asked the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received on his trade union reform proposals on the closed shop.

During the recent consultation period I received about 130 representations on the Government's proposals for changes in the law on the closed shop. A substantial majority of these endorsed the need to provide greater protection for individual liberties in the closed shop and in general welcomed the proposals. I have, however, made a number of changes to the proposals in the light of the representations received.

Will the Minister confirm that several individuals and organisations prevailed on him to try to give freedom to belong or not to belong to a trade union? If there is an overwhelming vote against the continuance of closed shops, will the Minister try to take measures to terminate them forthwith?

I understand the feelings of my hon. Friend and many others on the matter. However, it is right, at this stage, to proceed by making it possible for those injured by the operation of closed shops to receive compensation rather than, head-on, to attempt to make unlawful a practice that has been lawful for a long time.

Does the Minister accept that his attempt to restrict the effects of the closed shop has no possibility of success, not merely because the unions object to it so fiercely, but because the vast majority of managers who work with closed shops much prefer to do so?

No, Sir.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that whilst there may have been some difference of interpretation by Conservative trade unionists, broadly speaking they support the principles of what he is trying to do and are greatly encouraged by the substance of his recent White Paper?

My hon. Friend is right. I regret that other trade union organisations have not been so constructive and willing to discuss the detail of the Bill. The changes to the limits of compensation that could be awarded against trade unions were made at the particular request of Conservative Trade Unionists.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give us a further indication of his thinking on this matter, particularly on that part of the Bill concerning registering a closed shop after a five to seven-year period, with a percentage vote of members and so on? As the right hon. Gentleman voted against that in 1980, when some of us voted for it, what has changed his mind between now and then?

My Bill contains no proposal for re-registering a closed shop. There is no requirement to register one.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the mis-named Employment Bill will not create one extra job or prevent one redundancy? On the contrary, it is likely to create a good deal of conflict in industry and do nothing to restore economic health. Why does the right hon. Gentleman not concentrate on what he was appointed to do—to create jobs rather than to introduce punishing legislation that will do a great deal of damage?

To some extent I understand the right hon. Gentleman's feelings about the title of the Bill. Perhaps it would have been more appropriate to have called it the workers' rights Bill, but I was persuaded that it would be better to retain the same title as previous employment measures for ease of identification.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is his latest estimate of the number of females in employment in the United Kingdom; and how this figure compares with 10 years earlier.

The number of females in employment in the United Kingdom in September 1981 was 9,264,000. This compares with a figure of 8,790,000 in September 1971.

In view of the increase in unemployment during the decade, and the fact that there has been a significant increase in the number of people wanting jobs, is not that increase of 500,000 a remarkable statistic? Does it not underline the changing pattern of employment in the United Kingdom and the fact that many more women want to start a job outside the home in industry or business? Will not that trend continue?

I am sure that trend will continue. It is a remarkable figure and reflects the growth of the service sector in the economy, where female labour is particularly attractive and effective.

Is it not a fact that the sense of hopelessness as a result of Government policy has affected a large number of women who are not re-registering and being counted as being unemployed? Is it not also the case that a vast number of women want to work and would do so, except that Government policy does not allow them to? Are they not in absolute despair about it?

On the contrary, my answer proves exactly the reverse. Over the decade many more women have found jobs.

In view of the large number of unemployed fathers supporting wives and young children, should not some women in well-paid jobs who are married to men examine their consciences and decide whether in certain circumstances they might give up their jobs?

I am glad that my hon. Friend added the rider that they are married to men. No doubt, if the wife was married to my hon. Friend, she would undoubtedly be persuaded to give up work. For the rest, it is by no means certain that the kind of jobs…largely part-time—in service industries that women might vacate would be suitable for or sought after by men.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will introduce legislation to prohibit the payment from contributions to trade unions by their members of sums to political parties, except with the express authorisation of the contributor.

No, Sir. The Employment Bill sets out our priorities for legislation in this Session.

Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that many trade union members who contribute to Labour Party funds by failing to contract-out of the political levy no longer support the Labour Party? In the interests of fairness and democracy, will he now seek to amend the Employment Bill and reintroduce contracting-in?

I remind my hon. Friend that the question of contracting-in and contracting-out was not canvassed in the Green Paper. Our present proposals are concerned with industrial relations problems that need to be tackled immediately. Clearly, the Government cannot commit themselves about the future. Let us take one step at a time.

Does the Minister agree that the right of trade unionists to contract out of paying the political levy contrasts sharply with the fact that shareholders are unable to prevent companies from paying their money to the Conservative Party?

That is not a good point. The shareholder can sell his shares. All too often, as a result of the closed shop, a person is obliged to be a member of a union that gives active support to a political party that he detests.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many people were out of work in the Leek parliamentary constituency at the most recent count; and what was the comparable figure in the same month in 1974.

In the area covered by the Biddulph, Cheadle, Kidsgrove, and Leek employment offices, which corresponds closely to the Leek parliamentary constituency, 5,407 people were registered as unemployed at January 1982. The corresponding figure at January 1974 was 668.

How does my right hon. Friend explain a more than eightfold increase in unemployment in an area where wages and salaries are, and have been, low, productivity high and labour relations excellent?

The clue lies in what happened nationally to unit labour costs during the period of the Labour Government. British unit labour costs doubled, whereas in Japan they did not go up. That is the full explanation for the high national level of unemployment as well as the regrettable local level of unemployment in the Leek constituency.

Why, then, has the pottery industry lost 40 per cent. of its jobs? Was there high pay, bad industrial relations, lack of export drive and lack of managerial initiative be fore 1974? Does the Minister realise that the level of unemployment in my constituency and that of the hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Knox) has risen from about 4 to 13.3 per cent. since the general election?

The pottery industry would undoubtedly have been affectd by the oil price increase, as it is an industry that uses firing processes. The hon. Gentleman will know that, since 1973, the price of oil has gone up by 2,000 per cent. and by about three times since 1979 alone. High costs not compensated for by higher productivity have priced many British products out of the market.

Is my right hon. Friend aware—as I am, since I represent a constituency that virtually adjoins the constituencies of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) and my hon. Friend the Member for Leek (Mr. Knox) —that unemployment in our area has increased not as a result of a lack of competitiveness but as a result of unfair competition from abroad? When will the Government take steps to ensure that British industry, which has shown moderation, good sense and good managerial skills, can compete fairly against the countries that are taking our jobs?

My hon. Friend must be referring to the textile industry. He will know that the Government have taken a firm line in defence of the British textile industry in the negotiations for the new MFA.

Is the Minister aware that although jobs have been lost in the pottery and textile industries and the many associated industries in and around the North Midlands, the casino economy belt, which includes financial institutions, building societies and estate agencies in areas such as Leek and Macclesfield, has mushroomed? Does that not show that jobs are being lost in manufacturing industry because of the massively high interest rates operated by the Government?

The hon. Gentleman must come to terms with the cause of the high unemployment. That cause is simple to explain. During the period of the Labour Government British unit labour costs doubled. In Japan they did not increase, in Germany they increased by one fifth, in the United States of America they increased by one-third, and in Canada they increased by about one half. In Britain, unit labour costs doubled. The root cause of the present high levels of unemployment lies firmly in the period of the Labour Government.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what discussions he has had with the chairman of the Manpower Services Commission on the implementation of the proposed youth training scheme.

I meet the chairman of the MSC from time to time to discuss matters such as the proposed youth training scheme; the Government's White Paper drew substantially upon recommendations made by the commission.

In his deliberations with the Manpower Services Commission, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that people expect the new youth training scheme to give young people real training, so that they can acquire skills that will stand them in good stead when they look for jobs at the end of the year?

My hon. Friend is right. It is important that the training content of the youth training scheme is of a sufficiently high quality and of a nature best suited to the local employment prospects of the young people

Does the Secretary of State regard such schemes as adequate substitutes for the many thousands of apprenticeships that have been lost, including the many apprenticeships that the Government have destroyed for their employees?

No, Sir. The scheme is not intended to be a substitute for apprenticeships. It lasts for one year. II is important that the Government should continue to support the same number of apprentices, at a cost of about £50 million per annum. It is also important that trade unions should collaborate with the Government, employers and the MSC in reforming apprenticeships, so that we get rid of the old-fashioned age restrictions on entry and reach a system in which apprentices gain qualifications on the basis of their skills, rather than on how long they have served.

Have my right hon. Friend's discussions covered the amount of the allowance to be paid under the scheme? Has any evidence reached him to suggest that that will be a crucial factor in the take-up?

It is too early to say whether that will be a crucial factor. It is unlikely to be so, because the evidence shows that youngsters would be glad to accept good quality training, even if there were no pay. After all, their brothers and sisters often do so in the sixth form at school. However, I have asked the MSC to consider that point and it will give me its views some time, I 5elieve, in April.

Is there not a sharp and worrying divide between the great resources spent on the young unemployed and the virtual standstill on training for young people in employment? Will the right hon. Gentleman concede that the element of compulsion and the disqualification from benefit are repulsive, and that the £750 allowance is niggardly and provocative to potential recruits and trade unionists alike?

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman should put it that way. He should consider the amount of training given to young people in industry. The great majority of industrial training is carried on in industry. Of course there should be more and better training, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not write off what is being done.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what evidence his Department has received that employers are using young people in the youth opportunities programme as a substitute for full-time adult workers.

The Manpower Services Commission receives from time to time allegations of substitution, and evidence of it is sometimes found. The commission and the careers service make every effort to prevent all forms of abuse of the programme.

Is the Minister aware that there is a widespread fear among the trade union movement, particularly in Sheffield, that more and more employers are using the youth opportunities programme as a source of cheap labour? Will the Minister carry out a serious investigation and publish figures to answer the allegations made?

I am informed that in the past 12 months there have been five allegations of substitution on existing schemes in Sheffield. Upon investigation by the commission's staff, none of those allegations was proved. However, I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. As I have said, when allegations are made with the right type of evidence, we seek to ensure, by proper checks, that there is no substitution.

Is my hon. Friend aware that many mature people who have the good fortune to be employed welcome the opportunity that is given to young people to acquire useful industrial training and the habit of disciplined employment?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I hope that he will agree that the development from the youth opportunities programme to the new training scheme should be applauded.

Does the Minister realise that some Government employees, particularly in the Inland Revenue Department, believe that the Government are abusing the youth opportunities programme to obtain cheap labour? If those allegations are correct, would that not be disgraceful conduct for any Government Department?

I have not heard that allegation before. However, if the hon. Gentleman writes to me about it, I shall be happy to look into it.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many people are unemployed in the city of Leicester; and how many and what percentage of them are under the age of 25 years and over 50 years, respectively.

On 14 January the provisional total number of people registered as unemployed in the Leicester employment office area was 23,700. Of those, 9,129–39 per cent. — were under 25 years of age and 4,505–19 per cent.—were aged 50 years and over.

Is the Minister aware that those shocking figures show that there are now two lost generations in the once prosperous city of Leicester? I refer to the young people who leave school and emerge from youth training, but who never get jobs, and the older people who have been made redundant and who feel that they will never find work again. Without forgetting the in-between generation, what will the Minister do to help those most vulnerable to the present, terrible misery?

I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman that the figures are terrible. I personally regard every individual who loses a job as having an experience that is equivalent to bereavement, although, mercifully, in many cases it is reversible. However, the hon. and learned Gentleman will have heard that a number of special measures have been introduced, particularly to help the young unemployed, as well as a number of other special measures to help people over the age of 60.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many industrial disputes commenced during the last two years; and if he will make a statement.

The number of industrial stoppages recorded by my Department as beginning in 1980 was 1,330. For 1981 the provisional figure is 1,280, the lowest figure for 40 years.

I thank my hon. and learned Friend for that reply. Does he agree that the figures show a return to a sense of realism in British industry, and that it is only if the strike continues to be rejected as a weapon of first resort that we shall achieve a genuine economic recovery?

Certainly, the figures are encourageing. Fewer days were lost through strikes in 1981 than in any year since 1976. Clearly, the figures show a greater realism and responsibility, as well as a realisation that strikes destroy jobs and are an expensive luxury that we cannot afford.

Does the Minister realise that for every three days lost through industrial stoppages in 1980, 27 days were lost through ill health? Will he seek to persuade his right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to put public expenditure into an occupational Health Service, which would do a great deal for the productivity and competitiveness of our nation?

The fact that many days are lost through ill health is no reason to ignore the enormous number of days that were lost in the past through industrial disputes. It is not for me to answer the hon. Gentleman's question, but I hope that he will support Conservative Members who are saying that it is to the advantage of all of us if this new realism in industry is cultivated.

Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that one of the reasons why we have had a reasonable degree of industrial peace during the past two years is that the Employment Act 1980 struck the right balance between management and unions, and that both management and unions are operating the Act carefully and sensibly?

It is true that when the 1980 Act went through the House we heard many warlike noises, and we were told that the result of the Act would be conflict in industry. It shows how little Labour Members speak for the working people of this country in that none of that conflict has arisen.

If industrial relations are showing such a marked improvement, what justification is there for the Secretary of State choosing this moment to introduce a Bill that can only further poison industrial relations? Is it not true that part of the improvement is due to the fact that many workers are now workless, and that there is no scope for striking in the dole queue?

There is a simple answer to the right hon. Gentleman's question. The need for the legilsation arises from the need for there to be more safeguards for the rights of individuals and the need to define more clearly what is and what is not acceptable in industrial action.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what progress has been made in the introduction of industrial democracy since the Government took office.

We have extended private ownership through our measures for privatisation and ensured that employees in the enterprises concerned have been able to acquire shares on favourable terms.

Is the Minister aware that, at the time when the Tory Party and the CBI were seeking to discredit the Bullock proposals, they laid great emphasis on their eagerness to advance industrial democracy through voluntary means? If that was not just a wrecking device, will the Minister tell us what progress has been made under voluntarism during the past three years, what specific encouragement the Government have given to companies to advance industrial democracy, and what record he has of the laggards? What does he now propose to do specifically to advance the process?

We are carefully monitoring the progress that is taking place. I note, for example, that over 80 per cent. of the company chief executives who recently took part in the CBI survey felt that employee involvement policies had brought tangible gains in performance. Progress is being made, and we shall continue to encourage it.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that what Lord Bullock did for industrial democracy caused as much damage as Attila the Hun caused to the Roman Empire?

"Yes" must be the best and most complete answer to my hon. Friend's question.

Does the Minister realise that the Government's reactionary attitude to this question means that they are way behind the rest of Western Europe, and that enlightened management is deeply disappointed about it? Does he accept that the Government would do a great service to industrial relations if they dropped their anti-union legislation and, instead, spent some time thinking about industrial democracy?

I do not think that we are way behind the rest of Europe. The EEC Commission has not yet finalised its current proposals, and we have to wait for them to know the real cumulative opinion in Europe.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the latest total number of registered unemployed in the United Kingdom; what was the figure for May 1979; and what the increase has been in percentage terms between the two dates.

At 14 January the provisional total number of people registered as unemployed in the United Kingdom was 3,071,000. The seasonally adjusted figure, excluding school leavers, was 2,828,900, and the corresponding figure for May 1979 was 1,312,000. The increase between the two dates was 1,516,900, or 115.6 per cent.

Is the Secretary of State aware that those shameful and disgraceful figures illustrate the misery and devastation that have been caused to many people in this country as a result of the Government's policies? Does he agree that all the evidence shows that unemployment will continue to increase? Was that not the clear message in the speech made yesterday by the Leader of the House?

In a world where it is clear that almost every industrialised country has suffered a sharp increase in unemployment and where unemployment in many countries is now accelerating far faster than in Britain, it is childlike to put all the blame on the Government for these problems. The hon. Gentleman should try to grow up and understand the deep-seated, long-standing problems of British industry, which made it more vulnerable to the recession than any other country.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend and his Department on their efforts to alleviate some of the most acute problems of unemployment, notably those affecting young people, but will he assure the House that he is prepared to turn his attention to the problem of the long-term unemployed, which seems to many of us to be the most worrying aspect of the underlying unemployment figures?

I apologise to my hon. Friend. I was handed an important note and I missed what he said. I should be obliged if he would repeat it.

I said that I congratulate my right hon. Friend and his Department on the efforts that they have made to alleviate many of the problems of unemployment, particularly those affecting young people, but will he now turn his attention to the problems of the long-term unemployed, which many of us believe to be one of the most serious and tragic aspects of the unemployment problem?

My hon. Friend draws attention to what is becoming a most serious poblem, that of the long-term unemployed. I do not believe that there is any quick and simple answer to the problem. The only answer is to restore the competitiveness of British industry to the position in which it can sell goods to its customers and thus create the new jobs that are required for those people.

Does the Secretary of State recognise that his mixture of calculated offensiveness and sheer complacency on this issue is nothing but an insult to the 3 million unemployed in this country, and that by his attitude he is dragging a great Department of State into the political gutter alongside him? Will he now address himself seriously to the question that he dodged last week and which he has just been asked again: why is it that, when we shall have 1 million long-term unemployed before the end of this year, all that he can offer is 30,000 places on the community enterprise programme, which he knows the Manpower Services Commission considers to be quite inadequate? When will he do something about this problem?

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could spare the time to listen to my reply. He should turn his attention to the fact that jobs are created not by Governments but by customers who are willing to buy the goods and services offered. Governments cannot wave a wand in the way that he and his right hon. and hon. Friends now pretend that they can do, but were unable to do when they supported the Labour Government.

Does the Secretary of State recognise that in Yorkshire there are now more than 280,000 unemployed, with 45 people chasing every job? Does he accept any responsibility for the increase in unemployment under his Government? If he does accept some responsibility, what changes does he believe we need to bring unemployment down?

I entirely accept the collective responsibility of the Government for the fact that many people have been displaced from jobs in overmanned industries. I take it that the hon. Gentleman would not suggest that the prospects of British Leyland or British Steel would be improved by putting back those men to recreate the overmanning and to reduce the efficiency of the industries.

Is not one of the difficulties an attitude of mind? Is it not regrettable that 60 per cent. of those surveyed in an important poll published a few days ago believed that it was not important whether they worked for an outfit that made profits or did not make profits?

That underlines the extent to which we need a little better economic education, not only among those 60 per cent. outside, but among the 40 per cent. in the Opposition.

Does not the optimistic talk that we have just heard from the Secretary of State about vacancies and short-time working contrast sharply with the sober analysis that was given last night by his right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council, in which he implied that job prospects and living standards would not improve in the time left to the Government? In view of the Lord

The right hon. Gentleman again does not seem to have understood anything of what has been said by the Government in the House for many weeks. My right hon. Friend and I are at one in pointing out that there are no slick, easy solutions that can reduce unemployment overnight. That is the right hon. Gentleman's song. We are at one in pointing out that we need to hold (down wages and wage costs to improve competitiveness, and in pointing out that we face a world recession with a world problem that can only be worsened in Britain by the adoption of the irresponsible policies offered by the right hon. Gentleman or his former right hon. and hon. Friends.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment by what date he expects to be able to bring forward legislation to implement the youth training scheme.

The implementation of the youth training scheme will not require legislation by my Department. We have asked the Manpower Services Commission to launch the scheme by the autumn of 1983.

Although it is peripheral in the White Paper, does my hon. Friend consider that, from earlier supplementary questions today and generally, an important constituency consideration for many of us is the updating of the apprenticeship schemes, especially for qualifications and time served? Is he satisfied that that proposal, which I appreciate will not be enforced until 1985, can be implemented without legislation?

I appreciate what my hon. Friend says about the need to update apprenticeships. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I shall do everything within our power to get away from time-serving and on to standards.

Can the Minister assure the House that he is in constant touch with the voluntary and unofficial bodies in the area, which have long experience, and that their experience will be used?

I assure the right hon. Gentleman and the House that I am in touch with the voluntary organisations, as are my right hon. and hon. Friends. They have an important part to play in the implementation of the youth training scheme and I shall do everything that I can to ensure that they are properly consulted on the matter.

Can the Minister tell the House when we might debate this important scheme? If there is a crisis in the availability of apprenticeships, why is he going forward with the abolition of many training boards?

The timing of a debate on the youth training scheme is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, or the Leader of the Opposition if he chooses to use a Supply day for the purpose. As to a crisis in apprenticeships, the hon. Gentleman is surely aware that we are supporting 35,000 first-year apprentices this year, at a cost of £50 million, which demonstrates that we have the matter very much under control.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 2 February.

This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having futher meetings later today.

Will my right hon. Friend find time today to read a report from the TUC calling for a massive £8.3 billion injection of taxpayers' money into the economy? Will she confirm that she and her right hon. Friends are as likely to condone such an irresponsible and disastrous reflation of the economy as is Mr. Len Murray to call for the voluntary ending of closed shop agreements?

I agree with my hon. Friend that such an injection would be totally irresponsible, because people never say from where the money is to come. If it were to come from taxation it would impose far too high a burden, and if it were to come from borrowing it would impose interest rates that would be far too high. If it were to come from inflation, we would go right up in the inflation stakes, because inflation is a tax, although one does not need to get it through in the Finance Bill.

Does the right hon. Lady not believe that it would be wiser to study the TUC document before she tries to pronounce judgment upon it? Meantime, can she take the opportunity, as I am sure she would wish, to comment on the remarkable speech of the Leader of the House last night? Car she tell us whether that was an official statement of Government policy and, further, whether the figures on which he based the speech were before the Cabinet lass: week? Is that the reason why she regarded it as an "excellent Cabinet"?

I am delighted to respond to the right hon. Gentleman. My right hon. Friend made an excellent speech last night, so good that I wish to quote from it.

"This Government is completely committed to a long-term economic recovery that can be sustained, and a restoration of our ability to compete with—and beat—our overseas rivals … The Conservative Party has never shrunk from such challenges in the past. We are facing up to them now."

"For whatever the work ethic of the 1990s may be, it is certain it must be based on our competitiveness: on our ability to produce the right goods at the right price for the right markets. This is the only basis on which Government, managements and trade unions can realistically seek to create new employment opportunities."

Can the right hon. Lady tell us whether she wrote the other part of the speech that she has not quoted—the part that says that there will be no early reduction in unemployment and that living standards are bound to fall? Did she write the part of the speech that led The Daily Telegraph to print the headline:

"Bleak View of Economy by Pym"?

Has the right hon. Gentleman been listening to what I have said—[Hon. Members: "Answer"]—about unemployment, which was similar to what my right hon. Friend said? An increase in output always comes first. A reduction in unemployment follows, but some time after. If the right hon. Gentleman reads the speeches of the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), he will find that a similar expression was used when we had 1.6 million unemployed. There is nothing new about it. It may be new to the right hon. Gentleman, but it is not new to anyone else.

If the right hon. Lady thinks that there was nothing new in the speech, why does she think that The Daily Telegraph gave it such prominence?

Because it was a very good speech.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 2 February.

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

While I applaud the Prime Minister's public statements on the problems of Poland, may I ask her to take time in her busy day to seek to collaborate with other Western leaders to impress upon the Russian leadership that, not only is it failing to respond to Western protests about its sponsorship of the destruction of freedom in Poland, but blatantly is ignoring them? Will she try to get the Russians to accept public international responsibility for their actions?

I agree with what my hon. Friend says about the Russian attitude. There is no doubt about Soviet complicity in events in Poland. I understand that NATO will be meeting tomorrow to try to give some signals to the Soviet Union on how we regard its complicity. I hope that we shall be able to agree on some matters to that effect. In the meantime, as we all know, freedom and Communism cannot exist alongside each other.

As the Leader of the House says that living standards are bound to fall, when does the Prime Minister think that they will rise?

Living standards will rise only when Britain earns that rise either by selling goods and services that people—

When?

I cannot predict precisely when that will be. It will depend on the performance of industry. Living standards fell during many years under the Labour Government, of which the right hon. Gentleman was a member. They fell in 1975 in three of the four quarters. They fell again in 1976 and fell substantially in 1977. There was a partial recovery in a pre-election boom in 1978, but that did not succeed.

Will my right hon. Friend find some time today to read the letter in this morning's edition of The Times from the chairman and secretary of the Social Democratic Party in South Hampshire? Will she note that these two gentlemen are now disillusioned with the Social Democrats, that they will not be renewing their membership and that they now regard the Social Democratic Party as a fraud and a delusion?

I read the letter. What my hon. Friend says seems to be true, but it does not seem to be news. In the 120 Divisions since the Social Democratic Party was formed, it is not surprising to note that on 105 occasions SDP Members have voted with the Socialists. That shows their true nature.

Will the Prime Minister bear in mind that shortly before the 1979 general election she visited Carpets International in my constituency, which had won two Queen's Awards for exports and which was considered to be a showpiece? It has now laid off over 500 employees, when there are already 6,000 unemployed in Halifax. Will she now pay a return visit to Carpets International to explain to the work force the benefits of a Conservative Government?

It so happens that I remember very well my visit to that most excellent carpet factory. One of the things that the management showed me was its latest machinery. Previously its machinery could weave about 1 yard of the best carpets in about one hour. I was told that the new machinery could produce about 350 yards in about an hour. I was also told that at that time, during the lifetime of the Labour Government, there would be about 250 redundancies because of the new technology.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 2 February.

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

Will my right hon. Friend comment on the recent decision of the Birmingham industrial tribunal that the four Walsall dinner ladies should get their jobs back? Is it not a scandal that they are not to be reinstated?

It is a scandal if they are not to be reinstated. They lost their jobs only because they refused to join a trade union. They were very good at their jobs. If they are not to be reinstated, I am happy that at least they are to be entitled to compensation under the Bill that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment has introduced. We shall at least be able to undo the damage that was done by the Labour Government, aided and abetted by the present Social Democratic Party.

In view of the appalling unemployment figures, and in view of the general industrial collapse, would the right hon. Lady recall today that, with my usual prescience and percipience, I warned at one of her first Question Times after she entered Downing Street with that misguided Franciscan quotation that she would create of Britain a disaster area? Was I right or wrong?

Wrong as usual, and I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me the chance to say so.

My right hon. Friend's attention will have been drawn to the news yesterday that British Leyland is to increase the labour force at Jaguar by about 400 as a direct result of the 600 cars that were sold to the United States last month, which was a record. That was achieved against the background of a 20 per cent. recession in car sales in the United States. Does she agree that Jaguar's success is a clear indication that the efforts of British Leyland and the Government's proposals for working with British Leyland are proving successful?

Yes. I hope that the good work sales will continue. If they do, that will be good for everyone.

Will the Prime Minister take time today to return once again to the dissidents—I do not mean in Poland or Russia—on the Government Back Benches, who in increasing numbers are becoming disillusioned and in some instances diametrically opposed to her policies? For how long does she think she can retain their support? Will she continue to award knighthoods in each Honours List as a means of ensuring support for her and the Government?

For and beyond the lifetime of this Parliament.

asked the Prime Minister whether she will list her official engagements for 2 February.

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

Any normal commercial undertaking that had been bled dry by a destructive strike would neither come running to the Government for funds nor, alternatively, seek to bring forward destructive price increases. Will my right hon. Friend take action to ensure that the British Rail monopoly does not move in either of these directions and is forced to retrieve its loss-making position either by improvements in productivity or a combination of that and lower-than-average pay settlements, which is what would happen to anybody in the private sector?

I agree with my hon. Friend that the strike is damaging to the future of the railways and damaging to Britain. We need to have increased productivity if we are to have a successful British railway system. As my hon. Friend knows well, if there are considerable fare or freight charge increases, there will be a further loss of business and a further loss of jobs.

Now that the Prime Minister has delivered her broadcast in part of "Let Poland be Poland", will she consider making two more, one called "Let Turkey be Turkey" and the other called "Let El Salvador be El Salvador"—or is her attitude to imprisonment and torture conditioned by whether the tortureres and prison warders are members and supporters of NATO or of the Communist bloc?

I should have thought that most people, if not the hon. Gentleman, would recognise that what has happened in Poland is uniquely important to that country. Just when the Poles were attempting to get a spark of freedom, it was crushed by a military Government. With regard to El Salvador, elections are planned—(Interruption.]—for 28 March. All opposition parties, including the political wing of the armed opposition, have been invited to participate in constituent assembly elections on 28 March. It would be a great advance in Poland—

What about the atrocities?

—if opposition parties were invited to participate in the electionsmdash;—

The right hon. Lady is a hypocrite.

Of course, the hon. Gentleman does not like it, but there will be elections in El Salvador. It would be a great advance if there were elections in Poland.