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

:The Government expect to receive further advice from the Manpower Services Commission on the future development of the youth training scheme within the next few weeks and will take this into account in reviewing the scheme.

:Has my hon. Friend seen sufficient of the scheme to be satisfied that it has been successfully instituted? Could it be expanded in the reasonably near future to become a two-year programme?

:I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that, by general consent, the scheme has been very successful indeed. Expanding the scheme so that it lasted for two years would, of course, involve considerably more resources.

:If the Minister is not able to give the House an assurance that the whole scheme can be extended to last for two years, will he give particular consideration to the needs of young people who are slow learners or who are physically handicapped? They need a two-year scheme, as opposed to a one-year scheme, in order to obtain the full benefit from it. Will the Minister consider extending the scheme for two years for such young people?

I assure the hon. Gentleman that the needs of the groups to whom he refers are among the matters which my right hon. Friend and I are carefully considering. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the scheme has been extended for the disabled.

Given the often extremely mischievous attempts to decry the scheme as a total failure, can my hon. Friend tell us how many of the young people involved have managed to find permanent employment, or the promise of permanent employment, at the conclusion of the first year of the scheme?

It is a little early to give a precise figure. However, the early signs are very encouraging and suggest that the placement rates will compare very favourably with those achieved on the youth opportunities programme.

Why have the Government devalued the YTS by lowering the real value of the YTS allowance? Is the Minister aware that an increase of 5 per cent. in no way keeps pace with the rate of inflation? Has he noticed that the Secretary of State for Transport plans to increase London Transport fares by 10 or 12 per cent., on the plea that that is necessitated by the rate of inflation? What is the reason for those double standards?

There are just under a quarter of a million trainees on the scheme and they do not entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman about the level of allowance. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Manpower Services Commission recently made a recommendation to my right hon. Friend, which we are now considering.

Does the Minister not realise that when his Department and the MSC took the decision to abolish mode B1 places for community projects under the YTS considerable damage was done to area boards? Will he, in reviewing the operation of the scheme, take the advice of area boards of the MSC rather than rely on the MSC, which seems to be out of touch with the realities of the situation?

As the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, it is a significant waste of taxpayers' money if only 55,000 of the 90,000 mode B1 places are occupied. We have decided that there will be about 70,000 places, which seems to be the right way of approaching the matter.

Will my hon. Friend liaise with his hon. Friends in the Ministry of Defence to ascertain whether its scheme, which, I believe, is one of the best in the country, can be further extended and advertised?

I assure my hon. Friend that my hon. Friends in the Ministry of Defence and I talk about that scheme. I appreciate what my hon. Friend said about advertising the scheme.

Is the Minister aware that the proposal to increase the YTS allowance by only £1·25 per week is disgraceful, bearing in mind that the YTS allowance has been pegged at £25 since its inception? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Government continually veto all proposals to increase that allowance in line with inflation, such as the proposal recommended by the MSC? Is he further aware that YTS trainees should be paid properly, at a figure of about £34 per week, not £26·25 per week? Are the Government not using this measure to depress wage levels for all young people generally?

Surely the right hon. and learned Gentleman is aware that the MSC recommended an increase to £26·25, by a majority of six to three. That means all the local authorities agreeing with the CBI, and the TUC dissenting. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has not yet made up his mind about the precise level of allowance in the year ahead.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what action has been taken about the corrupt issuing of work permits by officials of his Department.

The Director of Public Prosecutions has recently decided that there is no adequate basis for proceedings against any official of my Department. Following this, an internal investigation has been started to establish whether further procedural safeguards are needed to supplement those already introduced since these matters first came to light in 1982.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Is he aware that the investigation was carried out by the most junior police officer that one could find? Is my hon. Friend really satisfied that these matters have been fully and properly investigated? Does he think that the decision by the Director of Public Prosecutions was based on evidence obtained by police officers who did not have the will to investigate the matter properly?

I have read the transcript of the trial. I understand some of the points that my hon. Friend has implied, although I certainly would not endorse the tone of his question. My Department co-operated fully with the police in this matter. I am not responsible for the vigour with which the police pursue their investigations or the level at which they conduct them—those are matters for my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.

Is it fair that Mark Fiora and Brett Saunders have been denied work permits and prevented from riding for the Monarchs, the famous Edinburgh speedway team?

The hon. Gentleman has made great headway on these cases, and he knows very well that I have done my best to help him. The fact remains that speedway riders in that category of competition do not earn sufficient money to support themselves simply by speedway riding. It is generally recognised that they take odd jobs and perform casual labour, to the detriment of the prospects of the domestic work force, and, for that reason, their permits are refused.

Is my hon. Friend aware that Reuben Davis was earning £50,000 per year from illegal immigration into this country—£8,000 a time for a work permit from the Department? Is my hon. Friend also aware that in 1975 Alex Lyon, then the Minister of State, Home Office, warned the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins), then the Home Secretary, of what was going on in his Department and that there seems to have been a glorious cover-up? Does my hon. Friend understand that Back Benchers will not tolerate the kind of cover-up that we have seen in the Civil Service?

I always welcome my hon. Friend's robust interventions. I am sure that the whole House appreciates the manner in which he sets himself up as a watchdog on this type of subject. I have no knowledge of Reuben Davis's earnings, whether legal or illegal. As I said earlier, an investigation is under way. I hope that the report will be to hand by the end of the month. If my hon. Friend attends the next Employment Question Time on 2 August, he will be able to ask me about the subject again.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the total number of people occupied on Government special employment measures; and how this number has altered since 1979.

A total of 622,000 people in Great Britain were supported by the Government's special employment and training measures at the end of April 1984. This is an increase of 388,000 over the April 1979 figure.

Surely this shows that Government intervention can reduce unemployment. Therefore, the Minister should embark on schemes of public expenditure to help inner cities such as the area which I represent. Does he accept that he should embark on road-building schemes and perhaps even turn his attention to the sewerage systems in many major cities? That approach would help to reduce unemployment.

I believe that we should seek every means of reducing unemployment, but it would not help to reduce unemployment by taxing successful schemes to produce jobs which would reduce the opportunities of employment in successful firms. I shall pass on the hon. Gentleman's remarks to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

At what level does my hon. Friend envisage the total number on such schemes in future?

We are examining the schemes, because we have to consider how we may improve them. I shall be happy to answer my hon. Friend's question when we have completed the investigation.

Is the Minister aware that in Birmingham we are gravely concerned about the operation of the largest of the schemes, the youth training scheme, because it appears that between two thirds and three quarters of those who have left it are unemployed? We are told by the local area board that the minimum criteria for renewal that it has set are not met by 40 per cent. of the schemes and that only 3 per cent. are better than the criteria.

I ask the hon. Lady to help the young people concerned by supporting the schemes which we have introduced instead of constantly attacking them and making statements which seem not to tally with statements made in the Birmingham area.

Has any estimate been made of the net cost to public funds of these schemes? Even if there is a negative cost to the Exchequer, will the Minister accept that the community benefit of many of the schemes is such that he might be well advised to increase their number, rather than inhibit their growth?

The hon. Gentleman is right to suggest that we should consider the schemes from that point of view, and we are doing so. Each scheme has a different net cost, and sometimes net costs differ from one part of a scheme to another.

Will my hon. Friend ensure that the MSC makes it clear to young people who are denied opportunities in the postal services, local and national Government service and in printing that they will not be able to follow schemes in those sectors because of politically motivated opposition from the trade unions?

My hon. Friend has made an important point. However, I should much prefer Opposition Members to speak in a non-party political way about the youth training scheme. It is for that reason that I have gone in for a self-denying ordinance of not pointing out the outrageous activities of those who seek to oppose the scheme.

Will the Minister acknowledge that the job release scheme, introduced by a Labour Government, is one of the best and most imaginative of all Government schemes, but that, regrettably, more than 250,000 men between the ages of 62 and 64 no longer qualify for that scheme? Should not the Government have reduced the age of eligibility from 62 to 60, rather than increasing it from 62 to 64?

I am sure we all agree that it is an imaginative scheme —so much so that the hon. Gentleman's party changed the rules four times. [Interruption.] I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that we have to look at all the schemes together and decide how best the money should be spent. We have not at the moment any intention of changing the scheme.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the latest number of unemployed in the United Kingdom.

On 10 May the number of unemployed claimants in the United Kingdom was 3,084,457.

Will you accept from me, Mr. Speaker, that I am about to talk in a non-party political way, like the chairman of the Tory party?

I am grateful to the hon. Member for his bipartisan approach to the question. I do not see the point of trying to argue about whether or not the figures are massaged in a particular way, unless there is an hon. Member who actually thinks that 3 million unemployed is an acceptable figure and that 3·5 million is not acceptable. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will join me in saying that the figure is too high, that it is a matter of concern to everybody in the House, and that we are all concerned to see that unemployment is reduced and people are able to get real jobs. Against that background, I hope the hon. Gentleman will welcome the fact that in the past month, in his city of Sheffield, placings in the jobcentre were 22 per cent. higher than for the same period last year.

In view of that last answer. will my right hon. Friend say whether productivity is increasing, and, if it is, what effect it is having on employment generally?

My hon. Friend puts his finger on a very important point. Of course, we have the problem of a further 160,000 people corning into the work market at present. It is also important to note that we have a continuing improvement in productivity of about 8 per cent. in manufacturing. That is very important indeed for the future competitiveness of Britain, but it raises problems at the present time in regard to employment. It is vital, if we are to have real jobs, that we continue to improve our productivity.

Is the Secretary of State aware that, despite his attitude about the unemployment figures in the west midlands, the unemployed to vacancy ratio stands at over 35? Even if every one of the unemployed—on the Secretary of State's definition—got a job, there would still be 34 in the west midlands, on his statistics, who would not. Does the Secretary of State agree that he actually likes to have 3 million unemployed, because he uses them as a weapon against the rest of the organised trade union movement?

The hon. Gentleman will have heard me say categorically from this Dispatch Box that the present level of unemployment is unacceptably high, and I do not in any sense regard it as acceptable. The only hope of getting jobs that last is to have an economy in which inflation is low, in which interest rates are lower than those of some of our major competitors overseas, in which productivity keeps rising, and in which growth continues to improve. Those are the conditions that we have established and they are the best hope for the unemployed.

Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that there would be a further severe rise in unemployment if there were to be a public sector moratorium on construction work? Will he make it clear to his Cabinet colleagues that such a thing must be resisted at all costs?

I feel that, in a previous incarnation, I have been here before. My hon. Friend will know—I do riot wish to trespass on other matters—that one of the most important issues which we must tackle are the levels of public expenditure to ensure that, through them, interest rates do not rise and that we do not have inflation rising again, otherwise we shall do infinitely more damage to the construction industry and every other industry, but I have no comment to make on the point that my hon. Friend raises.

In view of what the right hon. Gentleman has been telling the House, can he say whether unemployment at the end of this year will be lower than it was at the beginning of the year?

So far as I know, no Minister of any Government has forecast future levels of unemployment. I have put these issues to the House in what I hope is a sensible and responsible way. The House knows the challenges that we face. The rates of unemployment of some of our partners in the EEC are now at significantly higher levels than those which we face. This is a world problem that we are tackling, and we are tackling it in a responsible way.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the mad antics of Arthur Scargill and his cohorts are likely to cause more long-term unemployment than anything else that is happening in Britain, because of the effects of what they are doing on other people's costs, coupled with the fact that people will find substitutes for coal, which in turn will damage long-term employment in the mining industry?

The present situation is extremely serious. It is interesting to note, for example, that were serious damage to be done to the steel industry by the present dispute, that would be likely to cost more jobs in the mining industry than possibly even in the steel industry. Therefore, the present situation poses a major threat to jobs.

Is the Secretary of State aware that included in the appalling unemployment total is the high figure of long-term unemployed, now running at more than 1·25 million? Is he further aware that we would take his protestations of concern more seriously if the Government would, for example, give the long-term rate of supplementary benefit to the long-term unemployed? If the Government are not prepared to give these people social justice, what hope does the right hon. Gentlemam offer to more than 1 million people, most of whom will never work again?

That was an irresponsible statement for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to make. He knows that about 6 million people will get new jobs in Britain this year and that among them will be many of the long-term unemployed. I have complaints coming to my Department about the difficulties faced, for example, by London Transport in recruiting bus drivers in London, and about the difficulty that is being experienced in getting people for skilled and semi-skilled jobs in London and the southeast. It so happens that the greatest number of long-term unemployed are in London and the south-east. I do not accept that they must feel that there is no chance of getting a job. We are determined to see that they have that chance.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will visit the Westcombe industrial unit for the disabled in Peterborough.

As my hon. Friend will know, I intend to visit the unit on Tuesday 24 July.

Is my hon. Friend aware that he will be most welcome in Peterborough? Is he further aware that the Westcombe unit and its associated sheltered workshops are among the best in the country and that we hope that as a result of his visit he will be able to disseminate information to other workshops for the benefit of the disabled?

I look forward to being able to corroborate the favourable comments of my hon. Friend. Westcombe industries are playing a constructive part in the employment of the disabled, because a high proportion of the work force is in sheltered industrial groups, which give better value to the taxpayer and, we believe, give a greater degree of fulfilment and self-esteem to the disabled people so placed.

Will the Minister, when looking at the whole question of industrial development and sheltered workshops, consider changing the law in regard to blind people? Is he aware that the only disabled who cannot move in and out of sheltered employment are the blind? Paraplegics can. Is this not an injustice to the blind?

I think I heard you say under your breath, Mr. Speaker, that the general question of the blind was not really germane to the main question. When in Peterborough, I shall look at the position as it relates to Westcombe industrial estates.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has any plans to introduce legislation to amend section 47 of the Race Relations Act 1976; and if he will make a statement.

Yes, Sir, but precise details have yet to be decided. My right hon. Friend will make an announcement in due course.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Commission for Racial Equality's code of practice for employment exacerbates rather than soothes racial feelings? Since the code was introduced under section 47 of the Race Relations Act in a way which makes it impossible for the House or the Secretary of State to amend it, does my hon. Friend accept that many hon. Members would like that legislation to be amended as soon as possible?

I reject the allegation that the code exacerbates racial feelings. The code has no legislative force, as my hon. Friend knows, but it is extremely useful as a general document of reference for the majority of cases in which natural common sense and humanity applies and which might need reference to a set of advisory assertions. The code has a value in that role. My hon. Friend says that the Secretary of State does not have the power to amend the code, only to accept or reject it. We hope to correct that by legislation in the near future.

If the Minister rejects the views expressed by the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Proctor), which I venture to doubt, why do he and his Government play down the importance of the code by calling it merely advisory, when it has more force than that? Why do Ministers fail to implement its recommendations in any Government Department, including that of the Minister?

On the contrary, I am surprised that the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner), who lays claim to a certain stature and respect in the House, should make personal allegations of that kind at Question Time. I do not propose to comment further. The Commission for Racial Equality published its report today. The hon. and learned Gentleman might not have had time to see it. That report welcomes the steady progress that the Government are making in this respect.

Is it the business of the Government to introduce codes which have no legal force and which are merely advisory? Would it not be better to say honestly and openly that this is not an area of activity in which any Government should be engaged?

No. In this complex and evolving example of race relations it is useful to have a work of reference. The code is no more than that.

Will the Minister not only reject the views expressed by his colleagues on the Back Benches, but go further and give the code a more positive position in his Department and in the Manpower Services Commission? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that after much probing Opposition Members discovered that only 15 of the area manpower boards have any ethnic representation? Will he ensure that his Department issues a directive so that black people can be members of the manpower boards?

I note what the hon. Gentleman says. The Manpower Services Commission is aware of the position. The trouble is that the candidates are not coming forward.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will consider proposals for the privatisation of the Professional and Executive Recruitment Service.

There are no plans for the moment to change the basis of operation of the service, but we shall be keeping it under review in the light of its financial performance.

Since the service used to cost the taxpayer £5 million a year, and since, thanks to the excellent work of the Manpower Services Commission, it now operates on a cost-recovery basis, does my hon. Friend agree that it is time to invite the Manpower Services Commission to prepare proposals for the privatisation of the service?

As my hon. Friend says, the Manpower Services Commission and the officials in the Professional and Executive Recruitment Service have done a magnificent job in putting it on to a cost-recovery basis. We have only just achieved that position and in future options can, perhaps, be considered.

Given the growing public concern over the number of Tory Members of Parliament financially linked with companies seeking privatisation, would it not be useful for the Government to ask any company which seeks private work through the Professional and Executive Recruitment Service to publish the names of those Conservative Members who are on the payroll of such interested companies?

As I understand it, all hon. Members declare their interests.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement about the operation of the community programme.

Since its introduction in October 1982 the community programme has proved a valuable scheme to help the long-term unemployed. Its progress has been much helped by the efforts of sponsors, who have organised projects to achieve the programme's objectives. We now have 116,000 long-term unemployed on the scheme.

Does my right hon. Friend have any plans to extend the community programme, which is very popular and which provides jobs?

The community programme is expanding and we are building up to the first target of 130,000 places. I am reviewing a number of schemes at this moment and I am aware of the popularity of the community programme.

Is the Secretary of State aware of the difficulties which the £60 average wage is creating in running some of the courses? How much has the real purchasing power of that depreciated since the scheme was introduced? Why can it not be adjusted according to inflation?

The hon. Gentleman will know that there is a straight test between the level of the average wage or salary on the scheme and the number of people who can be accommodated on it. We are anxious to provide for the maximum number of people and therefore it is a question of trying to determine the right balance in that respect. I understand why he asks that question.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the community programme is being used to support the so-called TUC centres for the unemployed? While some of those are doing a constructive job in helping the unemployed, others are no more than centres for extreme Left-wing party political propaganda. What guidelines will he give the MSC on the use of the community programme for that purpose?

I know that the MSC has been concerned about some aspects of the earlier schemes in some of the centres that were set up. I understand that it has been having discussions with the TUC on that matter.

Is the Secretary of State aware that in the county of Cumbria community programme places have been cut from 1,600 to 900 in two years and yet we made a valiant effort to make the scheme succeed within the county? Will he give us an assurance now that he will go into the Cabinet and argue with Treasury Ministers the need for an additional allocation next year to compensate for the loss in areas such as my own where this is the only form of new employment available?

I know that the hon. Gentleman has been having discussions with my hon. Friend the Minister of State on that matter. I know also that he will be fair and recognise that it was possible in the initial stages to give Cumbria an allocation higher than its percentage of long-term unemployment would have justified, because there. was a short delay in take-up in other places. I am sure that he would not argue for Cumbria to have an unfair allocation in relation to other counties, but I know why he raises the question.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the community programme has done excellent work, particularly in Scotland? In view of its worthwhile contribution to improving the environment, will he give an assurance that the scheme can be carried on and so provide employment for workers from the very depressed construction sector?

There is general support, which I note from comments made in the House, for the community programme as a means of helping the long-term unemployed. I do not propose to comment further at this moment, but I hope to have something to say before too long about the programme and its continuance.

Will the Secretary of State take the trouble to read the CBI report "The Fabric of the Nation", where he will see that Britain's industrial managers are calling for a sensible programme of public works which would, first, benefit Britain's infrastructure and, secondly, reduce long-term unemployment? Surely that would be the most intelligent community programme of all?

The hon. Gentleman raises that question as though there were not a very substantial programme of public works at the moment. We are carrying out a substantial programme of public works in terms of public expenditure on infrastructure and other areas consistent with what we think the country can afford and which does not damage the prospects for inflation and interest rates, thereby damaging employment prospects for the whole country. That is an issue which we must have very much in mind.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement about the role of apprenticeship training in meeting the requirements of British industry for a skilled work force.

Apprentice training remains an important source of skilled manpower. But the wider aim must be to open up access to training and hence to jobs through a coherent system of standards and certificates of competence.

Does the Minister not see the need to expand Government aid for the apprenticeship scheme, especially when they have abolished the ITBs, and bearing in mind the effect of the Government's disastrous policy on the scheme? If the hon. Gentleman shares that view, why has he or the Secretary of State, found it necessary to give instructions in recent weeks to stop the unemployment pay of craft apprentices in the mining industry? Was it a direct instruction from the Secretary of State, or was it a nudge from Mr. MacGregor to put the boot into the miners yet again?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that training is very important. As I said in my original answer, apprenticeships have a very important part to play. But, as I also said, we must have broader based training. That is why the Government, on behalf of the taxpayer, have invested a significant amount of money through the youth training scheme.

Is my hon. Friend aware that in my constituency already, as a sign of emergence from recession, employers, especially in the newer industries, are again finding a shortage of skilled people to work in those industries, despite all that this Government and their predecessors have tried to do? In view of that, is my hon. Friend willing to meet a deputation from the Dorset chamber of commerce and industry so that it may make direct representations to him?

I am always happy to meet any deputation, especially when there are skill shortages. However, the general form of the adult training strategy is to be more flexible and more responsive than has been the case hitherto.

Is the Minister aware of the role that revamped apprenticeship schemes could play in the uprating and updating of our technical skills for the high-tech industries? Is he aware, further, of the recent NEDC report, which showed the horrific gap between this country, Japan, Germany and the United States in this respect? Was he not present at a recent meeting of eight senior Ministers which turned down a proposal for £400 million to switch into new technology training?

I thought that there was general agreement in the House that we should get away from time serving and get on to standards. That is precisely what we are doing in terms of the quality of both the YTS and our adult training strategy.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a further statement on the level of unemployment in the United Kingdom.

The fight for jobs is a battle to improve Britain's competitiveness and to ensure that higher productivity leads to new opportunities and not only to higher wages for those in work.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the best way of creating real lasting jobs for the future is for us to produce goods and services at a competitive price and thus create real new markets?

I can confirm that, and I remind my hon. Friend that other countries are finding a very much better way of decreasing unit labour costs compared with ourselves. We have to make sure that those at work do not kill the prospects for jobs of others who do not have them.

Is it not ironic that when unemployment seems to be our only growth industry the Government propose to cut the services to help the unemployed get jobs? What advice would the Minister give to an unemployed person in a place such as Denny in my constituency, where unemployment is more than 30 percent. and the Government's only response is to downgrade the local jobcentre so that anyone unemployed who cannot afford the bus fare has to walk several miles into Falkirk to the nearest jobcentre?

The present proposals will create 200 more jobcentres and provide a better service than the present ones.

Does my hon. Friend agree that employment could be improved greatly if people bought more British goods, provided that they were of equal quality and competitive in price? Will he smile upon the "Think British" campaign?

It is obviously true that if people bought more British goods there would be more jobs in Britain, but those goods much be competitive in price and design. One of the problems at present is that the Labour party does little to help that work.

Will the hon. Gentleman reflect on his statement in reply to a previous question, when he exhorted us to adopt a non-party approach to unemployment? Will he also reflect on the statements made by the Tory party in 1979 and in its manifesto in 1983, when it decided to cut unemployment? Has it done so, and if not, when does it intend to do so?

The hon. Gentleman will remember that I said that the youth training scheme would be benefited if people took a non-party political view, instead of constantly attacking it, like the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) does.

Is it not time that the Labour party recognised that Arthur Scargill is threatening to cause more unemployment, not only among the miners but among steel workers, transport workers and many other groups, than anyone else in the country?

The jobs of miners and steel workers depend on sensible production in the coal mines. The Government are providing £2 million a day to ensure that those coal mines are able to produce as they ought to. It is very sad that in the name of only part of the mining industry some people are trying to torpedo that.