asked the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the increase in unemployment in percentage terms nationally and in the west midlands since May 1979.

Between May 1979 and January 1983 the numbers of unemployed claimants, seasonally adjusted and excluding school leavers, increased by 138 per cent. in the United Kingdom and by 200 per cent. in the west midlands region.

Does the Secretary of State appreciate the human misery and economic waste represented by those figures? Does he realise that the west midlands is second only to Northern Ireland in the numbers of unemployed to vacancies? Will he persuade his colleagues in the Departments of Trade and Industry to take urgent action to save the car and components industries? Finally, will he repudiate the unconstructive and facile attitude of the Under-Secretary of State for Employment in last night's debate on the west midlands?

Among the hon. Gentleman's unlikely propositions, the latter is probably the most unlikely of all, and he should know that. He should take more interest in the affairs not least of the motor industry, with which the midlands is associated. I note that the Financial Times reported that the car makers

"look likely to put up their prices shortly to compensate for the financial impact of strikes which have already caused lost production of more than 50,000 cars this year."

Is my right hon. Friend aware that heavy rate demands are causing the closure and contraction of many industries and having a disastrous effect on jobs in the west midlands? Is he further aware that the Labour-controlled West Midlands county council is threatening to put up rates yet again, while shovelling out money in every direction without asking for either receipts or value for the money spent? Will my right hon. Friend point out to the west Midlands county council that its irresponsibility is costing jobs?

We shall certainly try to do that. My hon. Friend is quite right. I feel strongly about this, because I represent a London constituency, and the Greater London council is playing the same game of putting people, out of work by increasing costs and putting up prices and then belly-aching about the results.

Order. Both those supplementary questions were too long. It is unfair to the rest of the House if hon. Members who are called ask more than one question.

In view of the Government's White Paper on public expenditure last week, which predicts that unemployment will rise by a further 280,000 in the next financial year, when does the Secretary of State expect unemployment to start to fall? Bearing in mind the figures that he has given for the west midlands, does he agree that it takes a special kind of incompetence to turn what was once regarded as the heartland of British manufacturing industry into a depressed area?

I agree. That incompetence was most notably shown during the Labour Government's period of office, when inflation was forced up to record levels and when the motor industry was undermined by policies which led to strikes and disruption of the kind that are now being experienced in France. The right hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that the White Paper makes no forecasts of unemployment.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many young people under 19 years of age are available for work in the Yorkshire and Humberside region; and what percentage this is of the age group in that region.

At October 1982, the latest date for which an analysis by age is available, there were 46,402 unemployed claimants under 19 years of age in the Yorkshire and Humberside region. Percentage rates of unemployment by age are not available below national level.

Does the Minister accept that that is deplorable? In both Penistone and Barnsley there are 1,706 young people unemployed, and 2,784 in Sheffield, with thousands more in temporary employment chasing about 189 jobs. In those circumstances, will the Minister consider Sheffield's scheme to create 1,000 jobs? Will the right hon. Gentleman also ask his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry to consider giving assisted area status to both those areas?

I agree that one unemployed youngster who wants work is one too many. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that there is the prospect of between 45,000 and 50,000 places on the youth training scheme, which is encouraging when one considers the figures that I quoted earlier. The 1,000 jobs could come through the community programme. I hope that the Sheffield city council and other councils in the region will back that programme.

Will the Minister confirm that applicants for the youth training scheme will have access to places in Government offices in Yorkshire and Humberside, or does the Prime Minister's ban still apply to those areas of possible training?

I know of no such ban.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will carry out a survey of job losses and job creation in the engineering industry in Greater Manchester in the period 1980 to 1982; and if he will report his findings to the House.

Figures of job losses for employees, net of job gains, between June 1978 and September 1981, based on census of employment results, will be available later this year.

I am grateful to the Minister for that illuminating reply. If he were to carry out the study for which I have asked, would he not find the same evidence that has come to me and to other hon. Members from Greater Manchester that Government policy in high technology engineering industries is destroying the good with the bad, tomorrow's industries as well as yesterday's, the efficient and the inefficient? That is the real criticism of Government policy and its impact on Greater Manchester's unemployment.

The hon. Gentleman has failed to understand what is happening in the Greater Manchester area. He does not seem to have heard about Ferranti Instrumentation, Moston and the Royal ordnance factory at Patricroft, which provide expanding employment opportunities in high technology.

Would the Minister look at the early-day motion that lists the engineering firms that have disappeared from Stockport? Does he appreciate that the most depressing thing about the situation in Stockport is the disappearance of most of the engineering apprenticeships? The town, which had a fine tradition for training skilled engineers, is being destroyed by the Government.

The hon. Gentleman talks about jobs that have been destroyed, but he seems to have forgotten that in the 1960s and 1970s under a Labour Government unemployment doubled. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would welcome the news that Fairey Engineering in Stockport has won a £24 million contract from the United States.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is his policy regarding the future of jobcentres.

The Government believe that an efficient and economical public employment service has a worthwhile role to play. We are pleased that, in response to the recommendations of a recent Rayner scrutiny report on the service, the Manpower Services Commission is making a number of changes to improve efficiency and reduce costs.

Does the Minister realise that if we are to return to a policy of full employment those jobcentres will be required by the next Government, if not by this Government? Will he resist any attempts to close existing jobcentres or to move them away from the high streets to the side streets?

They are necessary not only for a future Labour Government but for the next Conservative Government. We want an economical service, and it is necessary from time to time to ensure that the service is used for the best purpose.

Is the Minister aware that the jobcentre and the MSC headquarters in Liverpool, one of the most hard-hit cities in Britain for unemployment, are both due to be closed? Does the hon. Gentleman believe that a policy of closing jobcentres makes sense at a time when the MSC is predicting 3·3 million unemployed next year?

I am sure that the right hon. Lady will agree that in those circumstances it is important to ensure that we have a sensible and economic service. Therefore, if the MSC decides to consolidate its centres in Manchester, that would seem to be a sensible answer to the problems.

Does my hon. Friend agree that jobcentres, essentially a good idea, have often been spoilt by the choice of over-expensive premises?

It is important to ensure that we have a jobcentre service that meets our needs. To do that in the most economical way is sensible and prudent housekeeping.

The Minister's reply is disturbing and complacent when the jobless totals are rocketing. Is it not diabolical that the Government should contemplate the first steps in the destruction of a fine service for the unemployed when 250,000 people under the age of 18 are out of work, when there are over 1 million long-term unemployed, when black people are experiencing disproportionate job losses and when women, too, are suffering disproportionately in their job hunting? Do we not need more rather than fewer jobcentres?

I am sure that the House will have noted the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that it is in some way complacent to want an economical service. Surely we should have a service that meets Britain's needs. As the hon. Gentleman comes from Wales, he will know that there are twice as many jobcentres—

No.

There are twice as many jobcentres per unit of the population in Wales than in the rest of Britain. Therefore, if we are to have a sensible service, we must meet existing needs, not some airy-fairy needs as suggested by Labour Members.

Is my hon. Friend satisfied with the direction, advice and facilities of the jobcentres for those wishing to set up in business on their own? Is there the expertise necessary to direct youngsters into that area?

I am sure that there are skills which we ought to have but do not have at the moment. We are hoping to do more in that regard. The jobcentres exist to find jobs for people, not to meet other demands which seem to be proposed by Labour Members.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any plans to meet the general secretary of the Trades Union Congress to discuss the political levy.

I wrote to the general secretary on 11 January asking for comments on the Green Paper and I have made it clear in earlier correspondence that I am always ready to discuss any aspect of trade union reforms with the TUC. However, the general secretary has replied that the TUC will not be making representations to me about the issues discussed in the Green Paper.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it is completely inaccurate to describe the proposals, as some trade union leaders have done, as an attack on trade union funds, since the option to contribute voluntarily remains?

Indeed. The 1913 Act gave protection to people to make it possible for funds for political purposes to be donated voluntarily. The purpose of the Green Paper is to explore how we can make a reality of that Act, which has been grossly abused.

As the Secretary of State has now written to the general secretary of the TUC, will he also write to all the customers of Mothercare or Marks and Spencer and tell them that every time they shop there they are contributing to Tory party funds? What does the right hon. Gentleman intend to do to protect shareholders in such industries who do not wish to give money to the Tory party?

The hon. Gentleman is as confused as ever. There is no more reason why the customer should have control over a company's profits and what is done with them than he should have over the wages of workers and what is done with them. The hon. Gentleman knows that while there has been considerable concern from many trade unionists about the political levy and the arm twisting that goes on, no such concern has been expressed by shareholders. The amounts involved are wholly disproportionate. Indeed, the Companies Act amply protects shareholders today.

Why should the trade unionist who has no wish to contribute to the Labour party—and who could blame him?—be forced into having to opt out? Is that not the gravest infringement of the liberty of the individual to choose how he spends his money?

It is not only the practice of opting out as opposed to opting in which has given grave cause for concern, but the fact that that process is frequently abused and people are prevented from exercising their right to opt one way or the other.

I should like to press the Secretary of State on the question that was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton). Is he being serious? Will he at some stage place before the House a Green Paper telling us how individual shareholders will be consulted and allowed to contract out before they contribute to Tory party funds? If he does not do that, the existing paper will be seen for what it is—a vindictive and spiteful measure against the Labour party.

The right hon. Gentleman knows that that will not do. As the Secretary of State for Employment I am concerned to make sure that the protection in the 1913 Act is extended to trade unionists. If the right hon. Gentleman has any complaint about the Companies Act, he had better make it to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade.

Fascist state.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many, and what percentage, of the total unemployed in the northern region have been out of work for over a year and over two years respectively.

In October 1982, the latest date for which the information is available, the number of unemployed claimants in the northern region who had been unemployed for over 52 and up to 104 weeks was 44,038 or 19·6 per cent. of the total unemployed. The corresponding figures for those unemployed for over 104 weeks were 39,484 and 17·6 per cent.

Are not those figures frightening? Is not the figure for the Workington travel-to-work area even worse, as 45·1 per cent.—nearly half of all male adult workers—have been out of work for more than 12 months? What hope can the Minister give them? Is it not grossly unfair that they should be required to live on supplemetary and unemployment benefit levels that are inadequate to keep them in reasonable conditions?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that those figures are much too high. If simply spending money could bring them down, the £600 million that we have spent helping British Shipbuilders or the £80 million that we have put into section 7 help for the northern region would have done that already. What is needed is greater competitiveness in British industry and an upturn in world trade. We shall get them both.

What help is the community programme giving to the long-term unemployed? Am I right in thinking that that programme has created many jobs for the long-term unemployed?

My hon. Friend is right to focus attention on the community programme. The northern region has already had a take-up of 1,000 places on the community programme. That is one of the best records in the country. I hope that there will be more to come.

Is it not of the utmost significance that the percentage of unemployment in the northern region has been the highest, except for Northern Ireland, throughout the Government's period of office? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Government's regional policies are an utter failure for the north? Will he promise to see his right hon. Friend, who has provided grossly misleading figures in his Green Paper for the contracting-out of the Durham miners, and undertake to carry out a for complete reappraisal of the Government's policies for the north?

The hon. Gentleman, who knows the northern region, particularly the north-east, extremely well and knows what has been happening there in recent years, will agree, if he reflects, that we have an extraordinary situation in which not only have the traditional industries continued to decline, but that even the most modern capital-intensive industries, such as textiles and chemicals on Teesside, have had to cut back because of the rise in the price of oil. Even ICI has had to cut back. We cannot win under modern conditions.

Has it ever occurred to the Minister that so many people out of work for such a long time is a waste of resources, extremely expensive to the Exchequer and morally unjustifiable, or do the Government share the view of The Times that little can be done, it does not matter anyway and we should all learn to accept mass unemployment?

I shall not join in the dispute between The Times leader writer and the hon. Gentleman. I read the correspondence with interest. I am convinced that if money could create jobs the Government would long since have spent money to create such jobs in the north-east. ICI is a good example. There is nothing that we can do to avert the drop in demand for the plastic that ICI makes. As I said, this is due to the rise in the price of oil.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment by how much unemployment has increased in Yorkshire and Humberside since May 1979; and if he will express this in percentage terms.

Between May 1979 and January 1983 the number of unemployed claimants, seasonally adjusted and excluding school leavers, increased by 169,000 or 154 per cent. in the Yorkshire and Humberside region.

Is the Minister aware that those figures are a terrible indictment of himself, his Department and the Government and that they hide high spots of unemployment such as Hemsworth, the Dearne area and Mexborough, where a generation of young people cannot, and more than likely never will be able to, find jobs because of the Government's policy? Why does not he, his Department and the Government do the right and proper thing, which is to resign, and let the people have a Labour Government?

I fully share the hon. Gentleman's comments about—[HON. MEMBERS: "Resign."] I share the hon. Gentleman's comments so much that I try not to enter into party political bashing. I fully share his views about the appalling number of unemployed in his area. He will know that my industrial connections with that area make me particularly concerned. There is no hope of dealing with unemployment unless we have the rejuvenation of British industry, and that will come about by being competitive, selling our goods against others in the world and making sure that at long last we are up to date instead of being dragged down by the Labour party's policies.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the latest surveys of industry in Yorkshire and Humberside carried out by the chambers of commerce show that order books are becoming fuller and that confidence is slowly but surely improving? While employment is bound to lag behind, does not that hold out the best hope for the future?

I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. All of us would like to have an easy answer to unemployment, but it is a long and difficult answer to make up for 20 years when Britain became uncompetitive, largely because of the Labour party's policies.

Will the Minister look at the latest report of the Leeds chamber of commerce and industry, published last week, which shows that two thirds of all Leeds firms see no signs of economic recovery? Does the hon. Gentleman agree with the Prime Minister, who before the election described the Conservative party as the party of opportunity? There has been plenty of opportunity in the City of London. What opportunities have there been for the heartlands of Britain?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be glad of the following opportunities: Systime in Leeds with its new £30 million factory, which will create 800 new jobs, 450 of them in Leeds; Microvitec in Bradford, which hopes to provide 1,000 new jobs in 1986; and the work on the 600-metre extension of the main runway at the Leeds-Bradford airport. If the hon. Gentleman occasionally spoke well of his region and tried to get more jobs there, we would do a lot better.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many men were registered as unemployed in the Oldham travel-to-work area (a) in May 1979 and (b) at the latest available date.

At May 1979 the number of males registered as unemployed—the old basis of the unemployment count—in the Oldham travel-to-work area was 2,638. At Janaury 1983 the number of unemployed male claimants—the new basis of the count—in the area was, 9,736.

Has the Minister noticed that the number of unemployed people in Oldham now exceeds the number of those whom the Tory candidate managed to scrape together to vote for him in Oldham, East at the last election? Is he aware that the people who voted for him did so on the fraudulent claim by the Tory party that, by reducing tax and putting more money into people's pockets, busines would expand and unemployment would fall?

The hon. Gentleman seems to be trying to draw a correlation between the level of unemployment and voting intentions. It is clear that, despite the present level of unemployment, more people propose to vote Tory this time than at the last election.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what were the unemployment figures in the engineering industry in west Yorkshire for the years 1979, 1980, 1981 and 1982, respectively.

The figures for registered unemployed at May each year were 3,102 in 1979; 3,236 in 1980; 7,274 in 1981 and 8,036 in 1982.

Is the Minister aware how great a condemnation of his Government's policies those figures represent? Is he further aware that beneath the figures lie the tragedy of the number of apprentices who have become redundant and unemployed during their course of training? Is he further aware that the number of apprentices has halved during his Government's period of office? To whom do the Government offer opportunities? Are they only offered to those in the City and get-rich-quick merchants? Are any opportunities offered to the people in the heartland of this country?

I am well aware of the serious effect of unemployment on regions such as that represented by the hon. Gentleman. No one can gainsay that. I am certainly not aware that the figures are a condemnation of the Government. They are a condemnation of the many years during which Britain became increasingly uncompetitive. If the hon. Gentleman believes that the situation can be turned around in a mere three years, he is very much mistaken. What is more, the majority of people in this country do not agree with him. They support a continuance of this Government's policy. In the engineering industry, the amount that we have spent on the training for skills programme has increased significantly from £7·25 million in 1979–80 to £25 million in 1982–83.

Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the unemployment figure in Halifax since his Government came to office has risen from hundreds to over seven thousand, and that among the unemployed are hundreds of skilled engineering workers, who are being rendered redundant almost weekly? Will the hon. Gentleman visit some of the engineering firms that still exist and tell them that things are getting better? Is he aware that managements will not agree with that view?

The hon. Lady is right in saying that there are many people who suffer considerably from the unemployment that now exists. That is true not only in this country but in the other countries of the industrialised world. Those who wish to draw conclusions merely from the figures in this country misjudge the situation altogether. The hon. Lady must take some blame as a member of a Government who sowed the seed that left this country least able to meet the recession.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he has plans to introduce legislation which will make wage agreements legally binding contracts.

I have no plans to introduce such legislation at present. It is already open to negotiators to make collective agreements legally enforceable, but virtually none has done so. The possibility of legislation to make collective agreements about pay and conditions of employment legally binding was canvassed in the 1981 Green Paper on trade union immunities but it did not attract widespread support.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Will he confirm that more British firms are entering into two-year and even three-year wage agreements with unions and that this does nothing but good for industrial relations? Does he agree that legally binding contracts would make a major contribution in this respect?

It is for the parties concerned to decide whether they wish to make their contracts legally binding in general terms. I agree with my hon. Friend that the progress we have made in reducing the rate of inflation to a more tolerable level has made it possible for wage bargainers and managements to come together and to make longer term pay agreements. That is good for industrial relations and for the stability of the firms concerned.

In view of the disturbing situation that is arising in the power industry and the water industry, has the Secretary of State considered the possibility of legally binding agreements in the public sector based upon a payment above the norm? Will he reflect, in making remarks about inflation, that the Financial Times has today reported that heavy increases in raw material and wholesale prices are rapidly coming down the track?

When the right hon. Lady looks at the water industry, she will see a long trail of agreements that have been voluntarily entered into and ruthlessly broken by the unions concerned. That gives some cause for concern about how such agreements would be legally enforced. As is typical of the right hon. Lady, if I may say so, she failed to notice that the Financial Times also reported that we have just had one of the lowest figures in the annual rate of increase in factory gate prices for many years.

Does my right hon. Friend not think that because these collective agreements, established over many years, have been broken, it is absolutely reasonable to bring in the protection of the law, as in any other civil contract, to stop these agreements being broken and to give some redress to the parties that have to suffer as a result of the breaches of agreement?

I am well aware of the fury and rage that has been created over the manner in which some of these agreements have been broken. I receive letters from a good many people who are unemployed telling me that they would be very willing to take £140 and £150 a week for doing the jobs of many of the water workers.

Name them.

The hon. Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Douglas) seems to suggest that there are not unemployed people willing to work for £150 a week. I take a different view. My hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Mr. Needham) must face the problem of the actual sanctions that would be used in the event of a breach of such contracts. It may be that we shall find a way.

Has the Secretary of State not yet learnt that the right place to settle industrial relations disputes is on the shop floor and not in courts of law?

I suggest to the hon. and learned Gentleman that it is also wrong to settle them on the picket line. I was appalled by the manner in which a one-day strike was called in the water industry well over a month before the settlement date, without any reason or provocation whatever.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what was the rate of increase in unemployment in other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries over the past year; and if he will make a statement.

Unemployment in the OECD as a whole in the 12 months ending November 1982 is estimated to have increased by 25 per cent. The increase in the United Kingdom was 11 per cent. Unemployment rose faster than in the United Kingdom in a number of countries, including the United States, Canada, Germany and Italy.

Is not the proper conclusion to be drawn from those figures that while the level of unemployment in Britain is still tragically high, it is an indisputable fact that Government policies have been responsible for an increase that is lower than that in any other industrial country of the Western world?

My hon. and learned Friend is right. In recent times the rate of unemployment in Britian has been rising more slowly than in many other countries. It is interesting, viewed in the longer term, to find that unemployment in Germany rose, during the period of the previous Labour Government here, by 80 per cent. while our level rose by 112 per cent. Germany did better than us. Since May 1979, unemployment in Germany has risen by 144 per cent., and here by 138 per cent. We now appear to be doing rather better than Germany.

Does the Secretary of State seriously believe that this kind of selective figure impresses anyone outside the House? Will he say how our unemployment rate overall has risen since 1979 compared with the OECD countries?

The right hon. Gentleman must not believe that anyone outside the House, or outside the Labour half of the House, believes that unemployment is a problem solely related to this country. It is significant that the magic formula that the TUC has now discovered for curing unemployment is one that did not work in the period of the Labour Government and is not believed in by any other Government in the world.

Does not evidence from Japan and some other countries show that those members of the OECD which have taken the trouble to keep down their inflation rate have had greater success in keeping down unemployment?

Yes, indeed. The experience also suggests that those countries which have introduced new technologies and willingly accepted them and which have made use of their greater productivity have prospered to a greater degree than those of us who have dragged our heels.

Is the Secretary of State aware that his selective answers ignore France, where the year-on-year increase is 5 per cent. from December to December, which is considerably lower than ours? Is the right hon. Gentleman also aware that if one takes the figures since May 1979, not only has our decline in output been the sharpest in the OECD area, but the increase in the United Kingdom unemployment rate is the greatest for all the major OECD countries?

It is possible that the hon. Member might be accused of using selective statistics. He mentioned France, which gives me the opportunity to pay tribute to that great French President and patriot, President Mitterrand, who has not only grappled with some of his economic problems, although not with entire success, but has had the skill and success to carry even his Communist partners with him in being staunch, secure and firm in his defence of a nuclear policy, which is more than I can say for the hon. Member and his party.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what, on a standardised basis, is the present rate of unemployment in the United Kingdom, France, West Germany and Italy, respectively.

The seasonally adjusted standardised rates estimated by the OECD for November, are—United Kingdom 12·9 per cent., France 8·3 per cent., Germany 7·2 per cent. For Italy, the latest figure, for July, is 8·6 per cent.

Do not these figures show that, despite attempts by the Secretary of State to fiddle the statistics, Britain remains, in unemployment terms, the sick man of Europe, if not of the world? Has not unemployment risen twice as fast in the United Kingdom as it has in the rest of the OECD countries since May 1979? Do not these figures and the fact that this Government have destroyed national income by 5½ per cent.—£14,000 million—since May 1979, compared with an increase of 12½ per cent. under the Labour Government, show the extent of the vicious and cold deception practised on the electorate in May 1979, when he and the Prime Minister promised that there would be more jobs and more co-operation?

No, Sir.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the one country in the OECD that enjoys the lowest unemployment figures is Switzerland, where work is offered instead of unemployment benefit by the local authorities? May I urge my right hon. Friend to make a study of the system that operates in Switzerland?

There are many differences between social attitudes in Switzerland and those in this country, and that may be one of them. The Government have produced a community programme that offers 130,000 employment opportunities to the long-term unemployed, and it appears that they will be taken up enthusiastically.

Does the Secretary of State recall that immediately before the last general election the Prime Minister told the country that there was nothing inevitable about unemployment, with the clear indication that the Tory Government would bring unemployment down? Is it not clearly accepted by the Government that they will fight the next general election with record unemployment and that they will do nothing to bring it down before that day?

The right hon. Gentleman has quoted my right hon. Friend correctly. There is nothing inevitable about unemployment. However, if, for example, workers in our car industry persistently, when given the same equipment and the same working conditions, produce far less than their counterparts in Germany and on the rest of the Continent, unemployment will become inevitable.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, apart from the unemployment that has been caused by the world recession and by bringing down inflation, we are now having increased unemployment because of our success in bringing in new technology? This is something that any Government, and I hope particularly this one, will have to take into account, because we have to deal with the new circumstances where new technology will get rid of jobs.

My hon. Friend is right, in that new technologies can so raise production that fewer jobs are required in the particular enterprise. However, if my hon. Friend looks at the example of Japan, where the new technology has been embraced, he will find that unemployment is particularly low. If we consider the fact that we have just seen a couple of months of record retail sales, and a month in which we have had an all-time sales record for new cars, one has to return to the fact that the prime reason for our loss of jobs is that our firms have not been sufficiently good in satisfying the needs of the customer.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 8 February.

This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, including one with Prince Sadruddin Aga Khan. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today, including one with the Prime Minister of Nepal. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen.

Will the Prime Minister inform the House whether Mr. Ian MacGregor has been offered, formally or informally, the chairmanship of the National Coal Board, and if not, is she about to do so? Is the right hon. Lady aware that if that is the case—[Interrruption.] Some Tory Members may think it funny, but the miners do not—many responsible sections of the mining industry will feel that this appointment is based on political dogma and that Mr. MacGregor will be given a licence to butcher the manpower of the mining industry as he has done with that of the steel industry? If this is the case, is she aware—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long"]—that there will be unity in the mining industry, the like of which she has never seen before? The miners know full well how to deal with callous and stubborn women.

As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, Mr. Siddall's present term as chairman of the NCB ends on 3 July. He is doing a wonderful job, but the Government have always been aware that he wished to serve for only a limited period. I am not yet in a position to make any announcement about Mr. Siddall's successor or about Mr. MacGregor's future when his current term ends in June. The present chairmen of both the NCB and the British Steel Corporation are both very able and are both doing a superb job.

In view of the widespread desire for progress on multilateral disarmament, will my right hon. Friend discuss with Vice-President Bush this week the prospect in Geneva in the next few months of picking up the Soviet disarmament proposals by the scruff of the neck, examining them ruthlessly to test their credibility and thus establishing whether any genuine progress can be made?

As my hon. Friend points out, I shall be discussing these matters with Vice-President Bush, I hope tomorrow. We shall be discussing the proposals that are on the table and available for the Soviet Union to pick up if it wishes. We both feel that the way is open for genuine disarmament and that the only thing stopping it is the refusal of the Soviet Union to agree to negotiate genuinely towards the zero option.

On the right hon. Lady's latter answer, we shall be happy to have a debate on that subject as soon as the Government are prepared to arrange it.

The right hon. Gentleman will know, or should know, that there is vast overproduction of steel and overcapacity the world over. The world's capacity to produce steel is about 1,000 million tonnes and present consumption is only about 700 million tonnes. I believe that Mr. MacGregor has done a superb job in streamlining our industry and in securing a reasonable proportion of the world's trade and of our home market.

Why does the right hon. Lady not take the trouble to compare what has happened in the steel industry in this country with what has happened in other countries? When she took office in May 1979 Britain was the seventh largest steel producer in the world. We have now sunk to fifteenth place, producing less steel than is produced in Poland. Is that what she calls a superb job?

The right hon. Gentleman has neglected to say that our steel industry was both overmanned and overpriced. He has also neglected to mention that the Government of whom he was a member had to close down the Ebbw Vale steelworks. That Government ducked many of the difficult decisions that we eventually had to take. The closure of some of our steel plants and the reduction in the number of jobs came later than in some other countries in Europe. I believe that on the whole Mr. MacGregor has done a superlative job and that that is widely recognised.

Can the right hon. Lady name any country in the world where steel production is declining faster than in Britain?

Can the right hon. Gentleman quote any steel industry in the world that was more overmanned than the one that we took over?

I am delighted to hear that my right hon. Friend is entertaining the Prime Minister of Nepal. Is she aware that this is the first occasion on which a serving Prime Minister of Nepal has visited Britain since 1907? At her meeting with him will she express the gratitude of the British people for everything that the Nepalese have done for us through the Ghurkas in the two world wars and in the South Atlantic last year? Does she have any plans to visit Nepal?

I shall convey my hon. Friend's message to the Prime Minister of Nepal. I believe that the Ghurkas command universal admiration and we shall continue the traditional friendship between Nepal and Britain.

asked the Prime Minister if she will state her official engagements for 8 February.

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

Does the Prime Minister accept that it is an act of gross political cowardice for the Secretary of State for Defence to refuse to debate the nuclear issue with the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament? Does she accept that the same moral bankruptcy is demonstrated by her Government, who are now spending more on defence than on education, bleeding the National Health Service dry to pay £10 million for Trident, and turning Britain into a floating United States nuclear weapons carrier? Why does the right hon. Lady not support the United Nations nuclear non-proliferation treaty? Why does she not try to stop spending money on nuclear weapons, instead of spending more and more on them as each year goes by?

I do not accept anything that the hon. Gentleman says about my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. Nor do I think that the House as a whole will accept his remarks.

The right hon. Lady knows that she does not like the right hon. Gentleman.

My right hon. Friend has already replied to the CND in his letter and has pointed out that the CND has gone back on absolutely everything that used to be Labour party policy—that we all supported NATO—[HON. MEMBERS: "Still do".] At least the Labour party used to until now. The CND does not, but most of the Labour party supports NATO. I rather understood that at the most recent Labour party conference the party had not yet decided upon its defence policy and so it has something silly like unilateralism and multilateralism going hand in hand. The CND does not support NATO and it has gone back on Labour party policy, when for years and years there has been a nuclear deterrent. It is one that has served Britain well for 37 years. Most of us still believe in both NATO and a nuclear deterrent. That is our policy. The place to debate nuclear matters is in this House. This Government are one of the few Governments who have provided time for nuclear debates.

Has the Prime Minister received reports of the prospective loss of 500 jobs from the computer typesetting firm that is planning to move all its machinery to Germany, from where, no doubt, we shall import its products? As her industrial strategy is designed to support information technology, what will she do about this?

We have to win these contracts by our performance and by production in this country, and the right hon. Gentleman should be the first to know and understand that. He should be very much aware that the grants that are available in the special development areas can rival those anywhere in Europe. Beyond that, we have to perform through the management and the work force, and by design.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 8 February.

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

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government have a continuing commitment to reducing the level of inflation, throughout the remainder of this Parliament and in the ensuing two Conservative Governments for the next 10 years?

I confirm that it is in the forefront of Government policy to continue to reduce the level of inflation. There is a good way to go yet. We must remember that some of our main industrial competitors—Germany, Japan and the United States—have lower levels of inflation. If we are to compete with them, we must get our level of inflation down to theirs and below.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 8 February.

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

Is the Prime Minister aware that since the House threw out the immigration rules a few weeks ago many people have been appalled at the squalid bargaining that has been going on within the Conservative party to buy the votes of the racist Members on her Back Benches? Is it not about time that she and her Government put to the forefront the needs of those who will be affected by the immigration rules rather than merely going for a cheap barter for their votes?

I understand that new immigration rules will be tabled shortly. The Government have to consider fairness to all sides—[Interruption.] That might be a strange policy to the Labour party, but it is not a strange one for us. The Government remain committed to strict immigration control and immigration policy will be subject to continuous re-examination in the light of changing circumstances, in order to achieve that objective.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that any contribution that the taxpayer may be asked to make to ensure that the British public are more aware of the need to defend their freedoms must be seen against the massive support by the Kremlin for the World Peace Council, which has the aim of undermining the defence of our freedoms?

I hope that we shall all robustly put our case to defend those freedoms and not rely on anyone else to put it. Each and every one of us should put it. I am afraid that there are many places in Britain where they are taken too much for granted, and that in itself can be very dangerous. We have to spend sufficient on defence and on putting our case to convince people of the need to defend our way of life and safeguard our children's future.

Is the Prime Minister aware that in a reply to a question from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Liberal party on 3 February she told the House that the increase in unemployment between May 1979 and December 1982 had been 135 per cent. and that the Minister of State, in answer to a question from me on 14 December 1982, said that the increase in unemployment between May 1979 and October 1982 was 154 per cent? Will the right hon. Lady and her Government cease to play games with the figures and address themselves to the issue of how to reduce unemployment?

The figures that were used, and which I have here, were in each case national figures. They were not OECD figures, but national figures, published on a national, seasonally adjusted basis. The increase in the United Kingdom from May 1979 to December 1982 was 135 per cent. We have the January figures, but no one else has. I gave increases in the national figures for the Netherlands, Germany and the United Kingdom, on a seasonally adjusted basis.

If the Prime Minister is really serious in suggesting that Mr. MacGregor has done a superb job in cutting the British steel industry in half because of overproduction, do you not agree, Mr. Speaker, that the Prime Minister had better think twice before she attempts to do anything similar with the coal industry? Otherwise, she will have an industrial revolution on her hands, the like of which this country has never seen before.

The hon. Gentleman neglects to take into account the state of the world steel industry. We have to compete for jobs at home and if we are more efficient in our steel industry we shall have a jolly sight better record on exports than we have yet managed to achieve. We have only 4 per cent. of the world' s exports of steel. There is something to go for, and it will be obtained in this country only by supreme efficiency and not by shouting at a very efficient chairman.