asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many boys and girls who left school in the summer of 1982 were still without a job or training place by 31 December 1982.

By 31 December 1982 fewer than 8,000 of the 600,000 1982 school leavers were without a job or the offer of a place on the youth opportunities programme.

That is another promise that has gone down the drain. What will happen to the thousands of boys and girls on the youth training programme when they complete that exercise? Where will they go, what type of jobs will they have, and what is their future?

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman should not have a kind word to say about any of the employers, the Manpower Services Commission, the trade unions and the others who have managed to get within an ace of carrying through that Christmas undertaking. The hon. Gentleman's attitude is mean and carping. As for the youngsters who will be going on the youth training scheme in September of this year, if the YOP scheme is an example, the YTS should do better in our economic circumstances. More than half the youngsters will be accommodated in either jobs or further training as they leave the YTS—[An HON. MEMBER: "Real jobs?"]—They will be real jobs. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will have one, one day.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the Government's greatest successes has been their imaginative approach to the training of young people in a way that has never been done by any previous Government?

Yes. When the Government started and approved the youth training scheme, the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Williams) was sufficiently gracious to say that she wished she could have persuaded her colleagues in the Socialist Government to do that. She congratulated the Government on their initiative.

As there are more than 250,000 17 and 18 year-olds out of work, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that he carries a heavy responsibility for that human tragedy?

I carry responsibilities. I look forward to doing so for the next five, 10 or 15 years. The hon. Gentleman must understand that this country is not the only one suffering from unemployment or the tragedy of youth unemployment. Britain is coping better than most.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many people have been out of work for over a year; and what was the comparable figure in May 1979.

At January 1983 the number of unemployed claimants in the United Kingdom who had been unemployed for more than 52 weeks was 1,106,800, while the latest figure for employees in employment is 21 million. In April 1979 the number of registered unemployed who had been unemployed for over 52 weeks was 366,700.

Does the Minister accept that those figures show beyond any shadow of doubt the total failure of the Government's economic policy? If it is his intention to blame the world recession for the high levels of unemployment, will he tell the House what contribution the world recession has made to the overall reduction in inflation in the United Kingdom?

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the world recession. His original question concerned the reasons for unemployment. Unemployment is partly due to the world recession and largely due to the fact that this country allowed itself to become uncompetitive in world markets after years of Socialist Governments.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the position of those long-term unemployed people who have savings of more than £2,500 is particularly unenviable? Does it not amount to a means-tested benefit? Will he make representations to his right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to improve the position of those who suffer that disadvantage?

The problem that my hon. Friend has highlighted has existed under successive Governments and is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services.

The Prime Minister, the Minister and his colleagues seem to believe that wages have something to do with unemployment, but how does the hon. Gentleman account for the fact that in Yorkshire and Humberside the average wage is the lowest in Britain while unemployment is the highest?

The hon. Gentleman must accept that employment levels have fallen because Britain has been uncompetitive across the board. No region can overcome that. If the nation as a whole is uncompetitive, we shall not create the weatlh that we should. One cannot draw a distinction between one part of the country and another. The fact that there are lower wages in Yorkshire and Humberside can be contrasted with other parts of the country.

Will the Minister reconsider his disappointing answer to the question on unemployment benefit? Long-term supplementary benefit rates are not made available to the long-term unemployed, and the Government's advice that the unemployed should save their redundancy pay is made an ass of because those involved cannot draw benefit if they have saved their money. Therefore, will the hon. Gentleman reconsider his answer?

The right hon. Lady is right to draw attention to an important issue. I am not being in any way unsympathetic when I say that it is a matter not for this Department but for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services, and I shall draw it to his attention.

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the reasons for the grave level of unemployment is action such as that taken by the president of the National Union of Mineworkers, who tries to call his members out on strike when he has the flimsiest of cases? Does my hon. Friend further agree that such action does little for miners' employment prospects?

My hon. Friend is right to point to one of the many reasons for unemployment. The difficulty is that Opposition Members will accept only a party political reason. However, every strike in this country cuts out jobs. Those who want to keep their jobs should bear in mind that it is important not to strike.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any plans to meet the chairman of the retail food and allied trades wages council to discuss the effects of wage awards on employment.

I have no plans for a meeting at present. However, I have written to the chairman of the council telling him that it is abundantly clear that, if not modified, the awards proposed by this council will have damaging effects on employment.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that when inflation is less than 5 per cent., a proposal for a wage increase of more than 8 per cent. will not help to increase employment in the food and allied industries? Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is price resistance and that fewer jobs are available because the volume of trade has fallen?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If wages are pushed up to a level above that which customers are willing to pay, greater unemployment will certainly result.

Have not the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister repeatedly said that they have no intention of interfering in wage bargaining? Is it not true that the 8 per cent. increase was on a wage of £62, which is half the national average, and that the wage for a senior shop assistant was brought up to only £65? Is it not disgraceful that the Government and the Conservative party should try to make low-paid workers the scapegoat for the unemployment that the Government have created?

The Government have no intention of interfering in wage negotiations. However, I have a responsibility to draw the attention of those concerned to the consequences of what they are doing—[Interruption] The right hon. Gentleman does not understand what he is saying.

I understand only too well what the Secretary of State is saying.

I told the chairman that if the council ignored the representations and confirmed the proposed increase, I would be driven to conclude either that the council did not recognise links between wages and jobs or that it did not see it as part of its responsibilities to take that clear connection into account when making proposals about minimum wage rates. I should be glad to know which view the council takes.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that this week I received a letter from a bread and cake shopkeeper in my constituency saying that last year's 8 per cent. wage award led to redundancies and that this year's wage award would lead to more redundancies? When will employers be able to pay wages that they can afford without having to make redundancies?

I can understand that point of view. Hon. Members should not underestimate the sheer fury and frustration that is expressed in the more than 300 letters that I have received in the past month. Many of them point out that redundancies will result if the wage award goes through. I cannot do anything about wages councils, because we are tied by our adherence to the treaty and the ILO convention, which cannot be renounced until 1985.

Is the Secretary of State aware that voters are concerned more about the fact that a director of a company in Britain, Mr. Ricardo Gordiano, can pick up more than £500,000 a year and that Mr. Fieldhouse can pick up £700,000 in a golden handshake—commonly called redundancy pay—than about low-paid workers receiving a miserly 8 per cent. increase on their poverty-stricken wages?

I am not sure that that was uppermost in the minds of voters in Bermondsey recently.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he is satisfied that girls will have access to equal opportunities on the youth training scheme; and if he will make a statement.

I am satisfied that girls will have equal access to the scheme.

The right hon. Gentleman may well be satisfied, but is he aware that there is great concern that most members of the Manpower Services Commission's boards both regionally and nationally are male, as are the lecturers in the youth opportunities programme? Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that traditional skills that are rapidly dying out—partly due to technology—are being offered to girls? [Interruption.] Will the right hon. Gentleman try to keep his Back Benchers in order? Will he bear in mind that many of those young girls are likely to be discouraged from participating in the courses because they feel that they do not have any link with what they are likely to be offered later in life?

I am satisfied that there will be no prejudice against girls or women because the majority of the members of the commission are male. Indeed, the reverse is no doubt true. I believe that those involved will bend over backwards to take girls' needs properly into account. The youth training board has issued a statement requesting all parties involved in preparing and delivering the scheme to accept the principle of equality of opportunity, and the board will shortly be considering more fully how that can be achieved.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is an alarming lack of employment for girls in the countryside? Will he introduce training so that girls can obtain jobs in the countryside and so stop the drift away from rural areas?

I take note of that point, but there will be equality of opportunity in the youth training scheme. However, girls must be allowed to choose the courses that they wish to pursue.

Will the Minister explain what Mr. David Young meant when he told the Select Committee that although there would be equal opportunities for girls in the technical and vocational educational initiative scheme, he could not guarantee that an equal number of girls would be catered for? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are approximately equal numbers of boys and girls in most schools? How can he offer girls equal opportunities if there are so few of them in the scheme?

The hon. Gentleman, who is a great educationist, will know that we cannot predetermine the proportions of girls and boys who will want to stay on at school, the number who will be on the labour market, the number who will find jobs or which girls will choose which courses on the training scheme.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any plans to introduce legislation to remove the right to strike from any groups of employees.

No, Sir.

Has not the Secretary of State told the Select Committee on Employment what he may have in mind for workers in essential services? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that what is needed is not the removal of the right to strike from any group of workers, but his own removal from office, since he has degraded a distinguished office of state by his notorious political behaviour and antics? Bearing in mind his plans for trade unionists, would he not be far better off in present-day Chile, Argentina or Poland, where he would be more at home with the rulers of those dictatorships?

I shall resist the temptation to suggest some of the countries where the hon. Gentleman would find himself more at home. I shall repeat the answer that he clearly did not hear. I have no plans to legislate away the right to strike. I am considering—and I think the public would want me to consider—means to inhibit the propensity of people to strike in essential public services.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that when the general secretary of the Trades Union Congress appeared before the Select Committee last Wednesday he said that the Government had an obligation to take the necessary measures to protect public health and safety?

Yes; and I notice that the general secretary of the TUC referred to the duty of the Government and their powers to use the armed forces to that end.

While the Secretary of State is in the mood to resist temptation, will he try to resist the temptation to undertake a vendetta against trade unions, which is what he is doing, thereby reducing the liberty of the individual? Does he accept that he may win a short-term victory, but that it will end in long-term disaster for industrial relations in this.country?

I have no vendetta against the trade unions. I have every intention to do what I can to ensure that the members of trade unions are assured of their rights in relation to politically motivated leadership, which often forces them out on strike and acts against their best interests.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that in many of the public services where there is a monopoly there is virtual absolute job security and that people who have such job security have a greater responsibility than others when there is a dispute? Does my right hon. Friend further agree that if he is contemplating changing the law about the right to strike those who have absolute job security should be the first to be looked at?

No one has absolute job security. Those who go on strike in breach of their contracts with their employers lay themselves open to dismissal.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has any plans to meet the Trades Union Congress to discuss proposals on trade union reform.

I have invited the TUC to give me its views, but the TUC has preferred not to accept my invitation.

Surely the Secretary of State understands the reason. Why does he continue to attack the trade unions in the way that he does in spite of the fact that he says that there is no vendetta? Will he take into account the views of some of those who know more about the trade union movement than he does, and drop his half-baked crackpot schemes for the reform of the trade union movement, which are doing so much damage to industrial relations?

I hope, of course, that the trade union movement will change its mind. Certainly some distinguished members, such as Mr. Gavin Laird, think that it is ridiculous that the TUC should take the attitude that it does. In answer to what the hon. Gentleman said about listening to people who have some knowledge of the matter, I listened carefully, and I noticed that the chairman of the TUC, referring to his own union, said:

"Over the years we have suffered from extremism and communist power bids more than any other union."

"They want to use this power for their own political ends—it would be a disaster if they succeeded."

Is it not clear that the proposals in the Green Paper have substantial support among ordinary trade union members? In those circumstances, is it not a grave dereliction of duty on the part of the TUC not to discuss these proposals with the Government?

I agree with my hon. Friend. Every opinion survey shows that the proposed measures have great support among trade unionists. To be fair to Mr. Murray, I understand that he told the Select Committee last week that the TUC would be willing to talk to the Government, provided that Parliament repealed the 1980 and 1982 Acts. I must say that I think Mr. Murray has a slightly odd idea of the relative roles of Parliament and the TUC.

Does the Secretary of State appreciate that some of the hostility of the TUC towards him, and perhaps to some of his colleagues, is because they have given the impression over the past three years that their only policy towards the trade unions is mass unemployment, the whip of unemployment and oppressive legislation? Will he take this opportunity to say that what distinguishes a democracy and free society is the right to strike, as opposed to a dictatorship where that right is taken away?

What distinguishes a democracy is that there are free and fair elections and that the majority control the Government. That is why this Government have the right to legislate in accordance with the proposals that they put before and had endorsed by the people in 1979.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what was the total number unemployed for over 52 weeks on January of each of the past four years; and what steps are being taken to alleviate this problem.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment of, and consequential provision for, the rise in the number of long-term unemployed his Department is making.

At January 1983 the number of unemployed claimants in the United Kingdom who had been unemployed for over 52 weeks was 1,106,800. The numbers registered as unemployed for over 52 weeks were 905,000 in January 1982, 455,000 in January 1981, and 355,000 in January 1980. Jobs are created only when we produce goods and services that people want at a price that they are prepared and able to pay. This Government have cut inflation dramatically, and as productivity rises we should become more competitive. In the meantime, the community programme, introduced last year, is the largest ever initiative to help the long-term unemployed.

Is the 'Minister aware that that parrot reply will be no consolation to the more than 1 million workers who have now been out of work for more than a year, that number being more than treble the figure when the Government came to office? Do they disclaim all responsibility for that? When the next election comes, what will they do with those Saatchi and Saatchi posters? Will they put up another one saying "Conservative Government does not work"? What alibi will be given at the next election for those disgraceful figures?

The hon. Gentleman thinks that it is a parrot cry when we tell the truth. The truth is that the only jobs that can be made available are jobs that produce goods that other people want to buy. There is no other truth. Until the Opposition accept that view they will never contribute to the ending of unemployment. It is because the Government have taken that view that we will conquer unemployment.

As we could well have 1·5 million longterm unemployed by the end of this year, will the Minister tell us whether he is satisfied with the present woefully inadequate provision that is made for long-term unemployment? Does he really feel that the community programme is meeting the needs of the 1·1 million longterm unemployed?

The hon. Gentleman is right to underline the fact—this is a matter about which we should all be concerned—that many people are unemployed for long periods. The community programme does not meet all the needs of all those people. That is why we have concentrated on producing new jobs right across the board. It is an important programme, and to provide 130,000 places on that programme is also important.

As the plight of the long-term unemployed is not only a matter of major social concern, but places a considerable economic burden on the rest of the community—notably those in work—what plans does the Department have to expand the community programme so that it takes up the full number of places allocated for it, as envisaged by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and preferably supplements it with other ideas, such as the excellent enterprise allowance, to get more people back to work?

I am sure that my hon. Friend is right to say that we have to work as hard as we can—that is what we are doing—to make sure that the community programme is fully utilised. We have used the other programmes that we have brought forward precisely for that purpose. As always, we are considering other ways of providing jobs, but I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that, over and above that, we have to find real jobs for people, and that that can be done only by producing goods that people want to buy.

When the Government persist in attributing unemployment to uncompetitiveness, how do they account for the persistent surplus on our trading account during the years in which unemployment has risen?

The right hon. Gentleman returns to his theme, but the fact is that we could have done a lot better. That is one of our problems.

What evidence is there that the community programme is helping the long-term unemployed to obtain jobs? Are the Government keeping a record of that?

It is important that the programme should provide jobs for the long-term unemployed. When someone has had a job, he is more employable thereafter. There are provisions that enable individual employers to spend nearly £1,000 on training during that period, and that will also help.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what proportion of young people who completed youth opportunities programme courses between one year and six months previously entered (a) full-time employment and (b) further education.

No. 8, Mrs. Shirley Williams.

Stand up.

Information is not yet available—

Order. The Minister must not answer before the question is asked.

No. 8, Sir.

Information is not yet available on this particular group. The most recent—(Interruption] —national survey of those who joined youth opportunities programme schemes—

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I regret that I am completely unable to hear the Minister's reply owing to barracking from across the Floor.

Information is not yet available on this particular group. The most recent national survey of those who joined youth opportunities programme schemes between April and June 1981 shows that about 40 per cent. of young people subsequently found employment and a further 10 per cent. went into further education or training.

Is the Minister aware that on 23 April 1979 the Prime Minister said in Darlington—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading".]—

"We Tories believe in policies that will create real jobs—not just paying youngsters to do artificial jobs without a future".

The right hon. Lady does not meet the need to create real jobs by asking for general reflation by putting money into public expenditure. The right hon. Lady knows perfectly well that the only way to produce real jobs is to produce goods and services that people want to buy. That that has to be repeated again and again from the Dispatch Box, even to representatives of the Social Democratic party, shows the people of Darlington and elsewhere that if they want jobs the only party that will ever produce them is the Conservative party.

Is not one of the reasons why we have such a high level of youth unemployment that adequate schemes for training young people were not introduced early enough and certainly were not introduced by the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Williams) when she had some authority in the matter? If the right hon. Lady had done something more we should not have such high numbers as we now have.

It would be easier to congratulate the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Williams) had she managed to do something about training during the many years that she held office in a Labour Government. The new training scheme has been needed in Britain for many years and should be seen as a major step forward in the training of young people.

Bearing in mind the growing and genuine fears of a major shortfall in training places this year, is it not reprehensible that in April the Government plan to cut from £18 to £15—a 16 per cent cut—the supplementary benefit of 16 and 17-year-olds living at home? Is not the nation entitled to be sceptical of the Government's competence when we read in The Sunday Times of a plan to dump unemployed teenagers into military service because the Government cannot find them jobs in civilian life?

The hon. Gentleman must do better than that. He knows perfectly well that there is no truth in any reports about dumping people into military service—

Answer the question.

If several questions are asked I shall answer them—

Answer the question.

Order. Will the hon. Gentleman stop tapping the table. It irritates me.

The hon. Gentleman asks whether the Government have plans to dump young people into military training. The Government have no such plans, and when the hon. Gentleman gives the Government credit for the largest training scheme that has been produced in the history of Britain, he will have a right to ask such questions.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is his estimate of the percentage fall in wage rates that would be necessary to achieve full employment.

Any such estimates would depend on a variety of variable factors, few of which are reliably predictable.

Is not the truth that the Secretary of State wants to get British wages down to the level of those in Hong Kong and Taiwan—under 50p an hour?

The hon. Gentleman must know that he is being rather silly when he says such things. If people charge more for their labour than the market will bear, jobs will disappear.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the worst aspects of the British economy is that while it has been a low wage economy for many years it has also been a low productivity economy and that what we need is not so much to bring wage levels down to those in Hong Kong and Taiwan as to increase productivity to their levels?

Yes, indeed. We need to reach the productivity levels of Germany, the United States and Japan and then we would be able to pay much higher wages. That is the object of our policy. It is no good paying people more than the value of the work that they do.

Does the Minister not realise the simple fact that the lower wages are the fewer goods people can buy and, because they cannot buy the goods, that accelerates the slump?

I realise that I am being taken on now by the intellectual wing of the Labour party. If the hon. Gentleman considered what would happen were wages to double, he would have to conclude that our projects would become uncompetitive and we would lose markets and jobs. That is precisely what has happened in recent years.

rose—

Order. In order that the House can understand my system, may I say that I should like to know in advance which Front Bench Members wish to speak, so that I can maintain the correct balance?

The Secretary of State implies that present policies are working. How can that be so when 2·5 million people have lost their jobs, when plant after plant has been forced to close, when manufacturing production is down by one fifth and investment by one third, and when over the past four years our national wealth has been reduced by 5·5 per cent? If that is success, God help us when the Government admit failure.

I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman when he is rolling with delight at bad news but I must tell him that if, for example, he had been watching the ITN weekly job survey recently he would have seen that in the last month, for the first time for some considerable time, the new jobs recorded exceeded those lost. If the right hon. Gentleman likes he could have a list of many of the new jobs on the way—1,000 in Texaco in South Wales; 100 at Tattung television manufacturers in Bridgnorth; 1,200 on the urban development programme; 40 at Edgley Aircraft, Old Sarum; 1,000 at Hyster, Ayrshire; 200 at Leicestershire Co-operative—but, Mr. Speaker, you would not want me to go on too long and it only gives the right hon. Gentleman a great deal of pain.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what have been the three highest percentage wage awards made by wages councils during the past three months.

The three highest percentage increases in basic minimum rates in wages orders which took effect between 1 December and 28 February were 6·7 per cent., 6·2 per cent. and 5·9 per cent. However, proposals of increases in excess of 8 per cent. have been made recently but not yet confirmed.

My right hon. Friend will have noted that all those figures are in excess of inflation, and 8 per cent.is 60 per cent. above the current rate of inflation. Will my right hon. Friend accept that such increases make nonsense of the Government's exhortations to industry to become more competitive? Is it not true that these wages can be paid for only by lost jobs and increases in prices? Despite international agreements, has not the time arrived when these bodies should be abolished because they are undermining the Government's anti-inflationary and employment policies?

I agree with 90 per cent., if not 95 per cent., of what my right hon. Friend says. I hope that the proposals for an 8 per cent. increase will not be carried into effect.

Will the Minister accept that it is a nauseating spectacle when a Conservative Member of Parliament, with half a dozen company directorships and a handsome salary to boot, attacks the lowest paid sector of our society? Why do not the Government express their concern about the 45 per cent. increase in farm incomes in 1982 instead of continuing this vendetta against low-paid workers?

The hon. Gentleman is concerned only to make party political points. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) is concerned with the possibility of people finding work, even at low rates that are well above the level paid in supplementary benefit.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the number and percentage of people unemployed in the northern region and the United Kingdom, respectively.

At 10 February the number of unemployed claimants in the northern region was 231,074 and the rate was 17·8 per cent. The figures for the United Kingdom were 3,199,412 and 13·7 per cent.

Is the Minister aware that the disgraceful figures that he has just announced for the northern region will be made even worse if the replacement for the Sir Galahad is not built on Tyneside? Will he confirm that there is no question of the Sir Galahad replacement going to Australia? Does he agree that the record of the Tyneside shipyard workers in building many vessels of this type in the past shows that this is where the priority order should go? Will he, as a matter of urgency, consult his colleagues in the Department of Industry to see that the order is placed on Tyneside?

I shall see that my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department know of the hon. Gentleman's proper concern.

The figure that my hon. Friend gives in respect of the United Kingdom is 9 per cent. lower than that for my constituency of Aberdeenshire, East, which is suffering many redundancies every day. Will my hon. Friend try to take some steps to ensure that work can be created in my area, which has not benefited from the golden age enjoyed by Aberdeen city?

I understand the careful concern that my hon. Friend has for unemployment in his constituency, but I am sure he will agree that in the end—one always comes back to it, I afraid—the only way that jobs are created is if those jobs are wanted in the sense that the goods and services that they produce can be sold at the price that people are able to pay.

What hope will the unemployed get from the hon. Gentleman's Department if he persists with his plans to close or cut down the hours of jobcentres in some of the smaller communities where unemployment is highest? Does the Minister realise that some of the jobcentre closures afford savings of only £200 or £300 a year, and that many local authorities in the area would be happy to help with those minimal costs to ensure that a service of job finding is still available to people in places such as Amble?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will accept that we are seeking to make the system as efficient as possible, and it is only sensible to look at some of the jobcentres that are of small use and to which a small number of people go, and make them as economic as possible. If the hon. Gentleman has a particular case in mind we shall look at it carefully. In the end, what we want is not the jobcentres that find the work, but the work itself.

Has the Minister noted that despite the Prime Minister's commitment to real jobs, made in Darlington during the 1979 general election campaign, unemployment in the Darlington travel-to-work area has risen from 6 per cent. then to over 15 per cent. now?

The hon. Gentleman must accept that had we continued with the policies of the Labour Government unemployment would be much higher. For the first time a Government are taking the steps that will bring back to this country the economic basis that has been frittered away by years of under-productivity.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many representations he has so far received from trade unions in response to his Green Paper on trade union democracy.

I have so far received no representations from trade unions on our Green Paper "Democracy in Trade Unions". The period for consultations will continue until 8 April.

Is that not a very depressing reply? Are trade union leaders not interested in democracy in their unions? If there continues to be no response from those who are fearful that more balance will lead to loss of office and of power for them, will my right hon. Friend make a strong appeal in the remaining weeks for ordinary trade unionists to write to him with their views on obtaining more balance and on opting out of the political levy in their union?

My hon. Friend is slightly unfair to some of the trade union leaders, because many of them have a deep commitment to democracy in their unions and have been taking steps to achieve that. What is regrettable is that some have not and are seeking to thwart progress in this regard. I hope that more and more ordinary trade unionists, as well as those leaders such as Mr. Gavin Laird, who has said that these matters should be discussed with the Government, will come forward and give me their views.

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

This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, including one with the Deputy Prime Minister of Hungary. I also unveiled a sculpture of my noble Friend the Lord Home in another place. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today.

Will the Prime Minister confirm that her vacillation over the appointment of a new chairman for the coal board is because Lazard Frere is demanding yet another transfer fee of £1·8 million, a sum it would take a miner 250 years to earn? What a reflection on British management that the Government think that the only person capable of running the coal board is this superannuated superman from the United States.

I have nothing further to add to what I said last week about the chairmanship of the National Coal Board. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the gentleman of whom he is speaking is a distinguished Scotsman who has done well for the coal industry.

Has the Prime Minister read, and I see no reason why she should have, the speech of Mr. Gaston Thorn, President of the European Commission, on 8 February, in which he said that it was time to shelve the Luxembourg compromise? While I do not necessarily expect my right hon. Friend to reply straight away, could she study the speech and let me know what she thinks?

My right hon. Friend's surmise that I have not read that speech by Mr. Thorn, is correct, although I seem to have read quite a number. I do not believe that the Luxembourg compromise should be shelved.

Is the Prime Minister aware that we all hope that the miners will not be provoked into voting for strike action? Is she also aware that despite the Gentleman's considerable ability, what the coal board needs is not a temporary chairman but somebody who has a long-term commitment to the future of the industry and is involved in it?

:: The gentleman to whom I believe the right hon. Member refers has an excellent record in the coal industry—

Rubbish.

—which I described last week. One is not thinking in terms of a short-term chairman.

I ask the Prime Minister a simple statistical question. Will she confirm that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will need to reduce the standard rate of income tax by 9p in the pound in the Budget next week if the real level of total taxation on the average family is to be reduced to the point at which it stood when I left office?

That figure, which I understand has been given in a parliamentary answer, takes no account whatsoever of increases in earnings over the period. If those are taken into account, even for those at lower income levels, real take-home pay is now higher than it was in 1978–79.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the distilleries in my constituency could substantially cut their energy costs by 25 per cent. and get a 25 per cent, grant for doing so, but they do not do it because of Scargillism?

I hope that the distilleries in my hon. Friend's constituency will continue to flourish and that they will choose the fuel that makes their costs most efficient.

As we are approaching Budget time, will the Prime Minister take the opportunity to answer the question of my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan)? Will she tell us how much extra revenue in 1982–83, compared with 1978–79, in tax and national insurance the Government are receiving as a result of the tax changes introduced by the Government?

I cannot give precise figures, nor would the right hon. Gentleman expect me to. He can find them perfectly well through tabling written questions, so that the figures can be absolutely precise. The yield in income tax plus national insurance contributions is greater. If his promises to the old-age pensioners were to be added, the cost in income tax and national insurance contributions would be enormous. Although he has been careful about the costs of his programme, in so far as it is equal to what the pensioners asked for it would cost an extra £17·5 billion.

Is the right hon. Lady aware that the answer to the question, which she said she could not give, is £9 billion a year? [HoN. MEMBERS: "Why ask?"] That is the answer to the question. That figure confirms my right hon. Friend's figure. Will the right hon. Lady confirm, a week before the Budget, that her Government have raised £9 billion more in taxation and national insurance than did my right hon. Friend in his last year of office?

Yes, but of course pensions have gone up considerably in real terms. They have gone up more than the increase in the cost of living. Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that in order to cut the national insurance contribution one should cut old-age pensions?

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

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

Has the right hon. Lady seen the report by the independent low-pay unit, which discloses that poor families in Britain are taxed twice as heavily as similar families in any other country in Europe? Is she aware that the report shows that since the Government came into office the number of families in the poverty trap has doubled? Is she not ashamed of that state of affairs? Does it not amply prove that her Government's suicidal fiscal policies have militated against the interests of the poor sections of the community by rewarding the richer sections, which her party represents?

The hon. Gentleman is right, I believe, in one thing, which is that taxation starts at lower levels of income here than overseas, and that it starts at a higher level of standard rate of income tax. What the hon. Gentleman has ignored is that the United Kingdom has a much longer basic rate of tax compared with other EC countries. In other words, that basic rate of tax goes on for a longer time before it is increased than in other countries. The hon. Gentleman also ignores the fact that, even for those at lower income levels, real take-home pay is now higher than it was during the last year of the Labour Government.

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

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

Is my right hon. Friend aware that since she came to office the number of owner-occupiers has increased by over 1 million? Does she agree that lowering interest rates will accelerate that process? Does she also agree that it is far better that homes should be owned by individuals than by the state?

Yes, Sir. Thanks to the Government's policies a record number of dwellings are in owner-occupation. If a number of councils were quicker in replying to applications to purchase council houses, the number would be greater. It is also true that there has been a considerable increase in home improvement grants, particularly last year. The figures have almost reached those of 1972–73.

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

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

Now that it has been authentically leaked that the National Health Service's policy study group is considering the possibility of recommending raising prescription charges to £2 per item, will the Prime Minister assure the House that never, so long as she is Prime Minister, will she allow prescription charges to rise to 10 times the amount that they were when she came to office?

From time to time prescription charges have to be raised. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the number of exemptions that there are from prescription charges, including the elderly and children. The very considerable number of exemptions means that those who really need prescriptions because they are chronically sick get them free.

asked the Prime Minister whether she will make a statement on the current rate of inflation.

Inflation at 4·9 per cent. is now at its lowest level since early 1970.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is good news for this country that the rate of inflation is at its lowest for 13 years and is at half the rate it was when the Government took office? Is it not also good news for the pensioners and those on fixed incomes, because the value of their savings will be protected? Will it not boost jobs, because interest rates will follow inflation and give confidence to business to plan for the future?

Yes, Sir, it is very good news that inflation is down as low as it is. We still have to get it down further so that we can compete with some of our most efficient competitors. I agree with my hon. Friend that that will have a good effect on interest rates and therefore on confidence for the future. I also especially agree with my hon. Friend that savings will keep their value. Had we not had the level of inflation that we have had over the past 20 years, many pensioners would have savings that would be worth more in real terms today than they are. The money that they saved many years ago would still be able to buy goods to the same value as when the money was earned.

Has the Prime Minister given further thought to the dual control of cruise missiles—

Order. This is not an open question. It is about the current rate of inflation.

Has the Prime Minister received a letter from Mr. James Nicolson of Tadcaster, as most right hon. and hon. Members have, about his mother's intention to put up for auction her late husband's Victoria Cross in order to—

Order. We give a good run on open questions, but this one must be on inflation.

On pensions, Sir.

No, it is on inflation.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is the same intention. This arises because of inflation.

Order. The hon. Gentleman is quite right now.

Mr. Nicolson's mother wants to draw the Prime Minister's attention to the circumstances of pre-1974 war widows. Will the Prime Minister please give an unequivocal assurance that the anomalies that apply to pre - 1974 war widows because of inflation will be removed as soon as possible?

The Government have reduced inflation to a lower level than that to which the Labour Government reduced it. Moreover, the Government have been especially meticulous to increase war widows' pensions way beyond others and to give extra age allowances for war widows' pensions. Further, war widows' pensions have been completely relieved of tax. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to draw the House's attention to the Government's excellent record on war widows' pensions.