asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the progress of the youth training scheme.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the progress of the youth training scheme.

I am greatly encouraged by the progress of the scheme to date, and in particular by the co-operation shown by employers, local authorities, trade unions and others.

Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that the problem of providing off-the-job training in rural areas is causing some difficulty? Will he undertake to look at ways to fund that, or find other ways in which it can be done, because there are a number of rural areas where off-the-job training is not readily available and the schemes are in danger of falling down because of that lack of support?

I take note of that serious point. Certainly part of our undertaking was that it is intended entirely as a national scheme, and we want to make sure that certain areas are not disadvantaged.

First, I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his first appearance at the Dispatch Box in his new job.

Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the new Secretary of State is better than the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit)?

I am satisfied with both. If the hon. Gentleman wants to catch Mr. Speaker's eye, he can do so. Is it not true that although there has been some criticism of the scheme most people see it as new and exciting, and that the concentration on training is particularly important? Is there not now a slight upturn in youth employment figures, which itself is an encouraging sign?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind welcome. I can say more easily as one who was less involved with the start of the scheme that what has been achieved is remarkable. It is most encouraging to have reached a figure, after such a recent start, of 250,000 young people already in the scheme with more places available, and now with the faster take-up in the past month. With the training component, it is a substantial improvement on anything that has been done before.

Is the Minister aware of the widespread resentment among young people towards a scheme that many of them regard as a device to reduce the unemployment figures? Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that for the first time this autumn the majority of 16 and 17-year-olds who left school have not got real jobs? When will this sacrifice of a whole generation of young people end?

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman felt it necessary to approach in such a sour and ungracious way something that has the backing and support of trade unions and employers throughout the country. To add to the concern and misunderstanding about the scheme among young people, many of whom do not distinguish it from the previous schemes, on which this new scheme is a great improvement, in no way helps the cause of better training for young people. I hope that, on reflection, he will feel able to give it his backing.

Have the well-publicised reservations of one or two trade unions in the public sector in any way impeded the realisation of the goal to which my right hon. Friend has referred of providing a training opportunity for everyone by Christmas?

There have been difficulties with one or two unions, but I do not want to dwell on that. I hope that the talks that are now taking place—I know that the MSC has had discussions with certain unions as well—will remove those obstacles. I pay tribute to the vast majority of the trade union movement, which has played a full part in the scheme.

Will the Secretary of State tell the House what proportion of young people on the scheme he expects to get jobs at the end of their 12 months? Will he confirm the estimates given by a previous Minister of State in his Department that at least one in two would be unemployed at the end?

I obviously hope that the maximum number will get jobs. The merits of the scheme are that people coming on to the job market at the end of the scheme will then have had training, which many of them previously did not have, and be that much better equipped for the jobs that are available. I remind the hon. Lady that, even with the present high level of unemployment, there is still a tragic number of skill shortages.

As there is a substantial number of unfilled vacancies on the scheme, and as no one wants to see the money returned to the Treasury, will my right hon. Friend consider widening the scheme to include those aged 17 or, indeed, over so that the vacancies can be filled?

I am certainly concerned that we should get the most benefit from the scheme. I do not wish to prejudge, at this stage, the numbers that will finally be involved in the scheme. Although the figures for earlier months were a little below forecasts, my information is that for the latest month, October, the figure is rather better than our forecast. Therefore, we may see a rather rapid change in the figures.

Will the Secretary of State ensure that this voluntary scheme is not converted into a compulsory scheme by the withdrawal of social security benefit from those who refuse to join it?

I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new responsibilities on the Opposition Front Bench. I think that a bit of double banking is in order, given that he has responsibility for both youth training and employment. However, the scheme provides that if adequate and reasonable proposals are made, there is a power to withhold benefit. I do not believe that that is offensive at a time when it is most important that young people should have an opportunity to train.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of school leavers aged 16 years of age in Liverpool are taking part in the youth training scheme.

By the end of October 43 per cent. of the 16-year-old school leavers had entered the youth training scheme in the city of Liverpool.

Is the Minister aware that in Liverpool alone more than 5,000 people under the age of 18 are currently registered unemployed and that many of them are cynical about the youth training scheme, which they see as coming from the same stable as YOPs, WEPS, TOPS and all the others. The only growth industry appears to be in acronyms. Does not the Minister accept that this generation of "The Boys from the Black Stuff' deserves more than the possibility of 50 years on the dole? Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that although some of the schemes can play a role in helping to alleviate unemployment, they are not long-term solutions?

The hon. Gentleman will have heard my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State say that for the first time in Liverpool — as in every other part of the country — the 16-year-old school leaver has an opportunity to train. If the hon. Gentleman does not think that the fact that 2,600 young people have already joined up means that they are voting with their feet, I do not know what he does think.

Does my hon. Friend accept that there is still a worrying deficiency in the number of young people joining the scheme? One of the major reasons for that can be found in the Left-wing propaganda that is making the young cynical, and that is doing no service to those who wish to retain some form of training in Liverpool.

I certainly agree that some very Left-wing members of the public give the scheme, quite unnecessarily, a bad name. However, more than 250,000 youngsters have joined up, and that demonstrates the way in which they have voted with their feet.

Does the Minister realise that his ministerial team may well go down in history as having created the best trained dole queue in Europe? Can the hon. Gentleman explain how he intends to clear up the anomaly whereby 16 and 17-year-olds—

Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the question is about Liverpool.

How does the Minister intend to clear up the anomaly whereby 16 and 17-year-olds in school, or in receipt of supplementary benefit — in Liverpool or elsewhere — qualify for free prescriptions, while those 16 and 17-year-olds on youth training schemes do not?

I think that the hon. Gentleman is confusing the issue. Those 16 and 17-year-olds on the youth training scheme receive an allowance of £25. Therefore, there is no reason why they should receive supplementary benefit.

Is it not a condemnation of the Government and their economic policies that they have nothing better to offer the thousands of school leavers on Merseyside and in my constituency than life on the dole or an inadequate youth training scheme?

If the hon. Gentleman were to suggest to the parents of those on the scheme in his constituency that it should be withdrawn, I am sure that he would meet with a certain amount of resentment.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will consider extending the health and safety at work legislation to those on youth training schemes.

The Health and Safety at Work etc. Act already covers those on youth training schemes. The Health and Safety Commission has always advised that this coverage protects trainees effectively. Nevertheless, I have welcomed the initiative of the HSC to amend the law so that these trainees are brought under exactly the same section of the Act as employees. I have asked for this to be done as soon as possible.

Why is there a need to amend the law if trainees are already covered? How will the hon. Gentleman enforce the changes to which he has referred, given that this Government have reduced the number of health and safety and factory inspectors since coming into office?

The law is to be changed in that way only because several Opposition Members said that there was some confusion. We want to make the position clear to everybody. I am sure that Opposition Members will be very pleased about that. That is why the Health and Safety Commission recommended the amendment. On the hon. Gentleman's second point, the resources available to the Health and Safety Executive are greater now in real terms than when the Conservative party came to office.

As some health and safety regulations are so complex and complicated that they take up management time and inhibit the employment of more young and other people, what will my hon. Friend do the ensure that the regulations are simplified?

We constantly ensure that, as far as costs allow, the regulations are simple. However, in the last resort we must defend the health and safety of people, whether they are at work as trainees or employees.

Is the Minister aware that in my constituency two youth trainees were recently involved in fatal accidents? In one case the firm concerned was fined £800. The maximum fine is apparently £1,000. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that sum is wholly inadequate?

None of us can hear of such a case without feeling considerable sadness. Obviously, I have looked at that case very carefully. There is some disquiet, of course, about the possibility that the penalties, and the way in which they are imposed, are insufficient. I am considering that point.

Would it not be more appropriate for the Minister to admit frankly to the House that there is a deficiency in the legislation which, because of certain tragic incidents, such as that just referred to, he now feels compelled to put right? Would it not be better if the hon. Gentleman were to adopt proper standards in dealing with the House, although that might not be appropriate in his role as chairman of the Conservative party? The hon. Gentleman should make a frank admission when there is a deficiency in the legislation and act quickly to put it right instead of pretending that everything has been OK all along.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman has only recently come to his position. If he had attended our earlier debates he would know that we have discussed the matter at length. If he reads the report of those debates, I think he will regard some of his remarks as unworthy. To answer the right hon. and learned Gentleman direct, the same arrangements existed under the youth opportunities programme, which was brought into operation by his colleagues. At that time there was never any question of difficulty over this matter. I am telling the House the truth, and will continue to do so. I am advised by the Health and Safety Commission that trainees are properly covered at the moment, but, to meet the difficulty raised by some Opposition Members, the regulations are being changed. That is a perfectly reasonable and honourable thing to say.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any further proposals for disbanding wages councils.

Our obligations under International Labour Convention 26 preclude the abolition of the wages council system before June 1986. All options will be considered when the Government are free to act.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it seems a little strange that a Government who have a basic belief in the operation of the free market should retain wages councils, which restrict the free working of the labour market, prevent people from pricing themselves back into work and destroy jobs for young people? In view of the difficulties over the International Labour Organisation, will my right hon. Friend assure us that the Government will seriously consider abolishing such bodies within the lifetime of this Parliament?

I am certainly aware of my hon. Friend's strong feelings on this issue. I am also aware of both sides of the argument about wages councils. It is obviously of concern to the Government if our initiatives to help young people to find jobs are sometimes frustrated by apparently higher settlements on the part of wages councils than might be considered reasonable in the circumstances. That is why I have said we shall consider all the options.

Is it not true that the Government are trying to make Britain more competitive overseas by forcing low-paid workers to accept even lower wages? Instead of discriminating against such workers, why do not the Government restore exchange controls so that everyone — and not only the poor — can share the burden?

I regret that I could not quite follow the trend of the right hon. Gentleman's question. I am not sure how his suggestion would help the matter.

At the general election, did not the Conservative party promise to ensure that wages councils would not reduce job opportunities by obliging employees to charge unrealistic wages, or employers to offer them? Would not the only way to honour that promise be immediately to abolish those councils?

Bring back slavery.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) would not wish the Government to step aside from their treaty or other obligations in international affairs. I can only repeat the answer that I gave.

Although there may be some argument for wages councils reform among younger workers, is there not also an overwhelming argument that wages councils provide the basic principle of protection for one of the most vulnerable sections of our society?

I am concerned about the point raised by the hon. Gentleman. However, I also noticed the quotation from Winston Churchill in the letter column of The Times this week.

Will the Minister confirm that the humanitarian principle involved in the establishment of wages councils was the protection of groups of workers who could not organise collectively to defend themselves? Notwithstanding the mean and petty campaign by some of the Minister's hon. Friends, will he admit that nothing has changed and that some workers still need the protection of wages councils? Does he accept that the real problem is to enforce wages councils' awards?

I understand the arguments, some of which must be taken into account when considering the options and the problems that must be reconciled.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment which five industrial sectors in Greater London have lost the largest numbers of employees since May 1979; and if he will indicate the job losses in each sector.

The five groups of industries whose employment figures have fallen most in the five years between June 1978 and June 1983 are:

Does the Minister accept that, with London's reputation for prosperity, those figures are disastrous? Do they not demonstrate the effects of the Government's attempt to introduce into employment the free play of market forces? Is there not a good case for a positive interventionist policy by the GLC and the London boroughs if the Government are not willing to introduce that themselves?

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his appointment or election—I am never sure which—to a shadow responsibility.

Does my hon. Friend accept that the best intervention to help employment in London would be rate capping and rate control? Does he agree that the large rate increases imposed by the GLC, ILEA and Greenwich are a penalty on employment that needs to be removed?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. One factor that is driving firms—especially small firms—out of the GLC area is the enormous rates increases promulgated by Labour councils.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on criteria for appointment as youth training scheme management agencies.

Managing agents are required to demonstrate that they meet the agreed criteria for the content and design of schemes as well as having the ability to deliver the training programme proposed.

Is the Minister aware that there is a growing and grave suspicion about some of the privatized management agencies? Is he further aware that in the north-west one cosy, family company is reputed to be running an organisation worth £30 million of business? Should not the money be spent on training rather than on lining people's pockets?

The hon. Gentleman will know and appreciate that all schemes, from whatever source of managing agent, must meet certain criteria and be approved by the area manpower boards. I agree that when using large sums of taxpayers' money it is important to ensure that they are properly supervised.

Does my hon. Friend agree that much of the criticism about mode A places has been politically inspired? Is he aware that, in Meriden, getting the MSC to approve a managing agency is a difficult and critical business? Is not that practice right? Are not the achievements of mode A places for YTS trainees in the midlands an excellent example of the scheme?

I agree that much of the criticism has been politically inspired. The area manpower boards are solicitous when considering proposals put to them, and rightly so.

Does the Minister agree that proper regard to health and safety should be a criterion, especially in view of the youngsters who have been killed or injured on the schemes? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that at the recent court case following the fatal accident referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke), a director of the company found guilty of negligence had the brass neck to turn up at the court wearing a Tory party badge? He was a Tory party candidate at the general election.

The health and safety aspects of the scheme are crucial. The hon. Gentleman heard what my hon. Friend the Minister of State said earlier.

Notwithstanding my hon. Friend's caveats about management agencies, is it not important that there should be a mix of private employment agencies with those set up in concert with local authorities?

I agree with my hon. Friend. I am pleased that a substantial number of private employers have come forward as managing agents. Some of the training will be carried out by private concerns. That is the right way to proceed.

How many management agencies under the old YOP scheme failed to apply successfully to be management agencies under the new scheme? Under the old scheme, were not some of them poor employers and trainers, who used youngsters as cheap labour?

I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman's question because there were no management agencies under the YOP scheme. There were a significant number of sponsors. There are approximately 4,000 management agencies under the youth training scheme, which include many of the sponsors under the old YOP scheme.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the current level of unemployment in Greater London; and what was the corresponding figure for May 1979.

On 13 October 1983 there were 351,800 unemployed claimants in Greater London; the corresponding figure for May 1979 was 127,800. These figures exclude school leavers and are seasonally adjusted.

Does the Minister agree that those are dismal figures? Will he comment on the more positive aspect of the employment scene in London, that being the policy followed by the GLC — especially through the Greater London enterprise board and the Greater London training board?

It is bad that so many people in London are unemployed. It is, in some senses, also bad that the hon. Gentleman still suggests that the GLC might save one or two jobs through its various schemes. That does not make up for the many thousands of jobs lost because of its high rates and ridiculous Socialist plans.

Would not the best contribution to employment in Greater London, and probably everywhere else, be to abolish lunatic councils such as the GLC and put County Hall to a useful purpose.

This Government intend to make that great contribution as soon as possible.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what were the total numbers of unemployed within the county of Lancashire in May 1979 and September 1983.

In May 1979 there were 29,735 people registered as unemployed in Lancashire. In September 1983 the number of unemployed claimants in the county was 75,358. The figures include school leavers and are not seasonally adjusted.

Does the Minister agree that it is an appalling indictment of the Government that unemployment in Lancashire has trebled over the past four years? If, as the Minister claims, high rates in London have led to job losses, how does he explain the loss of jobs in Lancashire, where rates have been among the lowest in the country?

The House knows that the hon. Gentleman was author of the Labour party's "Programme for Recovery", but that never saw the light of day, which may give him a vested interest in such questions. The un-employment rate in Lancashire is only 13·2 per cent.—0·2 per cent. above the national average.

Is my hon. Friend aware that, despite the excessive rates levied by Lancashire county council, in some part in supplementary rates, there are still stories of success, for example Dainichi-Sykes Ltd., which has just obtained a contract from Jaguar Cars that will double the number of people employed by the company in a high technology area such as robotics?

Indeed there are, and 9,000 people benefit from the young workers' scheme in the constituency of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), for which he should be grateful.

Has the Minister studied the Youthaid report, which states that 50 per cent. of 18-year-olds in this country are on the dole and that that percentage is even higher in the inner city areas of Manchester? Does that not contradict what was said today about youth aid? Does he agree that the future of young people is being sold out by this Government?

It is an intractable and distressing problem, but one to which the Government pay great attention, both through the young workers' scheme and the youth training schemes. These schemes are operating effectively in inner Manchester, as the hon. Gentleman knows.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it ill-becomes the Labour party to lecture the Government on unemployment since, on Friday last when the House discussed the important subject of small business, one of the greatest providers of new jobs — [Interruption.] — only three Opposition Members turned up?

I agree with my hon. Friend and certainly the aversion that the Labour party has for small business and the power that it has to generate employment- and prosperity is a standing curiosity in the House.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he is satisfied with the existing rules for protection of workers from noise.

We are giving full support to the Health and Safety Commission in its campaign to alert industry to the dangers of noise. We intend to introduce legislation and are pursuing this with our European partners.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, while protecting workers' hearing from noise is important, so is protecting the jobs of those workers and the competitiveness and existence of the industries in which they work? In discussions with our EC colleagues, will my hon. Friend assure the House that he will press for a limit no higher than 90 dB, which is a limit with which our industry can cope?

I have made clear during the campaign, in which I have taken a particular interest, that we are determined to do something about the level of noise in industry and the damage done to hearing. That can be done, first, by bringing people to an understanding of it. One of our problems is that people do not take noise or deafness seriously enough. That can also be done without damaging the competitive edge of British industry and I shall see to it that the terms proposed in the directive are changed considerably.

Will the Minister give more priority to legislation on noise because of the anomalies in industry? Some of us know from experience about noise, especially in the mining industry. The new machinery that is coming in is creating great anomalies.

The right hon. Gentleman has a good point. We have already changed the terms of compensation to take some of those anomalies in hand and to reduce the number of years needed to qualify for compensation. We are considering other ways in which to extend the help that can be given. However, in the end the answer is not compensation but protection of workers from noise. That can be done.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the setting of unrealistic noise targets for machine tool manufacturers will not achieve anything? I refer particularly to EC regulations which will aim at the 85 dB level? Some machine manufacturers find such a target unrealistic and unattainable and believe that this will make their products uncompetitive with overseas suppliers.

It is clear that we must have attainable and enforceable levels. There is no doubt that the present suggestions of the European Commission are not satisfactory to this country. At the same time, if, with our European partners, we can produce satisfactory answers, this is a benefit that we can gain through our membership of the European Community.

Does the Minister accept that those hon. Members who have worked in industries such as shipbuilding, ship repairing and heavy engineering regard the comments of his hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) as disgraceful? Does the Minister recognise that hundreds of thousands of workers in this country suffer impediments in their hearing because of their industrial background? Does he accept that if there is any trouble getting the legislation through the House because of his hon. Friend's attitude he will be able to rely on the Opposition to get it through?

I do accept that damage is done to people, and that is why I take a personal interest in campaigning in this way. At the same time, there is no use having measurements and levels that cannot be enforced. My right hon. and hon. Friends are asking for levels that can be enforced. We will manage to do both what the hon. Gentleman wants and what they want.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what was the number of unemployed at the last count.

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

In October the total number of unemployed was 3,093,998 — a fall of 73,441 from September — and the seasonally adjusted total — excluding school leavers — fell by 10,000 from September, the second fall in three months. While it is always unwise to put too much emphasis on one month's figures, I note rising vacancies, less short-time working and more overtime, which all support the Government's view of a steady improvement in the economy.

Is it not a fact that the quarter of a million young people already on the youth training scheme are really a quarter of a million young unemployed on a training course? Is it true that if those people, who are receiving £25 a week, which is basically unemployment pay, were added to the drastic figures that the Minister has just given us, we would see no fall in unemployment? There has been a massive increase, which is getting worse.

That is the most disgraceful comment about the youth training scheme that I have heard in this House. I thought that at one time the hon. Gentleman had some connection with education and that he would therefore understand the importance of young people having some training and fitting them better for the challenges of a modern, technological society. The hon. Gentleman's remarks will not be shared — indeed they will be condemned—by the vast majority of trade unions which are willingly co-operating in this scheme.

Although I welcome the small fall in the Merseyside figure, may I ask whether the Minister is aware of the thousands of declared redundancies that are in the pipeline for Merseyside, which will push the figure considerably higher? What are the right hon. Gentleman's plans for positively reducing unemployment on Mersey-side and in our other regions? Do the Government have a policy?

It is difficult for the hon. Gentleman to suggest that the Government have no policy. Against the background of the improving economic position I have been able to announce a fall in unemployment. It is interesting to note the outrage with which the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) greeted the announcement that 73,500 more people are now at work than in the previous month. It is by the reduction of inflation and by ensuring that British industry remains competitive and gets its share of world markets that we have the best hope of improving the employment position of this country. That is what the Government are determined to do.

Is my right hon. Friend satisfied with the take-up of the community programme? If not, does he have any further steps to take in that regard?

I am encouraged by the take-up of the programme. It is going extremely well and I hope that we shall shortly be able to make an announcement about the future of it.

Will the Minister accept that the current unemployment figures are distorted and possibly underestimated by the fact that local areas are still working off the 1979 employment census? In the light of a parliamentary answer given to my predecessor to the effect that the local area results for the 1981 employment census would be produced this year, can the Minister say when he intends to publish those results.

Not without notice, but I will look into that. If the hon. Gentleman is trying to make the point that, by whatever measurement it is taken, unemployment is too high, I hope that every hon. Member will agree with him. It is the Government's determination to get that figure down by strengthening the economy and ensuring that there are again real jobs in the economy. I am proud that my first statement on unemployment to the House has enabled me to announce such a substantial reduction in the figures.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the overall size of the British labour market is increasing and that the percentage of those employed in that market now compares favourably with many of our EC competitors?

The evidence is that there were in the last quarter, for the first time in any quarter for four years, more people at work than in the previous quarter. It is significant to note a further increase in vacancies; there is now some evidence that there are about half a million vacancies to take into account, and that is a steadily rising figure.

Does the Minister agree, no matter how passionate his concern may be, that we must expect that a majority, and in some areas an enormous majority, of the young people now on youth training schemes will become unemployed in less than 12 months? While the YTS has bought the Government a little time, what do they propose to do about 17-year olds in less than 12 months?

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not keep up the criticism of the YTS. It ha:3 done a lot more than buy time. It has already provided for 250,000 youngsters a chance of training that the vast majority of them would never have had. I remind him of the words of a former Labour Prime Minister, that higher inflation followed by higher unemployment had teen the history of the last 20 years. We have been determined to get inflation down, and now we see some prospects for more jobs.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the logic of the case put by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) is that all young people undergoing training are really unemployed, that might extend to all at universities and elsewhere? Does it also mean that every time the Government introduce a measure to train young people it will be seen by Labour Members as not helping the unemployed?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those comments. I am glad to note that yet again the hon. Member for Hillsborough holds a view which, fortunately, the vast majority of sensible people in Britain do not hold.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one of the most disturbing features of recent unemployment statistics and projections is that more than 1 million people in Britain look as though they are likely to be unemployed for a very long time indeed? In that circumstance, will the Government now act on the recommendation of their social security advisory committee and give supplementary benefit to the long-term unemployed? Is he also aware that many of these people are in very poor circumstances and have large families and that the payment would involve as much as £10 per week? Does he realise that it is not now a matter of a political or economic decision, but a simple matter of morality so as to do justice for the long-term unemployed?

That question is not primarily for me but for the Secretary of State for Social Services. I note what the right hon. Gentleman says and of course we are concerned about the position of the long-term unemployed. We now have more than 600,000 people covered by special employment measures, along with the youth training scheme. That is some evidence of our determination to help with these problems.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to relieve unemployment in the Northern region.

The unemployment problems of the Northern region can be tackled effectively only if industry in the United Kingdom generally becomes more competitive and sells more goods and services.

What hope can the 225,000 people currently out of work in the Northern region expect from the Government's policies, and when will those policies begin to work?

They can expect from the Government continued pressure to bring down inflation, to make us more competitive, so that we can sell the goods and services, which alone produces the jobs. There is no hope other than that.

Is the Minister aware that on Teesside the rate of unemployment is 18 per cent. and that the area is based on shipbuilding, steel and chemicals? Is he telling the people of Cleveland that they have no future because the future of Britain lies in the service industries?

I am saying that in a situation as serious as the one to which our attention is drawn the only chance of getting jobs is to produce goods and services for which people will pay. There is no alternative to that, unhappy though that may be.

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

This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. Later this afternoon I shall be going to Bonn to attend one of the regular series of Anglo-German bilateral meetings.

If, as the Prime Minister constantly tells us, the National Health Service is safe in her hands, why does she not feel safe in its hands?

I take a view which I should have thought would commend itself to the hon. Gentleman, who I am sure is anxious that waiting lists should be reduced. I pay my full whack to the National Health Service and I make no demands on it.

Will my right hon. Friend accept that even those of us who are strong supporters of the Anglo-American alliance will be greatly concerned if, on top of everything else, the American President were to sell arms to Argentina before that country had formally concluded its hostilities with us?

Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. We should be greatly concerned indeed if the United States were to sell arms to Argentina before Argentina had made it perfectly clear that hostilities were at an end. It has not yet done so.

I am sure that the whole House will welcome the Prime Minister's prudent warnings to the American Government of the consequence of retaliatory action in the Lebanon. Did the right hon. Lady make it clear to the American Government in her contacts yesterday that British troops would be withdrawn if any retaliatory action were undertaken?

First I must make it clear, with regard both to the tone and content of newspaper reports of the breakfast meeting yesterday, that I just do not recognise some of them as relating to the meeting that I had—and I was, after all, there the whole time.

Does the Prime Minister recognise that the situation has changed dramatically and tragically since the time, for instance, when the Buccaneers were committed to defending and assisting our troops in the Lebanon? If the right hon. Lady is not prepared to make it clear that withdrawal would be the consequence of a retaliatory attack, what means would she be prepared to use to enforce her judgment that retaliatory action could jeopardise the reconciliation talks in Geneva as well as the situation of British troops in the multinational force? What means would she employ to back up her own judgment?

I have just said that we put Buccaneers in Cyprus in case our forces should feel that they need extra forces for self-defence. The position has changed since then. One tragedy has been what happened to the United States, French and Israeli forces. The right hon. Gentleman would take the same view as I do, that these were terrorist atrocities of appalling proportions and we sympathise with all who were involved. Our troops in that multinational force are carrying out their original terms of reference, which are set out in a Command Paper. Should there be any change, we would have to consult other members of the multinational force. The multinational force is doing a good job. Its work of patrolling and guarding where the peace talks were taking place is much appreciated. At the moment, I see no reason to change that unilaterally.

I must press the Prime Minister. While we recognise that, on the basis of their original deployment, the British troops are doing the fine job that the right hon. Lady mentions, the change in the deployment of American forces, and the awful tragedy of the deaths caused by the bombing, alter the atmosphere. What will the right hon. Lady's attitude be towards the American Government if they proceed, as many responsible commentators and analysts believe will be the case, to consider a retaliatory attack? British lives may be at stake.

Any members of any multinational force are entitled to take measures in self-defence. I have made that clear to the right hon. Gentleman. He then proceeded to consider an event that has not occurred, and therefore I cannot answer the question. The British members of the multinational force are doing a good job, which is much appreciated in the Lebanon. They went into Beirut with other members of the multinational force to re-establish the authority of the Lebanese Government and armed forces. It is important that nothing should be done to prejudice or hinder the reconciliation talks, which are vital if Lebanon is to be restored as a fully independent country.

Is it not time that the right hon. Gentleman considered — I hope that my right hon. Friend can reinforce this view—that critical though the middle east position may be, a Syrian takeover of Lebanon would be worse? That is one of the dangers that face us.

My right hon. Friend will agree that the position in Lebanon is serious. There is almost a de facto partition, with the multinational forces around Beirut and the terrible battles in Tripoli between the different factions of the Palestine Liberation Organisation. I believe that I am expressing the general feelings of many right hon. and hon. Members when I hope that nothing will be done to increase the turmoil or put at risk the reconciliation talks taking place.

Does the Prime Minister agree that the withdrawal of the Syrian and Israeli forces from the Lebanon may be achieved only in the context of a wider middle east settlement? Does the right hon. Lady agree that such a conference should be called?

As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, for a long time we have been proceeding towards a general settlement of the middle eastern problem in the wider Israeli-Arab context. We shall wait a long time if we wait for that settlement before sorting out the Lebanese problem. We must try to seek reconciliations wherever we can. We are anxious that the reconciliation talks in Lebanon continue with all possible speed.

As the press reports of my right hon. Friend's discussion with Mr. Dam were apparently inaccurate, will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to tell the House what was discussed? Does she accept that in seeking to promote peace in the middle east she will have the support of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House?

As my right hon. Friend would expect, the talks were friendly, serious, constructive and considered each of the important issues. I believe that my right hon. Friend, after a moment's thought, would be the first to realise that, if everything said in confidential talks had to be revealed for comment, confidential talks would soon cease.

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

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

Has the Prime Minister had the chance to consider the disturbing allegations made today on Liverpool's Radio City station to the effect that a man who today was convicted of murder had links with the special branch and with British intelligence? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Has she had the chance to consider his admission that he had concealed the fact that he had committed a number of other murders? What steps has the Prime Minister taken to instigate an inquiry into this serious and major allegation?

I assure the House that the police and other law enforcement agencies will investigate the allegations of criminal offences with proper thoroughness. The House knows that it is not the practice to confirm or deny the other allegations.

Does my right hon. Friend believe that, in view of the continued imprisonment of the Zimbabwean officers — despite their acquittal — the imprisonment of Bishop Abel Muzorewa without trial and the latest threats by Mr. Mugabe to Joshua Nkomo and Mr. Sithole, the time is coming when we should reconsider our policy on Zimbabwe, especially the amount of aid that we give?

No aid to Zimbabwe has been held up. The acid test is whether, if such an action were to be taken—we are not contemplating it—it would help those whom we aim to help.

Will the Prime Minister confirm that, in the tense international situation, which is compounded by the Soviet leader's illness, the impending invasion of the Lebanon by America and Israel will be strongly condemned by the British Government? Will she further confirm that she will seek to persuade other Western democracies to join in that condemnation?

I cannot add much to what I have already said. Action in self-defence is permitted under military law. One must understand that die United States, France and Israel were at the receiving end of the most terrible atrocities. It is for them to consider how far the laws of self-defence permit any action they may be contemplating. It would be wrong to make any statement in advance of any action that may or may not occur.

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

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

Does the right hon. Lady agree with the Secretary of State for the Environment, who told the Tory party conference that we should listen to the voice of industry? Would she change her mind if the collective voice of commerce and industry on Merseyside were to tell her that it is opposed to her proposals to abolish the Merseyside county council?

The short answer is no, Sir. We fought the election on that manifesto and we shall carry it out.

Will my right hon. Friend welcome the report in some newspapers to the effect that the Leader of the Opposition has offered to pay, out of his own pocket, for bright black children from the west midlands to attend independent schools and that, apparently, four have been found?

Fortunately, I do not answer for the Leader of the Opposition, but I am sure that any charitable gesture will be welcomed.