asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he has made any assessment of the effectiveness of the community industry projects; and if he has plans to extend the schemes.

A review was completed earlier this year of the role and objectives of community industry. The review made recommendations for improving the effectiveness of community industry and these have been generally welcomed by the Government. The future contribution which community industry can make in helping the young unemployed will be referred to by my right hon. Friend later today.

Does the Minister recall that on 28 July the Government conceded that community industry fulfilled a most important function? Has an application for a 2,000-place increase in community industry been received? If so, and if it is not to be granted, how does the Minister reconcile that with the Government's previous statement? Is it not important that the least privileged of the unemployed, which this scheme particularly helps, should continue to be helped by expanding this imaginative project?

As to the future expansion of community industry, I must ask the hon. Gentleman to await my right hon. Friend's statement to be made later this afternoon. The hon. Gentleman will recollect that in 1981–82 there was an increase of 1,000 places in the programme.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment when his proposals for a new and comprehensive industrial training scheme will be published.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he is now in a position to announce firm decisions regarding the training of young people.

I hope to make a statement on training later today.

I shall make sure that the hon. Members are called at the beginning of questions on the statement. I do not make that promise often.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the latest figure for the number of unemployed persons; and what steps are being taken to reduce this number.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what further measures he intends to propose to reduce the number of people unemployed.

The Government are pursuing policies to tackle the underlying causes of economic decline and rising unemployment, among which have been excessive labour costs, restrictive practices, poor profitability, high inflation and a weak currency. More recently, unit labour costs have been rising more slowly, productivity is rising strongly, in October there was the highest monthly increase in industrial output for two and a half years, and exports are doing well. Industry and commerce are becoming more competitive and the prospects for regaining lost markets and, therefore, lost jobs are more encouraging.

Is that not a completely different picture from that which the Secretary of State and his colleagues painted in the general election campaign when they were concerned about the brain drain to America, the Common Market and other places? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in the sorry mess that the Government have brought about, the Hammersmith jobcentre is now advertising for young people to go grape picking in France and fruit picking in the United States? How does the Minister reconcile that with his statement at the Tory Party conference about getting on one's bike and finding work?

I do not have to reconcile it, because I did not make the statement in the words attributed to me by the hon. Gentleman.

Is the Secretary of State aware that propaganda will not solve the unemployment problem? Propaganda is what he has given us today. Is he further aware that Government policies alone have piled home-grown recession on a world recession and caused one of the greatest slumps that Britain has had? Will he now repent and do something real for the unemployed?

The hon. Gentleman mis-states the position. What he calls propaganda was a list of facts.

No.

The hon. Gentleman may not like the facts, but he cannot get rid if them by calling them propaganda. If he believes that the weakness in our industrial practices of the last 25 years, our consistently lower rate of increase in productivity and our consistently higher rate of increase in unit labour costs have nothing to do with the level of unemployment, he is deluding himself and, even more importantly, the unemployed.

Can my right hon. Friend confirm, as a fact rather than as propaganda, that unemployment in Britain is now rising more slowly than it is in most OECD competitor countries?

My hon. Friend is right. That may have something to do with the fact that the percentage increase in wage unit costs from 1970 to 1980 in the United Kingdom was three, four or five times as great as that of our competitors, whereas in the first six months of 1981 it had levelled off and was below the rate of escalation in most competitor countries.

What positive steps or initiatives have the Government taken within the EEC's Labour and Social Affairs Committee to try to tackle unemployment on a Community-wide basis, bearing in mind the representations made by the European TUC?

I do not believe that the tackling of the underlying causes of unemployment will be achieved in the Social Affairs Committee of the Community. Indeed, if there were any place where the underlying causes would be discussed in the Community, it would probably be among Finance and Industry Ministers. However, we have brought forward many useful initiatives regarding the future of the social fund and how that can be used to alleviate the effects of unemployment and perhaps to give us some pilot schemes for improved job creation.

Can the Secretary of State tell us how many redundancies have been notified to his Department as being likely to take place within the next three months?

I do not have those figures with me. If they are available, I shall do my best to help the hon. Gentleman.

Is it not clear that, even with the benefit of the matters that my right hon. Friend has mentioned, as well as the need for a revival Budget next spring, it will take a long time for unemployment to be satisfactorily reduced? In those circumstances, does my right hon. Friend agree that the Labour Party's policies, in so far as one can judge them, would make worse, not alleviate, those problems, bearing in mind the Opposition's commitment to import controls, further nationalisation and massive increases in public spending?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I do not know why he referred to one Labour Party. He could have referred to any of the three or four Labour Parties that we now seem to have.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will meet the Confederation of British Industry to discuss the long-term improvement of industrial relations.

My right hon. Friend has had a number of discussions with representatives of the Confederation of British Industry about the long-term improvement of industrial relations. He expects to meet them within the next few weeks to discuss his proposals for legislation.

Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that greater employee participation has an important role to play in the long-term improvement of industrial relations? Is he satisfied that the CBI is doing enough about that? When he meets its representatives, will he emphasise the urgency of the need for action in the matter?

I agree that one cannot overestimate the importance of new initiatives in employee participation. It is important to try to get rid of the "them" and "us" attitude in industry and to create an atmosphere of partnership. Recently the CBI carried out a survey that showed that progress was being made and that there was a recognition in industry of the benefits that can come from greater participation. There is no reason to be complacent. Every possible effort should be made to proceed further along those lines.

Does the Under-Secretary realise that many industrialists are fearful of what is rumoured to be the Government's forthcoming legislation on the closed shop? Is he aware that they see it as a needless diversion in industrial affairs which will cause much upheaval in normal industrial relations and as a sort of distraction that will have nothing to do with greater efficiency in industry?

I assure the hon. Gentleman that I have spent many hours reading the enormous number of representations that we received following the Green Paper. The vast majority of those who made representations called for action on the closed shop. The CBI put the matter at the top of its list of things that needed to be done.

In furtherance of the cause of participation, will my hon. and learned Friend reconsider the proposal that company annual reports should contain a statement from the chairman about the action that has been taken during the year to further participation and progress in that direction?

We shall certainly consider that proposal. I would add only that not all the problems can be solved by legislation. I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees with that. It is essentially an area in which there must be new initiatives from management.

Is it not regrettable that in all the discussions that the Government claim to have had, Members of Parliament have not been consulted? We have not been given the opportunity in the House to debate either the Green Paper or the proposals put forward by the Secretary of State last month. Is it not clear that the Government are proposing an open attack on the trade union movement, which will have disastrous consequences for those afflicted by the Industrial Relations Act 1971 and is nothing more than an attempt to distract attention from the appalling economic consequences of the Government's policy?

It is remarkable that the right hon. Gentleman should complain of not being able to make his views known. The Opposition could at any time have used a Supply day for a full debate on the Green Paper. Any Opposition Member could make personal representations to us. The right hon. Gentleman's views on the matter are well known. They are not our views. We do not believe that it is an attack on the trade union movement. These are essential measures to improve the competitiveness and performance of British industry and to ensure that individual rights are safeguarded.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many engineering apprentices have lost their jobs during the past 12 months.

Complete figures are not available, but between 22 November 1980 and 13 November 1981 the Engineering Industry Training Board received reports of 2,648 engineering apprentices being made redundant.

Does the Under-Secretary appreciate that the engineering industry is facing a crisis? Is he aware that it has been reported that each month about 200 apprentices are losing their jobs? Those are the ones we know about. Does he appreciate that many employers are using the so-called training schemes—the cheap labour schemes—in preference to giving youngsters real jobs as apprentices? Is it not time that the Government laid down a quota and insisted that employers should take on the recognised number of apprentices? Is that not essential, or is it a matter for the trade union movement to take up and force the Government to adopt, because—

Order. The hon. Gentleman has taken enough time for two supplementary questions.

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that the Government have earmarked a substantial amount of money—more than £20 million—to help the engineering industry to recruit apprentices. He may also be aware that this year 4,000 people are being trained in addition to those being trained by employers.

Does my hon. Friend agree that if employers and the trade unions could agree to reduce the starting rates for apprentices to below £40, so that employers can take advantage of the Government's £15 a week subsidy, there would be more apprenticeship opportunities for young people?

I agree with my hon. Friend that one reason why there are not so many opportunities is that wages for school leavers are disproportionately high.

Will the Under-Secretary now unreservedly condemn the sacking of apprentices and pledge to bring forward a scheme and sufficient money for them to continue their training until they have finished their apprenticeships?

As I said earlier, the Government have earmarked a substantial sum of money to help apprentices who are made redundant, of whom there were 2,800 this year, with more money to be made available, if necessary.

Notwithstanding the appalling shortfall, what is the Under-Secretary doing directly to help ethnic minorities to obtain engineering apprenticeships?

Opportunities are open to every member of the community. I wish to ensure that that continues to be so.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment whom he has consulted about his proposals for changes in industrial relations legislation; and whom he intends further to consult.

My proposals for further legislation are based on the responses to the Green Paper on trade union immunities from over 300 organisations and individuals. I have asked for comments on the proposals from any interested organisation or individual by the end of the year.

Has my right hon. Friend noticed the discrepancy in the attitude towards his proposals between the trade unionists polled by "Panorama" and the TUC? How does he intend to discover the real attitude of working people rather than the tired, old, warmongering noises that we hear from the TUC which do not appear to represent the views of working people?

The MORI poll conducted by "Panorama" confirmed that there was great public support for my proposals, not least among trade unionists. That has been so in every opinion poll conducted for many years. There is widespread support for the reform that I propose, which was a plank of the Government's election manifesto in 1979.

While the Secretary of State is busying himself with introducing punitive anti-trade union legislation, will he consider having discussions with employers about their black list of trade unionists? Is it not time to introduce legislation in that area?

As I am not considering introducing punitive anti-trade union measures, the hon. Gentleman's question does not arise. It may help if I tell him that the increased compensation that will be available to those dismissed for not being members of a trade union will be extended to those dismissed for being members of a trade union. That marks the fair and even-handed approach that I adopted in reaching my conclusions.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that he has received a large number of varied representations from Conservative trade unionists, from all walks of life and from different unions? Will he further confirm that he valued the contributions that came from a wide variety of people in a wide variety of activities?

My hon. Friend is right. It is no surprise to find the views of Conservative trade unionists clearly reflected in the opinion polls. That suggests that many trade unionists do not agree with the wildly political announcements of some of their leaders.

Does the Secretary of State accept that a number of management, industrial relations and other employers organisations, including the Institute of Personnel Management, the Industrial Society and the Engineering Employers Federation, are disturbed about the direction of his proposals? Is he aware that many people believe that the main purpose of his legislation is to appease the hard men and women in the Conservative party, not to improve industrial relations?

I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's remarks, which are untrue. I have explained the purpose of the measures. First, they will deal with the abuses of the closed shop as they affect individuals. Secondly. they will underpin a better climate of industrial relations. The hon. Gentleman is selective about those whom he quotes. Sir Ray Pennock, the chairman of CBI, has described the package as just about right. Presumably the hon. Gentleman accepts that the CBI speaks for the employers.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if the Government's new training initiative will contain proposals to improve vocational training for school leavers and under 20-year-olds in Scotland.

My right hon. Friend hopes to catch your eye after Question Time, Mr. Speaker, and make a statement concerning training in all parts of Great Britain.

I shall ensure that the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Walker) is called after the statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will estimate how many jobs have been lost since May 1979 by (a) the operation of the closed shop, (b) victimisation for trade union activity and (c) the rise in unemployment due to the recession.

It is not possible to quantify or distinguish the effects of the various factors cited in terms of their contribution to the current level of unemployment. Quite apart from those who have been directly driven out of their jobs because of the closed shop, I have little doubt that the closed shop has had an adverse effect on employment, being one of the weapons used to maintain restrictive practices and to force strike action on a reluctant work force.

Does the Under-Secretary accept that that is one of the weakest replies that we have heard in the House for many a long day? Will he confirm that under the 1980 Act there has been only one case of a worker appealing to a tribunal against unfair dismissal due to the closed shop—I refer to Mr. Lowrey, who lost his case—whereas there have been many cases of selective redundancies of active trade unionists? Does he further accept that it does not lie in the mouth of the Government to accuse the closed shop of jeopardising the right to work when they, through their policies, have denied the right to work to millions of people?

Many people feel that there is not much point in appealing to a tribunal for a remedy that is not available. Until the 1980 Act, because of the grossly anti-libertarian Act of Parliament passed by the Labour Government, there was no point in appealing to an industrial tribunal for a remedy. In view of the decision of the European Court, are Opposition Members now prepared to come to the House in sackcloth and ashes to apologise for that disgraceful piece of legislation?

Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that many more jobs will be lost if trade unions, supported by Opposition Members, continue to press for higher and higher wages?

My hon. Friend is right. That is one reason for unemployment. Another reason is the restrictive practices, which are one result of the closed shop.

Is the Under-Secretary of State aware that the Solicitor-General argued powerfully before the European Court that the law relating to the closed shop was adequate and that no changes were necessary?

The right hon. Gentleman knows that the Solicitor-General argued that the 1976 law did not contravene the European Convention of Human Rights, but that it was the view of the Government and all right-thinking people that it was a disgraceful measure, and that was why the Government repealed it.

Will the Under-Secretary of State take this opportunity to condemn employers who sack employees because of their trade union activities?

I thought that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had already made it plain that the Government are determined to be even-handed. That is why the enhanced compensation that we intend to make available to the victims of the closed shop will be made available to those dismissed for trade union activities.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will consider the introduction of further employment support measures so as to increase the number of employment opportunities in West Cumbria.

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in her announcement on 27 July gave details of a package of measures to assist the unemployed. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment will later this afternoon provide the House with further information about special measures for next year and beyond.

Does the Minister realise that my constituents and the constituents of other hon. Members representing Cumbria are desperate for work? Is he aware that they are tired, weary and fed up with parliamentary written and oral replies that suggest that they must wait until the Government have resolved the problems of inflation in the economy? Will he press his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to go to the Cabinet and support calls for a selective programme of regional public expenditure projects that will put our constituents back to work, because that is where they want to be?

Everyone realises that the problem in West Cumbria is extremely serious. Only a fool would fail to take measures to get rid of unemployment tomorrow if such measure were ready to hand. The truth, as the Labour Administration found, is that there are no simple answers to these problems. At last, as a result of the measures that have been taken by the Government, there are signs of recovery. There is an improvement in competitiveness, manufacturing output has increased, short-time working has decreased and overtime has increased.

Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that one of the roles of the Secretary of State for Employment is to argue inside the Cabinet for a stronger regional policy? Is the Secretary of State doing that?

My right hon. Friend is performing his proper duty, which is to support policies which will revive the economy and provide real jobs.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of women of working age, between 15 an 60 years, are currently in employment; and how this figure compares with the figure in December 1978.

Information in the precise form requested is not available. However, I estimate that in Great Britain in June 1981 the number of women aged 16–59 years in employment represented about 56 per cent. of the total female population aged 16–59 years. The corresponding percentage for June 1978 was about 59 per cent.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the figures, although limited, show that unemployment among women is much more serious than is revealed by the registered unemployment figures because many women do not register? Does the hon. Gentleman agree also that the activity rate is a much better indication than plain unemployment figures? Is he aware that unemployment among women is extremely serious because for many families their wages are vital to the standard of living of their families?

I deeply regret unnecessary unemployment among women. The figures show that the fall in employment among women is rather less deep than the corresponding percentages for men for the same two years. The latest figures cause us to estimate that about 250,000 women are not registered as unemployed. That is about the same as it was between 1970 and 1979..

Should not some working women whose husbands are in well-paid jobs consider giving up their jobs so that unemployed fathers can take them up?

The Prime Minister?

My hon. Friend has made a point which in the human dimension is perfectly valid and plausible, but it must be left to every individual family to decide for itself.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the number registered as unemployed at the latest available date.

At 12 November the number of people registered as unemployed in the United Kingdom was 2,953,340.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that his complacency towards the 3 million unemployed, a figure that has held now for months and months, is upsetting the British people? When will he and the Government do something to create harmony in industries throughout the country instead of introducing legislation that will cause dissatisfaction, because of the Government's wish to bash trade unions?

The hon. Gentleman should not accuse us of complacency. I might equally well accuse some of his hon. Friends of being disappointed each time the unemployment figures are announced, when they find that they have not increased beyond 3 million. I think that the hon. Gentleman is wrong in his description of Government policies. The measures that I propose to introduce on industrial relations law reform, as I have explained on several occasions already, have the support of the great mass of the public, including the majority of trade unionists. Why, therefore, should they cause any dissent?

Will my right hon. Friend make an intelligent guess of the number of persons who are registered as unemployed and receiving the appropriate benefit yet who are working in the black economy for cash and not paying tax on any of that income?

The problem exists but we have no valid figures to tell us the extent of the problem—

Why not?

My hon. and learned Friend asks "Why not?" If someone is working illegally in the black economy and is illegally drawing unemployment benefit, we shall prosecute him if we catch up with him. We do not know how many are in that position, because we have not caught them all. That seems to be fairly clear. There is a strong case for measures such as those that we have announced, to allow those who are in receipt of unemployment benefit arid who seek to go into self-employment to have the additional support of being able to continue to draw benefit for some months to enable them to become established. In that way we help people to take their place in, presumably, the white economy instead of entering the black economy.

Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that the unemployment figures that he has produced are falsified because 1 million are not registered as unemployed who in fact are unemployed, 750,000 are on temporary employment and many women are not registered as unemployed? Is it not a fact that if the Government run to the end of their period in office, about 4·5 million will be unemployed if the present trend continues?

No projection of that sort, which is based on false premises, can be a fact.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the number of young unemployed will be reduced if the wages councils can be persuaded to reduce their starting level of wages so that employers can take advantage of the £15 subsidy? What initiatives does he intend to take to influence the councils?

I think that my hon. Friend is right. There is little doubt but that labour, like any other commodity, will find a more ready market if its price is lower than at present. I am considering how the wages councils can best be influenced to make recommendations that will benefit those concerned, especially young persons, by extending their chance of getting jobs.

Has the right hon. Gentleman forgotten that the figures for long-term unemployed have doubled since last year? Does he appreciate that, on the basis of the current course of Government policy, the long-term unemployment figure will total 1 million by June 1982? What does he intend to do about this human tragedy?

The only cure for the scourge of unemployment is to recreate conditions in which there are willing buyers for the goods which can be produced by those who are now unemployed. That means that we cease to export our jobs to other countries by persisting in being less competitive than they are and in charging more for our goods than they are charging for theirs.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement regarding the current intake of apprentices into engineering in the United Kingdom.

The Engineering Industry Training Board estimates that engineering employers will recruit about 10,300 craft and technician apprentices in the 1981–82 training year. The Government have provided funds for the Engineering Industry Training Board to meet the costs of making grants and training awards to produce an additional intake of 4,000 trainees.

Does the Minister agree that the current intake of engineering apprentices is far below our long-term demand? If and when the economy gets going, we shall run into a shortage of skills. Surely this is a terrible indictment of the Government in relying on the so-called market system to make up for skill shortages. Can we do something about this?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is important for us to ensure that we do not have any skill shortages. I hope that he accepts the figures that I have given. There are 4,000 extra trainees, at a cost of £14 million. That is the sum that the Government have set aside for that purpose.

What lessons does my hon. Friend draw from the fact that in the past year in the United Kingdom only about 80,000 apprentices started their first year of apprenticeship, as compared with about 680,000 in West Germany? Could this be due, at least in part, to the fact that the starting rate for an apprentice in this country is 50 per cent. that of a skilled craftsman, whereas in Germany it is only 20 per cent?

I was hoping to give my hon. Friend the answer that he has given himself. Certainly I draw the same lesson as he has drawn from the German experience.

Has the Minister discussed with the Engineering Industry Training Board the increasing number of apprentices caught by redundancy?

I have not spoken directly to the board about that. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was present when I answered a question on the same matter earlier, but he may know that, through the Engineering Industry Training Board, we are supporting 2,800 redundant engineering apprentices.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any plans to meet the general secretary of the Trades Union Congress to discuss greater employee involvement in decisions at the work place; and if he will make a statement.

No, Sir, but I and my right hon. Friend are willing to meet the general secretary at any time to discuss this most important subject.

With regard to a new initiative on employee participation, does my hon. and learned Friend agree that the time is now right for ACAS or the Government to publish a code of practice, since this would certainly help industrial relations?

There is a relevant ACAS code of practice, and other bodies have also published codes of practice. I can only repeat what I said earlier. Plainly, anyone who can put forward new initiatives in this sphere will be doing a most useful job. That is how it should be done, not through legisation.

Does not the Minister recognise that the only initiative with any possibility of success is one produced through legislation? Will he support the EEC fifth directive in its efforts to require member nations to take this step towards participation in industrial decision-making?

As the hon. and learned Member knows, the fifth directive has been about for a long time, and it may well be a long time before it is eventually approved by the Council of Ministers. It has also changed a great deal over all those years. I doubt very much whether the way forward is by legislation, when the circumstances of industry are so varied that it would be dangerous to lay down a rigid pattern.

Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that the fifth directive, nevertheless, has been much improved by the work of Mr. Amédée Turner, the Member of the European Parliament who is on the Legal Committee? Does he agree that the fifth directive as it now is should be taken seriously by the Government, as it is now a far better answer to the problem than the Bullock report?

My hon. and learned Friend is right. One of the options contained in the fifth directive is for work councils elected by the shop floor. That cuts entirely across the policies of Labour Members, who want not employee-directors but trade union directors. They do not want employee involvement. They want more trade union power.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many registered unemployed persons there are in the United Kingdom; what percentage this is of the working population; and whether he has any further proposals to improve employment prospects.

At 12 November the number of people registered as unemployed in the United Kingdom was 2,953,340, representing a rate of 12·2 per cent. I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave earlier to the hon. Members for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and for Swindon (Mr. Stoddart).

As the Tory Party, with the aid of Saatchi and Saatchi, made great play at the last election about the level of unemployment at that time, can the Minister tell us when, with the measures taken today, the Government will achieve that level? Will it be within the lifetime of this Parliament?

At the last election we analysed the greatest single cause of unemployment as being the rate of inflation. We have attacked the rate of inflation directly and have halved the rate of increase. We are well on course to cut the tap root that is the cause of unemployment, by bringing down the rate of inflation.

Does my hon. Friend agree that in our battle against unemployment a priority must be to make it more attractive for employers to employ by sweeping away many of the disincentives introduced by the Labour Government?

I agree with my hon. Friend. Our programme for improvements in industrial relations legislation is one element in our progress in that direction. My hon. Friend will also be aware of the young workers scheme that is soon to be launched, which will produce direct incentives to employers to recruit young employees.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 15 December.

This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further meetings later today. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen. Later I shall attend a dinner to celebrate the 220th anniversary of the Board of Deputies of British Jews.

Has my right hon. Friend seen the news reported on the front page of The Daily Telegraph today that the rate of industrial output had increased by 1·7 per cent. in October, the highest rate for two-and-a-half years, and that the rate of output in the construction industry increased by 2½ per cent. in the same period? Does that not show that my right hon. Friend's policies are working successfully and that it would be foolish to change them?

Yes, I confirm what my hon. Friend says about increases in industrial output. There were also increases in manufacturing output and in the construction industry, and very large increases in output in the oil and gas industries. This is encouraging news. The increases have continued for well over a quarter and in some cases for five months. This shows that the policy of making British industry efficient is bringing about improvements, with the increased output that we now see.

Has the right hon. Lady any further information to add to what was said in the House yesterday about events in Poland and the anxiety that we all feel at reports that the leader of Solidarity may have been placed under arrest?

With regard to the two big questions raised by the right hon. Gentleman, the Foreign Ministers of the Ten, at present meeting in London, have issued the following statement with regard to Poland:

"The Foreign Ministers of the member States of the European Community are concerned at the development of the situation in Poland and the imposition of martial law and the detention of trade unionists. They have profound sympathy for the Polish people in this tense and difficult time. They look to all signatory States of the Helsinki Final Act to refrain from any interference in the internal affairs of the Polish People's Republic. They look to Poland to solve these problems herself and without the use of force, so that the process of reform and renewal can continue."

"The Foreign Ministers of the member States of the European Community strongly deplore the decision of the Government and Knesset of Israel to extend Israeli law, jurisdiction and administration to occupied Syrian territory in the Golan Heights. Such an extension, which is tantamount to annexation, is contrary to international law, and therefore invalid in our eyes. This step prejudices the possibility of the implementation of Security Council resolution 242 and is bound to complicate further the search for a comprehensive peace settlement in the Middle East to which we remain committed."

With regard to the menacing crisis in Poland, which inevitably is occupying a great deal of the attention of my right hon. Friend, does she recognise that the factors that prompted a generous approach by Western countries towards Poland's grave economic difficulties in the past under the previous Government do not obtain in the view of many of us in the present circumstances? Does she accept that many of us do not see why we in the West should give aid and comfort to such a regime in these circumstances?

As I said earlier, we are all very concerned about the imposition of martial law in Poland. As my right hon. Friend told the House yesterday we believe that it is too early for anyone, either Governments or banks, to make any changes in arrangements for the rescheduling of Polish debt repayments or the provision of new credit. For the moment, therefore, we shall leave things as they are, without making any changes in the financing provisions. As my hon. Friend knows, we have ourselves, and through Europe, provided a great deal of food throughout the last year. We believe that it is better to leave things as they are but to keep a close watch on what is happening in Poland.

The Prime Minister will today no doubt be putting the finishing touches to her address to the European Assembly. Will she, in all candour and fairness, include in that speech a passage making it clear to the Assembly that this country's membership of the Community is contrary to the profound opinions of the majority of people, who wish to see their friendly relationships with the countries of Europe in a different framework from that which the European Community provides?

No, I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman the answer that he seeks. I profoundly believe that membership of the European Economic Community is in the best interests of this country, above all, for political reasons. It means that there is an area of democratic stability in Europe, which is vital in the interests of Europe and the larger world at present.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 15 December.

I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave a few moments ago.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the causes of the present high level of unemployment is the growing practice of the trade unions of being prepared to trade jobs for higher wage increases? In that context, will she comment on the recent offer of the local authorities to manual workers, which is way ahead of the cash limits and which, in the words of the employers' representatives, can be paid for only by a reduction in the number of jobs and cuts in services?

It is vital to recognise that there is a link between higher pay that is demanded without higher output and the number of jobs that can be provided. Frequently, higher pay without higher output leads to fewer jobs. Where that happens with a local authority it can also lead to fewer jobs in small and even bigger business within the curtilage of that local authoriy. Many employers could afford to take on more young people if they were not paying higher wage rates. With regard to the recent considerable increase that has been offered to local authority manual workers, I understand that employers' representatives said that it was more than they could afford. I note that the offer was made as a result of the casting vote of a Labour chairman.

Will the Prime Minister condemn the report that during her visit to the European Assembly tomorrow there will be laid on for her and others, during the three-hour visit, a champagne "do" costing £50 per head? Is that not a scandalous waste of money?

The entertainment that I am offered is a matter for my hosts.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 15 December.

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

If my right hon. Friend reflects upon the speech that she is to make to the European Assembly in Strasbourg tomorrow, will she consider, in the light of what the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) said, that since this country joined the EEC the value of our exports to the member States of the European Community has increased more than sixfold in the last eight years, that we are now in surplus on our visible balance of trade and that our largest customer is West Germany? Does she agree that any action to withdraw from the EEC, at least on trade and economic grounds, would be an act of supreme folly?

I confirm in general terms what my hon. Friend said about our trade with the EEC. In economic and trading terms it would be an act of folly to withdraw. Our trading figures with Europe will be even better when we secure that liberalisation of insurance, banking and so on, in which we in this country excel. Any suggestion that we should withdraw is highly damaging to the inward investment that we need, especially the investment that we need to secure more jobs.

Does the Prime Minister realise that the level of urban deprivation in Scottish inner cities is among the highest in the United Kingdom? In view of the silence since the announcement of her right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment that £95 million will go to the English inner cities, will she tell the House of the Government's intentions towards the Scottish cities, which so badly need help and sustenance?

I was under the impression that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland already had an excellent scheme in operation in Glasgow. We are looking at that scheme with a view to learning lessons from it in order to be able to apply them in cities in this country. The hon. Gentleman may rest assured that my right hon. Friend is not slow in coming forward for any benefits that apply to England.

Will my right hon. Friend find time today to offer her encouragement to the 12 new businesses that have just been started by people in Peterborough—who were formerly unemployed—under a local scheme financed by Barclays bank at my request? Does my right hon. Friend understand and appreciate that that scheme complements the Government's loan guarantee scheme, which is greatly appreciated by my constituents?

Yes, I congratulate everyone concerned, especially my hon. Friend, not merely on talking about these matters but on taking action to secure more jobs for his constituents. I know of the scheme to which he refers. He persuaded a large bank to set aside money for those who were able to set up small businesses. Twelve new ones have been set up, providing jobs that would not otherwise have been provided. I hope that every hon. Member will take note of that and follow my hon. Friend's example.

In view of the disgraceful announcement yesterday that the overseas aid budget is to be cut by more than ever before in a single year, does the Prime Minister recognise that she will be known as the Job's comforter of the Third world? Does that not mean, in effect, that the Government have buried the Brandt report?

No, Sir. It is true that the net aid programme next year will be £950 million, which represents a reduction in planned expenditure of just under £20 million—and an adjustment for overspending in 1980–81. The gross aid programme next year will still be over £1 billion and the Commonwealth Development Corporation is being allowed to borrow abroad up to £15 million in each of the next three years.

Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to congratulate all those responsible for the excellent performance of British Shipbuilders? Is she aware that the company has increased its productivity by 15 per cent., that industrial disputes are practically at an all-time low, and that the order books on merchant shipping are extremely high? Does that not vindicate the activities of her Government in relation to nationalised industries?

Yes, Sir. Once again that shows that the Government's policy of ensuring that industries—whether private or nationalised—become efficient and competitive is paying off. I congratulate British Shipbuilders on securing so many good orders and hope that it will soon become profitable.