asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether there are any indications that the prospects of employment for the young are improving.

Success in the reduction of inflation, the increase in productivity and greater competitiveness are improving the prospects for employment generally. The young workers scheme and our plans for a comprehensive one-year training scheme for young people will particularly improve their employment prospects. Restraint in pay bargaining to avoid overpricing labour is, however, still vital.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. Does he agree that a reduction in the relative level of youth pay would probably lead to an increase in youth employment?

Any reduction in levels of pay is likely to lead to an increase in the demand for labour. That seems to be lesson No. 1 of basic economics. Our efforts to assist employers to lower the costs of labour by way of the young workers scheme seems to be going extremely well.

Does the Secretary of State agree with the recent Manpower Services Commission forecast that prospects for young people will worsen until the third quarter of 1983, when about 60 per cent. of young people will be out of a job? What prospects can he hold out for young people in the North of England, where matters are a good deal worse than in the South? What hope can he hold out for young people in my constituency?

The hon. Gentleman could not have heard what I said in my original answer. The fall in the rate of inflation is obviously helpful. Today's announcement of a renewed fall in interest rates is also helpful. As British industry becomes more competitive, it is likely to employ more people. The latest survey of youth opportunities programme trainees—although there are some caveats I must include—suggests that some 47 per cent. are getting jobs at the end of their training as opposed to 30 per cent. according to the last survey.

At the risk of appearing pompously to enlarge the generation gap, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he is certain that his officials are giving sufficient encouragement to young people to go after jobs that may exist, however humble they may be? Is he also certain that young people are preparing themselves, intellectually and in appearance, to be attractive to employers?

On my hon. Friend's second point, the youth opportunities programme and the youth training scheme that will follow it will do much to make youngsters more aware of what they need to do by way of training and presentation to sell their services. That is important. Perhaps my hon. Friend refers to Manpower Services Commission officials rather than my own. I am sorry if any of my officials have given any youngsters the impression that they should be too particular about the jobs for which they apply or too demanding about the level of wages for which they ask.

Why does the Secretary of State insist on a confrontation with the Manpower Services Commission about the youth training scheme? Is he aware that if he sticks to the £15 compulsory scheme it will clearly be counter-productive, as neither the trade unions nor the MSC will provide the co-operation that he needs to make the scheme work?

I did not know that I was having a confrontation with the MSC. Nor have I heard anything about a compulsory scheme—no one has proposed one.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many people aged 55 years and over are registered as unemployed in the Stockport travel-to-work area.

At 15 April there were 1,653 people aged 55 years and over registered as unemployed in the Stockport employment office area.

Does the Minister appreciate that it is extremely depressing for people in this age group to trail around from employer to employer seeking jobs, only to be told that they are too old? Will the Government either allow them to retire and have the dignity of being pensioners, or offer positive inducements to firms to take on people over the age of 55?

I agree that it is depressing, whatever one's age, to go regularly to look for work and to be unsuccessful on every occasion. However, the unemployment rate among those aged 55 and over is marginally below the United Kingdom average for unemployed of all ages. That suggests that a premium is attached to mature, adult and, indeed, quite elderly workers—a premium that youngsters often do not have.

Is the Minister aware that in areas such as Stockport many older workers have vast experience and skills in high technology industries? As the Secretary of State has said that he wishes to train inexperienced youngsters, will the Government consider schemes to wed to the two factors—the lack of skill among the young, and unemployment among older workers who have skills and experience to transfer?

The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the new training initiative, which my right hon. Friend was responsible for launching and developing, covers all age groups and seeks to offer opportunities for training right across the age spectrum, including the more mature and adult workers.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many young people who left school at Easter have found employment; how many are still out of work; and how many are engaged on Government-sponsored youth opportunity programmes.

The information requested is not available. However, it is estimated that of those entering the youth opportunities programme in April, up to 13,000 were 1982 school leavers.

Does the Minister appreciate that a further 100,000 school leavers will come on to the unemployment register this month? Is not the trend towards the waste of a whole generation? Does he appreciate, too, that unemployment is becoming little short of a national scandal? When will the Government cease to use unemployment as a means to browbeat working people, bearing in mind the great economic and social damage that is being caused?

I do not find it surprising that the hon. Gentleman uses the political rhetoric of suggesting that the Government are using unemployment to browbeat people. That is untrue, as well he knows. He must be aware that this year we are increasing the number of youth opportunities programme places from 550,000 to 630,000. We believe that that is right in view of the needs of the youngsters concerned.

Will the Minister speed up the process by which YOP openings are made available? Is he aware that in the Chorley area it takes up to 10 weeks for an employer to get somebody from the youth unemployment list after registering the vacancy?

I shall certainly ensure that that happens. By and large there has been an improvement in the time within which approval is given. I have made it clear to the careers service that the places are to be filled as quickly as possible.

Is there any truth in the suggestion that the Government are considering further changing the way in which unemployment statistics are compiled, so as to remove a further 200,000 from the unemployment record at the stroke of a pen?

No, Sir.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will publish a discussion document on reform of union rule books and the right for trade unionists to ask for secret ballots within their own unions.

My right hon. Friend has not yet decided to do so.

Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that one of the reasons for the present unpopularity of many trade unions is that without secret ballots they take extreme decisions that do not reflect the wishes of most of their members, but that it is very hard for the majority of members to get the rule book changed? At what stage does he think that it would be appropriate for the Government to intervene to require unions to change their rule books when they refuse to do so?

We have no doubt at all of the need for greater union democracy. We do not underestimate for one moment the need for greater use of secret ballots. It is a scandal that the TUC should boycott the scheme under the 1980 Act, while taking money for shop steward training. The unions must realise that if they do not reform themselves voluntarily the Government will have to take further action. We are giving them the chance to reform themselves voluntarily.

Why is the Minister even considering a discussion document when he must be aware that unions have rules revision conferences and that if there is great feeling on any matter that is the time and place to alter the rule book? Does he accept, therefore, that it is not for Ministers to propose discussion documents?

I do not think that many hon. Members agree with the hon. Gentleman that all union rule books are so perfect that they safeguard the rights of the members, because clearly they do not. There is a clear call for greater democracy within unions. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the demand for reform comes not just from the moderates in the trade union movement. The defeated candidate for the general secretaryship of the AUEW pointed out only the other day the necessity to ensure proper balloting arrangements.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment by how much the working population has reduced in the last three years; and what are the latest estimates for the next five years.

Between December 1978 and December 1981 the working population in Great Britain fell by just over half a million. My Department does not produce projections of the working population.

In view of that reply, and the fact that the number of retirement pensioners has increased by 360,000 in the past three years, does my right hon. Friend recognise that an increasing proportion of the population will depend upon fewer and fewer workers, irrespective of the current level of unemployment? Does he agree that that is a significant trend? Do the Government intend to take any initiatives to allay some of the financial and fiscal problems that will arise?

It is indeed a worrying trend that the population of working age continues to expand, while the number of jobs available is not keeping pace. That is all the more reason why my hon. Friend should support, as I do, the policies in my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor's latest Budget to relieve industry of taxes and to increase incentives to set up new enterprises.

As the Minister has confirmed that the number in employment has fallen by about 2 million in three years of Conservative Government, whereas in a comparable period under the Labour Government the number of people in employment actually rose despite the rise in unemployment, does he agree that those statistics show the complete failure of Government policies in the past three years?

They simply show that the right hon. Gentleman has failed to take lags into account.

Lags?

Old lags like the Minister.

The reason why jobs have disappeared recently is that under the Labour Government unit labour costs rose so catastrophically that jobs were destroyed.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he has received any recent representations concerning the extension of employee involvement practices in British industry.

Yes, Sir. It is clear from representations made to me that there is a widespread and growing understanding in industry of the need for more progress in employee involvement, but I have received many representations expressing concern about draft European Community directives which would impose rigid legal systems and could disrupt industrial relations.

Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that some British companies, particularly the Jaguar motor car plants, have made great strides towards greater employee involvement through the use of quality circles? Does he agree that, although quality circles are not appropriate to all industrial relations circumstances, some form of increased employee involvement is necessary to bridge the gap between management and work force, which has dogged this country for far too long?

My hon. Friend is entirely right to stress the importance of getting rid of the "them and us" attitude in industry. Quality circles can certainly play a part in that. They are performing a useful function at Jaguar. My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Mills) told me this morning how successful they were proving in Dunlop, too.

Is the Minister aware that according to the CBI only one-third of employers have any kind of formal participative or consultative arrangements? That being so, why have the Government taken no action, legislative or otherwise, to promote participation or industrial democracy, although they have been only too eager to introduce anti-union legislation?

We have not introduced any antiunion legislation. The hon. Gentleman mentioned one result of the survey that was carried out by the CBI. May I remind him of another result of the survey, which is that 84 per cent. of company chief executives who participated in the survey felt that employee involvement policies had brought about tangible gains in performance? I hope that that message has gone home throughout British industry. The difficulty is one that I am sure the hon. Gentleman recognises. Although one would wish to give all possible encouragement, one is reluctant to impose any rigid framework that might break across the good employee involvement arrangements that already exist in many parts of British industry. That is the difficulty.

Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that the greatest participation that the Government have introduced into industry is the right of many employees in State-owned industries to buy shares in their companies and to participate thereby in the control, success and profitability of companies such as British Aerospace?

My hon. Friend is entirely right. The Government demonstrated their support for employee involvement to no mean tune by selling the National Freight Corporation to its employees. They have set up a genuine prosperous co-operative, not a clapped-out Benn-type set-up such as the Kirkby Manufacturing and Engineering Company.

Will the Minister examine the papers that are being discussed in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe on employee involvement in trans-national companies? Is he aware that the predecessor to the Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth), visited the Glacier Metal Company, which is an outstanding example of employee involvement? Will the Minister persuade his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to follow the good example of his predecessor and see for himself the practicalities of genuine employee participation?

I promise the hon. Gentleman that I am doing my best to study the problem. I am going to Germany in the near future to try to increase my education. We have much to learn from what is happening in other countries.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has met the chairman of the Manpower Services Commission to discuss the report of the task group on the new training initiative; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will make a statement on the arrangements he is making for the youth training scheme.

I have spoken to the chairman concerning the youth task group report and youth training recently, and I shall announce the Government's decision on the report as soon as possible.

Does my right hon. Friend accept the view of the chairman of the Manpower Services Commission, that one of the most important elements in the task group report is the continuing commitment to a training programme? Does he accept that resources so allocated would be a better use of public funds in the long term than the use of similar sums of money to support schemes of early retirement?

Certainly training is of great importance. Generally, money that is spent on training is money well spent. However, I hope that no one will assume that it should be the Government's business to provide all the money for training, even the training of 16-year-olds. That burden should properly be borne by industry in the long run, although we are making available over £1 billion in the first year of the youth training scheme to launch the scheme and to help to combat the problem of youth unemployment.

Will my right hon. Friend encourage the MSC to extend its excellent programme not just to training for working life but to preparation and training for life in general, because many people will go from one form of working life to another? Unfortunately, many young people will not be going into employment. In many parts of the country there will not be schemes that suit those people. Can we broaden the range of the youth training scheme so that there is general preparation for life?

I hope that within all the youth training scheme programmes there will be some general training for life which is aimed in particular at the inner urban areas, where many of the youngsters who come forward have not been as well educated as they might have been and are not as well motivated in some cases as they might be. That would be important. If my hon. Friend has further ideas about that, perhaps he would be interested in talking to the chairman of the commission about them.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the reason for scepticism among young people and their parents about his proposed youth training scheme is that the present youth opportunities programme does not seem to be policed adequately by the MSC? There are many examples of young people being exploited by unscrupulous employers who use them as cheap labour. Advice bureaux and surgeries of Members of Parliament, including mine, hear about those examples in areas of high youth unemployment.

I do not think that there is a great deal of abuse, although I would be the first to admit that there are some such cases. Where they are brought to the notice of the MSC, they are followed up. On a number of occasions, when employers have abused schemes, the schemes have been terminated. If the hon. Gentleman is worried about that, that is all the more reason why he should welcome the youth training scheme, which, because of its nature, is less open to abuse than YOP.

In view of the great importance of the Government's new training initiative, does my right hon. Friend recognise the equal importance of accepting the task group report as a whole and not picking and choosing between parts of it?

I shall discuss that matter further with the chairman in due course. I hope to announce my decision before too long. However, I must say that I made proposals to the commission and the commission has come back with its suggestions. It would be unwise for any of us to take an absolutely rigid attitude—that what we put on the table is the final word and that no modification can be brooked.

Has not the right hon. Gentleman suffered a stinging rebuke and a humiliating rebuff by the task group, as it has denounced his plans for compulsion? Is he not totally isolated from the TUC, the commission and the CBI? Why does he not have the courage to admit today that his compulsory £15-a-week scheme is a provocative folly?

Not least because I have never proposed a compulsory scheme. If the hon. Gentleman or any of his colleagues do not understand what the word "compulsory" means, I shall send them a photocopy of the appropriate page of The Oxford English Dictionary.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the latest level of unemployment in (a) North-West England and (b) the United Kingdom.

At 13 May, the numbers of people registered as unemployed in the North-West region and in the United Kingdom were 425,651 and 2,969,443, respectively.

Does the Minister have any evidence to contradict yesterday's assessment by the CBI that unemployment will continue to rise in Britain by at least 15,000 a month in manufacturing alone for the rest of the year, and will stay high throughout next year?

We are following the practice of the Labour Government. We are not in the habit of making forecasts. I can tell the hon. Gentleman, however, that the prospect for continued recovery is there—short-time working is down, cost competitiveness in British industry is up, inflation has fallen below 10 per cent., the rate of increase in unemployment has slowed sharply—

It is still going up.

—and interests rates are coming down. Those are all good signs. That is all good news.

Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that in past recessions before unemployment has fallen the number of job vacancies has always risen? Can my hon. and learned Friend say anything about job vacancies that might give us cause for hope?

I have the figures here. The number of job vacancies has increased. However, I shall be unable to find the figures in time to give my hon. Friend the information that he wants. There is some room for encouragement, as there has been a modest increase in job vacancies.

How many people have been unemployed for over a year?

About 990,000.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the latest figure and percentage of unemployment.

At 13 May the number of people registered as unemployed in the United Kingdom was 2,969,443 and the unemployment rate was 12·4 per cent.

In the light of those disgraceful figures, will the Secretary of State give a guarantee that when the enormous bills for the Falklands operation have to be paid they will not be paid by the millions of unemployed people, through cuts in the special employment measures?

I see no cause at the moment to expect any cuts in the special employment measures already announced or those that the Government have in view, regardless of any possible consequences of the cost of the Falklands affair.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is difficult to compare exactly the United Kingdom unemployment figures, in numbers and percentages, with those of other manufacturing countries, because we do not have repatriated immigrant workers or national service?

My hon. Friend is right. Those factors affect unemployment statistics in other countries. It is clear, however, that unemployment trends over the past three months show that the United Kingdom has a better record than Belgium, the Netherlands, West Germany, the United States, France, Canada or Greece. Comparing the past three months against the same period a year ago, the figures are encouraging.

In view of the continuing gravity of the figures, will the Secretary of State reject the latest proposals by Sir Derek Rayner and his "razor gang" for cuts in jobcentres and the relegation of jobcentres to back streets? Will the right hon. Gentleman also confirm that Sir Richard O'Brien, before he was so unceremoniously dumped by the Secretary of State, expressed his serious concern over that possibility?

Sir Richard O'Brien was not unceremoniously dumped. That is the first point on which the hon. Gentleman is in error. Secondly, the Rayner report cannot sensibly be described as a razor job. It is a serious effort to improve the efficiency and to keep down the costs of the employment service of the Manpower Services Commission. I should have thought that all hon. Members would share that aim.

Is not the most terrifying aspect of this awful level of unemployment the long-term unemployment mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley)? I refer to those who have been without a job for 12 months or longer. That figure, as I believe the Secretary of State will admit, will go up even further over the next few months. What action does the right hon. Gentleman intend to take? Is he not aware of the horror and degradation felt by a man or woman who has been unable to get a job for more than 12 months? Why cannot the Secretary of State turn his attention to that aspect of the matter if he cannot do anything about the other? That is the most damaging aspect of unemployment. it is no good the Secretary of State coming to the House of Commons, as he has done on two occasions at Question Time, to try to placate the House by saying that the situation is getting better. 'What is happening is that the situation is getting worse, but more slowly.

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that, now that we have made some progress through the youth training scheme—which I hope will be launched successfully next year—in dealing with the gravest problem of youth unemployment among school leavers, we should turn our attention more to the problems of the long-term unemployed. It was for that. reason that the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget speech offered to make available a further £150 million in order to bring another 100,000 people off the long-term unemployment register and into socially useful work. I am sorry that the initial reaction to the Chancellor's scheme was not more welcoming. I think, for example, of the trade unions. None the less, I hope that it will still be possible to take advantage of that money and to do something to ease the problem to which the right hon. Gentleman refers.

Will my right hon. Friend ignore the remarks of the hon. Member for Islington, Central (Mr. Grant)? Is he aware that his hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Lewis) and a number of other Conservative Members have argued for a long time that the Manpower Services Commission has been putting far too much money into bricks and mortar in our high streets?

That point has been made to me by many hon. Members and by many members of the public. They say that some of these job shops appear to be sited in needlessly expensive places. They do not have to compete with the high street banks and Marks & Spencer for the most expensive city centre sites.

When the Secretary of State considers the problem of the long-term unemployed, that is to say, those who have been unemployed for a long time, will he take account of the financial difficulties that face those people as a consequence of their own thrift while they were working, especially in terms of loss of benefit because they have capital of more than £2,000? Is it really the policy of the Conservative Government that the long-term unemployed should be penalised for their thrift?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, this is not, strictly speaking, a matter for me. It is, however, fair to say that many people make this point in the country at large. I must make the point that the way in which thrift is most cruelly penalised is through high levels of inflation. This is one of the reasons why the Government have put the issue of dealing with inflation at the top of our priority list.

When the sunshine talk, as evidenced by the Under-Secretary of State in answering an earlier question, is ended, will the Secretary of State accept that the fact staring everyone, particularly the unemployed, in the face is that during the past three years of Tory Government 2 million jobs have gone? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is no indication from the Budget, from his words or from anywhere else, that more jobs will be forthcoming, not only for those now unemployed but for the 500,000 school leavers who will shortly be coming on to the market? Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that such sunshine talk means nothing to those school leavers unless he can say at the Dispatch Box that they will be given the opportunity of real jobs when they leave school?

If the hon. Gentleman thinks back he will recollect that the increase in the percentage of unemployment during the first three years in office of this Government has been slightly less than that experienced in the first three years of the Labour Government. Just as my predecessors as Secretary of State in the Labour Government had to tell the hon. Gentleman that Governments cannot create jobs but that customers create jobs, so I must tell the hon. Gentleman exactly the same. The hon. Gentleman did not like it from his own Government. I know that he does not like it from mine.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many people are now unemployed in the Wandsworth area; and how this figure compares with May 1979.

At May 1982, the number of people registered as unemployed in the area covered by the Clapham Junction and Tooting employment offices, which corresponds closely to the London borough of Wandsworth, was 13,143. The corresponding number at May 1979 was 5,698.

Will the Minister agree that there are no prospects of Government policy being likely to result in a reduction in the high level of unemployment in inner city areas such as Wandsworth? In the absence of any initiatives from the Government, will the Minister support those initiatives coming from the Greater London Council, which at least offer the prospect of the creation of a few more jobs in areas like Wandsworth?

Areas such as Wandsworth, and other parts of the country, will benefit as a result of our measures, which are reversing the deep-seated decline in the competitiveness of British industry, and as a result of our measures to create a soundly based economy. Jobs can be created only by firms that provide goods at prices that people are prepared to pay. I remind the hon. Gentleman that one of the most potent factors in the competitiveness of British industry is the amount of tax and rates that it has to pay. The hon. Gentleman should look next door to Wandsworth to see the worse position in Lambeth as a result of the irresponsible policies of the local authority.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the railway preservation projects currently in receipt of help from Manpower Services Commission schemes.

The information requested could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. However, there are a number of schemes of this kind, and if my hon. Friend wishes to know about support for particular railway preservation societies I shall make the necessary inquiries.

Does my hon. Friend accept that these schemes can provide worthwhile employment and training for many people, particularly young people? Is he aware that some of the schemes in which I have been involved have had different attitudes taken to them by different MSC offices in various parts of the country? Will he try do do something to co-ordinate the response that various preservation societies are likely to get if they make a standard application for assistance?

I was glad to hear my hon. Friend say that these schemes play an important role, and I agree that they provide good jobs for the people involved in them. I shall make sure that the commission views each scheme on its merits, but, as my hon. Friend will be aware, there will in some cases be more places available under the community enterprise programme than in other cases.

Will my hon. Friend seek the view of our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport on whether the survival of ASLEF and its tenacious adherence to working practices established in 1919 should properly be classified as a railway preservation project?

I shall make sure that the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is drawn to my hon. Friend's point.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what are the latest figures available for the number of people unemployed; and what proportion this is of the potential working population.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the present number of registered unemployed people in the United Kingdom; and what is the latest estimate of the number of unemployed who are not registered.

At 13 May the provisional number of people registered as unemployed in the United Kingdom was 2,969,443 and the unemployment rate was 12·4 per cent.

Does the Minister accept that these are serious figures and that the figures for long-term unemployment, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley) pointed out, are catastrophic indeed? In contrast to what the Secretary of State said in reply to an earlier question, will the Minister accept that the only way to produce a reasonable improvement in these figures in a measurable amount of time is by a vast increase in public expenditure on capital projects?

I do not agree with that proposal. That method has been tried. Throwing money at the problem has no effect other than to increase inflation and increase problems with the balance of payments, thus ultimately destroying jobs.

Would not the number of the unemployed be reduced, as would the amount of juvenile crime, if my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer were to introduce fiscal policies that would encourage mothers to stay at home and look after their children, which is a very valuable job indeed?

That is a question that goes rather wider than my brief, as my hon. Friend will appreciate. However, there are fewer women in work than men, and many women do stay at home and look after their families.

In view of the training schemes to reduce the incidence of unemployment among young people, can we take it that there has been a change of heart at the Department of Employment and that the Government now intend to introduce a payroll tax on employers to fund the training of young people?

No, we have no proposal to introduce a payroll tax.

Will the Minister comment on the statement in the youth task group's report that the youth training scheme must be voluntary rather than compulsory—that is, a scheme in which people want to take part? Does he agree that we must have a scheme that commands enthusiasm because it is right and fair, makes sense and is what people want to do, rather than an imposed system requiring conformity?

That sounds like good sense as the right hon. Gentleman has read it out, and there is certainly no Government proposal to make the scheme compulsory.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment when he expects the level of unemployment to fall.

There will be a sustained fall in unemployment when economic recovery is firmly established and our industries are more competitive in world markets.

While I fully support the Government's economic policies, may I ask the Minister whether he agrees that, as there has been a steady deterioration in Britain's relative unemployment position since 1973 in comparison with other Western nations, allied to a sharp increase in the manufacturing trade deficit with the EEC, there is now an overwhelming case for a thorough inquiry by the Government's economic advisers into the effect on unemployment of Britain's current relationships with EEC?

No, Sir, I do not agree. As my hon. Friend will be aware, there are conflicting reports on the matter. The Cambridge economic policy group suggests a large employment loss, whereas the National Institute for Economic and Social Research suggests a small employment gain. My hon. Friend will also be aware of the enormous growth in exports to the Community. Therefore, there are bound, by definition, to be more jobs available than hitherto.

Is the Minister aware of the corrosive effects of unemployment on areas such as Lambeth? Can he give a forecast of when unemployment will be at least back to the levels of 1979?

I am aware of the effects that unemployment can have on areas such as Lambeth, and in other parts of the country. However, the hon. Gentleman will also be aware that the Government are spending thousands of millions of pounds of taxpayers' money on special employment measures particularly to help such areas.

asked the Prime Minister whether she will list her official engagements for 8 June.

This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others before attending the address given by President Reagan in another place. Later I gave a lunch for him and Mrs. Reagan. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today, including one with the Premier of Bermuda. This evening I shall be present at a State banquet given by her Majesty the Queen at Windsor castle in honour of President Reagan.

Is it not now time that the Government directed their policy in the Middle East in favour of the victim and against the aggressor? To that end, will my right hon. Friend tell the Israeli führer to get his extermination squads and infanticides out of the Lebanon? Will she remind him that self-determination is as important for 4¼ million Palestinians as it is for the Falkland Islanders and that the Knesset is no more able to get away with its booty in the Middle East than are the Argentines in the South Atlantic? Will my right hon. Friend combine with others, by whatever means are necessary, to ensure the establishment of a Palestinian State alongside a secure Israel?

We supported the motion in the Security Council, which respects the Lebanon's sovereignty and territorial integrity, and which we wish to see restored. With regard to my hon. Friend's remarks about self-determination, we believe in it as a principle. It is important both for the Falklands and for the Palestinian people, and we have never hesitated to accept that. We fully support the efforts of the United States to re-establish the ceasefire and we shall work with Mr. Habib to that end.

Is the Prime Minister aware that if peace is to be restored to the Lebanon, it must be obvious to many who watched television last night that something must be done about the United Nations' peacekeeping force in the Lebanon? It was clear that the Israelis had been in the Lebanon for a long time, as had the PLO. Will the British Government make a contribution to a serious United Nations multinational peacekeeping effort in the Lebanon, as we have made a multinational contribution in the Sinai?

The right hon. Gentleman will be as aware as I am of the history of United Nations peacekeeping forces. He will recollect that in 1967 there was a similar occasion when the United Nations peacekeeping force was withdrawn as a prelude to the hostilities that developed later. As the right hon. Gentleman knows full well, we still contribute to United Nations peacekeeping forces, particularly in such places as Cyprus. I share the views that the right hon. Gentleman earlier expressed, that these United Nations peacekeeping forces are too few and are not wholly effective, but I do not think that we can deal with that immediately. It is a tragedy, and only when we have an effective force shall we be able truly to stop aggression.

While I appreciate my right hon. Friend's efforts to co-operate with the Americans and Mr. Habib, may I ask her to recognise the fact that the provocation of Israel has been intolerable? Secondly, will she recognise that, because of the PLO and the Syrians, the State of the Lebanon has ceased to exist as a sovereign State, which has led to the problems that we face today?

I would not say that Lebanon had ceased to exist as a sovereign State. Its territorial integrity must be restored. We condemn all aggressive activity, whether within the Lebanon, on the Israel-Lebanon border or across that border into Israel. We condemn it all equally.

asked the Prime Minister if who will list her official engagements for Tuesday 8 June.

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

Now that the Prime Minister has heard President Reagan's robust defence of NATO and the values that it exists to support, does she still believe that Britain's defence priority should be to maintain the ability to retaliate with nuclear weapons independently of NATO, or should it be to support NATO as a deterrent and strengthen the conventional forces that have proved so important to us?

Deterrence consists of being able to deter the potential aggressor. If the potential aggressor is a nuclear power, it would not be a deterrent to have only conventional forces. That would mean that an aggressor could promptly decide to go nuclear and we should have no defence. Therefore, we should have not only a conventional defence but an independent nuclear deterrent if Britain's belief in freedom is to be properly and fully protected.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that although it is unfortunate that publicity should discriminate between one gallant corps and another, the Ministry of Defence and the media have given no publicity to the presence of the 36 Engineer Regiment in the Falkland Islands, which comes from Chatham and Maidstone? We hear little about these essential soldiers, whereas we do hear about the more romantic side. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that we shall hear more in the media about their good work?

I am amazed that there is something that has not been set out in the media. May I make it clear that the defence of freedom and the rule of law is indivisible and that the foremost efforts of every soldier, sailor and airman, and of the public in support of them, are needed if that freedom is to be secure? I gladly pay tribute to those soldiers to whom my hon. Friend referred, as indeed to them all. They never let Britain down. May we never let them down.

Will the Prime Minister use this, the first possible occasion, to express the shock and disgust of the House at the cold-blooded shooting in our streets of ambassador Argov? Does the right hon. Lady recognise that no nation worthy of its salt can sit and do nothing while its ambassadors are shot and its people are terrorised from across its borders?

I gladly condemn totally the utterly brutal attack on ambassador Argov. He is a most distinguished ambassador, held in great esteem in Britain and a distinguished representative of his country. I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that the police were swift in their action and are to be congratulated. The hon. and learned Gentleman knows that we shall do everything to stamp out tyranny and terrorism wherever it occurs.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the cynical Israeli aggression against the Lebanon is threatening peace in the whole area? Does she agree also that aggression should not be rewarded and that we should effectively combine with the United States? That means that the United States should not supply 75 F16s to Israel, since that action was one of the causes of the attack on Lebanon.

I have made our position perfectly clear. We support the United Nations Security Council resolution, which requires that the territorial integrity of the Lebanon should be respected. We equally condemn the aggressive activity and hostilities that have taken place across the Israel-Lebanon border. It is important to condemn such aggression and hostility wherever it occurs. It is equally important to uphold the right of self-determination. If one demands it for oneself, one must expect it to be applied to others.

Which side are you on?

I am on the side of certain principles which I have always upheld and will continue to uphold.

May I concur with what the right hon. Lady said about the appalling attack upon the Israeli ambassador? May I also concur with what she has said about the rights of the State of Lebanon? Lebanon has as much right to exist as any other State. We have a duty to do our best to uphold its rights, along with those of other small countries.

I totally disassociate myself from the right hon. Gentleman's remarks on our activities in the United Nations. The trouble with those latest resolutions was that there was not an unequivocal link between a ceasefire and a withdrawal, which is vital. In those circumstances, we were right to use the British veto. It is only the twentieth British veto, compared with the Soviet Union, which has used the veto 112 times.

That is not a good example for the right hon. Lady to choose. Some hon. Members believe that the British Government should not have used the veto in those circumstances—[Interruption.] That is not only our view it was obviously the view of many other countries that were represented at the Security Council. Nine countries voted that way and several abstained.

There is no obstacle in the way of Argentine withdrawal, except the Argentines.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 8 June.

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

Admidst all the tension of international events, and during a busy schedule, will the Prime Minister consider the countless thousands of men and women who are at present standing in the dole queue? Now that the public purse strings are open once again, will she give early consideration to the authorisation of some major public expenditure programmes that will help to put those people back to work?

I did not discuss the Datsun project with Japanese leaders at the Versailles summit.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 8 June.

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

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the widespread dismay at the support being shown by the Spanish Government for the Argentines in the current dispute and at their apparent inability to differentiate between the aggressor and the aggrieved, and between a free society and a totalitarian regime? In the light of that, will she at least consider reviewing the Government's support for Spain's application to join the EEC?

It is in the interests of Britain and of Spain's long-term future, that Spain should join the EEC. I believe in the wider and longer view that we must keep the democracies together and keep certain countries, such as Spain, within the democratic sphere of influence. Problems are much more likely to be solved if they fall within, rather than outside, the authority of democratic Governments. We very much hope that the gates to Gibraltar on the Spanish side, will be open on 25 June.