asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many profit-sharing and share ownership schemes have been set up by businesses since the introduction of the provisions of the Finance Act 1980.

I should like to apologise on behalf of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer for his absence today. He is in Washington attending the development committee of the World Bank.

I welcome what the Government have done to spread profit-sharing schemes, because they can contribute to good industrial relations. Will my right hon. Friend do two things: first, get the Government to persuade more businesses to enter profit-sharing schemes; and, secondly, re-examine the possibility of extending the tax advantages of those schemes to small businesses, as at present they are available only to large companies?

First, I have made pilgrimages to many cities to spread the good news about those schemes and I shall continue to do my humble best, as my hon. Friend has asked.

With reference to the Minister's introductory words, is he aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be better occupied in the House answering questions than in Washington fixing up loans to sustain unsustainable regimes and unsound economies?

The right hon. Gentleman knows full well that although that question may arise from the answer, it does not relate to the original question.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the increase between 1978–79 and 1983–84 in the burden of direct tax, income tax and employees' national insurance contributions combined, as a percentage of income for a married man with two children, wife not working, on (a) average earnings and (b) three quarters average earnings.

For a married man with two children, in 1983–84, the percentages of gross earnings taken in income tax plus national insurance contributions less child benefit are 22·6 per cent. and 17·1 per cent., respectively, at average and three quarters average earnings. Corresponding figures for 1978–79 are 21·2 and 15·1 per cent. This is an increase of 1·4 percentage points at average earnings and 2·0 percentage points at three-quarters average earnings.

As that represents increases of about £7 and £8 a week, respectively, if child benefit is taken out, is it not a classic case of the Tory party misleading the people? How does the Minister justify the Chancellor of the Exchequer's comments on 22 April 1979 that:

That is well tilled territory, as hon. Members who have been present for debates on the Finance Bill will know.

It is fertile territory.

What really matters in the end is the take-home pay, which has increased at all levels for all sections of the community.

In the light of the Minister's answer to the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Soley), and the answer given to me recently by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, that the total burden of taxation since the Government came to power has increased by the equivalent of 7p in the pound on the standard rate of income tax, which by any standards is a huge increase, what has been the effect of that increase in tax burdens on incentives?

The hon. Gentleman will recall that one change in incentives, to which great importance should be attached, is the change in the basic and higher rates of income tax. That will have a considerable impact on incentives.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that his reply emphasises the need for the Government to redouble their efforts to reduce public expenditure so that they can further reduce taxation?

I agree with my hon. Friend. I am not tempted to go down the path proffered by the Opposition, who blatantly say that we can finance increased spending and reduced taxes by borrowing. That is the road to disaster, and that is why the Opposition will not be followed by many people.

I am sure that the House will be grateful to the Chief Secretary for his candid admission that the burden of direct taxation has increased for families of average and below average size since the Government came to power. The House and the country will note the stark contrast between their performance and the most specific of their pledges before the 1979 general election.

I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should approach such matters as though he is hearing about them for the first time. He is well aware that the burden of income tax has been reduced for those on three quarters average earnings and above. That was made clear, despite the comments of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), during the Finance Bill debates. As to income tax and national insurance contributions, the position is as described. The reductions in the basic and top rates of tax are a significant contribution to incentives. If the right hon. Gentleman is saying that we have not gone far enough, I agree with him. If he is proffering a package that he believes would allow us to go further, as I said, that could be done only by courting financial disaster through grossly increased borrowing.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is now able to make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's consideration of implementation of the Green Paper on the taxation of husband and wife.

The Government are considering this issue in the light of the wide-ranging views expressed in response to the Green Paper. No fundamental reforms will be introduced without giving Parliament and the public an opportunity to assess their detailed implications.

As the married man's allowance makes nonesense of the concept of equal pay, and bearing in mind that low-income families with children have borne a disproportionate burden of the increase in taxation under this Government, does the Minister agree that it would be fair to transfer that allowance to child benefit and invalidity care allowance? The Green Paper contained little support for the concept of the transferable allowance.

The issues are complex, and reform may have significant distributional effects. I note from the Labour party's recently published plan that it, too, has not decided how to provide for the one-earner married couple with no dependants.

Will my hon. Friend ensure, when he considers this matter, that the taxation of the total income of a husband and wife is no greater than the taxation on a man and woman who have separate tax returns and may not be married?

I can add nothing more to what I have said. The issues are complex, and we must await the results of the Government's deliberations.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the trend since 1979 in the balance of taxation as between the taxation of personal incomes and the taxation of companies and corporations and the corporate bodies.

Both taxation on business and the burden of income tax on total personal income have been reducd by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor. Since 1979 priority has been given to business, but both have been reduced in real terms. As is well known, national insurance contributions for employers and employees have risen, as have the benefits that they finance.

Is the Minister aware that that is not a reply to my question? He talked about parallel trends, whereas I asked for the balance between the two trends. Will he confirm that the balance has shifted against the individual taxpayer, which is further evidence of the Conservative party's failure to honour pledges that it made before the general election?

I made it clear in my original answer that priority should be given to business in view of the general world economic position.

Is not the serious problem that has now overtaken the low amount of revenue that we obtain from corporation tax directly connected with the £30 billion of unused capital allowances? That vast sum makes nonsense of the entire corporation tax scheme. What does the Minister suggest we could do to obtain from that sector of the economy the taxes that are due from it?

I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman's analysis. The low return from corporation tax is due to the low profitability of British industry, which was a problem long before this Government came to office. The Government's policies will help industry, which will produce better profits and, therefore, a better yield from corporation tax.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of the single person's allowance and the married man's allowance has been represented by the single person's age allowance and the married couple's age allowance in each of the past three years.

In each of the past three years the single person's age allowance has been about 32 per cent. higher than the single person's allowance, and the married age allowance has been about 35 per cent. higher than the married man's allowance.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that retired people who live on non-index-linked pensions or accumulated savings from a lifetime of hard work have been hit harder by the wicked interplay of inflation and means-tested benefits than any other group in the community, and that they have more reason to be grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor for what he has done for them as revealed in those figures? Will my right hon. Friend urge the Chancellor of the Exchequer to continue in that direction in his next Budget?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I agree with him about the importance of reducing inflation. By November the state pension will have increased by 75 per cent. against an expected rise in prices of 70 per cent. I also draw my hon. Friend's attention to the fact that although we have increased the national insurance contribution, on the whole income tax has not been increased. That has been a major benefit to pensioners, who do not pay national insurance contributions.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will revise upwards his estimates for growth in the economy in the current year.

The forecast published with my right hon. and learned Friend's Budget predicted growth of 2·5 per cent. in GDP between the second half of 1982 and the second half of this year.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the evidence of the recent survey by the Confederation of British Industry and other favourable signs are the reasons for the Opposition's desperate anxiety to have a June election, for fear that the position will be worse for them in the autumn?

The anxiety is well placed, because the CBI's latest industrial trend survey shows encouraging improvements in business optimism. It is at the highest levels since 1976. That fact is reflected not only in the measure of optimism but in improved order books. Numerous other signs in the real world show that to be so. Just a few of the more benighted Opposition Members do not accept what is happening.

Will the Chief Secretary inform the House of the Government's message to those British manufacturers whose plans to contribute to greater growth in the economy depend on a realistic international value of the pound sterling?

The Government's job is not to give messages of the kind that the hon. Gentleman has in mind, but to provide the right financial framework and the right balance of measures to encourage industry. The contents of the Budget were the best possible encouragement to industry, and especially to small businesses.

I am sure the House will consider that the right hon. and learned Gentleman's reply was well-judged in his refusal to increase his estimate for the growth of GDP, of 2 per cent. this year and 2·5 per cent. in the second half of this year, over the second half of 1984. I assume that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has read the recent quarterly report of the CBI, which states that 72 per cent. of British firms are operating below capacity and only 4 per cent. consider that they are short of orders. In the light of that survey, why is there so much apparent optimism in the economy and in Government statements? What is the basis for that optimism?

The right hon. Gentleman's question is as good an example of scraping the barrel as we shall hear. He does not seem to challenge the fact that the economy is growing, but he welcomes the fact that the Government have not announced a faster rate of growth than they announced at the time of the Budget. As to the optimism, it is not difficult to understand why British industry should regard increasing order books and expectations as a good sign, as does the whole country. The only person who regards such optimism as a bad sign is the right hon. Gentleman.

Since growth in the economy in this and future years depends to a considerable extent on satisfactory non-inflationary growth in our partner countries, notably the Federal Republic of Germany and the United States, may I ask what proposals my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be putting forward at Williamsburg to make that more likely?

At Williamsburg my right hon. and learned Friend will be engaged in discussions designed to ensure that, wherever possible, the countries of the Western world adopt policies relating to inflation and budget deficits, thereby enabling the progress that is apparent in Britain, the United States and Germany to continue, not to be aborted.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assumption he made about the trend in levels of real interest rates when forecasting 2 per cent, growth in output in the current year in his Budget statement.

It is not Treasury practice to publish interest rate forecasts.

Does my hon. Friend agree that interest rates in Britain are far too high compared with inflation and the average rate of return on capital employed? As sterling has recently improved its exchange value, can Britain look forward to early reductions in the minimum lending rate?

Like my hon. Friend, I wish to see interest rates falling. Lower interest rates help industry, and I welcome the recent falls. I trust that, with the continued responsible financial policies of the Government, progress will be made regarding inflation and lower interest rates.

Is the Minister aware that real interest rates are much too high and that if the Government had not abandoned exchange control they would be a good deal lower?

I am by no means sure that what the right hon. Gentleman says is true. Those who seek to forecast interest rates often come a cropper. I have little confidence in the presumed forecast that the right hon. Gentleman is making.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer by how much he estimates British capital stock will have increased by 1985 as a consequence of North sea oil, using as a basis the National Income and Expenditure Accounts, section 11.

The total gross United Kingdom capital stock at 1975 replacement cost was about £550 billion at the end of 1981. On the basis of rough projections of total fixed investment, the gross addition to the capital stock is expected to be of the order of £80 billion by the end of 1985. It would be impossible to say how much of any increase could be attributed to North sea oil.

Does the Minister agree that part of the benefits of North sea oil ought to be passed on to our children and grandchildren, but, because of the Government's economic mismanagement, especially the effect that North sea oil revenues have had on the exchange rate, that is highly unlikely to happen unless there is a rapid change in policy?

I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. The Government's policy is not to fritter away North sea oil revenues on consumption; it is exactly the opposite. Reduction of the PSBR means lower interest rates and more room for the private sector to borrow and invest. The private sector is the best judge of how much and where to invest and of how many of the benefits of North sea oil should pass to future generations.

Is not the entire North sea saga, and the increase in the capital stock, a fine tribute to the work of the private sector? Should not my right hon. and hon. Friends be congratulated on the decrease in oil companies' taxation in the Budget?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The changes for North sea oil taxation announced in the Budget have been well received and are showing signs of increased development, which means further jobs and investment in the North sea.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he next intends to meet bankers to discuss the rescheduling of international debt; and if he will make a statement.

My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer regularly meets the Governor of the Bank of England and other bankers to discuss international debt problems. The subject will be considered further at a variety of international meetings in the coming month including the IMF/IBRD development committee today and tomorrow.

As the Government have encouraged British banks and others to bail out Argentina by providing a giant second mortgage—and perhaps a third later on—and have allowed Argentina to buy weapons of war with that money, will the Financial Secretary confirm that the meeting that the Chancellor is presently attending will try to respond to yesterday's meeting between the Presidents of Brazil and Mexico, which have a giant £170 billion total debt to foreign banks? Indeed, 16 per cent. of Mexico's debt is to Britain. Will the right hon. Gentleman rule out the possibility of the Government allocating further money, in the form of debt rescheduling to British banks, thereby allowing those dictatorships to buy arms, to have lower interest rates and to dictate their own repayment terms?

The hon. Gentleman has learnt nothing from past experience. Does he not remember that when the IMF had to bail out the Labour Government it imposed extremely strict conditions on the management of the economy? The strict conditions that are imposed on Argentina, or any other country for that matter, will prevent irresponsible economic policies and restrict the amount of money available for the purchase of arms.

What is the point of organising new loans to those countries which cannot or will not service their present loans?

I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman, of all people, would not have wished the Government to interfere in the private activities of private banks.

Has my right hon. Friend read the rather under-publicised report of the Treasury and Civil Service Committee on international lending by banks? Will he give the House an assurance that the Government's response to the report will be given before the Williamsburg conference?

I shall certainly draw that point to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the approximate weekly loss to the Government of having a worker on average earnings unemployed, accounting for unemployment benefit, social security, income tax on earnings, national insurance contributions and other items.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the most recent estimate of the cost of an extra 10,000 unemployed in terms of benefits paid out and income taxes lost.

Additional benefits would depend on the family circumstances of those becoming unemployed. But an extra 10,000 unemployed in 1983–84 would, on average, increase expenditure on benefits and administration by about £18·5 million, or £1,850 per person.

Would it not be better to pay people to work rather than to pay them to stay on the dole? As the average wage is now £145·20 per week and the cost to the Chancellor of an unemployed person is £111 per week, is it not true that for a small sum those unemployed people could be producing houses, education and health services, and re-equipping the industry that this country needs?

The position is not as the hon. Gentleman surmises. The figures that he has given for what he would describe as lost revenue are inaccurate, because changes in revenue depend on the economic circumstances in which rising unemployment takes place. There is no way in which a single figure can be given for that.

Why are the Government so coy about telling us the real cost of an unemployed person for the first 12 months? Does it not cost the Government somewhere between £5,000 and £6,000 per year? Would it not be far better to let those people do a useful job of work instead of paying them to be unemployed? Should not the Government now come clean and tell us the real figure instead of trying to pull a veil across it and mislead the House and the country?

Contrary to the hon. Gentleman's suggestion, there is no real figure. The only figures that can be produced relate to hypothetical changes in personal taxation based on strictly limited and arbitrary assumptions. There is no genuine, real figure.

Bearing in mind the figures given by my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun), am I right in assuming that what my hon. Friend said is that the figure of £1,850 compares with the hon. Gentleman's figure of something in excess of £7,000? Is it my hon. Friend's understanding of the position that the TUC would be willing to see people work for £1,850 per year?

That is an interesting point. However, I should make it clear that my figure of £1,850 related to additional expenditure on benefits and administration and was an average figure.

Does the Minister agree that having to spend more than £5,000 a year per person on unemployment benefit and so on represents a condemnation of this Government's economic policies? Before long, the Government will have to answer to the electorate for the disasters that they have brought upon this country.

I shall be happy to answer to the electorate at any time that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister may choose.

In that context, has my hon. Friend received any representations from Opposition members or trade unions about the possibility of job-sharing?

I have not received any representations about that. However they would more properly be made to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment.

Why is the Minister trying to cover up the true cost of unemployment to the country? If the Manpower Services Commission can estimate that unemployment costs £5,000 per head, why cannot the Government also make such estimates? Is not the truth of the matter that the additional 2 million people that the Government have thrown on to the dole have cost the country £40,000 million, which is well in excess of the £32,000 million that Britain has earned in revenues from the North sea.

The Government are not giving an estimate because, as I have said, no genuine reasonable estimate can be given. The hon. Gentleman is trying to get a single snapshot of an essentially dynamic situation. As he should know, that single snapshot would be very misleading.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether there have been any further signs that the economy is recovering from the recession.

Over recent weeks a number of encouraging indicators have been published, pointing to modest economic recovery. These include evidence that manufacturing production is increasing—up 1 per cent. in the three months to February on the previous three months; the continuing growth in total output, now 2 per cent. higher than in the spring of 1981; and a substantial improvement in business confidence.

What effect does my right hon. and learned Friend think the change in the exchange rate of recent months will have on the economy? In particular, what will be its effect on jobs and growth, and how quickyy will it be felt?

It is, I think, impossible to be precise. However, the reduction in the value of the pound since last summer has plainly provided opportunities to British exporters. It would also lead to a risk of inflation if it went further in that direction.

With the Government's present economic policies, how do they expect to sustain even the present modest recovery without an increase in inflation?

I do not believe that the policy that we have followed, of a restraint on monetary growth—which has led to a fall in inflation—will be reversed. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman should know that the increase in activity that I have described is the result of the success of those policies. If we were to reverse them, the increase in production and output would no longer be continued.

When will the Chief Secretary give some reassurance to those informed economists who already see the beginning of the next recession, by taking steps with the money supply to reduce the real rate of interest, which is now extravagantly high?

The hon. Gentleman is looking further ahead than he can see.

Is it not clear to my right hon. and learned Friend that the fluctuations in the exchange rate in the past two years have been a major impediment to the growth of world trade? As this country relies so heavily on an expanding basis of world trade, is it not vitally in our interests to work with our European and North American partners for greater exchange rate stability?

I agree that we should seek to work with our European and American partners and to persuade them — as we have largely been successful in doing — to pursue policies on inflation and budget deficits that will lead to more stability in the exchange rates.

If the Chief Secretary is so convinced that a recovery is under way, will he tell us when manufacturing investment will rise by 37 per cent., back to its level in 1979; when manufacturing output will rise by 22 per cent., back to its level in 1979; when bankruptcies will fall by 67 per cent., back to the level in 1979, and when unemployment will fall by 2 million, back to its level in 1979? If he cannot answer that, will he at least spare the House his smug satisfaction at the unique ruin that his policies have brought to British industry?

If the hon. Gentleman is trying to tell us that there has been a recession, he need not take the trouble, because we are well aware of that. However, if he is also trying to say that he finds it—for some reason that wholly eludes me—depressing to see a recovery in economic activity, I must tell him that neither the House nor the country shares his view.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the number of £1 coins currently in circulation.

It is rather too early to say how many are now in circulation, but some 62·8 million had been issued to the banks by 27 April.

As, when begrimed by use, its size and weight will make it easily confused with other small change, is not this pseudo-sovereign a very unsatisfactory little coin? As the Government are committed to low inflation and honest money policies, would it not be appropriate to mark their achievements by redesigning the whole range of coinage, replacing some coins and retaining others, so that weight, size, shape and colour are in a logical relationship?

My hon. Friend is an expert in these numismatic matters. However, the life of the new coin is thought to be 40 years, and that means that it will last longer than he suggests. After all, the sovereign has been with us for many hundreds of years. It was the coin of equivalent value in nominal terms, although in real terms it has increased greatly in the past few hundred years. I commend the new coin to my hon. Friend in the hope that he will find that people become used to it and find it easy to use, and find that it represents a useful addition to our currency.

Will the new £1 coin drop through the hole in the pocket?

That depends upon whether the hon. Gentleman keeps his trousers in order.

Now that we have a coin for the former £1 note, will my hon. Friend demonetarise that irritatingly small coin the ½p, which has a purchasing power less than that of the former farthing?

Although the House would like to think that the life of the ½p is limited, there are no present plans to phase it out.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is satisfied that the tax allowances proposed in his Budget benefit married couples more than single persons living together.

The single and married personal allowances were increased by about the same percentage in the Budget, so the relative position of married couples and single people living together is broadly unchanged. This is one of the issues that is being considered in the context of the Green Paper on the taxation of husband and wife.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that, thanks to the raising of the additional personal allowance in the Budget, an unmarried couple with children are approximately £6 a week better off than a married couple in the same circumstances? If that is the case, will he remove this anomaly forthwith so that those who may be tempted to beat the taxman do not choose living in sin as a way of doing so?

There is no evidence that couples choose not to marry, or to get a divorce, to take advantage of the tax rules. Nevertheless, I agree that the present position is open to criticism in a number of respects. The treatment of cohabitating parents is one of the unsatisfactory aspects and is being considered in the Green Paper.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree with the Association of Conservative Women that the married man's tax allowance should be abolished?

This is one of the matters that the Government are considering in the Green Paper. I do not wish to add anything further.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what powers are held by the European Assembly with regard to the United Kingdom budget refund.

The European Parliament's budgetary powers are set out in article 203 of the EC treaty.

If at some time the scandal of the United Kingdom budget contributions to the European Community should be resolved with the other nation states of Europe, and if at that time the European Assembly should see fit to try to involve itself, will my right hon. Friend tell it to get knotted?

I doubt whether using my hon. Friend's suggested language would assist in the process of securing a longer-term solution to the budgetary imbalances of Europe. On the other hand, both we and the European Parliament attach the greatest importance to achieving just such a solution.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he next expects to discuss the United Kingdom's economic prospects with the National Economic Development Council.

Future NEDC agendas have not been firmly fixed but ways of improving our economic prospects are discussed at every council meeting.

Does the Chief Secretary recall that at a meeting earlier this month NEDC said that there were no prospects of an increase in jobs in either the industrial or service sectors of industry during the course of this decade? Why do he and the Chancellor think that it was wrong?

One of the reasons was that the sector committees, whose views were reflected in the report to which the hon. Gentleman referred, cover only about one third of the economy.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend point out to NEDC that recently the west midlands has derived considerable advantage from the 13 per cent. fall in the sterling exchange rate and that the west midlands is prepared to support even the present very high level of interest rates if that is necessary to constrain any increase in the money supply, but is emphatically not prepared to support these levels of interest rates to sustain an uncompetitive rate of sterling?

Does the Chief Secretary recall that the last time he met and had discussions with the NEDC on the most far-reaching report that it had had before it since the formation of the Government, the general conclusion of the 30 sector committees that drew up the report was that there would be no increase in employment, on present policies, between now and 1990? What response will the Government make to this serious condemnation of their policies and the appalling prospects that lies ahead?

As the right hon. Gentleman knows well, the view of the Government and the CBI is that the report was unnecessarily gloomy and that the sector committees whose work was reflected in that report had probably taken insufficient account of a number of recent favourable developments, including the rapid fall in inflation and the vast growth in industrial productivity.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 28 April.

This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. After my duties in the House I shall be leaving for an official visit to Sheffield and the east midlands.

I welcome my right hon. Friend's achievement in getting inflation down to its lowest level for 15 years and in getting realistic wage settlements. None the less, will she accept that the real rate of interest is the greatest disincentive to borrowing and business? Furthermore, will she accept that while labour and capital-intensive businesses such as agriculture, catering and manufacture are doing well on other fronts, the real cost of borrowing is the greatest disincentive to investment and prosperity?

I share my hon. Friend's views on the importance of interest rates, and I agree that low inflation and low interest rates provide the right framework for recovery. As inflation falls further, so real interest rates, which are slightly high at the moment, will continue to come down.

Will the Prime Minister spend any time today on her plans for the rating system? Will she promise to abolish the rating system, and if so, will it be on the basis of the plans that she had in mind when she last made such a promise, or will she promise merely to reform the rating system?

There was no pledge to abolish rates in the last election manifesto—[Interruption.] In the last manifesto we clearly said—

Speak up.

—that the reduction in income tax would have to come first. The hon. Gentleman will have to wait to see exactly what we say about rates when the time comes.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 28 April.

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

The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) spoke of rates. Will my right hon. Friend take time today to look at recently published statistics which show that the average rate poundage of Labour-controlled London boroughs is no less than 50 per cent. higher than for Conservative-controlled boroughs? Is my right hon. Friend aware that the equivalent figure for the metropolitan counties is 25 per cent., as it is in the shires? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best advice to people is to vote Conservative at the local elections next week if they want to keep their rates down?

As my hon. Friend points out, there are many Labour-controlled local authorities that are big spenders of other people's money. This year, the 18 largest over-spenders are all Labour-controlled authorities. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is the duty of councillors to be careful how they spend ratepayers' money and to see that the ratepayers get value in every aspect of the councils' work.

If the right hon. Lady is now showing a renewed interest in the rating system, will she tell us by how much rates have increased under her Government?

Too much, especially in Labour-controlled authorities.

Have not the rates increased in general throughout the country under her Government by 75 per cent.? By how much would that have been reduced had she not cut the rate support grant?

The rates are highest in Labour-controlled authorities. This year the 18 largest overspenders are all under Labour control. Among the 18 largest overspenders are the GLC, ILEA, the west midlands, Greater Manchester, Avon, Merseyside, Southwark, Sheffield, Derbyshire, Humberside, Greenwich, Tyne and Wear, Harringey, and South Yorkshire—all Labour-controlled. Labour loves spending other people's money.

Will the Prime Minister help us by saying how much the rates have increased in Surrey, which is controlled by the Conservatives?

They are much too high in Surrey this year. They are too high in many authorities One of the ways of trying to reduce public expenditure in the local authorities was the new rate support grant system. On average, rates are increasing this year by 6·5 per cent. Had the two biggest spenders—the GLC and ILEA—spent at their target there would have been, on average, virtually no rate increase this year.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 28 April.

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

Has my right hon. Friend had time to study the essay that was written by the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) in the book called "Renewal. Labour Britain in the 1980s"? Does she not find it strange that in an essay on foreign affairs he never referred once to Labour's policy of withdrawal from the Common Market or the removal of nuclear weapons and bases? Does she agree that it would be far better if the right hon. Gentleman came clean and renounced those policies, which he knows will be a complete disaster for Britain?

I agree that it would be a complete disaster to withdraw from Europe or to abandon our nuclear weapons. The former would have a devastating effect on British industry and the latter would mean that we were not properly able to defend ourselves.

Does the Prime Minister agree that some of the saddest sights that we have seen in the past few days have been the enforced sale of the Victoria Cross by the widow of a second world war soldier and the requests by widows of men in earlier wars to visit the graves of those men? Will the Prime Minister consider initiating an urgent and wide-ranging review of the problems of widows of those wars so that they can be given the same kind of consideration, kindness and compassion as has been properly shown to the widows of soldiers in the Falklands campaign?

As the right hon. Gentleman will be aware, the Government's record in improving the lot of war widows has been unsurpassed by any other Government, including that which the right hon. Gentleman supported, both in terms of the special increases that we have given for old age and in that we have completely taken war widows out of taxation.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 28 April.

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

Is my right hon. Friend aware that in two recent evenings' canvassing with the excellent Conservative candidates in the Grange ward of Christchurch, which has the largest council house estate in my constituency, I came across a number of erstwhile Labour voters who expressed their grave concern and disillusionment with the Labour party's policy of support for the CND? Therefore, will she do everything that she can to encourage comrade Kent and his Socialist cohorts to keep defence at the forefront of our political debate?

I agree with my hon. Friend. We shall indeed keep defence matters at the forefront of debate. They are vital to the security of our way of life and the British people. They are also vital to our international standing and I hope that there will soon be a full debate in the House on those matters.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 28 April.

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

Is the Prime Minister aware that there is widespread concern in Scotland about recent further remarks of the Secretary of State for Defence? Is she aware that distinguished representatives of the Church of Scotland, the Episcopalian Church and the Catholic Church took grave exception to his smear upon the peace movement? Will the Prime Minister use her influence to encourage the right hon. Gentleman to raise the standard of this important debate to a level that it is entitled to expect?

With regard to the head of any Church, my right hon. Friend has had no conversation with either Cardinal Hume or — [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] I am giving the facts. Just because the Labour party does not like them does not make them any less the facts.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the most unchallengeable credential for leading a peace movement is to have been responsible for carrying out policies that have preserved peace? In doing that, my right hon. Friend and the preceding five Prime Ministers, who have kept Britain in NATO with nuclear weapons defending that Alliance have shown that they lead the true peace movement for preserving peace between East and West.

I agree wholly with my hon. Friend. Nuclear weapons are a part of the NATO balance, which has kept the peace for some 38 years. People should be very slow to discard it before they find something that can keep the peace equally well. We are the true peace movement.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 28 April.

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

Will the Prime Minister find time today to issue instructions to stop the practice of some jobcentres calling young unemployed people for interview when they arrive find that, without warning, they are being interviewed by a psychologist? Is not the degradation of unemployment that has been caused by the Government quite sufficient without implying that young unemployed people are in some way psychologically disturbed?

I can understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying and the impact behind his words. It is the work of jobcentres to try to place young people either in training or in jobs. If the hon. Gentleman has any particular case in mind, perhaps he will draw it to my attention and I shall see that it is fully and promptly dealt with.

With regard to my right hon. Friend's answers on nuclear disarmament, has she had time to see the report in today's newspapers to the effect that the Labour party, in its advertising campaign, does not propose to refer to its policy of unilateral nuclear disarmament? As the Leader of the Opposition thinks that it will be the main issue at the next election, does not my right hon. Friend find it extraordinary that he does not wish to put the issue before the public?

Yes, I have seen those reports, but I think that the true face of the Labour party has been revealed in its document and in the sayings of many of its people. The Labour party is unilateralist, which means that it is prepared to play with the defence of Britain and abandon nuclear weapons, wherein lie our true security.