asked the Paymaster General what is the total number of persons unemployed at the latest available date; and what rate of unemployment this figure represents.

asked the Paymaster General what is the present number of people unemployed.

On 10 April 1986 the number of unemployed claimants in the United Kingdom was 3,325,058, which corresponds to an unemployment rate of 13·7 per cent.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman will be all too aware of the acutely damaging situation that those figures imply and that they have already been added to by the 1,000 or so redundancies made by British Caledonian Airways. Is he aware that this is the tip of an iceberg and that the whole tourist industry is likely to be seriously affected—an industry which contains some of the lowest-paid workers in Britain? What will the right hon. and learned Gentleman's Department do to protect those workers from some of the consequences of the Government's actions and policies?

The British Tourist Authority has been estimating that about 50,000 jobs a year will be generated by tourism. We are all worried about the implications of a quite unmerited response in America to recent incidents in Europe. A great deal of effort and money are now being put into reassuring Americans and informing them that they are much safer in British cities than in most American ones.

Are not these horrifying figures becoming more horrifying daily? Redundancies at British Rail Engineering Ltd. workshops are now coming, following close on the heels of redundancies at British Shipbuilders. There seems to be nothing that the Government can do. They boast that inflation has come down, but if they remove nearly 4 million people and their families from the purchasing area, inflation is bound to come down. The Government can envisage no means of reducing unemployment without pouring some money into the economy. I venture to guess that that is what the Prime Minister is about to do.

We are all desperately disappointed that there are continuing redundancies in some of our older, heavier industries. That is why we have to keep up our excellent record of creating new jobs. The hon. Gentleman will know that nearly 1 million new jobs have been created in the British economy since the spring of 1983.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that one major factor is the trade union movement's failure to realise what a scourge it would be in world competitive terms if it did not get its act in order in time to he able to compete with some of the emerging nations in shipbuilding, television assembly and many other industries?

There is certainly a need to keep down the level of pay settlements, which I hope more trade union leaders realise. We must also carry on improving job flexibility and flexibility of trades to keep up our excellent record of improved productivity, which has been beaten only by Japan since the Government came to office. The great reduction in the number of industrial disputes is undoubtedly helping Britain's industrial competitiveness.

Although I regret the national unemployment figures, is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that, in my constituency, many people have benefited from the enterprise allowance scheme, which helps to bridge the gap between complete dependence on benefit and self sufficiency once the business is under way?

Not only in my hon. Friend's constituency, where I am delighted to hear that things are going well, but all over the country, the enterprise allowance scheme is giving very useful support to many people who would otherwise be unemployed to go into business on their own.

Do the Government also intend to maintain their excellent record on finding ways to massage the figures, which they have done six times since they came to power? If so, does it mean that they will wipe out unemployment by the general election, apart from the 4 million plus who will be looking for jobs?

That is rather a stale argument. The right hon. Gentleman knows that some of the changes to the figures have increased the total and that some have decreased it. They have all been attempts to make the figures reflect more accurately the position and to measure the number of claimants. He will know that if we take the labour force survey definition of the unemployed seeking work it is difficult to demonstrate that the figure ever rose as high as 3 million. It never appears to have done so.

Is it not likely that in the longer term one of the main contributions to alleviating and, perhaps, solving unemployment will be made by much more vigorous efforts at training and retraining? Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept the recent warning of the chairman of the Manpower Services Commission that during the next five years between half and three quarters of the total labour force will require some measure of training and retraining? Should not the Government he giving an even higher priority to that?

I certainly accept that the need for increased training is one of the key imperatives in improving the British economy and creating jobs. We have put a great deal of effort into the technical and vocational content of education in schools, and obviously we have an extremely successful youth training scheme in operation. Anything that we can do to improve the amount of adult training and retraining will be valuable.

Will the Paymaster General confirm that the obscene figures he has given do not include the thousands of redundancies announced last week at British Shipbuilders, British Caledonian and Kodak, nor the thousands of redundancies that are to be announced today by British Rail? Will he also confirm that those figures include about 1,400,000 people who have not had employment for over 12 months? Will he take this opportunity to denounce last week's story in The Daily Telegraph that the nine pilot schemes that he announced are being backed by the Department's fraud squad, and that the exercise is aimed more at getting people off the unemployment register than at assisting them?

Obviously, the figures do not show the number of those who have become unemployed since the figures last appeared, nor do they show the number of people who have found jobs. The reality behind the figures is that each month a little under 500,000 people become unemployed and a little under 500,000 people find jobs. Half those who become unemployed find new jobs within three months. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the number of long-term unemployed is worrying and seems to exceed 1 million. That is why the initiative to which he refers involves interviewing each and every one of the long-term unemployed and offering them personal help. It happens as a result of that that a certain number of the long-term unemployed cease to claim benefit. I assume that the hon. Gentleman is not objecting to that.

asked the Paymaster General what is the latest estimate of the number of foreign tourists coming to Britain in the current year; and how this compares with the actual number in 1985.

The British Tourist Authority has forecast that 15·1 million overseas visits will be made to the United Kingdom this year—4 per cent. more than last year's record figure of 14·5 million.

As American visitors are important to the success of the British tourist industry and there is talk that this year fewer may come to the United Kingdom because of recent events, will my hon. Friend encourage an initiative for American television personalities who are respected in this country and work here to go on television services in the United States to point out the virtues of coming here, not least of which is the statistical fact that it is safer for anyone to walk the streets of any town or city in the United Kingdom, than it is to do so in any town or city in the United States?

My hon. Friend makes a good point. He will be pleased to hear that the British Tourist Authority is planning a major marketing drive in the United States using the slogan, "Britain speaks your language." It will feature well-known American personalities from entertainment and other spheres, as well as Americans living in or visiting the United Kingdom.

Does the Minister appreciate that any reduction in the number of American tourists coming here is a direct consequence of the Government's agreement to allow those American aeroplanes to bomb Libya? That is the reason for the reduction in the number of American tourists. Will he also concede that although the Government boast that this industry is growing, it represents the most underpaid and grossly exploited workers in Britain today?

I could not disagree more with the hon. Gentleman's first point, because terrorism was running rife before the support that the Government gave to the American Federal Government over the bombing of Libya. There has not been a reaction as he is suggesting. As to his latter point, it is pretty clear to all hon. Members who closely analyse the facts that the 50,000 net increase in jobs in tourism represents real jobs. It is no good the hon. Gentleman seeking to rubbish the industry as he does.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the decline in the number of American tourists has been grossly exaggerated by the media? It now appears that rather more people will be coming than was previously anticipated, and we hope that the royal wedding will attract even greater numbers.

My hon. Friend is right—the figures are grossly exaggerated. It is important to get the matter in perspective. There are suggestions of a 15 per cent. downturn in visitors from America, but this will have an effect of only 3 per cent. on spending in the United Kingdom.

Will the Minister investigate the likelihood that one major deterrent to trans-Atlantic visits this year is the persistent and depressing reports of the vile English weather? [Interruption.]

Order. I am not sure that there is Government responsibility for that.

Therefore, will he invite the various tourist boards to cease fostering the illusion of continuous British sunshine and instead emphasise this country's unrivalled facilities for indoor entertainment?

The hon. Gentleman has an important point, although it would be stretching credulity to breaking point to think that anybody is attracted to this country because of the climate. I accept that point. However, the weather did not have a deterrent effect on those who came here last year and experienced what was a poor, or non-existent, summer, because figures for the first three months of this year are up on the figures for the same period last year, and we still expect an increase in inward tourism across the board, although I accept that there will be a downturn in the number of American tourists.

I accept my hon. Friend's remarks. Is he aware that in certain areas of the country, particularly the south-west, there has been a decline in bookings from America and a number of cancellations? In no way do I associate myself with remarks made by Opposition Members, but is my hon. Friend aware that some people feel a little disappointed that this country having stood by America, some American tourists are not standing by this country and their plans to visit it?

My hon. Friend's first point is valid and is a fact, not a hypothesis, and I am prepared to accept that there have been the cancellations to which I referred. As to what the Government can do about it, I still think that my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman) made the most useful and constructive suggestion. What matters is not what Ministers and the Government say to Americans over there, but what Americans living here, such as the ambassador, say to their fellow countrymen to impress on them that the United Kingdom is a safe destination.

The House will be aware that in the past two Question Times for the Department of Employment, great play has been made of how the tourist industry has created jobs. Has the Minister seen the report this week in The Economist by Mr. Victor Middleton of Sussex university, who says that the boom conditions claimed for the tourist industry are little higher than they were in 1979, or his conclusion that the prediction of the creation of 100,000 jobs in the next four years is not only unrealistic but shown to be unfounded by the available evidence? Is this not a further example of the Government following their policy of massaging the unemployment figures downwards by talking jobs up?

I do not know how the Government can be accused of massaging the figures when the article contains only predictions by a journalist, who I believe is a university academic. The figure we have used, and which was quoted earlier in Question Time by my right hon. and learned Friend the Paymaster General was 50,000 jobs. I do not know how the hon. Gentleman arrives at the figure of 100,000 jobs over the next four years. The figure to which the Government constantly refer is 50,000 jobs. There is clear evidence that that is the number of jobs that have been created, year on year, for the last three years.

asked the Paymaster General if he will institute a review of the impact of health and safety legislation on small businesses.

In January this year my right hon. and noble Friend announced that he was setting up a study of employer attitudes towards health and safety legislation and the way in which it is enforced. The study team has now completed its report and my right hon. and noble Friend has asked the Health and Safety Commission for its advice.

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's reply. Given this Government's correct emphasis upon the removal of barriers to employment, will he confirm that with his right hon. and noble Friend he will continue to search for ways in which, while health and safety, particularly in small businesses, can be preserved, bureaucratic barriers to employment can be eliminated wherever possible?

I assure my hon. Friend that the thrust of the Government's intention to lift the burdens on small business will be reflected in the forthcoming White Paper. At the same time, the Government have no intention of downgrading the health and safety standards.

Why was no provision made in the survey for consultation with the work force? In my trade union, SOGAT 82, which has 200,000 members, there are four to five fatalities each year. Does that not emphasise that this is an uncaring Government?

On the contrary, the purpose of the report demonstrates care on the part of the Government. I am glad to say that a strong commitment among small firms to health and safety at work was found by the study team. The Health and Safety Commission will have an opportunity to comment on the report, and Ministers will meet the commission to discuss it.

Does my hon. Friend accept that the greatest disincentive to the start-up of new businesses is not the lack of capital, high interest rates or high taxation, but the bureaucracy that has been created by excessive legislation? Will he reassure the House, even more than when he replied to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern), that he will not only continue to stop excessive legislation in his Department, but that he will impress the need for such action upon other Government Departments?

I am happy to give that assurance to my hon. Friend. I hope that he will be further reassured by the publication of the White Paper.

Does the Minister understand that we are getting a little tired of the fact that the argument that small businesses might find the regulations to be burdensome is being used as an excuse constantly to reduce safety standards in British industry? The protection against unfair dismissal has been reduced. The same applies to maternity leave. The Wages Bill was introduced on the excuse that it was in the interests of small businesses, and it is now suggested that we should riot have proper health and safety standards. Good, small businesses do not want all of that. They want proper regulations imposed on all businesses so that good businesses are not undermined by the bad.

The hon. Lady is quite wrong. Small firms welcome the simplification that will be proposed in the report. I think the hon. Lady will be pleased to hear that the report commends the Government's decision to repeal restrictive legislation on the working hours of women.

asked the Paymaster General what recent representations he has received on the operation of the two year YTS programme.

I regularly receive correspondence which indicates widespread support for the extension of YTS to a two-year programme from April of this year.

Is the Paymaster General aware that a number of companies in Cumbria and elsewhere in the country are abandoning the two-year scheme because of the cost? They have also cut the number of places on the scheme because of their second year obligations. In so far as there is cross-party support in the House for an effective two-year scheme, what does the Paymaster General intend to do if the numbers drop?

I am glad to be able to tell the hon. Gentleman that nine out of 10 of the places required for this year have already been secured. That is much better than at the equivalent stage when YTS was introduced about three years ago. Obviously I regret it when some employers drop out, but we think that it is right that employers should make an increased contribution, given that in the second year the trainees usually are of considerable value to the company. That policy is widely supported, not least by the TUC and its representatives on the Manpower Services Commission.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the widespread support for the two-year YTS scheme is growing in my part of the world? The particularly commendable aspect is the way in which it is intended to mesh it with the national qualifications system. Can my right hon. and learned Friend say when the review will be completed?

The results of the review are in the hands of Ministers, and we hope very early to announce decisions. This is an important issue, as it is very necessary to sort out the state of vocational qualifications. I am glad to say that we are well advanced with the process of providing certification for YTS trainees at the end of the two years. We intend that every trainee should receive good quality training, which will at least put them on the way to a recognised vocational qualification.

Is the Paymaster General aware of the long series of exchanges between the Minister of State and me on the question of YTS and the voluntary sector? Can he give us hope that there will be a high number of premium places for those in the voluntary sector who are going on B1 schemes, which will otherwise be badly hit as they will be unable to cope with the administrative costs involved?

There are already many premium places. Obviously it is important that we should provide those places when there is no alternative provision for more difficult-to-place youngsters with private employers. The changes made this year have largely resulted from the fact that we are now funding schemes on the basis of the amount of training that they deliver, and we are no longer funding for unfilled places. Things are now bedding down quite well, and I think that we will have the number of places, of all kinds, that we require.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the overwhelming weight of evidence shows that by far the most efficient way of training to meet manpower needs in companies is for those companies to be actively involved in training? Is it not one of the most welcome parts of the new YTS that my right hon. and learned Friend's policy encourages firms to invest in their own training needs instead of expecting the state to do it all for them?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I think that we must carry on trying to get the message through to those parts of British industry that do not train that the same principle must apply to adult training.

If the schemes are so popular, why is the Paymaster General taking powers under the Social Security Bill to cut the benefits available to those unemployed people who refuse places or leave for 13 weeks instead of six? Does that not represent yet another move towards forcing the unemployed on to schemes that they do not find acceptable?

The rule for social benefit entitlement is long standing. First, people must be genuinely available for work. Secondly, they must not lose jobs through indiscipline or refusal. The hon. Lady knows full well that the reasons for the recent changes have been explained by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. They are not particularly out of line with the policy that has been adopted ever since the beginning of the welfare state.

asked the Paymaster General if he will take steps to simplify the leaflets coming out of his Department.

The first elements of the Department of Employment's simplification campaign were announced on 22 April. These consisted of a simple guide to employment legislation and an employment form.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Can he do more to help potential employers, who are deterred by over-complicated leaflets that make them feel that taking on employees just means taking on many heavy legal responsibilities?

It is because I accept that employers believe that by taking on more employees they are taking on heavy legal responsibilities and that the forms issued by the Department are too complicated that I announced the simplification drive. A pilot scheme is in operation in the Thames Valley area and in the north-west region. If we are successful in simplifying the message that we are trying to convey, the exercise will be replicated nationwide.

Will the Minister make some of his leaflets more meaningful and helpful to the growing army of long-term unemployed, by including in them new policies that offer retraining? Many of those people find that their job skills erode very quickly.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to say that we only recently issued a new booklet entitled, "Action for Jobs", which has met with widespread approval, I understand, on both sides of the House. There is now increased awareness about what training schemes are available. Perhaps all that was long overdue, but it was held up as a result of the new responsibilities that the Department assumed in September 1985.

Will my hon. Friend arrange for his Department to produce a simple leaflet to explain to one of my constituents, a talented young lady who has been accepted at Harper Adams on a sandwich course, how she might obtain employment on a farm where she needs to fulfil at least two years of the four-year course, bearing in mind that farmers are more inclined to employ young people on youth training schemes than the more qualified young people who are undertaking a course at Harper Adams agricultural college?

I have every sympathy with the point raised by my hon. Friend. I should like to look in some detail at the point that he has drawn to my attention. I am sure he will forgive me if I say that I do not intend to produce a new leaflet. My task, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) suggested, is to cut the number down.

Is the Minister aware that they would not need any leaflets, simplifed or otherwise, if they used all their time and energy to create jobs and get down the mass unemployment total, which is well over 4 million? Why does the Minister not do that?

It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman should use the term "they", when he has not made it clear whether he means the Government or the employers. The difference between the hon. Gentleman and myself is that he thinks that the Government create jobs, whereas all my hon. Friends know that employers create jobs. The purpose of producing simplified material is to make it easier for them to create wealth and work.

As leaflets help to create jobs and provide information, can my hon. Friend, who has responsibility for tourism, produce a leflet which shows that the number of American citizens killed in Europe this year is five, and that the number of American citizens killed in New York city so far this year is 464? Will he then send large quantities to the American embassy? If that does not work, will he concentrate, not on the United States, but on markets in the far east, whose tourists seem to be less fickle in their habits?

I am glad that my hon. Friend had the opportunity to make that valid point. Again, I am sure that he will forgive me if I resist his suggestion that we should produce yet another leaflet.

Will the Minister instruct his Department to produce a simple and straightforward leaflet making it clear that Employment Ministers are totally opposed to the monstrous proposition that the unemployed should have their mortgage relief reduced by 50 per cent.?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, that is the responsibility of the Department of Health and Social Security. I am sure that the Minister in that Department will look at what he has said with interest. However, I would have thought that there is already widespread awareness of the point that the hon. Gentleman is seeking to make.

asked the Paymaster General what is the proportion of the population of the Rotherham metropolitan district which is in full-time employment; and what is the comparable national proportion.

The 1981 census of population showed that 55·3 per cent. of the population of working age resident in Rotherham were in full-time employment in April 1981. The corresponding proportion for Great Britain as a whole was 58·1 per cent.

The situation has changed dramatically since 1981. Would not the updated figures show quite startlingly, not only the appaling scale of need in the Rotherham metropolitan area, but the almost criminal misrepresentation of the official employment statistics published by the Government, which disguise the sheer scale of the waste of human resources and the enormous and rapidly growing economic need in south Yorkshire and many other industrial areas in England?

The Government recognise that Rotherham has special problems. That is why we are applying special measures to the area. The hon. Gentleman may like to know that the Rotherham and Mexborough travel-to-work area has had almost £17 million worth of regional assistance since 1979, which has helped to create 3,000 jobs and save another 1,900. It also has an enterprise zone which, over two years, has helped 58 new and established companies employing around 1,500 people.

Does the Minister not realise that the help given to the Rotherham area has done nothing to alleviate unemployment? We have had six years during which the main employers in south Yorkshire, steel and coal, have been massively run down under direction from the Government. The aid that has gone to the area has done nothing to stop the masses of young people going straight from school on to the dole. Rotherham needs a more caring attitude from the Government. It does not just need money. The Government should do something in real terms.

The hon. Gentleman is right to mention steel and coal as problem areas where jobs have been lost. However, the Government have invested some £55 million in the new company being established by BSC and GKN in the engineering steel sector. There is also considerable encouragement for NCB (Enterprise) Ltd., with the establishment of new funds. to encourage ex-miners to develop new industries. The adult training facilities have been substantially increased over the past year, and 6,500 people are on youth training schemes in the Rotherham and Doncaster areas.

Are not Opposition Members unconsciously admitting that Government spending does not create jobs?

My hon. Friend asks a broad philosophical question. The measures for which my Department is responsible are carefully prepared and costed, and are increasingly effective. I commend to my hon. Friend the booklet "Action for Jobs", which sets them all out in detail.

Does the Minister accept from me, in reply to what his hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) has just said, that what Opposition Members are saying is that until there is a dramatic change in the Government's economic policies, all the so-called assistance that is going into Rotherham and other areas with high unemployment will not solve the problem? Merely to produce artificial, cosmetic schemes is not getting at the root of the trouble. We need a complete change in the Government's total economic policy before we see a real cut in the level of unemployment.

The hon. Gentleman underrates the success in job generation of the Government's policies. Over the past three years we have generated around 1 million additional new jobs. Although the problems at Rotherham remain substantial, the hon. Gentleman might like to know that job placings there have risen by 16 per cent. over the past year.

asked the Paymaster General if he will make a statement on his visit to Basildon on Tuesday 6 May.

I visited Basildon at the invitation of my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess), and was very glad to have the opportunity to see some of the encouraging employment and training initiatives that are taking place in the area. I visited St. Martin's community care trust, which is a community programme agency, a youth training scheme at GEC Avionics, and Basildon skillcentre. I also addressed Abilities '86, a presentation organised by the Manpower Services Commission to encourage employers in south-east Essex to think positively about employing disabled people.

Following the visit of my right hon. and learned Friend to my constituency, for which I thank him, is he aware that unemployment in Basildon fell by 5·8 per cent. over the past year, and fell again this month? Does he agree that that is due to the hard work of local businesses, the success of the development corporation and the Commission for the New Towns, and the success of the various Government-sponsored and funded employment initiatives?

I was encouraged by everything that I saw and heard in Basildon. The number of people placed in jobs by our jobcentre went up by 16 per cent. over the past year. There are still a greater number of unfilled vacancies than there were a year ago. It is obvious that everything is well on the way to recovery in Basildon. I am glad to say that employment prospects are continually improving.

asked the Paymaster General what is the current rate of unemployment for registered disabled people.

There were 26,396 unemployed registered disabled people registered for employment at jobcentres and careers offices on 4 April 1986. It is not possible to convert that figure into an unemployment percentage rate because the number of registered disabled people in employment is not available.

Does the Minister agree that a figure of over 26,000 is very disturbing and damaging to disabled people? Will he ensure that the current Manpower Services Commission study on our quota system takes full account of the successful West German quota and levy system, which has been warmly welcomed by the EEC Commissioners?

We look forward to receiving the MSC research proposals following the working group's inquiry into the operation of the quota scheme. My Department takes seriously its responsibilities for helping disabled people into employment. The right hon. Gentleman might like to know that disabled participants on the community programme represent 6 per cent. of that programme. We have special eligibility criteria to help them into the programme.

Does my hon. Friend share my disappointment at the fact that thus far only one contract has been placed under the MSC pilot employment initiative for disabled people? Will he undertake to have a close look at the proposal from the Chalvey trust in my constituency, on which matter I have written to his right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State?

I shall look forward to consulting my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State on that letter and the reply to it.

With regard to the figure of over 26,000 unemployed disabled people, will the Minister look at the anomaly between the physically disabled and the blind? Whereas disabled people can go back to sheltered workshops, once the blind leave, they go straight to the unemployment queue. Will the Minister ask the Select Committee on Legislation to consider amending the Act?

I shall take full note of that point. We have expanded the sheltered employment programme. The number of severely disabled people on the programme increased from 14,900 in 1983–84 to 16,300 last year.

asked the Paymaster General by how much the number of people in self-employment has increased since 1980.

Between December 1980 and December 1985, the latest date for which figures are available, the number of self-employed in Great Britain increased by 600,000, or 29·9 per cent.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, in understanding unemployment, one must analyse the employment figures in great detail? Do the figures not show that our efforts to encourage self-employment have been successful? On the other hand, the analyses show also that there are considerable skill shortages. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that if all those involved in industry increased their skill training substantially more jobs would be created?

I readily agree with my hon. Friend. At a time when many new jobs are being created in the economy, it is frustrating to find that vacancies cannot be filled because of skill shortages. I hope that more will be done to improve that. We are combining the two programmes. In our adult training programme for next year we are including 60,000 places under a training for enterprise programme. The programme actually trains people so that they are able to go into businesses of their own.

I welcome the figures that my right hon. and learned Friend has given the House. Does he accept that there is still a need for a balanced regional aid policy as well as for the establishment of enterprise zones in various parts of the country? Is there not a lesson to be learnt from such schemes in the number of jobs created in the areas that have them?

I agree. I am delighted to be able to say to my hon. Friend that, between April 1984 and April 1986, the absolute fall in the number of unemployed in Glanford and Scunthorpe, at 568, was the greatest in any constituency.

Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that, although we should commend all those who are starting small businesses for their aspiration and courage, we should recognise that the growth is an illustration of hope triumphing over experience?

I do not agree. The vast majority of small businesses are successful and many of them provide employment for other people. That so many people can now thrive in their own businesses shows how rapidly the economy is expanding and what room there is for successful entrepreneurship.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that among the many reasons for welcoming the increase in self-employment is the fact that it is usually one of the most satisfying ways of being occupied from the point of view of the person concerned, leaving him free to pursue his own initiatives, rather than being bossed about by other people?

I agree. Many people nurse the ambition to be their own boss and run their own business.

Does the Paymaster General accept that the figure of 600,000 self-employed is based on a 2 per cent. survey by his Department? Does he recognise that there is a substantial difference, of a quarter of a million, between the estimates of the number of self-employed in the census and those of his Department? Have not the self-employed figure been inflated to introduce them into the full labour force employment survey so that the Paymaster General can reduce the figure by I per cent. when he next announces the unemployment figures? That represents just another fiddle on the unemployment figures.

The hon. Gentleman is foolish to try to reject the accuracy of figures that were compiled by our statisticians on the same basis as they have always been compiled. The hon. Gentleman is extremely reckless in wishing to use the census as the absolute bench-mark. Of course the census will give the most precise figure, but it is as likely to show that we have underestimated the number of self-employed as overestimated it.

asked the Paymaster General how many local enterprise agencies have applied for grants since October 1985.

Sixty one applications have been received from local enterprise agencies for funding under the new local enterprise agency grant scheme, which came into operation on 1 April this year. Prior to this date, and during the financial year 1985–86, 55 local enterprise agencies were given modest financial support under a pump-priming scheme run by my Department.

I very much welcome that news. Will my hon. Friend be more specific about Rochdale and Oldham in my constituency?

I can be specific. The local enterprise agencies that are operating in the Rochdale and Oldham area would certainly qualify for the new local enterprise agency grant scheme. I shall be happy to receive the applications when they are put together in the form of a business plan.

asked the Paymaster General when he expects that demographic factors will have a favourable impact on the level of unemployment; and if he will make a statement.

Our policies have contributed to the creation of nearly a million additional jobs between March 1983 and December 1985. This success has yet to be translated into a fall in unemployment, largely because of the rapid increase in the population of working age. The population of working age is projected to continue increasing, although at a slower rate, until 1989. Between 1989 and 1994 it should fall slightly.

Has not the substantial increase in the number of school leavers and the small number of retirals contributed several hundred thousand unemployed to the additional unemployment? What net improvement will there be next year compared with the position three years ago, which was worse?

It is always notoriously difficult to predict these changes. The best measure of where we are going is provided by the 985,000 net additional jobs created since March 1983. As the answer to my hon. Friend's question reveals, if we continue expanding the economy at that rate, we shall certainly get on top of the unemployment problem between now and the end of the decade.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 20 May.

This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I hope to have an Audience of Her Majesty The Queen.

Will the Prime Minister take time today to read the record in the Official Report of statements made last year by the Secretaries of State for Energy and for Scotland, urging those miners who were dismissed during the strike to take their case to the industrial tribunals? Is the right hon. Lady aware that today, in the House of Commons, there are 40 miners who took that advice and whom the tribunals recommended should be re-engaged, yet the National Coal Board is refusing to re-engage them? Is that not unjust? As a minimum, will the right hon. Lady give an undertaking that she or the Secretary of State for Energy will take an early opportunity to discuss the matter with the new chairman of the National Coal Board?

No. As the hon. Gentleman is well aware, management of the NCB's activites resides not in the Government but, by Act of Parliament, in the board of the NCB.

Although I welcome my right hon. Friend's visit to Israel and her interest in trying to get some sort of international peace process going, will she confirm that she will not visit the occupied territories of the West Bank and Gaza? What arrangements is she making to meet the leaders of the Palestinians, bearing in mind that their future is the core issue in the middle east?

I expect to be meeting leaders of the Palestinians via an arrangement which has already been made. As at present advised, I do not expect to go into the occupied territories.

I am sure that the Prime Minister will want to join me and many other hon. Members in condemning the South African attack on Zimbabwe, Zambia and Botswana—three Commonwealth countries — in an act of state terrorism which was clearly designed to damage the Commonwealth initiative. In view of that outrage, will the right hon. Lady give us an undertaking, first, that Britain will not use its veto in the event of mandatory sanctions being sought at the United Nations Security Council, and, secondly, that she will either initiate or support additional sanctions by the Commonwealth against South Africa?

I totally and utterly condemn the raid by South Africa into the three countries to which the hon. Gentleman referred in detail. As he is aware, we have called in the chargé d'affaires from the South African embassy and expressed our views and how strongly we feel about the raids. After the raids and in the knowledge of them, the Commonwealth Eminent Persons Group had a meeting with eight South African Ministers and discussed the way ahead. The group left its proposals with those South African Ministers. As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, the group has now left South Africa because the members of the group thought that that stage of their proceedings was over. It is just possible that they may continue their work. Even in view of what has happened, and in view of the violence on both sides, it is worth making every effort to stop South Africa dissolving into a cauldron of violence.

I sincerely hope that persistence by the Eminent Persons Group will be rewarded by significant change within South Africa. Does the Prime Minister not accept that ticking off the South African chargé does not constitute effective action? The efforts of the Eminent Persons Group would be immensely strengthened, as would the efforts of the Commonwealth in general, if the Prime Minister demonstrated here and now that she is prepared to initiate and develop effective sanctions against South Africa.

I do not believe that sanctions and the isolation of South Africa are any more likely to achieve the desired negotiations after the raid than they were before. The group of Heads of Government of the Commonwealth charged with duties in relation to the Eminent Persons Group will meet again in London at the beginning of August under the chairmanship of Sir Lynden Pindling. No doubt the stage reached by the Eminent Persons Group will be discussed then. I repeat, it is our great desire to prevent the terrible violence that could take place in South Africa and to do everything possible to assist the Eminent Persons Group in carrying out its role.

With that earnest desire by the Prime Minister in mind, may I ask whether she will accept that the isolation of South Africa is the only plausible means remaining to pursue the possibility of a non-violent resolution and a non-violent removal of apartheid? If she accepts that, does she not recognise the significance of the British Government, even in anticipation of the findings of the Eminent Persons Group, taking a firm stand in line with the original propositions of the Nassau agreement in order to demonstrate to South Africa that we will not appease apartheid nor tolerate its warfare against other African states and, consequently we will implement effective sanctions against South Africa?

No, because sanctions would not help to achieve the objective that we seek. They did not do that in Rhodesia. It is right to do as we have done, to deny South Africa defence weapons. That is done under a mandatory Security Council resolution. We must keep in mind the objectives of discussion and dialogue and the prevention of violence on both sides.

Will my right hon. Friend accept that since the African National Congress declared an escalation of violence at the weekend, in the interests of self-defence the South African Government had no alternative but to prevent further bloodshed by the attack? Will the Prime Minister accept, as the former Australian Prime Minister Mr. Malcolm Fraser who is a member of the Eminent Persons Group accepted on today's lunchtime news, that all is not lost and that now is the time to redouble the efforts of the EPG to find a peaceful solution?

As my hon. Friend heard me say earlier, we totally and utterly condemn the raids conducted by South Africa on the three countries. Together with the Commonwealth we still believe that it is right—and I shall quote from the Commonwealth communiqué—to

"Initiate, in the context of a suspension of violence on all sides, a process of dialogue across lines of colour, politics and religion, with a view to establishing a non-racial and representive government."

Has the British ambassador in Pretoria yet met the South African Foreign Minister, and, if so, what was the outcome? Will the right hon. Lady give the House an undertaking that once the Commonwealth Heads of Government have heard the report from the Eminent Persons Group she will not leave Britain isolated in the Commonwealth as being willing to utter words against apartheid but to take no action?

I have told the right hon. Gentleman of the action that the Commonwealth countries together took with the formation of the Eminent Persons Group. I have said that the morning after the raids the group met eight Ministers, still determined to carry on with its task, if it possibly could, of achieving discussion and dialogue, because that is the most important thing. I am not aware whether our ambassador in South Africa has seen the President, but we are continuing our efforts to try to secure dialogue and discussion.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the South African raids in themselves are not so very different from those undertaken by Israel or, more recently, by the United States, with my right hon. Friend's co-operation? Does she further agree that the cause of anxiety is the timing of those raids, when the eminent persons were in Cape Town? Had we not better wait for clarification of why the South Africans reacted as they did, and how the eminent persons have reacted, before we decide on any course of action?

I hope my right hon. Friend will agree that the South African case is different from any other. Different, different, different in its apartheid; different in the degree of violence on all sides. It is our objective to end that violence and to secure dialogue and discussion. The Commonwealth Eminent Persons Group has undoubtedly suffered a setback as a result of what has happened, but I hope that it will continue its work as long as there is a possibility of its coming to a successful conclusion.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 20 May.

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

Will the Prime Minister today acknowledge that the British people want the Government to give top priority to finding alternative energy sources to nuclear power, and will she recognise that to do so would be much more beneficial to Britain's trade than importing unwanted pressurised water reactors from the United States?

We must be realistic. Alternative energy sources such as harnessing the wind and the tides could meet only a tiny proportion of the great demand for power to keep the wheels of industry turning. There is a future for nuclear power in Britain and our record shows that we can go on and build nuclear power stations in the future, subject to the necessary planning permission.

In view of the statements by the Secretary of State for Employment about the need for continuing wage restraint, does my right hon. Friend agree that any recommendations coming from the Top Salaries Review Body should be implemented in such a way that those earning most in the public sector are seen to be giving a lead to the country in terms of that restraint?

I hear my hon. Friend's message. The reports of all the review bodies are now with the Government. We are considering them and hope to be in a position to make an early statement.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 20 May.

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

The Prime Minister may not have time today, but will she, perhaps in the next day or two, look at the redundancy plan that British Shipbuilders has imposed on the shipbuilding industry? Will she recognise that most Members of the House are deeply concerned about the decline in the British maritime fleet, in shipbuilding and in marine engineering? We recognise that there is a world surplus of shipping and that ships are being laid up, but it is the Government's overall responsibility to ensure that during the next three years the fleet is maintained and that shipbuilding and marine engineering are maintained at a level to ensure survival. I recognise that that will mean Government intervention at an early stage.

I appreciate the realistic but concerned way in which the hon. Gentleman approaches the problem. As he knows, the size of the industry depends ultimately on the ability of the industry to sell its product in world markets and on the orders that we can achieve. I am afraid that the industry is much too large at the moment for the orders that could possibly be achieved. Even after the closures, we still have five British merchant shipbuilding yards, Harland and Wolff and sever, private yards, and he is right to say that the race is on to secure the orders that are available in world markets. There are not many public orders to be brought forward, apart from the naval shipyard orders that are coming forward. There is one protection vessel for fisheries and some ferry boats, but these are small compared with what is needed, so we have managed to arrange a line of soft credit to try to secure such orders as are available.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 20 May.

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

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it remains the policy of her Government to replace the Polaris system with the Trident missile submarine system? Does she agree with me that any political party that had a policy of refusing to replace Polaris would be playing Russian roulette with the defence of the nation and would he unfit to put itself forward as ready to participate in any future Government?

Yes. A deterrent, to be effective, cannot be allowed to become obsolete. It must be modernised and kept up to date, and that is why we are going for the Trident deterrent. I would also point out that Trident will, of course, keep going 6,000 jobs in British shipyards.