asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many staff now work for the Standing Commission on pay comparability; and what is his estimate of the number of staff who will work for it on 1 January 1980.

The Standing Commission on pay comparability is one of the bodies serviced by the Office of Manpower Economics. There are eight staff at OME engaged solely on the Commission's work. As to its future, the Government intend that the Standing Commission on pay comparability should complete work on its current references and cases where a reference has already been agreed, and will review the position there after.

That leaves us with the same state of uncertainty as before. Will the Minister comment on the story on the front page of The Guardian today? Does that signify the first major U-turn by the Government in that they will now try a policy of wage restraint in the private sector as well as the public sector? If that is not the case, will the Minister say how soon the Government will introduce a freeze?

I have not read the front page of The Guardian today. Therefore I have some difficulty in answering the hon. Gentleman's question. The policy of the Government is to proceed as at present and not to become engaged in pay policies.

What is the attitude of the Secretary of State to the present work of the comparability Commission? Will he say, for instance, whether the Government will honour what the comparability Commission says about the pay of nurses, Health Service ancillary workers and local authority manual workers?

Yes. We have already given that undertaking.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what further measures he has in mind for reducing unemployment; and if he will make a statement.

We are continuing all the special employment measures this year, but some will be concentrated on the areas where unemployment is highest and the need for special assistance greatest. Our long-term strategy is to check the country's economic decline by restoring incentives, encouraging efficiency and creating a climate in which industry and commerce can create more jobs.

Is the Minister aware that while he has been engaging in nudge, nudge, wink, wink politics with trade union leaders and the media, Treasury Ministers, under the clear guidance of the Prime Minister, have been drawing up plans to put more than 2 million people on the dole by early 1980? Is it true that Saatchi and Saatchi have already made it clear that they cannot find a hoarding or poster bill site long enough to do another production for the Tory Party?

No one would ever accuse the hon. Gentleman of nudge, nudge, wink, wink politics. As usual, he has got it wrong.

In view of the vague answer given by the Secretary of State, may I ask whether he is aware that in Scotland the number of vacancies compared with the amount of unemployment is small when compared with other parts of the United Kingdom? Therefore, what does he propose to do to improve the employment situation in Scotland, bearing in mind that the Government do not seem to be willing to exert themselves to bring the oil support vessels to a Scottish shipyard for construction, as they should have done?

The policies pursued over the past few years have not brought increased prosperity or better employment prospects to Scotland. The hon. Gentleman should agree that it is time for the introduction of a new set of policies concentrated more on the private sector and the creation of wealth in society—and not on propping up jobs, or people in jobs, which is of no use to them or the jobs.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that an important contribution could be made to the reduction of unemployment by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and his friends if they joined in urging trade union negotiators to put future job prospects above all other considerations in the coming wage round?

That is a helpful suggestion. At the moment I find that trade union leaders are a good deal more helpful than the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).

Does the Minister's reply mean that areas such as the West Midlands which have no special status, but have high unemployment rates, are likely to suffer cuts?

If areas such as the West Midlands have no special status at present there are no cuts from which they can suffer. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is that provided the economy is allowed to grow and incentives are restored so that people feel that it is worth working, people in the West Midlands who are quite capable of looking after themselves will do so.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the West Midlands, having been the nerve centre of private enterprise in the past, should now be given every encouragement, through the creation of incentives in the small business sector, to produce the real jobs upon which private enterprise flourishes?

Yes, Sir. What is more, if the West Midlands can help to replace some of our imports which we could make ourselves, that would make an enormous contribution to a reduction of the unemployment figures.

How can the Secretary of State for Employment reconcile a cut of £170 million in the employment and training support programmes when the Financial Statement and Budget Report, produced by the Treasury last Tuesday, make it abundantly clear that the unemployment level will rise over the next 12 months?

Simply on the grounds that people have the opportunity to provide jobs for themselves if the Government do not increase public expenditure to the extent that the previous Administration did. When I look back and think of the abject failure of the Labour Party, when in government, to provide the jobs required, I think that if I were the right hon. Gentleman, I should keep very quiet.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the future of the work experience scheme and youth opportunities programme.

The resources made available to the Manpower Services Commission for its special programmes have been reviewed by the Government as part of their general review of public expenditure. In 1979–80 the youth opportunities programme will be reduced by £25 million. However, during the current financial year the programme will continue and will provide opportunities for about one-third more young people than in the last financial year and the two key national objectives for school leavers and long-term unemployed of the programme will remain.

Does the Minister not feel that in view of the increased estimate of the number of unemployed—up to a figure of 2 million, according to the press—to retain the targets where they were for the youth opportunities programme is unsatisfactory, and that we shall need more, not fewer, resources for Easter 1980 and before that? Secondly, does he not feel that to promise jobs to those who have been out of work for more than 12 months is unsatisfactory, in that if a young person is out of work for that length of time to a large extent he is getting used to being on the dole, which is not a state of affairs at which we should be aiming?

I do not accept the figure of 2 million unemployed. As I have just said, the schemes will be increased by more than one-third on last year's figure, and the two national objectives for young people that are most important to all of us will be maintained.

Can my hon. Friend say what consideration his Department is giving to allowing young people to increase their skills and widen their horizons by the development of an open tech on the lines of the open university?

This is a matter about which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is most keen. He is looking at this suggestion at the moment.

In view of the serious effect that the Budget will have on employment prospects, should not the Government be spending more on the youth opportunities programme rather than cutting it by £25 million? Should not the Government increase the temporary employment subsidy, because many people will be unemployed as a consequence of the Budget measures?

As I have already said, we are spending more this year than last year on the youth opportunities programme.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what measures he proposes to alleviate youth unemployment.

The Government's economic and social policies will create a climate in which there will be more secure and wealth-creating jobs, and young people will benefit from this increased employment. In addition, the Government are committed to building on the achievements of the youth opportunities programme. As I have said already, numbers going through the programme are expected to be higher in 1979–80 than last year.

Is not the key to successful measures for dealing with youth unemployment that there should be much more emphasis on the education and training content of the courses which young people might undergo? The percentage level of the content at the moment is extremely low. If young people are to be prepared to take the jobs that will be available, there must be much greater emphasis on training. Does my hon. Friend agree that a better way of administering schemes for youth employment would be to take them out of the hands of the Manpower Services Commission?

How we train young people in their last years at school and first years in employment is of great interest to us in the Department, and it is a matter which we are considering.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the climate being created by the Government is a bitter and cold one and that the announcements made yesterday are bound to affect youth opportunities? Is it not time that the Government, even at this early stage, began to reverse their disastrous policies on youth employment?

As I have said already, we are very interested in youth employment. We believe that the Budget measures will create more real jobs, and we are maintaining the fall-back guarantee to ensure that no young person is without a job in his or her first year out of school.

Since my hon. Friend has expressed interest in training prospects for young people, will he say what attitude he and his colleagues take towards the document "A Better Start in Working Life" which was issued by his predecessors?

I am delighted to say that this document will continue to be published. We are inviting people to submit their views on this document, and I hope that hon. Members will read it and add to those contributions.

Will the Minister confirm that although the number of places provided for unemployed people under the age of 18 remains as it was under the previous Administration, the number of places provided for the young unemployed between the ages of 19 and 25 have been reduced substantially by cutting the special temporary employment programme?

Not in development areas and areas of high unemployment.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment when he expects to complete his review of the various job support programmes.

We announced the results of our review of the special measures for 1979–80 last week. We shall be considering the programme of measures for 1980–81 later this year, and discussing with the Manpower Services Commission the future of the special measures it operates. In general, I believe assistance should be concentrated on the areas and groups with special employment needs.

Whilst welcoming that reply, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he will concentrate his attention in particular on the youth opportunities scheme for school leavers and on the job release scheme for pensioners to make way for young school leavers?

These are two schemes that have very great value, the youth opportunities scheme because it helps young people to get jobs and retain those jobs afterwards, and the job release scheme because it is a reasonable step to get more young people into jobs at a time when those who are nearing retirement age are being phased out. For the moment, at any rate, those two schemes will stay in operation.

Whilst looking at the job support schemes, would the right hon. Gentleman care to attempt to justify the disgraceful and callous decision to put more people on the dole in Merseyside, Ormskirk and Kirkby, to finance tax handouts to the already rich?

As usual, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has done his homework. The reductions in taxation have no such effect.

Of course they have.

At a time when the youth and training programmes are to be cut, is it not a perverted priority for the Manpower Services Commission to be engaged in a massive and costly transfer to a tower block in Sheffield? Since it makes no sense in terms of the operation of the MSC, will my right hon. Friend review that decision and stop the transfer in order to free resources?

These are very deep and difficult matters of the dispersal of parts of the Civil Service from London. As my hon. Friend will know, this matter is under review at present, and I do not want to anticipate the outcome of that review.

On his way back to his Department this afternoon will the right hon. Gentleman pay a visit to the Treasury, where Ministers seem to be better informed about the likely job prospects by the end of this year? Since Treasury Ministers do not deny that unemployment will reach between 1¾ million and 2 million by the end of this year, how can the right hon. Gentleman have a sensible review of the job support programme, since he seems to be in complete ignorance of the real problems facing him?

I think that right hon. and hon. Members who were in government until a little while ago should know that these forecasts are notoriously unreliable—[HON. Members: "Oh."] Perhaps they would like to consult the forecasts that were available to them just before the election.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he plans to withdraw or reduce any of the assistance given for the promotion of employment in Northumberland.

The Government have decided to continue the special employment measures operated by my Department and the Manpower Services Commission, but to focus them more sharply on areas with high levels of unemployment. Responsibility for regional industrial policy is a matter for my colleague the Secretary of State for Industry.

Does the Minister realise that, already an area of high unemployment, much of rural Northumberland will be very much more so because of the Budget measures, which will hit jobs in the construction industry, quarries, pipe works, local government and other big employers? Can he at least hold out the hope that the measures—

The hon. Member voted for the Queen's Speech.

Nonsense. The measurement—

The hon. Gentleman voted for the Queen's Speech.

The measures that the—

The hon. Gentleman brought us down.

Order. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) must allow someone else to ask a question.

rose—

He should get it right.

Can the Minister hold out some hope that the measures of the Development Commission and the small firms employment subsidy, in services as well as manufacturing, will continue to be available in Northumberland?

These have been changed, in that the small firms employment subsidy now applies only to manufacturing industry. I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's premise that, necessarily, unemployment will be caused in these areas, because when we see the way in which the Budget measures work through in terms of incentive we may find that there is an increase in employment and not a decrease.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what measures he is taking to help unemployed persons find work in Consett and Stanley, County Durham.

The resources of the Manpower Services Commission are available to help people to find jobs or enter training programmes.

That is all very well, but are not all such efforts of the Department of Employment being nullified by the uncertainty of employment in Consett and Stanley, in the Northern region as a whole, and indeed throughout the country? This uncertainty is being increased by the policies of the Secretary of State for Industry.

Entirely the opposite is true. The area of Consett and Stanley has already suffered very much in the past from pit closures, and our policy of putting the aid where it is most needed can only benefit the hon. Member's area.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what current discussions he is having with the management and unions of Times Newspapers Ltd.

My right hon. Friend is keeping in close touch with the situation at Times Newspapers Ltd. but so far has not had formal discussions with either management or unions. My right hon. Friend fully shares the House's concern about this dispute and remains willing to offer any assistance that seems likely to help towards a resumption of publication.

Is the hon and learned Gentleman aware that I thought that the Government's policy was to let incompetent managements suffer the consequences of their own folly? Is Times Newspapers Ltd., in some sort of way, an exception? Will the Minister go a little further than his statement and say what the Secretary of State intends to do about this matter? Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that more than 10,000 direct and related jobs in London are at stake? If The Times management cannot be sensible about the matter, will he turn to the BBC or someone else to take over Times Newspapers?

It is not for me to comment upon the hon. Gentleman's thought processes. However, my right hon. Friend is, of course, aware of the large number of jobs that depend upon the survival of Times Newspapers, and he is very anxious to miss no opportunity to make a useful intervention, but he does not wish to make one which would not be successful.

Is my hon and learned Friend aware that at the heart of this dispute there lies a very serious problem of low productivity? In particular, is he aware that the NGA linotype operators on The Times, even using the new technology for which they claim a monopoly, are able to print only at a rate of 3,500 characters per hour whereas their German equivalents, using the same machinery, print at a rate of 18,500 characters per hour? Can any British industry survive that kind of low productivity imbalance?

The advent of new technology, as my hon. Friend knows, gives rise to many very difficult and complex problems. He is quite right in saying that it is the advent of new technology that lies at the root of this dispute.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is his policy for the employment of disabled workers.

Responsibility for employment services for disabled people rests with the Manpower Services Commission. The Government's policy is to support the Commission, particularly in its long-term aims of encouraging employers to develop more employment opportunities for disabled people and of gradually implementing its plans, published last year, for developing employment and training services for disabled people over the next five to 10 years.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the long-established quota system has not worked terribly well? As just one positive measure, will the Government introduce a third element into the Queen's Award to Industry which is currently given for export achievement and technological advance, namely an element for achievement in employing registered disabled people?

We are well aware of my hon. Friend's interest in this problem. We recognise that the quota system has not worked successfully. We shall look at my hon. Friend's suggestion of other forms of incentives for people who help in dealing with this serious problem.

Will the hon. Gentleman consider a practice which has been used in other countries where quota system quotas have not been achieved? Will he consider imposing penal sanctions upon such firms so that money acquired thereby can be used for the benefit of the disabled and the good employers?

I think that the review currently being undertaken will probably produce a discussion document, to which the hon. Gentleman can contribute ideas such as that for our consideration.

Is the Manpower Services Commission considering putting additional resources into skillcentres so that some disabled people can learn a skill at them? There is evidence that a number of courses are unfilled and are not used in the skillcentres.

Various measures are operated by the MSC in skillcentres and in giving special grants for employers to improve their premises in order to employ disabled people. There are at least six measures, of which I am sure my hon. Friend is aware, which are designed directly to help the employment of disabled people.

Will the hon. Gentleman consult his colleagues to see whether it is possible to extend the mobility allowance to groups of disabled people such as agoraphobics, who would be able to go out to work and take part in society if only they could be helped to be mobile?

An allowance is already paid by my Department for disabled people to enable them to be mobile in terms of employment, but I undertake to look at the hon. and learned Gentleman's suggestion.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what are the latest unemployment figures for the West Midlands; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will study the problems of structural unemployment in the West Midlands.

At 10 May, 117,689 people were registered as unemployed in the West Midlands region. My right hon. Friend will keep all aspects of unemployment in the region under review, but the Government are confident that employment in the West Midlands will benefit from our policies of restoring incentives, encouraging efficiency and creating a climate in which commerce and industry can flourish and skills can be rewarded.

Can the Minister offer an estimate of the increase in unemployment in the West Midlands, and in the country as a whole for that matter, by the policy, announced on 12 June in a written answer, to remove all job protection measures regarding unfair dismissal for people aged 16 to 18 years? Secondly, will he point out to those in the West Midlands, the skilled, semi-skilled and all others, how the Government's estimate of a decline in manufacturing output of 2½ per cent., given in the Red Book from the Treasury, is compatible with decreasing unemployment in an area dependent on manufacturing anyway?

The Minister cannot understand that.

The people of the West Midlands have always shown their resilence in the past, and I am sure that they will show it in the future.

Will the Minister look at details of some 1,000 additional redundancies in private enterprise firms in the Cannock Chase area, details of which I have sent him? Does he agree that if we are to revitalise the British economy it is essential for the Government to introduce growth industries into the West Midlands?

I shall certainly look at the papers that the hon. Gentleman has sent me. They have not arrived yet. We want to look at all aspects of employment because we are most interested to make sure that all the regions of Britain make their contribution, particularly those such as the West Midlands.

I welcome the Government's measures to reduce the high level of unemployment in the West Midlands. Is it not, nevertheless, a fact that in areas of the West Midlands such as Burton on Trent, where the trade unions are less powerfully spread and, where they are spread, are very responsible, coupled with the fact that there are larger groups of private industries and private businesses at work, the level of unemployment is lower?

The level of unemployment in the West Midlands is 5 per cent., which is below the national average.

In reviewing the job support programme, will the Minister bear in mind that although the Government had a mandate to create more jobs they did not have a mandate to destroy existing jobs until new ones were created? Will he indicate clearly to the people of the West Midlands, thousands of whose jobs depend on the job support programme, when they will cease to be resilient and when the Tory axe will fall on their livelihood?

There is no direct relationship between Government assisted jobs and unemployment rates. We shall see that coming through in the next six to nine months.

Is my hon. Friend aware that many people in the West Midlands have watched with interest and approval the effect of tax cuts on employment in California? Many people in the West Midlands are looking for a similar result from the Budget.

What is clear is that all the hon. Members from the West Midlands certainly do their job in the House

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the totally unknowledgeable answer to my original question and the refusal of the Minister to answer the first part of it, I give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

Order. For the sake of new hon. Members, 1 point out that there is a formula—

"In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply"—

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of the labour force aged under 25 years in the Brighton area was unemployed at the latest date for which information is available.

I regret that unemployment rates for separate age ranges are not available for local areas, but at April 1979, 1,715 people under 25 years of age were registered as unemployed in the Brighton and Hove area.

Will my hon. and learned Friend accept that unemployment in that age range, as in others in the Brighton and Hove area, is well above the national average? In those circumstances, is it not reasonable to continue the special temporary employment programme, particularly as it has been said that it will sensibly be concentrated in those areas where there is above average unemployment?

The epitome of private enterprise.

Unemployment is too high in my hon. Friend's constituency. The best remedy for unemployment is to restore incentives, encourage efficiency and, in particular, reduce the burden on small businesses imposed by the previous Government.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many people were registered as unemployed at the most recent count; and what was the figure in the same month in 1974.

At May 1979, 1,238,468 people were registered as unemployed in Great Britain compared with 535,368 in May 1974.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that those figures clearly show the failure of the Labour Government to deal with unemployment? There is a time lag of 12 to 18 months between the introduction of Government measures and their effect on the level of unemployment. Will he say how much he expects unemployment to rise in the next 12 months as a direct result of the policies of the Labour Party.

Looking at the figures, one is amazed at the hypocrisy of Labour Members and surprised that they are even able to open their mouths. I suspect that unemployment will rise in the next 12 to 18 months through a combination of factors. [Hon. Members: "By how much?"] The chief factor will be the legacy that we have been left by the previous Government. The second will be the rise in oil prices and the lack of trade throughout the world. As with the previous Government, it might be unwise for me to state a figure.

Will the Minister confirm that he has received the Treasury forecast that by the end of this year 2 million people will be unemployed? Will he state within that forecast how many people he expects to be unemployed because of the withdrawal of the small firms employment subsidy from manufacturing firms outside the development and special development areas?

I receive many forecasts from the Treasury and other people. The forecasts are not published. There is no way in which they can be precise, any more than, for example, can the forecast of 4 million unemployed produced recently by Mr. Clive Jenkins and his union. As for the small firms employment subsidy, I believe that the number of jobs created through that subsidy is practically nil.

Are not the figures given in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Leek (Mr. Knox) a clear indictment of what happens after five years of Labour Government, compared with what happened after four years of Conservative Government? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the British people understand what has happened and recognise that it will take 12 to 18 months, or even two years, to put things right? Therefore, my right hon. Friend is perfectly correct in not trying to pretend that we can reduce unemployment immediately. The undoing of the damage caused by the previous Government's policy will take some time.

The country certainly recognises that the previous Government's policies are unlikely to have a lasting or beneficial effect on the economy or employment. It is right, and the country supports this, that we should be pursuing fresh policies and making a fresh initiative. Reductions in public expenditure and the incentives that we offer to those on the shop floor through to managing directors are part of that new approach. That approach stands much more chance of success than the policies pursued by the previous Government.

Since the only policy that the Government appear to be adopting on unemployment is to create climates, will not the only growth industry left be the met offices and the employment exchanges?

Everything that has been said from the Opposition Benches this afternoon shows the utter barrenness and poverty of Labour policies and the Opposition's total inability to create jobs themselves without taxing everyone to the hilt to create non-jobs. In the long run, that is no way to make Britain prosperous again.

I understand the right hon. Gentleman's reluctance to be precise, but will he be bold enough to say whether in 12 months' time the unemployment figure will be higher or lower than it is today?

In view of what I have said, I suspect that it is likely to be higher in 12 months' time than today. When I listen to what is said by Labour Members, I am not surprised.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many persons are registered as unemployed at Brixton employment office; and what percentage of that figure is constituted by ethnic minorities.

At 10 May, 6,218 people were registered as unemployed in the Brixton employment office area and, of these, 19 per cent. were known to be ethnic minority group workers.

Does the Under-Secretary agree that, for an inner city area, figures of those dimensions are not only bad but represent a threat to peace and stability in the community? To what extent will the Chancellor's public expenditure cuts increase those figures in the next year? Will the hon. Gentleman assure us that the employment aspect of the inner city partnership will not be cut?

Those figures are serious and must be looked at with care over the next six months. It is encouraging to see that the young blacks continue to make good use of the opportunities offered under these schemes.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the unemployment rate in pockets of the Greater London area, particularly South and South-East London, is as high as, and in some cases higher than, in many of the development areas? In those circumstances, will he reconsider the phasing out of schemes for the non-development areas in these inner city pockets of serious unemployment?

The question of reconsidering areas is not a matter for my Department. One of the problems of the policy of the previous Administration was that they gave aid in a broad sense to a vast area of the country and we still had pockets of high unemployment within those areas. We need to examine that, and we must revise our policy to meet the needs.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the aggregate cost to public funds to date of jobcentres opened by the Manpower Services Agency since its inception; what is his latest estimate of the cost of additions to the existing list of establishments in the current financial year; and what plans he has for economies.

I am informed by the Manpower Services Commission that information in the form requested is obtainable only at disproportionate cost. Capital expenditure on jobcentres in the financial years 1975–76 to 1978–79 inclusive was about £19·5 million. There are additional non-capital costs but these are small in relation to capital expenditure.

I am grateful for that reply which I shall read with care. Can my hon. and learned Friend confirm that these so-called jobcentres require on average five times the number of peopel to work in them than a comparable establishment in the private sector? In view of that, I am grateful for the modest retrenchment announced in the Budget. However, is there not a case now for releasing far more of this programme for the expansion of private sector employment agencies, which have proved infinitely more efficient over the years?

The private sector is vigorous but it does not offer a uniform service, either geographically or in terms of the vacancies advertised. Clerical and white collar vacancies dominate the private sector. Jobcentres have an additional function in acting as brokers for the training and other schemes that are operated by the Manpower Services Commission.

Does the Minister agree that the task of the Manpower Services Commission must be seen as a whole—as a duty for the training and deployment of labour over the whole country? One cannot simply chop off bits here and there and expect a reasonable employment strategy to develop.

Any policy relating to the Manpower Services Commission must be reasonable and carefully balanced.

The Public Accounts Committee report has criticised these jobcentres for taking premises at very high rents. Will my hon. and learned Friend look into that?

Following a rent review, the jobcentre in Piccadilly has been found to be operating at an excessive cost. Accordingly the Commission is seeking to assign its lease of the premises and close that jobcentre in the near future.

Will the Minister take the opportunity to pay tribute to the Civil Service employees in jobcentres, as they do a very good job? Does he agree that his remarks in answer to this question amount to a repudiation of the Rightwing extremists who want to raid every Government service, including the jobcentres, and create nothing but resentment among civil servants working there?

I know of no Right-wing extremists in my party, although I cannot say the same for the Labour Party. I gratefully accept the opportunity to pay tribute to those who work in the jobcentres.

Why is my hon. and learned Friend prepared to accept the guff with which he began his answer and claim that this simple information could not be provided without disproportionate cost? I think that it could easily be provided by looking down the annual lists.

That is not my advice.

asked the Prime Minister when she expects next to meet the leaders of the Trades Union Congress.

I shall be meeting the economic committee of the TUC next Monday.

That is very interesting. Is it not clear that, with the rich man's Budget, the abolition of the Price Commission and the devaluation of the green pound, full responsibility for the high rates of inflation and the discontent which will certainly come will lie with the right hon. Lady and her Administration?

Bearing in mind that the Budget took 1·3 million people out of tax altogether, that it helps elderly folk who have to pay tax and that it helps taxpayers throughout the wage scale to pay less tax and have more money in their pockets to spend in their own way, I should have thought that the TUC would welcome the Budget.

Before my right hon. Friend sees the TUC, will she look at the speech made last weekend by the Leader of the Opposition in which he said that it would be quite wrong for the trade union movement of this country to precipitate politically motivated strikes in order to bring down this Government? Is she aware that that view has the overwhelming support of hon. Members of this House and will she ensure that a copy of that speech is placed in the Library of the House of Commons so that in the coming months when the situation may be rather different, all hon. Members, including the Leader of the Opposition may refresh their memories on the details of the speech?

That is the view of all who believe in parliamentary democracy, and it is shared by the vast majority of trade union members and a considerable number of trade union leaders.

Can the Prime Minister confirm the report this morning that the Government are engaged in constructing a pay policy, even if it is to be known by some other name? If so, may we be told when we shall hear about it?

I am not able to confirm that. The right hon. Gentleman knows my views on these matters. The only incomes policy in which I am interested is an output policy—to get increasing output at competitive prices. That is the only way to get a rising standard of living in this country. The Budget was designed as a first step in that direction.

In view of that, will the Prime Minister, when she meets the leaders of the TUC, be able to assure them that there will be no question of a wages freeze or an incomes policy under her Government?

The right hon. Gentleman has heard me on this subject before. On that particular issue I do not rule things out for ever, but let me assure him that I shall strain against them because I believe that it is far better for people to be faced with the consequences of their own wage claims than to try to save them from them.

Will my right hon. Friend point out to the leaders of the TUC next monday that a considerable amount of the £700 million investment being made by General Motors in Spain would have been made in Britain had the trade unions been able to guarantee consistently a reliable and high level of output by a British labour force?

I agree with my hon. Friend's basic premise that we would get more investment both from overseas and from home if people could be assured of a good return on that investment. That means having a go at restrictive practices and also making sure that those who make the investments will get reasonable interest or dividends from them.

asked the Prime Minister when she plans next to meet the Trades Union Congress.

I shall be meeting the economic committee of the TUC next Monday.

In view of the fact that the Government are pushing inflation to a rate of 17 per cent. or 20 per cent. this year, with massive tax handouts to the very rich, will the right hon. Lady give the TUC any guidance on wage restraints?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, taxpayers are keeping more of their own money in their pockets. That applies whether they are on low or high pay. If they are very low paid they will receive an increase in family income supplement. As for wage restraint, if wage levels rise steeply without increased output, the result, as has frequently been said from this Dispatch Box, will be increased unemployment.

As my right hon. Friend has already stressed the importance of trade unionists facing the consequences of their actions, will she reassure those of us who value the idea of a wider economic forum—within NEDC or a similar framework—that such a proposal might be put into effect?

I cannot tell my hon. Friend when it will be put into effect, but I can tell him that work is proceeding on the setting up of such a forum. It will be wider than the TUC and the CBI, as we indicated in our manifesto.

Will the Prime Minister discuss with the TUC a report of the Department of Energy that three-quarters of British oil is being exported? Why is it just that there should be an undercutting of the standard of living in this country in favour of the oil companies' profits?

If the hon. Gentleman inquires further he will find that a good deal of the oil belonging to BNOC was being exported. BNOC has no refining capacity, and it was selling some of that oil abroad without linking it to the import of crude oil into Britain. Such linkage was much more likely with the commercial companies. The Secretary of State for Energy is doing all that he can to ensure that we receive all the oil supplies that we need.

When the Prime Minister meets the TUC, will she discuss the possibility of arranging a major conference to consider improving productivity in British industry?

I agree with my hon. Friend that there is a great need for such an improvement. We are concerned about the lack of competitiveness in our labour costs last year when compared with other countries. There is a need to increase productivity and output, but I doubt whether a conference will help that. Now that incentives have been given to those on the shop floor, skilled workers and management, I believe that, between them, they will help to achieve the improvement.

When the Prime Minister meets the economic committee will she clear up the doubts that are being expressed by trade unionists throughout the country that the Government are going back on the principle of comparability between earnings in the public services and those in private industry? Will she, in advance of the publication of the Clegg commission's report, undertake that the Government will accept what the report says about comparability?

We have already given a clear undertaking that we will accept what the Clegg commission says about the first four or five references to it. As for the future of the Clegg commission, it would be far better to wait and see how it works before deciding its future finally.

When my right hon. Friend meets the TUC will she confirm the Government's strong commitment to encouraging employees to own shares in the companies for which they work—including the successful nationalised industries? Is that not a far better route to employee participation than the unionnominated directors suggested in the Bullock report?

I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend. It is our wish that those who work in industry—whether public or private industry—should make great strides towards being real capital owners.

asked the Prime Minister when she expects to meet the Trade Union Congress.

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply which I have given twice already.

When the Prime Minister meets the economic committee on Monday will she engage its members in a discussion about whether it would be better to spend taxpayers' money on organisations such as the NEB which are attempting to create jobs than on unemployment benefit because there are no jobs?

If more taxpayers' money is left in their pockets they can create jobs by the goods and services that they purchase. One of the great differences between Labour and Conservative, Members is that we believe that taxpayers are entitled to spend more of their money as they choose.

When my right hon. Friend meets the TUC will she weary it by impressing upon it—yet again—that higher production and productivity are the only solution to our economic problem? Will she point out that the Central Electricity Generating Board is considering bringing in more coal because insufficient coal at a competitive cost is available from our bountiful resources?

I shall stress continually the need for increased output at competitive prices. I hope that debates on that subject will take the place of debates on incomes policy, as has been the case in the past. Increased output is the other and the important side of the equation. We cannot stress that too much. In that way lies the only hope for improving our standard of living.

If productivity does not increase because of the Budget, will the Prime Minister give fair warning to the TUC of the levels of inflation and unemployment that will have to be reached before a wage freeze is imposed.

The only way to achieve increased productivity is to give people incentives to increase output. That applies to unskilled and skilled workers, to management and to those working in manufacturing or services or in the public sector at any level.

When my right hon. Friend meets the TUC will she explain that the central part of the Budget is to achieve the right climate to establish the expansion of real jobs in the private sector rather than to subsidise jobs which will not last for long?

I agree with my hon. Friend that we have to get that strategy across. Countries which have had a lesser proportion of jobs in the public sector, more in the private sector and a tax system which provides more incentives have been more successful at creating new jobs, products and services than this country has been. There is no magic about that. Our first Budget is going in that direction, and I hope that we shall be able to create more genuine new jobs than have been created in the past.

asked the Prime Minister when she expects to meet the leaders of the Confederation of British Industry.

I hope to do so shortly and a date is being arranged.

Before the Prime Minister tells the CBI, will she tell the House why the Government are proposing to increase youth unemployment by removing the job protection measures for youngsters between the ages of 16 and 18 years? The removal was detailed in a written answer last week.

The Government are not removing job opportunities from young people. We are hoping that because of the Budget more small businesses will be prepared to take on more young people, but we believe that the Labour measure was a deterrent to that effect.

Will my right hon. Friend assure us that, in the work that is being carried out on the proposal for a wider forum, consideration will be given to involving representatives of the majority of workers in this country who do not belong to unions affiliated to the TUC?

We shall give consideration to the matter. It is not easy to arrange because those workers are not represented. However, we are anxious to have a wider forum than just that of the TUC and the CBI.

On the question of parliamentary democracy and mandates, will the Prime Minister indicate to me where in the Tory Party manifesto there is a reference to imposing a 15 per cent. limit on VAT? As she will not be able to find that reference, is it not clear that she has no mandate for carrying forward that policy? Therefore, is it not right and proper for Labour Members to engage in activities in order to ensure that those who suffer injustices will have them put right—whether inside or outside Parliament?

If the hon. Gentleman objects to measures taken by the Government, I suggest with respect that this House is the place for him to pursue his own particular views.

The right hon. Lady has no mandate.

We certainly have a mandate.

Not on that matter.

We have a mandate for reducing direct tax and for increasing indirect tax. I think that the hon. Gentleman's fear is that this Budget will be a great deal more popular than he supposes.