cannot comment specifically on the hon. Gentleman's constituency, because I do not know.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what progress has been made in measures to reduce unemployment.

Manufacturing output has begun to recover; exports are doing well. Substantial recent engineering and construction orders, strong retail sales and substantial productivity increases alongside a fall in notified redundancies, a fall in short-time working, a rise in overtime working and a firmer trend in notified vacancies suggest that gains in competitiveness are being exploited. Only by regaining lost customers can jobs be recreated. In the meantime, the special measures programme offers help to many workers who might otherwise be unemployed.

Which of the measures mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman are at this moment reducing unemployment? Which of the measures does he expect will reduce unemployment? When does he expect the number of unemployed to start coming down?

I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was here when I answered question 1 and stood by the precedents set by my predecessors in many Governments not to give forecasts of unemployment. The hon. Gentleman asked which measures are reducing unemployment. All those things mentioned are reducing unemployment below what it would otherwise have been.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the service industries are capable of reducing unemployment? Will he therefore have urgent discussions with our right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to see whether there are ways in which the industrial buildings allowance rules can be amended to ensure that service industries are also capable of occupying such nursery units as are provided for manufacturing industry?

I shall draw my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. However, although it is true that service industries will create many new jobs, there is plenty of possibility for the creation of new jobs in manufacturing industries. Some of the recent, massive, new export orders show that that is possible and that it is being done.

If the right hon. Gentleman will not forecast the unemployment figures, will he ponder on the fact that in the last 10 years, under successive Governments, about 150,000 new jobs were created in the Northern region but that in the last 12 months alone 145,000 have been lost. Why is that?

That is because the customers have not bought the goods produced by those industries. Until those industries produce the goods that the customers want at prices that they can afford, and until such goods are delivered on time, the industries will not regain those customers.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that he has missed out a significant cause of unemployment, certainly in the port of Southampton, where five unions, by going slow and working only one shift for five days, are creating great fears of unemployment among port ancillary workers there? When will he tackle that problem?

My hon. Friend draws attention to one particularly unhappy example of how restrictive practices and disputes increase costs and put men out of work. I am happy to say that Southampton docks has generally had a good reputation. I hope that it will not be long before that unhappy dispute is resolved.

Why does not the right hon. Gentleman give the true facts? Interest rates have never been higher, bankruptcies and liquidations are at record levels, investment intentions have never been more pessimistic and inflation is rising. Is that not a recipe for more unemployment? Why does not the right hon. Gentleman tell the House the truth?

I find that telling the House the truth goes down well with Conservative Members, but that the Opposition always shout and yell, and try to suppress it. The right hon. Gentleman is wrong. Interest rates are not at a record level. He is wrong to refer only to bankruptcies and liquidations and not to remember that the rate of creation of new firms is reaching record levels. Why cannot he present a balanced picture instead of for ever whining about how ghastly it all is?

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will now initiate an inquiry into the operation of the youth opportunities programme.

No, Sir. We have recently been carrying out the annual review of the youth opportunities programme and other special employment measures. My right hon. Friend expects to make an announcement by the turn of the year on training measures for the young unemployed, following the consultations on "A New Training Initiative".

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the cycle for boys and girls of entering YOP and then going back on the dole queue is creating despair and disillusionment? Would it not be more sensible for the Government, instead of spending that £700 million on various gimmicks, to put that money into projects that would create real jobs on a large scale?

The fact that 30 per cent. of YOP trainees enter jobs immediately after leaving training and that a further 12 per cent. go into further education or training, which is almost 50 per cent. altogether, is not sufficient. I agree with the hon. Gentleman about that. However, the young workers' scheme will make a radical difference and secure greater opportunities for youngsters to enter new jobs when it is introduced next month.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 17 November.

This morning I had a meeting with King Hussein of Jordan. Following other meetings with ministerial colleagues, I attended the memorial service for Lord Boyle of Handsworth. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen before departing for Bonn, where I shall have talks with Chancellor Schmidt tomorrow.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the announcement yesterday about industrial training boards has already been widely welcomed by industry and commerce as contributing to a useful reduction in bureaucracy and making it easier to provide cost-effective training? However, could she find time in her busy day to consider whether more steps could be taken in the near future to make vocational training more widely available to all age groups, especially school leavers?

My hon. Friend is right. The new arrangements for industrial training boards that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment announced are in line with the wishes and needs of industry. With regard to the future, my right hon. Friend hopes to announce by the end of the year new measures for more comprehensive provisions for the training of our young unemployed and generally for training our young people.

Is the Prime Minister aware that the old age pension increase later this month for a married couple will be nearly £5 lower than it would be under the Labour Government's criteria? Is she not utterly ashamed of that?

The world recession would have hit the Labour Government just as much as it has hit this Government. I ask the hon. Gentleman to remember the record of the Labour Government during the last world recession, when they had to go to the IMF because they were broke.

Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance, with regard to Northern Ireland, that the small number of gunmen who are terrorising that Province are being dealt with by the armed forces without any let or hindrance for any political or other reason?

I can certainly give that assurance. A number of things have been said in the last two days which may make the situation more difficult for the security forces in Northern Ireland. Whatever happens, the Army and police will carry out their duty, as we would expect them to do.

If the Prime Minister believes her claims about the recession ending, and if she wishes to help young people, as she said a few minutes ago, will she undertake to review immediately the programme for the universities? Is she aware that it is undermining a principle accepted by every Government for the past 20 years, that higher education should be available to those who are able and willing to use it? Will she take immediate steps to take action in that area?

I think that my words were that the trough of the recession was reached—[Interruption.] I looked at the words. I said that the trough of the recession was reached in the second quarter, according to most of the commentators. That is not quite what the right hon. Gentleman said.

Will the right hon. Lady do more than that? In her programme for the universitites, she is inflicting permanent damage on this country and on many young people. Does she not recognise that however the money is used, under these cuts about 6,000 or 7,000 university teachers will lose their jobs? Does she consider that to be an intelligent way of dealing with the crisis?

My right hon. Friend has already said that if the economies can be achieved in another way, of course he will consider it. The University Grants Committee programme amounts to over £900 million, which is a large amount to be spending on university education. It is similar to the amount that has previously been spent, and I have no doubt that there will continue to be a large measure of university education for those young people who need it, and also higher education in the polytechnics and other colleges of advanced education.

As the Prime Minister is always looking for economies, will she take note of the latest delay announced in the Trident programme in the United States? In view of the mounting costs of that programme, will she review it in her plans?

The precise programme for Trident has not yet been finalised, and the change by the United States to the D5 will have consequences, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be considering, for the programme itself.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the continuing resentment in the private sector over the provision of index-linked pensions in the public sector? Will she undertake to look again at the matter?

We have already had the Scott report on that matter, although the committee's terms of reference were confined mainly to whether the contributions should be raised for the provisions of index-linked pensions. The real answer is to continue with policies that, in the end, will get inflation down. That is the best possible form of index-linking.

asked the Prime Minister what steps Her Majesty's Government are taking to increase job opportunities for the disabled and, in particular, the young disabled.

The Manpower Services Commission's "Fit for Work" campaign is designed to make employers aware of the abilities and potential of disabled workers. The National Advisory Council on Employment of Disabled People is arranging an in-depth study on how best to meet the needs of young disabled people.

Does the Prime Minister accept that the damage that she has done to the British economy has particularly harmed disabled people in their search for jobs? Is she aware that the most effective policy that she could pursue would be to insist that all firms obey the law and employ the 3 per cent. of disabled people that they are supposed to?

The hon. Gentleman disregards some of the facts. There are only about 1·9 per cent. of the work force on the disablement register and there are not enough for all firms to employ 3 per cent. of disabled people. That is why the Manpower Services Commission has been issuing permits for firms that wish to take on extra people, even though they are not up to their full disablement quota. The hon. Gentleman should take into account all the facts about the numbers of people who are disabled and actually on the register.

In looking at this worrying problem, will my right hon. Friend take time to consider the example of West Germany where, by the use of a combined system of a 5 per cent. quota and levies on those who do not fulfil that quota, a 4·9 per cent. level of employment of disabled workers has been achieved?

I think that our problem here is that there are only about 1·9 per cent. on the disablement register. The present law requires firms with 20 or more employees to employ 3 per cent. of registered disabled people. It is not an offence to be below the quota. An employer in that position who wishes to engage anyone other than a registered disabled person must obtain a permit to do so. Firms are obtaining permits to do so at present because there are not sufficient disabled people to meet the quota.

Will the Prime Minister take steps to remove one of the anomalies that prevent blind people from getting employment? Is not she aware that they are the only disabled people who cannot move from outside employment back again to sheltered work shops and that they are the only disabled people who receive no mobility allowance, which militates against their accepting jobs where there are travelling problems?

I shall certainly examine what the hon. Gentleman has said. We are trying in every way to help the disabled to get work, as the special "Fit for Work" campaign demonstrates. We shall examine, in particular, the hon. Gentleman's point about mobility.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 17 November.

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

Is the Prime Minister aware that our annual expenditure on military bands last year was £28 million? Is she further aware that for the sake of less than one-tenth of that sum the Conservative-controlled Cambridgeshire county council is reducing capitation, cutting village schools, stopping courses in further education and is now considering bussing mentally handicapped children to places away from Ely? Does she really think that she has her priorities right and that there is no alternative?

The amount spent under the rate support grant and through rates on the education of each pupil is the same in real terms as it has been in the past. How it is spent is a matter for the local county council.

Does my right hon. Friend recall that when President Mitterrand was elected he was given a rapturous welcome in the House by the Leader of the Opposition? Will my right hon. Friend now welcome President Mitterrand's latest decision on nuclear weapons and his robust rejection of unilateral disarmament, and perhaps invite the Leader of the Opposition to join her?

My hon. Friend is right. President Mitterrand has been staunch in providing for the defence of France and in joining in providing weapons and soldiers for the whole of the Western Alliance. He has also been staunch on the need for a nuclear deterrent and never in favour of unilateral disarmament, because he believes, as most of us do, in multilateral disarmament. The way to achieve that is the way in which we are proceeding.

Was not yesterday's outburst and exhibitionism a good illustration of the attitude of certain Unionist leaders who are determined to do what they can to create total confusion over the steps taken by the British and Irish Governments? Will the Prime Minister give an assurance today that neither the hon. Gentleman who was responsible for yesterday's outburst, nor the IRA murderers, will prevent the steps that have been taken with the Dublin Government from developing? Does she agree that those steps should be developed in order to make it easier for an agreement to be reached between Dublin and London?

What has happened will not deflect the Government in any way. The security forces will carry out their duty, as will the police. Most of us deplored what happened yesterday and believe that that—and the alleged assertion of one hon. Member that he will make the Province ungovernable—is not in the true interests of the people of Ulster. It could put the lives of many innocent people at risk and make the task of the security forces more difficult.

When, this morning, my right hon. Friend met King Hussein of Jordan—a country with which we have long had close relations—did she discuss with him how Britain, Europe and the Americans could best get their policies together on the Middle East? At present there seems to be a horrendous gap.

That is exactly what we were trying to discuss. We have the Camp David agreement, the European initiative and the eight principles enunciated by Saudi Arabia. The latter will be discussed soon at an Arab summit. Those proposals are on the table and we are all seeking a comprehensive settlement of the Middle East problem. As a first step, we all want recognition by the Palestinian people of the right of Israel to exist behind secure boundaries and simultaneous recognition by the Israelis of the rights of the Palestinian people to self-determination. If we could achieve that it would be a major step forward. I believe that everyone is seeking a way in which to achieve it.

asked the Prime Minister if she will dismiss the Secretary of State for Employment.

No, Sir. The hon. Member may assume that I do not intend to make any changes in ministerial appointments or responsibilities unless or until I make a statement to the contrary.

Does the Prime Minister accept that the Secretary of State for Employment, as was clear from his answers today, is symbolic of the irrational policies pursued by the Government, which have added about 2 million people to the dole queue and lowered living standards for the great mass of people in this country? Is it not high time that she told him to get on his bike?

From what I heard, my right hon. Friend's answers were robust, sensible and realistic. Long may they continue.