asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to achieve his targets as regards sustainable growth and jobs, as set out in the medium-term financial strategy.

Output has been growing steadily for the best part of four years and employment has been rising since the first quarter of 1983. With inflation under control, those trends are expected to continue.

The nation will not recognise the picture that the Chancellor of the Exchequer painted. Does he agree that output has not yet reached the level of 1979 when the Labour Government left office? Does he agree that the medium-term financial strategy had three elements: the conquest of inflation, sustainable growth, and job creation? Is it not a fact that they are mutually exclusive, that he has not conquered inflation, or achieved sustainable growth, and that he cannot create jobs? When will the Chancellor tell the House that he is abandoning the medium-term financial strategy?

From someone who is normally as well informed as the hon. Gentleman, I have never heard so many errors in a single question. First, output, far from not having reached the 1979 peak, exceeded the 1979 peak in 1983, went still higher in 1984, and is expected to go higher still in 1985. The latest figures for employment published only yesterday show that during the 18 months to September 1984 there was an increase of about 480,000. That is a substantial increase, in which an increase in self-employment has played a large part. My right hon. and hon. Friends will be glad to know that. Far from the conquest of inflation being incompatible with a healthy economy, growth and more jobs, it is one of the essential elements in the foundation for more jobs, although there are also other elements.

While I welcome the Government's record since 1981 in boosting both output and employment, does my right hon. Friend believe that there is a place now for treating the public sector borrowing requirement calculation on an oil-adjusted basis?

I read with great interest the pamphlet written and published by my hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Maples). Many adjustments must be made to the PSBR in different directions to decide on an appropriate level. Those adjustments were all made. The factors were all taken into account when the last medium-term financial strategy was published in March 1984.

Since the Chancellor recently published a careful study of the effect on the number of jobs of lower employment costs, will he tell the House approximately how many new jobs he reckons will have resulted from the abolition of the national insurance surcharge last year?

It is extremely difficult to put a figure on that, but the same factor would broadly apply as applied in the Treasury paper, that is, the 1 per cent. lower level of real earnings would over time be expected to result in between 110,000 and 220,000 additional jobs.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that, in the light of the world recession and the decades of industrial decline that preceded this Government's tenure of office, his financial strategy is working well in the national economic interest? Will he acknowledge the great role being played by new and small businesses in the creation of jobs within the economy? Furthermore, will he have regard to the wishes of my constituents that that should be taken into account in the forthcoming Budget?

I always take my hon. Friend's representations very carefully into account when framing my Budget.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has made any estimate of the impact of (a) tax cuts and (b) public sector construction spending on imports.

It would be misleading to look at tax and expenditure decisions solely in terms of their relative import content. What matters is whether tax or expenditure decisions will contribute towards improved economic performance.

Has the Minister read the input and output tables of the Department of Trade and Industry, which show conclusively that public sector construction is less import intensive than tax cuts? Will he now at last treat jobs as the main priority instead of putting forward his own pet theories?

Any addition to disposable income will go on imports, and that is true of higher wages as well as of additional income due to tax cuts. If the hon. Gentleman is consistent in his view, he is presumably also opposed to wage increases on the ground that they, too, suck in imports.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that it is not only tax cuts that have an effect on the economy, and that the Government are right not to set themselves a harsh target on the value of the pound, as many of the things that have happened have been very helpful to manufacturing industry, which in turn helps to strengthen the economy? Anyone who thinks that having a set target for the pound helps this country just does not understand the facts of economic life.

My hon. Friend is quite right. The export opportunities to, for example, the United States are enormous at present. Hon. Members will know that, even disregarding oil, the volume of exports rose by 9·5 per cent. in 1984 to reach an all-time high.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many representations he has received concerning the need for more public spending on the infrastructure.

Several.

The Minister has already accepted that tax cuts will not necessarily create jobs, but does he realise that there is evidence to show that money spent on the infrastructure would create two and a half times as many jobs as money spent in tax cuts? Will he accept that public spending is a necessary part of job creation?

I certainly accept that public spending can create jobs, but if the hon. Lady reflects for a moment she will realise that economies, such as the economy of Japan, which carry a low rate of public expenditure and a low tax burden are performing rather well, and are therefore creating more jobs.

When considering public expenditure on the infrastructure, will my right hon. and learned Friend bear in mind the return produced thereby? The last thing that we want is more fiascos like that of the Humber bridge, which act as a drain on the economy and destroy jobs in the long term?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Capital projects are bound to be looked at on an individual basis. There can be no absolutely correct level of capital expenditure on infrastructure projects. Each project must be looked at on a case-by-case basis to see whether it is likely to yield a proper return.

Is the Minister aware that capital investment has fallen as a proportion of gross domestic product from an average of 19 per cent. under Labour to an average of 17 per cent. over the past four years? Is he further aware that Britain is now at the bottom of the investment league of major industrial countries? Is it not high time that he listened to the voices of industry, the unions and Members of Parliament of both parties and stepped up investment in our decaying infrastructure in order to provide real jobs and to make our economy more efficient?

If the hon. Lady was not mesmerised by the public sector—we all know her penchant for an East European economy — she would realise that capital investment is running at an all-time high.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend remind the House that if our public sector borrowing requirement were increased to provide more infrastructure investment it would put an added strain on the nation's finances, since the national debt costs taxpayers about £17 billion a year to service? Consequently, does he agree that anybody asking for increased public expenditure must realise that it would put further strain on taxpayers?

I accept my hon. Friend's analysis. He appreciates, just as I and other Government Members do, that by giving more scope for manoeuvre in the private sector we are creating scope for investment in that sector which can make for a more effective economy.

If, as is alleged, the main sewers are collapsing in all our main cities, does that not take care of all the dogmatic theories on both sides of the House?

I have to confess that I cannot talk with authority about the main sewers in Portree on the Isle of Skye, but I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that nearly £1 billion of public investment will be spent on water and sewerage services in 1985–86.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the latest figures available for the levels of capital investment in the United Kingdom.

Total fixed investment in the economy is reckoned to have reached about £55 billion in 1984, an all-time record in real terms. It is forecast to rise higher still this year.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that one of the best indicators of the direction of the economy, of confidence in the future and of hope for jobs is the level of capital expenditure in manufacturing industry? What are the trends here?

That certainly is one of a number of important indicators. My hon. Friend is right to refer to it. Provisional figures published today show that manufacturing investment increased by about 13 per cent. in real terms in 1984.

Is not investment in manufacturing industries 30 per cent. less than it was when the last Labour Government left office?

Investment in manufacturing is, indeed, less—although not by that amount—in real terms since 1979. Total business investment is at an all-time high. That is what the hon. Gentleman should take on board.

Will my right hon. Friend remind the House that one of the great modern delusions is that all public capital expenditure is labour intensive? Is that not far from the truth?

My hon. Friend, who speaks with great experience from a distinguished career in municipal government, is absolutely right.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has made any estimate of the effect of a £1·5 billion income tax cut on the level of unemployment.

Income tax cuts will encourage enterprise and effort, facilitate lower wage settlements, and help to provide the conditions for improved economic performance and a sustainable increase in employment.

Will the Minister please answer the question and give his estimate of the number of people who will be taken off the unemployment queues as a result of tax cuts? Does he agree that talk about incentives when 4 million people are unemployed is an insult to the unemployed, since they want work but it is not available? They are not shy of work. Would it not be better to put the money back into public capital expenditure instead of giving it away to the rich?

The weakness in our economy is not a lack of demand or a lack of public expenditure. Our weakness relates to our inability to compete effectively with foreigners in domestic and international markets. Tax cuts will help not only to stimulate enterprise and effort but to encourage lower wage settlements and to make our economy more competitive.

If a substantial part of the £1·5 billion were used to reduce the cost of employment by reducing further employers' national insurance payments, is it not arguable that that would have a better effect on unemployment than capital investment or reduction of personal taxation?

My hon. Friend has argued that point before, and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will have heard his question. I am sure that my hon. Friend is pleased that, in the past five or six years, employer costs as a percentage of total taxation have decreased from 14 plus per cent. to 9 per cent. That shows the Government's recognition of the burden.

Although Treasury Ministers are quite mistaken in thinking that income tax cuts are the most effective means of stimulating employment, does the Financial Secretary, within his own terms of reference, agree with the Institute of Fiscal Studies that the worst way to improve incentives is to raise thresholds?

No, I do not agree with that suggestion. It has an attractive simplicity and I understand some of the points that the institute makes. Bearing in mind our exceptionally low thresholds, I thought that it was common ground that they always merit attention. I shall draw what the hon. Gentleman said to the attention of my right hon. Friend, who was listening carefully.

Does my hon. Friend agree that but for the miners' strike we would be looking forward to much larger tax deductions in the Budget and therefore a much greater effect on employment? Will my hon. Friend remind taxpayers that if the Labour party had not given Arthur Scargill such solid support they would have more money in their pockets?

My hon. Friend is right to the extent that our gross domestic product grew by 2·5 per cent. last year —something more than 1 per cent. less than it might have grown. The strike has clearly had a significant impact on my right hon. Friend's ability to carry forward our policies. I hope that all hon. Members want there to be an end to this unnecessary dispute.

How many jobs will arise from using £1·5 billion to cut taxes? Does the Minister not know, or is he refusing to tell us?

The simplicity that is evident in the hon. Gentleman's question sometimes makes me despair. To the extent to which the economy suffers from supply side difficulties, as opposed to demand difficulties, any attempt to reduce the taxation burden will increase job opportunities. Simple analysis of mathematical models fails to understand how supply side effects are improved by competition through tax cuts. Failure to understand that is at the base of the Opposition's inability to understand the Government's economic policies.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has made any revisions to the estimates for the overshoot of public spending above targets contained in the recent public expenditure White Paper.

An updated estimate of the public expenditure planning total outturn for 1984–85 will be published in the "Financial Statement and Budget Report".

At least the right hon. and learned Gentleman has not made his perennial boast about holding spending in real terms. Presumably he now knows that hardly anyone believes him. Moreover, he continues to threaten us with cuts in spending programmes which might have boosted wealth to fund a social security bill which is the direct result of the Government's failure to generate jobs. Contrary to what the Financial Secretary has just said, does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that we want, not clamps on labour costs and price tags on public assets, but a sharp increase in spending power, which will increase wealth and jobs?

I remind the hon. Gentleman that the hon. Member for Tynebridge (Mr. Cowans) suggested that increased spending would suck in imports. Sustainable jobs will be created by the policy being pursued by the Government, not by a meretricious increase in spending on uncosted capital projects.

In the light of recent debates on water charges and local authority housing expenditure, does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that those who call most stridently for increased public spending are often those who are most reluctant to find means to pay for it?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That was evident in some of our debates—for example, on the increase in water charges, which will open the way to increased capital investment by the water authorities of nearly £1 billion next year.

Will the Chief Secretary to the Treasury explain to us how he expects the external financing of the nationalised industries to be reduced by £3 billion over the next three years? When the Government last expressed optimism in 1980 they expected it to be reduced by £2 billion, but it never was. Why is the Chief Secretary more optimistic now than he was then?

It seems to have escaped the attention of the right hon. Gentleman that we have moved rather sharply out of the recession. It will also have escaped his attention that the nationalised industries are getting a rather firmer control over costs than they had before 1979.

May I ask my right hon. and learned Friend what he believes are the prospects for public expenditure overshoots on local authority expenditure and what effect he believes the present levels of local authority spending have upon job prospects and the economy as a whole?

We believe that firm control of public expenditure is an important element in the Government's strategy and that that is the way to create sustainable long-term jobs. On my hon. Friend's precise question about local authority current spending, the Government have improved the control mechanisms. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend is a firm supporter of rate capping. Rate capping will operate on the 18 authorities which account for about 70 per cent. of the local authority overspend.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is satisfied with the growth rate of the economy in the last 12 months.

By the middle of this year our economy will have achieved four consecutive years of growth. The duration of the recovery will then be longer than any since 1945.

Will the Minister explain to my constitutents why he is so pleased with those figures? If the pound has responded by going down, thus forcing inflation to start rising again, it masks a fall in industrial production. What figures does the Minister believe have to be achieved before unemployment starts to fall?

I should have thought that the whole House, whatever its legitimate concern about the long-term problem of tackling unemployment, would welcome the fact that we are in the middle of four years of recovery. As the hon. Gentleman is worried about our manufacturing capability, I hope that he will not only remember the words of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer a few moments ago about manufacturing investment being up by 13 per cent. in 1984, but that he will be interested in the fact that in 1984 manufacturing export volume was up by 11 per cent.—another piece of what I hope the hon. Gentleman thinks is good news.

Has my hon. Friend noticed that the level of real interest rates is higher now than it has been, on average, for some time? Does he agree, therefore, that one of the most desirable forms of stimulus to the British economy would be a Budget which enabled real interest rates to be significantly reduced in the coming months?

The rate of real interest rates reflects one of the features of the last five years—the reduction of inflation. Obviously I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to the budgetary recommendations of my hon. Friend, but what most industrialists and business men want, and what would add most to long-term employment, is a further reduction of inflation and the opportunity in wage settlements for our country to be competitive in terms of international wage unit costs.

Does the Chancellor realise that the imposition of further taxation on the tobacco industry will seriously affect jobs in that long suffering sector and the economy of the country as a whole?

I commend the hon. Gentleman on the way in which he has been able to make a budgetary representation to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer by means of that question.

Does my hon. Friend agree that one action that the Government could take to relieve unemployment would be the complete abolition of wages councils?

I am not quite sure how that fits as a budgetary representation, but I shall certainly draw the attention of my right hon. and hon. Friends to that recommendation.

How are discussions developing on the package of incentives for small businesses and the community programme that was commented upon a few weeks ago in the leader columns of the Sunday newspapers? Is it true that the Chancellor is under pressure from his own Back Benchers to introduce such a package, and will he make sure that if it is introduced it includes a substantial increase in the number of places made available under the community programme, because that would create real employment in areas such as mine?

I could not begin to comment on newspaper speculation, but I draw the hon. Member's attention to the major achievements in the small business sector over past years, especially the radical reduction in the corporation tax rate to 30 per cent.—a record low in the whole of the Western world.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the cost of financing the miners' strike is a burden on the money markets, and that capital investment is not helped if there is a Scargill surcharge on mortgage payments?

There is no way in which industrial disputes of the kind that we are going through at the moment can in any way help our country's economic development. I am sure that all those who wish to see a reduction in unemployment, and a return to the kind of growth pattern that might have developed last year without the strike, would wish to see this unnecessary dispute ended.

To remove one of the obstacles to economic growth and to assist business confidence, will the Government take advantage of the present favourable opportunity to open negotiations with a view to Britain joining the exchange rate mechanisms of the European monetary system?

I shall draw my right hon. Friend's attention to that point. I think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer made the Government's position on that issue clear last Question Time, and that position has not changed since.

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the factors restraining the economy is that the state is still far too much engaged in industry? Will he accordingly introduce plans to denationalise the gas, water and electricity industries, in order to release a large amount of money into the economy?

I have a distinct feeling that my hon. Friend's suggestion is somewhat wide of the question, but he is absolutely right in recognising the Government's privatisation programme as a key element in revitalising the economy.

Is not industry now paying about £1,000 million per year more for the cost of borrowing because of high interest rates? Are not real interest rates now the highest that they have ever been, under a Government who said that they should be judged by their achievement of low real interest rates? When will the Minister tell the House that those real interest rates will come down?

As I said earlier, in the last five years industry has seen a reduction in the burden of taxation relative to total taxation, from 14 per cent. of all taxes to 9 per cent. now. That is a significant achievement, which helps industry. I am sure that the hon. Member will help in further assisting industry by ensuring that pay settlements reflect productivity increases, instead of having the kind of pattern that has made our wage unit costs so unattractive in competitive terms.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the latest statistics for United Kingdom manufacturing output; and if he will make a statement.

Manufacturing output is estimated to have risen by some 3½ per cent. in 1984. This is the largest percentage increase in any year since 1973.

I duly acknowledge and warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's answer, but, bearing in mind that opponents of the Government sometimes try to argue that such an increase from a relatively low baseline is fairly easily achieved, will he comment on any underlying trends or indications which suggest that that growth is sustainable?

The growth is certainly sustainable; indeed, I am confident that it will be sustained, provided that the Government stick firmly, as they will, to the medium-term financial strategy.

Why is our trade in manufactured goods now in deficit for the first time since the Industrial Revolution?

I should have thought that the hon. Member, coming from a constituency in Scotland, would at least have heard of North sea oil and would realise that if there is to be a large surplus—as there is—on our oil account in the balance of payments, there is bound to be a corresponding deficit in regard to trade in manufactured goods.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has recently received from disability organisations on the imposition of value added tax on building alterations.

Over 100 from disabled individuals and their organisations.

Is my hon. Friend aware that last year's extension of VAT to house adaptations has added a vast amount to the VAT bills faced by charities? Is he also aware that the system of relief for adaptations for the disabled is causing great confusion and anomalies? Will he remove them by extending relief to all household adaptations for the disabled?

I have noted what my hon. Friend has said. He will recognise that last year special reliefs were given and at that time I said that the main objection to the proposal he has now made was revenue costs. The facts remain the same this year as last year.

Is the Minister aware that after the last budget the Jewish Blind Society had an extra VAT bill of £100,000, the Spastics Society one of £120,000 and the Royal National Institute for the Blind one of £100,000? The result was that their work in the service of severely disabled people was adversely affected. Is this not an intolerable way to treat the voluntary sector?

I met the representatives of the Charities VAT Reform Group and points along the lines of those mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman were made at that meeting. One has to see this in the broader context of the very significant concessions within the tax system made available to charities and the very substantial grants that are made by the Government to charities.

Does my hon. Friend recognise that many charities undertake responsibilities which would otherwise be a direct and full charge upon the public purse? Will he therefore reconsider his policy with a view to putting in place a tax regime for charities that is coherent and systematically supportive of charities?

The points made by my hon. Friend are those contained in the representations that the Chancellor has received from the Charities VAT Reform Group and, as has been indicated to that group, they will be given careful consideration.

Does the Minister agree that VAT on a vital alteration in a building for disabled people represents a tax on disability?

No, I do not think that I would accept that proposition.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the continued imposition of VAT on charities runs directly counter to the other helpful measures which the Government have tried to introduce in support of their wish for a partnership with the voluntary sector?

I do not think that there is any question of trying to introduce—very substantial concessions and advantages have been introduced by this Government.

Does the Minister recognise that the Treasury has been less than charitable to charitable organisations which are trying to carry out these adaptations for disable people? Why is he quibbling over a very tiny cost that could help many people in great hardship, especially when we know that the Chancellor is accumulating £1·5 million to give away in tax cuts?

I do not think that "quibbling" is the right judgment to apply to the debates we had last year on that matter, and I was referring back to them. With regard to this year, it would, of course, be quite improper for me to seek to anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget statement. I again assert that the Government have done a great deal to help charities, particularly those dealing with the disabled.

Will the Minister reflect on the answer that he gave to the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones), who is surely right? Many disabled people need building alterations to cope with their disability. This is surely a tax on disability.

When one takes account of the relief that was given in the last Budget in connection with building operations for facilitating access to buildings by the handicapped, and of the special zero rating of the first-time installation of a bathroom, washroom or lavatory for a handicapped person in his own home, one sees that very considerable relief was afforded to the disabled in the last Budget.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has made any calculation of the impact of the recent public expenditure White Paper on unemployment.

The Government's public expenditure plans are an integral part of their policies to encourage a vigorous and enterprising economy and, thus, the conditions for sustainable growth of jobs.

Does the Minister realise that he is speaking against a background of growing unemployment, including another 1,000 men placed on the unemployment register in my constituency in Oldham, and that, despite the welter of statistics with which he tries to mislead the country, outside this building there are 4 million people, who are not statistics, who are unemployed, and to whom his boast of an expanding economy rings very hollow indeed?

The hon. Gentleman misunderstands the background against which I gave my answer. There was an increase in jobs of 389,000 between the third quarter of 1983 and the third quarter of 1984.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that unemployment in the construction industry could be reduced significantly if development land tax was amended significantly? Does he agree also that the cost of collecting this pernicious tax exceeds the net revenue that is enjoyed from it?

My hon. Friend's second proposition is not correct. As for prospects of abolishing or curtailing the tax, my hon. Friend will have to wait for 19 March.

If things are on the up and up, as is alleged, why is it that Rowntree Mackintosh is closing its profitable factory in Edinburgh? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman answer that question?

No, because I am not answerable for Rowntree Mackintosh.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, irrespective of what the White Paper may say, if workers continue to ask for more money than the value of the goods they produce they will put more and more people out of work? Would it be an idea for the teaching profession to learn that as well?

I am sure that the House will accept my hon. Friend's analysis. I hope that the lesson is learnt by the trade union movement.

Will the reduction of £1 billion in spending on construction next year compared with expenditure in the previous year result in more, or fewer, jobs?

The hon. Gentleman, like his hon. Friends, is focusing on the public sector. He should consider housing starts in the private sector.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has revised his forecast of the total tax take from North sea oil in the light of exchange rate and oil price movements that have occurred since the Autumn Statement.

The latest forecasts of North sea tax revenues will be published on Budget day.

Is it not a fact that, since the Autumn Statement, the pound has fallen 12 cents against the dollar? In the light of Treasury Ministers telling the Select Committee that each cent. is worth about £150 million more in oil revenues for Britain, that means that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has about £1·8 billion of manoeuvre for his Budget statement. Will he use that money to create jobs in industry and not waste it as he has wasted it before?

It is important to remind the House of what was said by Treasury Ministers and the chief economic adviser at the meeting to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. When asked about calculations, the chief economic adviser said:

"to achieve a systematic set of calculations right across the board you have to specify rather precisely quite a lot of assumptions about whether one is speaking of a particular bilateral rate, or whether one is speaking about the effective rate and in turn what effects you think that would have upon world commodity prices, and particularly upon oil prices, the impact upon the inflation rate etc."

Does my hon. Friend agree that the tax take from the North sea will be vital in the long term for Britain's economy? Is it not absurd that the Leader of the Opposition has announced that it is his policy to take and retain controls over North sea oil development? This will prejudice development in the North sea and eventually the tax take from it.

My hon. Friend is right. The tax revenue system, as he will know from his Scottish experience, is extremely important. He will know also, from the Autumn Statement, that revenues expected in the current fiscal year amount to £12 billion. It is forecast in the Autumn Statement that revenues in 1985–86 will be a similar £12 billion. North sea oil is an important national asset, and my hon. Friend is right to draw our attention to the fact that it will, we trust, continue to produce good results for the nation for many significant years.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many representations he has received regarding the imposition of value added tax on newspapers.

Over 2,000 representations about the imposition of VAT on books, newspapers and periodicals.

Has the Minister considered the Price Waterhouse report, commissioned by the Newspaper Society, which suggests that the imposition of VAT in this area could result in the loss of 7,000 jobs and over 100 titles? Is this part of the budget for jobs?

The Price Waterhouse report referred to by the hon. Gentleman is one of the many representations and pieces of information that have been received and are being considered.

In view of the representations received, does my hon. Friend agree that to impose VAT on the cover price of local newspapers would be a crippling blow to many of them?

I have met representatives from the Newspaper Society, who have made their case with considerable strength.

With regard to the likelihood of VAT being imposed on newspapers, has the Treasury considered what will happen to local free newspapers which rely solely on revenue from advertising and provide a good service for their communities? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that they will be unable to pass on costs to their customers because they are free sheets? Is he aware that this service may fold up?

As I said, representations have been received across the board. I met representatives of the Association of Free Newspapers, who again have made the case for free newspapers with considerable vigour.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 21 February.

I have been asked to reply.

Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to confirm, in regard to limited list prescribing, that it is and always has been the Government's intention that a full and comprehensive list of drugs should be available for all National Health Service patients, irrespective of their ability to pay? Will he, therefore, condemn the disreputable behaviour of a small minority of doctors who have grossly misrepresented the Government's proposals and in so doing have caused their patients, particularly their elderly patients, acute anguish and distress?

I can confirm that it has always been the intention that the list should be comprehensive and well judged. I agree that there has been a good deal of public misapprehension about what is intended. I very much hope that that problem will be resolved when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services makes a statement later this afternoon.

When the right hon. Lady comes back from America, will the Leader of the House ask her to visit Strathclyde region, where half of the male population who are unemployed and drawing benefit have been unemployed for over a year, where 40 per cent. of them have actually been unemployed for over two years and where 40 per cent. of the women between the ages of 30 and 59 have also been unemployed for over two years? Is it not time that the Prime Minister paid a visit to the region to see at first hand the effects of her economic policy?

My right hon. Friend is undoubtedly sufficiently seized of the problems of unemployment not to need to visit any particular part of the United Kingdom to realise that it is a substantial and widespread difficulty. In that context, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will at least take some solace from the latest figures of the Department of Employment, which show that the number employed is rising, and rising quite well.

Mr. Cockeram.

Has my right hon. Friend had time to study the figures—

Order. Question No. 2.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 21 February.

I have been asked to reply.

Has my right hon. Friend had time to study the figures to which he referred in his reply to the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Mr. Hamilton)? Is it not remarkable that the number of people in work has risen by over one third of a million in the last 12 months? Is not this the other side of the coin to the number joining the unemployment register and seeking work, which of course includes married women?

My hon. Friend is right in the point that he has made. Without doubt, a study of the register demonstrates the importance of the self-employed in our economy and, therefore, of economic policies designed to encourage their interests.

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm, or deny, that I am being subjected to political snooping by MI5? If I am, will he arrange for me to see a copy of my file? Is it not the case that such snooping is outside the guidelines, since information gathered on me clearly has nothing to do with national security?

If it is of any interest to the House, I am in absolutely no position to comment upon what may have been the situation of the hon. Lady. She will know that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary confirmed on 7 February what has been the practice of successive Governments, that it was never the practice in cases of individuals where telephone tapping was alleged either to confirm or deny that interception had taken place.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 21 February.

I have been asked to reply.

Will my right hon. Friend urge our right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary to study carefully the representations made by Poole borough council on Sunday trading? May we have an early assurance that action will be taken to clear up the collection of anomalies that exist at the moment?

I am sure that the representations of Poole council will be among the many that will be assessed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. Indeed, the House will wish to assess them when it, in turn, debates the Auld report. My hon. Friend will recollect that that matter was considered in private Members' time in the last Parliament, and on that occasion a sharp division of opinion was revealed.

I take on board the earlier responses of the Leader of the House, but can he remind the Prime Minister, on her return from Washington, of her written promise to me to visit Teesside in the lifetime of this Parliament? Will he further remind the Prime Minister that 1,000 jobs were lost in the first 10 days of the year and that there is nothing like personal experience of unemployment to chasten the mind and change the Government's policies?

I say particularly in the context of the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Mr. Hamilton) that a visit to Teesside, no less than a visit to Scotland, is a pleasurable prospect. I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the hon. Gentleman's point. On the wider issue of unemployment, I go back to the answer that I have given hitherto. I believe that it is the Government's policies that will ultimately provide the basis for a recovery in employment, and there is some harbinger of that in the figures for those who are actually in work.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 21 February.

I have been asked to reply.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are press reports that the United Kingdom may make a bid to have the 1992 Olympic Games in this country? Is he further aware that there are other places in this country than London? Does he appreciate that somewhere north of Watford is an area known as the north-west, where we have some of the finest sporting facilities in the country? Does my right hon. Friend not think that Manchester would be a splendid venue for the 1992 Olympic Games?

I take note of what my hon. Friend says, championing the claims of Manchester. The appropriate action would be for the city to make its cause favoured by the British Olympic Association. I suggest that as the course that my hon. Friend should follow. I should also like to make this observation. By the time we come towards the casting of the Olympic Games, I believe that some authorities in England will be happy to declare themselves Olympic-free zones.

Will the Leader of the House confirm that it is the British Government's policy in no way to support American backing for the Contras against Nicaragua? Will he make sure that that point is made clear by the Prime Minister to President Reagan during her present visit?

I am sure that the Prime Minister will make the most clear and explicit statements promoting the British national interest in the Caribbean, and that they will not be lost on the American regime.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 21 February.

I have been asked to reply.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the executive of the National Union of Mineworkers has utterly isolated itself, not only from the Coal Board, but from nearly half — probably more — of its own membership and the leadership of the British trade union movement? Does my right hon. Friend further agree that it is about time that the Labour party condemned the strike and appealed, together with us in the Conservative party, for a return to work as soon as possible?

The House will be aware that the Secretary of State for Energy will answer a private notice question on that matter in a few moments. I should like to respond to my hon. Friend by saying that I believe that Mr. Scargill has no hope whatsoever of securing victory, but he has a very real prospect of dividing his union.

Is the Leader of the House aware that another construction can be put on the toings and froings between the TUC, the Government and the Coal Board? Many members of the NUM and others believe that the TUC was hoodwinked by the Prime Minister and that the liaison committee, headed by Norman Willis, came back with a deal that was infinitely worse than the one the week before.

I cannot join the hon. Gentleman in delivering so magisterial a rebuke to the TUC — one which alleged, above all, that it displayed the cardinal crime of innocence when in the presence of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I do not think that Ray Buckton is hoodwinking material. This instance demonstrates the intransigence of Arthur Scargill and the reason why, from the very outset, it has never been possible to come to a reasonable and working arrangement to terminate the strike.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 21 February.

I have been asked to reply.

Will the Leader of the House urge the Prime Minister, when she returns, to clarify the position of members of the Transport and General Workers Union working at the Ministry of Defence who have been dismissed? The reason for dismissal given to Mrs. Balkinson and other women was that their security screening clearance had run out. The decision taken by the contractors might be a reason for the dismissal. The trade union movement has been unable to obtain a clear answer from the Government. May we take it that this is part of the post-Ponting hysteria that prevails at the Ministry of Defence? Will the right hon. Gentleman press for this matter to be cleared up as soon as possible?

I should like to thank the hon. Gentleman for his courtesy in giving me notice that he would raise this question. I understand that the matter is now before my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. I shall certainly ensure that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is apprised of the question when she returns from the United States.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that the greatest scar and scab on this nation is Arthur Scargill? Does my right hon. Friend remember that 10 months ago I advised the house that Scargill was a Marxist surrounded by Communists and supported by the Kremlin? Does my right hon. Friend accept that we know that Scargill is a Marxist surrounded by Communists and that Russian money is coming into his grubby little hands?

I think that the whole House realises that Mr. Arthur Scargill is possessed of a wide range of formidable qualities, many of which were covered by my hon. Friend's question. What the House is entitled to know, and what doubtless will be revealed when we come to the private notice question, is how many hon. Members remain in the Arthur Scargill fan club.

Is the Leader of the House aware that there is wide public concern about Government threats to employees' pension schemes in companies and to the state earnings-related pension scheme? Will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that the Government will not undermine the employees' occupational pension schemes either by changes in taxation or by DHSS proposals for portable pensions? Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the specific statement made by the Prime Minister during the general election campaign—that there are no plans to change the earnings-related component of the state pension — still defines the Government's position?

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the earnings-related scheme is covered by one of the reviews now being undertaken by my right hon. Friend. The right hon. Gentleman, together with the rest of us, will have to wait to learn the consequences of the review.

On occupational pensions, I urge the right hon. Gentleman to convey to his right hon. Friend that it is a pension scheme, which in every respect has been worked for and paid for by people in this country, and they must not be let down for any reason, including the taxation convenience of the Government.

No, I must say quite clearly—

Why is the Secretary of State for Energy telling the right hon. Gentleman what to say?

I shall provide National Health spectacles for the hon. Gentleman if he thinks that I am seeking to get a message from my left hand side.