asked the Paymaster General how many full-time employees there were in employment in 1979, 1983 and 1985, respectively.

Estimates of full-time and part-time male employees in employment are not separately available for these dates. In June 1979 there were 18,768,000 male employees and full-time female employees in employment. The corresponding estimates for 1983 and 1985 are 16,626,000 and 16,490,000 respectively.

Do the figures not show the full enormity of what has happened, the destruction of 2·5 million full-time jobs since 1979 and, in the past two years, the destruction of 750,000 full-time jobs? The only growth in recent times has been in a secondary labour market of an under class of female part-time labour with no employment protection, low pay, no holiday pay, no sick pay, and no pension rights. That is accompanied by a continued relentless destruction of full-time jobs.

That is exactly what the figures do not reveal. The hon. Gentleman is presumably drawing on the expert acquaintance of such matters that he has acquired in his distinguished service as Chairman of the Select Committee. He has chosen to use the arcane statisticians' definition of employees in employment instead of the more usual definition of the employed labour force. Had he chosen to use the employed labour force, which is the usual category by which the figures are judged, he would have seen that the number of jobs has increased by 709,000 since 1983, and that the total lost since 1979 has been just over million.

Does my hon. Friend agree that there were 1,800,000 in self employment in 1979? There are now 2,500,000. That is an encouraging increase, because if each unemployed person creates a good business, he can employ more people. That is a major area of employment growth.

My hon. Friend is entirely right and doubtless it is for that reason that the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) deliberately selected that category, which excludes the self employed from his total.

Will the Minister stop the misleading practice, when preparing the figures of employment, of treating men's part-time jobs as the full equivalent of men's full-time jobs? Is there any reason why the House should continually be misled by that failure to distinguish?

A job is a job. I am surprised to find the hon. Gentleman, speaking as he does for the Liberal party, adhering to that rigorous Stakhanovite doctrine held by so many members of the Opposition that everybody should be fully working the entire time.

Will my hon. Friend join me in rejecting the implications behind some supplementary questions that part-time work is in some way inferior to other forms of work? In practice, part-time work provides welcome and satisfying opportunities for employment. It makes an important contribution to the economy as a whole and is often very much welcomed by employers.

My hon. Friend is right. The majority of those who work part time do so from choice and not from pressure.

Do not the carefully selected figures that the Minister has presented to the House show clearly the employment disaster that has struck the United Kingdom as a result of the Government's economic policies? As the Minister is keen to boast about self-employment, will he provide the figures showing the growth in self-employed labour known as "lump labour" in the construction industry, which has been rapid over the past two years?

I understand that the hon. Gentleman has to make these ritual declarations once a month. Those who are self-employed, proud of their status and conscious of the expanding opportunities that they give others—many of them are offering employment as their businesses grow and flourish—will resent the aspersions that the hon. Gentleman is casting upon them.

asked the Paymaster General what progress has been made in Government policy towards tourism since the publication of the document "Pleasure, Leisure and Jobs".

The Government are continuing to place a high priority on encouraging the development of tourism and on maximising the industry's potential for growth, job creation and enterprise. Since the transfer of responsibility for tourism policy to the Department of Employment in September, we have announced a substantial increase in the financial provision next year for the British Tourist Authority and the English tourist board, bringing their total provision to £40 million.

I am delighted to hear of the further progress that has been made following the report to which many of my colleagues and I contributed as members of the party tourism committee. Will my hon. Friend be kind enough to give details of precisely where the money will be distributed to benefit areas of high unemployment such as my own, greatly increasing tourism activity.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his initial remarks. Discussions are currently taking place with the British Tourist Authority and the English tourist board to decide how we will split between them this money and section 4 tourist assistance. We intend to concentrate a substantial part of the money in areas where we can develop tourist attractions and where unemployment is higher.

In meeting the two aims that the Minister has enunciated, will he reject the findings and recommendation of the Select Committee that the United Kingdom tourist boards should be merged into one?

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we have received the report of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry. Our considered response will be available in the near future.

What steps does my hon. Friend intend to take to alleviate the appalling delays that are being encountered by early-morning travellers at Heathrow, where passengers are treated almost like cattle?

If they were cattle, we would probably be prosecuted. My hon. Friend has made a valid point and identified one of the 32 action points that are highlighted in the Young report apprised entitled, "Pleasure, Leisure and Jobs: The Business of Tourism". I have recently had a meeting with my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, Home Office, and I am fully apprised of the importance of the matter to which my hon. Friend has drawn the attention of the House.

Valuable as tourist jobs are, they do not compensate for the loss of industrial jobs. What is the Minister doing to convince his right hon. and hon. Friends to save the steel industry in Scotland?

The hon. Gentleman is using an ingenious device to raise a matter which is not connected directly with the substantive question. The issue which he has raised is one of balance. The Department of Employment is concerned with all these matters. I suggested in my main reply that we have a sector that has enormous wealth-creation and employment-creation potential. Perhaps that has been overlooked in the past. We are now intent on developing that potential to the full.

asked the Paymaster General why he uses the number of people drawing unemployment benefit as a definition of the unemployment total.

We have no administrative means of producing quickly, accurately and at reasonable cost each month the precise number of people without jobs who are actively seeking work, which would be my definition of unemployment. As the best monthly snapshot measure of that number, we can produce statistics based on records of people claiming benefits. In practice, these statistics usually prove to be broadly in balance with the figures produced by our less frequent survey estimates of the number of people unemployed.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the number drawing benefit include many people, such as married women with children and people who take early retirement, who are not actively seeking work? Should not the published official statistics for the unemployment total reflect more accurately the number of people actually looking for work?

In considering the figures one has to bear in mind that at the time of the last survey about 940,000 people claiming benefit had not recently been seeking work, but about 870,000 people not drawing benefit say that they would take work if it were available. As a result, the figures produced each month and the results of the periodic detailed surveys are roughly equivalent. There is no cheap and easy way to be more precise than that.

Does not the fact that many unemployed people are not drawing benefit prove, as we have said many times, that the figures are falsified and do not represent the true level of unemployment?

I invite the hon. Gentleman to study what I have just said. From the number of claimants one must deduct the number who do not appear to be seeking work, perhaps for good reasons, but one must add the number not receiving benefit but seeking work. The result is about 3 million. It serves no useful purpose for the Opposition to load on top of the official figures all kinds of categories of people to produce the inflated figure of 4 million to which so many Opposition Members refer.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that the labour force survey figures merely confuse the issue? Does he agree that the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. HeathcoatAmory) is much more serious, because many people not receiving unemployment benefit are classified as unemployed because benefit has been disallowed? Does he agree that we shall never have meaningful unemployment figures until a work test is instituted, as envisaged in the Beveridge report, on which the welfare state is based?

My hon. Friend rightly points to the confusion and attempts to clarify the position. The key point is that there are too many people out of work and seeking work. That is why the Government are actively pursuing steps to increase the number of new jobs created. It serves no useful purpose to inflate the unemployment total, as the Opposition do. It is important to bear in mind that all those claiming benefit should be available for work. That is the test of eligibility for benefit, and the Government are entitled to take steps, as we are doing, to ensure that benefit is paid only to people genuinely available for work.

Does the Minister admit that for several years the Opposition have been asking questions about the unemployment figures and the Minister has been saying that that is not fair and that we should ask about the number of people in employment, but now that we put down questions about employment he says that that is even more unfair?

Questions about employment have just been answered very clearly by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State. We welcome as many questions as possible about employment and the creation of new jobs, because our best estimates are that about 709,000 new jobs have been created since the last general election.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that out of the 3 million unemployed only 379,000 are registered at jobcentres? Does he further agree that the jobcentres are hampered in seeking to fill the vacancies for skilled labour that many employers have, especially in my constituency in the Thames valley? Will he carefully consider a further pilot scheme to require the unemployed in areas of low unemployment and clear skill shortage to register at jobcentres so that the jobcentres can actively seek to match the unemployed to the vacancies?

Registration at jobcentres is now voluntary, and only just over 400,000 choose to register. As more jobs are now being notified to jobcentres, in a number of pilot areas we have launched proposals to get in touch, first, with the long-term unemployed to bring them to the jobcentres so that jobs, training, job club membership and so on can be offered to them. This has been very successful in a number of areas.

Does the Postmaster General accept—[interruption.] Does the Paymaster General accept that if there is any confusion about the figures being inflated, it is because the Government spend all their time deflating the figures by massaging them downwards? If the Government used the previous criteria for those who are registered as unemployed, unemployment figures would be about half a million more than they are now.

I have been entirely clear about our figures. It is no good the hon. Member complaining about the inadequacy of the figures, when every time that we seek to improve them he accuses us of fiddling them. There is no point in the hon. Gentleman, as he consistently does, seeking to inflate those figures in bogus ways to produce the figure of 4 or 5 million, or whatever figure that he uses in his speech.

asked the Paymaster General what steps he proposes to take to encourage large firms to second some of their executives to local enterprise agencies.

Business in the Community is taxing the lead in encouraging an increase in secondments to local enterprise agencies from large firms. Such secondments can qualify for tax relief. The Government fully support BIC's efforts in this area.

I am sorry that the "Pastemaster General" is not answering this question. Will my hon. Friend acknowledge that without the help of big business "oak trees", the small business "acorns", which are catered for by enterprise agencies, would be unlikely to take root? Will my hon. Friend pay tribute to The British American Tobacco, Co., which is assisting the Solent enterprise agency to get off the ground? Without its aid the agency would probably not have prospered. Will he use his best endeavours to encourage other big businesses to help enterprise agencies in the same way?

My hon. Friend is right. I join him in complimenting BAT on the way in which it has sponsored the Solent enterprise agency by providing a secondee. I pay a warm tribute to the growing number of large firms which are seeking to help small businesses, indirectly or directly, in this way.

Is my hon. Friend aware that we have been setting up an enterprise agency in King's Lynn? Will he tell the House what he plans to do about seconding more civil servants to local enterprise agencies? Does he agree that a spell at the sharp end of the private sector would do their career development much good?

My hon. Friend has been giving us a month-by-month account of the progress of his enterprise agency. I am glad that he has drawn the attention of the House to the agency, which comes into operation this week.

asked the Paymaster General what has been the underlying increase in average earnings over the last year.

The underlying increase in average weekly earnings in the year to November 1985 was 7·5 per cent. This should not be confused with the average increase of pay settlements, which will be lower as the figure for earnings includes overtime, bonuses and similar factors.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, in present circumstances, both figures are too high, and that although averages can conceal a great deal, it is vital that individual businesses do not grant pay awards which increase their real unit costs? In that respect, should we not learn the lesson of the United States, where recently millions of new jobs have been created when real average earnings have fallen?

I appreciate the expert knowledge which my hon. Friend, as the author of a booklet on the subject, brings to the matter, but it is inappropriate for a Minister to say that any wage increase is too high, as an abstract concept. It is not for the Government to intervene in bargaining between employers and employees. None the less, my hon. Friend is perfectly right to draw attention to unit costs and productivity, on which our competitiveness rests.

Is the Minister aware that one reason why the increase was about 7·7 per cent. was that the Government gave the green light to those at the top end of the salary scale last year when they awarded a 19 per cent. increase to those earning top salaries? As a result, executives and other types managed to rope in another 17 per cent. during 1985. Is it any wonder that the average has increased to more than 7 per cent.? The trouble is that those at the bottom end have been hammered by the Government since 1979.

The Top Salaries Review body is completely independent, and the House would take a poor view of any Government interference in its deliberations. The hon. Gentleman's arithmetic is rather confused. The recipients of those awards were so few in number that they could not possibly affect the statistical average of the increase in earnings.

Since pay in British manufacturing industry is increasing twice as fast as that in Japan and the United States, it can only mean that our manufactured goods will become consistently less competitive, which means that fewer are made, fewer are sold and there are fewer jobs. How do we stop this national lunacy of pricing ourselves out of work?

There is much truth in what my hon. Friend says, but I would not wish to be associated with any dirigiste intervention in the bargaining between employers and employees. Employers must see the sense of my hon. Friend's argument reflected in their order books.

asked the Paymaster General how many workers are currently covered by wages councils; and what proportion are under 21 years of age.

About 2·75 million workers are covered by wages councils. Of these, approximately 20 per cent. are under 21 years of age.

Is the Paymaster General aware that my union—the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers—has expressed much anxiety about the suggestion that the Government might amend or abolish the wages council for shop workers? Is he also aware that the Shops Bill, which is now in the other place and which deals with the introduction of Sunday trading, will remove controls over young people working in shops? They can no longer benefit from wages council protection. Will the Minister tell the House what proposals the Government have in mind?

I am happy to repeat that it is the Government's firm intention to introduce a Bill this Session to reform the wages councils. We propose to reduce the powers of the wages councils so that they can specify only one basic rate and one overtime rate. We also propose to remove employees under the age of 21 from the scope of wages councils. Our motive for doing so is that we believe that, by setting young people's wages too high in relation to adult wages, and too high in relation to the value that they add to a business, we are making more youngsters unemployed than we need to. The reform will increase the potential for more youth employment.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the argument in favour of removing wages councils, at least for those aged under 21, has been won and established in the public mind, even if not in the mind of the Opposition? If wages councils destroy or deter the creation of new jobs, they are ineffective and we had better get rid of them anyway. On both counts, it would be much better to get rid of them.

I trust that we have won the public argument. When we introduce the Bill we shall discover the extent to which we have won the parliamentary argument. I agree with my hon. Friend's arguments and conclusions. The wages councils have quite unintentionally reduced the number of jobs that are made available to young people in this country.

Can the Paymaster General explain why the Government intend to weaken the protection that is afforded to 3 million workers, including ½ million young workers, who are paid very low wages? According to the "New Earnings Survey," since 1979 the top 20 per cent. of workers have increased their pay above the average, but the bottom 20 per cent. had pay increases that were lower than the rate of inflation. They have, therefore, suffered a net drop in income. This proposal will ensure that they are paid even less.

My first priority is the interests of the 3 million or so people who are unemployed, in particular the young unemployed who are included in that total. If the wages councils continue to stipulate extremely complex pay arrangements in very important trades, and continue to set for young employees pay rates that are too high in relation to pay rates for experienced adults, the effect will be to reduce the number of jobs that are made available to young people in this country. The wages councils are therefore out of date in those respects and it is high time that we reformed them.

asked the Paymaster General whether his Department will establish more job clubs in the northern region.

The Manpower Services Commission at present runs 30 job clubs, four of which are located in the MSC's northern region. Initial results are very encouraging, and about two thirds of the people who have joined job clubs have found jobs. Provided that evaluation confirms this, I have asked the commission to make plans for a rapid expansion to establish a national network of 200 job clubs by the end of this year. These plans will certainly include proposals to open a number of additional job clubs in the MSC's northern region.

I am very grateful for that most heartening answer. Is my hon. Friend aware that this experiment is proving to be very successful? Does he agree that personal, in-depth counselling is of far more assistance to the long-term unemployed than any amount of artificial indignation that may be expressed by the Opposition?

Yes. It has been one of the most successful of the Government's initiatives. The number of people who find jobs after having been on one of these courses in the northern areas is, on average, about three quarters of those who attend such courses. In March 1985 I visited the first experimental job club in Durham, and I was so impressed by what I saw that the Department put in train this considerable expansion.

Will not the recent rate support grant settlement under which the Government are imposing a 35 per cent. rate increase upon Cumbrians wipe out at a stroke all the benefits of the enterprise incentives that have been introduced by the Government during the last few years? Are they not creating unemployment on the one hand and introducing on the other a number of palliative measures, such as job clubs and enterprise allowances?— [Interruption.] That is absolutely in order, if the Minister would only listen and stop protesting. He will have an opportunity to answer the question. Is it not true that the enterprise allowances and the other so-called incentives will be wiped out by the rate support grant settlement?

The hon. Gentleman has probably been having a nap and has confused the subject and the day upon which his question should be put. Whatever extraneous circumstances may prevail, experience shows that those who go through the job clubs are better suited to place themselves in the employment market than those who do not.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the widespread introduction of job clubs. Is it not a fact that those who join job clubs to learn new skills and interviewing techniques are the kind of people for whom employers are looking?

Yes. They are more likely to be the people for whom employers are looking when they emerge from job club courses than they were when they went on to those courses. It is an established, regrettable truth that those who have been out of work for a very long time lose self-confidence. They lose familiarity with the labour market. They also lose the ability to project their personality and their skills. It is to help them to recover their self-confidence that job clubs have been instituted.

Is it not time that the Minister admitted that what the long-term unemployed want, many of whom are over 50 and have been unemployed for three, four or five years, are jobs, real live jobs? As long as this Government are in office, it is obvious that they will not get jobs. Will the Minister confirm what my hon. Friend suggested earlier, that the December figures for unemployment are the highest ever recorded?

The hon. Gentleman paints in far too pessimistic a colour. The Government are engaged on a much broader initiative of contacting long-term unemployed people. That initiative embraces many different types of action, of which job clubs are only one part. There is the job-start scheme with its £20 grant and the personal contact initiative. Many such initiatives are being favourably received and successfully implemented.

asked the Paymaster General what is the total funding for the youth training scheme in England in the current financial year.

We have made available £710 million for the youth training scheme in England in 1985–86. Including Scotland and Wales, total funding is £834 million.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the Leicestershire employment and education project on Constitution hill in my constituency? That is a YTS project and provides basic training for disadvantaged young people from the inner area. It has a high success rate and has contributed to a reduction in unemployment in my constituency of some 6·2 per cent. since September 1984.

I am pleased to learn that there has been such a significant fall in the level of unemployment in my hon. and learned Friend's constituency, and I am grateful to him for paying such a warm compliment to the Leicestershire employment and education project. As he suggests, there is now ample evidence, not only in his constituency but throughout the country, that the YTS is effective in providing for a real need.

Is the Minister aware that in the inner cities there are major problems with YTS, particularly in the voluntary sector? Many people in the inner cities are worried about the new arrangements for funding and about their ability to provide the type of training that has hitherto been provided. Many people, particularly in the caring services, will not go into any type of training, and they will be a major problem, particularly for the inner cities. Will the Minister give consideration to representations from organisations such as NACRO and others?

I will certainly give serious consideration to the point made by the hon. Gentleman and draw his remarks to the attention of the Manpower Services Commission. The number of premium places under the new scheme is designed to meet the needs of young people with particular training needs for whom employer-based places will not suffice. I told the hon. Gentleman that at a meeting that I had with him, but if he wishes to come back and explore the ground further, I shall be happy to do so.

My hon. Friend knows that I am an enthusiastic supporter of the YTS. Will he accept that one of the ingredients in the demoralisation of school teachers is the feeling that a great deal of the work that they would otherwise do is being taken over by the training scheme? Will he give me an assurance that he will look carefully at closer liaison between schools and school teachers and people doing a similar job under a different budget with a different title in the youth training scheme?

I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks in the second part of his question, but I am not sure that I agree with the first part. This is Industry Year, and it gives us a golden opportunity to improve links between industry and education, which perhaps should have been improved 30 years ago. As a result of the initiatives taken by the Department of Trade and Industry and followed by the Department in which I am a Minister I hope that the situation will improve. I do not accept that YTS courses are in any way displacing the work that should be carried out by the teaching profession.

Is it the case that part of the burden of the youth training scheme is being transferred to local authorities? Will the hon. Gentleman tell us exactly what the figure is? Does he realise that that is most unfair, because the heaviest burden falls on some of the local authorities that have the highest unemployment? Will he look at the whole of this proposition to make sure that the full burden of the funding is carried by central Government?

The right hon. Gentleman is somewhat misled. The change of emphasis in YTS is to place more of a responsibility on employers rather than on local authorities. The principal reason for doing that is that they have a vested interest in the trainees who come out at the other end of the scheme. While I am on my feet, I can hardly miss the opportunity to refer to the fact that the right hon. Gentleman's constituency has seen a fairly dramatic fall in the level of unemployment over the last 12 months—8 per cent.

Can my hon. Friend confirm that that part of the funding that goes to the young people is a training allowance and not a wage? Can he tell the House what he is doing to help the young people themselves understand that in the face of misleading propaganda, some of it coming from the Opposition Benches?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. It is, of course, an allowance and is not meant to be a wage. We are trying to increase awareness of that fact wherever we can, through publications and the production of videos. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me an opportunity to say from this Box that that is correct.

Does the Minister recognise the excellent contribution made to the youth training scheme by voluntary bodies? Is he aware that the rules and the way that they are applied, particularly to the number of premium places mentioned earlier, are likely to mean that there will be no B1 schemes run by small voluntary bodies, and that those in Yorkshire with which that I am acquainted are already talking of closing? Will the Minister consider again the whole question of how the rules apply to smaller voluntary bodies which have been able to provide a variety of schemes, which the larger ones cannot provide?

I give the hon. Gentleman an assurance that I shall consider the matter again. I cannot believe that there will be no premium places available in any part of his constituency with any voluntary training association that has been set up. It is important for me to stress that some £40 million was spent last year on unfilled places. As guardians of the taxpayers' money, we cannot consider that as responsible expenditure.

asked the Paymaster General how many fatal accidents and serious injuries were reported by the Health and Safety Executive for the last year for which figures are available; and what were the comparable figures for the year ended 1978.

In 1984, 432 fatal injuries to employees were reported; 499 were reported in 1978 under the legislation then in force, which did not cover all sectors of employment. In 1984, 12,246 major injuries to employees were reported. Comparable figures for 1978 are not available. I should point out that the 1984 figures are provisional.

Does the Paymaster General accept that the great improvement in safety in industry is due largely to the inspectors in the health and safety operations since the Health and Safety Executive was set up? In those industries not covered by the Health and Safety Executive accidents and injuries have increased. Does the Paymaster General accept, therefore, that a reduction of 200 in the number of safety inspectors as a result of cuts in the Civil Service can only lead to an increase in accidents and deaths in industry?

Our better record is a result of ever-improving consciousness of the need to achieve good practice by employers and employees and of the good work of the inspectors of the Health and Safety Executive? The number of inspectors is down at the moment because of wastage and a large number of retirements. Recruitment of inspectors is taking place in all relevant areas.

asked the Paymaster General what is the total number of unemployed; and how many have been unemployed for at least one and two years respectively, at the latest available date.

On 10 October 1985, the latest date for which figures are available, the number of unemployed claimants in the United Kingdom was 3,276,900, of whom 1,351,900–41 per cent. of the total—had been unemployed for over one year, and 823,100 for over two years.

Is not the most damning condemnation of the Government's policies the number of long-term unemployed? The figures that the Minister has just read out are disgraceful. As we have constantly been told about the success of the Government's economic policies, will he say when they are likely to bring down the number of unemployed?

New policies are producing a rapid rate of creation of new jobs. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that our first priority among the unemployed must be to tackle the problem of the long-term unemployed. That is why we are trying out in pilot areas the schemes that I described a few moments ago. We are approaching each of the long-term unemployed in those areas, we are offering them individual advice, referring them to jobs, to training and to job clubs, and providing a new allowance to supplement the pay of those who have to take a low-paid job as their first job. The combination of the present growth in the economy and the growth in new jobs, plus those special measures for the long-term unemployed, should bring great hope to many of them.

When my right hon. and learned Friend announces the monthly unemployment figures, will he consider announcing at the same time equivalent figures for our partners in the EEC? As our figures are usually better than those of other EEC countries, why do we leave it to the Opposition to put the worst possible slant on what we are doing?

We try to make useful comparisons of that type, but people always take more notice of the unemployment figures than of many relevant comparisons that could be made with overseas. Since the last election here, the creation of new jobs in the United Kingdom has far exceeded the rate at which they have been created in the rest of the EC put together. We should be more aware of that achievement.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 21 January.

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

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the pleasure that will exist in many parts of the House over they fact that, for the first time in seven years, a Prime Minister of Israel is visiting a British Prime Minister? Will she use this opportunity to discuss with him ways in which our two democratic countries can improve their co-operation to combat the scourge of international terrorism?

I agree with my hon. Friend. We are very much looking forward to the visit of Prime Minister Peres. Terrorism will of course be one of the subjects that we shall discuss, but my hon. Friend would not expect me to go into details. I stress that we attach great importance to this meeting.

May I first associate myself closely with the Prime Minister's latter remarks?

Obviously the Government do not like increases in interest rates, but they are bound to take action to ensure that keeping down inflation remains our top priority. Markets this week have been unsettled by the fall in the oil price, but the Bank of England has maintained its dealing rates.

Is it not the case that the Prime Minister must be the only person left who believes that she can fight inflation by pushing up interest rates and by imposing on industry the nutcracker of high domestic interest rates and a high exchange rate? What has the Prime Minister got against British industry?

British industry has had an extremely good year, with record profits, record investment and excellent exports.

The Prime Minister keeps making misleading claims. Investment in manufacturing industry in Britain is 18 per cent. lower than it was six years ago. Although manufactured exports have increased by 13 per cent. during the past six years, manufactured imports have increased by 45 per cent. I ask the Prime Minister again, what has she got against British industry?

The right hon. Gentleman ran away from many industrial problems, such as restrictive practices and the behaviour of trade unions during the winter of discontent. Yesterday's figures show that industrial production in the third quarter was 2 per cent. up on the second quarter and that manufacturing output was 1 per cent. up. Gross domestic product is at an all-time record.

Does my right hon. Friend think that it is right or sensible that men and women running small businesses should have to pay about 16 per cent. to borrow money when there are over 3 million unemployed and enormous unused resources? Will she bear this in mind as the clamour rises for even higher interest rates?

It is hardly clamour for higher interest rates. As my hon. Friend has occasion to know, the interest rates are to a considerable extent partly due to the commercial judgment of the banks in the City, and he knows that we cannot disregard that.

Since the Prime Minister recognises the unacceptability of the domestic rating system and is so strongly pledged personally to abolish it, why is it that in the meantime she loads extra expenditure on to the brokendown system, and particularly on to the ratepayers in the counties?

The right hon. Gentleman will have been in for, or will have read, a considerable part of the debate yesterday. He knows full well that the rate support grant settlement for next year involves a modest shift in grant from the shire areas to London and other metropolitan areas, which, unfortunately, does cause discomfort to the shire counties. He knows also that I am no advocate of the present system, and that is why we shall be putting forward proposals, I hope by the end of the month, in a Green Paper to change it.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 21 January.

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

Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity today to pay tribute to the skills and courage shown by the master and crew of Britannia in rescuing our citizens from the fighting in South Yemen?

I gladly do so. My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary will be making a statement after questions, but I am sure that the whole House would like to congratulate the officers and the men of Britannia and of HMS Jupiter and HMS Newcastle and the Royal Fleet Auxiliary Brambleleaf, and the crisis unit at the Foreign Office, which did such excellent work in identifying the people who needed to be taken off from Aden.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 21 January.

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

Can the Prime Minister say when she will honour her promise to give Government money to Bradford City football club to help rebuild its ground at Valley parade?

I do not think that I made a promise to do that. As the hon. Member will be aware, we are at present considering whether we should give money to Bradford football club. In the exceptional circumstances—[Interruption.] I hear various things coming from hon. Members in a sedentary position. We made a contribution to the disaster fund, and quite rightly. We are considering the question raised by the hon. Gentleman.

Has my right hon. Friend had her attention drawn to the article in the magazine Jane's Defence Weekly, stating that Soviet trained agents have been infiltrating the ranks of the Greenham Common women and that they have been trained to carry out acts of sabotage in time of tension and war? Does my right hon. Friend have any information to contradict that report?

As my right hon. Friend is aware, we do not comment on specific reports, but we are very much aware of the dangers that special forces in the country would present at times of crisis or in wartime. That was precisely why we had Exercise Brave Defender last September, in order to see how we should properly protect sensitive installations.

Has the Prime Minister had the opportunity to read today's London Standard, which carries a front page story stating that the Government are planning new curbs on unions and further anti-trade union legislation? Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to deny that outrageous story, which will cause anger and dismay among trade union members who have just carried out highly successful ballots to maintain trade union political funds?

I saw the article and anticipated the question. May I make it quite clear that this Government have done more than any other to ensure that union bosses are accountable to their members. There are further steps that can be taken. We have not yet reached any decisions and, before doing so, will be consulting further.

To revert to the question raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Sir P. Blaker), does my right hon. Friend not think that it would be extraordinarily incompetent of the Soviet Union if it did not seek to infiltrate Greenham Common? Can she confirm that top priority will be given to the security, not only of Greenham Common, but of the Molesworth base in Cambridgeshire?

I know of my hon. Friend's particular interest in that base. Brave Defender was carried out to see how we could ensure the defence of all-important installations, including that one.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 21 January.

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

What would the right hon. Lady say today to those unemployed young people from my constituency who visited her last year and who are still unemployed, to the 10,000 unemployed in my constituency and to the tens of thousands who will lose jobs throughout the country as a result of the massive rises in rates and interest rates that are in the pipeline?

The hon. Gentleman refers to the group that he brought to see me a year ago. I had several employers there to see the group. I made inquiries before I came to the House today and I was told that all but four of the group have been offered either training or employment.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 21 January.

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

Will my right hon. Friend assure us that once the law to allow Sunday trading comes into operation she will give some support to flexible licensing hours, and thus bring the country into line with Scotland and the Palace of Westminster?

As my hon. Friend is aware, the Shops Bill has yet to come to the House and proceed through its stages. I am aware that a number of people would like to consider flexible licensing hours, and if my hon. Friend wishes we shall give consideration to that in due course. However, one should not do anything to suggest that flexible licensing hours are equal to or in any way the same as those of the Palace of Westminster.

Does the right hon. Lady intend to ignore the vast correspondence that she has received protesting against the Shops Bill? Will she at least refrain from putting a three-line Whip on what is a matter of conscience?

I understand that the right hon. Gentleman comes from a part of the country where there is no limitation on Sunday trading. However, he wishes to stop us south of the border from having the same privilege. As he knows, we do not discuss Whipping matters in the House.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 21 January.

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

Is the Prime Minister aware of the serious unrest among members of the Royal College of Nursing following the appointment of district managers from outside the service, and of the effect that that is having on the morale of nurses? Will the Prime Minister prevail upon her colleague the Secretary of State for Social Services, with a view to him examining this serious problem so that he can appoint nurse-managers from within the service, to whom nurses would be responsible and by whom they would be managed, to ensure proper patient care?

I visited a hospital on Friday, and I did not find what the hon. Gentleman is suggesting. Most people in the National Health Service realise that it is important to get good management. Managers are sometimes nurses or doctors, but it is important that the right person to be a manager is chosen, whether that person has previously been an administrator, a nurse or a doctor.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 21 January.

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

Will my right hon. Friend consider using her personal influence to urge the Scottish striking teachers to negotiate an end to this damaging strike, which is hurting pupils and lowering the profession in the esteem of the public?

I agree very much with my hon. Friend. We deplore the further industrial action because of the harm that it is doing to pupils and the great distress that is is causing the parents. I join her in hoping that the strike will soon end, and that we shall be able to come to some agreement on terms and conditions of service also and that we will be able to get a better system of appraisal so that we can pay better teachers more.

Can the Prime Minister say what benefits will accrue to the northern regions of this country, and to Scotland and Northern Ireland, arising out of the agreement that she signed yesterday with the French President, particularly regarding the regeneration of industry and jobs?

That would depend upon how many of the orders for equipment and materials went to Scotland, but about 50,000 man-years' work will be involved in that project and I hope that that will spread very well over the country.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 21 January.

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

After giving such a commendable impetus to plans for a tunnel under the English Channel, may I ask my right hon. Friend to instil the same sense of urgency into the Department of Transport regarding a far more modest project for a tunnel under the River Thames at Dartford — thereby removing the most atrocious bottleneck on the M25 —especially since private risk capital is available for this venture too?

I very much take note of what my hon. Friend says. I have occasion to know that area very well. I particularly note that he believes that private sector capital would be available for such a project.