asked the Secretary of State for Employment what recent discussions he has had with the International Labour Organisation about the withdrawal of trade union rights at Government Communications Headquarters.

The International Labour Organisation has written in connection with the report on GCHQ by the Committee on Freedom of Association. The Government will be responding to this report within the next few weeks.

Can the Secretary of State explain to the ILO why, if there was a real, serious threat to national security, the Government took no action for three long years after the events of which they complain? How could competent Ministers allow themselves to be involved in such dereliction of duty?

I see that the hon. Gentleman recognises that there is a case for taking action because of the deliberate campaign to damage defence readiness, which was part of the Civil Service dispute. I believe that the time scale shows the lengths to which the Government went to see whether alternative routes were available.

When the Government said at the beginning of the dispute that they would be bound by the domestic legal process, did they mean that they would not accept the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights in this matter?

The question of being bound by the domestic legal process had relevance to the request from the trade unions for a stay of any further action with regard to the employees affected at GCHQ.

Will the Secretary of State therefore give an assurance that national security will not be used as a pretext for banning trade unions in other Government Departments?

I think that that assurance has been given very clearly indeed throughout the main generality of the Civil Service. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the specific provision of convention 151, that

"employees whose duties are of a highly confidential nature should be determined by national laws and regulations."

When my right hon. Friend meets bodies, such as the ILO, will he point out that GCHQ is unique in that a vital part of its work is carried out within our intelligence framework, that the individuals working there understand and have always understood that and that that is why they never took action in the past? Is he aware that when I represented them 20 years ago they would not even have considered such action?

Yes, but the Opposition never seem to accept that. They fail to recognise that it was the boast of the Civil Service unions during the campaign, to quote an actual campaign document, that

"The use of selective strike action by members in sensitive areas is a key part of our campaign. Our ultimate success depends upon the extent to which … defence readiness is hampered."

Is the Secretary of State aware that ballots can still take place at GCHQ, that in a recent ballot an individual was elected by 89 per cent. of the participants to represent them in pay negotiations, that that is a far greater proportion than the 85 per cent. required for a closed shop, but that the individual has nevertheless been forced to resign? Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to continue to encourage management to conduct ballots until it finds someone acceptable to it and to the Secretary of State?

The internal affairs of GCHQ are a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. I suspect, however, that it would be interesting to know exactly who were the participants in that ballot.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the number of adult job retraining places within the Greater London council area.

We plan to train approaching 12,000 people this year in Greater London through the training opportunities scheme. In 1985–86 we expect to support nearly 17,000 adult training places in Greater London.

Is the Minister aware that the reply that I recently received from his Department made it clear that there are well over 65,000 men and women over the age of 50 who are unemployed in London? As many of them still have commitments — their children may he at school, or they may be buying their house—they have little hope of taking up a place on an adult retraining scheme. At this Christmas season, what message of hope can the Minister offer to those people? In particular, what can he tell them about their future employment prospects?

I am aware of what the hon. Gentleman says about unemployment in Greater London. However, the numbers to be trained next year will substantially increase because of the rejigging of the adult training strategy. Some £75 million will be spent through the Manpower Services Commission on training and retraining in London.

How many training places are provided in Greater London through the Greater London Training Board, as opposed to the Manpower Services Commission?

The Greater London Training Board, by way of topping up the work of the MSC, has spent £7 million this year, compared with expenditure of £75 million by the MSC.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will meet the Confederation of British Industry to discuss the long-term improvement of industrial relations.

The long-term improvement of industrial relations is an important topic of discussion in our frequent contacts with representatives of the CBI.

Does my hon. Friend agree that greater employee participation has an important part to play in the long-term improvement of industrial relations, and will he emphasise the importance and urgency of the matter when he next meets the CBI?

Yes, Sir. Employee involvement and participation and the spread of share ownership help to persuade people to work together for the prosperity of the country and the security of their own jobs.

How can there be any improvement in industrial relations when the Government spend all their time bashing the trade union movement, legislating against it and trying to destroy it? How can such a Government turn round and make mealy-mouthed satements about their interest in good industrial relations?

If the hon. Gentleman believes that spreading democracy within the trade unions amounts to bashing them, he takes a different view from that taken by most people and members of trade unions.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what are the latest figures for the numbers of people entering the youth training scheme and finding a job immediately in the Manpower Services Commission area serving Basildon; and how these figures compare (a) with the national figures and (b) with the local and national figures one year ago.

An informal survey of managing agents and sponsors in Essex shows that, to the best of their knowledge, more than seven out of 10 youngsters leaving the youth training scheme are going into jobs. A recent national sample survey indicated that almost six out of 10 leavers were in work at the time of the survey.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the success rate in Basildon is even higher, and is he encouraged by that fact? Does he agree that the youth training scheme offers excellent training and every prospect of a permanent job at the end of a placement?

I agree that Basildon has done particularly well and that, whatever Opposition Members may think, the youth training scheme is successful in every possible way. That success is demonstrated particularly clearly by the fact that the youngsters themselves approve of and like it.

Will the Minister assure the young people of Basildon, Bradford, and many other places, that he has no proposal to deny them supplementary benefit if, for whatever reason, they refuse a youth training scheme place?

As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, I have seen some of the schemes in Bradford, and they too, are very successful.

"We have therefore decided that withdrawal of supplementary benefit will not take place in September 1983 and that there will be a further review after a year's operation of the scheme."—[Official Report, 21 June 1982; Vol. 26, c. 23.]

Can the Minister confirm that youngsters aged 16 will face a fine of £17·30 a week if they refuse a place on the youth training scheme? Many young people, who see the scheme as cheap labour, prefer to take the advice to get on their bikes and look for jobs. Should not the Minister consider the advice of the Select Committee to use whatever spare places are available to provide such opportunities for the 1 million young people under the age of 25? Is it not strange that a Government who believe in freedom of choice should be recruiting young people into forced labour schemes?

I can confirm that, apparantly unlike the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends, the Government are working towards unemployment for 16 and 17-year-olds not being an option. I can also confirm that, for 18 to 24-year-olds, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced that of the 130,000 community programme places, 50,000 would have training. More than half of the places on the community programme are occupied by 18 to 24-year-olds.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many young people are employed under the young workers scheme in firms which come under the Distributive Trades Wages Council.

The Retail Trade (Non Food) Wages Council has chosen to set a weekly minimum rate of pay for 17-year-olds which, by just 5p, is too high to enable employers in that trade to claim support under the young workers scheme.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is nonsense for the Government to set aside funds to encourage employers to take on young people at realistic rates of pay when wages councils make any employer who takes advantage of that scheme in breach of the regulations? How many young people are on the dole because of this stupidity, and when will the Government act?

As my hon. Friend knows, we are examining wages councils. We encourage representations from all quarters, including his, which, though not unpredictable, is welcome. The fixing of a limit which is so narrowly calculated to frustrate the working of a Government scheme is unlikely to be accidental.

Perhaps for the information of the House and others who are listening the Minister will say how much the wages council rate is in pounds and pence. Will he confirm that when Sir John Hoskyns, who I believe now has something to do with the Institute of Directors, was the head of a policy unit under the Prime Minister, he produced a paper which said that the aim of the young workers scheme and the youth training scheme was to increase the differential between adult rates and young workers' rates — in other words, to create a pool of cheap youth labour?

The hon. Gentleman is waxing very indignant about wage rates, but he must decide to which he attaches the greater importance: the wage rates of those who are in work, or to the job prospects of those who are seeking work.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of young people aged 16 to 24 years, not currently in full-time education, are without full-time, permanent employment at the latest date for which figures are available.

The labour force survey a year ago showed that the approximate percentages were: 46 in full-time employment, seven in other employment, making 53 in all; 20 in full-time education, three in training and employment schemes, making 23; 10 were not seeking work, including those looking after a home or family; and 13 were unemployed seeking work.

I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Does he understand what a personal tragedy it is for the third of a million young people who have been out of work for more than one year? Does he appreciate that if the Government intend to bully young school leavers on to youth training schemes there will be massive and widespread opposition? Will he give an assurance that he will undertake realistic and widespread consultations with people who are involved in YTS before the Government take a decision? Will he also undertake, in view of the gravity of the Government's proposals, to arrange for a debate on the Floor of the House before such a scheme is implemented?

The Gentleman will have heard what my hon. Friend the Minister of State has said, and the hon. Gentleman's final question should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. I can say, however, that it is common ground that we must build up the quality of training, encourage people to take that training and ensure that all school leavers get the best possible opportunities to meet the needs for jobs in the future and to create the prosperity on which our future depends.

If there are to be more courses on computer skills and similar subjects in further education, which means local authorities being involved in more expenditure, will the Government take care to ensure that expenditure which is designed to help young unemployed people will not push local authorities into penalty zones with regard to the rate support grant?

I hesitate to answer on behalf of my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Education and Science and for the Environment. I believe that my hon. Friend will recognise that much of what he has been pushing for has led to greater attention being paid to technical and vocational education in and out of school.

Yesterday the Prime Minister said that every 16, 17 and 18-year-old had an opportunity lo go into either training or further education. Does the Under-Secretary of State agree that that is not a real option when many young people going into further education receive a grant of only £200 a year, which, in effect, debars them from obtaining that education?

The hon. Gentleman is encouraging us to do more and to do better. We shall certainly take on board his remarks.

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the best ways of helping to create jobs for the young unemployed and others who are unemployed is to reduce employers' national insurance contributions? That would be a more effective way of helping to create jobs than raising tax thresholds.

My hon. Friend is right, but we need to recognise that employers take part in wage bargaining, and at present wage rates are rising faster than the growth in output or productivity.

Is the Minister aware that, as many young people are out of work for so long, long-term unemployment is becoming a social cancer? Will the hon. Gentleman ensure that the re-employment of the long-term unemployed is a top Government priority and that the level of long-term unemployment is the main criterion for Government aid?

There is agreement on both sides of the House that trying to create opportunities for the long-term unemployed, whether young or old, to return to employment is a high priority. I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's support.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received recently on the closure of skillcentres.

Since my statement in the House about the skillcentre proposals being made to the Manpower Services Commission by the Skillcentre Training Agency, my colleagues and I have received some 50 letters on the subject.

Is the Secretary of State aware that throughout the country numerous firms have declared their opposition to the closure of skillcentres, which provide the up-to-date and relevant skills for their industries? I have received letters on this matter from Taylor Woodrow and Lonhro and from the sunrise and sunset industries, if one must use that terminology. Will the right hon. Gentleman instruct the MSC to consult all bodies — not only employers, but trade unions and education authorities— before any of these closures are brought forward?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the officials in the MSC and the Skillcentre Training Agency gave evidence to the Select Committee and agreed to defer making any decision at their last meeting on this subject. I understand that the Select Committee will hold a further meeting with the Civil Service unions concerned in this matter. I know that the MSC will be anxious to hear the views of anyone who wishes to comment on these proposals.

Will my right hon. Friend reconsider whether the Twickenham skillcentre, which he visited last year and which he knows does excellent work, can be saved? Failing that, will he ascertain what other openings within easy reach of the area can be offered to staff and trainees?

I know that my hon. Friend was extremely prompt in expressing his interest in the skillcentre in his constituency and that he sent one of the letters that we received on the subject. I know also that he has spoken to my hon. Friend the Minister of State. We shall certainly consider the points that he has made.

How will the proposed closure of the skillcentre at Castle Bromwich help people to acquire the skills they need to obtain a reasonable chance of getting a job?

If the hon. Gentleman has a chance to look at the proposals, he will note that they will establish a wider range of adult training and ensure that we provide more opportunities. The figures for the midlands show that there will be an increase of 157 per cent. in the number of people who will be able to receive adult training under the new proposals. That is on the basis of the proposals made by the Skillcentre Training Agency.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the devil makes work for idle hands, and that all useful training must be beneficial?

The answer to the first part of my hon. Friend's question is yes.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish figures showing the number of trainees with special education or special training needs currently training within the youth training scheme; and if he will make a statement.

These figures are not available, as youngsters with special education or special training needs are not separately categorised. However, all youngsters who are eligible for the youth training scheme are offered training designed to meet their individual needs.

As the Education Act 1981 requires that special educational needs should be met, does the Minister believe that those figures should be kept to ensure that the Act is being followed? Does he realise that in present circumstances the buck is being passed between the MSC and the local education authority as to who should provide for those needs, in such a way, for instance, that in Yeovil only 2 per cent. of the estimated 20 per cent. are receiving the special education required?

As I said to the hon. Gentleman the other day, if there are cases that he wishes to bring to my attention, I shall look at them. There are a variety of different schemes under modes A and B. They are tailored to help all youngsters, whatever their needs may be.

I am sure my hon. Friend agrees that most young people regard YTS as a worthwhile scheme which will help them to secure permanent employment in the future. What proportion of relevant school leavers this year have gained YTS places, and how many are left to fulfil the pledge that all eligible youngsters will receive a place before Christmas?

On the latter point, I can assure my hon. Friend that we are confident that the Christmas undertaking in respect of minimum age school leavers will be kept. What is gratifying at this stage is that the number of youngsters joining the scheme is substantially up compared with last year. I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for what he does to help the scheme along.

Is it not a fact that mode A is run privately by the employers, who make virtually no provision for handicapped people, while mode B is, in the main, provided by local authorities? The Government cut mode B last year, which will be to the detriment of handicapped students.

I am not sure from what facts and figures the hon. Gentleman is talking. There are a substantial number of disabled youngsters on mode A schemes. On mode B, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that it is a waste of taxpayers' money to have schemes open but not filled at a cost of £2,000 per approved place. That is not what either of us wants.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what progress he has made in encouraging job sharing and job splitting.

My right hon. Friend announced in the debate on the Address that he would be improving two experimental Government initiatives, namely, the job splitting scheme and the part-time job release scheme, designed to encourage changes in working patterns and to help in reducing the problem of unemployment.

Has my hon. Friend considered using reductions in national insurance contributions to encourage job sharing? Does he agree that in larger businesses that would permit more people to be employed, and that the net cost to the Government would be small?

As my hon. Friend will be aware, the starting point for national insurance contributions is £34 a week, which means that such contributions are not required for many part-time jobs. We are worried about the legislative burden, including national insurance contributions, on employers which might hinder the creation of new jobs. I shall ensure that my hon. Friend's comments are borne in mind by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Is the Minister aware that only 990 places have been created by the job splitting scheme? Is he further aware that in March 1983 the Government justified spending on 338,000 places by saying that there had been 9,000 inquiries? What has happened to those inquiries?

I believe that the hon. Gentleman meant £338,000. He said places.

No.

I admit that the result of the job splitting scheme has been disappointing, which is why my right hon. Friend announced improvements to it. Naturally, it was appropriate to have an advertising campaign of a limited nature in the first instance, to draw the attention to the scheme of those who might be interested in it.

Is it not an undesirable paradox that at a time when many people are unemployed many of the most prosperous people in society appear to be working longer hours than ever before? Will my hon. Friend consider having discussions with professional bodies and others to see what progress can be made in sharing some of the work among people whose take-home pay is such that it would be easier for them to do so than it would be for people lower down the pay scale?

My hon. Friend's suggestion is interesting. Essentially, wage rates and hours of work should be negotiated between employer and employee.

Will the Minister concede that, despite the thousands of pounds spent on advertising the job-splitting scheme, it is a dismal failure? Why does he not spend the money more wisely and extend the provisions of the job release scheme to 62-year-olds, among whom there is an obvious demand for this popular scheme?

I note the hon. Gentleman's characteristic lack of generosity, which he always displays in relation to this scheme, and I applaud his concern for the public borrowing requirement.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many people have been unemployed in Lambeth for more than six months.

On 11 October, the latest date for which the figures are available, there were 13,162 claimants who had been unemployed for more than six months in the area covered by the Brixton, Stockwell, Streatham and West Norwood jobcentres, which corresponds closely to the London borough of Lambeth.

Does the Minister realise that that is a catastrophic figure and comprises more than half of the unemployed in Lambeth? Is he aware that long-term unemployment is a disease that eats at the heart of that community? Why have the Government chosen this moment to close a skillcentre in Lambeth, to create redundancies by rate capping in three local authorities and to cut the housing programme? Have they taken leave of their senses?

On 23 November the hon. Gentleman had the opportunity to make his speech and to listen to the reply from my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment. He will agree that if Lambeth has managed to double its rates per job in the past two years, it is time that rate capping was introduced to give employment in Lambeth, which is rising, a chance.

Why is it that loony Left-wing authorities and high unemployment go together? Which is the chicken and which is the egg?

My hon. Friend hints at the serious point that if Lambeth and other local authorities in London want more employment they should pay more attention to the needs of employers and those who need jobs, and less to party politics that seem to be paid for by the rates.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what improvements he proposes to introduce into the youth training scheme to make it more relevant to today's training needs.

We shall continue our efforts to ensure the youth training scheme provides quality training and responds flexibly to industry's needs.

Does my hon. Friend appreciate that many Conservative Members would welcome a youth training scheme which was extended to all school leavers and was based on an increasing use of apprenticeships?

My hon. Friend will appreciate that we are considering that now. I agree that there should be a flow through from the scheme into apprenticeships based on standards and not on time-serving.

Does the Minister agree that if the YTS is to develop into the fully grown plant, as Conservative Members frequently describe it, it must be seen to be attractive and relevant to our young people, and not as a punishment for failing to find a job, which will happen if attendance is made compulsory?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I have seen schemes in his constituency which are attractive and relevant. In my opinion Cornwall does particularly well. Regarding his other point, he has already heard what I have to say.

Does my hon. Friend recollect that in the early days the YTS was ridiculed by Opposition Members and others as being useless for providing future jobs for young people? Does he agree that the record of the YTS has totally vindicated the claims made for it?

I agree with my hon. Friend in all but one respect. I regret that some Opposition Members still try to ridicule the scheme. That does no good to the youngsters who are not part of it. It must be better to have a scheme of work experience than to have none.

Why, if the YTS is so popular, is the Minister proposing to make it compulsory? Will he admit that the real reason is that he wants to reduce the minimum level of supplementary benefit above which the YTS allowance operates, so that the allowance can be reduced to a level even lower than the present one?

I do not know why the hon. Lady uses the word "compulsory". I have always maintained, and will maintain, that the YTS is voluntary.

Does my hon. Friend accept that the proposal that school leavers who do not wish to take a place on the YTS should not be entitled to supplementary benefit is welcome to many Conservative Members? Is it not remarkable that Opposition Members would far rather that a youngster started his working life on the dole than have a scheme of training that would equip him for a working life?

It is remarkable that Opposition Members believe that it is better for youngsters to go on the dole when they have the opportunity to go on a training scheme.

Is it not true that what youngsters want most are jobs? They want a decent start in life. Will the Minister stop being mealy-mouthed and fudging this issue? Does he believe that supplementary benefit should be withdrawn from those who choose not to go on youth training schemes? Is that Government policy? Does he realise that at the stage when the youth training scheme could begin to become a much better quality scheme it will be undermind completely by those proposals? Finally, does he understand that he will place a stigma on youth training from which it will never recover?

The hon. Gentleman heard what I said about supplementary benefit. He must accept that relevant training is necessary to find jobs. That is precisely what the youngsters on YTS received last year, and are getting this year.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many trades unions have applied for public money to cover the cost of postal ballots under the provisions of the Employment Act 1980.

I am informed by the certification officer that 26 trade unions have applied for public money under the provisions of the Employment Act 1980 towards the cost incurred in holding secret postal ballots.

Does my right hon. Friend derive encouragement from those figures, or does he believe that they show that there is no need to provide public money to encourage trade unions to carry out ballots?

One can draw some encouragement from the fact that, after an unpromising start, there is clear evidence that several trade unions understand the opportunities that exist in the legislation. I said that 26 unions had applied for public funds to hold secret ballots, and I understand that more major unions may follow that course, which will mean better opportunities for democratic choice for their members.

Does the Secretary of State accept that it is nothing short of hypocrisy for the Government to tell trade unions that they should have postal ballots, when on 30 September the Government, under the guidance of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, told a group of business men to get together at the Bank of England to save Johnson Matthey bankers, at the same time as they are closing uneconomic pits—

Order. I gave the hon. Gentleman the opportunity to ask a question about postal ballots, not about Johnson Matthey.

Is there not one law for the City, which does not need postal ballots to use taxpayers' money, and another one for the trade unions, which are told by the Government to have secret ballots?

I hope that that made the hon. Gentleman feel good, but it did not have much to do with the question.

Is it not particularly to be welcomed that postal ballots are to be used by so many trade unions? Does this not show that trade unions are finally becoming democratic and truly wish to reflect the views of all their members and not just those of some of their Left-wing executive members?

Hon. Members will have seen the further statements from a number of trade unions, and one can take encouragement from the fact that, increasingly, trade unions are bringing their procedures into line with the legislation that we have passed, which I hope will be helpful and in the interests not only of their members but of better and more orderly conduct of industrial relations.

How can the Government try to compel trade unions to ballot their members when the Government do not ballot their Back Benchers on measures such as the recent students grants measure?

I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman is opposed to ballots of trade union members—

No.

I am glad to see then that he supports our proposals and that that view is spreading to the Labour Benches.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many inspections by the wages councils have taken place in the last 12 months; and how many prosecutions there have been as a result of such inspections.

In the 12 months ending 31 October, the Wages Inspectorate checked the pay of workers at 43,079 establishments. One of the employers was prosecuted.

Is it not a disgrace that all these inspections resulted in the prosecution of only one employer of the many who are robbing the lowest paid, while in the miners' strike hundreds of miners are arrested, handcuffed and put into gaol, simply for standing on the pavement, or simply for shouting "scabs"?

The hon. Gentleman will realise that the level of prosecution is roughly the same as in the early years of the last Labour Government. I prefer to leave the rest of his question to a different debate.

Does my hon. Friend know that the arrears paid in wages as a result of these visits was £1·8 million, whereas the Wages Inspectorate costs £3 million to run? Would it not be better if, instead of fussing about regulating wages and conditions, we allowed young people in the north to price themselves into work?

As my hon. Friend knows, the Government are considering the future of the wages councils system. The point about young people will be taken on board, but even my hon. Friend will recognise that not every young person in every region will get a job, at whatever level of wages.

Why are the Government so keen to listen to their hon. Friends who suggest that they should abolish the wages councils on the pretence that this would greatly increase the number of jobs available, particularly for young people? Is the Minister not aware that even if the wages councils were abolished, at best only 8,000 more jobs would be created—a tiny proportion of the number of jobs needed to deal with the 3 million unemployed?

I fear that the hon. Lady was not listening to my other answers. The position of young people now is rather different from what it was 10 years ago, and the rise in the relative wages of young people has been associated with a reduction in job opportunities for them.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many jobs are estimated to be created for each entrant to the enterprise allowance scheme.

In addition to the 60,000 people directly assisted by the enterprise allowance scheme to set up their own businesses, we estimate that about 25,000 additional jobs have been created by those businesses so far.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, despite the many Labour detractors, this scheme has been highly successful and has greatly benefited many of my constituents and created jobs in my constituency? Is it not an extremely economical way to create jobs, unlike many of the hare-brained schemes proposed by the Labour party?

My hon. Friend is entirely right, although I do not think, to do them justice, that Labour Members criticised the scheme, which is welcomed by the House as extremely effective. Its most obvious merit is that it survives after the grant has ceased and generates additional jobs on top of jobs for those who apply successfully.

Why do Ministers take the view that for the rich it is an incentive to get more money while for the people working in wages councils industries it will be an incentive for them to get less?

I do not wish to prevent the hon. Member from offering philosophical reflections, but the enterprise allowance is only £40 a week.

Will my hon. Friend confirm publicly what the Minister of State told me in a letter today namely that those who are not in receipt of unemployment benefit or supplementary benefit, but who are in receipt of a war disability pension, will now qualify for enterprise allowance?

I would not choose this occasion to disagree with my hon. Friend the Minister of State.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 18 December.

I have been asked to reply.

Will the right hon. Gentleman inform the Prime Minister, when she returns, of the great anger on both sides of the House and outside at the imposition of VAT on each record sold in aid of the Ethiopian disaster fund? Is the Prime Minister aware that it is estimated that £500,000 has been raised by that record? Will the right hon. Lady recognise this as a one-off appeal? Bearing in mind that the Government changed their minds about student grants, cannot they change their minds on this?

I appreciate the motivation of those involved in the records production. I fully appreciate that many hon. Members on all sides are disappointed that the Government cannot find some discriminatory fiscal arrangement for the sales of the record, but in their stand the Government are following the tradition of successive Governments. The real test is to set that decision against the amount of money spent on aid by this regime.

Will my right hon. Friend draw the Prime Minister's attention to the trial in Northern Ireland last week of private Thain of the Light Infantry? Will he tell the Prime Minister how deeply disturbed many of us are at the sentence imposed in the dangerous conditions applying in Northern Ireland? Has not the time come for a radical review of the working of the yellow card?

I shall, of course, carry out my hon. Friend's request.

Will the right hon. Gentleman explain to the Prime Minister when she returns that one of the reasons for the Government's drop in popularity at the Enfield, Southgate by-election, and in opinion polls, is that on a range of matters the Government are completely out of touch with the public's mood? Does he understand that that applies particularly to the relatively simple case of imposing VAT on the Christmas record made to benefit Ethiopia? Why does the Chancellor refuse even to see an all-party delegation on that subject?

The physical embodiment of the success at Enfield, Southgate will soon be at this Table. The right hon. Gentleman has to live with the bitter harvest of not very near misses.

We would have the right hon. Gentleman on that swing.

I should be more than delighted to have the hon. Gentleman's posse campaigning for me in Shropshire, North. I can think of no better counter-production than that.

Will my right hon. Friend ensure that county councils and all those engaged in the welfare of former prisoners are instructed by the provision of clear guidelines so that there is no repetition of the appalling tragedy that took place concerning the sex pervert who killed four-year-old Marie Payne? Will he ensure that clear guidelines result in proper social welfare for ex-prisoners so that children are not put into such tragic danger?

My hon. Friend raises a matter which I know will cause the gravest disquiet within the House and outside. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will pay particular attention to his point about vetting and investigation.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 18 December.

I have been asked to reply.

Did not the Government completely misread the feeling in the country and. I believe, in the House over VAT being imposed on the Band Aid single by sheltering behind bureaucratic traditions? Is there not a feeling throughout the country that in this instance the expression of concern for Ethiopia should be recognised and that the Government should not be the sole beneficiary of VAT revenue from this record?

I do not think that I can helpfully add to what I have already said.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the entire House will welcome the visit to Britain of Mr. Gorbachev and the Russian delegation? Is he aware that they are here to engender a feeling of trust, which we all welcome? Does he agree that the best way in which they can engender that feeling is to show that they are trustworthy in their undertaking to abide by the Helsinki agreement and their undertakings on human rights? If they give us the trust that will enable us to believe that they will honour those commitments, it will be so much easier for us to believe their promises on peace and security.

I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend speaks for the whole House when he talks of the welcome that there is for the visit of Mr. Gorbachev and the Russian delegation. I agree with him that the real hope lies in the development of trust, which is a patient plant which is nurtured by long and quiet negotiations rather than in a hothouse of propaganda. He is right in saying that the way in which it is monitored, both in the House and by the British public outside, is the extent to which human rights are upheld.

When the Prime Minister said yesterday evening that the Government can give training to every young person up to the age of 18 years—"and we know that we can do that" — did she mean that the Government will provide two years of training for all those who leave school at 16?

The answer depends very much on the outcome of the investigation that is now being undertaken by the committee under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security.

Will the Lord Privy Seal join me in regretting that the Prime Minister appears to have raised false hopes in what she said yesterday before she went off on her visit? May I prevail upon the right hon. Gentleman to urge upon the Prime Minister, when she returns, to recognise that an extension of training to two years—universally—would be very welcome, especially if such a training programme ensured training of high quality, permitted satisfactory education provision, leading, if necessary and where appropriate, to qualifications, ensured adequate pay and led to a job? Lastly, and importantly, the right hon. Lady should ensure that such a scheme is not compulsory or takes the form of conscription or coercian by the withdrawal of benefits to make young people destitute.

The remarks of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister yesterday were some sound and robust observations that were legitimate and consistent with consideration of an issue that is under discussion by a committee. Of course I shall convey to my right hon. Friend that the right hon. Gentleman is now a convert to the Government's policy and their highly successful youth training scheme. The scheme is at the centre of the Government's policy against unemployment for the young and its growing success will be a part of our fortune.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 18 December.

I have been asked to reply.

Will my right hon. Friend find time today to congratulate the England cricket team on coming back from the dead so spectacularly, and will he join me in expressing the hope that the Opposition do not discover how to pull off the same trick?

I should be happy to comply with both parts of that request.

Will the Leader of the House convey to the Prime Minister the situation facing the unemployed in my constituency, which covers Leeds and Wakefield metropolitan district areas? Will he inform the Prime Minister that, over the past five years, eight collieries have closed in the West Yorkshire county council area and that the plight of the unemployed, particularly miners, is serious? Will he advise the right hon. Lady to do something about bringing in some resources to reduce unemployment in west Yorkshire?

Of course I shall pass on that message, but I must say to the hon. Gentleman that a campaign to bring about greater employment must be run throughout the United Kingdom, not merely in one selected region or another. In that context, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take comfort, as I do, from the fact that 250,000 people are at work today who were not at work a year ago.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 18 December.

I have been asked to reply.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that on the day when the victor of Enfield, Southgate is due to take his seat, many people outside the House will be appalled to learn that its facilities are extended to convicted terrorists, whatever their cause?

I think that there was a hidden message in that question, and if it is what I imagine it is, I do not think that anything that I could say would be half as adequate as what was said by the Labour Chief Whip, the right hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Cocks).

In congratulating the Prime Minister on her visit to Communist China to hand over British colonial control in Hong Kong, may I ask the Leader of the House to tell the right hon. Lady that that creates an excellent precedent for ending colonial control in the Falklands, Gibraltar and Northern Ireland?

The right hon. Gentleman is in the market place of politics, and, very rightly, is marketing a very exotic brand that enables those issues to be linked. I think that we all understand why he sits where he does.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 18 December.

I have been asked to reply.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that any announcement made later today about the reduction in the percentage that local authorities can spend on capital expenditure from receipts from council house sales will be a bitter disappointment and a let-down to hon. Members on both sides of the House who have supported council house sales when the construction industry is at such a low level as it is today? Would that not show that the Government are able to control public expenditure only by cutting capital spending?.

I note with interest what my hon. Friend has to say, and I am sure he will realise that I cannot anticipate what may be said later by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 18 December.

I have been asked to reply.

As it appears that the youth training scheme is to be compulsory, will the Leader of the House ask the Prime Minister whether she will ensure that machinery is set up to make sure that the scheme is not used, under any circumstances, for cheap labour?

The hon. Gentleman is getting a little over-excited in this pre-festive season. I merely ask him to await the outcome of the inquiry that is being presided over by my hon. Friend the Minister of State.

Is my right hon. Friend surprised that, in order to get the electors of Enfield to read its election literature, the Liberal party found it necessary to disguise it as Labour party propaganda?

There must be a very snappy and succinct answer to that question, but, alas, it eludes me. All that I can say is that that did not seem to succeed.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 18 December.

I have been asked to reply.

Given the propaganda from the Government Benches suggesting that the answer to unemployment is to cut wage levels, is there any decent minimum which the right hon. Gentleman thinks the people of Britain should earn in return for employment, or does he want our wage levels to drop to the standard in Third world countries?

The hon. Lady is confusing the argument that we should keep an increase in wage levels to below the rate of inflation with all those other arguments which she now makes and which are a total distortion. Again, I must ask her to judge the policy, not her own rhetoric.