asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the number of people registered as unemployed in the London borough of Wandsworth and the number of job vacancies registered at jobcentres in the borough.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many people in Wandsworth are now unemployed; and what was the figure in May 1979.

At 14 April 1983 the number of unemployed claimants in the jobcentres areas which correspond closely to Wandsworth was 15,324. At May 1979 the number of registered unemployed in the area was 5,698. At 8 April 1983 the number of notified vacancies remaining unfilled at the jobcentres was 315.

Does the Minister have any idea at all of the destruction of job opportunities that this incompetent Government have caused in areas such as Wandsworth? He should hold his head in shame at the deplorable reply that he has just given.

The hon. Gentleman knows only too well that through their urban programme and other measures the Government have made considerable sums of money available to support employment in London, but it is hardly sufficient to offset the negative effect of rates in London, rising to nearly double the national average.

Is it not true that the virtual threefold increase in unemployment in Wandsworth during the lifetime of this Government is almost entirely the direct consequence of their policies? Can the Minister suggest any possible reason why the 15,000 unemployed people in Wandsworth should vote for a Conservative candidate at the election?

I wonder to what the hon. Gentleman would attribute the doubling of unemployment under the 1966–70 Labour Government and the doubling of unemployment again under the 1974–79 Labour Government.

What is the relationship in Wandsworth between the number of job vacancies that are available at jobcentres and at private sector agencies? Does my right hon. Friend have a figure for Wandsworth? If so, how does it compare with the national figure?

There are about 315 job vacancies at jobcentres in Wandsworth. One needs to multiply that figure by three to get the overall total, including the private sector.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will expedite proposed legislation for secret ballots for strikes.

I am still considering the responses to the Green Paper "Democracy in Trade Unions", but I hope to make known my conclusions on possible further legislation in the near future.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that secret ballots are a more democratic way of taking important decisions than mass meetings, where it is almost impossible to get a proper count and there is always the danger of intimidation? Does he further agree that in a secret ballot the men are more likely to take notice of their wives' opinions, which invariably are more sensible, than of their shop stewards' opinions?

Yes. There is little doubt that the vast majority of people would agree that it is right, wherever possible, to have secret ballots among members of trade unions before they are called out on strike. Indeed, I would go further and echo the words of Mr. Sidney Weighell, who recently said:

"I am leaving the trades union movement I joined 44 years ago with a stark warning to those who remain: get rid of the crazy Left before they get rid of you."

Will the Secretary of State confirm that the overwhelming majority of strikes are settled within three days? Will he also confirm that he never had any intention of introducing legislation along these lines and that it was simply a propaganda exercise on behalf of the Tory party?

No, I cannot confirm the second of the hon. Gentleman's points, because it is not true. It is right that most strikes are settled very quickly, and the legislation that I shall bring forward in the next Parliament will take account of that.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is nothing much wrong with British trade unionism that democracy cannot cure and that secret ballots for democracy are preferable to hands up for a dubious democracy at a mass meeting?

Yes, indeed. It is important that people should understand the issues that are involved. On 9 June electors will vote in secret and their votes will be counted by independent scrutineers. I think that people will find it extraordinary that the Labour party should stand on a platform which says that trade unionists should not have such rights by law within their unions.

Will not the same electors find it no less extraordinary that a Secretary of State who promises ballots for officers in trade unions and other organisations should himself be a senior figure in a party that has no ballots for any of its senior officers?

They would if that were true, but it is completely untrue.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what increase there has been in unemployment in the county of Cumbria since the month of May in 1979.

Between May 1979 and October 1982 the number of registered unemployed in the county increased by 136 per cent. Between October 1982 and April 1983 the number of unemployed claimants increased by 14,034.

Is the Minister aware that unemployment in Workington has tripled under the Government? Is it not a shabby, insensitive, uncaring and intolerant Government who force my constituents on the dole and then oblige them to live on benefit payments which are insufficient to meet their daily needs, while the Secretary of State's responsibilities are geared not to the level of benefit payments but simply to ensuring that my constituents are out of work? Is it not wrong and immoral of the Government to impose such a burden on the working people of Britain?

The answer is no, Sir. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will explain to his constituents how he intends to support the Labour party's policy when it comes to the nuclear submarine which Vickers at Barrow will build and which will provide many jobs in the county of Cumbria. That is what his question was about.

Did not the constituents of the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) suffer severe damage from the steel strike which lost for British Steel, possibly for ever, many of its traditional markets? What did the hon. Gentleman do to dissuade his constituents from destroying their livelihood in that steel strike?

I am sure that the people of Cumbria, like those in the rest of the United Kingdom, know very well that the way in which unemployment has increased in Britain has much to do with the way in which we have priced ourselves out of markets throughout the world and that one of the ways that we have done that has been to strike instead of increasing our productivity.

That is not true. Has the Minister noted that unemployment in the northern region, even on the so-called new basis, has risen from 105,000 to 229,000 since the last general election—a disastrous increase of 118 per cent? When will unemployment in the northern region begin to go down?

Unemployment in the northern region will begin to go down when we win back the customers that we lost under successive Labour Governments who did not enable Britain to keep the competitive edge that we need. In the end, we can have jobs only from firms that sell goods at prices that people can afford to designs that they want to choose.

In view of the increasing number of people unemployed in Cumbria since the last general election, will the Minister be going to Cumbria during the next few weeks to apologise for misleading people with the Conservative poster displayed at the last general election?

I am sure that many Conservative Members will be going to Cumbria and other parts of the country reminding people, as they know full well, that the only way to get more jobs is to produce goods that we can sell at competitive prices. There is no short way to achieve that. The Conservative Government, who will be the Government after 9 June, is the only Government who can achieve that.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the completely unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I give notice that I shall seek leave to raise the matter on the Adjournment in the next Parliament.

Order. The hon. Gentleman is addressing his point of order to the wrong person.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many young men and women under the age of 18 years are without jobs or training.

At 13 January, the latest date for which the quarterly age analysis is available, there were 123,769 men and 97,976 women aged under 18 in the United Kingdom who were unemployed claimants.

Those are disturbing and serious figures. No Minister has given such serious figures to the House before. Do they not represent the humiliation and sense of hopelessness not only for the youngsters out of work but for their parents? Are not the figures the most ghastly aspect of the Government's mass unemployment policy? Did not the Conservative Government in 1979 promise that real jobs would be given to unemployed youngsters?

The hon. Gentleman has obviously failed to notice that the Government have introduced the youth training scheme with enough places for 460,000 16 and 17-year-old entrants. Surely, with the Labour party supporting that scheme, he must realise that the Government have played a positive role in helping to solve the problem.

How many thousands of young people who left school at Easter and will return to take their examinations do not appear in the figures that the Minister has just given and will therefore not be able to receive benefits until September? Does he realise that those young people's families have to support them without any help whatever?

I do not have the exact figure to hand, but the hon. Gentleman will be aware that it they are taking examinations they will benefit from passing them by gaining proper employment.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the total annual cost in rent and rates of his Department's jobcentres, at the latest date for which figures are available.

The total annual costs of rents and rates for the regional, area and local offices of the employment division of the Manpower Services Commission was £16—1 Million in 1981–82, the latest full year for which figures are available. Of this, £13 million was the cost of the local offices.

Is the figure that was given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State in reply to the first question today — that three times as many jobs are available through private sector agencies as through jobcentres—an accurate national figure? If so, why? Is the taxpayer getting value for money from the jobcentres? Will my hon. Friend say something about the success or otherwise of the recent Saturday opening experiment?

The answer to my hon. Friend's first point, is yes.

Will the Minister give a complete assurance that there will be a continuance of those excellent facilities and that we should resist the privatisation of that essential service?

I am delighted to hear that the hon. Gentleman is assuming that the Government will be returned at the next general election — [AN HON. MEMBER: "Grow up."]—It is not a matter of growing up. It was the assumption behind the hon. Gentleman's question. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government believe in the public employment service.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the total number of registered unemployed in the United Kingdom and the latest estimate of the unregistered unemployed.

At 14 April the number of unemployed claimants in the United Kingdom was 3,169,879.

Does the Secretary of State remember that in the 1979 election campaign the Tory party used Saatchi and Saatchi to plaster posters all over the country telling people "Labour isn't working"? Will the Secretary of State for unemployment use Saatchi and Saatchi this time to tell people the truth—that this Tory Government have increased unemployment by more than 160 per cent. and that the best way to get rid of mass unemployment is to get rid of this rotten Tory Government and replace them with a Labour Government committed to getting our people back to work?

I certainly remember the last election campaign, at which the Government were returned. I look forward to the next one with eager anticipation. I take note of what the hon. Gentleman says, but he must always remember that every Labour Government, from that under whom I was born and who cost my father his job, have left office with a higher toll of unemployed than when they entered office. The last Labour Government were no exception and any future Labour Government would no doubt have the same record if we were foolish enough to contemplate one.

How many jobs have been created by small firms in small industries during the past 12 to 18 months? Are not those jobs, provided without subsidy from Her Majesty's Government, likely to be long-term jobs?

I am not able to give my hon. Friend that figure, partly because the gathering of statistics on the creation of new jobs is not nearly as effective as our recording of unemployment statistics.—[Interruption.]— The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley) may find that funny, but he will have read the Employment Gazette, which recently showed that we have seriously underestimated the number of people in employment. I cannot give my hon. Friend the figure for which he asks, but since I last answered oral questions on 12 April some 7,883 jobs are recorded as having been created. Many more jobs have been created beyond those, and I will happily give my hon. Friend a list of those that have appeared.

The Secretary of State keeps quoting figures, but will he say yes or no to the fact that he has presided over the highest number of unemployed that we have seen in this contry since figures were kept?

Yes; and I regret that I have that in common with a number of other Employment Ministers scattered across the world. This problem has affected many countries. I have it, in common with Ministers who are presiding over the highest levels of unemployment in their countries. I remind the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) that the increase in unemployment since May 1979 has been higher in Germany, Norway and the Netherlands.

Untrue.

The hon. Gentleman says "Untrue". The latest figures available, using seasonally adjusted national definitions, show that between May 1979 and April 1983, German unemployment rose by 165 per cent.; between May 1979 and December 1982, unemployment in the Netherlands rose by 193 per cent.; from May 1979 to February 1983 unemployment in Norway rose by 144 per cent.; and in the United Kingdom from May 1979 to April 1983 unemployment rose by 143 per cent. The total numbers are larger because the Labour Govenment left a bigger toll of unemployment here than was inherited by the German Government.

Will my right hon. Friend give the estimated number of unemployed who are actually working in the black economy?

My hon. Friend asks a question which it is impossible to answer. If we were able to identify those working in the black economy, we would follow up the matter and bring them into the white economy.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that he will be the first Secretary of State since the war under whom the number of people in work has been fewer than when he took office? Secondly, will he confirm that he personally was responsible for advising the Prime Minister to scuttle to a June election because the unemployment figures in September will rise dramatically?

The right hon. Gentleman knows full well the statistics that he quotes. I think that I must quote something to him. — [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] I am going to answer the question.

"The 1½ million unemployed is entirely due to an expansion of the work force in Britain. And over the next decade an additional 1½ million more will be in the labour force. That leaves, even with improved growth in the economy, us facing a possible 3 million unemployed by the end of the 1980s. To try to blame this on a mishandling by any Government, Tory or Labour, does not get us very far."

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what schemes for providing work experience and training for young unemployed people are subject to wages council regulations; and why.

Wages council regulations apply to employees, including young people, who are employed in industries where wages councils were established because of low pay and the inadequacy of wage negotiating machinery. They may therefore apply to some young people participating in special employment and training measures who have employee status.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many employers who are anxious to help the young unemployed have participated in the schemes without being informed that they might subsequently be penalised by the application of wages council regulations?

If my hon. Friend is referring to those who take part in the young workers scheme, I should point out that the application form makes it plain that the scheme does not exempt employers from their obligations under a statutory wages order.

Does the Minister agree that, under this Government, the observance of the provision of fair wages and conditions for workers, young or old, means that we shall shortly be observing fewer ILO conventions than are currently observed in Hong Kong?

I entirely dispute that observation.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he has had any further discussions with the Confederation of British Industry on the question of statutory ballots prior to strike action.

No, Sir. But I have had the benefit of the CBI's written observations on this issue in its response to the Green Paper "Democracy in Trade Unions".

Does the Secretary of State now realise that if secret ballots are statutorily enforced, the outcome of statutory ballots must equally be enforced? Does the right hon. Gentleman understand the implications that will arise when the police not only supervise a strike but enforce the outcome of a secret ballot?

I have heard some quite extraordinary pieces of convoluted logic from the hon. Gentleman, but never one quite as absurd as that. The hon. Gentleman must not allow his imagination to run completely wild, even in the atmosphere of an election. I intend to maximise the possibilities for trade unionists to secure strike ballots before strike action.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that recent experience at the British Leyland works at Cowley shows the need for strike decisions to be taken by a better and more democratic means than mass meetings where there may be intimidation by shop stewards? Can we expect early legislation on that subject from the next Conservative Government?

There is no doubt that anybody who saw on television some of the scenes during many recent strikes — car park meetings with no real check against outsiders, the cry, "Which way is it, brothers?", or whatever the question may be, and someone on the same level, not able to see across the meeting, shouting "Carried" before anyone has had an opportunity to see how many votes are cast — will be convinced of the desirability of secret ballots before strikes. I do not understand why the Opposition are so reluctant to help people to achieve the right to a secret ballot.

Does the Secretary of State agree that if compulsory strike ballots had been in operation during the recent water workers' strike, that incident would have been unduly prolonged?

The hon. Gentleman may make that assertion, but, to my knowledge, at no time during that dispute were the workers invited to vote in secret so that we could be sure that there was no intimidation. Therefore, we cannot know the answer to his question.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how he is intending to promote and advertise the expansion nationally of the enterprise allowance scheme.

I shall issue a national press statement giving details of the scheme nearer the starting date of the extension, which is 1 August. Jobcentres and other selected offices will be issued with display material and explanatory literature.

I hope that my hon. Friend's Department will put significant resources behind the promotion of the enterprise allowance scheme. Is he aware that I have seen how successful the scheme has been in my local authority area of Pendle? Is he further aware that in that area, which will be one parliamentary constituency of Pendle, no fewer that 200 businesses have started under the auspices of that scheme? Does he appreciate that I have every intention of being in Parliament after the general election to ensure that those developments continue?

I am well aware of my hon. Friend's concern for the scheme and of his encouragement of it in his area. It has proved very successful. I assure him that there will be publicity to ensure that the country hears of the national extension.

Is it the case that the advertising agencies have been one of the few growth areas under this Government?

No, Sir.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will strengthen the training component of the youth training scheme.

I am confident that the current criteria for designing youth training scheme programmes will provide a strong training component for all schemes.

Is the Minister aware that the youth training scheme is a confidence trick—a pretence that 400,000 boys and girls now in the dole queue will have a future under this Government? Is it not true that while the Government pursue their economic policies there is no useful future for them?

The hon. Gentleman will be well aware that his right hon. and hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench do not believe that the scheme is a confidence trick. They have fully supported it, as have trade unions and employers. Thousands of sponsors are coming forward and youngsters are interested in joining the scheme.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the Labour party confidence trick? Has it not stated that, if elected, it will introduce a training scheme for youngsters of 16-plus, for two years, which will pay its participants £25 a week? Has not the Labour party now had to admit that after taxation and loss of family allowance that wage will be worth only £9 a week? Is that not the biggest confidence trick of all time?

I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. As will become apparent during the next few weeks, the Opposition have not properly costed their proposals.

What about the unemployed 17-year-olds?

As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the scheme is for 16-year-olds. We hope also to provide for an estimated 50,000 unemployed 17-year-olds.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment when he next plans to meet the chairman of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service to discuss improvements in communications between management and trade unions; and if he will make a statement.

I have frequent contact with the chairman of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the industrial relations legislation that the Government have passed has improved communications between management and unions and that the general support that the Government have given ACAS has greatly improved the atmosphere throughout industry?

My hon. Friend is right. I hope that the legislation that we put forward in the next Parliament will continue along that path.

Will the Secretary of State take the opportunity, as soon as possible, to read the evidence taken recently by the Select Committee on Industry and Trade about the recent strike at British Leyland? Is he aware that he will then realise that that dispute, which caused the loss of a great deal of production, was due entirely to the utter failure of the management to consult the work force and to take note of its views?

I fancy that the hon. Gentleman had reached that conclusion before he took any of the evidence.

Rather than the Government being so obsessed with anti-trade union legislation under the guise of improving industrial relations, why do they not take action to deal with the cause of the really serious loss of days of work, such as unemployment and industrial injury? Have not the Government done virtually nothing about that? Have not the Government had a report on the dangers of asbestos for the past four years? While they were producing vicious anti-trade union legislation, they were doing nothing about the dangers to workers by asbestos.

The hon. Gentleman is wholly wrong. The Government have acted against asbestos. Britain is among the leading countries in the European Community in seeking to extend protection against the hazards of lead. We have strengthened our capacity, especially in some areas such as the Nuclear Inspectorate, where we have offered higher pay to the high-grade inspectors that are needed. There is no doubt in my mind that we have cared well and truly for health and safety.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what were the numbers unemployed in the Leigh travel-to-work area in May 1979 and in April 1983.

At May 1979 the number of registered unemployed in the Leigh travel-to-work area was 2,448. At April 1983 the number of unemployed claimants in the area was 7,355.

Do not those figures reflect the total and abysmal failure of the Government's industrial strategy during their four years of office? Is it not a crushing indictment that the great monetarist experience, which was billed as a wonder cure for the British economy, has now proved a total failure? Are not those people now on the scrapheap with no future while the Government remain in office? Is it not to be welcomed that the electorate will have the opportunity of terminating the Government's term of office once and for all on 9 June?

I share the hon. Gentleman's concern about the large increase in unemployment in the Leigh travel-to-work area. I hope that he will share my belief that the only way in which jobs will be created is if the national economy improves—I keep repeating this because it is true — so that we increase prosperity in Britain by producing goods that compete with those of our competitors. The hon. Gentleman may look forward to the election, but he will find that the Government will be reelected because the people of Britain know perfectly well that we have created the foundation for an increase in employment.

While dissociating myself from the exaggerations of the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Cunliffe), may I ask whether my hon. Friend agrees that a number of those who have become unemployed in the Leigh area hitherto worked in the textile and clothing industry? If our partners in the EC can take special action to protect their industries and to provide the necessary safeguards against unfair competition, cannot my hon. Friend ensure that the United Kingdom Conservative Government take the same steps to protect the jobs of responsible people who have a great skill, whose industry is the third largest employer in the United Kingdom and which produces a massive export opportunity for Britain?

My hon. Friend will agree that textiles and clothing are already the most protected sectors of British manufacturing industry. The new multi-fibre arrangement will reinforce that protection. I am sure that he will further agree that within the European Community there are many more markets for our goods than there would be if we were thrown out of it, which the Labour party would like to see happen.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will now take further steps to remedy the high unemployment rates suffered by ethnic minorities and, in particular, Asian women.

The Government's special employment measures already help many unemployed people from the ethnic minorities. My Department and the Manpower Services Commission try to see that the minorities get full benefit from these measures. The real hope for all unemployed people lies in the success of our economic policies.

May I suggest that the real hope for the unemployed is for the Government to be defeated at the general election? Is the Minister aware that the Government's failure to deal with unemployment, particularly among black and Asian minorities, is as dangerous as it is deeply resented?

The hon. and learned Gentleman will be aware that a great effort is made, particularly by the Manpower Services Commission, to give special encouragement and help to members of the ethnic minority groups to find work and obtain training and other forms of encouragement to get work. Indeed, they are disproportionately represented in the schemes in relation to their proportion in the total population.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the present situation is the outcome of a lax and ineffective Government immigration policy, which is causing such pressure on jobs in the Leicester area?

I dispute that. Unemployment, particularly among Asian women, has risen sharply in recent years, due to largely to the decline of the textile and light engineering industries.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received about opening jobcentres on Saturdays.

My right hon. Friend has not received any direct representations, but we shall be following the progress of this imaginative experiment with interest.

I thank my hon. Friend for that typically helpful reply and ask if he will consider extending the experiment. Does he agree that if opening hours were increased more applicants could take advantage of the facilities being offered at jobcentres? Will he take this opportunity to deplore the activities of those irresponsible people who have sought to picket jobcentres?

I agree with my hon. Friend that it is important that the jobcentres should give a service to the public. This experiment is designed to see whether that service is applicable on Saturdays and I applaud the commission for going ahead with it. I also agree that those who demonstrated outside jobcentres, stopping the unemployed coming in, were not exactly helping the unemployed, the very people for whom they pretend to speak.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what was the total number of unemployed, including school leavers, in Yorkshire and Humberside at the latest available date; and what increase since May 1979 this figure represents.

At April 1983 the number of unemployed claimants, including school leavers, and not seasonally adjusted, was 297,548 in the Yorkshire and Humberside region, an increase of 190,148 since May 1979.

Is the Minister aware that within that disgraceful total in Yorkshire, the Batley and Spen Valley textile areas have experienced an increase in unemployment of 260 per cent.? Does he claim that to be a success of Government economic policy? Why have the Government appointed, and been sending around the west midlands, a Minister with special responsibility, yet have allowed the Yorkshire region to go unnoticed in Government policy? Is that because the Government have written off Yorkshire and the north of England in the forthcoming election?

The Government are looking forward to a very successful result in the general election generally and in the north of England in particular. The hon. Gentleman is, as usual, full of dire sadnesses about matters that are the result of the policies of many years—

Four years.

No, not just four years, but many years, during which this country has become uncompetitive. What is exciting in the hon. Gentleman's region, as he knows, is the total of new jobs that have been produced by Gent, Microvitech, Dewhursts, Lay-E-Zee, Magnum International and many others. He never mentions those when he recites his long list of misery and unhappiness.

Is my hon. Friend aware that recent surveys of industry in Yorkshire and Humberside show considerable optimism about the future in terms of growth in the economy and in orders? Is he further aware that there is a good take-up in the measures that the Government have introduced to encourage new technology, a sphere which offers the best hope for employment in the region?

I am sure that my hon. Friend is right about the optimism, but he might have added that it is applicable only if there is a Conservative Government.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 10 May.

This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

As the Prime Minister will doubtless be altering her diary for the next few weeks, may I ask if she will consider, before leaving office, popping up the road to the London borough of Islington and taking a firsthand look at the disastrous antics there of the extremist Labour council, one of the barmiest ever seen—

It is doing a great job.

—and take the opportunity to explain to the people of Islington that what is happening is a gross betrayal of the two main pledges on which the right hon. Lady was elected, to cut taxation and cut the dole queues?

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is against extremism, and is against extremism as practised in Islington. Presumably he is against the very high rates there. We, too, are against them and will do everything possible to fight them.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in relation to public expenditure, the implementation of the overspending policies being advocated by the Opposition would mean the economy getting into a chaotic state, sterling collapsing and our probable recourse to the International Monetary Fund, which would be a disaster for this country?

Yes, I wholly agree with my hon. Friend. If the policies of the Opposition were put into effect—and they are the most extreme ever put before the electorate in modern times—they would be policies for inflation and enormous increases in expenditure, which would lead to corresponding increases in taxation, in borrowing and interest rates or the printing of money. They would be altogether disastrous.

As the right hon. Lady has had to clear up things in such an irresolute rush—against all her natural instincts, of course—will she tell us whether she has left behind in the pigeon holes that old Think Tank report which she and the Chancellor once favoured, which proposed attacks on the social services, and on higher education and the disruption of the National Health Service?

There is nothing irresolute about this Government — [Interruption.] — either in this Parliament or in the next. Indeed, what I think the right hon. Gentleman is really complaining about is that this Government are too resolute, too decisive and too swift for his taste. Let him look at the manifesto and our policies on education. We now have record expenditure per pupil and a record number of teachers per pupil. Let him look at the manifesto and our record on the social services and the Health Service. Spending on the NHS, even allowing for inflation, is at a record level. Let him look at our record on pensions. They are higher than they ever were under Labour.

If the right hon. Lady takes such a pride in her resolution, may I ask her when the Secretary of State for Employment informed her of the likely unemployment figures for September? Were they not a major factor in making her cut and run, after all her promises? She tells us that she will protect the Health Service. Why, therefore, did she promise at the last election not to raise prescription charges and then increase them to £1·40?

The right hon. Gentleman is not correct. If he looks at the full quotation from the press conference he will find a sentence, which I well remember delivering, to the effect that no responsible Government could ever promise not to increase prescription charges. I repeat that now. The important thing is that the exemptions remain.

I say this in the best spirit of good will: we should be pleased if she would publish in the Official Report all the promises that she made at the last election.

They are contained in the manifesto, which, I assume, the right hon. Gentleman read. There is no point in adding to bureaucracy by publishing them in Hansard, although, of course, the right hon. Gentleman likes to add to bureaucracy.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 10 May.

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

Will my right hon. Friend proclaim from the rooftops today the fact that during the past three months private house building starts have been higher than at any similar period during the Labour Government and that home improvements are currently at their highest since 1974? Is that not a message of great hope and encouragement for the many young people who look increasingly to the Conservative party for a home of their own?

My hon. Friend is right. Private house building starts for the first quarter of the year reached a record and home improvements, aided and abetted by grants, were the highest since 1974. The Government believe in owner-occupation, increasing it and making it available to all. It is a policy that we shall continue in the next Parliament.

Although the Prime Minister has criticised the process by which trade unions will pay £3 million to the Labour party without reference to their members, we have not heard her criticise the process by which industry will give £20 million to the Conservative party without reference to its shareholders. Is she aware that, as the public know that he who pays the piper calls the tune, they might decide that the alliance is better value for money?

I have never seen £20 million or anything like it. I should like to have £3 million handed to us on a plate in a single payment. We have never had that. With regard to the trade union political fund, the right hon. Gentleman knows that the present rule is that people have to pay unless they contract out. Shareholders can sell their shares or make their views known by voting against directors at the annual meeting, without any effect on their future employment.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 10 May.

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

Has my right hon. Friend read the letter from the Opposition to the Kremlin—[Horn. MEMBERS: "Reading".]—asking what its response would be to the United Kingdom doing away with its nuclear weaponry? Does my right hon. Friend—

Speak up.

Order. There is no excuse, even with all the excitement, for not allowing an hon. Member to speak—

He should not read.

Order. The sands of time are running out.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Soviet response would he to accept the Labour party's naivety in this matter and continue with nuclear weapons and, in addition, increase its nuclear capability?

I agree with my hon. Friend that the Opposition's defence policy is the most misguided and dangerous ever put before the British people. It puts in doubt our security and the defence of our traditional way of life. I hope that it will be firmly rejected. As regards the letter to Mr. Andropov, I notice that it was Mr. Andropov who was reported as saying:

"Let no one expect unilateral disarmament from us. We are not a naive people."

If the right hon. Lady was so interested in discussing disarmament, why did she cut and run and abandon that debate? If we had had our way it would have been debated in the House today. It was the right hon. Lady and her Government who ran away from it.

Never has a party been more reluctant to enter a general election, having asked for it in the House month after month. I am only too delighted to discuss defence. There will be no more important subject for the next four and a half weeks and beyond.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 10 May.

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

Has my right hon. Friend seen that the CBI has called for the abolition of the GLC and the other metropolitan county councils, describing them as inefficient and overspending? Would not a single tier of multi-purpose local government be more efficient and closer to the needs of the people? Will my right hon. Friend therefore give it high priority in her second term of office?

I am not convinced of the need for a wholesale shift to single tier authorities. I certainly agree with my hon. Friend and the CBI and the GLC about some metropolitan counties. The GLC and ILEA are high-spending authorities. They place immense burdens upon the rates. We shall consider what the CBI and my hon. Friend have said about them.

Will the Prime Minister —instead of "Tebbiting" on consistently as she does about everyone else being responsible for unemployment except herself—take time today to tell the 1,040 youngsters in Hackney between the ages of 16 and 24, who are scrambling pathetically after 58 jobs, what the) have to thank her for?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there is one way only to create new jobs.

Change the Government.

It is by producing good products at the right price, on time and with good services. When we can do that sufficiently well we shall have many more jobs. There is a need for greater co-operation between management and work force to ensure that we do not have restrictive practices, but a higher standard of industrial efficiency. One of the causes of unemployment is the fact that the hon. Gentleman and some of his supporters will not accept that.

Has my right hon. Friend time today to read the transcript of a broadcast in English by Radio Prague, in a Communist country, commending the speech in Sweden by the Leader of the Opposition running down this country?

I have no knowledge of such a broadcast, but I make the point strongly that the Leader of the Opposition's defence policy would bring rejoicing only in the Kremlin.

Will the Prime Minister include in the items to be proclaimed from the housetops the failure to fulfil the promises to abolish rates, to reduce unemployment, to reduce public expenditure and so on, and, in the Scottish context, the promise made by her right hon. Friend Lord Home that he would produce better legislation for Scotland, coupled with her expression that devolution was not finished All those promises have been broken during the period of office of the right hon. Lady's Government.

The right hon. Gentleman will not find in that last manifesto a promise to abolish rates.

The one before.

The right hon. Gentleman may go to the manifesto, but he will not find it. We fought the last election on the last manifesto. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that, unfortunately, we lost the 1974 election. History might have been different had we won it. With regard to unemployment, the right hon. Gentleman knows the recipe and the strategy for jobs, but he consistently refuses to accept it. With regard to public expenditure, I rather thought that right hon. and hon. Members in the Opposition had been urging me to increase it. It is welcome that the right hon. Gentleman urges me to reduce it. With regard to Scotland, we have the best Secretary of State for Scotland ever.

In the Minister's very full reply to the Second Reading Debate, she did not say whether she had taken on board the manuscript amendment which proposed that clause 1 regulations be made in accordance and consonant with the Food and Drugs Act. If that was included in the Bill so that the dairy industry was absolutely clear that regulations made under the Bill were wholly consonant for importation with the regulations under which they had to work, many of their misgivings would be set at rest.

I wish to repeat my intervention in the Minister's excellent reply to the Second Reading debate. Is there any way in which the milk industry of Britain—the distributors, producers and processors —can be assured that any milk that enters Britain has been monitored at the far end—that is, before it arrives here—to ensure that it meets the standards that must be met by those who produce, process and distribute milk in Britain?

It is not appropriate to limit the Bill in the way suggested by the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Hughes). The powers are best left wide and general.

If a consignment of milk comes into Britain under the terms of the Bill, and samples are taken for testing, will the consignment be held up pending the results of the tests, or, as is usual, will the test samples go to a laboratory with a wait of perhaps two or three days—I hope it may be shorter than that— while the remainder of the milk is dispatched, distributed and possibly sold? Can the hon. Lady give some reassurance on that point?

Consignments can, if appropriate, be held up. As for the legal point about knowingly importing contaminated milk, I shall need to take advice on that and write to the hon. Gentleman so that he has a comprehensive answer.

Will the Minister also let me know about the sale of contaminated milk? As I say, importing it appears to be covered by the clause, and knowingly to sell contaminated milk, while not covered by the clause, may come under, for example, the 1955 legislation on food and drugs.

I will let the hon. Gentleman know about that too.

I beg to move, That the clause be now read a Second time.

I understand that it will be convenient to take at the same time Government new clauses 2 and 3 and Government amendments Nos. 1 to 35.

I am sure that it will be of help to the House if I say that all the amendments—both the new clauses and the consequential amendments—arise out of undertakings that I gave in Committee and that they raise no new points of principle.