asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the latest number who are now unemployed in Liverpool and on Merseyside; how many have been unemployed for 12 months or over; and if he will make a statement.

On 9 February the total number of unemployed claimants in the area covered by the Liverpool and Toxteth jobcentres was 15,046, and the total number in the Merseyside special development area was 141,674. The number unemployed for over 52 weeks in these areas on 12 January was 8,522, and 67,706.

Are not these appalling figures testimony to the fact that the Government's economic recovery is far, far away from the people of Merseyside? How can the Minister's Department contemplate slashing 1,300 places from the YTS scheme, affecting places such as the Old Swan boys club in an area of particularly high unemployment within Liverpool, when there have been protestations from all and sundry, including the Bishop of Liverpool? What action will the Minister take about that, and what action are the Government contemplating to bring permanent jobs to Merseyside?

I do not accept that the picture is as dark as the hon. Gentleman paints it. Vacancies notified to the jobcentres are up by 32 per cent., placings are up by 16 per cent. over the last year, and there are over 10,000 young people on the young workers scheme. As to his allegation that the mode B1 places have been cut, there is a place on the youth training scheme for every person who wishes to take one up.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, while these figures are rather bad, the situation is not helped by the activities of the majority of the Labour members of Liverpool city council, who have behaved like raving lunatics in relation to finance? Does he agree that if they would only come to their senses the prospect for employment in Liverpool, and on Merseyside, would be very much better?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It is not for me to digress on the internal ramifications of the Labour party and the various allegiances that it adopts, but it will have noted that its own leader has refused to align himself with the policies of the Labour majority on the city council.

Does the Minister not accept that, with one in five of the local population out of work, there are no grounds for complacency? Given that the large majority of the unemployed are construction workers, does the Minister not think that it is time that the Department, with other Government Departments, looked at the possibility of a major capital works scheme, such as a tidal barrage across the Mersey, to create construction workers' jobs?

The hon. Gentleman asks for a major capital works scheme. He should recognise that the city of Liverpool benefits from the public purse in the following sectors. It has special development area status, it has a development corporation, it has an inner city partnership, it has an enterprise zone, and it has recently been chosen as an experimental freeport location. He may well feel that other and neighbouring areas may be asking themselves why they, too, cannot benefit.

Surely if these figures are testimony to anything, they are testimony to the fact that, since 1973 at least, that particular authority has been under the control of the Labour party, as recently, or of the Liberal party?

Of course it is a tragic proof that this great city, once a pillar of the nation's commercial strength, should have been reduced to its present plight by the doctrinaire idiocies of the Labour party majority on the city council.

Is not the Minister yet again, by his answer to my hon. Friend, attempting to mislead the House? He has mentioned the youth training scheme. Is not the figure for youth unemployment only 1 per cent. different from what it was a year ago? Does he accept that young people are no longer being attracted to the youth training scheme, either in Liverpool or nationally, and that there are 370,000 young unemployed who are not joining the youth training scheme? There is something wrong with the scheme if the Government have to give such an answer to the House.

I do not accept that view. The scheme is an excellent one and would benefit from the support of influential people such as the hon. Member, councillors and trade union leaders, who should draw the attention of young people and their parents to its benefits.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he is now satisfied with the safety provisions for those on the youth training scheme.

Yes, Sir. However, I can assure my hon. Friend that the safety provisions of the scheme are kept under review in order to ensure their continued appropriateness and effectiveness.

Is my hon. Friend satisfied that the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 adequately protects trainees, particularly in relation to inspections and inquiries? What arrangements is he making to ensure that the provisions of the Act are adequately checked and updated, particularly in the case of the youth training scheme, which is now becoming a permanent and valuable part of training provision for our school leavers?

I agree with the latter part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question. In January this year my hon. Friend the Minister of State tabled the Health and Safety at Work (Youth Training Scheme) Regulations, which put all youth trainees on the same basis as employees.

Is the Minister aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) has raised on the Floor of the House the case of two lads who had fatal accidents? One of the employers was fined heavily, which made it crystal clear that he was to blame. In the other case the sheriff stated that in his view sufficient safety regulations had not been in operation. Is it not time that the Minister took action before there are more fatal accidents?

The hon. Gentleman and I will agree that one accident—certainly one fatal accident—is one too many. However, I can assure the hon. Gentleman, as I have assured my hon. Friend, that, with the further tabling of regulations in January this year, everything possible is being done both by the Health and Safety Executive and by the Manpower Services Commission.

No scheme is perfect, but does my hon. Friend agree that the youth training scheme is excellent and that it is high time it had the full support of all right hon. and hon. Members on the Opposition Benches?

Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. It is regrettable that Labour Members do not back the scheme, as many of their supporters do. I also agree that the YTS is a training scheme, not a special employment measure like the youth opportunities programme. If only Labour Members talked to the trainees, they would be impressed by their enthusiasm for the training that they receive.

Is the Minister aware of a recent press report to the effect that the Government are to pay retired civil servants £90 a day to advise on safety on the youth training scheme. If the Government are serious about the safety of the young people on the scheme, surely they should not use retired people in that way, particularly as nearly 4 million people are unemployed?

I am not aware of the press report or press release to which the hon. Gentleman refers. Nine specialist advisers have been appointed to the nine regions to consider health and safety—matters about which the hon. Gentleman and I are both concerned.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he is satisfied that jobcentres have ceased advertising jobs at illegally low rates of pay.

I am satisfied that jobcentres take all reasonable steps to avoid advertising jobs at levels of pay below wages council minimum rates.

How can the Minister be so confident that jobcentres are not advertising jobs at illegally low rates of pay? He knows very well that the Government deliberately stopped the document, "Times, Rates of Wages and Hours of Work" which informs people of wages councils' rates. Why does the Minister not answer that question instead of the one that he answered just now?

I did not answer that question because it was not the question that was tabled. The hon. Gentleman asks why I am confident. The reason is that the long-standing instructions to our staffs in jobcentres state quite clearly that if they are in any doubt whether a vacancy offers at least the legal minimum rate they should seek advice from a wages inspector. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the range of wages levels that wages councils give is substantial and that the right person from whom to get that information is the wages inspector.

Does my hon. Friend consider that wages councils do anything to help the unemployed?

My hon. Friend will accept that the Government are carefully examining wages councils, as we believe that, if it is shown that wages councils reduce opportunities for people, the Government ought to take action. We are seeing whether that is so.

Does the Minister agree that the best way to stop some sweatshop employers paying their employees illegally low rates of pay is substantially to increase the number of wages inspectors? Does he agree that the Government should instruct them to prosecute every case of wilful neglect of the law that they discover?

The fact remains that the work of the wages councils inspectorate, the number of cases followed up and general activity on this front are similar to that which obtained under the Labour Government. If what they were doing was insufficient, why on earth is the hon. Gentleman complaining about us now?

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he is taking to reduce the number of those registered as unemployed for over 52 weeks in the city of Leicester.

As the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, the best way we can help the long-term unemployed is by establishing the economic conditions in which industries can become more competitive and start to expand. In the meantime, help is available through the community programme, which has made excellent progress towards the objective of providing up to 130,000 temporary jobs for the long-term unemployed.

Directing myself to the question, will the Minister tell the House how many people in the city of Leicester, which was once so prosperous, have now been unemployed for more than 12 months? Does he accept that one awful by-product of this increasing and lengthy unemployment is the growth of sweatshop labour, which is a cause for much worry to all of us in the city of Leicester?

The hon. and learned Gentleman did not table a precise request for the number of unemployed during that period of time, but I shall ensure that he gets the figure. He should recognise that unemployment in Leicester is below the national average and below the average for the east midlands. Indeed, unfilled vacancies at jobcentres have increased by 37 per cent. in the past year.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many people are currently attending skillcentres; and how this compares with the position 12 months previously.

There were 11,484 people in training in skillcentres on 30 January 1984, the latest date for which figures are available. At 31 January 1983 the number in training in these establishments was 13,131.

Is the Minister aware that that drop of some 2,000 is appalling? Is he further aware that apprenticeship schemes throughout the country have been cut by employers and that that will create a burden? If we have an upturn in the economy as the Government predict, where shall we find the trained personnel that we need? Is it not nonsense to talk about closing job training centres when we should be putting more money into increasing them and the number of available jobs?

I am not aware that the drop is appalling, because the training division of the Manpower Services Commission is spending its money more sensibly. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, as a result of the way in which it purchases its training, 2 per cent. more people will be trained in 1984–85 than in the previous year? That seems to me to be a more effective way in which to achieve our aims.

What is the under-used capacity of the skillcentres? What steps is my hon. Friend taking to reduce it?

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have been negotiating with the Manpower Services Commission on that matter. In the year ahead the gap between the amount of purchasing and the cost of running the skillcentre training agency will be about £24 million. My right hon. Friend has agreed with the MSC that that gap should be closed to zero in the year beginning 1986.

The Minister will be aware that only 3 per cent. of trainees at skillcentres are women. Effectively, the Government are denying women the right to training opportunities on an equal basis with men while the Government do not provide, for example, nurseries at skillcentres, child care allowances and, most important, more flexible training hours. It is difficult for women with children to take the opportunities that should be on offer while rigidity exists in the skillcentres.

The hon. Lady puts her finger exactly on the point. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said in the White Paper that we want more flexible and more relevant training. That might mean the training is not provided in the skillcentres. Whether the training occurs there or elsewhere is relevant only to the extent that the training is of the type that trainees want.

asked the Secretary of Slate for Employment what is the latest number of people unemployed; and how many of them have been unemployed for more than 12 months.

On 9 February the total number of unemployed claimants in the United Kingdom was 3,186,000. The number unemployed for over 52 weeks on 12 January was 1,188,000.

Is the Secretary of State aware that, in the next financial year, the Government and the National Coal Board are about to add 20,000 miners to those figures, including 1,000 miners in my constituency? Bearing in mind that those miners will be in their early 50s, has his Department any plans to encourage future employment in the mining areas? Do the Government plan to commit young miners to an industrial desert?

The best hope for the unemployed and those facing job losses because of pit closures is a general improvement in the economy. I am encouraged at the progress being made. I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has decided to abolish the tax on jobs that was introduced by the last Labour Government. I am delighted that the confidence flowing from my right hon. Friend's Budget has resulted in an immediate reduction in interest rates. Both those measures will make a substantial contribution towards helping the employment scene.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that those over 55 who are now long-term unemployed are those least likely to obtain jobs again? Is there not, therefore, a case for either a higher form of unemployment benefit or some bridging income that will take those people to the retirement pension level and thus look after that group?

Our first ambition is to provide the best possible opportunities for people to obtain jobs. Although the employment position differs in different parts of the country, it is encouraging that this year, compared with last year, there has been a significant increase in job placements. I do not necessarily take my hon. Friend's approach to this matter. Long-term unemployment benefit is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, but I take note of my hon. Friend's point.

Is it not the height of hypocrisy for the Government to have been prating for the past fortnight about allowing miners who wish to go to work to do so when all hon. Members know that the Government are closing pits at a rate that will put scores of thousands out of work? When the Government are putting millions of working people out of work, why do they not realise that their policy is causing unemployment? Why do the Government not begin reflation of the economy and get the working people back to work?

I do not regard the hon. Gentleman as an authority on hypocrisy when he chooses to make that sort of comment and when he supported a Government who closed pits at twice the rate of the present Government and who invested half as much as we are investing in new and more productive capacity.

I accept what my right hon. Friend says about the long-term effect on most industries of the removal of the national insurance surcharge. Does he agree, however, that, particularly in rural areas, those over 55 and the young are unable to obtain work because of the scarcity of jobs in those areas? Will he give thought to finding a solution to this severe problem?

The whole House—indeed, anybody who has studied these problems—recognises the real difficulties faced by the more elderly in the search for work. I cannot go further than my comments today, although I hear what my hon. Friend says.

Is the Secretary of State not ashamed of the fact that in five years of Conservative rule the number of long-term unemployed has steadily climbed to the scandalous total of 1,188,000? As the Government appear to have no special measures in mind to alleviate their condition, is it not long overdue that they should be given the elementary social justice of long-term supplementary benefit?

I note that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was a member of a Cabinet which succeeded in doubling unemployment and which had no solution to that problem. I note, too, that I am a representative of a Government who are spending substantially greater sums in trying to solve these problems with a range of special employment measures. The problems are, of course, extremely difficult. The first requirement in our handling of expenditure is to ensure that we give the best chance of employment to people, which means continuing to pursue the economic policies that were amply reinforced by my right hon. Friend in his Budget.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many people over 50 years of age his Department estimates to be unemployed at the latest available date.

The number of unemployed claimants aged 50 years and over in the United Kingdom on 12 January, the latest available, was 574,692.

Is the Minister aware that in these days of Tory Britain, those 500,000 are effectively consigned to the scrapheap? If there is logic in applying the long-term rate of supplementary benefit to people over 60 who have no prospect of work, why is there not logic in the argument that long-term supplementary benefit should be extended to the over-50s who have no prospect of work?

The hon. Gentleman draws attention to a particularly difficult sector of the labour market where there will be many individual cases of frustration and disappointment. We hope that employers will recognise the value of the experience and skills of people in this age group and will alter their recruitment practices to take advantage of them. When the hon. Gentleman says that logic would indicate a certain course, he must also allow that resources oblige another one.

Is my hon. Friend aware that among those over 50 who are unemployed are a number in my constituency who have been unemployed since the mills closed down under a Labour Government? Those people have the opportunity of finding jobs only in the service sector and tourism, and recent measures taken by the Government have done something for that sector.

I am obliged to my hon. Friend for drawing the attention of the House to that fact. It is in the service sector that the new jobs are expected to come fastest.

How many more people in this category are in effect unemployed because they have some savings and are, therefore, disqualified from receiving supplementary benefit? Is it the Government's intention that those in this category shall eventually be reduced to claiming supplementary benefit as they see the efforts of their lifetime's work gradually being eroded?

If it is possible to ascertain how many potential claimants there are in that category, I shall ensure that the hon. Gentleman has the information he needs.

How much in redundancy payment is likely to be obtained by somebody aged 50 after a lifetime spent in the coal industry?

Approximately £30,000.

Does the Minister have any idea of the despair of many of the 574,692 aged over 50 who have become unemployed under the Tories and who feel that they have no chance of ever getting another job? Will the Government formulate policies either to get this group of people back into employment or to give them a decent standard of living which will allow them to remain unemployed until they qualify for retirement pension?

As I have told hon. Members, there are cases of individual distress and frustration in that sector of the labour market. The hon. Gentleman asks what the Government will do. Resources limit the extension of supplementary benefit along the lines that many would like. It would cost £480 million to extend it across the board, and £220 million to extend it just to those with dependent children.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what are the current unemployment percentages in the United Kingdom and in each current or former member state of the European Free Trade Association; and what were the corresponding figures in 1972.

For the United Kingdom, the latest figure on an OECD standardised basis is 13·4 per cent. in January, compared with 4·3 per cent. in 1972. For the other countries, the latest available figures range from 16·7 per cent. for the Republic of Ireland in November last year to 0·8 per cent. for Iceland for 1982, but as there are a number of figures from differing sources I will with permission publish the complete information in the Official Report.

Do not the average figures show that we have not done a service to our working population by withdrawing from that outward-looking and non-bureaucratic organisation, which co-operates fully with the Common Market but does not get involved in its bureaucratic and interventionist nonsenses? Might it not provide an answer to our current problems in Brussels if we reapplied to join that excellent organisation?

The views of my hon. Friend and myself are well known. I believe that we have gained considerably in jobs through membership of the European Community. In this country 2½ million jobs depend on our exports to the rest of Europe, and many of them would be lost if ever we left the Community.

As the United Kingdom's economy has been declining steadily for some 30 years, going back before our entry into the EEC, does not the blame for our high unemployment rest on the shoulders of successive Labour and Tory Governments, who have proved incompetent to deal with the economy?

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that a major way of getting ourselves out of our economic problems is through our own efforts, which is why the Government's policies are most likely to produce the economic rejuvenation that we look for.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will provide the latest information on comparative unit labour costs in Great Britain and in the European Community as a whole.

Information for the European Community as a whole is not available. The annual change in unit wage and salary costs in the third quarter of 1983 was up 2 per cent. in United Kingdom manufacturing, minus 3 per cent. in West German mining and manufacturing and plus 12 per cent. in French engineering.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is a most unhealthy base for the continued upturn in the economy projected by the Government, which we all want?

I hope that the House took careful note of those figures. We take some encouragement from the reduced rate of inflation, but should heed the warning that our unit costs are rising. Although the question deals specifically with Europe, it is worth noting that unit costs are falling in Germany and the United States, and are static in Japan, which shows that we cannot afford to relax, and how important it is to ensure that we keep our prices competitive.

What consolation is the Minister's answer to the work force of the Phillips Rubber Company in Manchester, which has been sacked and locked out merely because its crime was to ask for an increase on £46 a week for a 40-hour week?

Order. The hon. Gentleman's supplementary question has nothing to do with question 9.

Does not the significance of my hon. Friend's answer lie in the French figures, which show the cost of the disastrous Socialist policies pursued there? Does he accept that if we were to take account of the Opposition's suggestions and criticisms made after last week's Budget, Britain, too, might go down that route?

The idea that Socialist policies offer salvation to France was not reflected at the Council of Ministers meeting, when the French Minister had to face adverse publicity following the announcement that France would have to lose 500,000 jobs in steel, cars and shipbuilding because of its problems. I am surprised that hon. Members argue about this, because we shall not get export orders, or the jobs that go with them unless we stay competitive.

To what does the Secretary of State attribute the relative deterioration in our competitiveness under his Government, and what does he propose to do about it?

At present our increase in productivity is about 6 per cent., which is similar to that of Germany, but our wage increases in the past year have been substantially in excess of those in Germany, and greater than our increase in productivity.

Given what the Chancellor said last night and what the Secretary of State has said today, would it not be fair to describe Government policy as consisting of the following proposition: that profits should be as high as possible and wages should be as low as possible?

I wonder how the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who is always calling for investment, thinks investment comes without profits. That is important to this country's recovery. It is no coincidence that we are now starting to see more jobs in this country—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"] I know that hon. Members get upset at good news, but if they care to study the Employment Gazette they will see that the latest figures show that more people are at work and that we are creating more jobs. It is no coincidence that that is happening at a time when the profit performance of industry is improving.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what retraining programmes and official assistance is available to unemployed people between 40 and 50 years of age.

The Government support the retraining of unemployed people, including those between 40 and 50 years of age, through the training opportunities scheme. Trainees are paid a weekly allowance and help may also be given with travelling expenses and lodging costs.

Does the Minister appreciate how demoralising it is when people in that age group are out of work for 12 months or more and how difficult it is for them to get training opportunities? Does he accept that one of the best opportunities was provided by the skillcentres? Why are the Government under-using the skillcentres and not encouraging people in that age group to go to them, where they may receive sympathetic treatment, which helps them to regain their self-confidence and become more able to contribute as much as others to the labour market?

I assure the hon. Gentleman that in retraining there is no bar on people in the 40 to 50-year-old age bracket. I entirely accept his point that the transition from an erstwhile skill to a new skill is important. With regard to the skillcentres, the hon. Gentleman must understand that we are getting value for money, which means that more money is available in the long term to train more people.

May I remind my hon. Friend that in Scunthorpe, in my constituency, 11,000 men have been made redundant since 1981, and that the incentive for the new industries that we wish to come into the constituency depends upon specific training programmes under the Manpower Services Commission being marketed to them? I ask my hon. Friend to consider the possibility of a specific training programme being set up in Scunthorpe so that the town can be made more attractive to certain industries.

I appreciate what my hon. Friend says. I assure him that the aim behind the new adult training strategy that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has agreed with the MSC is for specific training relevant to the future.

Why did the Government cut the community programme, with its retraining element? Surely that was a senseless and irresponsible act. Is the Minister aware that in the county of Cumbria our places on the programme have been reduced from 1,700 to 900 over a period of only 18 months, with a loss of 700 jobs? Is it not utterly irresponsible for the Government to put people on the dole in this way? Will the Secretary of State restore the figures for Cumbria, because we want our community programme places back?

The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that after the community enterprise programme, with 30,000 places, the community programme, with 130,000 places, was introduced. That is no cut—it is a fourfold-plus increase.

Will my hon. Friend consider changing his policy and fund 40 to 50-year-olds on courses at skillcentres 100 per cent.? That would help the Perivale skillcentre, for example, very much.

My hon. Friend will be aware that every trainee at a skillcentre receives an allowance, so all the trainees are funded. Of course, the training is given to them free of charge.

Will the Minister offer some hope to the large number of people between the ages of 40 to 50? Is he aware that there is potential in the Open University to experiment with courses for the unemployed and for the long-term unemployed? Is he further aware that the Open Tech is in danger of having to invent the wheel again because there is no proper communication between the Open University, with its resources, and the Open Tech? Does he realise that money may be wasted by the way in which these courses are being rapidly expanded to help retrain that age group?

The hon. Gentleman does not quite understand what the Government are doing. As a result of the adult training strategy the numbers who are receiving training in the 40 to 50 year age group will be substantially increased. The Open Tech programme was launched by my right hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Prior) when he was Secretary of State for Employment. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would commend that initiative, not deride it.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received as to the effect of the youth training scheme on hospital wards already training nurses and ancillary staff.

I have received no direct representations on that subject.

I wish to make it quite clear that my question is prefaced by warm support for the youth training scheme. Will my hon. Friend keep a monitoring eye in case ward sisters, especially those who already have a rightfully heavy programme dealing with trainee nurses, become unduly overburdened by having in addition YTS trainees at the same time?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his warm support for the YTS. I assure him that the director of the Manpower Services Commission was in touch with the chief executive of the English National Board for Nursing Midwifery and Health Visiting about schemes in hospitals. My hon. Friend's point was also made by the director of the MSC.

Would it not be better to get the 4 million people back to work and have 4 million more national health stamps coming in every week, as we used to have, which could be used to create permanent jobs? Would that not be a better system?

The hon. Gentleman presumably understands that a job exists only when a product or a service is produced of a quality such that both he and I would wish to buy it. That is the simple answer.

If the Minister is tempted by the Secretary of State to cut back in the sphere that his hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham has just mentioned, will he restrain any further cutbacks in training in the mode B1 system of the YTS to ensure that we do not establish a two-tier system, which would be a great disadvantage to the scheme?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that at present on the mode B1 system there are 55,000 young trainees and 90,000 approved places. Next year we plan to have up to 70,000 trainees. Each approved unfilled place costs £2,000 although nobody is trained.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the European Economic Community countries where there are restrictions as a result of collective agreements on the freedom of some or all Government employees to take industrial action; and if he will indicate the groups of employees and the restrictions in each case, respectively.

Restrictions on the freedom to take industrial action of some or all Government employees in certain EEC countries arise principally as a result of legal prohibition. However, some Government employees in certain EEC countries are covered by legally enforceable collective agreements, which create an obligation not to take industrial action during their currency and that limits the freedom to take industrial action of those concerned.

Why deny Government communications headquarters' employees a no-strike agreement?

The matter was fully debated in the House. I set out the problems that exist and explained why the trade unions' proposals, which were genuine, fell short of the Government's requirements. The Government were supported by the Select Committee, which made it clear that it was the Government's overriding responsibility to ensure that their objectives were achieved.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a restrictive agreement with a number of unions in the Health Service in Lancashire and many other counties to prevent the Association of Professional Ambulance Personnel, which represents a majority of trade union members in Lancashire, from participating in industrial negotiations with the health authority? Does the Minister agree that that is disgraceful?

I must draw the hon. Member's attention to the fact that the main question relates to Government employees.

With reference to GCHQ, which was the basis of my hon. Friend's question, can the Secretary of State tell the House why the Government rejected the option of a ballot at GCHQ to see whether the employees wanted to join the union?

The Government have a clear responsibility for national security. That is recognised in domestic legislation and in International Labour Organisation conventions. It was the Government's judgment that it was in the interests of national security and that the primary function of those agencies was such that they should operate as the Government proposed.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many people are employed in the community programme at the latest available date.

On 29 February, the latest date for which figures are available, there were almost 112,000 people employed on the community programme.

Does my hon. Friend agree that this is an excellent programme for the long-term unemployed and for the community? Does he understand that in Lincolnshire there is great anxiety because the number of places on the scheme is being reduced by one third? It is wrong and it is bad management to ask anyone to reduce a programme at short notice by that amount. Will he undertake to restore the numbers on the scheme to their original level?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the appreciative remarks that he has made about the scheme. I know that he played a significant part in getting it off to a successful early start in Lincolnshire. He must accept that those who got off to an early start received more than their original allocation. Now that the scheme has proved successful throughout the United Kingdom it is necessary to adjust the allocation to its original figure in response to the dictates of fairness. There are Government constraints, and in the past three months the House of Commons has approved £25 million for the scheme. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that I cannot give an undertaking to increase that allocation in the near future.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 20 March.

I have been asked to reply.

In asking my right hon. Friend to convey to the Prime Minister our best wishes for success, may I also ask whether he is aware that on the home front, as a result of the Budget, 100,000 fewer pensioner households will be paying income tax than was the case under Labour? Does that not show that, as well as being a Budget for business and jobs, it is also a Budget for pensioners, and that we can get the priorities right, even if Opposition Members fail to recognise that?

I shall gladly convey best wishes to my right hon. Friend in her task at the European Council meeting. The House will be aware that she will be reporting on that tomorrow. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the pensioner households that will be taken out of tax as a result of my right hon. Friend's Budget, and further to observe that it is an extraordinarily well-judged and well-balanced Budget in what it offers and in terms of industry and social judgment.

On the subject of the treatment of pensioners, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that as a consequence of the Health and Social Security Bill pensioners will have to meet huge increases in the cost of their spectacles? Does he also understand that the greater their need to change their spectacles, the higher the cost will be? How can he possibly defend that?

The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that arrangements are made for the provision of National Health spectacles for pensioners. For the totality of pensioners, I have no doubt that the lifetime of this Government and Parliament will show an increase in pensioner living standards compared with what happened under the Labour Government.

I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman does not appear to be aware that pensioners no longer qualify for National Health Service spectacles. The only people who do qualify are the very poor and children under the age of 16. Is he aware that pensioners will now have to pay £70 to £80 for spectacles which they have been able to get on the National Health Service for £30? If he agrees with my view of that, and I suspect that he does, why does he not have changes made on Report?

I say at once to the right hon. Gentleman that my observations about pensioners' living standards took account of the recent changes in the legislation governing spectacles. It is a very short-term piece of politics to engage in scare talk of £80 for a pair of spectacles. It would be nice to have the debate carried further on Report, and we shall welcome that.

Will my right hon. Friend take time today to indicate to the Government of the Republic of Ireland the gratitude of Her Majesty's Government that McGlinchey was so rapidly extradited to Northern Ireland? Does this not indicate——

Order. I must warn the hon. Gentleman and the House that this matter is sub judice.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 20 March.

I have been asked to reply.

Regardless of the merits, does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that the blanket setting-up of road blocks to prevent the free movement of citizens is a serious invasion of civil liberty and has no basis whatever in law? Prior to the introduction of this arbitrary emergency power, what consultations and discussions took place between the Government and chief constables?

As to the first point, which I understand is the subject of legal action, I cannot comment upon any individual case, but there is no doubt about the general legal situation. If a constable reasonably concludes that persons are travelling for the purpose of taking part in a picket in circumstances where there is likely to be a breach of the peace, he has the common law power to call upon them not to continue their journey.

May I draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to the fact that my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health, during the Committee Stage of the Bill dealing with charges for spectacles, has noted that a number of elderly people who will face extreme extra charges if they are not allowed to have National Health Service spectacles will be the subject of some consideration? Can he back up the suggestion of his right hon. and learned Friend with an assurance to the House that people will not be penalised if their sight is very bad?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her comment. I am certain that in this matter, as on social services issues generally, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services needs no instruction from the Opposition Benches.

Can the Leader of the House tell the House by what statutory authority police have occupied the Speedwell rooms in Chesterfield and the Ashgate hospital? Will he give a categorical assurance that the Government have not put the armed forces on to alert?

I can give the right hon. Gentleman an assurance that the armed forces have not been put on alert.

In the context of the Prime Minister negotiating with other Heads of Government in the EEC, would it not be timely for her to remind the other Heads of Government that the reason for the unanimity rule is that the EEC should not destroy itself by taking decisions that are unacceptable to any member State?

I agree with that view.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 20 March.

I have been asked to reply.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many British companies are now experiencing considerable difficulties in securing orders in the Gulf because the Governments in that area—[Interruption.]—rightly resent the irresponsible muck-raking carried on in this House by Labour Members who have tried, unsuccessfully, to damage the Prime Minister's reputation? Do they realise how much harm they are doing to British industry? Doe they realise how many jobs are at risk because of their action?

I have no evidence of contracts lost, but I am sure my hon. Friend is right to say that the matters to which he referred could well make life that much more difficult for British exporters in the area. One thing is certain: what makes for grubby politics is rarely good for this country.

Is the Leader of the House aware that people outside the mining community, ordinary folk, are concerned about the over-reaction of the police in the miners' dispute, which clearly shows that the Government are taking the course of establishing a police state? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House and the public outside whether they are planning to move to a one-party state?

There is rarely an industrial dispute that cannot be made worse by the rhetoric of politicians, but to talk about a police state or the Government trying to connive at a one-party state is a straight absurdity. In my opinion, the police have performed a most important role in enabling those who wish to work to exercise that right.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 20 March.

I have been asked to reply.

Does not my right hon. Friend applaud the speed with which the Irish Garda recenty accomplished the capture of Mr. Dominic McGlinchey? Does he not also applaud the increasing co-operation between security forces on both sides of the border? Will he pay tribute to the Taoiseach for standing up to the extremists who are trying to upset him, particularly in the United States of America, since that must bode well for future Anglo-Irish relations?

I join my hon. Friend in congratulating the Garda on securing the captivity of Mr. McGlinchey. I also agree with my hon. Friend on the other points that he raised and in hoping that this will augur continued and improving relations between this country and the Irish Republic.

Is the Leader of the House not concerned that only 179 Conservative Members have signed early-day motion 585 about the Prime Minister? Does the Leader of the House feel that that low number can be accounted for by the fact that many Conservative Members agree with the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), who feels that the Prime Minister should make a statement to the House?

I am sure that connoisseurs of early-day motions will be more than satisfied by the time the final number has been tallied.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 20 March.

I have been asked to reply.

Will the Leader of the House say whether he believes the chairman of the Conservative party, who said that the "Panorama" programme on Right-wing infiltration of the Tory party was incorrect, or whether he believes the chairman of the Young Conservatives, who said that it was correct?

The "Panorama" programme is itself now the subject of legal representations and I shall very properly curtail my comments on that account. Let me say at once, however, that it would not need the proposition of a comparison between my hon. Friend the chairman of the Conservative party and the chairman of the Young Conservatives for me to say without question that my hon. Friend has conducted his chairmanship and investigation of this issue with total integrity. The fact that the matter is now being considered for reference to the Broadcasting Complaints Commission is a sign of the very serious concern felt about it.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that in answer to a recent question of mine the Prime Minister stated that more than £1,000 million a year of public money is pumped into Merseyside? Are the taxpayers getting value for their money, and would it not be a good thing if the Liverpool council stopped whining and started obeying the law?

The very statistic that my hon. Friend quotes is a reason why there would be very little public tolerance of a revolt by the Militant Tendency councillors on the Liverpool council.