asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many days were lost in industrial disputes in the most recent 12-month period for which figures are available.

It is provisionally estimated that 7·4 million working days were lost through stoppages of work due to industrial disputes in the United Kingdom in the 12 months ended 28 February 1983.

Does my hon. Friend agree that that represents an improvement compared with most 12-month periods in recent years and is a vindication of the Government's step-by-step approach to industrial relations reform?

I am sure that my hon. Friend is right to say that, in general, this is an improvement. It shows that more people realise that there is rarely anything to be gained by striking.

If the Minister and the Government are anxious to give the impression that everything is fine and dandy on the industrial scene, why do they not get in touch with those at British Leyland, tell them to stop hanky-pankying about with the so-called washing up and bathing time—although the argument is a little more important than that—or the six minutes about which the strike is alleged to have occurred, and realise that they should treat British Leyland workers as part of the wealth creators of this country in the same way—or perhaps nearly as well—as Members of Parliament, who do not clock on at all? From the evidence of today's attendance, many of them are bathing and washing up all day.

The hon. Gentleman would do more to help those whom he claims to represent if he explained that the enormous assistance given to British Leyland by this country through the taxpayers' money would be better supported by workers staying at work and making good British products available for sale throughout the world.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what responses he has had to the Green Paper "Democracy in Trade Unions".

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what response he has had to his recent Green Paper on trade unions.

I have received 147 representations on the Green Paper "Democracy in Trade Unions". The period for consultations ended on 8 April.

In his consideration of these representations, will my right hon. Friend give due weight to the representations that I have received from industrialists in my constituency to the effect that compulsory ballots before strikes might introduce rigidity at the point where flexibility would be more desirable?

I understand my hon. Friend's point, which has been made by a number of people who have responded to the consultations. I assure my hon. Friend that the measures that are eventually brought forward will be not only effective but highly flexible.

Following the responses that my right hon. Friend has received, is there a likelihood of further legislation being introduced?

The overwhelming thrust of the responses that we have received in the consultations suggests that legislation is needed to improve the practices and to ensure an adequate measure of democracy in trade unions.

In the light of the disturbing indications from the National Economic Development Council about growth and employment prospects for the next part of this decade, will the Secretary of State seriously consider looking again at his Green Paper with a view to combining proposals for industrial democracy with the proposals for secret ballots that he took from my party and a proposal for an adequate vote by shares before corporate financing is made to the Conservative party?

I am not sure to which of her parties the right hon. Lady refers—the old one or the new one.

The new one.

The new one, the right hon. Lady says.

When will the Secretary of State produce a Green Paper on democracy in employers associations, and especially on the undemocratic and unauthorised company donations to the Conservative party that have neither the consent nor the approval of ordinary shareholders?

The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that these matters are governed by the Companies Acts and that such contributions must be reported to the shareholders, who have absolute power over them.

Has my right hon. Friend received representations from Conservative Trade Unionists—an organisation that represents more moderates in industrial relations than almost any other in the country—in favour of opting into rather than out of political levy and the election by secret ballot of trade union committee leaders at all levels? Does he agree that those representations carry more weight than any of the nonsense from the Opposition?

My hon. Friend is correct. I have received comments on the proposals from Conservative Trade Unionists and from a number of individual trade unionists of perhaps any or no party. They all point in the same general direction—that proposed in the Green Paper.

If the Secretary of State was listening to the answer to the previous question, he will know that his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State said that trade unionists and workers were becoming better behaved because the number of days lost through strike action was constantly falling. In the light of that satisfaction on the part of the Government, why is there any need to press ahead with further legislation?

It is desirable to reduce the level of strikes still further, but what is even more desirable in these matters is that the ordinary members of trade unions should have control over their own property—the trade unions.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what was the number and percentage of people unemployed in April of 1978, 1979, 1980, 1981 and 1982, respectively.

As the answer contains a number of figures I will, with permission, circulate it in the Official Report. It shows that the rate of unemployment was 5·7 per cent. in April 1978 and 12·1 per cent. in April 1982.

Does the Minister agree that those figures, more than anything else, destroy the myth perpetrated by the Government that the present level of unemployment is caused by the world recession? If so, will the Government stop kidding the people of this country about that? In view of the ever-increasing unemployment, at what point will the Government begin to consider whether their economic policies may be wrong? Would 5 million unemployed be an acceptable figure for the Government?

The hon. Gentleman's assumptions are wrong. He forgets the experience of the Labour party. Unemployment doubled under the Labour Governments of the 1960s and again under the Labour Governments of the 1970s. The hon. Gentleman forgets the physical phenomenon of the gap between seed time and harvest in these matters. We are reaping the harvest of the inflationary outrages inflicted on the British people by the Labour Government.

I share my hon. Friend's concern about unemployment. Will he confirm that the deliberate creation of unemployment is no part of the Government's policy?

I naturally and absolutely confirm that.

Does the Minister agree with the Chancellor's call for the suppression of the NEDC report showing that unemployment would not fall in this decade? Whether he does or not, what constructive response can he make to that very disturbing report?

I reject the conclusions of that report in so far as they represent a projection of expectations into the next decade which are wholly unacceptable to the Government.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the latest total of unemployed in inner London.

At 10 March there were 170,602 unemployed claimants in the jobcentre areas which correspond most closely to the 13 inner London boroughs.

Has the Under-Secretary seen the recent report of the inner London consultative employment group, showing that in the past four years cuts in public spending in inner London have contributed to the downturn in inner London's economy and thus resulted in high unemployment? Is he aware that even Conservative boroughs, such as Wandsworth, which have been cutting services to reduce rates, have experienced record increases in redundancies? Does he agree that a major rethink of economic policy will be needed before we can tackle the major problems of unemployment in inner London?

The hon. Gentleman must understand that inner London, like the rest of the country, is still suffering from the wrong economic policies that led us to believe that the rest of the world owed us a living and that we could spend this year earnings that would not be made until next year. The report to which the hon. Gentleman refers would have done well to devote more attention to the fact that in many London boroughs a considerable impact on employment is caused by Labour councils putting up the rates and thus driving out both people and jobs.

If unemployment in central London is so high, why is the booking office at Marylebone underground station almost always closed with a large notice saying, "Closed due to shortage of staff"?

I am sure that my hon. Friend does not expect me to give detailed reasons for the emptiness of the Marylebone booking office, but he rightly points out that many jobs exist in inner London. If the Opposition want more jobs in inner London, they should use their influence with local Labour councils to maintain and create jobs rather than to force them out.

Does the Minister agree that the figure that he has given for unemployment shows the total failure of the Government's inner city policy in relation to London? Does he further agree that this is the worst possible time for the Manpower Services Commission, which his Department controls, to switch its main provision for the adult unemployed from the community enterprise programme to the community programme, under which existing projects will offer part-time work at very low wages as the only provision for the adult unemployed in inner London? Will he consider allowing the community enterprise schemes in inner London to continue with their present structure for at least another year?

The hon. Gentleman is wrong to say that that is the only provision for the adult unemployed in inner London. To cite just one example, £40 million is going to the London docklands scheme. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that that will provide no jobs for the adult unemployed? He would do his constituents far more good if he praised the schemes that are providing more opportunities in London than anything achieved by the Labour Government.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he proposes to produce a White Paper on trade union democracy that will take account of the representations he has received on this subject.

The period for consultations on the Green Paper "Democracy in Trade Unions" has now ended and I am considering the responses that have been received. It is my intention to publish as soon as possible the Government's conclusions on what legislative steps may need to be taken in this area, either as a White Paper or in some other suitable form.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that some steps should be taken immediately, such as strengthening and widening the role of the certification officer? Does he further agree that it is a matter of great concern that members of NALGO, which is currently conducting a £1 million political campaign against local authority spending cuts, apparently cannot take their case to the certification officer simply because their union does not have a political fund?

I note my hon. Friend's comments, but it is not always possible to get things done immediately in this area of policy. There is not always a consensus across the Floor of the House in these matters. I believe that most of NALGO's members are highly embarrassed by the reports of the survey conducted by NALGO showing that local government expenditure cuts, such as they have been, are regarded by most people as too little and too late.

Does the Secretary of State accept that one of the most important documents that should be taken into account when considering these matters is the Gennard report, commissioned by the right hon. Gentleman's Department, which has been in gestation for many years and which, presumably, is a thorough, scholarly work? Based on that report were most of the strictures of the alleged evils of the closed shop that were made in Committee on the Employment Bill. Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that the Minister of State promised that when the report was available we would all have copies of it? I have tried to obtain a copy from the Vote Office—

Order. The hon. Gentleman must complete his question rather than make a statement.

Will the Secretary of State undertake to have this document printed so that views on the closed shop can be based on research, not on prejudice?

We did not base our policies on the Gennard report, which had not completed at the time, in any case. As the hon. Gentleman says, it has now been published. It has not been printed, but it is available in photocopy form. I should be happy to lend the hon. Gentleman a copy if he would like it, or so that he can make his own photocopy of it.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the latest unemployment figures.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give the latest figure for the number of unemployed persons.

At 10 March the number of unemployed claimants in the United Kingdom was 3,172,390. That was a slight fall from the February figure. The seasonally adjusted figures show an increase in unemployment over that month, but job vacancies have slightly improved.

Is the Secretary of State aware that in some of our inner city areas male unemployment is as high as 50 per cent.? What plans do the Government have to reduce those horrendous figures? Will the right hon. Gentleman have urgent talks with Mr. Alex Moon, the chairman of Kraft Foods, which this week has announced that a further 930 jobs will be axed in Kirkby? We cannot afford those job losses on Merseyside.

I advise the hon. Gentleman, who is a Liverpool Member, perhaps to go back to the Ford strikers at Halewood and tell them bluntly that until they match the standards of production of workers in Germany, with exactly the same equipment, there is singularly little prospect for increased employment in the British motor industry on Merseyside.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one way to reduce unemployment significantly would be for the British public, before making purchases in the future, to think British? If they spent 4 per cent. more per week of their household budgets on British goods, which they could well do, because the quality is better than it was, that would reduce unemployment by more than one third of a million.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. However, one has to be able to obtain those British goods. If factories close down due to strikes, those goods are not obtainable.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the totally unacceptable reply and claptrap by the Minister, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

rose—

Order. That prevents further questions on this matter.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment to what measures to reduce the level of unemployment in the United Kingdom he attaches particular priority.

To reduce unemployment we must create the economic conditions in which industry can become more competitive. Low inflation, a sound monetary and fiscal framework and moderate wage settlements are crucial for this.

Has the Minister seen the National Economic Development Council's report, which was published today, which shows that in the 40 sectors in manufacturing industry and the service industries there will be further increases in unemployment throughout the 1980s if the Government pursue their present policies? Do we not need a radical change in the Government's policies or, better still, a change of Government?

I do not attach overwhelming importance to that report. It was culled and developed before the latest upturn occurred. If it could not foresee the immediate upturn that occurred, it is unlikely that it would get the next 10 years right.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is vital to the reduction of unemployment for British manufacturers to provide the goods and services that the public want, at the price that the public will pay and when the public are prepared to take them?

I agree with my hon. Friend's observation. I hope that his point has been noted in Cowley and elsewhere.

Is the Minister aware that 138,000 people on Merseyside—one in five of the working population — are unemployed? Is he further aware that Kraft Foods, which announced a further 1,000 redundancies last week, together with Bowyers, Lyons Maid and others that have pulled out of the city in the past few months, has not complained about levels of productivity? What will the Minister do to ensure that the jobs that have been bled from Merseyside are restored to the people there?

I think that the single word "Halewood" would be an adequate reply to give to the inhabitants of Merseyside.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many employees had responded to his publicity campaign for the new youth training scheme in south Yorkshire at the latest available date; and how many places in total they were able to offer.

Some 220 inquiries had been received in south Yorkshire up to 18 March. A substantial number of these were from employers. It is too early to estimate how many places will result from those inquiries.

My question should have been corrected to read "how many employers", not "employees".

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Government, through the Manpower Services Commission, are preparing for 460,000 entrants throughout the country to the youth training scheme. I should have thought that that was doing something about it.

Will the employers include Her Majesty's forces?

My hon. Friend has raised an interesting point. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence may be making a statement on that later this week.

Is the Minister aware that the youth training scheme will make no more impact on the fundamental problem of youth unemployment than the abandoned youth opportunities programme unless there are fundamental changes in the Government's economic policies?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that if the country has a better trained work force the likelihood of jobs for youngsters will be much greater. As a result of the youth training scheme we shall have a better trained work force.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply, I beg leave to give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on progress in achieving his target in places for youth training initiative schemes.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many places under the youth training scheme have now been guaranteed by sponsors.

Major employers nationally have so far promised 65,000 places on the scheme, and 100,000 new training places under the youth opportunities programme are now ready for conversion. At local level, discussions about the scheme are taking place with thousands of potential sponsors and I am confident that the target of 460,000 entrants to the scheme this year will be met.

I am sure that my hon. Friend will be as encouraged as I am from the inquiries that I have made locally in my area at the Manpower Services Commission and careers office that the target in Pendle will be achieved. On a national basis, does my hon. Friend feel that the Government are doing enough in giving a lead in the Civil Service?

I think I am right in saying that there is a need for 1,500 places in my hon. Friend's constituency. We are confident that that target will be reached. I expect that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Treasury will answer questions later this afternoon on the national situation.

To what extent do those figures represent fulfilment of the hope expressed in the MSC's youth task group report for a network of managing agents across the country providing a full range of opportunities for young people in their localities?

I assure my hon. Friend that the targets set by the youth task group will be met.

Is it not an indictment of Government policy that already 250,000 young people under 18 are without jobs and training? Is it not a disgrace that the Government's last desperate pre-election massaging of the jobless figures is to propel our teeenagers towards the army, which is backdoor conscription? Have the MSC and the Ministry of Defence been consulted on this conscription scheme?

The hon. Gentleman knows that the youth opportunities programme and the youth training scheme are voluntary. The 250,000 youngsters to whom the hon. Gentleman referred as being without jobs represent an indictment of the mismanagement of the economy by the Labour Government.

Will my hon. Friend consider the problem, about which I have written to him, of careers officers who, as yet, seem to have little information about the new scheme and are worried about the conversion from YOP to the new training scheme? Does he agree that it is immensely important that careers officers should have the necessary information in the next six to eight weeks before the schools go back?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Careers officers have an important role to play. I assure him that I am in touch with the Institute of Careers Officers, which will get the relevant and right information in time.

Is the Minister aware that his enthusiasm and optimism are not shared in Scotland or Merseyside, where regional officers say that they do not expect to get sufficient mode A places?

The right hon. Lady is looking at different figures for Scotland and Merseyside. We have some time to run, but at this stage, both in Scotland and Merseyside, we have sufficient mode A and B places for youngsters who want to join the scheme. The right hon. Lady will be aware that the MSC has set up a separate body to examine standard setting. I am satisfied that that is a good and properly organised body. I shall be happy to look into the relationship between Sefton and the MSC.

Is the Minister aware that the job splitting and young workers schemes are regarded outside as expensive and ineffective ways of producing jobs for young people? Will he scrap them and use the resources more effectively to create work for young people?

No, Sir.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the estimated total number of persons each month no longer registered as unemployed as a result of his change in the method of counting and the further measures announced in the Budget.

Current monthly estimates are not made for the numbers of non-claimants on the old basis of registrations. I shall set out in the Official Report the detailed figures of the further measures announced in the Budget. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the effects of these measures on the unemployment count will be monitored as they occur and will be fully set out.

How many more fiddles does the Minister have up his sleeve? Who does he think he is kidding? Does he realise that the real level of unemployment—more than 4 million—is blackmailing many people into premature retirement and early poverty?

The hon. Gentleman should not follow too closely the example set by his hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mr. Jones) and make such extreme and outrageous attacks that are wildly outside the facts. He ought to accept that what we can do to help people who are unemployed is proper and that at no time have we hidden figures of any type. If he spent more time explaining that to his contituents, rather than making outrageous statements, he would help them considerably.

With regard to my hon Friend's original reply, will he and his Department consider publishing the number of people who have found jobs as a result of measures that were announced in the Budget? For example, would it not be helpful to know how many new jobs have been created by the business expansion scheme, by the youth training scheme and by job-sharing, and how many people were involved in community programmes?

I shall certainly examine my hon. Friend's suggestion. He will agree that it does the nation no good to pretend that there is a cover-up when all the figures are on the table to be read.

Do the additional measures that the Government intend to take to curb the awful level of unemployment really include the appointment of a Minister for the west midlands, which would be a purely cynical pre-election gambit? Will the Prime Minister appoint a Minister for the east midlands, where the problem is staggering, or even one for the Braunston estate in my constituency, where more than half of the people there are unemployed?

Those who have heard the hon. and learned Gentleman's question will make their own judgment about who is electioneering.

Does the Minister realise that if he were to add to the Government's unemployment figure the difference of 150,000 accounted for by the change in the method of counting, the 80,000 or 90,000 60-year-olds who were removed by the Budget, the 400,000 that the labour force survey showed had not registered previously and the 360,000 on special measures, the real unemployment figure would be at least 4 million? Is it not time that the Government were a little honest about the unemployment figures?

As the hon. Gentleman has suggested by that list that the Government do a good deal of double counting, my answer is no, that would not be a more accurate figure for the number of unemployed people. The Government have made every change absolutely clear in such a way that makes it perfectly possible for any hon. Member to understand the figures. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that that is a fiddle, he should examine some of the activities that went on under the Labour Government, which were not so clear.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what conveniently available figures he has for the numbers of job vacancies in the water and sewerage industries which are registered at offices of his Department.

At 4 February there were 114 unfilled vacancies notified to jobcentres in the United Kingdom for jobs in the water supply industry. Figures for sewerage services are not available.

Do the Government accept the estimate of the civil engineers that for every £100 million that is spent on water and sewerage construction, £50 million would be got back in increased taxes paid by contractors whose employees would otherwise be unemployed? That is the view of the Institution of Civil Engineers. Do the Government accept it?

I listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman said. The Government do not accept that view.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement about the trend in job vacancies.

Unfilled vacancies notified to jobcentres have been increasing since the middle of last year. In March, vacancies were 15,480—some 14 per cent. —higher than in the same month last year.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that satisfactory reply. How does that figure compare with the trend in job vacancies in some of our industrial competitor countries?

I am afraid that I do not have directly comparable figures. In many cases, such figures are not published. It is important that we consider what is happening in Britain. In Birmingham, for example, where rates are 12 per cent. lower this year, vacancies have increased by 44 per cent. in the past 12 months. In London, by contrast, where rates have increased by 150 per cent. in two years, vacancies have increased by only 1·5 per cent.

When will the level of unemployment return to that which the Government inherited on 4 May 1979?

I hope that that will happen during one of our future and many terms of office as a Conservative Government, and, above all, when industry becomes more competitive, can satisfy the needs of its customers and can take better advantage of, for example, the present record of retail sales.

Why does not the Secretary of State say that he does not know? In the light of yesterday's report by the director general of the National Economic Development Office, is it not a fact that the Conservative party's campaign before the general election stated that unemployment would be reduced from the then "unacceptable" level, and was that not a campaign of sheer hypocrisy?

No, Sir. If we had wanted a campaign of hypocrisy we would have used the right hon. Gentleman's election address. He knows perfectly well that unemployment has increased more in Germany, Norway and other countries since May 1979—

It is a lie.

It is no good the hon. Gentleman shouting "It is a lie." I am willing to publish the figures that show it is true.

Order. Before I call anyone else, may I say that it is most unpleasant to hear the word "lie" in the Chamber. I hope that it will not be used again.

What is the trend in job vacancies in the British construction industry, which is a good indicator of whether the economy is on the upturn?

Those figures are not available at present, but I shall send them to my hon. Friend. The important thing about the construction industry is that house starts and completions are booming this year, and the industry is well on the way to recovery.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many representations he has had from the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers and the Engineering Employers Federation on the training content of the youth training scheme.

No representations have been received from the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers and the Engineering Employers Federation on the training content of the youth training scheme. Both have been involved in discussions about the implementation of the scheme.

Will my hon. Friend make certain that the training under the youth training scheme is compatible with the first year of the apprentice engineering scheme, and is he satisfied that he can adequately monitor the quality of training under those schemes, because there is concern on both counts?

I assure my hon. Friend that, as this is a quality training scheme, we shall ensure that training is properly monitored. As to the first part of his question, that is for the industry itself, but I hope that further apprenticeships can be built on the youth training scheme.

As the Government have destroyed 2·5 million jobs—more than any Government since the war—why is the word "voluntary" used when those on the youth training scheme are told they can join the armed forces and serve in what is really conscription?

The hon. Gentleman is well aware, because the youth opportunities programme was introduced by the Government of which he was a member, that it is voluntary and will remain so.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the rate of increase in unemployment in south Yorkshire.

The percentage increase in registered unemployment in the year to October 1982 was 9 per cent. in south Yorkshire, compared with 10 per cent. for the United Kingdom. Since October 1982 the increase in the number of unemployed claimants has been in the range of 4 to 5 per cent. in both south Yorkshire and the United Kingdom. The figures include school leavers and are not seasonally adjusted.

Will the Minister confirm that, as a result of Government policies, we have been losing jobs at a rate of 100 a day in south Yorkshire? Can he confirm that we have now passed the sad and tragic landmark of 100,000 unemployed in a county with a population of 1¼ million?

I cannot confirm that, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not believe that it is Government policy to reduce jobs and create unemployment. More than 17,000 people in south Yorkshire were placed in employment by the employment services during the past 12 months.

Does the Minister realise that, although percentages do not usually matter, they are very important in the Mexborough area? Despite the fact that the Government have removed many categories from the unemployment register, is he aware that the area now has 23 per cent. unemployment? When will he do something for that district?

We are well aware, as the hon. Gentleman knows, of the high unemployment in the Mexborough area, which is why special provision is being made to help it.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will estimate the likely effect on jobs of the revised proposals by wages councils for increased levels of pay in their sectors.

I have no precise estimates of the effects of the recent wages awards. However, it is obvious that the higher the minimum rates wages councils set, the fewer jobs there will be.

I thank my right hon. Friend for using his influence to reduce the original proposals, which could have been so damaging. Does he accept that the councils' activities reduce job opportunities for young people? Althouh I accept that, due to international obligations, it is impossible to abolish the councils now, will my right hon. Friend consider removing those aged under 21 from their jurisdiction?

My hon. Friend overrates my influence. I merely drew the attention of the chairmen and members of the wages councils to the implications of what they proposed and they, on their own initiative, volunteered to change their proposals. I am advised that it would be impossible to carry out my hon. Friend's proposal while remaining in line with our obligations under ILO convention 26.

asked the Prime Minister if she will give a progress report on the negotiations concerning the net United Kingdom contribution to the European Community budget.

The March European Council agreed that the Commission would now make specific proposals on a lasting solution to the budget problem, and the Council of Foreign Ministers will report its conclusions to the June European Council. The Foreign Ministers are also committed to reporting conclusions on an interim solution, and it is agreed that provision for refunds for the 1983 budget year will be incorporated in the draft budget for 1984.

Since European moneys are spent less prudently and with less control than moneys spent by Her Majesty's Government, and since my right hon. Friend is committed to the overall reduction of public expenditure, will she confirm to a grateful House that on no account will her Government permit any increase in European own resources?

I assume that my hon. Friend refers to the 1 per cent. VAT ceiling. I am on record as saying clearly that that should not be exceeded, as is the Federal Republic of Germany. Own resources in general are quite sufficient and will continue to be so for many years, provided that the common agricultural policy is brought under proper control and a smaller proportion of the budget is spent on it than at present.

Is the Prime Minister aware that she has been talking about a lasting solution for the past two years? Will she have the courage to admit that there is no such thing as a lasting solution because fellow states in the EC do not want it and have no intention of granting it?

It was thought that the 1 per cent. VAT ceiling would be reached before it has been and that that would give an opportunity fundamentally to revise the structure of the European budget. It was not reached, but many more countries are now searching for a lasting solution because they car see that if agricultural expenditure continues as it is there will not be sufficient resources. That gives an opportunity for fundamental reform that was not there previously.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 12 April.

This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I hope to attend a dinner given by Her Majesty the Queen at Windsor.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that Basildon district council has increased the rate demand by 20 per cent.—more than four times the rate of inflation—has spent £3,000 of ratepayers' money on declaring Basildon a nuclear-free zone, and has made a £1,000 political contribution to the Billericay and Basildon branches of the CND, so placing in jeopardy jobs, defence and genuine services in my constituency? During my right hon. Friend's busy day, will she send a message to my constituents—ratepayers and voters—telling them to vote Conservative in the local elections in May?

I agree with my hon. Friend that most people want local authorities to give good value for money and to provide genuine local services, and that they do not want empty political gestures. I also agree that high increases in rates can jeopardise the future of small businesses and jobs. As to what he said about questionable expenditure, I remind him that the local auditors have the power to inquire into the expenditure of local councils. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's latter point.

Will the Prime Minister confirm, or deny, the report that she is proposing to appoint a Minister for the west midlands? Is this appointment belated recognition of the loss of 300,000 jobs in the past three years, which is one quarter of the total jobs available?

What has happened was announced in the House by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry during the Budget debate. The work on the west midlands, which is not an area for which regional policy benefits are obtainable, has been allocated within the Department of Industry to the Under-Secretary.

What about the 300,000 jobs? Are not these figures included in the NEDO report that was discussed at the meeting yesterday, at which some Government Ministers apparently proposed that the report should be suppressed? Will the right hon. Lady tell, the House whether she agrees or disagrees with the reports suggestion that there will be no increase in jobs in this decade, and will she tell us the reason for the suggested suppression?

I understand that my right hon. Friends who attended NEDO argued very strictly about the report, and so did the CBI. The CBI can see some improvement in the prospects for the future. It realises that there are new jobs coming from the new industries and it is very much aware that there is little future for anyone in this country if money is poured into protecting yesterday's jobs rather than helping to support new ones.

Was that indicated in the NEDO report?

The NEDO report was a matter for NEDO. It has not yet been fully published. Has the right hon. Gentleman read the report?

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 12 April.

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

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the zest and commitment of the employees of the National Freight Corporation show what can be achieved when an enterprise is freed from state control and when employees are given a stake in the business in which they work? Does not this success emphasise the folly of the Labour party's recent promise to nationalise huge chunks of industry?

I agree that the consortium has had an extremely successful start. It has made higher profits than during its last year of state ownership, and for the first time the people who work in that business have the right to a stake in it and own it themselves. That is a far better way to proceed than to make those industries state-owned. The way in which the Government are proceeding, of returning state-owned industries to the people who work in them and to the private sector, offers much better prospects for the future.

Will the Prime Minister tell the House why Mr. Geoffrey Chandler, the director general, was given such a rough time at NEDO in presenting an objective report? Is he to be made the Campbell Adamson of the next election?

Mr. Campbell Adamson was the director general of the CBI. On this occasion the CBI was supporting the view taken by the Government. Obviously there is no similarity between the two.

Will the Prime Minister tell the House what the essential difference is between the upturn in the economy that is being forecast by the Government and the three previous similar forecasts that did not materialise?

One of the differences is that we appear to be getting an upturn in several countries simultaneously, which was not the case before. Britain's first upturn towards the end of 1981–82 occurred at the same time as the worst of the recession was hitting Germany. There are signs of a similar upturn in the United States, Britain and Germany. We do not believe that the upturns are merely a recovery from the rundown of stock.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 12 April.

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

Has my right hon. Friend noted the oft-repeated remark, and indeed aspersion, of the Leader of the Opposition, to the effect that the Government are spending more on defence than on education? In a highly dangerous world, are not the Government right to give the highest priority to defence, and would not all our social services, including education, be at risk if that were not done?

Yes, I totally agree with my hon. Friend. Our way of life is worth defending. We have to spend sufficient money on defence, both individually and as part of NATO, to ensure that it is not imperilled. Were we not to do so, all of our social services, housing and everything else would be imperilled as, I believe, was once pointed out by the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey).

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 12 April.

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

Is the Prime Minister aware that a prospective Conservative parliamentary candidate has not been approved because, apparently, his wife has expressed opposition to fox hunting? Does the Prime Minister approve of that decision, and, if so, why? If she does not approve of that decision, will she condemn this deplorable action by a party that is always talking about the personal freedom of the individual?

I answer for many things from this Dispatch Box, but not for the selection of Conservative candidates. Local parties choose for themselves.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 12 April.

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

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Kremlin has lavished praise on the Labour party's new campaign document? Is my right hon Friend surprised about that and will she comment on it?

I have not read the sentences to which my hon Friend has referred. If one reads the document, there is not the slightest shadow of doubt that the Kremlin would lavish praise upon it, because it would severely weaken the defences of this country and NATO.

Is the Prime Minister aware that the latest official figures show that there are now 7 million people living in supplementary benefit poverty in this country and that that is an increase of no less than 60 per cent. since she came to power? Are we not seeing the ugly face of Thatcherite Britain, in which the rich have massive tax handouts showered upon them at the same time as one in eight of the population are reduced to means-tested poverty?

The numbers of people on supplementary benefit have increased largely due to the increased number of unemployed. They are able to get—I am sure the hon. Gentleman thinks this is right—sufficient for their needs. That has been the policy under all Governments, including the Labour Government.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the police in this country are held in much higher public esteem than some Left-wing cranks would have us believe? Will she confirm that if, in certain circumstances, the police consider it necessary to use weapons to combat armed crime, they will have the wholehearted backing of the Government in so doing?

We rely on the police as the first arm of the law to enforce order in this country and to bring people before the courts. Sometimes they have an extremely dangerous job to do. When they are likely to have to deal with people who are armed, under those circumstances and in accordance with the guidelines of the Home Office, they can go out armed. I believe that the overwhelming majority of people in this country support that action.

Will the Prime Minister find time today to order an inquiry into the price of petrol in this country? It cannot be in accordance with market economics, which her Government follow, that when the price of oil goes down the petrol companies propose to increase the price of petrol?

That is sharper than Jenkins.

It remains to be seen whether the alleged increases will stick. I doubt whether they will, but of course the petrol companies have one problem—the changing value of the pound in relation to the dollar. Although the price of petrol can fall in terms of dollars, it can increase in terms of pounds because of the change in the value.

asked the Prime Minister whether she will extend the role of value for money audits within the public sector.

My right hon. and learned Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has tabled new clauses to the Parliamentary Control of Expenditure (Reform) Bill, which provide for value for money audits in nationalised industries.

Given the massive subsidy from the taxpayer to the nationalised industries, is it not right that both the Government and the country should be certain that the maximum care is being taken about the way in which that money is spent? Is it not vital that the House should ensure that the financial auditors of the nationalised industries are able to carry out value for money audits?

It is important that value for money audits should be carried out. It is probably better that they should be carried out by the nationalised industries' own auditors, who are very well equipped to do them. It would not help anyone—and least of all the overheads—if those industries were subject to several different audits by several different people. I believe that the amendments that have been tabled will meet my hon. Friend's concern and that of most right hon. and hon. Members.