asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many employees are now estimated to be covered by lawful closed shop agreements.

Only a few thousand out of the 4 million or so employees covered by closed shops have so far been given the chance of voting in a secret ballot. This means that the vast majority of apparent closed shops, including all the large ones, have now lost any protection the law previously gave them and that it is automatically unfair to dismiss any of the employees covered by them on the grounds that they are not union members.

Does my hon. Friend share my disappointment at this state of affairs? Is the Department considering what else might be done to encourage people to move in the right direction?

My hon. Friend and the House will appreciate that if a ballot is not held the effect is the same as if a ballot is held and the right number of people do not vote for the continuation of the closed shop. In effect, the closed shop is lost whether it is not balloted for or whether a ballot is held and an insufficient number vote for it.

Is not the reality that most employers are happy to disregard the Employment Act 1980? Does the Minister agree that they want sensible industrial relations and the maintenance of closed shops without the interference of the Government and/or legislation? Does he accept that that is the best way to preserve good industrial relations?

Everyone wants sensible industrial relations. Trade unions have shown that, by opposing the holding of ballots, they are happy not to have closed shops.

Will my hon. Friend persuade his ministerial colleagues that the time has come to embark upon a policy of bringing to people's attention the fact that they cannot be dismissed if they choose not to belong to a closed shop?

Yes, Sir. I have written to hon. Members on both sides of the House giving this information, and I hope that everyone will pass it on to his or her constituents.

Is it not bordering on hypocrisy for the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) to talk about closed shops for trade unionists when he has a moonlighting job as a lawyer at the Temple which supplements his parliamentary salary? The lawyers have the biggest closed shop in Britain. The hon. Gentleman would not be able to make a penny piece in the law courts if he were not a member of a closed shop. Is it not worth noting also that the Government had to tell the coal board when the NACODS agreement was drawn up—

Order. I think that the hon. Member has made his point.

My hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) and the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) have both demonstrated that they can speak well for themselves. The closed shop legislation gives the same chance to all union members.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement about the Manpower Services Commission's funds devoted to the Gainsborough employment area.

I regret that precise figures are not available, but the commission estimates that over £500,000 will be spent in 1984–85 on employment programmes in the area served by the Gainsborough jobcentre and about £9 million on training programmes in Lincolnshire as a whole.

As we come to the end of the second year of the youth training scheme, does my hon. Friend agree that the scheme's outstanding success — both locally where a TVEI project is on the rail and nationally where 420,000 young people are covered—gives the lie to the Opposition's claim that we do not care about youth unemployment? We do care, and we act.

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. I agree that some Opposition Members fail to appreciate the fact that the youth training scheme is extremely popular among the trainees involved and their parents.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on employment prospects for 1985.

The number of people in work has been rising for over a year. The latest reports from both jobcentres and major private agencies indicate a significant improvement over recent years.

We are obviously concerned about unemployment. Does my right hon. Friend agree that Britain still has a higher proportion of its working population in employment than either France or Germany?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing out that point. Obviously, unemployment concerns every hon. Member. We should recognise the truth about employment. According to the latest figures, in Britain 66 per cent. of the population of working age is in employment compared with only 61 per cent. in France and in Germany.

Will the Secretary of State confirm reports in the Sunday newspapers that the Government have set up a new interdepartmental committee, under his chairmanship, to consider the serious impact of unemployment? If so, what are the committee's terms of reference?

If the hon. Gentleman is not supposed to believe what he reads in the newspapers, at least he might do me the courtesy—if he was not able to be here—of refreshing his mind from Hansard about the recent debate on employment, when I made clear the close interest that the Government were taking and will continue to take in measures that will help to alleviate this difficult problem.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that employment prospects for 1985 would be much improved if, for example, the Civil Service unions did not ask for a 15 per cent. pay rise and the teachers' unions did not ask for a £25 a week increase and realised that such increases must be paid for from productive industry, which is already under enough pressure?

As I said in connection with last week's unemployment figures, the greatest single contribution that all of us in work can make is to show good sense and moderation in pay bargaining. It is beyond question that good sense in pay bargaining will be the largest single contribution towards alleviating the problems of the unemployed. I certainly endorse my hon. Friend's statement.

As the Government have set out to increase, not to diminish, unemployment, especially long-term unemployment, when will the Department respond by developing programmes that will pay the unemployed rather more than they are receiving in benefit and will encourage them to do something useful for themselves and the country instead of allowing them to rot on the dole?

I believe that the hon. Gentleman, who is Chairman of the Select Committee, has recognised the improvements that we have made, for example, to the community programme. Those improvements are specifically designed to help to alleviate the problems of long-term unemployment. I believe that the hon. Gentleman will welcome the increase in the enterprise allowance scheme, a third of whose members have come from long-term unemployment. The scheme is designed specifically to help those people to start businesses of their own. We are conscious of the fact that this is a worrying matter during the present difficulties.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that employment prospects will become much better in the next few years, when the numbers coming on to the employment register, due to the fall in the birth rate, will be much lower?

It is true that, although we are creating more jobs, we have, as yet, failed to achieve a reduction in unemployment because of the increased numbers coming into the working population. As my hon. Friend said, those numbers should be a declining feature because of the change in the demographic base. By the end of this decade it may work in the opposite direction.

Does the Secretary of State accept that his words will give cold comfort to those who live in Corringham Walk, Netherfields, Middlesbrough, where 91 per cent. of the heads of households are out of work? That means that of 500 heads of households who are fit and available for work, only 45 are working. What message does the Secretary of State have for those brave, valiant and unfortunate people who are suffering from the consequences of the Government's economic actions?

With the interest that he shows, I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would know that I have made it abundantly clear that the Government recognise the difficulties of which the north-east and the extreme south-west are the worst examples. In answer to the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) I referred to the work that we have done, the consideration that we have given, the improvements that we have already made and the work which is continuing to see how the Government, with the general improvement in the economy, can ensure that we get more jobs. Anything that the hon. Gentleman can do to encourage moderation will help the plight of those people.

Will the Secretary of State tell the House what he believes to be the greatest threat to employment prospects in 1985 — a small increase in inflation, or a substantial increase in interest rates?

I do not want to make that choice. In view of the problems that we face at present, the Government have given a clear signal of the importance that they attach to keeping on top of inflation. The benefits are shown clearly by the improvement in job prospects. That gain must not be thrown away — it must be built upon. By controlling inflation, I hope that we can achieve a sensible reduction in interest rates.

Is my right hon. Friend not worried that a high proportion of the new jobs being created go to married women, often working part-time? Does he agree that some features of our tax and national insurance system encourage that? Will he undertake to consider reforms which aim at having one breadwinner in every family rather than two in some families?

Serving, as I do, in the Government, I do not want to enter into that argument, but I recognise that there are some anomalies and problems in the present structure which tilt the balance unsatisfactorily. I confirm that there are matters that we are considering in that respect.

The Secretary of State often lectures others about what they can do to reduce unemployment. As a member of a Government who have thrown many thousands out of work in the Civil Service, particularly in his own Department, is he aware that the proposal that he has before him about the Manpower Services Commission's skillcentres, which involves 1,000 redundancies in 1985, has led to pressure in a letter from the MSC to those employees threatening that if, using their constitutional rights, they protest to Parliament about redundancies in 1985, it will use the Industrial Relations Act 1971 to intimidate them?

I hope that the whole House will support proposals which are directed towards the maximisation of training and the most efficient use of resources. The Government are committed to using resources as effectively as possible to ensure that training is brought to people. If in the process there must be some reorganisation—the hon. Gentleman knows the decision that is before me for consideration at present — I have made clear to the Select Committee the criteria by which I shall judge it.

rose—

Order. There is another question on that matter.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many people are employed in high technology industries in Basildon, by industry; and if he will make a statement.

It is not possible to give a precise figure for the number of people currently employed in this type of industry. The latest available figures from the 1981 census of employment showed that nearly 5,000 people were employed in Basildon in industries associated with technical innovation.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there are many high-tech industries in Basildon, including Rayridge, which is one of the few British robotic companies? Does he agree that Basildon is an excellent place for such job opportunities because of its fine housing and excellent air, sea, road and rail communications?

Yes, Sir. My hon. Friend's claims for his constituency are borne out by the news of industrial development in the area. I am aware that £9 million is being invested in a new data processing centre and that GEC Avionics is moving into the old Rothman's factory, about whose closure so many hon. Members agitated last year.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the operation to date of the voluntary projects programme.

I have been very encouraged by the achievements of the voluntary projects programme, which, in the course of this year, will be providing some 55,000 unemployed people with the opportunity of constructive activity. The Government announced in November that the programme was to be extended for a further three years.

Is my hon. Friend aware that this popular and important programme helps two projects in my constituency, one of which, Furniture Turnaround, certainly helps the poor and the unemployed? Will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State argue with the Treasury for funding all such future programmes on a longer term albeit declining, basis, so that the voluntary societies can make plans with greater certainty?

My hon. Friend's encouragement and support are most welcome. However, if initial funding is given, with the possibility of extension, it is possible to see whether the projects are worth supporting in the future. Many projects are in their second or third year of funding.

Is the Minister aware that his hon. Friend the Minister of State was generous enough to visit my constituency to view the CATS project in Bramley? Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to step outside the narrow limitations on the number of VPP places available in any one city, in order to assist an especially large project, such as that one, which is in need of help?

We are always interested in views that are put forward. The extension of the programme for three years gives greater support than there would have otherwise have been. The hon. Gentleman's comments will be noted.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many young people under 21 years of age have been unemployed for more than one year.

On 10 January 1985 the number of claimants in the United Kingdom under 20 years of age who had been unemployed for over one year was 121,000. The available analysis by age does not separate those under 21.

As it is the lower paid jobs that offer that particularly tragic group of youngsters their best hope of employment, will my hon. Friend use his considerable influence within the Government to try to achieve an increase in the lower earnings limit for national insurance contributions from £34 to £100 per week?

My hon. Friend's central point is right. Young people must not be priced out of jobs. That is why we have a young workers' scheme, and we regret it when the wages councils frustrate that objective. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services is at present engaged in a review of social services costs and charges. I shall draw my hon. Friend's views to his attention.

In Tyne and Wear, 500 people under the age of 18 have been unemployed for over a year. Has the Minister had time to read page 106 of the latest issue of "Social Trends", according to which there is a direct relationship between high unemployment and long-term illness? Are not the Government, who are guilty of creating long-term unemployment, also guilty of creating long-term illness?

The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to those young people who have been unemployed for over a year. That category causes us great concern. We have spent £2 billion on special employment and training measures. The level of resources and the way in which they are applied are subject to continuous review and discussion. The group to which he refers is at present under consideration.

In view of the considerable success of the enterprise allowance scheme, will my hon. Friend look again at the extreme partition between those who receive benefit of some kind and those who receive a wage? There should be room for overlap.

That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. There have already been changes affecting the community programme, and I welcome them.

Is it not a fact that scores of thousands of young people who have left school have never known what it is to work? When will the Government realise that that terrible crisis is an act not of God but of their monetarist policies, which it is time they brought to a close because they are uneconomic and loss-making?

The hon. Gentleman is not entirely right. Certainly there was a category of young person, as his hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) mentioned, prior to the introduction of the youth training scheme, who could not get a job and had been unemployed for more than a year. Since the introduction of the YTS, there is no reason why any youngster should leave school without the possibility of obtaining a place on the youth training scheme.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many persons are now being employed on the various job creation and protection measures covered by the Manpower Services Commission.

At the end of December, 662,000 people were being helped by our employment and training measures. Of these, 478,000 were on schemes administered by the Manpower Services Commission.

Are not those dramatic figures an answer to those who say that the Government are doing nothing about unemployment? Nevertheless, has my hon. Friend found an answer to the problem of JEGS Electrical of Southend, which would like to add to those figures, but has been told by the Department that it cannot get a grant if it pays young workers more than £40 a week, and by the wages council that it will be sent to prison if it does not pay them £40·05? Can he find a solution to the problem and make those figures even more dramatic?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he said about the schemes run by the Manpower Services Commission. Contrary to what the Opposition say, those schemes are extremely popular. My hon. Friend will have heard the reply of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary about wages councils in that regard.

Is the Minister aware that many of the young people in west Cumberland who are in trouble with the police, on whatever charge, whether poaching or vandalism, are in trouble only because they do not have, but want, work? In so far as the community programme gives them the opportunity to work, particularly that age group, will the Minister ensure that when the Budget is announced every representation will have been made to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to ensure an expansion of that programme because we desperately need those places in west Cumberland?

I am aware that in Cumbria all 16-year-olds and, in effect, all 17-year-olds, have the opportunity of a place on a youth training scheme. I am also aware that the hon. Gentleman has worked hard on and been of great support to the community programme. I listened carefully to what he had to say about it.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the total number of unemployed and the number of long-term unemployed, respectively.

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

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many people are currently unemployed in Great Britain; and what percentage that is of the work force.

On 10 January the number of unemployed claimants in Great Britain was 3,218,000, and in the United Kingdom it was 3,341,000, representing a rate of 13·7 per cent.

Is the Minister aware that those figures, particularly those for the long-term unemployed, demonstrate more clearly than anything the sheer incompetence and insensitivity of the Government? Is he further aware that within those figures is the fact that in the northern region 243,492 people are out of work, which is 19·1 per cent., and the highest figure for any region outside Northern Ireland? Is he also aware that those figures have increased every month in the five years since the Government came to power? Did the Minister see the letter in The Times yesterday from the chairman of the northern region Confederation of British Industry, the chairmen of the chambers of trade and other employers' associations about the need for a radical change of policy? If his cronies are suggesting that, what on earth is the Minister going to do about it?

I am disappointed in the hon. Gentleman's contribution. He knows perfectly well that slogans on such a serious subject do not help. I do not stand here and criticise the Socialist Governments in France, Spain or Italy of insensitivity because in those countries unemployment during the past year rose significantly faster than it did here. I hope the hon. Gentleman will recognise that the best hope for this country is to create more jobs. I hope also that he will welcome the fact that during the past year, after the great loss of jobs that we suffered from the lack of competitiveness in British industry, we have started again to create more jobs.

The Secretary of State should hang his head in shame at such abysmal figures. In addition to almost 3·5 million people unemployed, 679,000 people are on Government-funded schemes, and a further 500,000 people do not register, making the true figure 4·5 million unemployed. That is the highest figure of any major industrialised nation. Why does not the Secretary of State, who is pathetic, do us all a favour by offering his resignation and packing up?

I address exactly the same comment to the hon. Gentleman as I did to the hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Dormand). It is no good making such political comments about this serious problem. He chose to advance the size of our programme as a criticism of the Government. I take pride in the fact that, for the first time, a Government have provided a proper training and work preparation scheme for our young people. I take pride in the fact that we have increased to more than £2 billion our investment in training and special measures. I do not take that as a criticism.

Does the Secretary of State accept that, to millions of people, the present level of unemployment is unacceptable, as was the Prime Minister's comment last week that the figure was "disappointing". That was an extremely poor word to use, even in parliamentary terms, for a figure that is completely unacceptable. When will the right hon. Gentleman persuade his colleagues in the Government to stop playing around with the problem of unemployment and to start spending money in the public sector and on infrastructure to create jobs, because that is the only way to reduce the present unacceptable total?

The present level is not unacceptable to some people in the House—it is unacceptable to every hon. Member of the House. The House owes it to the country to address responsibly the question of what is the most effective way to reduce unemployment. The hon. Gentleman peddles again the belief that a wand can be waved to reduce unemployment. He should ask the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) why he did not wave that wand when he was Secretary of State for Employment and when unemployment doubled.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that people made redundant in traditional industries have special problems in finding new work? In this respect, will he recognise the work done by the information technology centres in training for new technologies, and extend that training to older people made redundant from traditional industries?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He will have noticed that the central thrust of the new proposals in "Training for Jobs" is that more public expenditure will go towards training the unemployed, including the long-term unemployed, to helping the information technology centres, and to putting training into the community programmes to help the unemployed back into work. That is a key element in our programme.

As it is important to get many more youngsters off the dole queues and into training courses, why do not the Government abolish the 21 and 15-hour rules as they affect benefits, which would not only give youngsters a better opportunity but would help industry to overcome some skill shortages?

I note what my hon. Friend says. He will be aware, as several hon. Members have said, that there are undoubtedly problems in helping the maximum number of youngsters into work. Not the least of those problems is the fact that, in many industries, the starting rate for a 16-year-old is 50 per cent. of the adult rate, whereas in many industries in Germany it is 25 per cent. of the adult rate. It is interesting to compare the relative levels of youth unemployment in Germany and in Britain.

Bearing in mind that, as a direct consequence of the miners' strike, the British Steel Corporation is paying £3·5 million a week to move illegally blacked coal and ore and that, consequently, it has had to cut capital investment and its maintenance programme, as has the National Coal Board, may I ask my right hon. Friend to advise the House what effect he believes that had on unemployment during 1984, and what effect he expects a solution of the strike to have for the unemployed in 1985?

It is extremely difficult to get a precise figure as to what the impact will be. It is something that I would like to see, because there is no doubt that the miners' strike and the length of time that it has lasted has been very damaging to employment prospects in the country. In 1983 we had the highest growth rate of any country in Europe. The miners' strike has been a setback to that growth rate. Even so, we achieved an average rate of growth in 1984, and the forecast of the OECD is that we should look forward again to the highest rate of growth of any country in Europe. That will provide the best possible prospect of jobs if this unnecessary and costly strike is settled.

Is not the greatest indictment of the Government that the figure we have been given, whether the real figure of 4·5 million or the massaged figure of approximately 3·5 million, is being added to at the rate of a net loss of 20,000 jobs every month? On the Government's own estimates the figure will rise to over 250,000 to be added to the total already given. Is that not the greatest indictment of the Government? When the Government came to power they promised that they would release an entrepreneurial flair which would reduce the 1·25 million unemployed, a matter they boasted about in a huge slogan "Labour isn't working". If it was not working with 1·25 million, it is not working now.

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not listen to the earlier answer. He is quite wrong. There is not a net loss of jobs, there is now, at last, an increase in the number of jobs. There is also an increase in the working population and that is why we have to see that increase in jobs further enhanced.

Do not the figures which the Secretary of State announced today prove that the Government's policies over the past five years have utterly failed to help make British industry more competitive? Does not the fact that the public expenditure figures, which have recently been produced, show that there will be unemployment for 3 million-plus for the next few years demonstrate what a scandal it is that the Government still claim that they have the right policies to reduce the unemployment figures?

I do not agree with the assertion of the hon. Gentleman. I would expect the hon. Gentleman to have recognised, after a period of undoubtedly serious shake-out in industry in which the overmanning which should have been tackled many years ago but which was allowed to fester was tackled — the inevitable consequence of which was some increase in unemployment—that at last we have moved into a situation in which we are creating more jobs. The result of the policy of reducing inflation has been to make Britain more competitive and to make that possible. What we now want to do is to reinforce that advance.

Will my right hon. Friend consider, as he rightly and regularly publishes unemployment figures, publishing the figures for job vacancies also? To some people it is strange that, in many areas where unemployment is worryingly high, the local papers each night carry 15, 16 or 17 pages of small ads placed by employers wanting people to fill jobs.

It is certainly true, if one looks at the flow of vacancies through jobcentres and at the forecasts of Manpower and other private employment agencies, that they forecast the best prospects for new jobs for five years. With the high flow of vacancies through jobcentres, there is clear evidence of a significant improvement, not only in the south-east, to which obviously much of the improvement is directed, but in other parts of the country.

When the right hon. Gentleman dares to compare the record of his Government with that of their predecessors, will he recall that in the last months of that Labour Government the unemployment figures were coming down each month? If his Government could achieve any comparable figures, he would say that it was the biggest miracle since the loaves and the fishes. Will he also apply his mind to the fact that he should stop the closure of skillcentres, as the whole country is crying out for more skills?

What I do recall is the part played by the right hon. Gentleman and some of his right hon. Friends in deliberately obstructing the restructuring of major parts of British industry and the nationalised industries at a time when they faced a serious loss of competitiveness, condemning many people to much more serious unemployment. The steel industry is the most obvious illustration of that. I recall the contribution which the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends made to Britain's ill-prepared state when the recession struck. I think the history books will recognise that a precious opportunity was lost through the incompetence of the Labour Government at that time.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that there are now more potential sponsors under the community programme than approved projects in the Edinburgh area? Will he keep that thought in mind as there seems to be substantial scope for expanding that programme in future?

I note what my hon. Friend says. Contrary to the unhelpful comments by some Opposition Members, the success of the youth training scheme and of the community programme has been achieved through the willingness of employers, other organisations and the trainees themselves to work together to make a success of those programmes. There has been a real national effort to make a success of both programmes, and I pay tribute to that.

Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that if the 660,000 people on the Government's special employment schemes are added to the number of unemployed claimants that the right hon. Gentleman has just announced, as well as the 400,000 people who were fiddled out of the unemployment statistics in 1982 and 1983, that makes a total of nearly 4·5 million people who are without real jobs and that that figure is more than three times the figure when Labour left office? Will the right hon. Gentleman also acknowledge that there are now more long-term unemployed people than the total number of unemployed in Great Britain when Labour left office? Is not that the real picture of the inhuman misery that the Government have unleashed upon this country?

That is the most disgraceful supplementary question that we have had during this Question Time. The Labour party tried to launch a scheme on the same principle as the youth training scheme, but could not get the support of the Labour Government. The youth training scheme has been launched and carried through with the support of employers, trade unions and the trainees themselves. The hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is an insult to many trade unionists who have worked hard to make a success of the YTS. I take pride in the increased resources. I do not think that it is disgraceful that we have increased resources to help make a success of the scheme.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he is now in a position to announce the date when he will introduce legislation to amend the Race Relations Act 1976 in respect of the code of practice for the elimination of racial discrimination and the promotion of equality of opportunity in employment, published by the Commission for Racial Equality; and if he will make a statement.

It is our firm intention, as soon as the parliamentary timetable permits, to amend section 47 of the Race Relations Act 1976 to enable my right hon. Friend to amend codes of practice before their presentation to Parliament for approval.

Is my hon. Friend aware that when our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry was Secretary of State for Employment he pledged, shortly before the general election, that amending legislation would be introduced? When will the pledge be redeemed?

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is well aware of that pledge and the importance that many of his hon. Friends attach to it. He is particularly aware of the concern that has been expressed by the Select Committee on Employment. As my hon. Friend knows, the CRE will put forward revisions to the code, following a review, within three years, and plainly it is desirable that amending powers should be available by then.

Will the Minister comment on the leak from his Department, which suggests that the Government are considering exempting businesses in general, and small businesses in particular, from the operation of the Race Relations Act? How does requiring businesses not to treat black people unjustly impose financial obligations on them? Does the real explanation lie in a further leak that has come from his Department, which suggests that in a departmental meeting he referred to the black citizens of Britain as people from Bongo-Bongo land? Does not that remark make him unfit to hold the responsible office that he does?

I am delighted to congratulate the hon. Lady on her elevation to the Front Bench, and I look forward to many adversarial confrontations with her. As to her allegation of what is being planned in my Department, I have no knowledge of this.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what consultations he has had with the Manpower Services Commission about the future of skillcentres.

The chairman wrote to my right hon. Friend on 24 January with a full report of the commission's views.

In view of the grave disquiet over the plans to close 29 skillcentres and over growing skill shortages, and as fears have been expressed that this will lead to a decline in the skillcentre training agency, will the Minister urgently arrange for a debate on the matter in the House? Will he further arrange for a stop to be put to the disgraceful plans of the Manpower Services Commission?

I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has heard what the hon. Lady has said about a debate. She will no doubt agree that money voted by the House should go on training rather than on bricks and mortar and on supervisors who do not have anybody to train.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 5 February.

This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today.

As, so far today, another 600 mineworkers have gone back to work, and as the overwhelming view of the House last night was that a negotiated settlement on the basis of uneconomic pit closures had to be reached, can my right hon. Friend confirm that the NACODS agreement is still there for the National Union of Mineworkers to pick up? If the NUM has trouble arriving at an agenda agreeable to it in which the closure of uneconomic pits is item No. 1, can my right hon. Friend use her good offices to make it item No. 2, with "apologies" as item No. 1?

I confirm what was said last night. As I have frequently said to the Leader of the Opposition, the strike would be over if the NUM accepted the NACODS agreement and the NACODS approach. I believe that the National Coal Board was right to make the fundamental issue of this strike—the closure of pits on uneconomic grounds—item No. 1 in the agenda. If the NUM would agree to the wording for item No. 1 sent to it by the NCB, negotiations could start.

Will the Prime Minister find time today to send a message of congratulations, on behalf of the whole House, to the Archbishop of Canterbury on the success of his envoy through the patient diplomacy in Libya?

I gladly join the right hon. Gentleman, the Leader of the Liberal party. The Libyan decision to release the four hostages into Mr. Waite's custody is a welcome development. We are deeply grateful to His Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury and to Mr. Waite for the patience and skill that they have shown in the past few months. We now look to the Libyan authorities to complete quickly the formalities for the early return of the four people to their families in Britain.

Does the Prime Minister recall that last Thursday she told me on the Floor of the House that she had never predicted that unemployment would start to fall? Does she also recall that in November 1983 she said on the Floor of the House that she hoped to see a "reduction" in unemployment in the coming months? Does she also recall that in December 1983, she said: "Unemployment … appears to have peaked"?—[Official Report, 8 December 1983; Vol. 50, c. 461.] Will she now be more honest with the House and tell us that unemployment is remorselessly rising? Will she show any remorse for the part that her Government's policies have played in that?

The hon. Gentleman has struggled to find quotations and has been wholly unable to find one that predicted the state of unemployment and gave figures either for the end of a year or for the future. The hon. Gentleman astonishes me. Yes, I do hope that unemployment will fall. I hope that the hon. Gentleman hopes so too.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 5 February.

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

Has my right hon. Friend noted that retail spending in December was the highest on record in terms of both value and volume? Does she agree that one of the best ways to create more home-based jobs would be to meet that increased demand with home-produced products and services which are both enterprising and competitive, rather than to surrender a substantial part of that demand to our overseas competitors?

Yes, retail sales were very high indeed. It shows that there is no shortage of overall demand. I hope that more and more people will buy British goods because they are the best and I hope that more and more manufacturers will realise that the components that they buy can be manufactured just as well in Britain and upon as competitive a basis.

After another year in which industrial production was down, the pound was down and the trade balance was down, while manufactured imports were up by 10 per cent., interest rates were up by 15 per cent. and the unemployment rate was up by 150,000, was the Chancellor of the Exchequer correctly conveying the Prime Minister's view when he said last night that the Government's strategy "has achieved what it set out to achieve"?

The Government's strategy has achieved the lowest inflation for 15 or 16 years, which is absolutely vital, the highest output, which is absolutely vital, and record investment. On top of all that we have honoured our pledges to the pensioners and have achieved a 20 per cent. real increase in the National Health Service. That is far better than the record of the right hon. Gentleman's party.

We are used to hearing the Prime Minister's tales of recovery.

"To be told that we are in the fourth year of recovery with unemployment at 3½ million is a definition of an economic boom unknown to me."

If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that, he must apply exactly the same strictures to the German economy, which announced today record unemployment of something like 10·4 per cent. Germany also has conscription. It has also sent home a number of its gastarbeiter. What the right hon. Gentleman is refusing to do is to recognise that we are in a technological age and can turn out manufactured goods with far fewer people, and that therefore we have to aim for more employment in the service industries, which are labour-intensive. But that the right hon. Gentleman refuses to do.

I am most concerned about the real Britain. The three chairmen of chambers of commerce, the Northumbrian branch of the British Institute of Management, the northern region of the Confederation of British Industry and the north-east branch of the Institute of Directors yesterday asked the Prime Minister in The Times to engage in a programme of public works. They dismissed the idea of income tax cuts as a way to promote recovery and asked the Prime Minister to do something now to bring down unemployment. The hon. Friends of the Prime Minister are telling her that, business men and managers are telling her that, we are telling her that. Why does not the Prime Minister listen and learn and change her policies?

If the right hon. Gentleman were to look at the CBI forecast he would find that it is optimistic and confident and that both industry and trade, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Neale) said — with record sales, record output, record investment and rising profits—are well pleased.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 5 February.

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

What reassurance can my right hon. Friend give to my constituents on airports policy following last week's debate? Can she confirm that it remains Government policy not to build a fifth terminal at Heathrow and to introduce the 275,000 air traffic movements limit when the fourth terminal is opened later this year?

I realise that my hon. Friend has a constituency interest in this, but I am sure he will understand that it would be best for me to make no further comment whatever until the Government have considered everything that has been said and decided what policy to bring before the House for its approval.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 5 February.

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

Will the Prime Minister afford the Chamber some time this afternoon to explain how it is that Sarah Tisdall could be subjected to Government-inspired charges for circulating a somewhat unclassified document, while much more senior officials are to be allowed to give evidence to the Australian Royal Commission on nuclear testing and yet be exempted from perjury? Will she explain how one person can be imprisoned for telling the truth while others can be let off scot-free for telling lies under oath? Will she explain whether, when she refers to law and order, she is referring to her law and order or Parliament's?

I do not accept the premise in the hon. Gentleman's question. Prosecutions are not a matter for Her Majesty's Government, as the hon. Gentleman knows full well. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will think it right that we should give every assistance possible to the Australian commission of inquiry. That is what we are doing.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 5 February.

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

Will my right hon. Friend accept that, following the opening of the border between Gibraltar and Spain, a cloud hung over the ceremony — the issue of sovereignty? Will she take the opportunity today to reassure our friends in Gibraltar that their views on that issue will be paramount?

I believe that the opening of the border between Gibraltar and Spain today was generally welcomed, but I understand the purpose of my hon. Friend's question. Let me make it clear that the statement of 27 November 1984 underlined Her Majesty's Government's intention fully to maintain their commitment to honour the freely and democratically expressed wishes of the people of Gibraltar, as set out in the preamble to the Gibraltar constitution of 1969. As my hon. Friend says, Her Majesty's Government have given assurances to the people of Gibraltar that Gibraltar will remain part of Her Majesty's dominions unless and until an Act of Parliament provides otherwise, and, further-more, that Her Majesty's Government will never enter into arrangements under which the people of Gibraltar would pass under the sovereignty of another state against their freely and democratically expressed wishes. [Interruption.] The Opposition may not take much notice of that; we cherish the freedom of the people of Gibraltar to decide their future.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 5 February.

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

Will the right hon. Lady agree that since she took office as Prime Minister her Government have received £50,000 million in revenue from offshore activity? What has the country to show for it?

If the hon. Gentleman had listened to the economic debate that we had the other day he would have heard the point made — I thought effectively—that when we no longer have the North sea oil assets it will be vital to have replaced them by other income-producing assets. When we came to power we had £15 billion worth of assets overseas. We now have £70 billion worth, sufficient to give us a goodly income now and in future years.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 5 February.

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

Will my right hon. Friend take time today to consider the position of local councils which have lent on mortgage £4,000 million over 15, 20 or 25 years? Would it not be better if those local councils made that money available to building societies and other financial institutions and so re-invested the money in rehabilitation, modernisation and improvement of the 23,500 houses which they have left empty for more than 12 months?

Yes, I believe that my hon. Friend is right. I notice that he has tabled a question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer about some of the complexities of what would emerge from such a policy, and I shall leave my right hon. Friend to answer that in fuller detail.