asked the Paymaster General if he will detail the number of foreign tourists entering Britain in 1979 and 1985 and also estimate the number of jobs created from this source.

The number of visits to the United Kingdom by foreign residents rose from 12·5 million in 1979 to 14·6 million in 1985. In the six years to June 1985 the number of employees in the hotel, catering and leisure sectors, which most directly depend on both foreign and domestic tourists' expenditure, rose by around 101,000. In addition, self-employment has grown, for example, by around 19,000 in the hotel and catering industries between 1981 and 1985.

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that extremely encouraging reply. Does he agree that if tourists moved outside the general area of London into rural areas more jobs and more opportunities in the tourist sector would be established?

I am glad to say that the English Tourist Board has used the additional money that we have given it to increase by about 20 per cent. this year the subvention to regional tourist boards. We have asked the tourist authorities, in making use of section 4 grants, to concentrate on areas of high employment where there is potential for growth. We have taken on board my hon. Friend's valid point.

Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the retention of the Settle-Carlisle railway line would attract more people to this country and promote employment? What is he doing to persuade the Secretary of State for Transport to keep this important line open?

I remember from one of my previous duties the interest that arose in that railway the moment the railway authorities proposed to divert traffic from it. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is continuing to look with interest at all the proposals to save this picturesque route.

In view of the Americans' facility of self-delusion, will my right hon. and learned Friend turn his mind to current opinion in the United States, which appears to see this country as a seething cauldron of unrest? Will he, as a politician, do what is perhaps not fair of us to expect the official British Tourist Authority to do and bluntly point out that if the Americans really want an unsafe holiday surrounded by violence the best thing they can do is go to Florida?

I am afraid that there is a wave of feeling in the United States that it is not safe to come to Europe. That could lead to a decrease in the number of visitors to Britain. The tourist authorities have been bringing trade and travel representatives and journalists to this country to reassure them that our airport security is good and that safety levels here remain much higher than in United States cities. A formal political reaction might arouse more concern than reassurance. A concerted attempt to control terrorism, especially at airports, will do more than anything else to reassure American visitors.

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the rather small number of new jobs to which he referred in his main answer are basically low-paid, seasonal, insecure and unskilled? Is he aware also that, in exactly the same period when that small number of jobs were created, we lost 1·75 million high-paid, regular, good jobs which earned more money for this country from abroad? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman also aware that in West Derbyshire it will take 30 years to erase the quadrupling of unemployment in the tourist industry during that period?

The figure I gave was for the increase in those trades most directly concerned with tourism. People know that well over 1 million jobs are dependent on tourism in one way or another, and the figures I have given in no way refer to the people who work in retailing, public transport or other sectors of the economy, where tourism helps. Those are real jobs—36,000 for men. They are perfectly good jobs and, with respect, the hon. Gentleman is out of touch with events and with the times if he goes back to dismissing tourist jobs as somehow not real jobs. West Derbyshire depends very heavily on tourism, and the hon. Gentleman's remarks will be carefully noted there if he tries to denigrate the industry.

Has my right hon. and learned Friend yet made any decision on the difference between the increase in funding he will allocate to the British Tourist Authority and the English Tourist Board?

Yes we have. I shall give my hon. Friend the precise breakdown in correspondence later. We have agreed an allocation to the British Tourist Authority and the English Tourist Board and the amount for grants under section 4.

asked the Paymaster General what is the current total number of unemployed people in the United Kingdom.

On 6 March 1986 the number of unemployed claimants in the United Kingdom was 3,324,000.

Will the Minister now tell us the truth and admit that there are over 4 million unemployed, most of whom are being thrown out of work because of the Government's disastrous economic policies? The Government then fiddle the books to try to conceal the true length of the dole queue, which is costing the country over £20 billion a year. Why cannot that kind of money be channelled into public investment to create real jobs for the unemployed people of this country?

The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. The number of real jobs and people in employment in this country has risen in every quarter over the past three years. Over that period about 1 million new jobs have been created.

Is my hon. Friend aware that under the initiative for the long-term unemployed on Teesside some 70 per cent. of those called in by jobcentres are getting a positive result? Will my hon. Friend pay tribute to jobcentre staff and assessers and invite the Opposition to visit some of this long-term work instead of criticising it as simply tea and sympathy?

My hon. Friend is right. Our restart initiative to bring help to the long-term unemployed around the country should be widely welcomed. It will help direct those unemployed people to the many jobs that are available.

Does the Minister realise the serious damage now being done to morale on the youth training scheme and the community programme by the prospects of unemployment for some of those reaching the end of their courses and in the light of the figures that he has just given? Does he agree that the manufacturing and construction sectors, especially, should deliberately be expanded in order to match the number of people who are eager and well-equipped to work in them?

I have just told the House that employment in this country has risen by about 1 million in the past three years. This suggests that there are a large number of jobs for people completing youth training schemes and the community programme. About two-thirds of YTS graduates go into employment or training and twice as many people coming off the community programme go into jobs as other long-term unemployed people.

Is my hon. Friend aware that recently, after extensive research, The Mail on Sunday estimated that one-fifth of those who are currently claiming unemployment benefit simultaneously work in the black economy?

We take very seriously any suggestion of fraud and would rigorously investigate any cases for which evidence is brought to us. My hon. Friend might like to know that we have expanded the fraud investigation staff by some 50 per cent. recently, and we plan further expansion.

Is the Minister aware that the figures he has given to the House, massaged and fiddled though they are, are an absolute condemnation of six years of Tory Government incompetence? Will the Minister also confirm that when we get the June labour survey figures, as a result of the latest fiddle that the Government are embarking upon, we shall have a substantial drop in the percentage of those unemployed? Will the Minister also say why the monthly labour market statistics are now leaving out such valuable information as the numbers of long-term unemployed? Is the Minister not ashamed of those figures?

I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the long-term unemployed amount to approximately 1·4 million. On the matter of fiddling the figures, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell us which of the changes that have been made to the unemployment count he would reverse if the Labour party ever came to power?

asked the Paymaster General what steps he will take to ensure that the current business expansion scheme does not disadvantage hotels.

Under the Budget proposals for revisions to the business expansion scheme, hotel companies will continue to be eligible provided that they meet conditions on the backing of investments by property assets. Genuine risk-bearing investments will not be disavantaged.

Will my hon. Friend assure me that the hotel industry will not be put at a disadvantage compared to other industries by the proposals in the Finance Bill? Can he say the same for the self-catering accommodation sector?

I am anxious to give my right hon. Friend the assurance that he is seeking. Well planned hotel projects and projects related to tourism will still be attractive investments, and BES tax relief will obviously be a useful incentive. It is important to stress that BES was first introduced to attract those who would otherwise not have made safe investments to take the risk, and that is the reason for the tax incentive. The new proposals by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer mean that risk-free investments are excluded, as I believe they should be.

Does my hon. Friend accept that the business expansion scheme is admirable but suffers from one great defect—that the people who would be most likely to make such an investment are those most closely related to the people running the business? Will he speak to his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to see whether there is some device—for example, channelling through an enterprise agency—which will make it possible for parents to put their money into their children's enterprises?

That point has been put to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor several times, but there is, of course, the additionality problem. My right hon. Friend has always said that such money would be invested in those companies in any event without the additional incentive of the tax relief. That is the argument, but I shall be happy to draw my hon. Friend's points to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

asked the Paymaster General what provision he will make for young people leaving YTS between April and September in the current year to help them into employment.

Many young people completing one-year YTS this year will be offered a second year of training. Those who leave will have access to help from the careers service and jobcentres, and we aim to improve further the employment prospects of ex-YTS youngsters through the recently announced new workers scheme.

How many young people will leave YTS during the period from the end of this month to September? Is not the reality that if they do not have a job there is no alternative scheme? The Government are dumping these young people on the dole queues, deserting them and forsaking them.

There might be an element of truth in the hon. Gentleman's claim were it not for the fact that in the recent Budget a new scheme was introduced called the new workers scheme. Approximately 170,000 people will complete their one-year YTS in the period to which the hon. Gentleman referred. Obviously the new workers scheme is complementary to YTS. If continuation places are not sufficient in an area the new scheme will apply. I understand that there are some 600 YTS continuation places available in the hon. Gentleman's constituency in Bradford. I hope that those places will suffice to meet the need. If not, the new workerss scheme will complement what is available, and YTS leavers will be eligible for those places.

asked the Paymaster General whether he will review the operation of industrial relations legislation passed since 1979.

We keep the operation of the legislation under constant review. We have made encouraging progress towards giving members a greater say in the affairs of their own union, a fairer balance of power between unions and employers, and better industrial relations.

I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for that reply. Does he agree that the action attempted by SOGAT at Wapping contrasts sharply with the general reduction in the number of industrial disputes following the introduction of ballots? Would SOGAT be in its present difficulties with the courts if it had simply balloted the members it had instructed to strike?

My hon. Friend is correct. So far as I am aware, the only injunctions obtained against SOGAT—and certainly the sequestration of the funds—followed because it failed to ballot all its members to come out on strike. It is important that the Government have given union members the right to be consulted before they risk their jobs by becoming involved in strike action.

When the review referred to in the main question is undertaken, will the Paymaster General accept that the majority of British people feel that if Mr. Rupert Murdoch can essay his current industrial butchery and have the law on his side, there is something wrong with the law? Does he agree that if a union such as SOGAT, which did not set out to break, ignore or be in contempt of the law, has every penny of its funds sequestrated within days of entering a lawful dispute following a ballot, the law is grossly unfair and badly in need of reform?

SOGAT failed to ballot the wholesale membership, which it was calling out on strike. The union must have known that that was unlawful. It went before the court and failed to withdraw the blacking instructions or, since then, to purge the contempt. The union has simply failed to comply with a law that has great popular support and has contributed to the improvement in industrial relations in other industries. The Government defend the right of members to be consulted before they put their jobs at risk. SOGAT led its members into folly and cost them all their jobs.

While my right hon. and learned Friend is examining post-1979 legislation, will he also examine pre-1979 legislation, especially in respect of the undertaking given by one of the junior Ministers formerly in his Department to consider how legalistic and expensive the industrial tribunals have become and how out of touch with the working world?

We certainly keep the working of the industrial tribunals under review. It is right that workers who have established themselves with an employer should have protection against unfair dismissal. We wish the proceedings to be as devoid of legalisms and as informal as possible. We also believe that the procedures should not be misused by people with frivolous or reckless claims, causing unnecessary expense to many employers.

In view of the declared public sympathy of the Paymaster General for the printers' dispute, is he aware that the simple creation of new companies has swindled the employees out of £80 million in redundancy pay, thrown the right to strike and picket into confusion and allowed the sequestration of funds? According to Mr. Murdoch, that is all now possible under the Government's legislation. In the parliamentary reply that he recently gave me, did the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that, comparing working days lost through industrial disputes under the present legislation with the situation under the Labour Administration, over 118 working days more per 1,000 employees are lost in disputes now than under Labour? Is it not about time that the Government's anti-trade union legislation was reviewed and repealed?

The hon. Gentleman's figures are virtually meaningless. They are an average, inflated in our case by the miners' strike in one year and in the case of the Labour Government by the winter of discontent. The number of disputes last year was the lowest for 50 years—the lowest since 1936. The number of days lost to February this year was the lowest for 19 years. The average figures are quite meaningless.

They are the Government's figures.

On the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, if he will allow me to answer it, there is a limit to the extent to which I can comment on the current dispute between News International and the various print unions. However, if I may speak generally, Fleet street over the years has been epitomised by extremely robust and incompetent management and extremely militant trade unions which have defended rackets of all kinds. I am constantly astonished at the way the hon. Gentleman keeps resorting to Fleet street as an example of the effect of his new industrial relatons legislation, which will sweep away our existing laws.

asked the Paymaster General what steps he takes to check that all those registered as unemployed are seeking work.

All claimants are asked about their availability for work when they first register as unemployed and subsequently if doubts arise.

My hon. Friend says that people must be available for work. However, he must know that there are several categories of people, such as mothers with young children or those who have taken early retirement, who draw benefit but are not seeking work and would not take a job if one were offered to them. Does my hon. Friend consider that the unemployment figures are compiled in a sensible manner? Will he change them?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There are, of course, others who are seeking jobs but do not feature on the unemployment register count. The labour force survey provides a better picture of the employment world and has shown the creation of a million new jobs in the past three years.

Why do the Minister and the Government pursue that line about scroungers? This is a planted question, and that is what it is about. The Minister should have a word with his right hon. and learned Friend the Paymaster General, now that he sits at the Cabinet Table at No. 10, with a view to providing real jobs and getting people out of the dole queue and back to work in the manufacturing industries—not as waiters or tourist guides.

I may be responsible for the answers, but I am certainly not reponsible for questions. A moment ago I mentioned the creation of 1 million new jobs—these are real jobs. I would be happy to send the hon. Gentleman a copy of our booklet "Action for Jobs", which underlines over 30 employment measures and training measures designed to help people into those jobs.

Has my hon. Friend read of the racket, operating out of Nottingham, which has been exposed by the national press? The unemployed, or rather some claimants under that guise, are bussed to other parts of the country to act as door-to-door salesmen and claim to help the disabled. Does my hon. Friend agree that to help those who are genuinely unemployed we should stamp on those malpractices?

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. I take his allegations seriously. If he has evidence to support this I shall be glad to see it. My hon. Friend may be interested to know that the number of cases where action has been taken against fraud has more than doubled in the past two years and prosecutions have risen by over 50 per cent.

I am sure that the Minister does not wish to mislead the House by partial quotes from the labour force survey. Will he confirm that, according to the analysis of that survey undertaken by the Employment Gazette in January 1986, we have the terrible total of 5,460,000 people in Britain who wish to have a job but cannot get one? Does the Minister also agree that as 41 per cent. of the registered unemployed have been out of work for a year or more it is not surprising that they do not seek work every day of every week of every year?

The hon. Lady is quoting selectively. The fact is that the labour force survey shows that the number of jobs in Britain has risen by over a million in the past three years. There are more people on the unemployment count who are not seeking work than there are those who are not on the count but are seeking work.

Will the Minister accept that in the north, Scotland and in Wales there are wards where 40 per cent. of the work force are unemployed. The predominant concern is the lack of jobs and the debilitating effect that that has on young people and on those in the 50-years age group who see no future of work once they have been declared redundant.

I believe that there are pockets of high unemployment in all parts of the country. The Government's restart initiative, which will operate nationally from 1 July, will be helpful in this respect. It will draw in the long-term unemployed for interviews and give them help to try to find jobs.

asked the Paymaster General what contribution tourism makes to the United Kingdom's balance of payments position.

The surplus of the travel account on the balance of payments was £600 million in 1985 compared with a deficit of £50 million in 1984.

Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to repudiate the Opposition attacks on those who work in tourism and who contribute substantially to the country's economic prosperity? Will my hon. Friend give a breakdown of the figures that he has just given?

I am glad of the opportunity to repudiate what the Opposition have said about tourist industry employees. I wish that some of them had the nerve to address conferences on tourism and tell people who work in tourism that they do not regard their jobs as serious jobs.

I worked for 10 years in that industry.

In that case, the hon. Gentleman should be the last person to make the kind of remark that he has made in the past.

While awaiting anxiously the reply to a later question on the Order Paper on the subject of the Select Committee's report on tourism, may I ask my hon. Friend to acknowledge immediately that if tourism is as successful as he says it is, that which is given to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland should also be given to England, where the investment would realise far more?

I must applaud my hon. Friend's initiative. He knows that that part of the Select Committee's report was dealt with some weeks ago by my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Employment. We intend to give a full and considered reply in the near future to the Select Committee's recommendations.

asked the Paymaster General when he proposes to reply to the recommendations of the Trade and Industry Committee on tourism.

I have already announced the Government's response to the Select Committee's recommendations for an alternative tourist board structure in the written reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) on 27 February 1986. We are still studying the remaining recommendations in the Select Committee's report. As my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Lang), the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State has just said, we hope to provide a considered response during the summer.

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his reply. The response in the summer is awaited with interest by everyone in the tourist industry. Does my right hon. and learned Friend have the tourist figures for last year, and is he able to say which foreign country contributed the largest single increase?

Last year the number of tourists to this country from North America rose by 15 per cent. That is why it is important that Europeans generally, including ourselves, should reassure the American public that we are taking serious steps to cut down the risk of terrorism.

If, as the Paymaster General has explained, grants to the tourist industry are to be made to those areas with the highest unemployment, what is their purpose? Is it so that foreigners can be taken on guided tours of our large pools of unemployed people?

My hon. Friends and I despair of seeking to explain to the Opposition that there are good and substantial jobs to be won in this country by boosting our tourist trade. There is a whole range of jobs, from management right down to the equivalent of the factory floor, in every branch of hotel and catering and in all the associated trades that depend upon tourism. Some of the areas of high unemployment, including the north-east, are to be found in very attractive parts of the country that contain great buildings and historic cities that attract tourists. We are succeeding in making better use of those natural advantages and we are creating new jobs in those areas.

In view of the contribution that tourism makes to regional economies, does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that there is an urgent need both to widen the extent and to improve the quality of tourist attractions in areas such as the south-west in order to get away from the London, Stratford, Cambridge triangle?

I agree with my hon. Friend that that should be one of our most important objectives. We are to open shortly a new British travel centre in London. Its main purpose will be to help visitors to disperse from London by telling them of the attractions of other parts of the country. We are asking the tourist boards to concentrate particularly on building up the tourist industry in areas of high unemployment which have a tourist potential and on seeking to extend the English tourist season.

As I spent 10 years in an industry that deals with tourism, may I make it clear to the Paymaster General that I have no objection whatsoever to the development of employment in tourism? However, is he aware that most of the jobs in the tourist industry are normally low paid and part-time and that the conditions are bad? It seems that a great many Tory Members are tabling questions about tourism, when the House should be concerned about the loss of 1·8 million jobs in manufacturing industry that has occurred under this Government.

It is no good the hon. Gentleman delivering his lecture to me about the virtue of tourist jobs. He should address it to the Labour chairman of the Select Committee and the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), who have spent their time today denigrating the boosting of this industry. It is simply not the case that they can be dismissed in the way that he describes. Given a continuing decline in manufacturing employment—as there has been for the last 20 years as a result mainly of technological change, and that even now the economy is expanding in a healthy fashion—it is important that we look to the new jobs in this area. He will discover, if he finds out more about industry, that there is a whole range of jobs available—[Interruption.] in tourist-related industry.

Order. Let us conduct our proceedings in some sort of order. All these shouted comments from both sides of the House are not helpful.

For what reason did my right hon. and learned Friend take the unprecedented decision to reject perhaps the principal recommendation on tourism of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, concerning the structure of the British Tourist Authority and the various national boards, at a time when he could not conceivably have given adequate consideration to the well-researched recommendations of that Committee?

We made a quick decision on that because we believed that continuing uncertainty about the structure of the boards would merely undermine their work during the forthcoming season. The issue gets raised repeatedly, particularly by the English members, who feel that at the moment somehow excessive aid is given to Scotland and Wales compared with England. A decision had to be taken about the structure so that those within the boards could get on with their work. We have increased our expenditure in all these areas. The figures which my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) asked for a moment ago are that we raised our grant to the British Tourist Authority by about £20 million, that to the English Tourist Board by about £10 million, and section 4 grants by about £9 million. So all the boards in their present structure have more resources to devote to the industry.

asked the Paymaster General if he has estimated the effect that the Channel fixed link will have on inward tourism in the United Kingdom.

The fixed link will be a new international route and is expected to generate additional tourism to the United Kingdom. However, the likely increase has not yet been quantified.

I had hoped that my hon. Friend would be more robust with some of the whingers on the Opposition Benches and make it absolutely clear to them that the increased tourism which will be created by the Channel link will be pan-United Kingdom and not just jobs for the prosperous south.

Absolutely, and, at the risk of repeating myself, I obviously support all that has been said by my hon. Friends with regard to jobs in tourism. My hon. Friend makes a valid point. It is not just tourism in the south-east or around the area that the fixed link will be going through that will be affected, because our policy is to encourage greater dispersal of visitors on the inland tourist front. It will be better for tourism in Britain generally.

While some of us hope that the Channel tunnel is never built, if it is we would hope that some of the tourists will come to the most beautiful region of Britain, the north-east of England. In the borough of Sunderland, of which my constituency is a part, 29,000 people are already out of work. The number of tourist jobs that will be created will be no compensation whatsoever for that number of unemployed. What we really want to know from the Minister for Unemployment is how many jobs building this tunnel will bring for the north-east?

I think that it is wrong for the hon. Gentleman to deride in any way the jobs in tourism in the north-east. I take this opportunity of complimenting the north-east on the way in which it has developed and strengthened tourism. I am very familiar with the regional tourist board in that part of the country. It has been very successful. If the hon. Gentleman had listened a little more carefully to the reply to the substantive question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes) he would have realised that this is wholly in tune with our overall philosophy. The tourists who are coming into Britain as a result of the fixed link will mean more jobs in the north-east as well.

How many?

It would be stupid and fatuous of me to predict an exact figure, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that over the last 12 months there has been a net increase in jobs in tourism of 50,000. Opposition Members must realise that we are talking about the most dynamic sector of the British economy in terms both of wealth and job creation.

asked the Paymaster General how many people were out of work in the Staffordshire, Moorlands parliamentary constituency at the most recent count.

On 6 March 1986 the number of unemployed claimants in the Staffordshire, Moorlands parliamentary constituency was 3,570.

Is my hon. Friend aware that unemployment in my constituency has risen very considerably under the two Governments in the last 12 years? How does he explain this in an area where wages and salaries are, and always have been, low, productivity is high and labour relations are excellent?

The unemployment rate in the Leek travel-to-work area is 9·1 per cent. That is certainly higher than we would wish, but it is lower than it was a year ago. My hon. Friend might like to know that unfilled vacancies at Leek and Cheadle are up by over 50 per cent. on a year ago. I commend to my hon. Friend our booklet "Action for Jobs", which contains details of over 30 specific training and employment schemes which we have launched to combat the unemployment problem. In particular, for the low-paid in his constituency the job start allowance of £20 for anyone taking a job at under £80 a week might be appropriate.

Is the Minister aware that many people in the Staffordshire, Moorlands constituency have already got on their bikes to seek work? If the Minister got on his bike to go to look for a job in the adjacent constituency of Stoke-on-Trent, South he would find that unemployment has risen far faster under this Government than it did under the previous Labour Government. The reason for that is the failure of the Government to expand the economy. May we have some action to expand the economy in Stoke-on-Trent, South, and some action to help the economy in general?

The right hon. Gentleman will know that employment has also been expanding rapidly. As the right hon. Gentleman also knows, I was in Stoke-on-Trent yesterday at the national garden festival, and there I found substantial evidence of Government help, amounting to many millions of pounds. In the community programme, that money created about two thirds of the 1,500 or more jobs at the garden festival.

asked the Paymaster General if he has any plans to remove retired people from the unemployment figures; and if he will make a statement.

We have no plans to do so. However, we shall continue our endeavours to ensure that those receiving benefits are genuinely available for work.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that unemployment figures include retired people who do not want to work, are not seeking work, and have no need to work? Does he know how many people in that category are included in the unemployment figures? Does he not agree that it gives a false impression about how many people are presently unemployed?

My hon. Friend is right. The 1984 labour force survey showed that some 60,000 people in the claimant count were not seeking work because they had retired. This underlines the fact that the unemployment count is not necessarily the best way of getting a true picture of unemployment.

Is the Minister not ashamed of the fact that all we have heard today from Tory Back Benchers are suggestions about how the unemployment figures, can be further fiddled? If the Minister wants to reduce the unemployment figures he should at least extend the job release scheme to those under the age of 62. That was the way it applied under the Labour Government.

The job release scheme has a useful role to play. Can the hon. Gentleman tell us whether it is the intention of any incoming Labour Government to reintroduce into the labour count retired people who have been removed from it?

Is my hon. Friend aware that his answer about the number of retired people included in the unemployment count is totally unsatisfactory? There is no sense in including such people in the figures. What plans has my hon. Friend for introducing a work test to establish exactly how many people are actively seeking work?

My hon. Friend is knowledgeable in these matters and takes a close interest in them. He will have heard me say that we are unhappy about the adequacy of the availability for work test and that we are looking at ways of making it more effective.

asked the Paymaster General how many working days have been lost through strike action in the last 12 months for which figures are available.

A provisional total of 2·6 million working days were lost through stoppages of work due to industrial disputes during the 12 months to 28 February 1986.

How does the Minister think the Wapping dispute will affect this year's figures? Would it not help the Government, the print workers, newspaper readers and even wretched Lobby correspondents upstairs if Mr. Rupert Murdoch were to be declared an undesirable alien and if his cringing sidekick, Mr. Andrew Neil, were to be given early retirement and a clapped-out print works in lieu of compensation?

Inflammatory remarks by the hon. Gentleman will do nothing to help the position of anybody involved in the Wapping dispute. The hon. Gentleman is naming the only substantial dispute in private industry in Britain at the moment. He seems to overlook the fact that my reply to his question showed that Britain has had the least number of days lost in the period that he asked about for 19 years.

asked the Paymaster General what information he has about the methods used to compile unemployment figures in other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries.

The OECD published "Standardised unemployment rates" in 1985. This gives a detailed description of the sources and methods it uses in compiling unemployment figures from national sources and the rates derived from these figures.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, but since on a pro rata basis the United Kingdom figures appear to be higher than those in the other large countries in the OECD and the EEC, should not we be the country to take an initiative in both those bodies to stimulate the collective economy?

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. It is difficult to make comparisons between the different methods of calculating unemployment figures, but it is interesting to note that we have a higher proportion of our work force in work than almost any other OECD country. The OECD expects employment in the United Kingdom to rise faster this year than in any other major European country.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 22 April.

This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. I was present at Windsor for the arrival of their Majesties the King and Queen of Spain. In addition to my duties in this House I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I shall be attending a state banquet in honour of their Majesties the King and Queen of Spain.

As we are approaching my right hon. Friend's visit to Israel, and bearing in mind that we take over the EEC presidency on 1 June, may I ask her to consider carefully the advantages of another EEC initiative on the middle eastern settlement? Does she agree with many hon. Members that it is not only a matter of specific and important anti-terrorist measures, but of trying to deal with the fundamental problem of the middle east, and the Americans do not seem to be making progress in that more important area?

My hon. Friend is right to say that since the end of King Hussein's initiative there have been no new formal proposals. When King Hussein came here recently I was able to discuss certain practical steps with him and I hope to take those forward when I visit Israel in several weeks' time, and to be in touch with the United States about them. We take over the presidency on 1 July. I shall consider what my hon. Friend has said, hut I think it advisable that we obtain more agreement on the steps forward before we launch on an initiative.

Is the action taken against the 21 Libyan students the beginning of further steps by the right hon. Lady's Government to isolate Gaddafi, including the imposition of economic sanctions and the denial of credits and subsidised foodstuffs from the EEC?

As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will later be answering a question about the deportation of Libyan students. It is an action which we felt was legitimate and desirable under all the circumstances. We are considering further matters about Libyan pilots in Britain and further action that we could take. He will be aware of the actions which the EEC decided to take and, of course, the meeting of Foreign Ministers continues.

In the light of that answer, may I ask the Prime Minister whether she has ruled out direct economic sanctions against Libya, as reported in the Daily Telegraph this morning? Does she accept that if that is true that would be cynical and inconsistent, given the support for the bombing of Libya last week?

The refusal to sell military equipment is, of course, a direct economic sanction of a specific kind which we took but which has not apparently been taken by all of the European Community. Sanctions as a whole will only work provided everybody operates them, but there are some that we take unilaterally, as the right hon. Gentleman is aware. Food matters have to be pursued through the EEC. We made our views known strongly to the European Commission, when it cut out the management committee and decided on special export subsidies for the sale of butter to Libya.

In that case, will the Prime Minister make further representations and put all possible pressure on our European allies so that they excercise the power that they must have to impose economic sanctions that are more effective against Gaddafi while not being so lethal towards his people?

Yes, we are doing just that and we are particularly concerned about the Commission giving special subsidies for exports of food surpluses to Libya, and we make our views known very strongly indeed.

Will my right hon. Friend accept that a single bombing raid in itself is unlikely to stop terrorism? None the less, it does lay down to the terrorist a serious cost. Will she agree to lay down, in face of terrorism, yet more costs, such as the introduction of the death penalty for terrorism, and even introduce counter-terror activities, in our anti-terrorist operations?

As my hon. Friend is aware, the introduction of such a penalty would be a matter for this House. It has been debated on many occasions, but so far it has never got through. That would be the first thing that would have to take place.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 22 April.

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

During her busy day, has the Prime Minister noticed early day motion 74, in the name of a number of her right hon. and hon. Friends, condemning the alleged lack of balance in BBC reports of the raid on Tripoli? Will she take this opportunity to dissociate herself from that motion? In particular, will she praise Miss Kate Adey, who, in difficult circumstances, maintained the best traditions of objective news reporting?

The Government do not control the BBC. Hon. Members are as free to say what they like about the BBC, as is any other citizen.

Will my right hon. Friend do everything that she can to persuade the United States Government that no country dedicated to the defeat of terrorism can any longer afford to allow the extradition of terrorists from its jurisdiction to be impeded or frustrated by the absurd doctrine that murder perpetrated with the alleged motive of political interest is no longer murder, and so cannot be used as a ground for extradition?

I agree with my hon. and learned Friend. The point has been forcefully made and will continue to be made. This matter is being increasingly recognised.

At what point did the Americans tell the Prime Minister that they were going to use anti-personnel cluster bombs?

As I indicated in statements and speeches last week, we set down certain criteria for the permission. The Americans selected the targets within those criteria. It was for them to choose the weapons which—[Interruption.]

Order.

—It was for them to choose the weapons to secure the defeat of those targets within the target permissions which we gave.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 22 April.

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

Has my right hon. Friend seen the survey recently published by the National Council for Educational Standards, which shows that the examination results in ILEA schools are 30 per cent. below the national average, while at the same time ILEA spends over 40 per cent. more per pupil? Is this not a great indictment of a Socialist, dogma-ridden education authority? It is failing in its duty to the children it is there to serve.

I agree with my hon. Friend. ILEA spends far more on the education of children than many other authorities, including those with similar problems. The results are not good. Indeed, they are worse than any other similar authority. Surely this shows that it is quiet wrong to tackle the education problem merely by pouring more money into it. Commitment and devotion are required on the part of the staff, with more choice on the part of parents.

Is the Prime Minister aware that the Inner London education authority contains boroughs, some of which are among the most deprived in the country, that it is dealing with children coming from families speaking 145 different languages, that it has problems of quite a different nature from the problems of any other authority, and that the expenditure is entirely necessary? Speaking as a parent of children who go to ILEA schools, I am satisfied with the performance of their teachers.

I disagree with what the hon. Gentleman has said, particularly in the latter part of his question. He will be aware, for example, that ILEA will spend on each secondary school pupil in 1985–86 the sum of £1,933. Metropolitan districts, some of which have similar problems, will spend on average £1,113 on each pupil, and some of them get better results.

In view of the failure of Foreign Ministers yesterday to agree on the banning of export rebates for Libya, is there nothing that the British Government can do to stop the use of taxpayers' funds directly to subsidise cheap food for Libya? Is not the management committee irrelevant, since on 15 March the Commission took it upon itself not to publish either the subsidy or the destination of cheap food?

As my hon. Friend is aware, my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary raised that matter with the Commission when it circumvented the management committee and gave a particular export subsidy for exports of butter to Libya. I am afraid that unless the rest of our Community partners agree with us there is nothing we can do alone.

Is the Prime Minister aware that on Thursday new regulations come into effect in the United States which will give the United States authorities control over high-tech hardware, software and personnel in this country? In view of the Attorney-General's opinion that such a claim is both illegal in international law and an infringement of our sovereignty, what protection will the Prime Minister give to British firms?

As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, there has already been a debate in the House on the subject, initiated by his colleague the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Meadowcroft). The position was stated in that debate and has been given a number of times since. In general we reject United States claims to extraterritorial jurisdiction in the United Kingdom. One of the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues is in touch with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry about a particular firm. That will be pursued.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 22 April.

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

Does the more conciliatory tone that the Prime Minister has offered of late mean that she now accepts that an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth is not the best basis for foreign policy?

The best basis for foreign policy is what is in the British interest.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that millions of people up and down the country will welcome the fact that since the Budget, and, indeed, because of the Budget, there has been a sharp and continuing fall in the level of the mortgage rate?

Yes. That is very good news for all who are purchasing their houses. Last year the number of new mortgages reached 1 million for the first time. That is also good news for home ownership.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 22 April.

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

Is the Prime Minister aware of any evidence that any of the 39 human beings, including women and children, who were killed in the American air raid in Libya had been involved in terrorist activities?

I indicated our view both in statements and in a speech. Terrorism thrives on appeasement, and Opposition Members are appeasers.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 22 April.

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

Is my right hon. Friend aware that after yesterday's meeting in Luxembourg many of us feel that our European partners' response to state-sponsored terrorism is woefully inadequate, particularly when, notwithstanding my right hon. and learned Friend's robust support, they could not be persuaded to close down the Libyan people's bureaux in various capitals, which are clearly being used as places from which terrorists act?

I rather agree with my hon. Friend. The European Community has gone further than it has been prepared to go before. It agreed to a severe cut in the size of people's bureaux throughout Europe. It agreed to confine members of those bureaux to the city where they are posted, to restrict the size of other official Libyan bodies to the minimum necessary and to apply a much stricter visa regime to Libyans. That is a good deal further than previously, but I agree with my hon. Friend that we should have liked a lot more to be done. We must consider how much further to go ourselves.

Does the Prime Minister believe that her safeguarding of British interests includes allowing the Americans free choice in the nature of weapons to be used, as she said five minutes ago? Would this extend beyond the anti-personnel cluster bombs to nuclear bombs, for example? Do we get a clear answer on that?

It is a perfectly clear answer. We set down the criteria for targets which we believed were within legitimate self-defence. We were advised that the use of F111 aircraft was the best means of striking those targets. The precise methods that the United States uses is a matter for the United States within the criteria set down—[Interruption.] Of course it is a matter for the United States.

In view of that inadequate reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

I beg to move,

That this House calls for a new approach to housing policy which combines investment in good housing with responses to family and individual needs reflecting the informed opinions of tenants and home buyers, in order to bring about solutions based upon choice, freedom and fairness, to improve the quality of life throughout the whole community.

I should announce to the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

In the Queen's Speech last November the Prime Minister said:

"Labour could not hold a candle to our record on housing."—[Official Report, 6 November 1985; Vol. 86, c. 19.]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?