asked the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he is taking to reduce unemployment in the North-West.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what steps Her Majesty's Government are taking to reduce unemployment on Merseyside.

Every effort is being made to concentrate Government help in the areas of highest unemployment. This applies to parts of the North-West and to Merseyside in particular. However, real jobs can be created only by a successful partnership between Government measures and the energies and efforts of management and workers.

Is the Minister aware that since his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry downgraded the area of St. Helens from special development area status to development area status official notice has been given that the Rockware Group Ltd., a manufacturer of glass containers, is to make a further 460 workers redundant early in the spring of next year? Will the hon. Gentleman inform the House whether he is aware of the new job enterprise named Index of St. Helen's and whether he and his right hon Friend have been invited to take an important part in making the new job enterprise a success?

We are aware of Index and we have taken some interest in it. There is no direct connection between the redundancies declared by Rockware and the suggested reduction in the status of the area of St. Helens from SDA to DA. I know that the hon. Gentleman has taken a delegation to see the Under-Secretary of State for Industry. I understand that my hon. Friend is considering carefully the arguments that were advanced.

Is the Minister aware that the 900 workers now occupying the Meccano factory in Liverpool were not given the statutory notice? These workers, some of whom have given 20 years and 25 years' service to the company, were given 20 minutes' notice by the management. So much for co-operation from management. The Minister will be aware of the reply given by the Prime Minister to me last Tuesday, when she accepted that there are serious and grievous problems on Merseyside. When shall we see the Government taking positive action to alleviate the problems instead of merely paying lip service to them?

The Department is investigating the special circumstances to ascertain whether there was any reason that prevented the company from complying with the requirements of employment protection legislation. I suggest that we wait until the facts are known before we decide whether a penalty is applicable. The unions involved are able to take the company to an industrial tribunal if it has not complied with its side of the bargain.

Has my hon. Friend considered the recommendation of the North-East Lancashire Development Association that the phasing out of intermediate area status for North-East Lancashire should take rather longer than the three years proposed?

That is not a matter for the Department. However, I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend's remarks will be considered. There is a review of all these changes before they take place.

Is the Minister aware that in the Lancashire textile industry there is redundancy after redundancy and closure after closure? Will he consider again with urgency the need to reintroduce in North-East Lancashire the full panoply of temporary employment subsidy measures? Does he understand that previously they were a great help?

The real problem is that the TES measures, for example, had an adverse effect on Merseyside and prevented jobs from being created in that area. If we are to concentrate Government assistance where unemployment is at the highest levels, we are proceeding in the only way possible. We have a sophisticated system of notifying redundancies, but we do not have an equally sophisticated method of notifying the availability of jobs unless they are provided by Government assistance. We must be careful that we judge redundancies against the number of new jobs that are created, which must be more than the redundancies in the long run.

How can the Minister say that every effort is being made by the Government to assist employment in the North-West and on Merseyside when every action that the Government have taken has seriously damaged employment prospects in those areas, not least the withdrawal of intermediate area status from one half of my constituency, which has serious employment problems? When are we to get the opportunity stakes of which the Chancellor of the Exchequer talks so blandly? When will my constituents have proper employment opportunities?

Intermediate area status in half of the hon. Gentleman's constituency cannot have had such a great effect. Of greater effect is the operation and co-operation of trade unions within his constituency in implementing the special measures. If he could get the trade unions to co-operate, we might be able to spend the budget that we have allocated.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he is satisfied with the progress made in paying compensation under the Pneumoconiosis, etc. (Workers Compensation) Act 1979; and if he will make a statement.

These have not proved easy regulations to prepare and it is disappointing that we have taken longer than expected to resolve the problems. This we have now done, and the draft regulations will be laid tomorrow. We hope to ask Parliament to approve them before Christmas so that they may come into operation on 1 January. First payments should be made shortly thereafter.

Does the Minister accept that in view of the anxiety and disappointment aroused by the delay there will be a welcome for his statement? Will he give an assurance that the position of widows, especially those who have been widowed for over five years, will be safeguarded? Will he also give an indication that the position of slate quarrymen, who may have left their places of work with a low percentage of dust that has increased subsequently, will be recognised and that the cash will be paid early in January as he has said?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his opening remarks. Slate quarrymen and other sufferers of diseases within the Act will be taken into account in the regulations. Their diseases have a different pattern of progression from coal pneumoconiosis. That will be taken into account. Payments will take place within a few weeks of the coming into operation of the regulations on 1 January.

Is the Minister aware that there is a deep sense of grievance on the part of many pneumoconiosis sufferers and their trade unions about the operation of the present system for paying compensation? Will he consult the Department of Health and Social Security about the abolition of the pneumoconiosis medical boards and their replacement by general practitioners and local consultants who could give evidence about pneumoconiosis?

The Department of Employment does not have responsibility for the pneumoconiosis medical boards. The right hon. Gentleman takes a great interest in these matters and he will know that the regulations under the Pneumoconiosis, etc. (Workers Compensation) Act 1979 tie the entitlement to benefit to there being either disablement benefit awarded by the pneumoconiosis board, following a finding by the board, or death benefit.

Has the position of those suffering from asbestosis been considered?

Asbestosis is included within the ambit of the Act. I should have said in answer to the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) that widows with an entitlement going back beyond five years will be looked after in the scheme controlled by the regulations.

Further to the supplementary question of my right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley), and further to the Minister's recognition that there is a close link between that which my right hon. Friend raised and the eligibility of benefit under the proposed regulations and the operation of the medical tribunals, is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that there is widespread disquiet, illustrated by the case reported in The Guardian today of a person who has been awarded £10,000 damages for mesothelioma arising from asbestosis, where the panel refused to accept that the person concerned was suffering from an industrial disease? That is only one of many cases. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will discuss that issue with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services.

I shall examine the case to which the right hon. Gentleman refers.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the current level of unemployment in Great Britain.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the total number of unemployed in the United Kingdom.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the latest figure for unemployment in the United Kingdom.

At 8th November the number of people registered as unemployed in Great Britain was 1,292,284 and in the United Kingdom 1,355,203.

In view of the appalling number of redundancies now coming through as a result of the Government's policy, does the right hon. Gentleman expect the level of unemployment to reach 2 million before the Easter Recess or the Summer Recess?

The level of unemployment is serious and I think that it will worsen. That is not as a result of Government action. Had it not been for some of the measures that we have taken, I believe that it would have been considerably worse.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that 30,000 jobs have been lost this year alone in Scottish industry and that the Government's only response to the mass exodus of multi-national companies is to cut regional assistance, to cut the powers and budget of the Scottish Development Agency, and to sack its chairman? Is it not about time that some sanity was introduced to even this Government's policy before Scotland is crippled industrially by the mad policies of the Iron Lady and her tin man at the Scottish Office?

If it comes to sanity, do not think that my right hon. and hon. Friends will require help from the hon. Gentleman. Far more important than the loss of jobs is the creation of new jobs. Many of the jobs that are being lost are old jobs in old firms and old processes. What must be considered in our unit costs, productivity and industrial relations is how to create new jobs.

Is the Secretary of State aware that those figures include the highest unemployment figures ever known in the Northern region? Does he further know that the main cause of that disastrous situation is the lack of confidence in all who are concerned with the Government's new regional policy? As a matter of urgency, will the Secretary of State arrange a meeting with the northern TUC and the northern CBI to see how that policy can be best modified to suit the particular needs of the Northern region?

The Northern region has difficult problems and if the northern TUC or CBI would like to come and see me, I shall make myself available at any time.

Can my right hon. Friend explain why such a shortage of semi-skilled and skilled workers remains in the public services during a period of high unemployment? Could it be that we have not yet sufficiently restored differentials for skill and that short-term unemployment benefits are untaxed, which means that we are failing to provide an incentive to people to take up existing job vacancies?

There is a lot in what my hon. Friend says. There is not sufficient differential between skilled and unskilled rates of pay. In many parts of the country where unemployment is high, it is difficult to get people to work at weekends and do shift work. That is a new social phenomenon that must be dealt with. Labour Members know that and they could help.

The policies of the previous Government partially worked—they did not entirely work—but is it not clear that this Government's policy of total laissez-faire is an absolute disaster? Is it not time that the Government returned to a policy of intervention in economic affairs?

No, Sir. There is a degree of interventionism, as the hon. Gentleman knows, in the retention of special development area status for Merseyside and in other areas. Those matters must be judged by using common sense and reason. Had the previous Labour Government been returned to office, they would not have been able to keep their public expenditure programmes going. Former Ministers in that Government have said that. We must all learn a few lessons and do the best that we can.

Mr. Peter Walker. I beg your pardon—Mr. Peter Bottomley. [Laughter.] Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not mind the compliment.

I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will not mind either. Does the Secretary of State agree that predictions on unemployment are difficult, and that those who were predicting that by Christmas there would be 2 million unemployed will be just as wrong as those Opposition Members who predicted that, when they came into office in 1974, their policies would avoid the massive increase of unemployment that was soon witnessed by the whole country?

I am certain that such a question will earn my hon. Friend quick promotion.

As the Minister has implied that he is in favour of intervention, will he intervene amongst his colleagues and Front Bench spokesmen—such as his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary—and stop them from attacking the trade union movement? Does not the Minister recognise that industries are and have been closing down on Merseyside, although they have a good record of industrial relations? Meccano is one example, and its closure is another nail in Merseyside's coffin. Does he not realise that the people of Merseyside are sick and tired of having the problems of that area blamed on the militancy of the trade union movement? The trade union movement is militant because those problems exist anyway, and the Government should intervene and do something about them.

That sort of intervention is not helpful. Members representing Merseyside constituencies could do a great deal to help, rather than do some of the things that they have done in recent years.

Explain.

In recent years Merseyside Members have very often added to bad industrial relations in the area.

Is my right hon. Friend aware whether any Labour Member has encouraged the trade unions not to put in excessive wage claims? Such claims can only lead to increased unemployment.

No, but there will be another opportunity for the Opposition to give some encouragement in that direction during the next few weeks. I hope that I shall be introducing the new Bill before Christmas.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that since he is surrounded by Cabinet colleagues, such as the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Industry, who are actively promoting unemployment, the House seeks a statement from him that he will carry out his job and promote employment and job opportunity measures?

As I entirely reject the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, I need not reply to the second part.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what steps his Department is taking to encourage wider participation in the management of industry.

There is nothing more important for improving industrial relations than getting better communication between management and its work force, and the involvement of the work force in matters affecting it at its place of work. I have lost no opportunity to support worthwhile initiatives—such as the issue of guidance by the CBI and other influential bodies—designed to help this process.

If my right hon. Friend agrees that one of the most important contributions that could be made to the progress of British industry would be to get rid of the spirit of partisanship that has overlaid it for so long, does he not think that that will continue to lack urgency unless he shows tangible support for it?

I wish to avoid legislation on that front because it might have the opposite result to that desired. Everything that we can do to persuade and cajole management into better communication, and greater involvement on the shop floor, is essential if we are to solve our industrial relations problems.

If the Secretary of State is really interested in wider industrial participation, will he make representations to the Secretary of State for Industry to ensure that the trade union board mem- bers at the Post Office are reappointed after 31 December?

I am certain that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry will examine all the available evidence carefully and even-handedly before arriving at any decision. I am not, however, entirely satisfied that this has proved to be a good experiment so far.

Will my right hon. Friend tell the House whether he is prepared to consider introducing a code of practice on employee participation? He mentioned that subject several times when he was shadow spokesman for employment.

I am always prepared to consider it. However, I would prefer a joint approach between the Government, the TUC, and the CBI.

Does the Secretary of State believe that it is possible to induce management to introduce any form of worthwhile worker participation in industry without legislation?

Yes, Sir.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the estimated current level of unfilled vacancies compared with the total number of unemployed in the United Kingdom.

The number of unfilled vacancies at employment offices in the United Kingdom in November was 231,000 which is estimated to represent about one in three of all vacancies in the economy. The total number of registered unemployed in November was 1,355,000.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there are many constituencies, such as my own of Nelson and Colne, where, despite a regrettable positive unemployment figure, we have many job vacancies for skilled and semi-skilled workers? Is he aware that in our particular area there are dozens of habitable terraced houses costing £3,000 to £6,000 each?

On 15 per cent. mortgages.

One of Britain's worst characteristics is the inability to change and the lack of mobility of labour.

We certainly require maximum mobility of labour. A number of factors such as rent control and an inability to provide housing prevent mobility. In spite of that, however, 8 million or 9 million people a year go on and come off the register. In many cases, if employers require skilled people they will probably have to pay more for them.

Is the Secretary of State aware that on Tyneside in the skilled trades between 12 and 50 men are chasing every vacancy, and that for unskilled work there are 200 men chasing every vacancy?

The further north one goes, the fewer the vacancies and the more unemployed workers there are chasing them. However, even in the North of England, in areas of high unemployment there are job vacancies, particularly involving shift and weekend work, which remain unfilled. There is something going on here which hon. Members know about, and we must all do what we can to help.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give a progress report on the cases of the three ex-British Railways employees currently before the European Commission of Human Rights.

These unfortunate men claim that as a result of the Labour Government's trade union legislation and their consequent dismissal by British Rail the United Kingdom has failed to secure them the enjoyment of the rights guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights. We vigorously opposed that legislation, and propose to correct it. The new Government on 9 July, by the Solicitor-General, made submissions on their legal responsibility for British Rail, and on the legal interpretation of the convention. They expressly abandoned one of the submissions of their predecessors, that the legislation was necessary, and stated that their own policy towards the closed shop would ensure that the circumstances of the claimants would not arise in future. The commission's pro- cedure is now to seek in confidence a friendly settlement.

I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for that reply, but does he agree, notwithstanding a decision by the European Commission of Human Rights, that this case and others underline the need as a matter of urgency to amend the law relating to the closed shop, and that to do so is merely to restore the basic right of individuals? Does he agree that there is no way in which that can be taken by any fair-minded person as an attack on the unions?

I agree with my hon. Friend. These cases reveal the great injustice that results when people can be sacked without compensation solely because they have declined to join a union after the introduction of a new closed shop agreement. We shall put that right.

Why do the Conservative Government always attack the trade unions in legislation when they come to power and defend those who are unwilling to pay for being in a union but want a free ride and accept the wages that a union negotiates for them? The Government want to give freedom to people who are not in unions while denying it to those who are.

Many millions of trade union members voted for the proposals which the Government publicised in their working paper. They recognise that it is far better that members of trade unions should be voluntarily recruited and that there should be proper safeguards for the rights of those who do not want to join a closed shop.

Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the law as it stands is, as it has been for many years, neutral on the question of the closed shop? Is he further aware that, when this case was referred to Strasbourg, Ministers in the previous Government gave no advice or direction, and did not seek to influence those who would be dealing with the Government's case at Strasbourg? Those people were left to deal with the matter on strictly legal and judicial principles. Does the Minister realise that his departure from that, in that Ministers are now giving guidance and seeking to influence those engaged in the judicial process, is a gross departure from the precedents in this matter?

I entirely reject that argument. The advice that the right hon. Gentleman's Government did or did not give is a matter for him and is no part of our responsibility. My hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General attended at Strasbourg on 9 July in his capacity as a law officer to make representations, among other things, as to the legal interpretation of article 11 of the convention on behalf of the United Kingdom, and to indicate that the attitude of the new Government towards the closed shop was markedly different from that of their predecessors.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will make a statement on the level of unemployment; and what difficulties are being experienced in industries or services involved in shift work in obtaining labour, especially skilled labour.

At 8 November the number of people registered as unemployed in Great Britain was 1,292,284, a percentage rate of 5·5. Some industries report problems in recruiting people for shift work. Certain manual engineering skills are in short supply nationally; others in certain geographical areas.

Does not the high number of unemployed and the serious skill shortage in certain areas, as anyone reading the Leicester Mercury on any day will know, suggest that the so-called black economy might be a lot larger than anyone realises?

I suggest that the black economy has been growing in this country, as it has in other countries, for a number of years. However, I think that the reductions in tax and the ability now to pay higher rates for those with high skills will help to ease this problem.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that certain parts of the country and certain industries are used to shift work? I refer in particular to the mining industry. What kind of Government policy is it that puts that at risk by allowing short-term imports of foreign subsidised coal?

If it is producing efficiently I see no necessity for any jobs in the coal industry to be put at risk.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the difficulties in filling skilled vacancies is the shortage of instructors at certain skillcentres and the lack of agreement with the unions that when a person has completed a course he is qualified for a particular job? Will the Government have another talk with the TUC on this matter?

At national level the TUC has generally been very co-operative over this matter. There have been a number of difficulties, however, at local level. One of our problems is the difficulty of making certain that we are training people for the skills of tomorrow rather than, perhaps as all too often happens, for the skills of yesterday.

Is the Secretary of State making any studies of the consequences for employment, or the lack of it, of the importation last year of over 800,000 cars and over £1 billion of steel?

These are tragedies for employment in Britain. If we can secure good industrial relations and steady work, there is a great deal more that we can produce at home to the benefit of domestic employment, the balance of payments, and our whole society. I strongly commend what the hon. Gentleman said.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what proportion of trainees in the training opportunities programme have subsequently entered employment in their field of training or a related trade.

I am informed by the Manpower Services Commission that three months after completing their TOPS training during 1978–79, 59 per cent. of adults were in a job using the skills they had learnt. In discussions with the commission I have emphasised my concern that its training efforts should be aimed at providing the skills for tomorrow's needs, not yesterday's, and I will be having further discussions with it on ways of improving the training services it provides. I welcome useful suggestions on how this can best be achieved.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that this is a better application of Government expenditure than the vastly expensive jobcentres which are indiscriminate in their direction and in their constituency?

I think that jobcentres have a part to play in improving the uptake of jobs, but I thing that the organisation has been a bit too extravagant in recent years, and we shall be looking at that problem. I am deeply dissatisfied with the amount of money we are spending as a nation—not just the Government—on training, and yet we have more vacancies for skilled people at a time of recession than ever before. Something is not right with our training exercise. A review is needed and is taking place. In due course we shall present proposals to the House.

If the Secretary of State is dissatisfied with training, why has he cut back Government subventions to the training boards?

I do not believe that I am cutting back on any subventions which are going into the provision of the skills of tomorrow. However, there is a lot of wasted expenditure on training boards, as on other parts of our training services. We are determined to put that right.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what are the future employment prospects in the West Midlands during the next 12 months.

There is no doubt that the region's industrial base has been badly hit over the last five years. However, I would not accept that the area is suffering from inevitable permanent decline. If we can create the right climate for industry, then I am certain that the West Midlands will reap the benefits.

Does the Minister agree that we have heard that answer on about five or six different occasions? Does he agree that, as the Government are aware that thousands more people are to be made redundant in the West Midlands as a result of the Edwardes plan, they should reconsider their policy of nonintervention?

Unemployment has fallen in the hon. Gentleman's constituency by 452 since April 1979. That is a great contrast between February 1974 and 1979, when it rose by 9,086, with the interventionist policies of the Labour Government.

Does my hon. Friend agree that job prospects in the West Midlands would be much improved if the trade unions at British Leyland put the long-term commercial interests of that company before any other consideration?

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. It is true that there is a new feeling in the West Midlands, as in other parts of the country, that the only way in which we shall solve our industrial and economic problems is by working together. I hope that that will come through in the coming months.

Does the Minister agree that he is painting a pretty picture of the West Midlands? Bearing in mind the promises made before the election by the Conservative Party, whose members have not carried out their promises, and the fact that the employment situation is a dismal failure, will the Government put the Secretary of State for Industry into hibernation until the next general election, because there will be more people out of work than in work?

I am delighted to answer the question. We have kept our promises. We have removed the restrictions on industry. We have restored to companies the ability to manage and to work with their work force. We have restored to workers incentives to use their skills. Those policies must have resulted in the figures I gave to the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Park).

Will my hon. Friend look into certain interesting experiments which have taken place between industry and schools in parts of the West Midlands whereby would-be school leavers are able to do a day or half a day at work in their chosen jobs? Will he look at the results of that scheme to determine whether it is worth applying nationally?

My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science is chairing a Committee to consider schemes of this kind. We recognise that if this country is to succeed we must have a much better understanding at a much earlier stage of our industrial processes, where the wealth is really created. I am happy to say that there are many other schemes of a similar nature helping to educate young children, before they are 11, into the realities of our economic life. All these schemes must be helpful in the long run.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment when he expects to meet Mr. Geoffrey Drain, general secretary of the National Union of Local Government Officers.

My right hon. Friend has no immediate plans to meet Mr. Drain, but he would be very pleased to meet him at any time.

Will the Minister take early steps to meet Mr. Drain of the National Union of Local Government Officers and give him an assurance that his Department will do all in its power to resolve the dispute in the British universities between the non-teaching staff and the university vice-chancellors, who are refusing appeals machinery which is available throughout the public sector and to other employees?

I am aware of this dispute. The Goverment take no part in disputes involving the negotiating machinery of university clerical staffs. This dispute is entirely a matter for the parties concerned.

Will the Minister assure NALGO that the Government intend to change their policy of opposition and dislike of the public sector? Will they recognise the economic illiteracy of their present policies and understand that the public sector could act as the best possible trigger for an economic recovery in this country?

No, Sir.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to reform the law relating to unfair dismissals.

The Government's proposals in relation to unfair dismissal were published in a working paper on 25 September which was lodged in the Library of the House of Commons.

Will the hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that his Department commissioned a survey of 30 small firms, which showed that no small businesses suffered particularly from the unfair dismissal laws and that in fact only 17 per cent. of them thought that the industrial relations laws at present were a hindrance? Will he therefore accept that his own Department's survey showed that no change to these laws on unfair dismissal could be justified on grounds of significant burden on the employer?

No, Sir. Surveys commissioned by my Department have shown that significant numbers of small firms have been influenced in their employment policy by the provisions of the Employment Protection Act for unfair dismissal. Many surveys commissioned by chambers of trade and similar organisations have reinforced that message. If the hon. Gentleman does not know that, I am not surprised that his policy is so inappropriate to the needs of small businesses.

asked the Prime Minister if she is satisfied with co-ordination between the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department of Health and Social Security regarding aid to the tobacco industry in the Thirld world; and if she will make a statement.

Yes, Mr. Speaker. There are close contacts between the Departments concerned. The aid programme supports tobacco growing in only three developing countries and to a very limited extent.

Does not the Prime Minister think that £3¼million of aid to help the tobacco industry in the developing world is very much more than we should be spending, bearing in mind that the Department of Health and Social Security accepts that smoking is a very dangerous activity? Would it not be better to use that aid to encourage the production of crops that would be useful to all the people of the developing world?

As I believe the hon. Lady is aware, as she has asked a number of questions, we give aid to tobacco crops only when tobacco is the best cash crop for the country concerned. To withdraw aid in those circumstances would be damaging to the country and would rob it of a good deal of foreign earnings.

Will my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister move very slowly before introducing domestic legislation which has as its aim the further imposition of the Government's will in the area of smoking? Does she not agree that the voluntary agreement which has been in existence between the Government and the tobacco companies has worked extremely well over the past few years and that the Government should be trying to build on that agreement rather than introduce further restrictive legislation?

I agree with my hon. Friend that the voluntary agreement has worked well. I believe that we should be very slow indeed in thinking of imposing any statutory regulations.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 4 December.

In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be having meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, including one with the Speaker of the Knesset. Later this afternoon I shall be meeting the King and Queen of Tonga. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty The Queen.

As the present high level of the minimum lending rate and, therefore, interest charges by building societies are due to the continuing high level of public spending and Government borrowing, and as some local and public authorities claim, falsely, that the economies they make can be made only at the expense of direct services to the public, will my right hon. Friend today give a lead to a citizens' campaign to search out, expose and destroy bureaucratic waste, over manning and general inefficiency such as is characterised by too many public authorities and Government Departments?

I agree with my hon. Friend's thesis that high public expenditure leads to high public borrowing and that high public borrowing leads to high interest rates. Indeed, looking back over the period of the last Labour Government, the time when we had interest rates low was the time when the IMF came in and insisted that we reduce public expenditure and when we got the public sector borrowing requirement down to £5½ billion. Interest rates were then rapidly reduced from about 9 per cent. in that year to 5 per cent. I agree with my hon. Friend's thesis, and I hope that all Ministers in this Government are crusaders for sensible savings in public expenditure.

Will the Prime Minister spend a little time today considering the points made in the House yesterday about the high cost of public spending on the EEC? Will she consider preparing a White Paper indicating the economic and political implications for this country of our leaving the EEC?

No, I will not think of producing a White Paper to that effect. I answered questions for about three-quarters of an hour on that subject, and I do not think that I can usefully add anything further.

Has my right hon. Friend noted the article in the Daily Express today calling on individuals to draw attention to national and local waste? Surely that is a better idea than leaving it to bureaucrats who cannot see the wood for the trees.

Yes. I firmly believe that there are a lot of reductions to be made in the administration of public services of one kind or another. Too many authorities are cutting services to the public when they should be reducing bureaucracy.

As the question of the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) related to the hardship that will be suffered by those forced to pay high mortgage interest rates, will the Prime Minister begin a crusade to ensure that they receive their tax rebates early? Is she aware that a notice was put out after the House adjourned last Friday to the effect that the Inland Revenue would not be able to pay the higher tax rebates for some months, although the interest would be paid from 1 January? That extra rebate could be as much as £2 or £3 a month or even a week, and will the right hon. Lady undertake a crusade to stir up the Inland Revenue?

If the right hon. Gentleman looks back, he will find that when mortgage interest changes are made tax reliefs take a little time to catch up, and that has been the case for quite some time. In Scotland, where the procedure is already carried out by computer, the reliefs will be granted almost immediately. We have made an arrangement that, where anyone suffers hardship because immediate relief is not available, he may contact the Inland Revenue local office and relief will be given as a matter of urgency.

Will the Prime Minister today reflect on the decision, which she is alleged to have endorsed, to replace the chairman of the Scottish Development Agency? I speak as a Scottish Member and the leader of a party to which she does not belong, and the fact that the chairman was appointed by a Labour Government is neither here nor there. Sir William Gray has done a first-class job and the Government's action in replacing him seems petty.

As the right hon. Gentleman will know, we have appointed and reappointed many people who held office under the previous Labour Government. There are times when at the end of a contract we agree to appoint someone new, and that is not a bad idea.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 4 December.

I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave a moment ago.

Will the Prime Minister find time today to congratulate herself on dropping the Freedom of Information Bill in the wake of the Blunt affair, and at the same time try to restrain her colleagues' predilections for censorship? Will she also study the broadcast of the Secretary of State for the Environment in which he said that BBC reporting of demonstrations should not be allowed to undermine the nation will? Will she restrain such Fascist overtones from her colleagues and support our free and independent broadcasting services instead of attacking and undermining them?

In a free country, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is free to say what he thinks, as is the BBC.

Will my right hon. Friend find time today to reflect on the fact that the more Moscow criticises her so-called "Iron Lady" stance, the more convinced are the people of this country that her warnings about Soviet military power should be heeded by the West?

I believe that it is right to warn our people and others in Europe about the fact of Soviet military might and the threat that it poses to this and other free countries in the Western world. I shall continue to do so.

Will the right hon. Lady ponder today what sort of achievement it is that, as the first woman Prime Minister, she is introducing sexist and racist legislation that will make lots of women in my constituency second-class citizens? Although possessing British nationality, they will not be entitled to have their husbands here with them in Britain.

We have answered that question many times before and during the election, when I was tackled on the matter in a highly public question and answer session. We undertook during the election campaign to do exactly what we are doing, and we shall continue to carry out that manifesto pledge.

Will my right hon. Friend have time today to consider the problem that our steel industry faces in getting coal through the port of its choice? Will she make sure that that industry can import its coal wherever and whenever it wants, at the cheapest price, and, if need be, that our manufacturing industry can import its steel wherever and whenever it wants and through whichever port it chooses?

I am most concerned on a number of counts, not least that referred to by my hon. Friend. The steel industry needs cheap coke but does not seem able to get the agreement of the National Union of Mineworkers to obtain it. I hope that people will carefully consider the matter. If they insist that the steel industry has to have expensive coke, they will deprive some steel workers of their jobs.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 4 December.

I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave earlier.

Will the Prime Minister take a few moments off today to consider the disgraceful way that her Ministers railroaded through the Industry Bill Committee this morning and extended the sittings motion? Will she then have a discussion with her noble Friend the Lord Chancellor to ascertain when he intends to introduce his Bill of Rights to protect minorities?

I am always ready to have a discussion with my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor. Such discussions are always rewarding.

If my right hon. Friend wants a crusade against public spending and waste, does she agree that it would be popular on the Opposition Benches to put the right hon. Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Barnett) in charge?

I have read on many occasions what the right hon. Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Barnett) said about the need for public expenditure savings. We have implemented some of those savings, although I believe that there is still some way to go.

Will the Prime Minister find time later today to meet a delegation visiting the House this afternoon which represents 18 British Aerospace factories? If she did so, she would hear the genuine and authentic voice of British Aerospace which would tell the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State to stop meddling in the industry.

In any industry there is usually more than one voice. I am sure that if the delegation asks to see a Minister from the Department of Industry, one of them will oblige. I am sorry that I cannot do so.

Will my right hon. Friend today consider the fact that the increase in Britain's net contribution to the EEC, which has increased from £16 million to nearly £1,000 million a year, requires the understanding and support of the Opposition as well as that of our Community partners involved in the renegotiations?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. As he knows, we managed to secure some reduction in the contributions, but we still have a long way to go in persuading our EEC partners that this country must have vastly increased receipts from Community expenditure.

Will the right hon. Lady take time off today to consult her right hon. Friends about the appalling tragedy facing Meccano in Liverpool, and will they take particular account of the means and manner in which the notice to the work force was delivered?

I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern. As I understand the facts, only a few minutes' notice was given that the firm was to close. As the hon. Gentleman knows, under the Employment Protection Act about 90 days' notice is required unless there are special circumstances. We are inquiring into whether those special circumstances existed. If they did not, I understand that the firm is liable to pay a penalty in the courts.

Has my right hon. Friend noticed that new towns up and down the country, particularly in central Lancashire, are building a great deal of housing for rent? That places a heavy drain on public funds. It is also uneconomic in terms of long-term financial arrangements. Will my right hon. Friend make a decision about whether new towns should continue to build housing for rent or whether private developers should be allowed to build private houses for sale?

I am not sure to which new town my hon. Friend refers. A number of new towns provide for more and more private housing. If they continue to do so, it is a good thing that more land should be made available for it.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This afternoon the House is to debate immigration. Is it in order that such an important debate takes place when the Government are to make two ministerial statements? That will reduce the opportunity for the House to discuss immigration problems.

As the House will have expected, a large number of hon. Members have indicated that they hope to speak on immigration. Therefore, I hope to have the co-operation of the House in limiting the question period on the statements.