To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment he has made of the need to attract more women into the work force.

It is estimated that women will take up 90 per cent. of the additional jobs that will be created between now and the year 2000. Employers will need increasingly to ensure that their work arrangements meet the needs of women.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the Government's dramatic attitude in recognising that women should go to sea and should become Royal Air Force pilots must act as a great inspiration to employers who have been rather reluctant to consider taking on ladies and rewarding them? With a tremendous labour shortage in prospect in the next five years, should not we now advise those employers to wake up to that great source of untapped talent, and to do all that they can to recruit and retain women workers? Finally, I ask my right hon. and learned Friend—

Order. One question is fairer to the hon. Lady's colleagues.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend have a word in the ear of our right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to encourage in these pre-Budget days any tax reforms that may assist women to return to work—

Order. That is too much.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for her tireless and, indeed, ceaseless campaigning on behalf of women in work. There are more women in work in this country than in any other member country of the European Community. I am sure that my hon. Friend would not expect me to deal with any representations that I may or may not be making to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Does the Secretary of State agree that although there are more women in work in Britain, for the most part they are in poor conditions and are crowded into low-paid jobs? Does he care to enlighten the House on what the Government as an employer are doing for women and, specifically, what the Civil Service is doing in the provision of workplace nurseries and arrangements for women's careers so that they can come back to work after maternity?

I do not accept for one moment the premise behind the hon. Lady's question. I shall give her one example of what the Civil Service is doing. If she examines the most recent report of the Select Committee on Employment, she will find that particular tribute is paid to the attitude of my Department to the provision of part-time work. That provision is, perhaps, the most important factor in enabling women to combine work and responsibilities to their families.

Can my right hon. and learned Friend work out the value to the national economy, in terms of gross national product, of those married women who stay behind, look after their children and ensure that they have a decent social background and upbringing? When he has done that, will he junk all ideas of providing tax incentives for workplace nurseries and, I presume, nannies? If he is to provide tax incentives, will he provide them for the mothers who stay at home and do a decent job looking after their children?

My hon. Friend is right to stress the importance of the role that women who stay at home to look after their children fulfil. It must be a matter of choice for women whether they stay at home to fulfil that valuable role, combine it with work or go out to work. In response to his question about tax changes, I repeat to my hon. Friend what I said earlier.

Is not one of the major obstacles faced by women at work the absence of workplace nurseries in many parts of the country? Would not it be best to remove the tax on workplace nurseries and, therefore, the tax on women at work?

The hon. Gentleman asks me for the third time a question which, as I have already said, it would not be appropriate for me to deal with today. It is important to consider the whole range of facilities available to women who wish to go out to work or return to work, rather than concentrate unduly on a particular aspect, as the hon. Gentleman did in his question.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the bulk of women who stay at home to look after children are single parents, many of whom would dearly like to return to work if issues such as child care were settled? Is he aware that if we encouraged the quarter of a million single parents who are currently on benefit to return to work, the saving to the Exchequer would be over £1 billion?

My hon. Friend will be aware of the exceptionally generous arrangements available to single parents who wish to take part in our employment training programmes. That is the key to their return to work. I hope—I am sure that she will—that my hon. Friend will give full recognition to the Government for that initiative.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the take-up and retention rates on employment training schemes.

Over 580,000 people have started employment training in little over a year. That is the biggest take-up of any adult training programme ever. People are currently spending an average of just over six months on the programme.

Will the Minister confirm that a substantial number of people who are offered employment training places drop out, frequently because the schemes are poor, under-resourced, and badly managed? In view of Britain's increasing and serious skills shortage, does he agree that a new approach is required that includes the trade unions? What is he prepared to do to persuade the trade unions to participate with him in his determination to improve skills in Great Britain?

The key point is that 58 per cent. of people on employment training were shown in a recent survey to find jobs, to go into self-employment or further training or to go on to education when they had completed their training. Those who do not complete employment training do not have such a good record for entering jobs. The message is absolutely clear. Employment training is good quality training and if it is followed through, individuals are more likely to obtain jobs.

Does my hon. Friend agree that if Opposition Members believe in the scheme, they should have a word with Left-wing councils that refuse to co-operate on employment training?

It is extremely regrettable that a small minority of councils, including St. Helens district council, refuse to associate themselves with employment training. That is against the interests of unemployed people in those council areas.

Is the Minister aware that the Greater Manchester archaeological unit is about to put its ET scheme into effective liquidation? That will mean that in that city the first and second largest ET schemes will have gone out of business. Is he further aware that the reason why the scheme has failed is not poor quality management, but that the scheme is so underfunded that it is impossible to keep it financially viable? Is he aware that because take-up and retention are falling, many schemes throughout the country will go exactly the same way as that one in Manchester?

Employment training is the best adult training programme that we have ever had in Britain. It will be taken over progressively by training and enterprise councils, which will have added flexibility to respond to local labour market conditions. That must be good for people who want good quality training when they have been unemployed for a time. I should be happy to talk to the hon. Gentleman in some detail about the training management to which he. referred, if he so wishes.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the latest figure for unemployment in the Basildon constituency.

In December 1989 there were 2,509 unemployed claimants. That represents a fall of just over 15 per cent. in 12 months.

Will my hon. Friend kindly undertake to send a set of screws to the Socialist-controlled Basildon district council, so that it might restore to a prominent place the board that used to display the number of people who are out of work in Basildon, which supposedly fell down because the screws were rusty? Does my hon. Friend agree that the board could now display the excellent message that unemployment in Basildon has reduced steadily over recent years as a result of the skill and enterprise of local businesses and of the success of this Government's policies?

I am not quite sure what the Public Accounts Committee would say about my using the departmental budget to buy screws to send to Basildon council, because my budget is devoted to training purposes. However, I certainly agree with my hon. Friend and have no doubt at all that the council should be urged to display prominently the fact that there has been a fall in unemployment of over 50 per cent. in the Basildon area since June 1987.

I call the hon. Member for Bassetlaw, but the question is about Basildon.

Is it not a fact that in Basildon there has been massive unemployment among estate agents in the past few years? Does the Minister agree that that is due to the collapse of the Government's housing and mortgage policies and that it will result in the unemployment of Basildon's Tory Member of Parliament at the next election?

I bow to the hon. Gentleman's experience of estate agents.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will propose new measures to encourage people who are unemployed or, through a change of circumstances, become able to seek employment to take up part-time work if full-time work is not available.

The Select Committee on Employment published its report into part-time working on 31 January. Ministers have read it with interest, and welcome the Committee's support for the concept of part-time work and its recognition of its value.

Does not that sound rather odd when the Minister reflects on the punishment experienced by people such as one of my constituents, because if somebody works for two days a week and gets paid £43 for that, he or she then loses all rights to benefits, and the rate of £43 is £13 less than the married man's allowance and, as a weekly rate, is less than average daily pay in this country? In the light of those facts, does the Minister agree that something positive needs to be done by the Government to encourage those who want to work part time if full-time work is not available which, sadly, is still often the case for many people?

I accept that a number of people have seen the new £43-plus per week rule as a disincentive for part-time workers. However, the position cannot be simplified in that way. Indeed, the Select Committee's report made the point, often denied by Opposition Members, that part-time work is a valuable part of the working life of this country and that a great many people find that it fits exactly into the pattern of their lives.

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the opportunities for such people is self-employment? Will he therefore have discussions with his opposite number at the Treasury to find out why obstructions are so often put in the way of people becoming self-employed, including, for example, the Inland Revenue constantly reclassifying them as employed?

I am sure that my hon. Friend makes a valuable point in drawing to our attention yet again the role of self-employment in bringing people back into the working life of our country. I am sure that he would not expect me to say what representations I might have wanted to put to the Treasury on the matter. However, anybody who has ever been self-employed will have considerable sympathy with what prompted my hon. Friend's question.

Does the Minister agree that one of the blocks facing many women returning to either part-time or full-time work is the absence of proper nursery facilities? Will he take to heart the comments made at the weekend by his former boss, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), who said that if industry should take a lead, the Government should at least give some help? What steps is the Minister taking to try to overcome that barrier facing women who are seeking to return to the labour market?

The hon. Gentleman speaks of one barrier—as it is seen to be by some people—to returning to work. The position is not as simple as it might seem, and there is no universal answer to the problem of the provision of proper child care facilities for those who want to return to work. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) can now enjoy being more forthcoming about his thoughts than I can.

Does the Minister agree that during the war years, the women of this country returned to the workshop floors to produce our shells and munitions? Does he further agree that part-time work is valuable to women and that there are skill shortages? Should not we encourage more women to take those highly skilled jobs, not just medium and semi-skilled ones?

We must be careful that in trying to ensure that women are given a fair deal and are able to go out to work if they want, they are not made to feel second-rate citizens if they want to stay at home to look after their families in a more conventional way. I accept what my hon. Friend says, that when the demographic wheel goes full cycle, we must not say that our women have, once again, to leave their jobs to go back to the kitchen.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proposals he has for employment training in Cumbria.

Employment training continues to play its valuable role in helping unemployed people in Cumbria to obtain the skills and experience that they need to obtain jobs.

There is a deep sense of concern in west Cumbria that the new training and enterprise council will be unable to provide employment training for the thousands of people who will be made redundant through the run-down of construction projects at Sellafield. We are talking about thousands of men and women. Will the Government give some assurance, because the former Secretary of State gave an undertaking at the Dispatch Box that he would look into the matter'? Can something be done, because people are worried?

I entirely accept the hon. Gentleman's concern about the redundancies that will take place in his constituency. I think that he will agree that those redundancies are due to take place over two to three years. Just before Christmas, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir. N. Fowler), the then Secretary of State, told the hon. Gentleman that he would certainly do everything that he could to ensure that a contribution was made. In any case of widespread redundancy, the full resources open to the Department of Employment can be brought to bear in particular circumstances. With employment training, although one normally has to be trained for six months, a number of flexibilities in the system can be brought to bear. The Cumbria TEC is due to be operational from April and if, by any chance, the hon. Gentleman has not yet had the opportunity to go along and make contact with it, I certainly hope that he will do so because the TEC will want to play its part.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the survey by Newcastle university, which showed that 15 times as many jobs were created by small firms, employing fewer than 20 people, as by large firms? Are not the Government right to focus their training schemes on the needs of small firms in Cumbria and elsewhere, rather than to attempt to boycott schemes?

Some truths are so universal that they apply as much to Cumbria as to other places. My hon. Friend is entirely right—self-employment can have a valuable role to play. There is a range of Government initiatives and forms of assistance to help people start up in small businesses if that is what they want to do.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will estimate the number of employers providing training in Great Britain.

The latest survey carried out by my Department shows that more than 200,000 employers provided training for their employees in the year 1986–87. That was 80 per cent. of the total. The survey excluded firms with fewer than 10 employees, agriculture and the armed services.

What exactly does the Minister intend to do about the one in five of Britain's employers who make no contribution to training needs and who are happy to poach on other people's efforts? Is there no strategy for training in Britain? Is that why we are doing so badly compared with our competitors?

All the signs are that the number and proportion of employers providing training has increased since that survey took place about three or four years ago. But by setting up the training and enterprise councils, which will be employer-led, to ensure that the training that is provided in their local areas is sensitive to the needs of those areas, we are setting in train an exciting initiative to secure the maximum involvement of employers in providing the training that we need.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend have a look at the system of employee contracts? It is right that an employer should invest very large sums in the training of his work force, and we all agree that that should happen, but he should be able to require employees to serve a reasonable period in order that his investment might be recouped. That is happening in some parts of the world, and it has been tried in this country. There are problems with the legal framework, but I wonder whether my right hon. and learned Friend will look into the matter.

It is my impression that the existing legal framework would make possible much of what my hon. Friend wants. However, I shall certainly look at the points that he has made to see whether any adjustments are necessary.

Why is it that, after 10 years of this Government, the recently published report of a study that was commissioned by the Government shows that 52 per cent. of all employees receive no training, 20 per cent. of employers provide no training, and 42 per cent. of employees do not think that they should receive training? What has gone so wrong that we now face a skills crisis and that the Government seem intent on walking away from it?

The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the training problems that we face are a legacy of past generations. The fact is that we are spending six times as much on training as was spent by the previous Labour Government, and that that expenditure has resulted in tremendous advances and benefits.

We have a mountain to climb.

The hon. Gentleman is right: we have a mountain to climb. And we are climbing it.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a further statement on his policy for retraining the long-term unemployed.

There are 207,000 people currently on employment training. Fifty-eight per cent. of those completing ET have gone into jobs, self-employment or further full-time training or education. Training enterprise councils, or local enterprise companies in Scotland, will be taking responsibility for employment training.

Will my hon. Friend remind the House of the fall that there has been in the number of long-term unemployed during the past two years or so? Is not that fall clear evidence that the ET programmes are not only the largest of their kind in Europe, but the most effective?

Yes, there has been a significant fall in long-term unemployment in this country. Indeed, the number of long-term unemployed has fallen more sharply over the past year or so than has the number of unemployed people as a whole.

Is the Minister of State aware that in December the Training Commission told the Select Committee on Employment that 45 per cent. dropped out before getting to the training agent; that there was a further drop-out of up to 80 per cent. before getting to the training manager; that, of the small minority who actually started training, 70 per cent. did not complete their original action plan; and that, of those who completed their training, 42 per cent. did not get jobs? Does the Minister agree that that shambles is a result of the fact that the programme is underfunded? Does he realise that he will not be regarded as dealing seriously with the matter unless he puts more money into the system? Under the public expenditure plans that we shall be debating today, investment is being cut. Until he improves the programme, he is not likely to be taken seriously.

As the whole House recognises, the hon. Gentleman knows a great deal about the matter. What he failed to point out is that all the statistics that he quoted are considerably better in respect of employment training than they were either in respect of the community programme or in respect of the job training scheme. Like him—and he took evidence from officials about drop-out—we are very much aware of the problem. We are considering ways of minimising that problem in a constructive way. An investigation is going on at the moment, and I am sure that, in due course, the hon. Gentleman and his Committee colleagues will be able to see the proposals that we shall bring forward to deal with the problem to which he alludes.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is his latest estimate of the date for completion of the TEC network.

I expect the complete training and enterprise council network in England and Wales to be in place by the end of the year. That will be two years ahead of schedule.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the combination of the completion of the TEC network with the new youth training scheme by vouchers will provide exciting new opportunities to enable Britain's youth to meet today's needs?

The councils will provide an exciting framework and exciting initiatives with or without vouchers, at which, as my hon. Friend knows, we are still looking.

Is the Minister aware that many of the employers he has put in charge of the TECs are the same employers who failed to provide training in the past? How does he expect anybody to have confidence in the scheme?

I am surprised that the hon. Lady should take that attitude to the TECs, which have received a widespread welcome and are setting about their tasks with tremendous enthusiasm. We should all welcome that. They represent one of the most exciting training initiatives ever in Britain.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the energy and enthusiasm with which his Department has pursued new initiatives over the years, which has been copied by local authorities, has ended up with a number of employers having no clear idea whether TECs are much more important than any other initiative? Will he ensure that they are made aware of the enormous importance of getting in early on the TEC act?

My hon. Friend is right. We have more to do to bring home the advantages of the TECs to all concerned and I welcome his co-operation in achieving that objective.

Now that it is acknowledged that YTS has been a failure for a generation of young people in Britain, will the Secretary of State confirm that his Department is considering training vouchers for the 16 to 19 age group? If so, will he also confirm that those training vouchers will be under the control of the TECs, and will he give us some guarantee that their value will be sufficient to ensure that all youngsters can go on a course of their choice at a place of their choice?

The hon. Gentleman's opening remarks were a pathetic misrepresentation of the youth training scheme. I have already confirmed to my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes) that we are looking at the CBI's proposals for vouchers. If we decide that they represent the way forward, we shall make an announcement at the appropriate time.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proportion of the United Kingdom's gross national product is represented by tourism income.

The total turnover of the British tourist industry was estimated to have been £19 billion in 1988. That represented 4 per cent. of the total United Kingdom gross national product.

How do our earnings from tourism compare with those of other countries? Will the Minister confirm that the number of jobs in tourism has risen by 20 per cent. over the past 10 years? Will he try to divert tourists from watching the changing of the guard at Buckingham palace every day to enable some of us who have never seen it to do so?

I should like to think that I could solve my hon. Friend's problem, but I suspect that it may be beyond me. My hon. Friend is entirely right to refer to a 20 per cent. growth in jobs in the decade to September 1989. We rank after the United States, Spain, Italy and France in the world league which, given the size of the United States and the more beneficial climate of the other countries, is a remarkable achievement.

Is the Minister aware that there is a feeling in Wales that we do not maximise our attractions to overseas visitors because, unlike the tourist boards for England and Scotland, the Wales tourist board has no authority to market Wales overseas? Instead that is undertaken by the British Tourist Authority. Will he have a word with the BTA to ensure that at least by 1992 Wales has direct access to the EEC?

I am sure that the BTA hopes that it properly represents the United Kingdom abroad in trying to attract visitors, but I shall ensure that the hon. Gentleman's anxieties are made clear to the BTA.

Does my hon. Friend agree that one reason why tourism is such a massive earner for the United Kingdom and employs so many people is the fact that it has a long and distinguished record of providing training for its employees? The service sector needs no lessons from the Opposition on how to provide training, and the example of the whisky industry is as good an example as I can give.

My hon. Friend makes a valuable point. It is also one of those industries where the diversity of jobs available to those who want to work within it is absolutely endless.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will take steps to outlaw activities such as those of the Economic League; and if he will make a statement.

No, Sir.

That was a typically pathetic answer. Will the Minister join us in utterly condemning the activities of organisations that seek to blacklist people for no other reason than legitimate trade union activities?

The hon. Gentleman is behind the times. If he cares to have a look at the matter he will find in the Employment Bill, which is presently going through Committee, that it will not be lawful after the Bill is passed to discriminate against a potential employee merely because he is a trade union member. It causes his own Front-Bench spokesmen some embarrassment because it means that they would have to support the abolition of the closed shop. That is a matter that he will have to take up with them.

I call Mr. Tredinnick.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Order. I am being urged to speed up Question Time.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment by what percentage the numbers of those unemployed for more than five years has fallen over the past year.

In the year to October 1989, the latest available figure, the number of claimants in the United Kingdom who had been unemployed for more than five years fell by 27 per cent.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the expansion in training prospects has been crucial in reducing the number of long-term unemployed? How can the Opposition criticise us when for every £1 that they spent on training we are spending £6?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The training initiatives that we have taken in the past 10 years, the youth training scheme and more recently employment training, have contributed a great deal to that remarkable drop in the figure for the long-term unemployed.

What proportion of those who have been unemployed for more than five years are disabled people? Is the Minister aware of the findings of the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys that only 31 per cent. of disabled adults of working age are actually working? Does not that statistic shout discrimination against disabled people and the need for urgent action to protect them?

I am disappointed that the right hon. Gentleman does not give credit for the steps that we have taken to encourage the disabled back into work, in the special programme for which my Department is responsible—which was praised in a recent article by the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field)—and in the measures recently introduced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security. We take the problems of getting the disabled back to work very seriously, and we are taking constructive action to help them.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment by how much unemployment in inner city areas has fallen since March 1988.

In the 57 local authority areas in England within which the Government target inner city programme aid, the number of unemployed claimants has fallen by 334,828 or 34 per cent. since March 1988. In the United Kingdom as a whole the percentage fall has been 37 per cent.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the Government's policies in encouraging enterprise are proving successful not only in outer urban constituencies like mine, where unemployment fell by 35 per cent. in 1989, but in areas considered to be some of the most deprived in the country?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The dramatic fall in unemployment in the inner city areas is a particularly encouraging feature of recent economic development, and a tribute to the success of the Government's economic policy.

When does the Minister expect unemployment in inner city areas to sink to the level of 1979? Does he expect that current interest rates will make that happen more quickly or more slowly?

I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman does not recognise, and give credit for, the fact that more people in the inner city areas are now working—as they are in the country as a whole—than in 1979. That is a tribute to the success of the Government's economic policies—[Interruption.]

Order. I ask the House to desist from holding private conversations during important employment questions.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the change in unemployment since June 1987.

Between June 1987 and December 1989, seasonally adjusted unemployment in the United Kingdom has fallen by about 1·25 million, or 43 per cent.

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for giving those figures, which bear eloquent testimony to the success of the Government's economic policies. Do not they also underline the importance of the Government's many training initiatives and, in particular, the critical need to encourage more part-timers, especially women, back into the labour force?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We need a successful economic framework and effective training policies. The combination of both has led to the fall in unemployment to which my hon. Friend referred.

Why is the right hon. and learned Gentleman boasting about the fall in unemployment when, under the present Government, its level has risen dramatically since 1979? Can he explain why unemployment on Merseyside—particularly in Liverpool—although not quite as high as it was, is still much higher than it should be?

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's acknowledgement, albeit rather grudging, of the progress that has been made on Merseyside—as elsewhere—in bringing down unemployment. I hope that he will also acknowledge that 1 million more people are now at work than in 1979, and that nearly 3 million extra jobs have been created since 1983.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment by how much unemployment has fallen in Wirral as a whole since June 1987; and if he will make a statement.

Between June 1987 and December 1989, the number of unemployed claimants in the Wirral local authority area has fallen by 8,232, or 34·7 per cent. The comparison is slightly affected by the new benefit regulations affecting those aged under 18 which were introduced in September 1988. Unemployment figures are not seasonally adjusted at a regional level.

The people of the Wirral will be extremely grateful for the fall in unemployment. Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware, however, that Cammell Laird, the shipyard which is the major employer in Birkenhead, has recently announced 500 redundancies? Will he take the matter up with the Secretary of State for Defence to ensure that orders are placed with the yard and that the number of unemployed in the Wirral continues to fall?

My hon. Friend will accept that it would be wrong for the Government to try to suspend the commercial judgment of companies in regard to redundancies. I can tell him, however, that where there are redundancies the full resources of the Department of Employment will be brought to bear to help those who are affected, and I certainly undertake to look at that.

Notwithstanding some welcome improvements in employment on Merseyside, and in the Wirral in particular, does the Minister accept that the closure of plants such as BAT and Higsons sets back the cause of full employment in those areas? What have his Government done to make representations to those companies to ensure that socially disastrous decisions are not made in areas of high unemployment?

As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter), I accept that redundancies can have a very bad effect and can represent a good deal of personal tragedy for those involved. What the Government cannot do, however, is try to manipulate matters by telling companies that they should not exercise their commercial judgment. Ultimately, the companies will form a view on what is the best part of the country for them in all the circumstances, and doubtless that will apply to Merseyside.

Does my hon. Friend accept that one of the main things that the Government have done to help the Wirral and Merseyside is to alter business rates? Is he aware that the north-west region as a whole will benefit to the tune of £300 million—money which, particularly on Merseyside, will be used for industrial investment and hence the creation of new jobs.

My hon. Friend is entirely right. One of the most beneficial effects of the uniform business rate is to ensure that those parts of the country which have paid more than they should are at long last getting a fair deal, and it will also ensure that Left-wing authorities will not be able to turn their areas into ghettoes by driving out the businesses that would support people.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the current level of unemployment.

In December 1989, the level of unemployment, seasonally adjusted, was the lowest for more than nine years, and it is now significantly lower than the EC average.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that excessive pay claims in the private sector which are not matched by productivity could lead to increases in unemployment?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Everyone concerned with wage negotiations should take into account the longer-term implications of their actions, and the fact that excessive wage increases can clearly lead to job losses.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 13 February.

This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I shall preside at a dinner in honour of the Prime Minister of Poland.

Does the Prime Minister agree that the release of Nelson Mandela—a person who symbolises South Africa's cry for freedom—was made possible only because of pressure from the free world, including economic pressure from the rest of Europe and the United States? Does the Prime Minister accept that it is essential to maintain that pressure if a majority of South Africans are to be free to travel in their own country, free to have their own businesses, free to have access to higher standards of education and child care and the rest, and free—

Order. The hon. Gentleman must ask a question, not make a speech.

Does the Prime Minister agree that there should be pressure so that all the people of South Africa can be truly free citizens of a truly free South Africa?

I believe that improvements are coming about in South Africa because there is a general agreement there, and the world over, that apartheid is wrong and that it must go. Everyone there is coming to realise that. I do not believe that we should have got the results that we have, including the release of Nelson Mandela, had we introduced comprehensive economic sanctions—that would have caused increasing violence and bitterness—instead of doing as we have done, and steadily improved prospects for peaceful negotiations, which I am sure Mandela stands for, too.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 13 February.

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

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that her Government have no plans to allow local government councillors access to income tax returns? Will she also confirm that her Government have no proposals to penalise those who improve their homes by their own hard work? Does she agree that it is utterly cynical to refuse to give details of half-baked policies simply because local government elections are in the offing?

I agree with my hon. Friend on all three points. Details of income tax matters are private and between the taxpayer and the income tax authorities. They are not to be handed on to anyone else, as they are private and confidential. Moreover, it is wrong to discourage people from making improvements to their houses by increasing the local charge when they do so. We shall continue with the community charge, which is the best local tax that has yet been invented.

When Nelson Mandela says that sanctions must stay as an essential pressure for change, how can the Prime Minister think that she knows better than Mr. Mandela?

Mr. Mandela also said that he approved of armed struggle. I disagree with him on that; and I disagree with him on the present sanctions. When the South African Government were doing things with which we thoroughly disagreed, we put on some very minor gesture sanctions to demonstrate our disapproval. Now that they are doing things which we have urged them to do and have helped them to bring about, I believe it is right to reduce the sanctions that we have, particularly as they are only voluntary.

Does the Prime Minister realise that for her to insist that she knows better than Nelson Mandela is both arrogant and absurd? Does she also realise that, if she says no to the single request that he has made to her and the international community, what she is saying to Nelson Mandela is, "You are on your own; we are turning our back on you"?

No, Sir. I think the right hon. Gentleman possibly takes his instructions from the African National Congress—[Interruption.]

Order.

Withdraw.

Order. If the Prime Minister made some comment, will she rephrase it please?

I do not take my instructions from the ANC, which believes in comprehensive economic sanctions, which we have totally rejected—

Withdraw.

Order. I confess that there was so much noise that I could not hear what the Prime Minister said. I call the Prime Minister.

rose—[Interruption.]

Order. This sounds awful. If an unparliamentary expression was used, I am sure the Prime Minister would wish to withdraw it.

I shall start my reply again. The ANC believes in comprehensive economic sanctions—[Interruption.]

Withdraw.

Order. The Prime Minister must be given an opportunity to reply—[Interruption.] Order. The Prime Minister said that she would start her reply again.

I said that I would start my reply again having withdrawn the previous words. I have said that now three times and hon. Gentlemen cannot hear me. The ANC stands for comprehensive economic sanctions; so does the Labour party. It stands for armed struggle; so, apparently, does the Labour party. It stands for nationalisation—[Interruption.]

Order. This is a very disorderly Prime Minister's Question Time. We must hear the reply.

The ANC stands for nationalisation of most of the economic means of the country. Mr. Mandela naturally said he supports all three in what I would call his ritual speech. I believe he is making very much better and more peaceful speeches during his press conferences. I believe that what he said was ritual. There are other people in South Africa such as Chief Buthelezi and Helen Suzman who have been fighting for the end of apartheid far longer than many people in the House. They are absolutely against sanctions. I believe that it is right to encourage President de Klerk and the people in South Africa to go further in the way we want by removing some of the sanctions.

Has my right hon. Friend, as a London Member, had the opportunity to study the first Metropolitan police customer survey that was published today? Is she aware that 84 per cent. of people who visited police stations expressed satisfaction with the way in which the police handled their cases and found them polite, efficient and courteous? Does she agree that that is a very good result?

Yes, That is a very good result. Most people would wish to express their thanks to the police for protecting us and upholding and enforcing the law.

How many of the Prime Minister's Community, Commonwealth American colleagues were consulted before her lonely call to remove sanctions at the weekend? Is it not rather odd that when she is asked to support unity and freedom in Germany she says that there must first be massive international consultation, but that when she is asked to maintain international sanctions on South Africa she is prepared to reject that unilaterally and alone?

The right hon. Gentleman does not fully appreciate precisely what happened. As for United Nations sanctions, of course the arms embargo remains in place because we all agreed to it and are bound by it. Orders through the European Economic Community that passed through the House, in particular sanctions on iron and steel which suit some people, have to be upheld, as do those on Krugerrands. Those are orders and they cannot be changed without full agreement. I wrote to Mr. Haughey and have received a letter back from him agreeing that the recent measures in South Africa

"are indeed significant developments"

"to what extent profound and irreversible changes can be said to have already taken place in South Africa that would justify a relaxation of the measures imposed by the Twelve."

Order. These are very important matters. The Prime Minister.

There needs to be—[Interruption.]

Order. I remind the House that not only is the House interested to hear about these major matters, but others outside are interested.

The Archbishop of Canterbury said:

"There needs to be some measure of encouragement … if that requires some release of sanctions, I think that will be understandable."

Order. The Prime Minister has a right to give her reply.

President Bush has made clear that he does not think that sanctions are necessarily the right answer, but he is bound by a law passed by Congress. In so far as we are bound by laws, we uphold them, and in so far as we are not—[Interruption]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that issuing death threats is an extremely serious crime which in all circumstances should be pursued with the full and impartial rigour of the law? Does she agree that when a foreign Government start behaving like a gang of hoodlums and issuing death threats against a British subject, it is quite impossible for us to conceive of having normal, civilised diplomatic relations with them?

I agree with my hon. Friend. Issuing death threats is totally unacceptable. Freedom of speech and freedom to write is freedom to say things with which other people do not agree. That is one of our fundamental freedoms; we must uphold it, and will continue to uphold it. I do not believe that such words or such writing will do anything to damage the great religions, which are far older than those who write about them.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 13 February.

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

If the Prime Minister had just spent 27 years in prison—

As she should.

Withdraw.

Order. I have never heard the House behave in this way at Prime Minister's Question Time. I call the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock), who has a right to ask her question.

If the Prime Minister had just spent 27 years in prison, separated from her family, but found when she was released that she and people like her were unable to live or work where they wished and did not have the vote, would she not want the support of the international community in continuing sanctions against the Government of that country?

No. I do not think that sanctions have achieved anything—[ Interruption.] As to getting rid of them, if the Labour party had had its way we would have had comprehensive economic sanctions, creating poverty and unemployment in South Africa and a good deal of unemployment here. That is not the way to keep South Africa as the most prosperous economy in Africa. Many people from the front-line states go to it and it will continue to be prosperous provided that it is run in the same way when the Government in South Africa are elected on the basis of one person, one vote.

On a point of order, M r. Speaker.

I will take points of order later. I call Mr. Michael Howard—[Interruption.] Order. The whole House knows that I take points of order after statements.