asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many days were lost in industrial disputes in the most recent 12-month period for which figures are available.

It is provisionally estimated that 6·9 million working days were lost through industrial disputes in the United Kingdom in the 12 months ended 31 August 1982.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that that represents an improvement compared with most recent years and is a vindication of the step-by-step approach to industrial relations?

My hon. Friend is right. The average figure for the previous 10 years is 12·1 million days lost. One should take out the two entirely fruitless disputes in the public sector—1·2 million days lost in the railway dispute, which continued until the members overruled their union leaders and went back to work, and 2·7 million days lost in the NHS dispute, which will be entirely fruitless, as there will be no improved offer.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the best year recently was 1976? We lost fewer than 4 million working days' production when we did not have any of the legislation which is supposedly having such beneficial effects. If the present legislation is having such beneficial effects, what is the justification for further legislation during the next Session?

The right hon. Gentleman is selective in the figures that he quotes. If he looks at other years when his Government were in office, he will see that a different picture is presented. He omitted also to refer to the figures for stoppages in 1981, which was the best year for about 40 years.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that because of the attitude of his Department and the Government the trade union movement will be boiling with fury for a long time? Will he have discussions with the trade union movement to create better understanding and greater harmony between it and the Government instead of always wanting to fight it?

It is always open to trade union leaders to talk to me. We have offered to consult them on a number of matters, but they have chosen not to take advantage of that offer. The hon. Gentleman must not confuse the fury of the politicians who lead the trade unions with the attitudes of their members. That was the Labour Party's fatal mistake when it backed the ASLEF leadership when all the members were saying "To hell with the strike, let us get back to work".

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the current percentage level of unemployment in the United Kingdom.

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

At 9 September the rate of unemployment in the United Kingdom was 14 per cent. In recent months both interest rates and inflation have been falling sharply. If, by increased productivity and realistic wage bargaining, this progress towards better competitiveness can be maintained, prospects for the creation of new jobs will improve further.

Will the Secretary of State make it abundantly clear that the Government care just as deeply as their critics about unemployment and all the human misery it involves? Will he support public authorities and councils like Birmingham which support "Buy-British" policies, because of the distressing unemployment, and will he defend them against organisations such as the EEC Commission? Is he aware that we have a £4 million monthly trade deficit with the Community in manufactured goods?

The Government have no less real sympathy for the unemployed than had their predecessors. That is marked by the scale of the programmes to assist the unemployed and to help particularly the long-term unemployed through schemes such as the community programme.

Have not the Government put 2 million people in the dole queues as part of a deliberate policy to grind people into the dust and to turn workers into nomadic supplicants begging for work from town to town? Are not the Minister's claims about competitive aids to British industry unjustified when the textile industry, for example, has adopted new measures and invested and yet is losing jobs by the thousand every month? Is it not time that the Government changed their policies to stimulate demand and enable manufacturing industry to recover?

The answer to all the hon. Gentleman's questions is "No, Sir".

Would not the alternative strategy proposed by some Opposition Members increase inflation, interest rates and, fairly quickly thereafter, unemployment?

Yes. My hon. Friend is right. He does not merely have to accept my word. The right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) told the CSEU conference at Eastbourne on 30 June 1978:

"Inflation is the main enemy … you have a responsibility for your own jobs … inflation is the mother and father of unemployment."

The right hon. Gentleman originally mentioned future prospects. When does he expect the Government's policies to change, as outlined, for example, in speeches at fringe meetings during the Tory Party conference by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food?

I do not think that one would expect Government policies to change. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman can attend some of his party's fringe meetings, such as those when they fiddle the votes in the NEC elections.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many young people were on the youth opportunities programme at the latest available date.

At the end of August there were about 205,000 occupied places on the youth opportunities programme.

What response has there been from industry and commerce to the new training initiative, how many places have been forthcoming and is my hon. Friend satisfied with the standard of training opportunities likely to be available?

By and large, I am satisfied by industry's response to the youth training scheme. I applaud the emphasis that the Manpower Services Commission is putting on quality. We wish to have as many industrial and commercial sponsors as we can.

What view does the Department of Employment take of the fact that many people are having to take jobs well below their ability because of the present high unemployment? What impact will people working in jobs that do not fully use their abilities and qualifications have on the future of industrial relations?

As the hon. Gentleman will have heard constantly from the Conservative Benches, jobs arise only out of profitable enterprises, and we believe that in the past young workers have potentially been priced out of jobs.

Is my hon. Friend aware that in my constituency a worthwhile youth opportunities programme is being held up by a Government Department being slow in releasing the land? What is the policy on availability of land for such projects?

I cannot comment on the situation in my hon. Friend's constituency, but I shall look into it. In general terms it is not a complaint that I have heard.

Will the Minister consider the disparity in Scotland because of the differences in the school leaving dates and the take-up on the youth training initiative scheme? What is the position of managing agencies? Should not a good local authority like Fife be allowed to co-ordinate the activities in its area?

The MSC is aware of the disparity in Scotland. We wish to adopt as flexible an approach as possible to managing agencies. If a local authority, local education authority or another sort of body wishes to be a managing agent, that is fine.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will now introduce special measures substantially to reduce the level of unemployment.

The Government's economic strategy, which is sharply reducing inflation and interest rates, is designed to ensure that productive jobs are created in efficient and competitive firms. As a part of that strategy we are expanding our programme of special employment and training measures which aim to alleviate the worse effects of unemployment and to prepare for the future upturn in the economy.

Is the Minister aware that the Government's present measures are creating further unemployment? Will he look closely at the advice on bolder measures to reduce unemployment, even from his friends at the CBI? Is he further aware that in Wales during two months in the Summer Recess 10,319 redundancies were declared? Is it not time that the Government did something to replace such jobs?

The assumption is incorrect. The measures are not increasing unemployment. The £1½ billion that we are spending on special unemployment measures directly assists and takes off the unemployment register at least 315,000.

As the Government's economic policies are creating new and real jobs, but only painfully slowly, will they seriously consider the current ideas for increasing work splitting and sharing, earlier retirement and later commencement of working life?

I am glad that my hon. Friend has mentioned some of the schemes that are now in train and in the course of development. We believe that they will do a great deal of good both to those who wish to retire early and to those who wish to get on the register to take their places.

What are the Minister's views on unemployed women? Does he accept the research studies that show that the loss of housewives' earnings is a major cause of poverty? If so, what special measures does he have in mind to help unemployed women?

I mentioned the figure of £1½ billion. There are substantial programmes in support of various kinds of replacement opportunities, for training, for youth opportunities and for the disabled which will reduce by over 300,000 the number of those who would otherwise be on the unemployment register.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what comments he has so far received on his Green Paper relating to employment legislation.

We hope to issue a consultative document within the next month or so. We have already received many comments from organisations and individuals urging the Government to legislate for proper democratic procedures to be observed within trade unions.

Whatever reservations may exist about the use of compulsory ballots in certain matters of industrial disputes, does my hon. and learned Friend understand that there is widespread support, I suspect on both sides of industry, especially with immediate events in mind, for compulsory ballots for the election of trade union officials? Is he aware that a proposal for such ballots would be widely supported if introduced in the next Session?

I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. The need for drastic improvement in the conduct of their affairs by trade unions is obvious when one considers what happened on the day of action. The Department has received 50 separate complaints of threats of disciplinary action against people who were not minded to indulge in unlawful action. There is something wrong with the leadership of a union if this sort of persecution can take place. Clearly, there are some very nasty people in positions of authority.

On the Government Front Bench.

Would it not ring more true if this Conservative Government, who keep talking about the need for ballots in trade unions, started with a ballot for the chairmanship of the Tory Party? Why not have an election for that position instead of its being based on patronage? What about the whole of the Government—100 Ministers all picked by the Prime Minister? Why not have a ballot for those positions?

We are concerned with getting more democracy within trade unions. There is a call for greater democracy when important decisions are made about the future of individuals. That is what we are talking about.

My hon. and learned Friend has deplored the intimidation through the closed shop which has manifested itself during the Health Service strike. Does he propose to make any changes to the code of practice that is about to come before Parliament to strengthen that aspect of the closed shop so that there can be an end to that abuse?

This is a matter that we are now considering with great care.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if any visit to Motec, Livingston, has been made by a Minister in his Department since 30 July.

No, Sir.

In view of the Manpower Services Commission's interest, are the Government prepared to help to keep Motec open over the next 18 months?

The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that he wrote to me three days ago indicating that the MSC was running programmes in the Livingston Motec and asking whether this matter could be taken further. I have forwarded his letter to the chairman of the MSC, so that he knows personally of the hon. Gentleman's feelings.

In support of the determined advocacy of my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) on behalf of the Livingston motor technology centre, does the Minister accept that the closure of Livingston would go against the objectives of the new training scheme? Has he forgotten that road transport industry apprenticeships have slumped from the 1978 figure of 10,000 to the current figure of 1,000? When will he make a statement on the future of the Road Transport Industry Training Board?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the future of the Livingston Motec, like that of the High Ercall Motec, is a matter initially for the Road Transport Industry Training Board itself. I made an announcement last Friday that the Road Transport Industry Training Board would remain together for the remaining 18 months.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on unemployment trends throughout the European Economic Community

Unemployment has increased in all countries of the European Community over the past year. Comparing figures for the latest available 12 months, unemployment has increased by 45 per cent. in Germany, 39 per cent. in the Netherlands, 23 per cent. in Italy and 11 per cent. in the United Kingdom. Rates of increase have also been greater than in the United Kingdom in Ireland and Belgium. In the 12 months to August, unemployment in the EEC as a whole increased by 19 per cent.

It is obviously to be regretted that our European partners have problems as bad and, in many cases, much worse than ours. Can my hon. Friend explain why those problems arose here first? Will he explain to people why this is not a peculiarly British problem?

It is easy to answer that question. The British got in first with that abysmal performance on unit labour costs which doubled during the period of the last Government, compared with a rise of one-sixth in. Germany.

Do the Government subscribe to the view that a great deal of unemployment in Europe is due to overmanning, or is that myth put out by the Government only in relation to this country?

No. I would not venture to make a generalisation on the economies of Europe, about which I know probably even less than the hon. Gentleman. I do not mean to be rude to him. I can, however, say that the numbers in employment in Britain have always been consistently higher than in the countries of our partners in Europe. Many more are employed in Britain traditionally. The fact that our partners are now experiencing a serious increase in unemployment is proportionately much more serious for them than for us.

Is it not true that the United Kingdom has the highest level of long-term unemployment throughout the whole of Europe? Is it not also true that, within the United Kingdom, the North of England has one of the highest incidences of long-term unemployment? Is it not time that the Minister began to take this problem seriously? Will he now bring in a programme of education and training for the long-term unemployed as he has done for the young unemployed?

Britain was, unfortunately, first in experiencing a sharp increase in unemployment following the effects of the drop in competitiveness caused by the previous Government. It follows that because unemployment has been rising more rapidly over a longer time, there will be more long-term unemployed. However, we have without doubt the best programme in the European Community, worth now 130,000 places, for helping those who have been unemployed for 12 months or more.

In view of the depressing unemployment figures in the European Economic Community and the Minister's great concern to battle against unemployment, might there not be a case for the Minister allocating two or three civil servants to study why this situation should exist in the EEC while countries on the edge of the Community that did not join—Norway, Sweden and Switzerland—have less than 4 per cent. unemployment?

There are also countries like Spain, which is not in the European Community, with an unemployment rate of nearly 14 per cent.

Has the Minister noticed that under a Socialist Government in France the seasonally adjusted unemployment level has been stable for the last 12 months? In the last four months, inflation has dropped 4 per cent., from 14 per cent., which was the inheritance from Mr. Barre, to 10 per cent. today? Would it not be better for the Government to concentrate on their own back yard, especially as a secret Treasury report says that unemployment will rise to 3·5 million in the middle of next year?

My latest information on the French unemployment figures is that they averaged 7·8 per cent. in 1981. The latest available figures—for August 1982—showed a very sharp increase to 10·9 per cent. There has also been an increase in the rate of inflation, a run on the currency and severe problems over the balance of payments.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on progress towards the establishment of the new youth training scheme in 1983.

Following my right hon. Friend's announcement in the House on 21 June about the new youth training scheme, the Manpower Services Commission is now working urgently on the detailed planning of the scheme and is making good progress.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that there are certain parts of the country where it will be more difficult to establish the youth training scheme? I am thinking of the rural and border areas. Will he say what special measures are proposed to ensure that the scheme gets off to an excellent start in those areas as in other parts of the country?

I agree with my hon. Friend that there will be greater difficulties in the rural areas where the larger companies are not established. It is in these areas that we shall see the role of the managing agents proving much greater.

Is the Department considering the serious and developing anxiety, which is becoming acute in areas of high unemployment, that the scheme might assist 16-year-olds but will put those slightly older at a severe disadvantage? Will he accept that there is a real danger in those areas that we may take one step forward, but that the Government's proposal may mean that we take two back?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that this is a development of the youth opportunities programme. As he rightly says, it will enormously help the 16-year-olds. My right hon. Friend has announced the new community programme for those aged 18 and over.

Will my hon. Friend discuss the introduction of this scheme carefully with his colleagues in the Ministry of Defence? Is he aware that there are Ministry of Defence workshops with significant under-capacity in terms of young trainees, including one in my constituency, and that I very much hope that he will do something about this?

As my hon. Friend knows, I am aware of the circumstances in his constituency. Certainly, the Ministry of Defence sponsors schemes in its civilian establishments, and I expect the conversations between us and it to continue.

Is it not inconsistent to propose to operate the young workers scheme with its £260 million budget alongside the new training scheme when the young workers scheme in no way provides training for young men and women leaving school? Would it not be better to give that money to the new training scheme as the MSC task group has suggested? Will the Minister give a specific answer to the question about the 17-year-olds? What do the Government intend to do for unemployed youngsters aged 17?

I believe that the young workers scheme is entirely compatible with the youth training scheme, as I am sure that the 100,000 or so on the young workers scheme would agree. With regard to the 17-yearolds, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that the original undertaking related to unemployed 16-year-olds, but so far as is possible it will be extended to unemployed 17-yearolds within the £1,000 million budget.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what progress has been made in the privatisation of the Professional and Executive Recruitment Service.

The Manpower Services Commission will be moving Professional and Executive Recruitment on to a fully commercial basis from April next year.

I thank my hon. and learned Friend for that most encouraging answer. What cost will be spared to the public sector by this privatisation, which, incidentally, will remove an area of unfair competition from the private sector?

I should make it plain that this first step is not privatisation. PER will be put on a fully commercial basis and will therefore cover its own cost, which means a saving of £5 million. We shall be better able to see the scope for privatisation when we have seen how able it is to operate on a commercial basis.

I welcome the progress currently being made. Does my hon. and learned Friend have it in mind to remove further functions from that outsized quango, the Manpower Services Commission?

That goes very wide of the question that I am currently answering. I think that I would be wise to stick to PER.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what assistance his Department gives to people wishing to move from industrial to clerical or other white collar jobs.

Taxpayers' money is currently being spent on training about 25,000 people in clerical and computer-related skills. The Open Tech will ensure that technician and supervisor training is more accessible.

I welcome my hon. Friend's reply and the drift behind it, but is he aware that the microchip and other factors have brought and will continue to bring an end to a number of industrial jobs, which will be replaced by secretarial and white collar type jobs? Does he agree that renewed effort is needed in training for people to move from one area to the other?

I certainly agree with my hon. Friend. I assure him that I and the Manpower Services Commission are concentrating on technician training, because we realise that that is the way ahead.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the latest estimate he has of the number of 1982 school leavers who are still unemployed.

I am not able to provide the information in the form requested. Statistics on school leaver unemployment are not analysed according to the year in which the young people left school. However, the total number of school leavers under 18 years of age registered as unemployed in the United Kingdom at 9 September was 289,048.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the distributive trades, and particularly retailing, have a major role to play in eliminating this form of unemployment, which is an objective that we all share? Is he satisfied with the extent to which they are being involved in discussions and in bringing forward proposals to ensure an adequate training content in the schemes proposed for the new training initiative?

I am sure that both the new training initiative and opportunities for youngsters under the community programme include valuable training elements. With regard to jobs for younsters outside the training area, there is no doubt that the young workers scheme, now running at about 100,000 youngsters in work, is benefiting considerably from the amount of money that the Government are putting into it and from the willingness of the retail trade in particular to take on a large number of youngsters in this age group.

Does the Minister agree that there is now a different pattern in youth unemployment in terms of employers taking on young people? What is the Department doing to investigate the future problems, taking into account the changes in apprenticeship and the fact that employers are taking on part-time rather than full-time employees? Does he agree that we shall still have a youth unemploymet problem even if there is an upturn in the recession? What radical measures do the Government intend to take to overcome that?

One of the few silver linings to the dark cloud of unemployment in Britain is the dramatic increase in spending on training schemes of various kinds for young people. Whether it be the training element in the community programme, the huge sums now being spent on the youth opportunities programme or the huge new sums to be deployed in the youth training scheme, there is a very considerable range of opportunities and possibilities for every kind of training and vocational adaptation to the employment pattern of the future.

How many of those going into youth training schemes are likely to obtain full-time employment when they have completed the course? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the prospects will create even more frustration and bitterness among many young people, who now face about 50 years on the dole?

The latest figures that I have for the youth opportunities programme show that 50 per cent. of youngsters completing a YOP course will either obtain work or go on to further education.

How many of the unemployed school leavers are aged 18-plus and have, unfortunately, failed their A-levels and have thus not been able to go on to a university or polytechnic? Does my right hon. Friend agree that there are great problems in this area as many of the schemes to which he refers do not apply to school leavers aged 18-plus? Is he aware that many of us are concerned about that group?

I cannot risk giving an off-the-cuff answer on the statistics, but if my hon. Friend will put down a specific question I shall, of course, answer it. He will appreciate that the community programme, which looks after the longer-term unemployed aged 18 to 24, who have been unemployed for more than six months, has expanded from 30,000 to 130,000 places as a result of my right hon. Friend's latest measures.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what are the latest figures of the number of people who are unemployed in the United Kingdom; and how many of these have been unemployed for more than two years and one year, respectively.

At 9 September the total number of people registered as unemployed in the United Kingdom was 3,343,075. The latest analysis by duration of unemployment is for 8 July when, out of a total of 3,190,621 unemployed people in the United Kingdom, 394,865 had been unemployed for more than 104 weeks and 675,641 had been unemployed for more than 52 weeks and up to 104 weeks.

Are not those scandalous figures an indictment of the Government's policies? The Government boast about reducing inflation, but has not that been at the expense of 4 million families who have had their living standards slashed through being put on the dole queue? Will the Minister think again about his policy of introducing voluntary registration? As people who are unemployed for more than 12 months lose benefit, does he agree that it is important to find out how many there are and that they should be encouraged to go to the jobcentres and register to show how bad the Government's employment policy really is?

The hon. Gentleman muddles a number of things. First, he muddles whether people should be encouraged to seek work through the jobcentres or whether they should be compelled to do so. The question of benefit is entirely different and there is no change in the rules with regard to benefits. Secondly, he should understand that many of the unemployed are paying the price, not for the present reduction in inflation, but for the inflation created by the Labour Government, whom the hon. Gentleman from time to time supported.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in view of the high figures that he has just given the House, it would be wrong for the Government to take action in the near future that would result in an increase in the level of immigration?

Matters concerning the levels of immigration are for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. I am sure that if my hon. Friend tables a question to him, he will receive a satisfactory reply.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that we are all concerned about reducing inflation and interest rates, and that there is a general desire to do that? But does not the right hon. Gentleman also recognise that to reduce interest rates and inflation at the expense of moving towards 4 million unemployed is disastrous and an indictment of the Government's policies, which will be proved at the next general election?

The hon. Gentleman makes no more effort to understand the issues now than he did five years ago. I strongly recollect the time when a number of his hon. Friends below the Gangway had to be told by the Leader of the Opposition, in his own words,

"I think that my hon. Friend must face the fact that inflation helps to cause unemployment".—

Is it not the case that Britain has lost a job for every minute that the Government have been in office? When the Secretary of State examines the forecast of the Manpower Services Commission for the long-term unemployed, will he think that special measures will make more than a small dent in the total?

The hon. Gentleman may call helping about half a million people and reducing the number of registered unemployed by more than one-third of a million a small dent, but when it comes to interest and compassion in these matters, I notice that not a single question on employment affairs has been tabled today by any Liberal or SDP Member. That must spring from their embarrassment at having three different policies between them—one for the Liberals and two for the SDP.

Will my right hon. Friend ask the Manpower Services Commission to consider diverting some of the cash available to help the unemployed towards expanding further education by local education authorities, which will provide rapid help for unemployed school leavers?

The best way to provide rapid help for unemployed school leavers is to follow the path on which we are set, and that is through the youth training scheme. I hope that local authorities will continue to improve the facilities that they offer to youngsters at schools. I am sure that that can be done, not least by looking for more efficient and effective ways to use the manpower and financial resources already at their command.

Why does the Secretary of State give the impression of being so brutal and callous when dealing with the question of unemployment? Will he say something about the Treasury report—not yet published, but of which I am sure he is aware—which predicts that registered unemployment next year will be 3½ million? Does he agree that unchanged policies, to which he appears to be wedded, mean greater unemployment, greater waste of precious resources and greater social devastation? Does he not have an ounce of compassion in that body of his?

The right hon. Gentleman must not confuse my callousness and brutality towards him and his colleagues, who caused so many of the problems, with the compassion that the Government feel towards those suffering from the policies adopted by the Opposition when they were in office. I have spoken more than once of selective amnesia. The right hon. Gentleman is suffering from amnesia again today, because he has even forgotten that the Treasury does not make such forecasts.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what initiatives have come from employers on new employment and training measures.

We are very heartened by the response we have had to our proposals on youth training. Employers recognise the imaginative steps the Government are taking on training, and we are confident that the youth training scheme will prove to be a great success.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his encouraging reply. Has he considered the possibility of some senior employees taking early retirement and then returning to their employers on a part-time basis to help to develop new training ideas and encourage local youngsters to take part in important new training initiatives? If that thought could be developed, would it not greatly supplement the activities of the MSC?

It is an interesting idea. The range of support programmes in the special employment area is flexible enough in its approach to early retirement and part-time work to include such an interesting initiative.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 19 October.

This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, including one with the Chief of the Defence Staff. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I shall be having talks with the Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany.

Will the right hon. Lady tell the House how much disruption there must be within the National Health Service, how many patients must suffer and what conditions must prevail before the Government send the NHS dispute to arbitration? Will she take this opportunity to dissociate herself from the remarks of some of her right hon. and hon. Friends, to the effect that they would welcome the dismantling of the Welfare State?

I condemn any suffering to the elderly, the sick or children in the NHS. There need be none, and there should be none. It comes about by the decision of a few ill-motivated people in some of the unions. I commend the work of many others in the unions who are carrying out, not only their own work, but that of many others.

Has my right hon. Friend yet had time today to appreciate that tomorrow's industrial action by the Post Office Engineering Union will not be so much a willing and spontaneous demonstration as one created by threats of expulsion from the union and the loss of their jobs against members who refuse to take part? Will she take this opportunity roundly to condemn such a crude form of intimidation and congratulate those who stand up against it?

We roundly condemn any intimidation and also any action by those who threaten that unless people obey their unions they will lose their jobs. That is not the language of a free country.

Will the Prime Minister take this first opportunity since the Summer Recess to tell the House and the country when she expects the terrible unemployment figures to begin to fall? I know that she does not like to make such prophesies about these matters, but as she has a new Treasury forecast, can she give us some idea of what it says?

The only Treasury forecast due to be published is that which comes out in the autumn. It does not give forecasts of the numbers of those expected to be unemployed. Those have not been given, neither are they customarily given, and neither did the Opposition given them when in office. There is a report on the national insurance fund, in which assumptions must be made. That is usually published at about this time of year.

Have not the Government been forced to make fresh forecasts since the Budget about the prospects for economic growth? Now that the prospects this year are down to 0·5 per cent. and between 1 and 1½ per cent. next year, does that not mean a further appalling increase in unemployment? Why will the right hon. Lady not face these facts and change the policies that have caused them?

Because rhetoric does not change facts or produce jobs. If it did, unemployment would not have doubled under the right hon. Gentleman. Forecasts the world over about growth in the coming year have been revised downwards. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware of the difficult problems that have hit Europe, particularly Germany. The way to increase jobs is not through excuses or rhetoric Rather, as the CBI said:

"There can be no solution to unemployment without greater competitiveness, for which the major responsibility must rest with business".

"as far as the four million unemployed are concerned you are responsible for them being there".

Does the right hon. Lady now confirm that there have been fresh forecasts since the Budget, which will mean extra unemployment?

The right hon. Gentleman will have seen—[HON MEMBERS: "Answer the question"]. I shall answer the question accurately in my own way. The right hon. Gentleman will have seen many forecasts of growth for the coming year which are less than anticipated at the time of the Budget. Britain's unemployment position will depend upon how big a share of the home and export markets we get. As the right hon. Gentleman will have heard me say on previous occasions, had we retained the share of the home and export markets that we had 12 years ago, there would now be 1½ million more jobs in Britain. That means that we must compete.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 19 October.

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

While in no sense seeking to be critical of the rights of the individual to free speech on any issue, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether she agrees that it is a sad day for the Church of England when a group of supposedly eminent—but certainly unrepresentative—clerics seek to undermine the defence of the United Kingdom in so far as they are prepared to shelter under the United States nuclear umbrella—[Interruption.]—but are not prepared to allow such weapons on United Kingdom soil? Does that not smack of hypocrisy?

Order. I have risen to my feet to ensure that the hon. Gentleman is heard. There is a running commentary from some hon. Members whenever something is said that they do not like. That is not in order in this place. Everyone is allowed to express his opinion. Mr. Robert Atkins.

Would you like me to say it all again, Mr. Speaker?

No, thank you.

I agree with my hon. Friend that nuclear weapons are an essential part of Britain's security. If there were any suggestion of unilateral disarmament, it would threaten the peace and security that we have enjoyed for 37 years. I have read of the report to which my hon. Friend has referred. I agree with him that people have total freedom of speech. However, this is not an official report of the Church of England and I understand that it will not come before the General Synod until next year.

The Prime Minister referred earlier to assumptions which, at about this time of year, are issued for the purposes of the national insurance fund. Do they show unemployment falling, rising or remaining the same?

The right hon. Gentleman must await the report of the Government Actuary, which will be published at the appropriate time.

Is not the Prime Minister concerned about the future of the British steel industry? Is she aware that in Airdrie, in my constituency, where male unemployment is 37 per cent., additional redundancies were announced last week at the Imperial plant? Will she give some indication that the Government have a shred of confidence in the future of the steel industry, particularly in Scotland?

As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, some critical decisions are being made this week in Europe, where we are trying to agree to limit our exports to the United States to avoid countervailing duties of about 20 per cent., which would have extremely damaging effects on our own steel industry. It is hoped that Germany will agree with the rest of Europe that we should so limit our exports, but it is a critical week. Improved steel sales are, of course, necessary for improved steel production. I can only stress that it would help very much if people purchased more British cars rather than foreign cars. In doing so they would be buying not only British cars but British steel and British components. It goes without saying that the standard of those cars must be the equal of those of any other country.

Will my right hon. Friend refer to the decision of the right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) not to attend last week's parade organised by the City of London? Does she agree that that cast a cloud over the achievement of our Service men, many of whom come from my constituency, where the right hon. Gentleman claims that he will have a walkover at the next general election?

Nothing can cloud the achievement of our Service men. It was magnificent.

How many factories has the right hon. Lady visited since she became Prime Minister and how many of those factories have subsequently gone bankrupt or are in receivership?

I have visited many factories, some of which are flourishing and some of which are not. That is perfectly evident. There is a deep world recession and how we weather it will depend upon whether we stay competitive, not upon the rhetoric of Opposition Members. The thing that harms our industry most is strikes.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 19 October.

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

As the drop in interest rates, which is linked with the drop in inflation, means that anyone with a new £20,000 mortgage is already saving £8 a week net of tax and anyone with a new £15,000 mortgage is saving £6 net of tax, is my right hon. Friend aware that many people buying houses and flats are tremendously pleased and hope that she will remain implacable in her determination to see that it continues?

I thank my hon. Friend. The Government can help to bring unemployment down by continuing to bring inflation down, and mortgage rates will follow. They can continue to bring interest rates down. As my hon. Friend knows, we have also reduced the national insurance surcharge, which was introduced by the Labour Party, and taken off some hire purchase controls. That will inject into the economy the possibility of more purchasing power. How many more jobs result from that purchasing power will depend on how far we buy British goods and how far it goes into increased output as opposed to imports.

Will the Prime Minister consult her Housing Ministers about the Association of District Councils all-party meeting held this morning to discuss the miserable offer made by the Government for repairs in new towns? Is she aware that hon. Members on the Conservative Benches expressed deep concern this morning at the scandalous offer of £8 million to cope with an estimated cost of £90 million? Does she not agree that this is a cost for the Exchequer and not for local ratepayers and rent payers, especially in hard-hit areas such as the North-East?

With regard to the offer on new towns, the hon. Gentleman must question my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. May I point out that, with regard to general housing policy, there have already been 370,000 council houses or new town houses sold during the lifetime of the this Government? That is an excellent opportunity. With regard to building and new building, may I point out that the capital allocations to local authorities are underspent?