asked the Paymaster General why the Manpower Services Commission does not conduct follow-up exercises after six months to ascertain what progress has been made for those involved in the restart scheme.

My present priority is to devote all the resources allocated to the restart programme to the task of helping long-term unemployed people by providing them with a range of opportunities designed to get them back into employment.

The Paymaster General recently claimed that as a result of restart just under one in five people had come off the register of long-term unemployed people. Does he realise that some of us are somewhat sceptical about his claims of success, as in the equivalent period last year even more people came off that register? Why is the Minister unwilling to canvass 100 per cent., as happened in the follow-up to the youth training scheme? Is he afraid of the results of such canvassing?

I did not make a claim in the terms that the hon. Gentleman has said. It is true that rather over one in five of those interviewed by the Manpower Services Commission, as part of the programme, ceased to claim benefit and left the unemployment count. However, I have always accepted that some of them would leave anyway. That is why we cannot, at this stage, estimate precisely how many of those whom we have sought to help do obtain jobs, training and so on. However, there is no doubt that the programme is having a beneficial effect. When we have accomplished the main job in hand, which is offering help to the long-term unemployed, we shall try a cohort survey so that we can answer some of the questions that people have raised.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend condemn the utterly disgraceful, if rather predictable, behaviour of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), who on 4 December tried to mislead the British public over the restart programme by suggesting that Ministers said one thing when he knew full well that they had said another?

I agree with my hon. Friend. I get used to the fact that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) tends to make up his criticisms as he goes along, but I become alarmed when he speaks on behalf of the Labour party and appears to make its policy, too, as he goes along.

Is not a miasma of confusion caused by the three ways in which Ministers present the figures? First, they talk about a positive offer being made involving about 90 per cent. of the unemployed. However, that is meaningless as it does not necessarily lead to anything. Secondly, they sometimes talk about the number of claimants directly placed, when in reality fewer than 1 per cent. actually get jobs. Thirdly, Ministers talk about the number of those ceasing to claim benefit being about 18 per cent. However, as has been pointed out, in the past five quarters, about 18 per cent. have come off the register in the normal way. Does all that not show that restart is hardly having any real effect? Is not the lesson to be drawn that there is a shortage of jobs for those going through restart?

We tend to give answers in each of those terms when the questions are put in those terms. It is not the Government, but those attempting to criticise and debunk the scheme, who muddle up the figures and try to reach the unjustifiable conclusion that the hon. Gentleman has reached. I thought that I saw him reported the other day as saying that he supports the restart programme. In that case, I trust that he will start giving it credit for the fact that it offers positive help to each and every one of those who have been out of work for more than 12 months.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that this scheme should be welcomed on both sides of the House because it offers real hope for the long-term unemployed, many of whom find jobs as a result of it? In addition, they have a point of contact after the scheme in the job club, which can continue to give them help. As the scheme develops, will my right hon. and learned Friend examine ways in which proper training development can be tacked on to the scheme for those who would benefit from extra training and get a job?

I thank my hon. Friend. This is obviously an exciting innovation in helping the long-term unemployed, and it is having considerable success. It is a pity that the Opposition are so devoid of ideas that they try only to debunk it. One of the things towards which we try to steer the long-term unemployed is a training opportunity, if that is what they require to get back into the job market. We are now moving on from restart, and the latest thing that we are trying out is the job training scheme, whereby we hope to be able to offer training places to every person under the age of 25 who is unemployed for more than six months in the areas where we are operating the scheme.

Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman—

Get it right this time.

I am addressing a rabble.

My hon. Friend and I keep pointing out that the figures given in the reply to those questions apply to those directly placed from the interviews into employment. They are not a measure, as the hon. Gentleman keeps trying to claim, of the number of people who go into work from restart. The hon. Gentleman is deliberately misusing the figure, and he ignores the repeated explanations of what it amounts to.

asked the Paymaster General if he will make a statement on the progress made in the application of the new availability-for-work test.

The procedural changes that I announced to the House on 28 October are being introduced progressively. Around two thirds of unemployment benefit offices are now operating them. The aim is to have them operating in all offices by the end of January.

Despite the Minister's protestations, does he not accept that there is now a widely held view that the sole purpose of this disreputable exercise is to cut the unemployment figures without tackling the problem? Does he accept that if the results of the pilot schemes were projected nationally 25,000 or so would be removed from the register each month, without a single new job resulting? Is not his message to the unemployed, "If we cannot get you a job, we shall stop counting you"?

It is merely a new method of ensuring that benefit is paid only to people who are entitled to it. I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman that what he described is a widely held view. It is held by a few activists in the Labour movement and those associated with it.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that there is widespread support in my constituency for the new availability-for-work scheme? In Bracknell, we allegedly have more than 7 per cent. unemployment and 500 vacancies at the jobcentre.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. If we did not ask questions of people who claim benefit, we should be handing out benefit simply on request. That seems suddenly to have become the policy of the Labour and Liberal parties, but I do not think that they have widespread public support for it.

Is it sensible to suggest to an unemployed family man in the north-west of England that he should move to the south-east to find a job, where he may discover that he requires a mortgage that is three times the size of the one that he has in the north-west, with the result that his wage will not cover the increased mortgage payments and he will be worse off by moving than by staying at home on the dole?

That does not sound very sensible to me. As far as I am aware, nobody has had that suggested to them as part of the availability for work test. All we are applying is the usual rule that people have to be reasonably available for work that is likely to be available in the area in which they live.

As, according to the Library, in two constituencies in booming London—Vauxhall and Bermondsey—30 per cent. of males are unemployed and drawing benefit, this seems to be massive evidence of fiddle, fraud and idleness. Will my right hon. and learned Friend ensure that the availability-for-work test is reinforced in those areas? Currently, the taxpayer is being deprived of £40 million in two constituencies alone.

There has always been a test of availability, because there has always been an availability rule. We have introduced a form which seeks to ensure, as my hon. Friend and many others would wish, that benefit is paid only to those who qualify for it. In London there are many job vacancies and many opportunities to get back into the job market. We are introducing the restart scheme to steer back into work people who want it, but when we do that we find that we are criticised by the Opposition as well.

Will the Paymaster General now acknowledge that the major purpose of this cynical scheme it to reduce the unemployment figures prior to the next general election, without creating one extra job? Will he confirm that many of the questions in the questionnaire have been devised to trap or trick the unemployed into losing their benefit?

I am weary of hearing the old trick-question line, because nobody has ever cited a trick question to me. I ask the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues to confirm that the Labour party's policy is to give out benefit to anybody who wants it without asking any questions and that, if people claim benefit for more than 12 months, we should do absolutely nothing to offer them help to get into employment.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend remind the House that anybody who enjoys unemployment benefit—

Enjoys it?

—is enjoying it at the expense of the taxpayer? Is it not completely unfair that taxpayers' money should be used when the person who receives it is not available for work?

I am sure that my hon. Friend and others agree that the average taxpayer is perfectly content to pay unemployment benefit to somebody who is out of work, looking for it and cannot find it. The average taxpayer would, however, be amazed to hear the Opposition demanding that we should hand out benefit to anybody and that somehow it is harassment to ask people to demonstrate that they are looking for work and are therefore entitled to benefit. As the Labour party passed the law that we are enforcing, it is high time that it made it clear that it proposes to repeal that law, so that anybody can have benefit when the Labour party gets back into power.

asked the Paymaster General what is the Government's best estimate of the displacement and substitution effect of the enterprise allowance scheme.

It is difficult to obtain reliable information on the displacement and substitution effects of the enterprise allowance scheme. The limited evidence available suggests that displacement and substitution may possibly be about 50 per cent. Given the large degree of uncertainty, I am not satisfied with that figure and have asked the Manpower Services Commission to commission research into the methodology of measuring displacement.

When will the Minister realise that he cannot have a flourishing private enterprise scheme in a massively deflated economy? Does he agree, in line with recent studies, that the present enterprise allowance scheme lends support to the black economy? If so, what will he do about it?

The scheme does not lend support to the black economy. The substantive question on the Order Paper refers to substitution and displacement, and the scheme will displace many people who are already in the black economy. I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman would welcome that as much as I do. All the evidence shows that we have the highest number of self-employed that we have seen for the past 60 years, and that has been achieved principally under this Government.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that follow-up research suggests that three out of five of those on the enterprise allowance scheme are still in work three years later, bringing with them more jobs? Is he aware that many people in my constituency have benefited from this scheme and that they greatly appreciated it as a bridge from reliance on benefit to self-sufficiency in self-employed posts?

The scheme is a particular success in my hon. Friend's constituency. It is important to stress that the figures show that for every 100 successful businesses under the scheme, 99 additional jobs have been created. The survey which has been conducted thus far will merely be a chapter in a long-running novel and will show that in future many more jobs will be created by people who have been set up under the scheme.

asked the Paymaster General how many long-term unemployed people are in receipt of the jobstart allowance.

By 5 December, 2,074 people were in receipt of the jobstart allowance.

Is the Minister not ashamed to be part of a Department which is creating a scheme to force people to take jobs at less than £80 a week? In other words, he is forcing them to work on poverty level wages. Although the average wage is £65, his Department has produced figures showing that a large number of people are earning less than £39. What does he expect those people to do after six months when their £20 supplement is ended? Does he expect them to carry on working for £39 and less? Is this not another device to reduce unemployment figures and another example of the Government's disgraceful, unacceptable attitude towards unemployed people?

Conservative Members and, increasingly, unemployed people are becoming fed up with the sneering, destructive comments of the Opposition about many of our constructive positive schemes, such as this one. It is constructive and positive and we sincerely hope that at the end of six months employees will stay on with their employers. The MSC hopes to conduct a survey in 1987 of those who participated in the national jobstart scheme.

Is my hon. Friend aware that any job-encouraging initiative which the Government take is sneered at by the Opposition as a fiddle? Will he remind Opposition Members that their party introduced the youth opportunity programme in 1977, which gave youths a wage of only £18 a week, including travel allowance? Will he also remind them that the Labour manifesto of 1979 said:

"We have the Youth Opportunities Programme, which guarantees every school-leaver either a job or a training place or employment experience".

My hon. Friend is right. The Opposition increasingly talk with forked tongues.

In view of the minimal response to the jobstart allowance during the past five months, why does the Minister not replace it with a cash incentive to employers to expand the number of staff by recruiting from the long-term unemployed?

We have a whole range of other schemes. I acknowledge that there has been a slow start to this scheme, but, as a result of the fairly recent television campaign, there has been a significant pick up.

asked the Paymaster General what increase in employment he estimates to have followed from the recent reform of wages councils.

Attempts to estimate the employment effects of these particular reforms are not likely to be fruitful. However, the streamlining of the system and the removal of statutory minima which prevent employers offering jobs to young people at realistic rates can only increase employment beyond what it would otherwise have been.

In view of my hon. Friend's reply, will he calculate the opposite effect on employment of introducing a statutory minimum wage? While he is doing that, can he add to that the effects on employment of shutting down American bases, phasing out nuclear power stations and imposing mandatory sanctions against South Africa? Does he agree that if the Labour party came to office such policies would cost hundreds of thousands of jobs?

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. Quite apart from the disastrous effects that the Labour party's proposals would have on the levels of unemployment which my hon. Friend has catalogued, the substantial increase in taxation necessary to fund the Labour party's increase of £28 billion of public expenditure would dramatically exacerbate the position that my hon. Friend has described.

asked the Paymaster General what measures he considers necessary to increase the volume and quality of training in engineering skills.

asked the Paymaster General if he is satisfied with the volume of craft and technician training in the engineering industry.

It is the responsibility of employers to identify their own engineering skill requirements and ensure an appropriate volume and quality of training at all levels, but the Government are providing substantial help through their £1·5 billion training programmes for young people and adults.

Does the Minister realise that a recent report from the Engineering Industry Training Board says that in the past eight years training has declined by 30 per cent. in the industry, and over the past 15 years by 50 per cent.? Is he aware that there is a crisis in engineering training at the entry and the adult training and retraining levels? That crisis will stop this country from moving again when the Labour party takes office. Is it not about time that he did something to prepare the ground for that?

If the hon. Gentleman is trying to prepare the ground for the inopportune and unlikely event of a Labour Government being elected, he is not going about it in the right way. He cannot have it both ways. The engineering industry comes under the responsibility of a statutory training board, the like of which he wishes to replicate throughout the rest of industry and commerce. The views that are expressed by the Engineering Industry Training Board, which I very much welcome, must, under that statutory training system, be welcomed, otherwise the hon. Gentleman is claiming that the statutory training system which already imposes a levy does not work. There are many people inside and outside the House who believe that that is the truth.

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the reasons for the training crisis in the engineering industry is the high wage rates that have been negotiated by trade unions for young people entering the industry by? Does he accept that the best way to increase the volume of training is for the engineering industry to adapt the traditional apprenticeship schemes and integrate them with YTS? Will my hon. Friend congratulate those far-sighted engineering companies which have already done that?

I certainly congratulate those companies which have adopted that practice. My hon. Friend has made a valid point. Apprenticeship is not the only route to craft and technician jobs. YTS has already enabled a substantial amount of initial skills training to be carried out. The expanded two-year scheme will enable even more people to be trained in that way.

Does the Minister agree that it is appalling that the CBI has claimed that there is a shortage of skilled workers when at the same time it is exploiting the YTS as cheap labour and completely failing to promote real apprenticeships? Is it not the country that is suffering overall?

If the hon. Gentleman was correct it would mean that the 83 per cent. of people who have benefited under YTS, who have said that they are satisfied with the training that they have received under that programme, are completely wrong. First of all the hon. Gentleman insults those—

Forget the statistics. The Minister should come up to Scotland and meet the young people, and then he would know better.

I did not interrupt the hon. Gentleman when he asked his question. I would be grateful if he would try to listen to my reply.

Would my hon. Friend be able to estimate how much more successful the training and other employment measures of the Government would be if the Government were not constantly faced with carping and politically motivated criticism from the Opposition, whose sole purpose is to undermine their success for electoral purposes?

I agree with my hon. Friend. In the first place, every time an Opposition Member seeks to rubbish the youth training scheme it is an insult to those young people who have enjoyed that form of training. I believe, as do my colleagues on the Front Bench, that every opportunity is taken by the Opposition to knock every scheme. That leads us to understand that they do not want the unemployment figures to come down prior to the general election, and that they are not sincere in wanting to reduce the unacceptable level of unemployment.

asked the Paymaster General why he has changed the community programme eligibility rules for 18 to 25-year-olds in the nine pilot areas chosen for the job training scheme.

The job training scheme pilots offer training and work experience, particularly for those aged under 25 who have been unemployed for six months or more. We therefore decided that in the pilot areas places on the community programme should be concentrated on those who have been out of work for 12 months or more.

Will the Minister accept that what young adults want, like everyone else, is real jobs? However, at least the community programme has ensured that many of them can do something useful and in many cases they can get training while on the schemes. Does the Minister also agree that it is unfair of the Government to stop young people in the trial areas from continuing on the community programme unless they have been out of work for more than 12 months? Will he accept that the Government are again penalising those young people who desperately want jobs and forcing them to go on a training scheme, when many of them have been on the youth opportunities programme and youth training scheme and have had their fill of training? They want jobs from the Government.

The whole point of the job training scheme is to improve the quality of training of our young people, and I wish that Opposition Members, the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) in particular, would support us in that. The aim of the scheme, with regard to particular individuals, is to place emphasis on an agreed training plan, and particularly to concentrate on new technological skills and self-employment.

Does my hon. Friend share my amazement at the fact that the Opposition do not welcome the pilot schemes, which are designed positively to improve training for 18 to 25-year-olds, especially if that can leave more room for older people to take advantage of places on the community programme?

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. We are trying all the time to improve the quality of our training schemes and training for our young people.

Has the Minister seen the MSC's recent report on the attitude of the long-term unemployed to the new job training scheme? Is he aware that it was, in the words of the report, "cynical and suspicious" and saw the reduction of the unemployment figures as the main benefit? It also described the scheme as "tantamount to slave labour." How can the Minister possibly justify paying participants their benefit only, removing them from the unemployment figures and then charging employers a fee for their labour? Is that not the most cynical and nasty of all the schemes that have been introduced, simply to reduce the unemployment figures in the run-up to the election?

I totally reject the hon. Lady's comments. We are trying to improve the quality of training all the time. I believe that the scheme is proving popular in the pilot areas, but we must await the results of the scheme before we can consider whether to extend it further.

asked the Paymaster General how he plans to strengthen the links between the small firms service and local enterprise agencies.

There is considerable and growing contact between the small firms service and local enterprise agencies. Small firms service counselling now takes place in over 30 local enterprise agency offices and all English LEAs now have details of SFS counsellors in their region. The LEAs make extensive use of SFS publications. SFS managers and LEA directors meet regularly. I am encouraging the development of these contacts.

I thank my hon. Friend for that progressive reply. I know that he is aware of the excellent work that is carried out by the local enterprise agencies in advising businesses and creating new jobs. May I ask him to take it one stage further by linking up, through the small firms service, to the BOTB to give pro-active advice to small businesses on exporting, because it is on exporting that the future success of this country depends?

I welcome my hon. Friend's suggestion. Apart from their hand-holding task, local enterprise agencies clearly adopt a pro-active stance within the communities in which they operate. They are in a strong position to advise people on exporting. As long as my hon. Friend's proposals fit in with what the BOTB would like, there should be no difficulty about implementing them. They could represent a good advance for the local enterprise agency movement.

Does the Minister accept that there is a need for much greater co-ordination of the services provided to small businesses? Are not small businesses sometimes confused by all the advice that is given to them by local authorities, educational institutions, chambers of commerce, enterprise agencies, the Government and other sources? Will the Minister do something to try to achieve better co-ordination of these services?

I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would accept my view that local enterprise agencies should be the one-stop shop, providing not only the hand-holding service but the signposting service that is so necessary. They are in a very good position to have strong links with further education colleges, with the small firms service to which I have already referred, and with any available training organisation. I know that the hon. Gentleman supports the local enterprise agency movement, and I welcome his support. Both he and I must try to ensure that every person in the land knows that the local enterprise agency should be the one-stop shop and the first port of call.

Is my hon. Friend aware that in Norwich the links between the small firms service and the local enterprise agency have been working well? Obviously, however, it must be good to increase the links. I thank my hon. Friend for the support that he has recently given to the Norwich enterprise agency trust. Does he agree that we must use every possible means to encourage more young people to set up in business, thereby increasing employment?

On my hon. Friend's latter point, I was privileged to visit officially the local enterprise agency in Norwich and I was most impressed by what I saw. My hon. Friend is absolutely right when he says that the connection between the local enterprise agency and the small firms service seems to work perfectly well in that part of the country.

asked the Paymaster General how many people have so far participated in restart courses; how long they last; and how many have got permanent jobs as a result.

By 13 November, 46,415 people had been on the one-week restart course under the national restart programme. We have no means of knowing exactly how many participants subsequently obtain permanent employment.

According to an answer in Hansard on 6 November, only 0·7 per cent. of those interviewed had been placed in jobs. Is this not an indictment of the Paymaster General's policy, particularly as proper jobs in the real world are needed into which people can be slotted, instead of the palliatives that he has presented to the House?

If the hon. Gentleman had listened to the answer that I gave he would have been given part of the explanation as to why the figure upon which he relies is completely meaningless. Among the many people who have to be added to the 0·7 per cent. are those who obtain jobs after they have been on a restart course. They are not included in the figure that the hon. Gentleman cited. My hon. Friends and I have repeatedly said that it is pathetic that the Opposition should be reduced at Employment Question Time to nitpicking about all these schemes and trying to find opportunities to denigrate them instead of realising that they represent a positive programme of help for the long-term unemployed.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that a number of people in my constituency have been on the restart scheme and that they have then obtained jobs? Even one of those who have not obtained jobs came to my constituency advice centre the other day and told me that, although he had not yet found a new job, he felt that he was now very much better qualified to get one. I am sure that that applies throughout the country.

As my hon. Friend says, individuals are placed directly in a job or in training, or they become self-employed, with a subsidy under the enterprise allowance scheme, or they attend a restart course and then try to enter the labour market. One in five of all those who contact stop claiming benefit and cease to be unemployed. A good proportion of these people are returning to the labour market. It is absurd to go through the statistics in minute detail in an effort to knock down this extremely ambitious programme, which aims to give that kind of help.

asked the Paymaster General if he will make a statement on the progress of the new training initiative.

The new job training scheme pilots are now in operation in nine areas around the country. There has been an enthusiastic response from training providers, and unemployed people are coming forward in significant numbers.

But does the Minister agree that there is less adult training now than when the new initiative began? Is that what the Minister calls success?

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman had prepared his supplementary question prior to hearing the substantive reply that I have just given, because I referred to a scheme that is being piloted in nine new areas. Substantial numbers of people are coming forward as a result of this new initiative and we are very pleased with it.

Will my hon. Friend speculate on the likely effect on companies' training efforts if the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) were ever successful in securing the endorsement of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) for a 1 per cent. training levy to raid company coffers and reduce companies' own resources to fund their training efforts?

I query whether the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) would get the endorsement of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). Certainly it has been calculated by the Department of Employment, where I work, that the percentage levy that a future Labour Government would impose on industry and commerce would mean a substantial increase in the corporation tax rate, which would cripple them.

Does the Minister accept that the proposed closure on Friday of this week of the women into manual skills course at Deptford skillcentre will be a disaster for women wanting to train in non-traditional skills? Is he aware that there is a lobby at this moment in the Central Lobby protesting about that? Will he give me an undertaking that if the meeting which has been arranged between the three funding boroughs and the Manpower Services Commission does not come up with a solution which allows the course to remain open he will personally intervene and show his commitment to training for women?

I have already given my commitment to the training of women. I gave it to the hon. Lady at a meeting which she attended in my Department only last week. I was pleased to intervene on her behalf, asking the MSC to co-operate fully with the consultation exercise which is going on at the moment. I cannot give her the assurance that she seeks in the latter part of her question. The MSC in no way intended to reduce the training provision for women. It will simply be transferred.

asked the Paymaster General if he will indicate the rate of take-up of the restart scheme in the west midlands.

By 13 November 60,520 people in the west midlands region had been interviewed under the restart programme.

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that reply. Will he say a word to the House about the Social Affairs Council in Brussels last week, the agreement which he achieved on the United Kingdom employment initiative and how his European colleagues reacted to that?

They reacted very well. I am glad to say that 12 member states agreed on a programme which included a commitment to help the long-term unemployed, which is what we are doing through the restart programme. There is great international interest in this original programme. It is one of the best new ideas for helping the long-term unemployed that any country has come up with for a long time. If there had been any Labour participant, in the Social Affairs Council last week, the Council would have been astonished to hear the entire thing described as merely a fiddle.

Does the Minister realise that with the collapse of industrial training in the west midlands, and the collapse of engineering training at every level by 30 per cent. since the Government took office, the people of the west midlands and elsewhere want a fresh start with a Labour Government, and not restart?

Now that the economy is reviving so strongly and the amount of employment is increasing, restart is steering people back into opportunities in the west midlands and elsewhere. Instead of trying to find ways of describing the decline in the west midlands and referring to a few years back, the hon. Gentleman should take on board the fact that since August 1983 alone more than 20,000 new small businesses have been launched in the west midlands under the enterprise allowance scheme. That is only one part of the menu that we have on offer under our restart programme.

asked the Paymaster General what new initiatives he plans to move obstacles to self-employment.

We have taken a substantial number of measures to encourage self-employment, including those outlined in the White Paper "Building Businesses … not Barriers". We continue to keep the possibility of further improvements in this area under active review.

Is my hon. Friend aware of several difficulties which a number of self-employed people have been facing recently from the Inland Revenue because of the definition of self-employment which it has been imposing upon them, which has resulted in their having to return to employee status? Will he seek early discussions with his Treasury colleagues to produce a clearly defined criteria for self-employment so that everyone knows where he stands.

The White Paper, "Building Businesses … not Barriers", dealt with the improved training of those who were employed at local offices of the Inland Revenue and the DHSS. It is important, as my hon. Friend is suggesting, that decisions on employment status are fully understood and consistently applied. At present we are looking at ways to clarify and simplify further the procedures for assessing employment status.

I remind both sides of the House that questions to the Prime Minister are in order only if they refer to her responsibilities.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 16 December.

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

As defence criteria will undoubtedly be paramount in the decision that my right hon. Friend and her Cabinet colleagues have to take on the airborne early warning system, does she agree that neither she nor the House needs advice from the party that cancelled the TSR2? Nevertheless, bearing in mind that it took the Royal Navy eight years to order the Harrier after the United States Marine corps had done so, will my right hon. Friend please give an assurance that when the Cabinet has made its decision there will be a statement and a debate in the House so that those of us who still have nagging doubts may be convinced?

I agree with my hon. Friend that defence requirements must be paramount in the decision and we must be certain that the system which is chosen will meet the country's defence requirements fully and within an acceptable time scale. There will be a statement to the House when the Government have reached their decision. The question of a debate is a matter to be settled through the normal channels.

It is obvious that on both sides of the House, and, indeed, on all sides of the argument, the strong demand is that our country gets as a vital part of our national defence an airborne — [Laughter.] Conservative Members might think that it is funny; the rest of the country certainly does not. We need an airborne early warning system that is totally dependable at a cost and in a time that is necessary for national priorities. However, will the Prime Minister accept that it is necessary to show that, in coming to a decision, full account is taken of the current quality of the British GEC system and of the national technological interest—an aspect which, understandably, the RAF officers making the assessment did not have to address directly. Therefore, before the Cabinet meets on Thursday, will the right hon. Lady set up a speedy and independent inquiry to establish — [Interruption.]—beyond all possible doubt the relative technological, financial, delivery, and, above all, defence merits of the GEC AEW and the Boeing AWAC systems?

I made it perfectly clear that defence requirements must be paramount in this decision. May I also make it clear that an independent inquiry is neither necessary nor appropriate to enable the customer to decide how best to meet its vital need to have an effective airborne early warning system in operational service as soon as possible.

Is the right hon. Lady's refusal to have an inquiry based on the conviction that the GEC system is somehow so inferior as not to warrant further consideration? If it is, why was GEC given the status of a prime contractor as recently as March? Why was its system nominated just 12 weeks ago to go forward for the final adjudication? Why, in the process of assessment, was no early warning given of these alleged deficiencies, and why as recently as 5 December was the Secretary of State for Defence able to say that both systems work?

The right hon. Gentleman appears to have come to his own conclusion. I make it quite clear that in coming to a decision defence requirements must be paramount. They will not be subordinated to any political expediency. We must be certain that the system which is chosen meets our defence requirements fully and within an acceptable time scale. Those will be the criteria. I repeat that an independent inquiry is neither necessary nor appropriate to enable the customer, the Ministry of Defence and the RAF, to decide how best to meet the RAF's vital need to have an effective system in operational service as soon as possible.

If those are all the criteria, as they rightly should be, with defence requirements heading them, what is the reservation about having an independent inquiry to demonstrate beyond peradventure the advantages of one system over the other?

The opinion of those who are responsible for the defence of our country is the best opinion and it should not be subordinated or submitted to independent assessors who do not carry that responsibility.

May I declare an all too-well-known interest? I say to my right hon. Friend that of course the defence of the country must come first in any decision that the Government reach.

But—

Not even a but.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for saying that he recognises that the defence interest must be paramount. It would be difficult to let one company or another see certain information which might be commercially confidential. Both companies would have a complaint if we were to let the other see that information. May I make it quite clear that the MOD has great confidence in GEC, as is instanced by the amount of purchases that the Ministry of Defence makes from that company. Those purchases reached about £800 million last year.

Is the Prime Minister aware that the Head of Defence Procurement, Mr. Levene, yesterday told the Public Accounts Committee that the cost overruns on Nimrod were to a large extent caused by problems within the Ministry of Defence? In view of that, will the right hon. Lady assure the House that if the Cabinet decides on defence grounds to go for AWACS and to abandon the Nimrod project there will be a full explanation about what happened to the £900 million of taxpayers' money which has been spent since 1977? In the meantime, will she instruct her unattributable sources in Whitehall to cease their character assassination of GEC?

They have already done that by indicating the amount which the Ministry of Defence purchases annually from the General Electric Company, which it would not do unless it had confidence in GEC's ability to produce those things. When it comes to the early warning system, defence needs must be paramount. Those responsible for the defence of this country must be certain that they have a fully effective system that will work within the appropriate time scale. I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree that those best able to make that judgment are those who are responsible for the system. I hope he will agree that we should trust their integrity in coming to their judgment.

May I ask my right hon. Friend to remember that in what is an agonisingly difficult decision for the Government there is nothing that is new about the awareness of the difficulties of bringing the British version of the airborne early warning system to a satisfactory conclusion, but that in the last resort it is only the Ministry of Defence and the advisers within the Ministry that can take a decision of this sort? With the greatest respect to my right hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Prior), it would not be possible for an independent inquiry to impose a decision upon the Ministry of Defence.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for confirming what I said earlier.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 16 December.

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

Because the right hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Parkinson) has made mistakes in the past, it does not necessarily mean that he is wrong about Nimrod. Is the Prime Minister aware that there is widespread concern on both sides of the House about the need to protect Britain's high technology industry and the need to preserve Britain's independent defence capability within NATO? Why are we getting this thrawn refusal to have an independent inquiry into and assessment of this issue?

With respect, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has added to the question I have already been asked, and I do not think that I can add anything to the answers that have already been given.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 16 December.

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

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the latest report of the Audit Commission concludes that local authorities could save nearly £2 billion a year through greater efficiency? Yet following the publication of that report, Derbyshire county council is still wasting hundreds of thousands of pounds of ratepayers' money on such unnecessary items as television advertising and publishing a civic newspaper. It has now decided, at public expense, to send a number of Socialist councillors on a television interview training course. Is not this—

Quickly.

—a disgraceful abuse and yet another example of Labour's irresponsibility when in office? Is it not clear evidence that further Government action is necessary to stamp out this outrageous abuse?

My hon. Friend is right. Since the Audit Commission commenced operations in 1983 it has identified about £2 billion worth of economies that would give ratepayers very much better value for money. I agree with my hon. Friend that there is a great deal of scope for these economies to be made, often in the very authorities which are demanding more money, although they do not know how best to spend the money that they have already.

I note with interest the Prime Minister's concern about defence. Is she aware that Babcock Power yesterday announced 620 redundancies at its Renfrew plant? This is a factory that is steeped in manufacturing parts for Trident, which is an integral part of the defence of the realm, apart from developing ultrasonic equipment and heavy lifting gear. [Interruption.] What does the Prime Minister intend to do about this, and when does she intend to do it?

I am sorry that I could not hear the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, except that I heard him say that there have been severe redundancies in a factory in his constituency. As he is aware, every possible effort will be made to help to create new jobs.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 16 December.

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

Will my right hon. Friend reconfirm the Government's unequivocal support for nuclear deterrence, which plays a crucial role in the defence of the West, in the light of the Soviet Union's overwhelming superiority in conventional forces? Does she agree that to scrap the nuclear deterrent and divert resources to conventional forces would be a paltry gesture that would not bridge the gap but would merely leave Britain isolated and exposed?

I agree with my hon. Friend. Nuclear deterrence is a fundamental part of our defence strategy and a fundamental part of NATO's defence strategy. We shall continue to modernise our own independent nuclear deterrent with Trident. Money spent on nuclear weapons provides far more deterrence than the same amount spent on conventional forces.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Does it arise directly out of questions?

It does, Mr. Speaker. I attended the Public Accounts Committee yesterday, when the Head of Defence Procurement, Mr. Levene, made a statement in answer to questions about Nimrod. He did not say that the majority of costs on overrun were the responsibility of the Ministry of Defence. That is an incorrect statement of what he said in evidence.