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

On 5 April 1979, the closest date to May 1979 for which such an analysis is available, the numbers of unemployed registrants in the United Kingdom who had been unemployed for over one year and over two years respectively were 366,700 and 179,800. On 9 October 1986 the numbers of unemployed claimants were 1,341,000 and 844,500. Direct comparisons of unemployment by duration since 1979 are not possible because of changes in the way figures are collected.

Those figures are a disgrace and an affront to society. They demonstrate more clearly than anything why the Government's economic policies are an utter failure. When will the Government realise what a devastating effect long-term unemployment has on a family? Will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that when he talks about a reduction in unemployment, whether in his statements or in his speeches, he will identify the reduction in the long-term unemployed?

We are slowly winning the unemployment battle. The numbers are beginning to fall. In the latest quarter there was a fall of 7,000 in the number of long-term unemployed, compared with a rise of 25,000 a year ago.

Does my hon. Friend have figures for job vacancies during a similar period? Does he recognise that unless job vacancies are subtracted from the number of unemployed we cannot get a true picture of unemployment in Britain?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In the vast majority of areas vacancies are on the increase. Indeed, the figures announced last week show that the overall number of national vacancies was the highest since 1979.

The Minister referred to the difficulties of making comparisons with 1979 because of the different methods of calculating unemployment. Does he accept that the Government know very well the basis of those changes in the calculation? For reasonable methods of comparison, would it be possible for him to place that figure in the Official Report, taking into account the changes that have been made by the Government?

A question on that matter will come later. The allegation that there have been 16 changes is misleading and exaggerated. Only six have a discernible effect, details of which were published in the Employment Gazette. Three were minor changes, two were changes in the method of compilation, four resulted from procedural changes for paying benefit and two were to correct inaccuracies.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that unemployment in the north-east, for example, fell by 9,000 last month? Why do Opposition Members not recognise good news, or do they prefer high unemployment'?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right.

Of the figures which the Minister gave in his initial reply, what percentage of women were unemployed at both dates? Will the Minister also give an estimate of the number of women who are unable to register because the Government want to remove them from the statistics but who are available for work?

I regret that I do not have the figures on women, but about 600,000 jobs were lost in manufacturing during the period of the previous Labour Government.

asked the Paymaster General if he will make a statement on the Restart programme.

The restart programme has been making good progress and by 9 October 366,451 people had already been interviewed. A worthwhile offer that might lead to employment had been made to about nine out of 10 of those interviewed.

Will the Paymaster General accept that the programme is not leading to people getting real jobs and that the main purpose of the exercise is to reduce the unemployment figures by false means, which is resulting in many people losing the benefit to which they are legitimately entitled? Is that not a disgrace?

No. That is, first, a wholly unjustified allegation, and it is also a harmful one to make because it damages the morale of our staff who are seeking to help long-term unemployed people whom they invite for interview. It also tends to put off the long-term unemployed people from going in. When people are interviewed we offer advice on how to get into a job, training, subsidised self-employment, a job club or our new job training programme—all ways of helping longterm unemployed people back into the growing number of vacancies and jobs available in our economy.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept that the restart scheme has been widely welcomed in Britain as evidencing the Government's humanity and practical determination in their approach to the distressing and important problem of long-term unemployment? Will my right hon. and learned Friend clarify what proportion of those coming for interview have subsequently been placed in jobs?

We have no means of knowing exactly, and we never will unless we go in for a large-scale survey of everybody who has left the count. At the moment, 86,211 people have ceased to claim unemployment benefit and we trust that they are in work or in training or have been placed in some way. Unless we go out and pursue them all and have a full survey, we shall never know. It is quite wrong, as my hon. Friend says, to muddle all this up with the routine administrative work of checking on fraud and availability for work, which, obviously, we must continue with as well.

Does the Paymaster General recall telling the House on 28 October that each person would have an hour-long interview? Does he know that staff have been asked to conduct at least 45 interviews a week, and that that, with various emergencies, means that the average person has an interview lasting only 25 minutes? If they are sent to a job and do not get it—less than 1 per cent. in most areas get a job—that is the end; there is no follow-up interview. As a result, many of the staff are becoming cynical and are wondering whether their purpose is to police the benefit system and chase people off the register.

We are only providing an hour-long interview and have greatly increased the number of staff available to do that. That is the service that we are seeking to provide. We are also, in the few pilot areas, seeking to extend the service to those who have been unemployed for six months. We are offering them a range of opportunities from the many that I described a moment ago. The hon. Gentleman has no justification for his assertion that less than 1 per cent. are getting a job. It must be more than that, but without surveying them all we have no means of knowing exactly how many.

asked the Paymaster General whether he will estimate the contribution likely to be made in employment in tourism by the new workers scheme.

This information is not available. However, by the end of March 1987 some 13,000 young people will be supported in the wider industrial grouping including hotels and catering, a significant proportion of which will be in tourism-related jobs.

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for that information. Does he agree that tourism is a particularly appropriate industry for the new workers scheme, first, because it assists the industry in contributing as much as it does towards our balance of payments and, secondly, although traditionally wages for young people in the industry have been low, they lead to outstanding employment opportunities, as is evidenced in my constituency?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Career prospects in tourism are better now than ever before. Given the dramatic growth in that sector during the past few years, the opportunities for young people are enormous.

Is the Minister aware that, as a result of the Government's legislation on wages councils, the wages of young workers in our hotels and elsewhere have been, or are about to be, cut by about £20 a week —[HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] That is indeed the case. Will the Minister make inquiries and ensure that those young people are not exploited in such an obscene way by the industry?

What the hon. Gentleman says is pure hypothesis, and not fact. I should like to see details on those points. We took young people out of the purview of the wages councils in order to give them a better opportunity to get their feet on the first rung of the employment ladder. I am sure that that is what is happening right now.

I recognise the importance of the new workers scheme, but is my hon. Friend aware that last summer thousands of jobs were going begging in my constituency in south Devon because young people and those on the unemployment register just would not take them? Many of those jobs were taken by people from European countries, although they should have been filled by our young people. Will my hon. Friend do something about that by next summer?

One of the difficulties for the tourism sector is that young people may from time to time get a little mixed up about the difference between service and servility. The Opposition do not help matters by rubbishing jobs in the tourist industry that are occupied by those young people.

I had a job in tourism, and I do not need the Minister's lecture.

That is why I am so surprised that the hon. Gentleman should take every opportunity to rubbish jobs in tourism. We are trying to correct that impression, and I have recently launched a video to that end which will be seen in 7,500 schools.

asked the Paymaster General by what amount he expects the unemployment figures to fall as a result of the new availability for work test.

The purpose of the new procedure for testing availability for work is to determine entitlement to benefit in line with long-standing law and following the recommendations of the Public Accounts Committee. It is not possible to forecast what the results of the new procedure will be, but it involves no change in the conditions governing eligibility for benefit.

Did not the pilot study on those schemes show that 20 times more people were being referred for suspension of benefit than happened before those interviews? Can the Minister confirm press reports about the Devon pilot scheme, to the effect that the adjudicator reviewing those suspensions reversed more than 70 per cent. of them? It confirms our view that the Department's obsessive zeal intimidates people into leaving the unemployment register. What steps will the Paymaster General take to improve the situation, so that unemployed people, who have been found innocent of the charges laid against them, are not intimidated and made to feel like scroungers?

In the pilot areas between 3 and 4 per cent. of claimants did not pursue, or withdrew, their claims when they were asked to complete a questionnaire. Between 2 and 3 per cent. who continued with their claims were disallowed by the adjudicating authorities. However, the hon. Gentleman has touched on an extremely important safeguard: the final decision is taken by an independent adjudication officer, and there is a court of appeal. The only people who will lose their benefit as a result of that process are those who were never entitled to it according to the law and the rules laid down by the House.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that we shall never solve this problem until we offer work at work centres, as was designed by Beveridge in his original proposals? Will he give serious consideration to the introduction of a universal workfare scheme?

As I have said, we are offering work, training and so on to nine out of 10 of the long-term unemployed who come in and are interviewed. In addition, we are providing 250,000 places under the community programme. We are making great progress, and it is helping to produce the present reduction in the level of unemployment. I am not satisfied that we need to go on from that to some compulsory workfare scheme, although I continue to listen with interest to my hon. Friend's arguments.

The Minister referred earlier to the relationship between staff morale and the implementation of policy. Does he think that the introduction of the new availability test has helped staff morale? Can he say how many offices have suffered some sort of disruption because of its introduction?

The pilot schemes were introduced with no trouble with staff or anyone else. We received no complaints from any of the hon. Members whom we told about the pilot schemes. We received no complaints from individuals until one of the trade unions involved, or a branch of it, in concert with the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), tried to allege that with the introduction of the schemes we were suddenly pressurising the unemployed. I assume that when this nonsense has died down the morale of our officers will be restored and that they will carry on implementing Parliament's wish that we pay the benefit to all those who are justly entitled and stop paying it to those who are not available for work.

As the question suggests that a reduction in unemployment is wanted, will my right hon. and learned Friend say whether, if a 1 per cent. levy on turnover were placed on employers, that would increase unemployment, or decrease it?

It is astonishing that an Opposition Front Bench spokesman can casually throw out at a by-election meeting a proposal that would mean a huge increase in employment costs. All the increases in employer's costs that the Opposition keep advocating will cost jobs, as will the minimum wage and a number of their other propositions. I understand that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersely) is engaged in conversations with his hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott). Perhaps we shall know whether £6 billion or some such sum would be imposed on British industry by the Opposition.

asked the Paymaster General how much the Manpower Services Commission has spent on adult training during the current fiscal year: and how many adults have benefited from training funded by these grants.

At the end of September 1986 the Manpower Services Commission had spent some £90 million on adult training programmes and helped about 153,000 adults.

Will the Minister comment on the cut in training at offshore training centres because of the current difficulties? Will he acknowledge that although the oil price is depressed now, there is a long-term secure future for the industry, and that training should be maintained in spite of the current short-term difficulties.

I shall be happy to meet the hon. Gentleman and representatives from the industry if they would care to see me in the Department. The details of why the MSC has withdrawn a part of the training are extremely complex. If the hon. Gentleman would like to take up my offer, I would be delighted to honour it.

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the slight shadows over the improving economy that we now enjoy is the growth of skill shortages? Does he accept that it is among adults, who are presently debarred in many instances from receiving assistance towards adult training because they have been trained already in another skill, that we should be working the hardest? Will he give an assurance that in the provision of adult training the emerging skill shortages will be given paramount importance?

I would dispute that there is a growth in the number of skill shortages. One of the reasons why we have spent so much money through the MSC on local training grants for employers is to meet the shortfall in skills training, together with the development and strengthening of skills training centres. In addition, there is the new initiative that we are taking from 1 April next year in the form of a national priorities skills scheme, which I hope will meet some of the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend.

In view of the complacency of the Minister in response to this question on adult training, is it not about time that he had serious words with Geoffrey Holland, the director of the MSC? In a speech to the Institute of Personnel Management last week Geoffrey Holland talked about the need for a revolution in adult training and the inability to meet adult training needs in Britain. Are we talking about the same world as Geoffrey Holland? I remind the Minister that Geoffrey Holland is the senior civil servant in the MSC, who talked originally about shooting for 1 per cent. if we were to get on course in competing with our major industrial competitors in adult training. Is it not a fact that adult training has not even been started by the Government, and all that we have seen are schemes to get people off the dole and off the figures?

The hon. Gentleman is misquoting Mr. Geoffrey Holland, and not only about the 1 per cent. Mr. Holland has never suggested that the 1 per cent. which the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) mentioned should be levied on all firms. As my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Sir W. Clark) said, it would be an increasing burden on business, tantamount to about a 20 to 25 per cent. increase in the rate of corporation tax. The hon. Gentleman suggested that industry should look on training as an investment and not as a cost, and on that there is no difference of opinion between him and me.

asked the Paymaster General what would be the current cost of reducing the age of qualifications of the job release scheme to 60 years; and how many jobs would be saved thereby.

A reduction from 64 to 60 in the qualifying age for the job release scheme would in the first year create some 50,000 opportunities for replacement workers. This would cost about £132 million in the first year and a further £196 million in subsequent years.

In view of the cost effectiveness of reducing unemployment in this way and the great number of people seeking early retirement, will my hon. Friend therefore consider introducing this measure?

The scheme is effective but it is also costly and although it is under constant review we have no present plans to change it.

The Government are continuing relentlessly to fiddle the unemployment figures. Would it not be better to give men and women the right to retire voluntarily at 60? That would give to people who want it a dignified retirement and their jobs would become available for younger people who are desperate for work.

I have nothing to add to my answer.

In view of the popularity of this scheme with employers and employees, why do the Government not adopt a step-by-step approach by reducing the retirement age one year at a time? They could start by reducing it to at least the qualifying age of 63, which is what it was when the Government took office.

That is always a possibility and an option. There have been seven changes in the age conditions since 1977. At present about 30,000 people are supported under the scheme, at a total cost of £111 million. It is an expensive scheme.

asked the Paymaster General how many people are currently employed in manufacturing industries; and how many were employed in manufacturing in June 1979.

In September 1986 there were 5,554,000 employees in employment and self-employed people in manufacturing industries in Great Britain. In June 1979 there were 7,267,000.

Will the Minister acknowledge that as a result of the Government's policies nearly 2 million jobs in manufacturing industry have been lost since 1979? That is an absolute disgrace. Is it not time that the Government recognised that manufacturing industry is the lifeblood of Britain and started doing something about improving that sector instead of spending so much time fiddling the unemployment figures?

The hon. Gentleman knows the situation full well. Employment in manufacturing industry has been falling for the last 20 years. We have about 23 per cent. of our working population in manufacturing, while in the United States it is only 19 per cent. May I refer the hon. Gentleman to the comments of his leader, which appeared in The Guardian on 1 November. The headline says: "Kinnock cools hopes for jobs in manufacturing." The article by John Carvel reports what the Leader of the Opposition told Welsh industrialists.

"the Labour party does not expect its plans to revive manufacturing industry to produce any substantial increase in manufacturing jobs."

Does my hon. Friend agree with the trade union movement that one way of establishing how successful British industry is to look not at the number of people employed in it, but at the number of robots used?

My hon. Friend is right. One of the reasons for the reduction in manufacturing employment is clearly the increasing use of robotics and automation, and more especially the increase in efficiency that has been achieved during the lifetime of this Government.

Does the Minister accept that a large part of the increase in the loss of jobs in manufacturing industry has been among people in my constituency and in the travel-to-work area which covers the Hemsworth and Wakefield constituencies? Unemployment is now bordering on 16 per cent. Will the Minister press for assisted area status for the travel-to-work area that covers my constituency and those of my hon. Friends so that something is done to improve manufacturing industry and reduce unemployment?

I am conscious of the fact that there are depressingly high unemployment figures in a number of regions. I fully accept that. Particular area status is a matter not for the Department of Employment but for the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of the Environment. I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the success of British Coal Enterprise. Recently its funds have been doubled to about £40 million, which has been beneficial in part in helping to create new jobs in areas such as the hon. Gentleman's.

asked the Paymaster General what figure he has for the destination of people who have been on a restart scheme.

We have no means of knowing how many of those who have had a restart interview, or have been on a restart course, subsequently find work, or go into training, self-employment or other opportunities.

My right hon. and learned Friend will be pleased to know of the success of the scheme in Bradford, where more than 4,000 people have been interviewed, of whom 94 per cent. have been made a positive offer. As anyone who has ever visited one of these schemes will be aware, the greatest success must be in remotivating people who otherwise would become demoralised. Will my right hon. and learned Friend assure those who are working in the restart scheme that, given its success, the Government intend to extend it universally to those who have been unemployed for more than six months?

I agree with my hon. Friend. We are approaching and interviewing that body of people who have given up hope of getting work. Many of them believe that there is no chance of getting a job. They discover that we can offer them a range of opportunities. I am glad that the scheme is helping in Bradford. We are already piloting the possibility of extending the scheme to those who have been out of work for six months. If that is successful, we shall obviously look at the opportunities to extend it.

The Paymaster General will know that Dundee is one of the areas selected for the MSC's new job training scheme. The experience of the 20 individuals who were interviewed last week is frightening and horrifying. Neither oral nor written information was available to the claimants who were interviewed, who were obviously anxious and keen to improve their employment prospects and to know whether they would be entitled to the benefits that they had previously received. The also wanted to know their position at the end of the six-month period. In fact, the whole scheme is a shambles. The people who have accepted those training places, perhaps because they are afraid of losing benefit, are anxious about their present eligibility for benefit, and their long-term future.

I am surprised to hear of that reaction. Obviously, we are just introducing and trying out this new scheme with the aim of giving a guaranteed training place to everyone under 25 who has been unemployed for longer than a certain time. I am sure that those people could benefit from the type of training courses which we have been putting together. The number of unemployed people under 25 is dropping steadily all the time. We think that giving more training is the key to getting even more of them back into work.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that if Labour Members want to show real concern for the unemployed they should start encouraging the scheme instead of worrying about the electoral consequences for their party of any fall in unemployment?

I entirely agree. The Opposition are looking increasingly concerned. Some of them almost argue that if we do anything that actually gives someone a job that is a dastardly move to reduce the unemployment figures and weaken their chances of winning the election. I hope that they will stop calling our schemes tea and sympathy, because up and down the country the schemes are proving to be an extremely effective means of getting the long-term unemployed back into work.

asked the Paymaster General what the estimated effect has been on the unemployment figures as a result of the changes made in the method of counting since 1979.

We have made only three changes in the method of counting, and two of those were to correct errors. It is impossible to estimate what the unemployment count would be today if these changes were reversed.

Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman realise that, on our reckoning, the number of changes is nearer 18? The effect of the changes is to reduce the numbers appearing on the register by nearly 500,000. Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman give corrected figures? Which changes, even those to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman can admit, have resulted in an increase, and which have resulted in a decrease, in the numbers on the register?

The hon. Gentleman is drawing from a highly publicised survey of all the administrative changes which, it is said, have been made in the implementation of the benefits system. The list, which gets up to 18, includes things such as a strike, which is hardly within the Government's control. In a system as complex as the national insurance system, it is obvious that one is always making changes, but it is impossible to work out what the upward and downward effects of most would be. The vast majority have no effect.

My right hon. and learned Friend might like to note that, whatever method of calculation was in operation, in the district shared by the hon. Member for Redcar (Mr. Tinn) and myself the number of young people unemployed could be reduced by 25, according to the Labour chairman of the employment committee on Langbaurgh, if it was not vetoed from doing so by the local trade union.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We have difficulties of that kind placed in the way of the youth training scheme by the last recalcitrant trade unions which take that view. We also have some school leavers still on the register. All those who leave school at the age of 16 are guaranteed a place on the youth training scheme. Therefore, they are unemployed only if they have chosen to be. Unfortunately, they are sometimes encouraged in that way by some of the remarks of Front Bench Opposition spokesmen.

Does the Paymaster General not accept the Library's calculation of the real levels of unemployment? It says that the real level is equivalent to 4·4 million. Does the Paymaster General not accept the statement of the research department, which calculates six changes to the figures? Two of those changes increase the unemployed by 43,000 but the remaining changes reduce unemployment by nearly 400,000. Everybody accepts that the figures are reduced by nearly 500,000 on whatever assessment is used.

I have not heard the hon. Gentleman use the 4 million figure for some time, because he knows that it is arrived at by adding on all the people in training, all those on the community programme and adding on people who were not counted when the Labour Government were in office and who ought not to be counted becaue they are not unemployed. The six changes are administrative changes which have had some effect on the figure. I repeat that there is no way of calculating what the effect would be if we had that system today. It would be ridiculous suddenly to go to our officers and tell them to reverse every administrative change made in the national insurance system over the past six years and go back to every error that was made. What is worrying the Opposition is the fact that the number of people now workng in this country has increased by over 1 million since the last election. It has gone up by over 200,000 in the last full year alone. The figures are getting better, as the hon. Gentleman knows. That is why he is doing his best to knock them down.

asked the Paymaster General when he next expects to meet the chairman of the English Tourist Board to discuss prospects for tourism in England.

I will be meeting Duncan Bluck, the chairman of the British Tourist Authority and the English Tourist Board on 10 December to discuss, among other issues, the prospects for tourism in England.

Will my hon. Friend raise with the chairman of the English Tourist Board the idea of a major new initiative in 1987 to encourage tourists to visit the English regions rather than staying in London? Does he agree that that would benefit the hard-pressed people of London as well as boosting employment prospects in other parts of England such as Wiltshire?

I certainly agree with the latter point made by my hon. Friend. I am anxious to come up with new initiatives in 1987. I must say that we have just launched a couple of new initiatives with the ETB where it has mounted a campaign with the four northern regional tourist boards to promote the north country rather than London and the south-east. In addition, there is a new off-season promotion featuring the west country and the heart of England. All that is very much in line with the new policy in the Department to encourage the dispersal of visitors to the regions.

Is the Minister aware that Stockton council is doing its best to promote tourism in the Teesside area, which, as the Minister will know, has the highest level of unemployment in Great Britain? Will he look sympathetically at proposals that the council have put forward for the development of the Preston park estate and museum which has the Stockton-Darlington railway running through it, which could become a major tourist area, creating jobs and income for the region?

I am anxious to look as sympathetically as possible on the project that is being put to the ETB at the moment. Certainly it falls within the guidelines of the new tourism policy, in that we should be supporting major tourist attractions so that they can act as a honeypot to attract more wealth to those areas and increase jobs in tourism. I shall certainly look at the matter sympathetically.

Further to the answer that my hon. Friend gave to my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen), when he meets the chairman of the ETB, will he discuss ways of promoting further career prospects in tourism in schools, so that young people are made further aware of the excellent prospects in that industry?

That is the most important point that could be made on this subject. That is the reason why last Friday I launched the video that is going to 7,500 secondary schools. We hope that it will be viewed by upwards of 1·6 million schoolchildren. Again, it is an attempt to attract them to tourism as a serious career.

Does the Minister accept that it is a fallacy to imagine that tourism can resolve the problem of unemployment to any extent, taking into account present unemployment in areas such as Merseyside? Is he aware that unemployment is rooted in the Government's economic policies? When they change, and when we get manufacturing industry back into operation, real, proper jobs will be available, but not until then.

I must say that the hon. Gentleman seems to be out of step with some of his colleagues in his own party in the Merseyside area, which will not come as a great shock to the rest of the House. I happened to be in Merseyside only yesterday. Several people there appreciate the development of tourism in the Merseyside area, particularly as a result of the development of the docks, the garden centre and the tall ships race, of which they are extremely proud. That has created more wealth in that area and more jobs.

When my hon. Friend meets the chairman of the ETB, will he stress the special problems faced by Cumbria, which is very keen to encourage tourists to the region, but has suffered enormously in the past couple of years through other problems caused by other industries outwith the control of the tourist operators?

I understand exactly the point that my hon. Friend is making. As a result of representations that he has made to me, and which I in turn have made to the ETB on his behalf, we have now managed to secure increased funding from the ETB for my hon. Friend's constituency and the surrounding area.

asked the Paymaster General if he will list (a) the latest monthly figure for people registered as unemployed in the Greater London area, both as a total and as a percentage of the total number of people available for work and (b) comparable figures for the same month in 1981, 1976, 1971 and 1966.

As the reply contains a statistical table I shall, with permission, arrange for it to be printed in the Official Report. Figures will be given showing the numbers of unemployed claimants and the unemployment percentage rate in the Greater London Area for October of 1976, 1981 and 1986.

I am grateful for the Minister's answer. Does he accept that the Greater London figures conceal a problem of a massive increase in unemployment in inner London, where the figures show that there are now over one quarter of a million out of work, which is the largest in any municipal area in the United Kingdom? Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House what initiatives will be developed other than the inner city action team and the docklands corporation to produce jobs in inner London for people resident in inner London in the foreseeable future? There is a crisis. What will the Minister do?

While, sadly, unemployment has risen, I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that the Greater London rate is still below the national average. With regard to Government spending, about £210 million is going into Greater London in the current financial year from a mix of Government Departments. As the hon. Gentleman knows, Southwark is about to be upgraded to a programme authority area. In fact, there are 800 job vacancies in Southwark alone at present.

May I tell my hon. Friend that in west London it is hard to get skilled workers? For example, it is a real problem to fill vacancies at London airport, which have to be filled by foreigners. Would not at least a partial solution to that problem be a greater willingness on the part of unemployed people in central London to commute out against the tide to secure the employment available for them in the outer boroughs?

Obviously, such commuting would make sense. Clearly, however, there are skill shortages, and it is a matter of matching those vacancies with the people available.

asked the Paymaster General how many of those taking up employment from the community programme are currently in the same employment after 12 months; and if he will make a statement.

The information requested is not available. However, the results of the lastest follow-up survey of former community programme participants shows that about 30 per cent. of former participants responding obtained a job or training immediately on leaving, and 37 per cent. were in employment or training 10 months after leaving the community programme. Fifty four per cent. had had at least one job during the 10-month period.

In view of my hon. Friend's encouraging reply and his recent most welcome visit to Bolton to see the success of the pilot job guarantee schemes, will he extend these schemes nationally and give priority on the community programme to those who have been out of work longest?

I know how much thought and effort my hon. Friend gives to this whole area of long-term unemployment in his constituency—something that I was able to observe on my recent visit to Bolton. The advantages of participation in the community programme are available to all those who are eligible, including the long-term unemployed. Indeed, 30 per cent. of those on the community programme had previously been unemployed for more than 18 months. However, the community programme is only one of the many restart options, and others may be more relevant to the long-term unemployed.

Does the Minister agree that when people have to wait a year or 18 months for a job, then for 12 months receive about £45 a week for a low-level job, and then 70 per cent. of them are returned to unemployment, that is not a success but a failure? The people want real, decently paid permanent jobs, not this kind of manipulation of the long-term unemployment figures.

That is why the Government have created 1 million new jobs since 1983.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 18 November.

This morning I attended the memorial service for Henry Moore and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty The Queen.

If Mr. Peter Wright's memoirs confirm that Sir Roger Hollis was a spy, does the Prime Minister agree that her statement to the House in March 1981 was misleading? Or was it as Sir Robert Armstrong described yesterday and the right hon. Lady was just being economical with the truth?

I stand by, and reaffirm, the statement that I made to the House on that subject. With regard to the case, the matter is sub judice.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that 105 David Owens and an encouragingly large number of David Steels have expressed an interest in the British Gas share issue? Does not that fact, together with the fact that 6 million people in all have expressed interest, show the popularity of the Government's programme to encourage wider share ownership?

Yes. It is not only popular, it is the right policy, and we shall pursue it and other measures of privatisation.

Against the background of the teachers' settlement negotiated last week, the National Confederation of Parent-Teacher Associations has this morning made a strong appeal to the Prime Minister and the Government to "accept and ratify" the proposed agreement. May I therefore strongly urge the Prime Minister to announce now that the Government will "accept and ratify" that agreement to ensure a sustainable settlement that will work to the advantage of Britain's schoolchildren and the satisfaction of both parents and teachers?

I understand that there is not yet a full signed agreement and that there is to be a further meeting tomorrow. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made quite clear the conditions under which the Government would pay the extra sums to finance the proposed 16·4 per cent. increase.

The Prime Minister knows perfectly well that matters to be discussed tomorrow are issues of minor detail that do not affect the substance of the overall agreement. Will she tell us whether she will "accept and ratify" that agreement? Is it not obvious that, by her evasion of the majority view of parents and teachers, she is trying to pick a fight for political reasons best known to herself?

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made clear the conditions upon which the Government will pay the extra sum required to finance the 16.4 per cent. increase. Those conditions relate to duties and pay structure. Pay structure is crucial if we are to get top calibre teachers into the profession. [Interruption.] If the right hon. Gentleman is interested in my reply he might do me the courtesy of listening to it. Pay structure is critical for young people coming into teaching. They must know that there are good prospects of increases in pay and excellent prospects for head teachers. The proposal on offer from the Government would take average teachers' pay 10 per cent. in real terms above Houghton and 27 per cent. in real terms above what it was when Labour lost office in 1979.

The Prime Minister cannot get away with that. As a former Secretary of State, does she not appreciate that to obtain teachers of high quality she must first attract them to the profession and then keep them there, which is why a decent basic rate and further prospects are included in the agreement?

Structure is vital to attract young people of calibre into the profession. The right hon. Gentleman is hardly in a position to complain when our average offer is 27 per cent. in real terms above anything that the Labour Government managed to — [Interruption.]

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 18 November.

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

Will my right hon. Friend consider with her Cabinet colleagues today the publication of a White Paper about the totalitarian tendency's perversion of local government? Does she recall the words of the Labour deputy leader of the unlamented GLC about Left-wing councillors' prejudice against the police and the abuse of local government as a political ladder for the extreme Left?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The details that he catalogues show how the present Labour party would behave in power. That is what it is like and what it would be like.

Does the Prime Minister now appreciate the increasing ludicrousness of the Government's posture before the Australian courts — which I am sure is not sub judice according to the rules of this House? As the Home Secretary who received the Trend report and believes in the strong probability of Sir Roger Hollis' innocence, and as an admirer of Sir Robert Armstrong, who served me in two capacities, I deplore the foolish mission on which the Government have sent Sir Robert. May I ask the Prime Minister whether there is any chance of her recovering a sense of proportion on this issue?

With regard to the main object of the right hon. Gentleman's question, like all present and former members of the security service, Mr. Wright has a lifelong duty of confidentiality to the Crown. Unauthorised publication of his manuscript would violate that obligation. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has accordingly applied to the Supreme Court of New South Wales for an injunction to prevent publication of the book. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that proceedings have begun in the Supreme Court of New South Wales and the matter is therefore sub judice.

Will my right hon. Friend ensure that any settlement with the teachers includes provision to attract into the profession teachers of physics, mathematics and other subjects at present in all too short supply?

That is the object of my right hon. Friend's pay structure — to ensure that teachers of subjects in which there are shortages have a pay structure that will attract them into the profession and take them up the ladder right to the top jobs.

asked the Prime Minister when she first became aware that the Solicitor-General had agreed to write to the then Secretary of State for Defence alleging material inaccuracies in his letter to the European Consortium.

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the written answer that I gave him yesterday.

In that case, why did the Attorney-General go to the lengths of threatening the Cabinet Secretary with action by the Director of Public Prosecutions and the police because the Prime Minister did not agree to the setting up of a leak inquiry and authorising it?

I have nothing to add to the many answers that I have given in statements and debates from the Dispatch Box.

When the next general election eventually comes, will my right hon. Friend—

Order. This is a definitive question.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the general public are more interested in the future of the European helicopter industry and those who work for it in Britain, especially at Westlands, than in who might have written what to whom and when?

The future of the European helicopter industry is extremely important, as is the future of Westland, but I have nothing to add in regard to the point which was the subject of the previous question.

In relation to the answer that the Prime Minister has given my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), is she aware of the phrase of Aneurin Bevan—that he who fights and runs away lives to run away another day?

What the hon. Gentleman does not like is the fact that he has had the answers.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, much as we seek to support President Alfonsin and the newly emergent democratic Government—

Order. That does not relate to this question, which is not an open question.

Will the right hon. Lady bear in mind that the submissions that the Cabinet Secretary, Sir Robert Armstrong, is making in Australia this week—

Order. That does not relate to this question either. I think that we should move on.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 18 November.

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

Will my right hon. Friend congratulate the British Steel Corporation on its excellent half-year results, which show a £68 million profit? Have we not transformed BSC into one of the most efficient and successful producers in Europe which is able to compete in world markets? Would it not be a disaster if we were to pursue the Labour party's policies and use the nationalised industries to employ more men? Do not the figures justify the chairman's view that BSC should be returned to the commercial sector and steelworkers and former steelworkers given the right to buy shares in it?

I join my hon. Friend in congratulating those who work in steel on their profit record. When we came to office the taxpayer was having to pay hundreds of millions of pounds a year by way of subsidy; now, the British Steel Corporation is in profit and therefore contributing to the Exchequer. I agree that the Labour party's policy of compulsory overmanning in nationalised industries is utterly ridiculous. I also agree that we must consider whether in future we should privatise the steel industry.

Reverting to the right hon. Lady's replies about Sir Roger Hollis, does she recall making a statement to the House on this matter in which the charges against Sir Roger were repudiated? That was accepted by the Government and, I think, the House at the time. If the Government have altered their opinion in any way, is it not the right hon. Lady's duty to come to the House and explain the facts? Is it not shameful that Sir Roger's reputation and his family should be treated in this way by the Government, who should be carrying out what the Prime Minister said to the House?

The right hon. Gentleman cannot have heard what I said earlier. I stand by my earlier statement about Sir Roger Hollis.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 18 November.

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

Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to congratulate the work force at Leyland Vehicles on achieving the largest share of the United Kingdom truck market by making the best products at the right price with the right support and of the right design? Does she agree that if Leyland Trucks is to succeed in a market in which too many trucks are being sold worldwide, it and many other British companies will need a flexible and competitive financial package to help export deals, preferably to match those competitors, if not to better them?

As my hon. Friend is aware, those who work in that industry have enjoyed enormous help from the taxpayer. I hope that they will make more products at the right price and will continue to get more sales, which will be very welcome. As my hon. Friend is aware, there is a considerable overhang of debt which the ECGD must tackle, and we must also bear that in mind.

Now that the Prime Minister has re-engaged a member of the Billy Graham evangelistic team to her staff, can she say whether the teachings of Billy Graham are being adhered to—in other words, "never tell a lie and never bear a grudge against those who disagree with you"? Assuming that is accepted, can the right hon. Lady say how much longer her hon. Friends the Members for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) and for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) must serve before they get their knighthoods?

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the ingenuity of his question, the full impact of which is not lost on me.

Statement. I call the Prime Minister.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Does it arise out of questions?

Yes, Mr. Speaker. You will understand that we appreciate that the Prime Minister would not want to answer questions about the debacle that is being unveiled in the Australian courts. However, not once but twice this afternoon the right hon. Lady made a categorical statement that the proceedings in Australia are sub judice. If that suggestion is allowed to stand, it will, of course, create a block on further questions and discussions. Will you give a clear ruling that this afternoon the Prime Minister has not once but twice misled the House in stating that a case before an Australian court is sub judice in this House?

As I understand it, this case, which is taking place in an Australian court, is not sub judice under our rules. We now come to the statement by the Prime Minister.

With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on my visit to the United States—[Interruption.]—

Order. The Prime Minister is about to make a statement.

On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. It is clear that inadvertently—and I am certain that was the case—the Prime Minister referred to the matter being heard in Australia as sub judice as it affects the proceedings of this House. The acknowledgement has been made that that is not the case. However, the Prime Minister's answers to questions influenced the direction of questions. I think that the Prime Minister would now want to avail herself of an early opportunity to say that the matter is not sub judice in this House so that the subject need not be raised in the same form again, thereby allowing questions to be raised.

rose— [Interruption.]

Order. I have called the Leader of the House.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. In making your judgment on this matter would you kindly take account of the fact that the United Kingdom Government are a party to the case in Australia and indicate how that relates to the sub judice rule?

I prepare myself very carefully for Question Time every day and for every eventuality, and I took that matter into account today.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am grateful to you for a very helpful and clear ruling. Will you now indicate whether, in your experience, it is not the case, when an hon. Member has found that he or she has misled the House—even if inadvertently—that Member would normally make an apology to the House?

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I made it clear in my answer that the Attorney-General has accordingly applied in the Supreme Court of New South Wales for an injunction to prevent the publication of the Wright book. You have ruled that the matter is not sub judice in this House, but I must submit that it would be most unwise— [Interruption.]

Order. This is an extremely important matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear".]

It would be most unwise, indeed, rash of me as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom to comment on a case to which the Attorney-General is party in Australia. I would have thought that most people would understand that. If not, perhaps they would understand the comments of a previous Labour Prime Minister who said:

"I shall adhere to the normal practice of not commenting on security matters." — [Official Report, 29 June 1978, Vol. 952, c. 631.]

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is easily seen that the Prime Minister's response does not satisfy the House. That places you in an invidious position, especially since your judgment was so unequivocal and clear. May I suggest that a period of further reflection is given to the matter because the alternative is obviously the continued distraction of the House on the matter when we have other serious business to transact? It will be necessary to give further attention to this, taking account of the matter of national security raised by the Prime Minister, in order to discover whether that is the valid question under consideration or whether it is a more politically partisan question.

Order. I think that the Leader of the Opposition has made a wise judgment on this matter. The two matters are not connected, but they are relevant.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The position remains that a challenge has been issued to the Chair. The Prime Minister gave her interpretation and her assumption that the matter was sub judice. You gave your ruling and the Leader of the House then challenged that ruling in polite terms.

indicated dissent.

The Leader of the House effectively asked you to review your ruling. I see no reason why you should be asked to alter your ruling. Therefore, we cannot move forward until the Government make it clear that they accept your authority.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have ruled that the sub judice rule does not apply and we accept that absolutely — [Interruption.] But for the future, Her Majesty's Government of the United Kingdom are party to a case in a court before one of Her Majesty's Australian judges. How do Her Majesty's Government or any party to such a case obtain justice if the sub judice rule does not apply?

Order. We have a full day ahead of us and I hope that I can clear up the matter. I said to the House that under our rules the matter before a court in another country was not sub judice. Whether it is a matter of national security is a completlely different issue and a perfectly legitimate one to call in aid.

rose—

rose—

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would it not be for the convenience of the House if you could explain how it is that a matter before one of Her Majesty's judges in Australia in a case to which Her Majesty's Government are party is not sub judice under the rules of the House?

rose—

Order. I shall take all the points of order together.

On a point of order—

I have not called the hon. Gentleman yet.

I was on my feet first.

Order. I decide the order in which I take these questions.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I put it to you that the people of Australia are having reported to them our proceedings, and questions on the Order Paper, in detail. It is most important that the position is clarified, because today in Australia there are calls for the resignation of Sir Robert Armstrong in so far as yesterday he had to admit in a court of law in Australia that he deliberately misled the court by submitting in affidavits some days ago inaccurate information. I and my hon. Friends have pressed for a statement on this matter from both the Attorney-General and the Prime Minister, but none has been made. I again ask that a statement be forthcoming. The people of Australia—

Order. Hon. Members cannot ask for statements through me.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I speak for Glanford and Scunthorpe, not for Australia. In considering the representations made by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow), will you also consider the fact that, notwithstanding that this case is in front of one of Her Majesty's judges in Australia, it might finish up before the Privy Council?

I am most grateful to you, Sir. Further to that point of order. It is clear that you made a ruling that the matters in Australia were not sub judice as far as this House is concerned. We are not asking the Prime Minister to make a statement on those matters. We are asking her to withdraw the incorrect assertion that she made that these matters were sub judice, and she should be required by you, Sir, to do that.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As I see it, the issue is relatively simple. In the past 10 minutes there have been a series of incidents in which you and one Member of Parliament, who happens to be the Prime Minister, have been in dispute. Normally, when a Member of Parliament challenges the authority of the Chair, he has either to withdraw or leave. Why is it that a Back-Bench Member of Parliament can be called upon to withdraw when he challenges the authority of the Chair, but the Prime Minister is allowed to get off the hook? This is a classic example of where you need to show your authority, Mr. Speaker, and if you fail to do so, do not expect any of us to have to how to the Chair.

Order. It is very unlike the hon. Gentleman to threaten me. The Prime Minister has not challenged what I have said.

She has.

Order. We have a heavy day in front of us. I think that we should have some quiet reflection on this matter.

Name her.

Order. We can return to this matter on another day.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I accept your ruling on sub judice as far as the House is concerned. Therefore, any questions can be asked. I know of no rule which means that I am circumscribed in the way in which I answer questions and as you said, I can invoke security, and have done so.

rose—

Order. I shall take one more question. Mr. Lofthouse.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As one of the questioners whom the Prime Minister misled by her answer— [Interruption.]

Order. This seems to he an attempt to carry on Question Time.

As one of the questioners whom the Prime Minister misled— [HON. MEMBERS: "She did not mislead the hon. Gentleman."] —I should gladly accept an apology—or is the Prime Minister above this House and above you, Mr. Speaker?

Order. The Prime Minister has made her position very clear. I shall take one further point of order.

Further to that point of order. Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether I could revert to, and add to a point of order that I put to you previously? It would be of assistance to the House if you could please explain to us why it is that proceedings in a case which is before one of Her Majesty's judges in Australia, a case to which Her Majesty's Government are a party, are not sub judice for the purposes of this House? May I make a further submission to you, Mr. Speaker?

Get to the point!

—does not fall within the sub judice rule, would you be prepared to consider whether, in this particular case, the sub judice rule ought to apply?

Order. I carefully calculated that a question of this kind might arise today. Therefore, I was prepared with the answer that I gave. Australia is an independent country. I shall of course reflect carefully, as I always do in exchanges of this kind, upon whether the rulings that I have given are right. If I find that I was wrong, I shall gladly and certainly return to the House and make a further statement.