asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether, in view of the uncertainty caused by the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations, as exemplified in the recent case of Canning v. Niaz and McLoughlin, he has any plans to amend or withdraw the regulations; and if he will make a statement.

We are aware that the Employment Appeal Tribunal decision in the case of Canning v. Niaz and McLoughlin has been widely criticised and we understand that an appeal is being considered. In the circumstances we have no present plans to amend or withdraw the regulations.

Is my hon. Friend aware that, almost from their inception, the regulations have caused a great deal of difficulty, because of their complexity, to all those concerned with the sale and transfer of business assets? It appears that the decision is denying payments to people who would ordinarily and on any logical reading of the Redundancy Payments Act 1965 be entitled to a redundancy payment. Is not urgent Government action necessary to correct the position?

As the case is under appeal, I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that it is not possible to take such action at the moment. The Government have welcomed such protection and we wish to make it as simple as possible. In the circumstances, we must await the outcome of the appeal.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is his latest estimate of the percentage of the unemployed who are actively seeking employment.

The labour force survey 1981 showed that about 83 per cent. of those registered as unemployed were actively seeking work. The results of the 1983 survey will be available during the second quarter of 1984.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that a great many of those who are unemployed simply cannot afford to work because of the "Why work?" problem and the poverty trap? Will my right hon. Friend make an urgent study of this problem, as people with modest families are sometimes £12 a week worse off when working than when they are not?

I am aware of my hon. Friend's long-term interest in this problem. He will recognise the difficulty of striking a fair balance, because, as hon. Members on both sides of the House will recognise, in many parts of the country many people are desperately anxious to work but cannot get jobs, and nobody wishes to see people in that situation being deprived of a reasonable level of benefit. To strike the balance is difficult, but I note what my hon. Friend says.

Is the Secretary of State aware that in the city of Liverpool more than 91,000 people are registered as unemployed and that just over 2,000 jobs are available? In one employment office, 16,000 people are registered as unemployed and only 200 jobs are available. The United Biscuits works in the area made a further 2,000 people redundant last week. What are the chances of those people finding fresh employment?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the past two months are the first two consecutive months since 1979 in which we have seen a fall in the headline total and in the seasonally adjusted level of unemployment, and an increase in the level of vacancies over the previous quarter. The improvement is small, but I recognise, as the hon. Gentleman does, some of the special problems of Liverpool. I must however say, speaking frankly, that Liverpool and some of its people have not always been their own best friends in trying to attract industry and employment to that city. I am aware of the serious problems facing Liverpool. The Government are anxious to see an improvement in the economy and the chance of real jobs for so many people in that city.

Does my right hon. Friend recognise that the only solution to the problem of providing incentives to re-enter work lies in a tax credit or basic income guarantee scheme that would wind up the present national insurance scheme and integrate it completely with income tax? Will he undertake to study such a scheme?

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's latter sentence, because I know him far too well to try, in one sentence, to respond to his carefully thought out ideas and strategems. I take note of his request.

Quite apart from the fact that many hundreds of thousands of people are desperately anxious to find work but cannot obtain it, will the Minister address his mind to what the hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Howell) described as the "Why work?" syndrome. Does he accept that if the Government implement their policy of reducing housing benefits many hundreds of thousands of workers on low pay will be affected even more by the "Why work?" syndrome?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, that does not arise on this question.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the percentage decline in the ratio of young people's wages to adult wages for (a) boys and (b) girls over the period 1979 to 1983; and if he will make a statement.

The earnings of boys relative to men fell by 8 per cent., and those of girls relative to women fell by 12 per cent. between April 1979 and April 1983.

Does the Minister agree that those figures demonstrate that since the Government took office they have managed to co-ordinate a campaign to drive down the general level of wages for youngsters? Why did the hon. Gentleman allow the Chancellor of the Exchequer to steal £55 million from the YTS allowances in the Department of Employment budget, which sum could have been used to increase the allowance by £3·50 over the present £25, and thus stop the rot of the reduction in youngsters' wages?

I completely reject the hon. Gentleman's statement. It is perfectly natural that youngsters who have just left school should command less pay. Employers will not recruit inexperienced and untrained youngsters in a slack labour market unless there is an incentive to do so.

Will my hon. Friend warmly commend the wise young people who have accepted lower relative wages to price themselves into work? When will the Government repeal the minimum wage legislation, which so cruelly causes unemployment?

My hon. Friend is right, but we are bound by the conventions of the ILO to observe the rulings of wages councils until they can be reviewed. The fact that the lower youngsters' wages are the more likely they are to find jobs is demonstrable to anyone with common sense. It is especially apparent in West Germany, where both wages and youth unemployment are much lower.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will take steps to introduce an integrated training scheme for all 16 to 19-year-olds.

The youth training scheme is a major step forward in training the country's future work force. We share the general view of employers and others concerned with the scheme that more experience is needed of its operation before a proper assessment can be made of the need for major changes in coverage.

In view of the memorandum submitted to the NEDC by the chairman of the Manpower Services Commission on 21 October stating the need for a sustained effort to develop closer links between the YTS and colleges of further education, and, as many such colleges are threatened with closure, what liaison does the Minister have with the Secretary of State for Education and Science to ensure that education and training are adequately linked and catered for?

I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is close co-operation between me and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. Colleges of further education supply much of the further training provided under the youth training scheme. The hon. Gentleman will recall that the technical and vocational education initiative links the two closely.

Will my hon. Friend enter into negotiations with employers and trade unions to see whether they will accept that the YTS should become an alternative to the old time-serving apprenticeships and replace them?

As my hon. Friend will appreciate, one objective of the new training initiative is that old-fashioned apprenticeships should be changed and we should aim for standards instead of time served. The youth training scheme fits closely into that proposal.

Is my hon. Friend aware that in my constituency the link between the youth training scheme and the colleges has been widely welcomed and is being imaginatively used, and that the colleges want an assurance that the scheme will not be tinkered with until they have had a chance to make it work?

I am aware that in Kent, as in many other counties, there is close co-operation between the local education authority and the Manpower Services Commission. I agree with him that we should not move hastily, because we wish to learn from the experience of how the scheme is operating. It is too early to do so after only two or three months.

Does the Minister accept that in many parts of Britain the number of youngsters on the YTS scheme greatly exceeds the number of those in the same age group who have entered normal employment? Therefore, will he ensure that there is urgent consideration of what will happen next autumn?

As the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, in some parts of Britain the numbers are below the profile, which was introduced because we expected that fewer people would obtain jobs. We must make different assessments for each part of Britain, but it seems that more youngsters are finding jobs than we originally anticipated.

If 17-year-olds are too old for the youth training scheme and too young for the community programme, what should 17-year-olds do in an area of unemployment such as west Cumbria?

The hon. Gentleman will know that the scheme is available to unemployed 17-year-olds. The Manpower Services Commission and the Youth Training Board may propose that the scheme should include 17-year-old employed school leavers, and they must reach a decision on this at their December meeting.

Does the Minister accept that although the YTS is seen by many Opposition Members as an imperfect but useful stop-gap, the Government should consider urgently what will happen by next June or next autumn? Does he accept that plans should now be laid for proper training for all 16 to 19-year-olds?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for saying that this is a useful scheme. I agree with him that uncertainty must be removed as soon as possible.

He said that it was a stop-gap.

The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) said that the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) used the words "stopgap". He also used the word "useful", and I am grateful for his compliments about the scheme. I agree with him that uncertainty is not healthy for the future of the scheme, and the Government will make a decision as soon as possible.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what was the total number of people unemployed, and, of those, how many have been unemployed for more than 12 months to the latest available date.

The number of unemployed claimants in the United Kingdom was 3,084,416, and the number unemployed for more than 52 weeks was 1,142,898. Both of those are United Kingdom figures at the latest available date.

Is not the number of long-term unemployed the biggest indictment of the Government's disastrous economic policies? If the Minister regards the piffling reduction in unemployment during the past two months as a success, will he estimate how long it will take the Government to reduce unemployment to the level at which it stood when they took office? What is he doing to meet the CBI's objections to the Government's policies?

The number of unemployed is an indictment of the serious lack of competitiveness in British industry which has existed for far too long, and to which the Labour party made a major contribution by ignoring it and leaving to the teeth of a recession the worst problem and threat to employment in Britain. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will welcome the encouraging signs. He may know that I recently visited the Northern region and checked on the latest available figures for Newcastle, which show that this year placings into employment are 30 per cent. higher than they were last year. [Interruption]—I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman reacts like that, because I should have thought he would welcome such an improvement.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the problem of unemployment is endemic throughout Europe? Is he further aware that the range of measures adopted by the Government to fight the serious problem are as good as, if not better than, those adopted by other countries?

I assumed—I apologise if I have failed the House—that Opposition Members at last understood the fact which my hon. Friend mentioned, which is that our problem is common throughout the Western world and in modern industrialised society. The Government have taken several measures, the most important results of which are the reduction in inflation and the control of public expenditure, to ensure that at last we have a real prospect of sustaining growth.

Will the Minister accept that, pro rata, a much greater proportion of the scandalous long-term unemployment figures that he has spelt out is to be seen in the Northern region? When is he discussing regional policy in the Cabinet, will he bear that in mind?

I am aware of the serious problem faced by the Northern region. I am also aware, as is any other hon. Member, and certainly the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Brown), of some of the long-tern and intractable industrial problems of the Northern region and the failure to resolve them, which has contributed significantly to the present problem of unemployment in that region.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the many people in my constituency who are interested in knowing the number of employed and also in knowing whether that number is increasing?

I am pleased to say that in the last quarter there was an increase in the number of people at work, the first increase in a quarter for a long time. That is in contrast to the situation in other countries, which are unfortunately experiencing quite the opposite phenomenon.

Is the Secretary of State aware that when over 1 million people are classed as long-term unemployed, the question that arises is how we do social justice to them. Is not the time overdue when the long-term unemployed should get paid the long-term rate of social security benefit, such as the Government's Social Security Advisory Committee recommended? Is this not a simple moral question, and not a political and economic decision?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, this is not a matter for me. I have seen the early-day motion, and I hear what he says.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment when he expects the Equal Pay for Work of Equal Value Order to become operative.

The order, which was approved in another place yesterday, has now been signed and will become operative on 1 January.

Does the Minister realise that this complex, inadequate order has been opposed not only by women's organisations, including the Equal Opportunities Commission, but by the legal profession, and last night, in effect, by the other place? There was a vote on this issue, and the opposition to the order was carried by a few votes. Does that not make a difference to the Government's thinking about the order? Principally, does the hon. Gentleman understand that this shows to the country the Government's unwillingness to introduce, in a decent and simple fashion, the concept of equal pay for equal value for low-paid women? Would it not be better to withdraw the order and support the Sex Equality Bill this Friday?

I look forward to the hon. Lady's presentation of her Bill on Friday. However, I reject what she said in the last part of her question. The Government are committed to the principle of equal rights and it is wrong to say that the other place rejected the order, because it voted for it. The amendment, in so far as it was critical, related to the way in which we conform to our European obligations. I can say categorically that I am advised that in the terms of the order we conform to our European obligations.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will take steps to promote the training of the long-term young unemployed in order to provide them with the high technology skills necessary in the late 1980s.

The Government are currently supporting over 5,000 places in information technology centres and sponsors under the youth training scheme are encouraged to provide training in computer literacy. Opportunities are also available under the training opportunities programme and threshold scheme.

Will the Secretary of State argue in the Cabinet for economic policies that will produce real jobs for young people?

I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman puts the question in the way that he does when talking about technology, when he knows that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State argued in favour of information technology centres and that there is one in his own constituency, which I opened only a few months ago.

Does my hon. Friend recognise that the centre operating in Preston is doing a good job, bearing in mind that there is a great demand in Fylde and Preston for high technology graduates and students, and that the more resources that can be put towards that the better?

I agree with my hon. Friend, and it was apparent to me when I visited the centre at Preston that not only were employers pleased that it was there, but so, too, were the trainees, who were benefiting substantially from the taxpayers' resources that are being used in that way.

Does the Minister believe that the answer that he gave, in a technical state, represents sufficient input by the state in maintaining the level of skills required for the technical battles in which our country will clearly be involved with the rest of Europe and the world over the next 30 or 40 years?

As the hon. Gentleman is probably aware, there are plans for 150 information technology centres throughout the country, and 100 have already opened. At 1982–83 prices, the difference between 1979 and 1983 means that we have more than doubled the budget.

Will the Minister consider uprating the funding given to local authority managing agents so that it is comparable to that of the private sector managing agents, so that they can do a better job in high technology?

The hon. Gentleman will understand that the managing agents come from both the private and public sectors, and it would be wrong to give the public sector distinct advantages over the private sector.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment when he will next meet the chairman of the Manpower Services Commission to discuss training and re-training programmes.

I am in frequent contact with the chairman of the Manpower Services Commission to discuss the commission's training and other programmes.

It is obvious that the Minister will not give any firm assurances, but will he at least not rule out the possibility of further training for young people leaving YTS at the end of the year with no hope of getting real jobs?

That is not true, in that there is evidence of an increasing number of young people getting jobs—clearly one of the reasons for the shortfall in the take-up of places on the YTS. I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman was making.

Will my right hon. Friend have a chat with the chairman of the Manpower Services Commission about finance for some of these programmes and remind him that it is extremely embarrassing for Members of Parliament to go round promoting these schemes, only to find that the money is not available? To say the least, I am very annoyed.

I am grateful that my hon. Friend is saying the least on this occasion. I understand the effort which he and a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House have put into what has become a completely successful expansion of the community programme. He will know that we have a problem of the programme expanding much faster than the budgeted figures allowed for, but I have been able to provide additional resources this year. Whereas we budgeted £370 million for this year, we are providing £570 million for next year, and I am determined to see that the programme makes a major contribution. I hope that once it has been checked it will still be possible to see some further development this year.

Will the Secretary of State reconsider his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse), because in my constituency of Coventry, North-West, of the 4,000 places under the YTS, fewer than 2,000 have been taken up? Far from youth unemployment decreasing, it is increasing and is at an all-time high. Does that not show the lack of credibility of the whole programme, and what is the Minister going to do about it?

I hope that in anything that the hon. Member asks me he can stand up and say what he is doing, because he is the constituency Member of Parliament. If he is saying that youth unemployment among that age group is increasing and that there are available places on the youth training scheme, I hope that he is playing his part to encourage young people to go on the scheme. When I go round the country, I am impressed to find on the YTS a number of people whom the employers hope to keep in permanent jobs at the end of their training.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that he is right to say that the opportunities are there if young people seek to pick them up, but that at the end of the year there will be a real problem in providing training on an apprenticeship basis, and that what we now need is a follow up to the YTS and more apprentices able to take part in long-term training, because industries are cutting back on apprenticeships?

That has been the case, and I am seized of the importance of the point that my hon. Friend makes. I have recently issued a challenge to industry to ensure that, as we now see an improvement in the economy and in the profit performance of industry, we can expect to see an improvement in investment, and one of the most important investments that industry can make is in the training of its skilled work force.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many people now qualify for the enterprise allowance.

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

On 15 November some 16,300 people were receiving the enterprise allowance. Of these, about 1,500 had joined the pilot scheme operating prior to the national extension on 1 August 1983. The response has been very encouraging and we have decided to extend the scheme beyond March 1984. Finance is being made available for a further 35,000 grants next year to add to the 25,000 in the current year.

I thank my hon. Friend for that interesting information. Does it not show that the enterprise allowance is fast becoming one of the Government's most effective schemes to combat unemployment? However, will my hon. Friend accept that the rule under which the participant has to put down £1,000 stops some useful ideas and businesses from being launched? Will he revise that rule—and certainly not increase the sum?

I thank my hon. Friend for what he says. He is, of course, right when he says that the enterprise allowance, alone of the special employment measures, generates new jobs as well as taking people off the unemployment register. In answer to what my hon. Friend says about the £1,000 commitment, we think that it is reasonable to ask people to make a certain personal financial commitment. When a realistic business enterprise is suggested, we find that there is no difficulty in getting the money from bankers.

Is it not the case that not only does this excellent scheme give an opportunity to people who otherwise would not have it, giving them the dignity of self-employment, but it is also an exceptionally good investment for the taxpayer, because within a short period of time the person who goes on to the scheme becomes self-sufficient and starts paying taxes, rather than being dependent on the dole?

That is quite true. Recent surveys show that for every 100 new enterprises that are created about 40 additional jobs are created alongside them. Some of those are part-time, some are full-time. With a three-quarter survival rate of the enterprises taking part in the scheme, we hope effectively to double the number of applicants and thus increase the number of people taken off the unemployment register.

Is the Minister aware that when there is insufficient demand in the economy some new small businesses thrive and others die, and that many small enterprises are opposed to the scheme because they are threatened by it? Is he further aware that we cannot make more jobs in the economy without reflating and creating more demand?

I find that an extraordinary argument. We are talking about new businesses being generated by the individual enterprise of people who are prepared, in many cases, to stop taking unemployment benefit or who draw less than they are entitled to under unemployment benefit. Plainly, that must be to the general advantage of industrial activity in this country.

Does the Minister accept that an added benefit of the scheme is that it takes people out of the black economy?

Certainly I have heard rumours about that. However, it is perhaps best enlarged on by my right lion. Friends at the Treasury.

If the scheme is a success, will the Minister commend to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services similar schemes with a high disregard of income before social security benefits are lost, so as to take more people out of the black economy?

I do not see how that question arises.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has detected any trends of regional imbalance in regard to the operation of the youth training scheme; and if he will make a statement.

Take-up of places on the youth training scheme has varied between regions. I am satisfied that there are now sufficient places available to meet the needs of eligible young people throughout Great Britain this year, and I am confident that the undertaking to offer a place to all unemployed 16-year-old school leavers by Christmas will be met.

In welcoming the success of the scheme in the south-west, and particularly in the Dorset and Somerset area, may I ask my hon. Friend nevertheless to confirm that in areas where the take-up has been inadequate it is open to his Department to apply to the Treasury to have funds put aside for the YTS to be made available to the community programme which, as he will have heard from my hon. friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Sir P. Mills), is causing some anguish around the country? Is that correct? Has he already applied, and if not, will he consider doing so?

No doubt my hon. Friend heard my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Sir P. Mills), make clear the position on the community programme. Certainly, if there is an underspend on the youth training scheme my right hon. Friend and I will take it into account in dealing with the community programme.

I congratulate the three Ministers who have been answering all these questions, but will the Minister of State explain why his hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), has not helped them in their task?

I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his congratulations. It is not something that often happens, and it is received in the spirit in which it was given. The hon. Gentleman will know that my hon. Friend the Minister of State was sitting in Committee all morning — [Interruption] — and he will shortly be answering further questions. On the last occasion when we dealt with Employment questions he answered far more than I did.

Is my hon. Friend aware that if the underspend on the YTS is not used soon it will be taken back by the Treasury? Will he ensure that between now and the end of the financial year it is given either to 17-year-olds and 18-year-olds who are in training, or to the community programme?

My hon. Friend will have heard both myself and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State say that there is clearly an interaction between the two programmes. As my hon. Friend will also be aware, if we were to change the eligibility rules for the youth training scheme this year we would need to have regard to the number of entrants that we expect for next year. We have to take that into account in the equation.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the rate of unemployment at the latest available date in the Havering travel-to-work area.

The Department does not calculate percentage rates of unemployment for local areas within London. The rate for Greater London as a whole on 10 November was 9·8 per cent.

I welcome my hon. Friend to the Dispatch Box and thank him for his answer. Is he aware that more school leavers in Havering have found work more quickly than was the case last year? In endorsing what my hon. Friend said a moment ago, and underlining the commitment to employment for 16-year-olds by Christmas, may I ask my hon. Friend whether he is aware that that commitment is certain to be met in Havering—indeed, we have an embarrassment of places on the YTS?

In fact, the situation is a little better than it was. However, that should not blind us to the very real unemployment problem. The Government's policies are the most likely to achieve the fall in unemployment that we want. That is the answer that I would have given to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mr. Parry), whose question, due for answer earlier today, was withdrawn.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will take steps to publish estimated employment trends for November 1983 to November 1984.

I do not propose to do so.

Is it because the Secretary of State has no confidence in the Government's policies to control or lower unemployment that he will not give that information? Does it not show that it will not only be a bleak Christmas, but a bleak 1984 for the country?

I suppose that the hon. Gentleman could ask his right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) whether that was why he did not publish the figures either. It is not a helpful exercise, and I believe that it would only be misleading. I have done it once myself and sought to forecast unemployment, and I know the difficulties that are involved.

Although I fully accept my right hon. Friend's explanation about why he will not estimate future unemployment, will he accept that the Government's failure to act on industrial rates, and the announcement of their intention to force the energy industries—gas and electricity—to put up their prices, are hardly conducive to making industry more competitive? I use the phrase that my right hon. Friend used a moment ago. Unless we are more competitive, unemployment is scarcely likely to come down. Will he make representations to the Secretary of State?

Order. That supplementary question was too long.

What my hon. Friend says obviously does not arise on this question. However, I cannot emphasise too strongly the importance of competitiveness and of Britain earning its living in the world. I note that the question was asked by the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle). His failure to denounce the recent events in Warrington hardly helps to improve employment prospects in this country.

When will my constituents have the opportunity of full-time employment?

That is a question which the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent(Mr. Foot), who presided over the first substantial increase in unemployment, both short term and long term, was unable to answer. I believe that for the first time we can see a real prospect of more people in real jobs. I believe also that there is a prospect of a reduction in long-term unemployment. I hope that the whole House will welcome that.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many young people were on youth training schemes on 1 September, 1 October and 1 November, respectively; and if he will make a statement.

By 1 September, 1 October and 1 November respectively about 86,000, 172,000 and 230,000 youngsters were on the youth training scheme. The response by employers, local authorities and trades unions to the scheme and the number of youngsters now in training are clear indications of the encouraging progress to date.

I warmly welcome the improving figures and congratulate my hon. Friend on achieving them. Will he and his Department go into battle with the Treasury and ascertain whether underspending on the youth training scheme can be transferred to the MSC scheme? As has already been suggested, I believe that the sum outstanding in the current year is £60 million. That would go a long way to achieving the aims of the projected community programme.

My hon. Friend will appreciate that it is always difficult to predict exactly how much money is being spent in a demand-led programme. There were about 284,000 YTS entrants by 1 December. I think that I have already made my position clear about a transfer from the YTS to the community programme.

Why has the Minister downgraded the youth training scheme? He has already told the House that the allowance is intended to meet travelling costs and other expenses and to reflect the benefit of the scheme. However, the allowance is now frozen at £25 while costs are rising. Does this mean that in logic the Government are undervaluing the scheme and downgrading it?

I regret to say that I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman. We believe £25 to be the right amount for YTS youngsters. If he accompanied me on my visits to many of the schemes he would find that many of the youngsters take exactly the same view. We are considering travelling costs.

Will the Minister explain why the London undershoot is as high as 48 per cent.? Surely this is a clear indication that the allowance is not enough, especially in high-cost areas.

There is no evidence that the hon. Gentleman's proposition is correct. In fact, the evidence suggests the reverse.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what are the latest figures for unemployment, both nationally and regionally; and what were the comparable figures for 1979.

On 10 December 1983 the number of unemployed claimants in the United Kingdom was 3,084,416. The corresponding estimated number for November 1979 was 1,258,700. I will, with permission, circulate the regional figures in the Official Report.

Now that the mini pre-election boom is over, does the Minister accept that cuts in housing benefits and other factors will produce the prospect of unemployment rising again in 1984? Why is it that he and his colleagues can claim credit for a tiny decrease in unemployment but when unemployment rises, as it undoubtedly will next year, they are able to blame the increase on lack of competitiveness, trade unions and anyone bar themselves?

The hon. Gentleman sets his opinion against that of other experts. The latest indicators suggest that unemployment is levelling out. The hon. Gentleman knows that vacancies at jobcentres have doubled. He knows also that unemployment is not a uniquely national characteristic. There are over 20 million unemployed in OECD countries. The only route to full employment is full order books, and the Government's policies are directed to achieving that end.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what action he proposes to deal with the variation in the incidence of low wages in different parts of the United Kingdom.

Pay levels do, of course, vary between different parts of the country. What we must ensure is that unrealistic wage levels do not affect job prospects.

What will the hon. Gentleman do about the recent low pay unit report, which suggests that about three quarters of Scottish workers are being paid below what should be the legal minimum regulation wage? The Government are hell-bent on using statutory legislation against workers in Stockport and elsewhere. Why do they not use the available statutory legislation to increase the size of the Wages inspectorate and to introduce greater enforcement of minimum wages legislation on low-paying employers, who are paying employees less than the statutory living wage? Why are the Government doing this?

Order. That was a very long question.

The hon. Gentleman must accept that pay and jobs can be found only if we produce goods and sell them at a cost that the customer is prepared to pay. Those are the only circumstances in which we can achieve that which the hon. Gentleman desires. In so far as I can detect any meaning in the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, that must be the answer.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 6 December.

I have been asked to reply.

In the light of the virtually unanimous expression of opinion from every part of the House yesterday on the Lebanon, and in view of the suggestions of a joint Israeli/United States attack on Syria, IA ill the right hon. Gentleman represent to his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that the whole issue could be defused and people brought to their senses by the immediate withdrawal of the British force from the Lebanon?

I shall do as the right hon. Gentleman suggests and draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to his point. I am sure he will appreciate that at Athens one of the topics covered was the Lebanon, and that will feature in the report that my right hon. Friend will be making to the House tomorrow.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the obvious concern that exists in all parts of the House over the fact that our troops are being unjustifiably endangered in Beirut because of American policies which Her Majesty's Government cannot control, influence, or, it appears, agree with? Will he, from his position of influence, work to ensure that British troops are home from the Lebanon by Christmas?

No one who was present in the House yesterday afternoon could not be aware of the widespread anxiety that exists about our troops in the Lebanon. That is something that does not need to be represented to the Government because the Government share that anxiety, sharing as they do the responsibility for the presence of our troops in the Lebanon. The position of the troops is under constant review and that review will take account of the events that happen day by day, including recent events concerning the Americans and the Syrians. As I have said, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will be reporting to the House tomorrow following the Athens discussions. As they covered the Lebanon, I think that it will be appropriate for us also to have in mind my right hon. Friend's report.

I am encouraged by the news that there is a review, which represents a significant shift from the position that was taken by the Under-Secretary of State yesterday. Will the right hon. Gentleman assure me that, in the course of the review, due weight will be attached to the attitudes of the British people on this matter, as they are widely represented in the House? I remind the right hon. Gentleman of his words to me last Tuesday, in the hope that they will assist with the review. He said:

"It is in the nature of our authority"—

"that we have to secure it largely through influencing the alliances to which we belong." — [Official Report, 29 November 1983; Vol. 49, c. 762.]

This is a serious matter, which commands attention throughout the House. I am certain that the right hon. Gentleman would not wish to make mischief over it, because there is nothing in what I have said this afternoon that is in contradistinction to what was said yesterday afternoon by my hon. Friend, the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Public opinion is one of the factors that must influence any Government. I am certain that the sombre mood in the House yesterday afternoon was but a dimension of public opinion.

Did my right hon. Friend hear the report this morning by the BBC correspondent, Christopher Drake, who has had more first-hand experience of the Lebanon during the past few months than any hon. Member? He said that it would be an utter disaster for the British forces to be withdrawn at this stage and that their continued presence in the Lebanon was the most stabilising factor in keeping the peace in that area.

I did not hear that radio report, but it is true that the modest British force has a responsibility to protect the Ceasefire Commission, and it has been discharging that duty with great distinction. It has earned the support of many countries in the middle east, including Syria.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 6 December.

I have been asked to reply.

Has there been any change in Government policy regarding American bases in this country? I heard a report that parts of cruise missiles were coming into Britain via Barry docks for storage at Caerwent. When I took this matter up with the Ministry of Defence I was informed by Lord Trefgarne that he could not even attempt to answer the question. Previously, we were reassured that there was no nuclear presence at Caerwent. Will the Lord Privy Seal shed some light on the matter, as it is causing anxiety?

I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman wants illuminated, but I assure him that British policy over the bases of our NATO allies remains unchanged, as does our desire that this country should remain a part of NATO and our determination that we should not succumb to the blandishments of the unilateralists and the neutralists.

Did my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal hear, or read the transcript, of the interview yesterday with the editor of The Sunday Times on BBC radio about the arm-twisting employed by the National Graphical Association on that editor's newspaper over the weekend? Does he agree that the cuts imposed on the editorial in that newspaper represent a serious threat to freedom of speech, and where will it all end?

Again, I must disappoint another of my hon. Friends by saying that I did not have the opportunity of hearing that broadcast. Any attempt to impose cuts on editorials would be deprecated throughout the House.

Do the Government still hold the view that the Americans in Beirut are acting in self-defence?

As my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office said yesterday, the recent attack on the Syrian positions was deemed to be an act of self-defence on the part of the Americans.

Do the Government intend to ignore the defeat that they suffered yesterday in another place on an amended motion declaring that the Equal Pay (Amendment) Regulations 1983 did not meet the requirements of the European Court of Justice or the European Community?

That action will be considered along with the Government's other pressing problems.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 6 December.

I have been asked to reply.

I return to the subject of Lebanon. Have the British Government been informed of the nature of the agreement made last week between the United States and Israel? If so, what are its terms?

I am not in a position to answer that question, and therefore will not seek to do so.

In view of the objections to the use of self-defence by the Americans, will my right hon. Friend confirm that, in the event of our troops being attacked, air power will be available to us?

My hon. Friend makes a fair point that needs to be made.

Is any Member of the Government in a position to say whether the British Government were consulted before the Americans drew up their new strategic agreement with Israel?

I have no doubt that the normal arrangements that exist between the allies were pursued, but, as I said to the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), I am not in a position to answer that question and will not, therefore, attempt to do so.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the murder of nearly 300 American marines by forces supported by the Syrian Government left the Americans no alternative? Will he also assure the House that if British forces suffer any casualties we will hit back just as hard? [Interruption.] Does he agree that any talk of withdrawing from the multinational force at this stage would create a gratuitous rift in the only alliance on which peace depends?

Any retaliatory action undertaken by British forces in that part of the middle east must be related to the military potential at their command. We would be unwise to think otherwise. The wider issue of the multinational force must be under constant review and consideration by the allies working in concert. The meeting on Thursday of the Foreign Ministers involved with the multinational force will be the occasion for the next exchanges.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 6 December.

I have beenasked to reply.

Will my right hon. Friend advise the Camden Women Against Cruise who decided recently at a meeting of the Kentish Town Women's Workshop that it would ambark upon a policy of flashing at Greenham Common, not to bother and to watch instead the film "The Day After" so that it might realise that the main reason why such a disaster has not been inflicted on these islands during the past 40 years is that we have had an independent nuclear deterrent?

My hon. Friend's advice is well-directed. I am sure that there would be much merit in those women watching "The Day After", as they would then realise what we are seeking to deter, and would conclude that in the post-war generation the world had been preserved from nuclear warfare.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the trial for high treason in South Africa of Commodore Dieter Gerhardt is being held in camera on the pretext that what will be revealed will be embarrassing to certain Western countries? Is he further aware that the commodore visited Gibraltar, had contacts with naval intelligence personnel and had considerable influence in Simonstown, where our naval vessels were being refuelled? Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that at the height of the Falklands incident Exocet missiles were being transported from Cape Town to Argentina? Given the United Kingdom's interest in this matter, will the right hon. Gentleman discuss with the Prime Minister the need to refer it to the Security Commission?

The hon. Gentleman makes a detailed allegation which deserves to be treated seriously. I understand that it was concluded that the gentleman in question was in possession of only very low grade information, but I shall refer that point to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 6 December.

I have been asked to reply.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that CND has re-stated its policy of British withdrawal from NATO? Does he agree that that is just the sort of action calculated to give aid and comfort to its friends in the Communist countries?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. If CND's policy goes beyond weapons and to the wider foreign policy issues and seeks to take Britain out of the Alliance, which has been the cornerstone of security for the post-war generation, the public will realise that CND means neutralism and unilateralism.