asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has any plans to meet the chairman of the Manpower Services Commission to discuss the operation of the community programme.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the present state of development of the community programme.

I meet the chairman of the Manpower Services Commission frequently to discuss many matters, including the community programme. At the end of June almost 106,000 places had been approved on the community programme, includilg the community enterprise programme, more than 64,000 of which had been filled. I am satisfied with the progress made so far.

Is my hon. Friend satisfied that local authorities are co-operating fully with the Manpower Services Commission on community programme projects?

By and large I am satisfied, although some local authorities, particularly those in London such as the GLC and Lambeth, are not co-operating. As those are the authorities which complain the most about longterm unemployment, one wonders why they are not cooperating.

As voluntary bodies now have more experience of the programme, have they overcome some of the their earlier resistance so that more of them are taking part?

Co-operation from they voluntary sector has been very good. Approximately 40 per cent. of approved schemes have been sponsored by voluntary organisations, and we are grateful for that support.

The Minister referred to non-cooperation by some local authorities. Is he aware that when the Select Committee on Employment took evidence and local authorities asked about funding and financing they were told that they would be subject to penalty clauses if they spent money?

I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman is getting at. If some local authorities are co-operating and thus helping the long-term unemployed in their areas, I cannot see why others are not. I can only imagine, certainly in the cases that I have mentioned, that the reasons are purely political.

Is my hon. Friend aware that in certain areas of very high unemployment, such as Cornwall, the number of allocations has almost been exceeded? Is there not a good case for extending the scheme in areas where it has been an outstanding success?

I am aware that in certain areas the scheme has been an outstanding success. As my hon. Friend knows, it has been agreed that there will be 130,000 places nationwide, but if certain areas are not going ahead, for whatever reason, the Government can consider reallocation within the total.

Will the Minister consider moving away from the inflexibility of the £60 per week rule to help many voluntary bodies which wish to take part in the programme but have serious management difficulties due to the inflexibility of the system?

The hon. Gentleman does not understand—£60 a week is the rate for the job. It is not inflexible as he suggests.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the number of places presently occupied in special employment and training schemes.

At the end of May the total number of people covered by the special employment and training measures was estimated to be 561,000.

Is my hon. Friend satisfied that the correct percentage of resources is being set aside for the enterprise allowance scheme? Will he undertake to monitor it closely so that necessary adjustments can be made as matters develop?

The proportion of resources is relatively small—£28 million out of £2 billion—but the success of the pilot scheme shows that it will be well supported. The scheme is distinguished by the fact that it is job generative. In other words, where it is successful, it is likely to increase and generate employment rather than simply effect a one-for-one substitution. However, my hon. Friend is right—we shall have to monitor it. A survey, which will be available in November, will give us data on which we can assess future resource levels.

Is the Minister aware that, at least in my constituency, the only people who are being allowed to be taken on as training officers under this scheme are those who have been unemployed for at least one year? Is he aware that there are people in the dole queue who are highly skilled and have been unemployed for less than one year? Will the Minister try to bring about greater flexibility in the recruitment of training officers?

The hon. Gentleman referred to "this scheme." I am not sure whether he was referring to the enterprise allowance scheme, in which that is not the case, or to the community programme, in which, as far as I am aware, that is the rule. If he wants that rule changed I suggest that he submits a proper request to that effect, reasoning it carefully rather than asking a question across the Floor of the House.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if the target for the number of youth training places has been met.

Some 95 per cent. of the 460,000 places required for this year have now been identified and I am confident that the target will be met.

Does my hon. Friend agree that that reflects great credit on the majority of employers and the majority of trade unions? Does he further agree that it is important to ensure that a high standard of training is set during the first year of the scheme?

I agree that identification of some 95 per cent. of places reflects well on the sponsors. My hon. Friend might like to know that 101 per cent. of the mode A scheme has been identified. That is the target. I also agree that the scheme will live or die by the quality of the training.

Will the Minister ensure that the number of unemployed is not increased by the ending of the construction industry training board special measures scheme? Under that scheme building trade apprentices are employed, but, unfortunately, the CITB and the Manpower Services Commission cannot agree on who should pay the administrative costs. I am sure that the Minister does not want that to happen.

I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am aware of the circumstances between the CITB and the MSC. Hitherto, the MSC has, thanks to taxpayers' money, given a considerable amount of money to the scheme. I gather that negotiations are taking place.

I am glad that my hon. Friend accepts that a high quality of training is essential for the scheme's success. What measures is he taking to ensure that that quality is monitored properly, and improved if it is not up to standard?

I assure my hon. Friend that the MSC has a standard-setting body and that it has set in train the right monitoring to ensure the right quality.

Has not the whole scheme been soured, if not imperilled, by the Government's refusal to increase the £25 per week allowance? Have not the CBI and the MSC reneged on the plan to increase the allowance? Why is the Department acting like a Dickensian workhouse master?

The hon. Gentleman's reaction is almost implausible. He must understand that for every £1 given in allowance, £1 less can be spent on training. He agrees that the quality of training is important. Surely it must be right to keep the allowance at £25.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he has received any representations from the Trades Union Congress with regard to Her Majesty's Government's proposals for trade union reform.

I regret that the TUC declined to participate in the consultations on the Green Paper "Democracy in Trade Unions". I have, however, told the TUC that I would welcome its comments on the proposals for legislation in this area which I announced to the House last Tuesday.

When my right hon. Friend meets leaders of the TUC—I am sure that he will—will he consider suggesting that when all the hubbub has died down, the shouting has stopped and my right hon. Friend's proposals have become law, they will find that their leadership is renewed and invigorated as they will discover that they are acting with a clear mandate, having been elected by a majority of their members and, if they want to call an official strike, it will be a clear request from a majority of their members — [HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."] Moreover—

Order. I think that one question is fair. Not more.

I assure my hon. Friend that I shall make those points. They can be put simply — democracy would be no bad thing in the trade union movement.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the trade union movement is democratic, that the members determine the constitution and that if he wants to introduce secret ballots—which some unions already have—they can decide the issue at their annual conferences? Is he further aware that they have a perfect right as a democratic movement to say that they do not want secret ballots if the majority say so? Why is the Secretary of State dictating to the trade union movement?

I do not think that to suggest that there should be democratic elections is the mark of a dictatorship. I have often quoted from the Dispatch Box the words of the chairman of the TUC. He said that in the past and, indeed, until now, the extreme Left had lied, intrigued, manipulated and resorted to intimidation to get its way.

Has my right hon. Friend noted the admirable speech of the general secretary of the Civil and Public Services Association? Does he welcome it as a sign of the type of new thinking that is needed for the trade union movement, and does he agree that it could help it take a more modern role and escape from the shop-worn and outdated concept of a labour movement with political and industrial wings?

I read Mr. Graham's speech with great interest. It shows the extent to which new thinking can be engendered among leaders of trade unions once democracy begins to haunt the counsels of the TUC.

If the Government want to introduce more democracy and change the basis of political contributions, why is the Secretary of State not introducing measures to make the prior approval of shareholders necessary for contributions to the Conservative party? Why is he not changing to a system of opting in for the trade unions?

I have not excluded a system of opting in, but, in view of the representations that various people made to me and, not least, what was said in the House by Labour Members and those who represent trade unions, I thought it right to consult the TUC first to see whether it could find a way in which the rights of trade unionists could be assured without changing completely to contracting in. I wait to see whether it can.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that the trade unions are crucial and vital organisations in the future of this country, and that they can never play their proper role until the public accept that their leaders are democratically elected, and seen to be so?

My hon. Friend is right, but what is perhaps just as important is that trade unionists themselves have demanded these reforms.

Is the Secretary of State aware that trade unions need no lessons from him about democracy, and certainly not from the Tory party, which is riddled with privilege and thrives on patronage? Does he realise that no one will take the right hon. Gentleman seriously on political levies unless at some stage he announces to the House of Commons that he will introduce legislation to make it possible for shareholders to contract out of paying political donations to the Tory party?

Trade unions may not want my advice on democracy, but it is certain that they need it badly. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman, as he looks at the block votes of a few hundred thousand here and there that will be cast for or against him when he stands for election in the Labour party, may well be converted to my view.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what resources he devotes to the study of future patterns of employment.

The Department is very much concerned with future patterns of employment and devotes a part of its external research budget to this area of study.

As intelligent anticipation of change is the key to successful investment and essential to informed career guidance for young people, will my hon. Friend make the results of this work available to the House as soon as it comes to hand?

What my hon. Friend says is perfectly true. The Department's new employment market research unit, set up at the end of June, will undertake some research of its own, as well as analysing and disseminating the work of others, and I shall ensure that it is available to my hon. Friend and others who are interested.

What about the future employment patterns of rejected Tory Ministers,like Mr. lain Sproat, who spent much of his time here attacking the unemployed and conducting witch hunts against innocent unemployed people, claiming that they were scroungers? If Mr. Sproat has the audacity to claim unemployment benefit, can we expect an impartial investigation into the possibility of his scrounging activities?

The track record of all forecasts of future unemployment prospects of individuals is so unreliable that one would not wish to dwell too long on it. I utterly reject any imputations by the hon. Gentleman about my former hon. Friend, because they tread the delicate border between humour and bad taste.

Has my hon. Friend yet had time in his new office, in which we are so pleased to see him, to study the remarkable fact, which was published recently, that the number of married women in employment has recently risen from 48 to 50 per cent. of all women? In view of the large numbers of other categories who are unemployed, what view does my hon. Friend take of that recent development?

I am not sure what view my hon. Friend would like me to express. However, I hope that he will be here tomorrow night for our debate on the Equal Pay (Amendment) Regulations. Perhaps he will make his views known at greater length on that occasion.

Does the Minister agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that a cut in unemployment benefit would actually increase the number of jobs? If he does, will he tell the House the basis for that statement?

I did not hear my right hon. Friend say that, and my understanding is that he did not say it.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what efforts are being made to ensure that those found places under the youth training scheme go into factories that are registered under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act.

It is the responsibility of a person who occupies premises for use as a factory to notify the factory inspectorate in accordance with section 137 of the Factories Act. The Manpower Services Commission takes positive steps to remind employers providing places under the youth training scheme of their responsibilities under health and safety legislation.

Is it not true that many thousands of youngsters are being cynically put at risk by being put in workplaces where the health and safety standards have never been inspected, and indeed cannot be inspected because of cuts in the factory inspectorate? Is it not also true that the Manpower Services Commission now feels itself under so much political pressure to massage downwards the unemployment figures that it deliberately turns a blind eye to health and safety matters? When will the Secretary of State put an end to this scandalous situation, which has already cost lives and which will continue to cause anxiety to many thousands of families?

There are many of us in the House who care deeply about health and safety and who find the imputations in that question disgraceful. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Manpower Services Commission is for trade unions as well as employers, and the suggestions that it would treat cynically young people in this way are so disgraceful that they are not worth answering.

What does the Minister expect the managing agencies, who will be responsible for the placement of many of these youngsters, to do in respect of health and safety matters?

The hon. Gentleman is right to place the matter in that context, unlike his hon. Friend who disgraced the House by the way in which he spoke. I say that because some of us spend a lot of time caring for the health and safety of young people. It is because of what the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) rightly says that we have sought to make sure that whenever we have a sponsor of this kind he is reminded that he must obey the law on health and safety. Sponsors do that in the same way as they do it for older workers.

The Minister protests too much. Will he please answer my hon. Friend's question? Is his Department prepared to restore the cuts made in the factory inspectorate? Is it not true that the total budget of the Health and Safety Executive and its staff has been cut under this Government?

No, that is not true. The resources available for health and safety represent an increase in real terms over the resources that were provided by the hon. Gentleman's Government, and he knows that. His summing up was not correct. I am perfectly happy to answer the hon. Gentleman's question when he puts it as he has. The resources have been increased.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think that the House heard the hon. Gentleman—

Order. I do not think that that matter arises under questions.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what information is collected by his Department on the numbers unemployed in various sectors or by type of last employment.

Regular analyses of the unemployed by industry and by occupation have been discontinued in the absence of relevant information at unemployment benefit offices, where the count is now made.

Will the Minister concede that the system for collecting statistics is defective and does not give the true unemployment figures, for instance, in the construction industry where many more people are unemployed than we are told by the Department? Is he aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer's latest statement of a cut in public expenditure will also have a serious effect on the unemployment figures? Is it not time that he told his right hon. Friend, who is a member of the Cabinet, that it is time to get away from this Government's monetarist policy?

The system that is employed to collect statistics is not necessarily defective. We have to consider the future needs of industry, and it is not so important to know where people used to work as to know whether they are willing and able for work in the future, and whether they are ready and willing to change their jobs.

In view of that last answer, how are we to take all the unemployment figures seriously when every year thousands and thousands of foreign workers are imported into Britain to do jobs in the service, hotel and catering industries?

That is certainly a factor, but the question could be addressed just as well to the Home Office as to the Department of Employment.

As the Minister has now admitted that that method of collecting statistics has been discontinued because the Government have deliberately changed the method of collecting information at jobcentres, will he undertake to give the correct unemployment figures, by whatever method he may choose? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the figure now exceeds 4 million?

No, Sir.

In assessing the various sectors of unemployment, will my hon. Friend bear in mind that this country's wealth is still created by the manufacturing sector? Will he therefore make representations, through his Department, to the Treasury so that those who merely move money from country to country, or from organisation to organisation in order to make more money, are taxed far more heavily than those who invest in manufacturing industry, which in turn creates employment?

My hon. Friend has raised an interesting point, but unfortunately I think that it is no longer true that the real wealth of this country lies predominantly in the manufacturing sector. The improvements in employment are weighted towards the service sectors, while the declines are in the manufacturing sector. I am not sure from the second part of his question whether my hon. Friend is arguing for a return to exchange controls, but I am sure that on reflection he will agree that they would be more harmful to the economy than otherwise.

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that since the Secretary of State took up his appointment he has managed to reduce unemployment by well over 200,000 by changing the basis of counting from registration to claimants, and by a further 120,000 by excluding men over the age of 60 in the last Budget? Given the Secretary of State's boast at a recent departmental cricket match that he "makes up the numbers", will the Minister give the House a guarantee that he has no plans to remove other categories of the unemployed from the count?

I am very doubtful about the hon. Gentleman's premise, but I am sure that the whole House will agree that unemployment will be solved by improving industry's competitive position and not by fiddling around with statistics.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment when he next intends to meet the Trades Union Congress; and what matters he proposes to raise in his discussions with it.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment when he next expects to meet the general secretary of the Trades Union Congress to discuss industrial relations.

I have written to the TUC inviting it to discuss the steps which the trade unions might take to ensure that their members are fully aware of their statutory rights regarding the political levy and able to exercise them freely. I have also told the TUC that I would welcome its comments on the proposals for legislation on trade union democracy which I announced to the House last Tuesday.

I recognise the propaganda value to the Conservative party of Mr. Arthur Scargill and his friends on the lunatic Left, but will my right hon. Friend nevertheless undertake not to encourage them? Will he instead do what from his answer he appears to be doing, and concentrate on generating genuine contacts and dialogues between the Government and organised labour, as represented by the TUC? Does my right hon. Friend agree that that must be of long-term benefit to the nation?

My hon. Friend is right to say that it would benefit the country as a whole if TUC members came back into the scene and desisted from merely sulking in their tents, pretending that the election results have not happened.

When my right hon. Friend meets Mr. Len Murray, will he explain to him that the majority of this democratically elected Parliament, the majority of electors and the majority of trade union members believe that it is in the best interests of good industrial relations that there should be compulsory secret ballots before strikes are called? Will my right hon. Friend reflect on the fact that on this, as on many other issues, the TUC is totally out of touch with its ordinary rank and file members?

I suspect that Mr. Murray and most of his colleagues believe that it is right to hold ballots before strikes are held. I take the view that it would not be possible to legislate to insist that that was done in every case, but I am sure that the measures I propose will give strong encouragement to trade unions to conduct such ballots.

Does the,Secretary of State recollect that before the election he declared that the Government would introduce statutory strike ballots? Is it not true that the expert advice available to him before the election was exactly the same as it is now? In that case, how does he justify changing his mind, CT at least accusing TUC members of sulking in their tents?

I do not have to justify a change of mind, because I have not had one. If the hon. Gentleman had listened to what I said, or had read the manifesto, he would know that.

Will my right hon. Friend discuss with the TUC the blocking by fanatics belonging to the National Union of Public Employees of a hospital charity concert to help those in pain, merely on the ground that Mr. Jimmy Tarbuck would contribute and that he had supported the Prime Minister at the election? Will my right hon. Friend ask the TUC what it is doing to protect charities from such fanaticism?

I understand how strongly my hon. Friend feels, but I do not think that that is one of the matters on which I should wish to consult the TUC. However, I am sure that all those who are aware of NUPE's action will regard it as disgraceful to use the misfortunes of others in that way and to use disabled or sick people as a political football.

Will the right hon. Gentleman raise with the TUC the subject of the Government's intentions next year towards 17-year olds who have completed the youth training scheme and who cannot join the community enterprise programme because they are too young? I should point out that 18 is the threshold for the CEP. What does the Secretary of State intend to do for those 17-year olds in the intervening year?

The objective of the youth training scheme is that is should act as a bridge between school and work. The hon. Gentleman knows full well that, given the very encouraging signs of an upturn in the economy, the prospects of those youngsters who come off the YTS in 12 months' time are much better than those that have faced school leavers for some time.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any plans to introduce measures to make trade unions more accountable to their members.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received on the method of election of trade union officials.

More than 150 organisations and individuals submitted comments on the Green Paper "Democracy in Trade Unions". The consultations showed very wide support for legislation to safeguard the democratic rights of trade union members. The Government's proposals for legislation in these areas were published on Tuesday 12 July.

I thank my hon. Friend for that comprehensive answer. Has he noticed that in this very dry spell of weather some of our wetter colleagues appear to be drying out on the subject of trade union legislation? Does my hon. Friend agree that Opposition Members fail to understand the difference between companies, from which shareholders can withdraw their shares, and trade unions, from which membership is withdrawn at the peril of losing one's job?

My hon. Friend is right to suggest that there are very few people who do not think that democracy in trade unions is a good thing.

My hon. Friend will be aware of the general welcome for the proposals, but is he aware of the concern that any secret ballot should be adequately supervised from the moment the ballot papers are printed until the moment that they are counted? Will he give an assurance that that will be the case?

I am sure that my hon. Friend speaks the truth when he says that people are very concerned about the conduct of such ballots. It is sad that in this country any such suspicions should be held about the trade union movement. We shall look to the trade union movement to ensure that such suspicions are eradicated.

Have the Minister and his Friends on the Government Front Bench considered extending this type of democracy to Freemasons?

Freemasons are not, as I understand it, a responsibility of this Department.

Nor are the trade unions.

We are dealing with an organisation that has considerable influence and considerable privileges before the law, which Freemasons do not have.

Has my hon. Friend noticed that the number of votes pledged by trade union leaders in the Labour leadership contest already almost exceeds the total number of votes cast at the last election for the Labour party?

I have noticed that. I have also noticed that many of the contenders for the Labour party leadership are insistent on one man one vote when their election comes up, but are not quite so insistent on having one man one vote on matters of trade union legislation.

Is the Minister aware that last Saturday the Prime Minister appointed a vice chairman of the Conservative party? How many ballots and votes did the sheep on the Government Benches have on that appointment? Why are not the same principles applied to the appointment of the vice chairman of the Conservative party as are applied to trade union leaders?

I have sat in the House for nearly nine years and I have often heard the hon. Gentleman say how important the trade union movement is. He has never told me how important the Conservative party is or how important Freemasons are. The one difference between the trade union movement and the Freemasons and the Conservative party is that the trade union movement has legal immunity, and legal immunity means special responsibility.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what new plans he has for solving the problem of the long-term unemployed.

Our principal initiative to help long-term unemployed people in the short term is the community programme, which was launched in October last year.

Does the Secretary of State not think it deplorable that substantially more than 1 million men and women have been unemployed for more than 12

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is deplorable. It is regrettable, but he will join me in deploring the activities of many of those who have damaged our shipyards, our steel works and our motor industry by incessant industrial action, particularly under the previous Labour Government. The hon. Gentleman asked about hope. I refer him to the fact that this year car production is up by 7 per cent. on last year; that housing starts are up by 5 per cent.; that sales in the shops are up by 6·3 per cent.; and that industrial production is up by 1·7 per cent. All those things give good grounds for believing that the economy is moving forward, that we are regaining our customers and that as we do that we shall regain lost jobs.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment which industries, professions or services or sections or sectors of such industries and services have employed more persons over the past 10 year period when general unemployment has been rising.

In the past 10 years employment has increased in the non-manual occupations, and in the following sectors: distribution; insurance and other financial services; professional and scientific services; miscellaneous services, including leisure industries.

In view of the Government's clear desire to do something to reduce the appalling unemployment levels, would it not be wise for the Government to review the amount of money that is being poured into industries in structural decline and make the limited resources available to industries with enormous potential, such as leisure and tourism?

Those are matters for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I shall see that my hon. Friend's comments are passed on to him.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many men and women have been out of work for six months, one year, two years and over two years in the Denton travel-to-work area.

As the answer contains a number of figures I will, with permission, circulate it in the Official Report.

Why are these figures twice as bad as they were four years ago when the area enjoyed intermediate status? As we have twice the level of unemployment, and as the time that people must endure without jobs has doubled, why cannot intermediate area status be returned to Greater Manchester and Denton?

The hon. Gentleman must accept that the only way to increase the number of jobs in a world recession is to make Britain more competitive. Therefore, we have to ensure that the special help that is given is concentrated on those areas with the highest rates of unemployment rather than being thinly spread, when it is of little use.

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

This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen.

Is the Prime Minister aware that during the general election the then Chancellor of the Exchequer said that he had seen the document outlining the circumstances in which American weapons in Britain may be used? Will the Prime Minister confirm that? Will she let us know who else has seen this document and say why the rest of us cannot see it?

I cannot confirm whether my right hon. and learned Friend the former Chancellor of the Exchequer said that he had seen the document. If he said that he had, he had. He must answer for that.

Will my right hon. Friend consider seriously with our right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary whether the proposed compromise to end the Madrid talks on the Helsinki agreement really fulfils our obligations to ensure human rights? Or is this just agreement for agreement's sake?

It is more than agreement for agreement's sake. It is a provisional agreement so far and not yet fully signed. It has two things in particular which we are anxious to achieve. The first is the conference on disarmament in Europe—Europe for the first time being defined as going right up to the Ural mountains—which will take place in Stockholm in January 1984. Secondly, it has further references to human rights on which two meetings will take place—one in Canada in 1985 and the other in Switzerland in 1986. There will be particular concern for human contacts—the separation of families and so on. We are anxious to have both of those things, and therefore gave our provisional agreement to the document.

Does the Prime Minister accept that in the past local authorities were free to raise their own rates, being answerable only to their electors? The right hon. Lady has asserted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has a responsibility for determining the amount raised by local authorities. On what legal basis is that assertion made?

Local authorities have only the powers granted to them by statute. Statutes change from time to time. Such changes must go through the House and it is perfectly permissilbe to seek to change statutes from time to time in the customary way.

Will my right hon. Friend find time today to issue a reminder to her Ministers that the treaty of Rome makes provision only for a European Assembly, not for a European Parliament? Does she agree that if Ministers, among others, falsely describe it, that encourages those who wish to endow it with powers which the treaty of Rome does not give it so to do, to the disadvantage of the signatories to the treaty?

I agree with and confirm what my hon. Friend said, that "Assembly" is the correct title, and it is so called in the treaty of Rome.

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

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

Will the Prime Minister explain how she can reconcile the statement in the Gracious Speech that the Government would pursue policies to reduce unemployment with the reported statement yesterday by the Secretary of State for the Environment that the Government's policies on local authority financing would cause considerable numbers of redundancies, possibly including thousands of teachers?

If the policies pursued by the Government were such that interest rates rose considerably because of factors within our control, far more jobs would be lost, far more construction projects would be aborted and far more small businesses would not be able to expand. If we are to take advantage of an upturn in world trade we must pursue policies which enable small businesses to expand and new ones to start.

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

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

Is the Prime Minister aware that one of my constituents recently sent his three world war 2 medals to me as a protest, because as he is in receipt of a war pension he is entitled to only 28p a week supplementary benefit? Will the Prime Minister find time to explain to him where his patriotism and suffering rank on her list of priorities, compared with a runway on the Falkland Islands or tax cuts for the rich?

If the hon. Gentleman wishes to raise a specific case about supplementary benefit, perhaps he will write to me or to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. As a Parliamentary Secretary for three years I dealt with detailed cases, and I shall not answer a specific point about a detailed case without prior notice.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the recent news that productivity in the British Steel Corporation has reached German levels bodes well for that business and for this country? Is not being competitive the only way to create real jobs in the long term?

Yes, BSC productivity is excellent and, I understand, better than our competitors in Germany. In a world in which we hope trade will expand, that is the way to secure orders and jobs for Britain and keep our main factories working.

Will the Prime Minister confirm the report in The Times today that on Thursday her Cabinet will have before it proposals from the Chanceller of the Exchequer for a £5 billion cut in projected public expenditure for next year? Is that a correct report?

As the right hon. Gentleman has been a member of a Cabinet, he is fully aware that one never reveals agendas, let alone the contents of papers, in advance. He is fully aware of that practice and I am surprised that he should wish to break it, other than for his own personal reasons.

Did not The Times get it right about the last round of cuts? As some of the right hon. Lady's Cabinet colleagues apparently complained that they were bounced into cuts then, will she confirm—even if she will not confirm the figure quoted in The Times—that the Cabinet will be discussing projected public expenditure cuts for the year ahead? In the light of her earlier reply, will she tell us whether she agrees with the Secretary of State for the Environment that the projected cuts will lead to a large measure of redundancies? Those are his words. Will those redundancies include more teachers, home helps, dinner ladies and librarians? Is that what will happen under the cuts to be discussed in the Cabinet on Thursday?

The right hon. Gentleman is fully aware that this is the time of the year when public expenditure surveys for the following year begin. Decisions for the following year are usually made in the autumn, and for the years after that in the expenditure White Paper in January or later—sometimes as late as the Budget. That is the usual procedure. The right hon. Gentleman is aware that we have published our total expenditure plans for this year and next, and we expect to adhere to them.

Has my right hon. Friend seen a report of the excellent speech yesterday by Prince Charles? Does she agree that not only young offenders but school leavers under 18 would benefit from a period of training of the type mentioned by Prince Charles? Will she ask her right hon. Friends at the Home Office, the Departments of Defence and Employment and the Treasury to liaise to try to make further progress in that direction?

I am aware of the speech. A wide range of courses and facilities are available for the supervision of young offenders in the community. The course to which the Prince of Wales referred was the good youth adventure scheme run last year by the Army, which was widely welcomed and greatly appreciated by those who took part. It is being replaced by a much larger youth training scheme to provide training and work expertise. I believe that the number of applications will probably greatly exceed the number of places.

Will the Prime Minister confirm that the Government do not intend to interfere with the Office of Fair Trading's impending court action against the Stock Exchange in the Restrictive Practices Court? Does she admit that it would be extremely odd for a Government committed to fair competition to interfere in that way?

The case is still before the court. However, that does not preclude the Stock Exchange council from making proposals to settle the matter. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has told the chairman of the Stock Exchange that he would be prepared to consider such proposals. If proposals are made which the Government can recommend to Parliament, a statement will be made to the House and an order to exempt the Stock Exchange from restrictive trade practices will have to be made. Therefore, it will be a matter for the House.

asked the Prime Minister whether she will pay an official visit to Gibraltar to assess the economic and constitutional problems facing the colony.

I have no plans to do so, but I saw Sir Joshua Hassan during his visit to London on 29–30 June, and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement will be visiting Gibraltar for further talks this week.

As the closure of the naval dockyard will save only £13 million, which is one fifth of the cost of a type 22 frigate, will my right hon. Friend be careful not to send the wrong signals to Spain about that closure? Will she ensure that any new commercial dockyard is firmly backed by Government contracts and hard cash?

As I believe my hon. Friend is aware, we have made it clear to the Spanish Government that we have a firm commitment to respect the wishes of the people of Gibraltar, as enshrined in the Gibraltar constutional document. We believe that the commercial dockyard provides the best future for Gibraltar. We have made it clear not only that there will be generous financial arrangements—certainly during the earlier years—but that we will give it a number of naval orders to enable it to become viable early in its lifetime.

Do the Government still strongly support Spanish accession to the European Community on political grounds? Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity firmly to reject any suggestions from a few of her hon. Friends that the Government should modify their position on Spanish entry to bring pressure on Spain to resolve the Gibraltar issue?

I agree that there is a political ground, in that in an uncertain world we need an area of stability in western Europe, and the European Community is one of the best ways of achieving that. It is clear that Spain cannot enter the EC until the restrictions on the border between Spain and Gibraltar are lifted.

asked the Prime Minister when she next intends to attend a meeting of the National Development Council.

I have at present no plans to do so.

As the Chancellor of the Exchequer appears to have his public expediture sums wrong and, according to today's edition of The Guardian, jumped the gun when he recently announced cuts, will the Prime Minister assure the NEDC and everyone else that there is now no need for doctors or nurses to be sacked or for any more NHS hospitals to be closed?

The public sector borrowing requirement figures will be published on Thursday. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to have some measure by which to judge the figures, he might recall that the PSBR figure for the same time a year ago was £1·1 billion, but the outturn was £9 billion.

Will my right hon. Friend draw the attention of the NEDC to the excellent article in the Lloyds Bank Review this week, which urged the privatisation of a number of nationalised industries? Will she stress again and again that the Government are determined to denationalise and to introduce competition wherever possible?

Yes, the Government are determined to denationalise and to introduce competition. Whatever financial rules and regulations we make for nationalised industries, there is no substitute for competition. It is our objective to increase the amount of competition and, therefore, to increase the service and choice to the consumer.

If, as the Prime Minister asserted, it is not normal practice to disclose in advance details of what is coming up for discussion in Cabinet, will the right hon. Lady say whether the No. 10 press office acted with her authority when, on Sunday, journalists were briefed to the effect that this Thursday the Chancellor would be making proposals for major cuts in public spending?

Order. This is not an open question. It refers to meetings of the National Economic Development Council.

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

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

When will the Government reappraise the situation in Northern Ireland? Is the right hon. Lady aware that if the deaths and injuries that have occurred in the Province in recent years had taken place on the mainland there would have been many debates and many decisions would have been taken by the Cabinet to bring the issue to the House of Commons? Does she agree that there is need to consult Dublin to try to find a solution to the tragedy that is occurring in the Province?

Any question concerning the future of Northern Ireland must be dealt with according to the wishes of the people of Northern Ireland and in accordance with any measure that can be passed through this House. The overriding need is to try to fight terrorism on every front, including with the co-operation of the Republic of Ireland.