asked the Paymaster General what is the present rate of unemployment; and how it compares with the figures for June 1983 and June 1979, respectively.

The seasonally adjusted level of unemployed claimants in the United Kingdom this June represented 11·7 per cent. of the working population. Estimates on a consistent basis for June 1983 and June 1979 were 10·8 and 4·2 per cent. respectively.

Will the Paymaster General confirm that, despite the 16th massaging of the figures since the Government took office, the underlying level of unemployment is at its highest point for over 50 years? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that virtually every employers' organisation has joined the Select Committee on Employment in demanding a Government programme of infrastructure work, which would not only put hundreds of thousands of people back to work, but would improve the nation's productivity? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman acknowledge that the overwhelming majority of the people now want measures to tackle unemployment even more than income tax cuts?

The rate of unemployment is too high, and reflects the difficulty of creating new jobs quickly enough to keep up with the rising numbers of people looking for work. The fact is that over 1 million new jobs have been created in the British economy since spring 1983, and the rate of employment—people in work—has gone up by 4·3 per cent. since the first quarter of 1983, but obviously we have to improve on that record. I am intrigued to see that the hon. Gentleman is now going back to infrastructure spending as the cure. I continue to watch the varying suggestions put forward by the Opposition as to how they can live up to their claims for reducing unemployment.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that there are now more people in work in my constituency of Bristol, East? Is he further aware that that trend is reflected throughout the country?

There are more people at work in this country all the time. We actually have a higher proportion of our population of working age in work than any other country in western Europe, apart from Denmark. Of course, we are having to tackle the problem that all the time more young people and more women are entering the labour force, so that we still have not caught up with the level of unemployment.

Is the Minister aware that in 1978 unemployment fell by 90,000. In 1979 it fell by 60,000. In the following year, 1980, after the right hon. and learned Gentleman's Government came into office, unemployment increased by 700,000. In 1981 unmployment rose by over 900,000 and it has risen every year since. Is that not because the Government's economic policies have turned off the engines of economic growth and wealth creation? We are producing fewer manufactured goods now than we were in 1979. When will the Minister show some contrition and apologise to the unemployed, rather than taking the flippant attitude that he does to this disaster?

I have not been flippant. The hon. Gentleman's figures cannot disguise the fact that, in 1979, the country's economy was in a dire state. A great deal of our industry was in a non-competitive condition. When the last Labour Government left office we were set on a course for higher unemployment and the world recession made it worse. However, unemployment rose at a faster rate in West Germany than it rose here. We are now back on the road to recovery. The number of new jobs in the British economy continues to rise steadily, quarter by quarter, and has done ever since early 1983.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend recall a book written by the general secretary of the Association of Scientific, Technical and Managerial Staffs when the last Labour Government held office? Its title was "The Collapse of Work" and it postulated an unemployment level of 5 million under that Labour Government because of Britain's lack of competitiveness. Does he agree that unemployment could rapidly reach the level contemplated by Mr. Clive Jenkins if Opposition Members were ever able to put their inflationary spending plans into practice?

I certainly recall some such analysis. I think the figure of 5 million people unemployed is wholly credible when one looks at the state of the economy as the last Labour Government left it in 1979. Unemployment would probably be at that figure now were it not for the fact that we are in the sixth successive year of economic growth and we are witnessing a steady increase in the number of new jobs in the economy.

Is the Minister aware that during the first quarter of this year and for the first time in several years there was an actual .decrease in the number of employees in employment. The Government were only saved from the greater embarrassment of a decrease in the national total of people at work, of any kind, by the convenient arrival of a round figure of 30,000 people assumed to be in self employment and hence representing an increase in the numbers at work. Will he explain to the House the particular witchcraft by which figures like this 30,000 are produced in respect of the self-employed?

There is a changing pattern of employment in this country. For some years the number of people in self-employment have been steadily rising. More than one person in 10 working in this country is now working on his own account. The estimates that have been produced are carefully calculated. They are checked regularly against the labour force survey and are produced by well-tried methods showing the estimated increase month by month. There is no witchcraft in it. These are careful, accurate statistics, as has been well proven in the past.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that we are facing another industrial revolution? The reason why it is so painful has been the reluctance of past politicians and trade union leaders to embrace new and modern technology for the opportunities that it offers.

I agree with my hon. Friend. The attempt to delay the impact of new technology and to ignore the increased competitive pressures of the 1970s led to the disaster that we eventually suffered at the end of that decade and the beginning of this one. What is happening now is that new industries are emerging, more people are working in smaller businesses, we are witnessing a good rate of new business creation and more people are working in self-employment. The labour market is changing, but it is providing more jobs. We must not allow the Opposition's policies to try to put the clock back.

asked the Paymaster General if he has any plans to increase the efficiency of the unemployment benefit service.

asked the Paymaster General if he plans to make any changes in the operation of unemployment benefit offices.

A variety of changes in the unemployment benefit service are planned and under way to improve efficiency, service and the control of public funds.

I thank the Minister for that reply and for the increased efficiency of the offices. With regard to increased efficiency, does the Minister agree that redundant mineworkers, like any other redundant workers, do on occasion need help and advice concerning unemployment and welfare benefits? If the Minister agrees, will he withdraw the directive sent to the offices on 15 April, and, if he does not, will he put his reasons in the Official Report?

We often give help to unemployment benefit offices to enable them to assist applicants for unemployment benefit. These are complex issues involving the interrelation between the redundant mineworkers payment scheme and the unemployment benefit service. Such guidance as has been given has been intended to give assistance to people in those circumstances and has involved the National Coal Board and the National Union of Mineworkers.

If the Minister's claim that advice was given in an attempt to help the miners is sincere, why did the letter to unemployment benefit offices quite specifically say that in no circumstances should advice be given to miners about whether they were entitled to claim unemployment benefit? Will he confirm that miners have been singled out for a vindictive and squalid little campaign to prevent them from drawing what they are entitled to?

Miners have not been singled out. Advice is often given in these circumstances. The intention of the circular was to enable us to be sure that unemployment offices would not give wrong advice to mineworkers and thus prejudice their interests.

Will my hon. Friend have a look at the Public Accounts Committee's report and ask himself whether there is a good case for merging these offices with the DHSS?

I shall certainly look at the report. The two organisations perform essentially different activities, but there is scope for improved co-operation between them.

As one who was made unemployed by Robert Maxwell years ago — he was perhaps the worst employer in the country, and, I believe, still is—may I ask my hon. Friend to investigate how people claim unemployment benefit and the ease with which somebody whose name begins with B for Bruinvels can make a claim at 9.15 am and get a job for the rest of the day, not that I ever did that?

My hon. Friend is on to a serious and important issue which is being given close attention by my Department.

asked the Paymaster General what was the number of persons unemployed for one year and two years, respectively, at May 1979 and at the latest available date.

Direct comparisons of unemployment by duration since 1979 are not possible because of changes in the way figures are collected. However, on 5 April 1979 the numbers of people in the United Kingdom who had been registered unemployed for over one year and over two years were 366,700 and 179,800 respectively. The corresponding numbers of unemployed claimants as at 10 April 1986 were 1,356,500 and 845,200 respectively.

Does the Paymaster General agree that those appalling comparisons are the biggest condemnation of the Government's economic policies? I remind him yet again that the number of long-term unemployed now is greater than the total number unemployed people when Labour left office. When will he recognise that the present tinkering with schemes does not meet the problem and that there will have to be a fundamental change of policy? He should come to my constituency and talk to some of the long-term unemployed and see what they think about what he is doing.

I agree that long-term unemployment is the biggest social problem that faces the country. It is more serious than the total figure, which disguises the fact that 500,000 people find a new job each month. The 1.4 million long-term unemployed are those to whom we are giving particular attention. Every long-term unemployed person in the hon. Gentleman's constituency will be interviewed during the next few months under the restart initiative, and each will be offered eight different ways in which he might get back into work. That will continue the considerable success that we have already enjoyed in the nine pilot areas.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that one of the main reasons why this country suffers from high levels of long-term unemployment is the legacy of the anti-business, anti-enterprise, anti-profit policies which were pursued by the last Labour Government?

Yes, and it is extremely important to reverse that part of our culture. That is why our Department and others concentrate so heavily on, for example, the business expansion scheme to encourage investment in new business, and why we are constantly strengthening the small business service and local enterprise agencies and all the other methods that we have to encourage enterprise culture.

Will the Paymaster General accept the view advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Dormand) about there being large pockets of unemployment, especially in mining areas where there have been pit closures? Will he take on board the fact that unemployment in those areas is high and that the number of people who have been unemployed for 12 months or more is high? Will he do something about that and ensure that unemployment is brought down, and that employment is created in mining constituencies?

I accept the need for efforts of that kind and I am glad that the National Coal Board's enterprise company has been so successful in helping people to establish themselves in business and to bring new businesses into the coalfields. We need more efforts of that kind and more successes of the kind being achieved in places such as Consett and Corby, steel towns which where badly hit by redundancies. The same needs to be done wherever major redundancies occur in older, traditional industries.

While unemployment is so high, does my right hon. and learned Friend think it justified to allow more than 250,000 Irish nationals to work in the British economy?

That is a long-standing issue, going back to the creation of the Irish Republic in the 1920s. Free movement of labour is an important principle of the European Community, from which we benefit as much as anyone else. Questions about access of Irish citizens to this country are best referred to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

The Paymaster General now officially recognises that more than 1 million more people have been unemployed for more than 12 months since the Government came to power. As the Government profess concern for those people, does he accept that recent changes to the Social Security Bill mean that a married man with two children taking a community scheme job will face a cut in pay or a suspension in benefit for 13 weeks? Is a conscripted labour force the Government's alternative policy?

I appreciate that that is one reason why the community programme is more attractive to younger and single employees. Tomorrow we shall be discussing reforms in the social security system which improve support for low-earning heads of families. That will be of great benefit to people wishing to get into work and away from unemployment. The job start allowance, now available nationally, provides a £20 a week allowance for a man obliged to take a low-paid job as his first job back in work. That will also help.

asked the Paymaster General what steps his Department is taking to seek to reduce unemployment in the town of Haverhill.

The Government's economic strategy is providing the climate of low inflation and sustained growth which is the only sensible way to secure real jobs in Haverhill and elsewhere. Haverhill will also benefit from the new package of measures announced in the Budget to accelerate the growth of enterprise, boost employment opportunities for the young and help the long-term unemployed find work.

Is my hon. Friend aware that Haverhill has the most severe unemployment problem in my constituency and that although many of the measures to which he has referred are both welcome and helpful, his Department's initiatives are frequently obstructed by shortcomings in the policies of other Departments? Is he aware, for example, that Haverhill is blighted by poor road communications and is a victim of extremely poor and inadequate strategic planning? Will he prevail on his colleagues in other Departments to consider the employment implications of their policies when working them out?

We constantly try to co-operate with other Departments in formulating Government policies, but I shall pass on my hon. Friend's remarks to my colleagues. With regard to my own Department, I am sure that my hon. Friend will welcome the substantial involvement in his constituency in the youth training scheme and community programmes and the fact that in the Norfolk and Suffolk area some 4,000 people have benefited from the enterprise allowance scheme since it started.

asked the Paymaster General how many women will lose maternity leave rights under the proposals contained in the White Paper "Building Businesses…not Barriers."

The White Paper is based on the need to reduce employment costs to industry if we are to increase the prospect of additional jobs for men and women. The White Paper proposals affect the right to return to work after maternity absence, but no women would lose maternity rights for which they have already qualified. It is very difficult to estimate how many expectant mothers would subsequently be affected by any changes.

Does the Minister accept that if the White Paper proposals are fully implemented, in the future the majority of women will lose their right to maternity benefit? Does he agree that removing rights and protection given to women in the past is an appalling way to proceed in 1986, and is the wrong way for the Government to go?

I am not sure what aspect the hon. Gentleman is concerned about. Maternity pay is not affected by our White Paper, although it is affected by changes being made by another Department. With regard to the right to return to work, the difficulty is that for a small firm it is a considerable burden to keep a job open for up to 40 weeks for someone who might exercise the right to return. That is why we made the proposals in the White Paper. It is very difficult to achieve the right balance between the need to protect employees and the need to keep industrial costs down. We believe that the balance needs to be shifted further so that employers are not deterred, for example, from employing young women.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept our congratulations on publishing the White Paper, which has shown that this country can be properly governed by a Government who are determined to ensure that we put businesses before barriers and that we get rid of unnecessary regulations in line with the requirements of a modern economy?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. My right hon. and noble Friend and I are constantly being invited to make speeches abroad, particularly in western Europe, where the interest in this kind of approach to encouraging jobs in industry is steadily growing and where a number of other Governments are plainly proposing to imitate us.

Thanks to Government changes in the employment protection laws, is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that maternity provision in the United Kingdom will now be more restrictive and maternity benefits the lowest of any EEC country? As this year marks the 10th anniversary of the implementation of the statutory right of women to return to work after child birth, is not the White Paper "Building Businesses…not Barriers" a rotten gift to give to women?

I am not sure about the hon. Lady's comparisons, but we already have a higher proportion of women in work and a lower level of unemployment among women than in most other western European countries. Those European countries which on paper have stronger maternity protection than we do have probably reduced the job opportunities for women.

asked the Paymaster General what is his latest estimate of firms paying workers less than wages councils' minimum rates in (a) Scotland and (b) England and Wales; and how many subsequent prosecutions have taken place.

No estimates of the number of firms paying workers less than the wages councils' minimum rates have been made. However, Wages Inspectorate statistics for 1985 show that 20.8 per cent. of all establishments checked in Scotland were underpaying one or more of their workers. The corresponding figure for England and Wales was 22.4 per cent. But these figures are not representative of all firms because the inspectorate tends to concentrate on the firms more likely to be underpaying. In the same year, no firms in Scotland and two firms in England and Wales were prosecuted for offences under wages council legislation.

Am I correct in my view that the Minister is saying that 3,000 firms in Scotland alone do not pay the minimum rate—in other words, they pay less than the scab rate—and that not one prosecution has taken place? I should like the House to know, because it has the right to know, whether any political instructions have been given to procurators fiscal not to prosecute in these cases. What is happening is a national scandal, coming as it does from a party that is supposed to stand for law and order.

The hon. Gentleman has extrapolated ingeniously but wholly incorrectly the figures to which I referred in my substantive answer. It will be interesting for the hon. Gentleman to hear the contrast between what is happening now and what happened when the Labour Government were last in office. In the three years to 1978, the last full year in which the Labour party was in office, 35·4 per cent. of establishments inspected were found to be underpaying. Under the last Labour Government, the average number of prosecutions was five a year. Since 1980, under this Government, the average number of prosecutions has been the same.

Does my hon. Friend agree that procurators fiscal in Scotland have always enjoyed discretion in relation to prosecutions? I say that as the parliamentary spokesman for the procurators fiscal. Does my hon. Friend also agree that we, as the party of law and order, believe that when the law is seen not to be effective and not to be working, the answer is to change the law? That is exactly what we are doing.

Whether such cases go to the procurator fiscal depends on the recommendation of the various inspectorates that operate either in England and Wales or in Scotland. Under successive Governments—Labour as well as Conservative — the policy has been to seek compliance with the legislation by advice and persuasion. A prosecution is considered where the offence is deliberate or repeated and the evidence is adequate.

Will the Minister confirm that we have a rising trend of employers breaking the criminal law and paying the poorest in society less than they are entitled to? Will he confirm that the Government have dealt with that problem by cutting by one third the number of wages inspectors and now, in the Wages Bill, by introducing a law which will weaken protection and promises further cuts in the inspectorate? The Government are inviting employers to break the law more frequently at the cost of the poorest workers.

Nothing would invite employers more to break the law than the statements that we have heard from the hon. Lady and her hon. Friends, which give employers the impression that they will get away with it. The truth is stated in a letter which I sent to the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry), which has been widely circulated and of which the hon. Lady is aware. The legislation is changing because we are removing a great deal of the bureaucracy that has been operating in this area with incredibly complicated wages councils orders. Employers who in future try to claim that they cannot comply with wages councils orders simply because they do not understand them will be in a much weaker position than would otherwise be the case. I made that point in my letter. Wages councils will now be free from their former complexity and it will be simpler and quicker to check compliance. I do not accept that there is a rising trend of law-breaking among employers, as the hon. lady suggested.

asked the Paymaster General what response he has received to the guidance booklet on payment of bills published on 20 May.

I have received a considerable volume of correspondence from public bodies, large and small firms and small business organisations welcoming this initiative. Many small businesses continue to emphasise the problems that late payment causes them.

My hon. Friend is on record as having said that if the voluntary code does not work he will introduce legislation, and some of us would like to see that sooner rather than later. How does he intend to monitor the success of the voluntary code, and for how long?

I have one effective way of monitoring the success of the code, which is that 130,000 copies were printed and I have recently authorised the reprinting of it, so demand is considerable. I am sure that my hon. Friend would welcome that. I have said that we may have to consider legislation if the pilot scheme does not work, but that could be hazardous. Many people in various small firms organisations have made representations to me that on some occasions small firms do not pay the bills of other small firms on time and that sometimes small firms do not pay the bills of large firms on time. If legislation were introduced some small firms—[Interruption.]

Order. I am trying to hear what is being

Does the Minister recall that more than seven years ago the Government were elected on the basis of relieving small firms of all the difficulties which the Tories believed surrounded them? It is now seven years later and the Tory Government have hammered small businesses to such an extent that the Government must now give them advice on how to pay their bills What happened to the entrepreneurial society that was to produce all the wonderful profits with the help of the Government's policies? Would it not be nice for the 150,000 firms that have gone bankrupt during the past seven years to have even a letterbox through which to receive the code of conduct?

That shows how much the hon. Gentleman is out of touch with what is going on in the small business community. The figures on the small firms front show a higher net increase in small businesses than has ever been recorded. We are involved in a code of practice for late payment of bills because we know that there is a cash problem when large firms delay the payment of bills to small firms.

While my hon. Friend is reluctant to introduce legislation at this stage, is he aware that many small firms feel strongly about the matter, and will he keep it under review? What extra pressures could be put on some of the biggest firms in the land, which pay bills only twice or three times a year?

When I sent the code of practice to the 100 largest firms in the country—as my hon. Friend is suggesting, a number of them are guilty of delaying payments of bills — I found the response to be comforting. I am sure that the combination of the code of practice and the Finance Act 1982, which allows interest to be charged as long as the matter has been taken to court, will be effective.

asked the Paymaster General if he will make a statement on the number of two-year YTS places actually contracted for.

At 1 July, the latest date for which statistics are available, contracts had been signed for 332,480 YTS places. This is nearly three quarters of the places we shall need during this year, and represents very good progress.

Is the Minister aware that, according to figures that have been published by the Youth Training Board, only 44 per cent. of basic places had been contracted for by May and that a full 80 per cent. were still under negotiation? Will he say how much of an improvement that is? Does he realise that there is considerable concern among larger firms that the MSC is seeking to fill the old mode B-type places, with the result that it is having to suffer considerable delays in the placements that it would like to offer? Will the Minister explain what he intends to do about this?

I do not accept the last part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, but I can update him on the first part. The latest figures show that 88 per cent. of the places that we need have been approved by AMBs. That is the definitive figure. It compares with 79 per cent. at this time last year, and that is substantial progress.

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the most worrying aspects of the present unemployment position is a co-existence of high rates of employment and emerging skill shortages? Does it not follow that the increased investment that the Government are making in ensuring that the training effort is more closely attuned to labour needs will in the end reduce unemployment? Is it not extraordinary that Opposition parties that claim to espouse the cause of the unemployed should be so anxious to belittle the efforts that the Government are making?

I welcome my hon. Friend's supplementary question and I agree with every word of it. We are trying to concentrate, as he has suggested, on more work-related training with the YTS. We think that a start should be made before young people leave school. Thus, there is a good reason for pushing TVEI, which is work-related. The two schemes are complementary.

Will the Minister recognise that many of the young people who have been contracted to YTS schemes are not being taught any skills? Many of them are carrying out labouring-type jobs and, as a result, many of them are disillusioned. I sent a letter yesterday to the Paymaster General setting out the case of a young person who had been contracted to a YTS scheme and who had done a labourer's job from start to finish.

My right hon. and learned Friend the Paymaster General and I will consider the hon. Gentleman's letter. We shall study it carefully and respond as positively as we can. I think that he is wrong to suggest that young people on YTS schemes are disillusioned. The facts prove that more than 80 per cent. of those who have taken advantage of YTS places are satisfied with the training that they have received.

Will my hon. Friend confirm the experience that I have had which is that in my constituency a significant number of young people are taking up YTS schemes voluntarily as a first option, and that others are giving up dead-end jobs, which they went into on leaving school, to go into the YTS to acquire a skill? Will he encourage the MSC to maintain the publicity campaign, which has been so successful, to counter some of the sniping criticism that comes from some Opposition Members and others?

I welcome the last part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question. We are anxious, with the MSC much in the lead, to continue the publicity that seems to be widely welcomed throughout the country and not only by my right hon. and hon. Friends. The degree of flexibility that we have introduced to the scheme encourages youngsters who have never thought of self-employment, for example, to contemplate it. That is to be widely welcomed as well.

Is the Minister aware that there are serious difficulties emerging in various areas on mode B provision? Even on the April figures, 132 sponsors of mode B provision had given up, which equates to 10 to 12 per cent. of the places. Is there not a worrying tendency for inner urban area places and places that are open especially to young black people to diminish? What will the Minister do to encourage more YTS places in the inner cities and for more young blacks?

I do not share the hon. Gentleman's concern about the premium places—not mode B places; we do not call them that. The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) referred only to the actual places, not to the premium places. Those figures are higher. Ninety-seven per cent. of places have been approved. Our interest is in getting youngsters on to YTS. Where a number of managing agents have been saying that their schemes are closing down, my concern has been to make sure that all the youngsters previously covered by the scheme are adequately covered by the new scheme. The figure of 97 per cent. is very impressive.

asked the Paymaster General what is the figure of unemployment in the Sheffield travel-to-work area; and what percentage this is of the potential work force.

On 12 June 1986 the number of unemployed claimants in the Sheffield travel-to-work area was 46,700, which represents a local unemployment rate of 16·1 per cent.

Does the Minister remember the poster put out during the 1979 election campaign, to try to prove to the people that the Tories would get them all back to work? Will he undertake to come to the great east end of Sheffield, which lies so still and quiet, remembering only the promises made at that time? Will he hold out to our people some hope of returning to work? Will he come and see what his Government have done to working people? There are 16·9 per cent. out of work, and many others too, although the Government will not admit it.

We are certainly concerned about the level of unemployment in Sheffield and elsewhere. I regularly visit Sheffield. On one recent visit I called in at the job club at Woodhouse. The hon. Gentleman may care to know that that club enjoys considerable success, placing 78 per cent. of its members in jobs.

Did we not come to office in the face of a world recession? Did we not come to office to be faced with over-manning through the cosy arrangements of the Socialists and the Lib-Lab pact? Did we not have to face the bulge year for school leavers? Have we not outstripped the rest of Europe in job creation? Are there not more people working today than ever before? Is not 1987 likely to be a good year for getting people back to work?

In spite of the difficulties described by my hon. Friend, we have managed to ensure that over 5,000 people in the Sheffield area are benefiting from the youth training scheme and over 5,000 from the community programme. We have also managed to make sure that Sheffield has benefited from £8·5 million in regional assistance since 1979, and has been allocated over £4 million under the urban programme for the current year.

Is the Minister aware that the recently published report of the Sheffield careers service declares that there is no real improvement in employment opportunities for young people? Last year—the seventh year of Tory Government — it had the dubious distinction of returning the highest recorded figures for youth unemployment in the history of Sheffield. Which of the Government's policies will relieve those figures?

I have just referred to 5,000 places under the youth training scheme. Under the two-year scheme, the number of places in the current year will be 6,000. The number of unfilled vacancies at jobcentres in the area has risen by 53 per cent.

asked the Paymaster General how many schools and colleges will be participating in the technical and vocational education initiative by the end of the current year.

There are likely to be about 660 schools and colleges participating in the TVEI pilot projects by the end of 1986.

Is that not a remarkable achievement, and one that is very much to be desired and that will go a long way towards meeting some of the skill shortages of which we have heard this afternoon? Will my right hon. and learned Friend take steps to ensure that when the young people concerned enter employment they are properly managed by kicking some of these companies —especially the 20 per cent. of large companies—which do no management training at all and therefore ill-treat or misuse the skills which my right hon. and learned Friend takes such care to develop at school?

; I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his commendation of the steps that we have taken so far. Our experience shows that the improvement in the curriculum in schools and the greater work experience that it gives the pupils is now very popular with teachers, parents, pupils and potential employers of those coming out, which is why we have announced the national extension of the project. Industry still needs to put more effort into training in Britain. We continue to encourage firms to do so and we continue to give positive support to those firms which do.

In uttering statements about making available £900 million over 10 years, was the Paymaster General not deceiving the people, because in fact only £12 million has been allocated for next year and only £41 million for the year after, which is only a drop in the ocean?

The national extension is being phased in, which is why the expenditure builds up to an average of £90 million a year over the next 10 years. Obviously, it is necessary to phase in the national extension, building on the success of the pilots. The figure that we and the hon. Gentleman have cited is being provided for the initiative because of its value to pupils and industry.

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

This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House I shall be having further meetings today. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty The Queen. Tonight I shall be attending a dinner at the United States embassy in honour of Mrs. Reagan.

On the day that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services has announced his attack on NHS waiting lists, will my right hon. Friend consider the outstanding success of the partnership, in Wales between the NHS and the private sector in tackling a shortfall in kidney dialysis treatment? Is my right hon. Friend aware that the number of new patients has trebled as a result of that partnership, and is not there a great deal for the rest of the United Kingdom to learn from that?

We welcome the involvement of the private sector in the NHS making provision for services of that kind, which give excellent value for money. They often enable people on NHS lists to get much-needed treatment more quickly. It is for the local health authority to evaluate the treatment, but we wish that scheme well and hope that there will be more.

In all her considerations with our Commonwealth partners of the measures that we should be taking against the South African Government, what weight does the Prime Minister attach to her need to safeguard the position of Her Majesty as head of the Commonwealth?

As I said last week, Mr. Speaker, I propose to follow the well-established practice of my predecessors and not answer questions, direct or indirect, about the monarchy.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the two main aims of any policy towards South Africa should be, first, to end as soon as possible the system of apartheid, and, secondly, and equally important, to protect the victims of apartheid from any unnecessary and avoidable suffering and bloodshed? Does she further agree that both those aims must overrule and override all other considerations, including who will or will not take part in the Commonwealth Games?

I wholly agree with my hon. and learned Friend. It is our aim to end apartheid as soon as possible—[HON. MEMBERS: "How?"] By negotiation, and by not applying punitive sanctions, which would hit those whom we most wish to help. I agree wholly with my hon. and learned Friend that the games are the Commonwealth Games, and it would be best if those who have thought of boycotting them would reconsider their decision and come and join in those games.

Following the Harare meeting last week, is it not clear that a categorical statement from the Prime Minister to the effect that the British Government win impose sanctions against South Africa would increase the probability of restoring participation in the games, would improve the prospects of the Heads of Government meeting in August reaching productive conclusions, and would at the same time strengthen the hand of the Foreign Secretary in his visit in South Africa. Will the Prime Minister now make such a categorical statement?

No, Mr. Speaker. The right hon. Gentleman is asking me to make a categorical statement before the Heads of Government meet to consider the matter. That is absurd.

By failing to make such a categorical statement at this stage, a categorical statement for which Commonwealth leaders both black and white have repeatedly asked, the Prime Minister is spoiling the games, is fracturing the Commonwealth and is sabotaging the mission of her own Foreign Secretary. Does she not realise that the Harare statement was an olive branch, or is she in such a state of paranoia that she cannot tell the difference between an olive branch and a club?

The right hon. Gentleman is asking us to reach a conclusion or to commit ourselves to a conclusion before the meeting which meets to consider the matter. That is an absurd way of going about any Heads of Government conference.

The one thing that the Prime Minister says that is true is that the Commonwealth Games are not directly her business. What is her business is the withdrawals from the games, because that is entirely her fault. When she says that to make a categorical statement in favour of sanctions is absurd, is she saying that Rajiv Gandhi, Bob Hawke and Brian Mulroney and all the rest are absurd?

I am adhering to the Nassau accord. The Heads of Government, or their representatives, after the appropriate time, will then meet to review the situation. If in their opinion adequate progress has not been made within this period, we agree to consider the adoption of further measures. The right hon. Gentleman is following his old trick of reaching a conclusion before the meeting is even held.

Bearing in mind the nature of the crisis in South Africa and Britain's pivotal position inside the international community on this issue, will my right hon. Friend at least keep open the possibility of personal talks with the state President, inside or outside South Africa, in the critical weeks ahead?

As my hon. Friend is aware, my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary goes to South Africa today to have talks with the President and a number of other people in South Africa—for more than one set of talks—and he may need to go again later. Obviously, I should like to consider the results of what he is able to achieve as President of the 12 countries of the Community before saying anything further. I do not exclude what my hon. Friend has said.

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

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

Does the Prime Minister know, and if she does will she tell us, whether some of the recent comments about the rift between No. 10 and the Palace on South Africa have arisen from certain sections of the Tory establishment—

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. [Interruption.]

—have arisen from certain sections of the Tory establishment who feel that she has been in the job too long as Prime Minister and has developed monarchical tendencies of the absolutist kind?

I make it clear once again that I propose to follow the well-established practice of my predecessors and not answer direct or indirect questions about the monarch. I note that the hon. Gentleman has no complaints about how the Government are running the affairs of this country.

asked the Prime Minister whether she has any plans to visit West Derbyshire.

I have at present no plans to do so.

My constituents in West Derbyshire will be sorry to hear that my right hon. Friend has no plans to visit West Derbyshire at present. If she were able to visit West Derbyshire, they would tell her of their pleasure about yesterday's announcement by the Post Office of record profits and about the recent announcement of the profits of the—[Interruption.]

Order. The hon. Gentleman has not been here for very long and he should be given consideration in asking his question.

They would also tell her of their pleasure about profits recently announced by British Steel, the first profits for 11 years. Does my right hon. Friend not agree that that those profits hold out the prospects of a better future for the people who work in those industries than the major losses that were made when the Opposition were in government?

Yes. I join my hon. Friend in congratulating both the management and the workforce of British Steel on turning a £1 billion loss into a £38 million profit. It is excellent news. I congratulate, similarly, the management and workforce of the Post Office and Girobank, who have exceeded all the targets that the Government set for them. I will one day visit West Derbyshire.

If the Prime Minister did decide to visit West Derbyshire, does she think that it would increase or reduce the 100 Tory majority?

I am only after increasing the Tory majority.

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

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

As the Prime Minister cannot comment on her relationship with the Palace, can she comment on her relationship with her Back-Benchers? On the front page of yesterday's issue of The Times there was an article under the heading

"Rebel Tories accused of Thatcher plot."

I propose to continue to answer questions from this Dispatch Box, in the hope that one day the standard of questions from the Opposition may improve.

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

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

Has my right hon. Friend had a chance to welcome the visit of Mr. Peres to Morocco to meet King Hassan, which shows that the middle east peace process may be under way again? Since my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is hoping to meet ANC leaders in South Africa, will my right hon. Friend in due course authorise meetings with Palestinian leaders, including members of the PLO?

I hope that the ANC will agree to meet my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary on his visit to South Africa. If it does not do so, it will cast doubt on its commitment to try to solve the problem by peaceful means. Like my hon. Friend, I very much welcome the initiative of the Prime Minister of Israel, Mr. Peres, in visiting King Hassan of Morocco, with a view to a new initiative to help to solve the middle east problem. My hon. Friend will be very much aware that, unless the PLO accepts resolutions 242 and 338, I do not believe that it can be involved in negotiations to solve the middle east problem.

In view of the answers given today on unemployment by the Prime Minister's right hon. and learned Friend, does she understand that the majority of people in this country now realise that the Tory Government have failed absolutely to solve the unemployment problem and that the scandal of unemployment is surpassed only by the Government's arrogance in disregarding completely the misery caused to millions of families by the direct actions of this Government?

The numbers of people in employment and in self-employment are once again rising, and that is good news. In the last three years 1 million jobs have been created. In the end we will solve the unemployment problem only when companies in manufacturing and services produce the goods and services that people are prepared to buy. The most worrying thing at present is the height of unit labour costs in Britain compared to those in other countries. That could be losing us export orders.

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

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

Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to praise the British Railways Board and its hard-working staff for turning a massive loss last year into a surplus of over £49 million before taxation? Does she agree that the investment by the Government in electrification was a good investment?

I gladly congratulate British Rail on its excellent achievement. It has turned from a £408 million loss in 1984–85 to a small profit in 1985–86, and that is good news. I wish British Rail well and I am glad that we decided to invest in further electrification.

In view of the evasive answer given to me last week during Question Time by the Prime Minister, will she now take the opportunity to clarify her position? Is she in favour of early majority rule in South Africa, or is she not? The House demands an answer.

I am in favour of the process decided and described in the Nassau accord about apartheid. The Eminent Persons Group was sent to South Africa. The accord said — I shall read the whole paragraph—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."]

Order. The Prime Minister is answering the question.

The accord said:

"We agree on the compelling urgency of dismantling apartheid and erecting the structures of democracy in South Africa. The latter, in particular, demands a process of dialogue involving the true representatives of the majority black population of South Africa. We believe that we must do all we can to assist that process, while recognising that the forms of political settlement in South Africa are for the people of that country—all the people—to determine."

On a point of order Mr. Speaker.

Does it arise out of questions?

Yes, Mr. Speaker.

As long as it is not a supplementary question, I shall allow it.

It is not a supplementary. I seek your guidance Mr. Speaker. Is it right for the First Minister of the Crown to treat the House in this way?

Order. The hon. Lady is an experienced Chairman, and she knows that that is a supplementary question.