Object.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many more people than in June 1979 were recorded at the most recent date available as having been unemployed for more than a year.

About 850,000.

Is the Minister aware that, of those 850,000 people, 90,639 are in the northern region? May I suggest that the Minister and the Cabinet do the same as the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Parris)—go to Newcastle and spend a week on unemployment benefit? They may then have some compassion for those who are out of work because of the Government's policies.

It is a question of making people sufficiently compassionate to do something about the issue, and that is what the Government are doing. Previous Governments did nothing about the underlying problem of the British economy, and that has resulted in this tragic state of affairs.

Does the Minister realise that 600 employees of Plessey in my constituency will soon be added to that appalling figure and that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has refused to meet representatives of the local community? If the hon. Gentleman is keen to assist areas such as Tyneside, will he consult his colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry about setting up a joint initiative to try to enable some modern technological jobs to stay on Tyneside?

I am happy to draw those remarks to my right hon. Friend's attention.

The Minister referred to what might be done about these matters. I suggest that one obvious measure to help our unfortunately large army of long-term unemployed is to extend long-term supplementary benefit to them. That would have the effect of giving a family £11 and a single person £7 a week more. As we unfortunately have such a large number of long-term unemployed, is it not high time that we sought to afford them some social justice?

I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that that is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will make a statement on the possible reallocation of unspent cash resources under the youth training scheme.

While we do not propose any general reallocation of the potential underspend on the youth training scheme, I am proposing to transfer, subject to parliamentary approval, £25 million from the Manpower Services Commission's grant-in-aid to the community programme to allow the original target of 130,000 filled places to be met by the end of the financial year.

Is my hon. Friend aware that although the statement made in the House on 21 December 1983 was welcome so far as it went, some of us would have preferred to see the Manpower Services Commission's proposals for 17-year-olds accepted and the figure of £4 reduced to below £3? If money is still left at the end of this financial year, will he consider reallocating it?

I assure my hon. Friend that we looked carefully at the proposals for 17-year-olds. We thought that it was right that the year ahead should be one of consolidation for the youth training scheme. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks about the £3 limit on the travelling allowance. We shall keep that matter under review. We await further thoughts from the MSC.

Will the Minister look carefully at the recent statement that appeared to be derogatory of the many excellent schemes, similar to the YTS, carried out by the voluntary sector and consider allocating some of the unspent resources to encourage schemes in that sector?

I assure the hon. Gentleman that nothing derogatory was said about the voluntary organisations. They have fulfilled and will continue to fulfil an important task in relation to the YTS. We have always maintained that employer-based schemes are to be in the majority in terms of the totality of the YTS.

As there are vacancies in a number of schemes, especially ITEC schemes, due to the successful placing of trainees in full-time employment before the end of the scheme, will my hon. Friend consider allowing careers officers to place 18-year-olds in those vacancies?

I cannot give my hon. Friend that assurance, but if a trainee moves from trainee to employed status he can still be part of the youth training scheme.

Has the Minister read the report of the West Midlands National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education showing that in Birmingham private agencies are monopolising the scheme and running it for profit? Will he use some of the resources saved, due to the lack of enthusiasm for the scheme among young people, to run the scheme better rather than divert the funds to other purposes?

I know that the hon. Lady has never much liked the scheme, but I am surprised at her claim that young people do not like it, as more than 300,000 have already joined it on a voluntary basis. I have not seen the report to which she refers, but private managing agencies are acceptable, as are voluntary organisations and local authorities.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the general success of the scheme, but, as there is still criticism of the complications of running it, will he try to remove those difficulties before transferring resources elsewhere?

I am always prepared to listen to constructive ideas for simplifying the bureaucracy of the scheme. We wish to ensure, both this year and next, that the quality of the training is improved wherever possible.

Is the Minister concerned about the number of youngsters placed with training rather than with trading companies? Is he aware that in some areas more than 40 per cent. of youngsters are placed with training companies and not, as was the original intention of the scheme, with companies actually making a product for sale?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the agencies concerned use their training facilities for 13 weeks, or perhaps longer, and then farm the trainees out to acquire work experience on employers' premises.

Will my hon. Friend consider relaxing the rules for disabled youngsters who often cannot meet the rigorous age limitation requirements so that they may find employment, which otherwise might not be possible?

I agree that disabled youngsters have an especially powerful case. That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced before Christmas that the eligibility rules would allow such youngsters to enter the scheme up to the age of 21.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many staff were employed in jobcentres in Cambridgeshire (a) at the latest date and (b) in June 1979; and if he will make a statement.

The numbers of staff employed were as follows: 1 January 1984, 70; 1 June 1979, 86.

I realise that the fall in numbers employed relates to the clientele which has been lost, but will the Minister consider giving my constituents more incentive to go to jobcentres by creating more employment, especially for unskilled workers?

I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman's reference to a fall in clientele. If the jobcentres in his area are anything like those which I have visited throughout the country, vacancies are never less than 40 per cent. higher than, and usually double, what they were at this time last year.

rose—

I trust that the hon. Gentleman's question relates to Cambridgeshire.

Yes, Mr. Speaker.

It is not really within my responsibility to conduct such a survey.

I will give the Minister a clue — "General".

Naturally, I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman follows the proceedings upstairs so closely.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will assess the performance of the dock labour scheme ports as compared with non-scheme ports in terms of capacity to handle traffic, cost-effectiveness of operation, and actual employment of workers, with a view to amending the Dock Work Regulation Act 1976.

Comparisons between ports have to take into account many things. It is not possible to isolate any one factor. There is, however, no doubt that the operation of the dock labour scheme is increasingly being questioned by those concerned in the industry.

I welcome my hon. Friend's remarks, but is he aware that only two groups of people have jobs that are guaranteed for life? They are university professors and dockers working under the dock labour scheme. Is that not one of the reasons why ports, such as Hull, have been losing their competitive position against Felixstowe and private wharfs? As the Government believe in a free labour market, is it not time that they grasped the nettle and abolished the scheme lock, stock and barrel?

It is not for me to comment on the excellent port of Felixstowe, but I agree with my hon. Friend. I also agree with the comment of Lord McCarthy, in another place, that the Act was misconceived.

The Act gave dignity, honour and job security for the first time to underprivileged workers in one of the most casual industries that had ever existed in this country. It enabled men in the docks to hold their heads up for the first time without having to fight and scramble for the favour of half a day's work and giving the employer a backhander in the pub after the job was done. We do not want to return to such a situation. We need more schemes, such as the dock labour scheme, to protect workers.

The hon. Gentleman rightly reminds us that the situation in 1946 was very different from what it is today. However, the dock labour scheme is not working as it was intended to work. It does not benefit either registered dock workers or the rest of the dock services. The industry must make sure that the public and those who benefit from the docks see that the scheme is working effectively. At the moment, that is not clear to them.

Competition between scheme and non-scheme ports is totally unfair. The Jones-Aldington agreement was intended to last for a certain period. Is it not time for a thorough review of the dock labour scheme? Could not a separate unbiased body be set up to discuss all the points for and against the scheme, the effects of which can be draconian in certain ports?

If the dock labour scheme is to provide the benefits to which the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) referred, it must be seen to provide those benefits. It often appears to operate in the narrow interests of a certain section of those who work in the docks.

Will the Minister resist the suggestion of his hon. Friend the Member for Bridlngton (Mr. Townend) that he should interfere with the dock labour scheme? The scheme ports and the non-scheme ports have coexisted for a considerable time. Any attempt by the Government to interfere with the scheme could unite dock workers against the Government in a way that has not been seen for many years.

Such comments would be taken more seriously by the House if the British docks had enjoyed a more remarkable resurgence in the past 25 years. The docks industry would do well to heed my advice, that it must be seen to make the scheme work. If not, people will pay more attention to the way in which it benefits only a small group of workers.

I and hon. Members representing neighbouring constituencies have been lobbied by dockers from the Medway towns who fear that the operation of the dock labour scheme will ensure that jobs that should go to them will go to other dockers. If that is how the scheme works, will my hon. Friend do something about it?

My hon. Friend points again to the fact that many people question the dock labour scheme because they believe that it leads to fewer rather than more jobs. I have said that it is up to the industry, and those who support the dock labour scheme, to show that it works. The example given by my hon. Friend is one that I shall be studying most carefully.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what proposals he now has for reducing unemployment.

The Government's economic strategy is directed at creating the conditions in which industry can improve its competitiveness and so generate real, lasting jobs. In addition, we are continuing to promote a number of special employment and training measures.

Is the Secretary of State aware that, despite what he has just said and the repetition that we hear about the recovery, unemployment in the northern region is still rising and remains at the highest rate in the United Kingdom outside Northern Ireland? In addition to what my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) said, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to persuade the Prime Minister to come to the north east and stay for a week on supplementary benefit, as experienced by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Parris)? Will the right hon. Gentleman remind the Prime Minister that people there remain unemployed for months and years with little or no hope for the future? What will he do about that?

I referred in my answer to the special employment and training measures that we are taking. Undoubtedly unemployment is extremely serious, and every hon. Member who knows anything about the north east knows the problems that it faces. I notice that in Peterlee and Wearside— areas of interest to the hon. Gentleman—8,000 people were placed in jobs last year; that in the Durham area there were 5,700 entrants into the youth training scheme; and that in Durham and south Tyne there are 6,500 people currently on the community programme. It can be seen that part of the substantial expenditure of nearly £2 billion that the Government are putting into training and special employment measures is helping to allieviate a difficult position in the north east.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that management and trade union leaders have a responsibility to see that wage rises are contained if unemployment is to be reduced? Is he not disturbed in that regard by the latest figures produced by the CBI yesterday?

I am anxious that we should recognise the importance of keeping inflation down and ensuring that British industry remains competitive. I am encouraged to see that in the latest survey by "Manpower", the 1,260 leading employers in this country now say that

"the first three months of 1984 will be more favourable for job prospects than any comparable first quarter of the year during the past four years."

Has the Secretary of State estimated the financial cost to the Government which would arise from the additional unemployed resulting from any closure of Scott Lithgow?

We face some extremely serious consequences in a number of industries which are uncompetitive at present. We are not isolated. The hon. Gentleman will have seen in The Times today that the Socialist Government of France are forecasting privately that over the next three years 500,000 jobs will go in coal, steel, the shipyards and the car industry. Therefore, we must be realistic about the problems that we face.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that it is an outdated fallacy to believe that any Government can create jobs out of the blue? In reality, jobs are made by producing a product or providing a service that someone wants to buy.

The feature of the past four years is that, while there has been a considerable growth of jobs in service industries, there has been a greater loss of jobs in manufacturing. The latest figures available to me show that the erosion of jobs in manufacturing has now stopped. It looks as though there will be 250,000 new jobs in service industries this year and that during the last quarter there may be a small net gain in manufacturing jobs.

What the Secretary of State has just described will make hardly a dent in the unemployment figures. Will the right hon. Gentleman study what is happening in other countries, such as France and the United States, where increasing demand within the economy has brought about 18 per cent. growth in industrial output during the last quarter? Will the Government reconsider their economic policy and stimulate demand to get people back to work again?

The hon. Gentleman was not listening to my first reply. I do not believe that that will have any impact on unemployment. If, as my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes) said, we show sense by wage moderation and by remaining competitive, that will have a great impact on unemployment.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that our right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer could make a significant move forward on 13 March by abolishing the national insurance surcharge? Will he urge his right hon. Friend to do that?

I shall not anticipate measures that may be introduced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. However, it is necessary for the encouraging recovery to continue. A survey among all the members of the Institute of Directors shows that there are now more encouraging prospects for its members. That must not be put at risk by increasing public expenditure, or the public deficit, which could seriously damage interest rates.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that the spiralling decline in this country's manufacturing industry over the past four years has been deliberately created by the Government's activities, especially in areas such as the north west and Merseyside? On Friday night, a further large group of redundancies was announced by BICC. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether he expects employment in manufacturing industry to rise over the next two years?

If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that that has been a deliberate policy, perhaps he will also suggest that the Socialist Government of France have adopted a deliberate policy to lose 500,000 jobs in the next three years. That is the reality that modern industrialised countries have to face in the very painful period of transition to the use of new technology.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he is satisfied with current provision for adult retraining; and if he will make a statement.

My right hon. Friend is currently considering proposals put to him by the Manpower Services Commission for a more effective strategy for adult training and retraining.

I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. Will he take into account the views of the Association of Polytechnic Teachers, which advocates access for the mature student to institutions of higher education and polytechnics in order to retrain for professional employment?

Many interests were taken into account, including those of the teaching profession, during the preparation of the report.

Does the Minister agree that there is an urgent need to increase the amount of training in new technology for employed and unemployed adults? Will he use some of the large underspend on YTS for that purpose?

There is much in what the hon. Gentleman says. In 1983–84 it is planned to provide about 6,300 places under the training opportunities scheme in new technology and computing skills.

Will the Minister state how many people are currently in adult retraining and what that represents as a percentage of the male unemployed?

Answer.

I shall have to write to the hon. Gentleman with that answer.

Does not the Minister's hesitancy in answering that question underline the fact that the forgotten generation of those between 17 and 25, for whom the Government have no policy for training or retraining, are the people, in their hundreds and thousands, to whom the Government offer no hope and no future?

I reject what the hon. Gentleman says. As he well knows, the training schemes implemented and programmed by the Government are larger than those of any of our predecessors.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the trends in industrial stoppages in British industry.

There has been a significant fall in the past four years in the number of stoppages and the amount of working days lost.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he accept that that fall reflects well on the Government, management and trade unions? Does he agree that there is no room for complacency? Will he ensure that active encouragement is given to those involved, including employers' organisations, to develop worthwhile long-term industrial relations?

I am able to report a significant reduction to the House. It is noteworthy that the figures for this year so far are running at about one quarter of the average figure of 12 million days lost every year between 1971 and 1980. Although the figure is now down to over 3 million days, it still does enormous damage to this country's performance when compared with some of our competitors, some of which have almost a nil entry in that respect. It is vital that we do not lose days through industrial disputes, because the only real loser is this country's economic performance.

Is not the trend a reflection of the rising tide of unemployment, which engenders fear among working people because they know that if they lose the job that they have they have no chance of getting another?

It also reflects the fact that people increasingly appreciate that, in a very competitive world, if a firm goes on strike and there are unnecessary stoppages the orders will be delivered late, if at all, and the customers will be lost. The truth is that if we had kept our own share of our markets over the past 10 years, there would be 1·5 million more jobs in this country. There is no question but that our record on industrial disputes had a lot to do with greater import penetration.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the reasons for the improvement is that the Government have avoided putting too much industrial relations law on the statute book? Does he further agree that the main thing now is to build up the influence of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service in solving industrial disputes?

I should like to think that ACAS is now well established. In spite of earlier attempts to make me supplement or intervene in the work of ACAS, its independent role is recognised, I hope, by both sides of the House. I should have thought that the whole House would welcome—I am not sure that one part does—the fact that there has been an enormous reduction in the number of days lost through industrial disputes. I should not have thought that anyone with a sensible approach to industrial relations wants a strike in any case.

Is it not fair to say that if there were full employment tomorrow there would be chaos in industrial relations?

That is absolute rubbish. A considerable number of people now appreciate the benefit of uninterrupted work for themselves and their earnings. Performance, not least in the car industry, is clear evidence of that.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he is satisfied with the current level of penalties against employers who are found to be in breach of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act.

I certainly share the widespread concern on this matter. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department intends to make an order during the coming months which will, among other things, raise the maximum level of fines available on summary conviction under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act.

I am grateful to the Minister for his response and his acknowledgement that the current level of fines is too low. Will he take steps to increase staffing in the Health and Safety Executive so that not just the fines will be increased but enforcement can take place? It is crucial that the HSE has the manpower to ensure that the legislation is enforced so that the courts can take the necessary action.

The Government believe in the importance of such action. That is why we have increased the resources made available to the Health and Safety Executive.

Can my hon. Friend give the House any information about the steps that he proposes to take to reduce the menace of noise at work?

My hon. Friend might be pleased to know that today we are announcing another programme to enforce more clearly the regulations that arise from the code of practice on noise at work. The Factory Inspectorate will increase the attention that it pays to noise, which is now one of the major causes of industrial injury. We hope, as a result of this major programme, to bring to people's attention the dangers to their hearing and the penalties that are available under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. We hope to save more people from the menace of deafness.

Is the Minister not ashamed to note that there are now 145 fewer factory inspectors than there were in 1979? Is he not also ashamed to note that the number of accidents is increasing because of the Government's policies? More people are being killed and maimed in factories.

I should be ashamed to ask the hon. Gentleman's question and fail to mention that the accident record has been improving. The hon. Gentleman's question was disgraceful. He should look at the figures. I am happy to go through them one by one with him. With the introduction of modern computerised techniques we are able to use the work of devoted factory and other inspectors much more effectively. We have increased the resources made available to the Health and Safety Executive. That is an improvement on what the Labour Government did.

Will the Minister take this opportunity to inform the House that far more days are lost in British industry because of industrial injuries and sickness than are ever lost through industrial disputes? If the Government's anxiety about loss of working time in industry is to be taken seriously, will the Minister take this opportunity to instruct the Health and Safety Executive to employ far more factory inspectors, who do an excellent job of persuading recalcitrant employers to adopt reasonable safety standards for the benefit of their work force?

The Government are worried about the number of days lost through accidents and injuries at work and by the number of days lost through industrial unrest. We are trying to deal with both. To deal with the second we are taking an excellent Bill through Parliament. We have found that the Opposition have been so incompetent at opposing it that they have not yet found one reason for opposing any part of it.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how much has been spent in the current year on the youth training scheme; out of what level of allocation of Government funds; and if he will make a statement.

By the end of November 1983 some £457 million had been spent against an allocation of £852 million for youth training in 1983–84. The final outturn for the year is still uncertain, although it is now clear that not all of the resources originally allocated will be required.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the increasing take-up of the scheme. Will he use money that will not be spent on it to increase the fee paid to local education authorities from £14·70, which they are finding impossibly low to run college courses for the youth training scheme? Will he allocate any other money that is left over to the community programme?

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's support for the scheme. People who have seen it in operaton—I have had a chance to visit several schemes—have been enormously impressed by the effort that has been made and by the interest that is being taken in it, especially by employers. I note my hon. Friend's point and will look into it.

If there is a substantial amount of money left over from the youth training scheme, might the Secretary of State's Department give it to the Department of the Environment to make up the shortfall of money for boroughs such as Lambeth, which is doing a great deal to train people in areas where there is massive unemployment?

The hon. Gentleman might tempt me on to country that I know rather too well, so I do not think that I shall trespass on it today.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will take steps to ensure regular meetings of the homeworking advisory committee.

We have no plans at present to reconvene the committee.

Is the Minister aware that homeworkers and outworkers are largely unprotected by any employment legislation and, as a result, are among the most exploited section of our work force and are treated in many areas nearly as slave labourers? Is he not prepared to do anything to help them by reactivating the committee or otherwise?

It is because I take this matter so seriously — [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] Hon. Gentlemen may say "Ah!", but if they listen to the answer they might say "Hooray!" We are concerned to conduct a systematic research programme to identify precisely the problems and where they are so that we can give them sensible answers. I am sure that the hon. and learned Member agrees that it is better that we act on information rather than the generalisation that he puts forward.

Does the Minister recognise that this problem did not arise yesterday? Much research has taken place on homeworking which is, more than any other form of employment, a cheap way for employers to deal with labour. Does he not realise that this issue affects many hundreds of thousands of women in the country who are badly paid, and who must provide their own equipment and the cost of heating and lighting? Will he please do something about the matter urgently?

The hon. Lady does her case no good by suggesting that all homeworking is bad and that all employers are paying badly. [Interruption.] If she re-reads her question, she will find that it was put in exactly those terms. To ensure that we deal with the abuses but do not lose the jobs, we are getting the facts rather than relying on some generalisation of party political comments.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will meet the Confederation of British Industry to discuss the long-term improvement of industrial relations.

My right hon. Friend is in regular touch with the CBI on this and other issues; meetings are held from time to time.

When my hon. Friend next meets representatives of the CBI will he impress on them the importance of greater employee participation as a means of improving industrial relations in the long term? Does he think that British industry is doing enough about that?

We welcome increased employee participation on a voluntary basis, with the consent and readiness of both parties to partake. We are against legislation, which is why we view with some misgivings the EC draft directives on this subject.

If the Government are intending to continue to press for balloting in trade unions, will they think again about their commitment to work place ballots in the light of the NUM election which has taken place in the last few days? Will they reconsider postal balloting? Is it not clear from the leaked press reports during the past few days that there has been no secrecy in the NUM ballot, and that postal balloting is the only means of overcoming the problem?

The hon. Gentleman may know —although he is not a very frequent visitor to the Committee and I cannot recall whether he was present at the time — that the subject of postal balloting was dealt with recently in Committee.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what amendments he is considering to current legislation in the wake of the judgment in the case of Dimbleby and Sons versus the National Union of Journalists.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he is considering amendments to legislation in relation to secondary industrial action following the judgment in the case of Dimbleby and Sons Ltd. versus the National Union of Journalists.

An appeal against the Court of Appeal's judgment in this case is to be heard by the House of Lords on 1 February. It would, therefore, not be right for me to comment on the case or its possible implications at this time.

Does the Secretary of State agree that, if the judgment in the case of Dimbleby and Sons Ltd. v. the National Union of Journalists is allowed to stand, employers will be able to turn primary industrial action into secondary industrial action and push trade unions, whether they like it or not, into conflict with the Government's laws? Is that not the position?

The hon. Member is inviting me to do exactly what I said I was unable to do because the case is going to appeal. It would not be helpful for me to comment at this time.

Does the Secretary of State not realise the enormous importance of the decision in this case, because an employer, by manipulating company law and by creating a subsidiary company, can place employees who are engaged in primary industrial action into secondary industrial action and cause mayhem with the application of the Government's own laws? If the judgment stands, do not the Government have a responsibility immediately to repeal the legislation? Otherwise, will not their assurances to the workers be shown to be worthless?

As I have said to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), I am not proposing to comment at this stage, but we shall study the findings of the court with great interest.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment when he will introduce legislation to improve safety provisions covering people on youth training schemes.

Youth training scheme trainees have always been covered by the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. In order to make the situation absolutely clear, I laid the Health and Safety (Youth Training Scheme) Regulations 1983, which ensure that all YTS trainees are covered by precisely the same sections of the Act as employees.

Why do the regulations and the safeguards not apply to YTS trainees on courses arranged at colleges of further education?

The commission is currently holding discussions with interested parties to decide how best to cover the position of trainees outside the work place.

asked the Prime Minister what are her official engagements for 24 January.

This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, including one with the Secretary General of the OECD. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today.

Is it not deplorable that the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) should try to bring the Queen into public controversy because of his obsession about the Commonwealth and ethnic minorities? Should not the right hon. Lady strongly criticise his remarks, or is she too busy pandering to the same deplorable prejudices?

The Queen makes her Christmas broadcasts as head of the Commonwealth. She does not, therefore, make them on the advice of United Kingdom Ministers. The broadcasts are greatly valued, as a personal message from the Queen at Christmas, in homes throughout Britain and the Commonwealth.

When my right hon. Friend met the President of France yesterday, did she take the opportunity to raise with him the deplorable conduct of the French workers who hijacked British lorry drivers? Did she seek an assurance that the French Government would do their best to prevent such an incident occurring again?

I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that the President of France took firm action when the incident occurred, and we should be grateful for that.

Is the Prime Minister aware of the amazement of many people at the Government's indifference to the appalling shrinkage in the Merchant Navy? If the right hon. Lady is indifferent to the implications of that for employment and trade, will she at least recognise its implications for defence in a maritime nation?

It is true that some of our charters and charges have been undercut by other nations. We must be every bit as competitive as they are if we are to continue to gain a good deal of the merchant trade, especially the cross trade. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Government agreed to help British Shipbuilders to replace the Atlantic Conveyor through an order from British yards.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 24 January.

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

Is it not the case that the Inner London education authority was set up by central Government? Therefore, how is it possible for it to lavish large sums of public money on an offensive and distorted propaganda campaign, such as this which I hold in my hand? Will my right hon. Friend ask the district auditor to investigate the matter urgently? While the district auditor is about that, could he find out why it costs twice as much to educate a child in a primary school in London as it costs in Northamptonshire, where the education happens to be a great deal better?

The auditors have a duty to look at all spending by local authorities to ensure that it is properly and carefully incurred. Any local elector can make a complaint about a particular item and the auditor is then bound to consider that matter. I agree with my hon. Friend that the education costs of ILEA are, in some respects, about 60 per cent. above those of other authorities.

On the subject of young people, is the Prime Minister aware that there are now 400,000 unemployed 18 and 19-year-olds in Britain? Not only do they not have work, but they have no education and no training— [Interruption.] The contempt of Conservative Members for unemployed youngsters is always obvious, and it has been added to today. What does the Prime Minister plan to do to help those youngsters to help themselves to get a decent start to their adult life?

We are making strenuous efforts to ensure that young people, before they reach that age, are properly trained and properly educated. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware of some of the initiatives. He will be aware also of what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science did for technical education in schools, which was not carried out during the lifetime of the last Labour Government. He will be aware of the efforts to install computers in schools. He will be aware of the many computer centres established throughout the country for training young people, including those of this age, and he will be aware of the youth training scheme, which ensures that young people, before they get to this age, are properly trained and equipped and therefore have a better chance to secure a job later.

Many of those stratagems are welcome, but they do not help the 18 and 19-year-olds who do not have jobs, training or education now. If the Prime Minister does not understand the question as it relates to them, and if she does not understand the problem as it relates to them, may I ask her, as a parent, to put herself in the position of a parent of some of these young people and tell us now how she thinks her children could manage on £21·45 a week with no prospect of jobs, education or training? Will she now do something tangible, positive and practical to ensue that this age group is properly attended to?

I have indicated some of the fundamental measures that we are taking. With regard to other matters, the right hon. Gentleman is talking about how best to create more genuine jobs in the future. He is very well aware that there is only one way, and that is by producing goods and services that other people will buy, and producing them at a cost that they can afford. That is the way in which the Government will go. That is why we are doing so much to help small businesses and to encourage the formation of new products in the latest technological services.

Will my right hon. Friend take an opportunity today to pay tribute to those in Scotland, the north of England and elsewhere who are suffering fiendish weather conditions and trying to overcome them? Would she perhaps mention the helicopter crews, the police, the snow plough drivers and the mountain rescue teams, farmers and farm workers, who are doing their very best to overcome dreadful conditions?

I glady respond to my hon. Friend's invitation. I think we all admire the rescue workers who have gone out in these terrible conditions—the helicopter pilots, the police and everyone who has helped—and would like them to know that the House offers its thanks and congratulations to them.

Now that the Prime Minister has again failed to secure the support of some of her right hon. and hon. Friends for her local government policies, will she recognise that she has it wrong? Does she recognise that, so far from attacking the vested interest of local government, she is actually enhancing the biggest vested interest of all, central Government bureaucracy? If she wants to stop unrepresentative minorities spending ratepayers' money, why does she not support proportional representation?

If throughout the rest of my political life in this Parliament, and in the next, I never have a majority below what we had last night, I shall be very satisfied.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 24 January.

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

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition on Sunday when he described all those millions of people in work who do not belong to a trade union as scroungers? Does my right hon. Friend agree that this description is bitterly resented by all those hard-working people?

Yes, I observed what the right hon. Gentleman said, and I agree with my hon. Friend that such a description would be bitterly resented, because most people believe that they should have the right to choose whether to join a union. Most, indeed the overwhelming majority, of people in Britain are pleased about the legislation that we have passed, which strengthens the right of the individual worker against the trade unions.

Will the Prime Minister inform the House whether her son received any financial reward whatsoever for his efforts—and her efforts too—on behalf of the Cementation company?—[HON. MEMBERS: "Cheap."] Conservative Members may not want to hear this, but they are going to get it. Did the Prime Minister's son receive any financial reward for his efforts—and her efforts — on behalf of the Cementation company in gaining a contract in Oman? Will she, for the benefit of the country, answer with a straight yes or no?

I answer for my public duties from this Dispatch Box. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] Members of my family are as much entitled to privacy in going about their private duties as are any other citizens. I refer the hon. Gentleman to what the Select Committee said in 1975:

"A Member of Parliament must expect to be subjected to thorough public scrutiny in the performance of his public duties. He is also, however, a private individual, and is entitled to a proper degree of privacy. His wife and children are equally entitled to such privacy."

Reverting to my right hon. Friend's visit to Paris yesterday, does she agree that it is welcome to see President Mitterrand at last taking a measure of personal control of the French position in these negotiations? Would she consider it welcome if the French Presidency of the Community succeeded in bringing to the discussions a conclusion by the March European Council?

Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend, but there is much to do during the coming weeks and therefore the President is tackling the matter vigorously. It is absolutely vital to us, if there is to be any increase in own resources, that is a fundamentally different way of sharing the burden of the Community budget. It is also extremely important to us that there are strict financial guidelines. Both are important if there is to be a solution in March.

asked the Prime Minister what are her official engagements for 24 January.

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

When the Prime Minister casts her vote at the end of the Scott Lithgow debate, will she be batting for Britain or for overseas shipyards? Why is it so difficult to muster the political will and necessary money to intervene here in the renegotiation of a contract when she can find billions of pounds to spend on the Falkland Islands, including a handout of over £7 million for 54 prefabs to a Swedish company, with the possible help and intervention of a former British ambassador?

To secure business overseas British shipyards must be as good as any in the world. They must be able to produce their products within budget and on time. Only then will we be able to compete with the rest of the world. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that since nationalisation the taxpayer has paid about £165 million to Scott Lithgow, and during the last year the amount was equal to £13,000 per employee. We must win contracts by being very good and by completing ships and rigs on time.

Is it not a strange world in which the Welsh leader of the Opposition refuses to attend an international at Cardiff Arms park merely because a team of mixed race schoolboys from South Africa is there? Is it not even stranger when Ministers at the Welsh Office take the same action? As the Russian have committed far more acts against humanity than have the South Africans, should we not end such double standards and either discourage Russian teams or give notice that we wish to terminate the Gleneagles agreement?

I cannot terminate the Gleneagles agreement, to which this country is a party, and which we must uphold. It is a voluntary agreement and we try to see that it is honoured in that spirit. I understand that it was a very good match.

Talking about scroungers, may I ask the Prime Minister to tell us whether it was her influence or that of the Cementation company that enabled her son to fly through Oman on a plane owned by the Omani air force—or does she not care to distinguish between grace and favour business deals and grace and favour political deals?

I answer for carrying out my public duties, and thay are all in the public domain. Members of my family are as much entitled to privacy as those of any other citizen in the United Kingdom. We have not yet reached the stage when parents and their sons have to report everything to the authorities. If it comes to that, 1984 will be here.