asked the Secretary of State for Employment in which areas of the work of the Factory Inspectorate the proposed new factory inspectors will be employed.

The factory inspectors to be recruited from the current competition will be allocated to the inspectorate's field organisation. During and after their initial training the new inspectors will be visiting a wide range of industrial and other undertakings to give advice on health and safety and, where necessary, to enforce health and safety law.

Will the new recruitment allow the inspectorate to achieve its previous target for inspections, which was 15 per cent. of establishments per annum?

The inspectorate is able to cover the ground which it wishes and feels it necessary to cover, because of the quality as well as the number of inspections. The hon. Gentleman must take into account the new computer arrangements which make this possible.

Is the Minister aware that the shortage of inspectors is making the task of those who remain in office extremely difficult? May I have an assurance that the new inspectors will be allocated throughout the country, including Leicester? The three inspectors at Leicester have an impossible task in dealing with the sweat shops, and this is worrying all parts of industry in the county.

I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman would wish the allocations to be made by the Health and Safety Executive. It will continue to do so where it feels that this is necessary. The change will mean that there will be more inspectors.

Despite the modest increase in inspectors, the levels in the field are still not up to those of 1979. Does the Minister agree that until we return to those levels the role of the inspectorate will not meet the requirements of a modern industrial society such as ours?

If I thought that that were so, I should be recommending and encouraging an increase in numbers. I am concerned to ensure that the inspectorate does its job properly. I am convinced that it does and I am confident that it will have the resources to do so.

Is my hon. Friend aware that in the west midlands the so-called sweat shops are now the largest single source of new employment? If he orders the inspectorate to crack down on them, he will substantially reduce employment opportunities.

My hon. Friend should not be led down the confusing path taken by the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner), who continues to confuse the work of the Wages Inspectorate with the work of the Health and Safety Executive. There is a very low incidence of risk in the circumstances that he mentioned, because of the nature of the job. Those are not my views, but those of the Health and Safety Executive. I do not believe that the hon. and learned Gentleman knows better than the executive.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what plans or proposals he intends to put before his European ministerial colleagues to reduce unemployment within the European Economic Community.

I will be meeting my colleagues at the Labour and Social Affairs Council on Thursday to discuss, among other things, proposals for a medium-term programme for employment in the Community and, in particular, the support given by the social fund to young people's training and to areas of high unemployment.

Will the Secretary of State suggest to his colleagues that they adopt the scheme proposed by the European trade unions to operate a co-ordinated plan to increase expenditure on public works by 1 per cent., which, it is estimated, will improve employment over two years by between 4 million and 5 million? If not, does the right hon. Gentleman have some other scheme to put forward?

I had the pleasure of listening to representatives of international trade unions when they visited my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in her capacity as chairman of the summit meeting. I thought that the proposal, which was not fully explained, of an infrastructural programme was the less convincing part of their presentation. I shall certainly be talking to my colleagues in the European Community about the need to continue to ensure that Europe remains competitive and that we keep inflation down and public expenditure under control so that we have a chance to create more jobs in Europe again.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that we must not raise false hopes? Is it really the EEC's duty to concern itself with matters of employment, which are surely mainly for employers in industry and commerce and, to a lesser extent, for the Government?

It is important for Europe to act in a concerted way and not in ways that might undermine the competitive efforts of individual countries. It is striking to observe how, in the past year, the Socialist Government of France have increasingly come to recognise, more effectively than the Opposition, the need for a sound financial and economic policy.

In view of the continuous bleating by British Ministers that British workers are pricing themselves out of jobs, will the Secretary of State explain to his European colleagues and to the House why Britain has one of the highest unemployment rates, combined with one of the lowest wage economies in the whole of western Europe?

I take some pleasure in the fact that we do not have an unemployment rate of 18 per cent. as in Belgium, 17 per cent. as in Holland, or 15 per cent. as in Italy. The hon. Gentleman says that we have the highest unemployment rate in Europe. He would do the House a courtesy if he checked his figures first. As I said in my original answer, I shall be talking about the better use of the social fund. I take some pleasure from the fact that, to help with training schemes for young people, we are now receiving from Europe three times as much money and a far greater percentage share than the Labour party achieved when it was in government.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that misguided attempts arbitrarily to impose a 35-hour working week on member states of the European Community can lead only to an increase in unit costs, a lack of competitiveness by the Community vis-a-vis other economies and, ultimately, a loss of jobs?

I took the opportunity—I hope that my hon. Friend will approve—of sending to my colleagues in the European Community what I believe is the whole of the academic research that has been done on this subject by the Policy Studies Institute. There is no evidence in that survey that a reduction in working time leads to increased employment. In some firms the response to shorter working time appeared to be to reduce employment as a means of obtaining some of the productivity increases needed to compensate for reductions in working time.

In the context of the European social and regional funds, will the Secretary of State estimate how many jobs would have been created in the past five years if the Government had properly applied the principle of additionality?

The funds that we have received from Europe have been extremely helpful in sustaining higher expenditure than would otherwise have been possible. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will join me in welcoming the fact that whereas when the Labour Government left office we received only 20 per cent. of the social fund, this year we shall receive 30 per cent. of the fund to provide help for a number of these important matters.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one way not to get unemployment down would be to have no truck whatsoever with some of the interventionist claptrap coming out of the Commission at the moment, such as Vredeling and the fifth directive? Will he commit himself to the House and other Europeans and say that we will have nothing to do with it? Even if he were so tempted—which I am sure he would not be—the vast majority that the Conservatives have will ensure that any such un-Conservative legislation is thrown out.

I am not always given to the type of diplomatic language that my hon. Friend uses on these matters. He will be aware that I have expressed—if I may put it more forcefully — the gravest reservations about these proposals. The responses that we have received to the consultation document do nothing to change the Government's or my impression of the damage that could be caused by many of these proposals.

Before the Secretary of State sneers at the efforts made by trade unions and other Governments to promote policies of economic growth does he accept that the Government, after five years in office, have at no international summit or forum in the EEC advocated a policy of economic growth for this country or Europe as a whole? Since the Government have no proposals for tackling the millions of unemployed in Europe, will he adopt one of those proposals?

I notice that the Opposition are so divided at the moment that they do not like to recommend any proposal, but offer us any one of several. I am glad that the right hon. and learned Gentleman made that point. I am not sneering at the trade union proposals. I said that the proposal for infrastructural expenditure was the least convincing part. He may know, if he saw the press release or my comments after the meeting, that the encouraging point about the meeting was the degree of agreement between the trade unions and the Governments involved, not least with the trade unions making it clear that people must accept the need for technological change if industry is to be competitive and if there are to be the maximum prospects for creating employment. I am glad that the right hon. and learned Gentleman invited me to comment on that point. I should like to endorse what they said.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the latest percentage rate of unemployment; and what are the numbers involved.

On 10 May there were 3,084,457 unemployed claimants in the United Kingdom. This corresponds to an unemployment rate of 12·9 per cent.

Does the Secretary of State agree that those figures are appalling? When will the much vaunted economic recovery which the Government constantly parade filter into areas such as Merseyside, where 150,000 people are unemployed? Does he agree that the obscene policy of naked economic forces being pursued by the Government should be abandoned in the interests of the unemployed?

The House knows my views on this matter. Plainly, the present rate of unemployment is far too high. The Government have taken steps to ensure that, based on a sounder and more competitive economy, we can at last see the prospect of creating more jobs. Against that background, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman welcomes, as I do, the evidence that, after three years of substantial job losses, in the final three quarters of last year there was a significant increase and about 200,000 more people are now in jobs.

Will my right hon. Friend reaffirm a statement that he made recently, that, if the British home industries could recapture the share of the market that they had a decade ago, about 1·25 million extra jobs would be created?

My hon. Friend is correct. That is the figure. One can study the various industries involved. One simple statistic is the import penetration of foreign cars. Not many years ago—certainly in the memory of hon. Members—imports of foreign cars were about 10 per cent., but they are now over 50 per cent. That tells its own story. It is only by having an efficient and competitive industry that Britain can begin to have the opportunity to create the extra jobs that are needed.

Have not successive statements by Ministers raised the false hope that unemployment would be falling steadily by this time? With the recent increase in interest rates, together with the forecasts of even higher interest rates, can we expect any drop in the level of unemployment? What can the Secretary of State say to the unemployed about their prospects now?

I shall not comment on interest rates, save to say that increased interest rates will not be helpful.

When considering cost-effective measures to help the unemployed — particularly the long-term unemployed—will my right hon. Friend take early steps to expand the enterprise allowance scheme, which has proved worth while?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning that scheme. I believe that it is one of the most effective of the special employment measures that we have introduced. It has been extremely successful, and we are keeping under close review whether it will be possible to increase the funding for it.

In reality, do not the Government believe that mass unemployment is necessary to hold down wages and to boost profits? If profits are made, with the abolition of exchange control, will not many of those profits be exported, denying employment to people in Britain?

My memory goes back far enough to recall a certain Minister of Technology who tried to encourage productivity in this country. It is sad to see the right hon. Gentleman having to abandon the principles for which he once stood.

Most hon. Members would accept that unmeployment is one of the great tragedies that afflict our country. Does my right hon. Friend agree that disputes, such as the miners' strike — as a result of which the country is to be asked for £1·3 billion—take place at the cost of other people's jobs, and that, unless the dispute is settled, other jobs will be lost to feed Mr. Scargill's ambitions?

The dispute is a tragedy in terms of the effect that it could have, the fact that many people are losing the earnings to which they are entitled and the fact that the economy of the country is not being strengthened. I believe it is symbolic that the NCB made the first delivery against the contract that it achieved for Durham coke. It is tragic that that coke did not come from Durham.

It is within the memory of many hon. Members that not so long ago the Conservative party would have been deeply ashamed to preside over a situation in which 3 million people were unemployed. Will the Secretary of State answer one simple question: if the economy keeps recovering, why does unemployment keep rising?

The right hon. and learned Gentleman does no service to the real problems faced by the unemployed by trying to pretend that there is some simple wand that can be waved. The idea that this problem is faced uniquely by Conservative Governments — [Interruption.] I was challenged on the figures, so If shall repeat them, and at the same time correct one of them. The unemployment figures for the European Community are as follows. At a time when we have 12·9 per cent. unemployment, the figure for Belgium is 18·5 per cent., for the Netherlands 17·9 per cent., for Ireland 16·8 per cent. and for Italy— this is the correction—13·3 per cent.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many Open Tech projects are now in being.

The Open Tech programme has now expanded to 75 projects. It will offer training opportunities for 25,000 supervisors and technicians in 1984–85 and twice that number in 1985–86. It is a fine example of what the Government are doing to promote training opportunities in this important field.

My hon. Friend's answer shows clearly that the Open Tech has completed its pilot stages with flying colours. Will he confirm that its courses are complementary to other training initiatives taken by the Manpower Services Commission and to efforts being made by the Department of Education and Science to bring forth initiatives in training such as the pick-up scheme? What discussion is there between my hon. Friend's Department and the Department of Education and Science to ensure that there is no wasteful duplication and overlap in vocational education and training?

I know that my hon. Friend was present at the birth of the Open Tech, and I am grateful to him for the interest that he has taken in it so far. As he said, it has been a success. I assure him that it is intended to complement the pick-up and other schemes run by the Department of Education and Science. I am in contact with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science to ensure that that is the case.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will meet the chairman of the Manpower Services Commission to discuss new ways in which jobs and training for young people could be devised.

I frequently meet the chairman of the Manpower Services Commission to discuss the progress of the commission's employment and training measures, including those which held young people.

Is there not a whole host of what might be termed odd jobs which, if they were organised and aggregated, might provide a lot of real and worthwhile opportunities, especially for young people, if they were trained to meet those opportunities? Could not the MSC conduct an experiment along those lines to see whether it is possible to get a practical scheme under way?

There are several ways in which the MSC tries to encourage the means by which managing agents can help to pick up individual opportunities for young people in rural areas. There is more scope for imagination in that area. I shall certainly discuss that point with the chairman of the MSC.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the £25 allowance that is currently paid to youngsters on the youth training scheme ought to be almost £40 if it had increased in line with wages or inflation in the past five years? Why does he not admit to the House and working people outside that the real aim of the scheme is to drive down the level of wages paid to young people to play elastoplast politics and to cover up the real level of youth unemployment?

The real aim of the youth training scheme is to give more than 250,000 young people—as it will be this year—the chance of a year of good training and work experience at the start of their working life. I am satisfied that that objective is being achieved. It is a training allowance, and my first concern is to ensure that all of those young people get the best training that we can obtain for them. I give the highest priority to that aim.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, although many employers greatly welcome the introduction of the youth training scheme, the application forms for such schemes last year amounted to two or three pages which had to be filled in, but this year about 28 pages must be filled in? Will he reassure me that he will investigate that matter?

I announced to the House that we would have a consolidation of the scheme this year. I must tell my hon. Friend that what she described is not what I had in mind. I shall look into that aspect.

Will the Secretary of State consider constructively discussing with his Scottish Office colleagues any proposals that might come from the Highlands of Scotland for improving MSC funding to provide greater youth opportunities for training in oil rig repair and maintenance?

The hon. Member knows that that is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, but I certainly take note of what he has said.

Returning to the original question of my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst), and given initiatives like Instant Muscle, will my right hon. Friend consider amending the enterprise allowance scheme so as to help people under 18 coming off YTS schemes to go into business on their own, given their desire to do so?

The first and obvious difficulty is that people under 18 would not be able to enter into a legal contract, as required under the enterprise allowance scheme. That poses a real problem. My hon. Friend will know that the enterprise allowance scheme is extremely successful. At the moment demand is very large indeed and I do not think that we envisage extending the age category.

When the Minister meets the chairman of the Manpower Services Commission to discuss jobs and training for young people, how will he defend his Government's action in sabotaging the European Commission proposal that everyone should have a right to two year's training? How can he do that when he knows that the chairman of the MSC is fully behind the proposal for two years' training, cashed in when the individual wants them? Why did his Government sink the European Commission proposal to give that to all people in Europe?

The hon. Member knows that in Germany, for instance, the training schemes on a two-year basis are employer-led to a large extent. The difference in this country is the degree to which the Government are leading the schemes. I should like to see ways in which employers could take forward the training initiative. I think certain Opposition Members would be willing to concede that the YTS has been a remarkable success in many areas. There is now an opportunity to build with employers further schemes to improve training provision.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the latest number of people unemployed; and how many of these are over 50 years of age.

On 5 April, the latest date for which information by age is available, out of a total of 3,107,682 unemployed claimants in the United Kingdom, 575,243 were aged 50 years and over.

I thank the Minister for the figure he has just given, but is he aware that in my constituency there are two large industrial estates where the level of unemployment is 25 per cent., and that of those who are long-term unemployed a great number are over 50 years of age? An example is Mr. Williams, who came to see me on Saturday to tell me that despite being retrained on an MSC course he cannot get a job; everywhere he goes he is told, "Sony, you are too old." Does common humanity not demand that the Minister ought to increase the long-term rate of supplementary benefit for people like Mr. Williams?

I do not think the hon. Member is entirely right about the unemployment rate in his constituency, which is actually close to the national average. What is true is that the plight of unemployed persons over 50 is tragic. Yet I do not share the hon. Member's pessimism. I believe that they constitute a reservoir of talent and experience which will be of great value when demand picks up. As to his question about increasing supplementary benefit, as he well knows, this has been costed at £90 million. It is a matter of allocating and determining the priorities of resources. Tranches of £100 million at a time, however eloquent the special pleading, would put the general allocation of resources into disarray.

Does my hon. Friend agree that many of the over 50-year-olds are out of work because of restrictive practices, high rates of inflation and strikes in steel, in transport, and in various other industries, particularly engineering, over many years? Does he agree that the coal strike will also result in redundancies and that, sadly, many 50-year-olds will not enjoy the substantial benefits which the miners will enjoy if they happen to find themselves out of work as a result of their own actions?

Yes; as my hon. Friend says, they are out of work through no fault of their own. This is what makes their plight particularly tragic.

In so far as the over 50-year-olds can apply to the community programme, will the Minister give the House an assurance that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is impressing upon the Treasury the need to ensure that next year moneys are made available for a dramatic increase in the number of places available under the community programme? Is he aware that we need many more community-based programmes next year, particularly in my constituency of Cumbria?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the total amount of taxpayers' money devoted to special employment measures is nearly £2 billion. However eloquent the special pleading for particular programmes, he must appreciate that allocation of funds to the programme is determined as a whole. The community programme certainly performs a very useful function, but it would not be right for me to give the undertaking that the hon. Gentleman seeks.

Is the Minister aware that in the reservoir to which he referred many thousands of people over 50 are drowning in poverty and misery? Is he further aware that that group contains an enormous amount of skill and experience which an intelligent Government would use for the benefit of this country? Does he appreciate that those people are desperate for jobs and that it is time for a massive change of policy that would get them back to work?

I welcome the hon. Gentleman's contribution, which confirms my view that the over-50s group constitutes a substantial body of talent and experience. We hope that employers will reconsider their recruitment practices to take advantage of that group, which, as the hon. Gentleman rightly says, is one of the most valuable in the labour market.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he is satisfied with the operation of the job release scheme.

Yes, Sir. With the other special employment measures on which the Government expect to spend some £2 billion in the current financial year, the job release scheme makes a valuable contribution both to helping the unemployed and to facilitating early retirement for people who fulfil the criteria of the scheme.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there is strong public support for a reduction in the age at which people become eligible for the scheme and does he agree that such a reduction would be desirable?

:. The terms of the job release scheme, like those of the other special employment measures, come up for review annually. I have received a number of representations from hon. Members on both sides of the House along the lines suggested by my hon. Friend. I must tell him, however, that spending on the scheme this year will be £314 million compared with an outturn of £260 million last year. We must judge the extent to which still further resources should be made available.

Is the Minister not aware that the Government recently changed the scheme by reducing the qualifying age by two years so that many people who had relied on coming within the scheme were disqualified? Is he aware that the great resentment throughout the country has been reflected in representations to Members in all parts of the House and will the Government urgently consider restoring the scheme to what it was when many people looked at it with interest?

As the right hon. and learned Gentleman will probably recall, the Labour Government started the scheme and changed it three times in the first two years. I have already said that expenditure on the scheme has risen — [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is very talkative——

rose——

Order. I did not call the hon. Gentleman.

I thought that the Minister was giving way.

It is possible that the hon. Gentleman is trying to solicit a compliment from the House because the Bolsover pit is the only one in North Derbyshire that is working, which reflects the rapport which the hon. Gentleman must enjoy with his constituents.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many employers were found to be in breach of the wages orders during the last available 12 months; and how many of those were prosecuted.

One worker or more was found to have been underpaid in 9,842 of the establishments inspected in 1983. Payment of the arrears due was secured by the inspectorate in 92 per cent. of cases. It was found necessary to prosecute two employers.

Is the Minister aware that that level of prosecution is derisory? Does not show that employers feel no obligation to obey the law and is it not clear that abiding by the law is becoming purely a voluntary matter? Will the Minister enforce the law, and if so, when? Is he allowing the law to fall into disrepute and disuse so that he can abolish wages councils more easily?

If the hon. Gentleman were right in his argument, he would be right to ask those questions. Ninety four per cent. of workers whose position was investigated were found to be paid the minimum rates or higher. As those investigated were liable to be affected by underpayments and underpayment was not found in 94 per cent. of the cases, that shows that it is restricted to a few people. I remind the hon. Gentleman that arrears are paid in 92 per cent. of cases to the 6 per cent. who are underpaid. The Government certainly insist on the law being carried out.

Is my hon. Friend aware that, whatever the rights and wrongs of the statutorily enforced minimum wage level, many hon. Members on the Government side of the House think it absurd and ridiculous that organisations or firms with two or three employees, who know the state of the company perfectly well, should be forced to pay a wage that is above what the company can stand?

My hon. Friend has pointed out a fact which Opposition Members would do well to remember. There is no point in driving people out of work by fixing a level of wages that employers cannot pay. That is why I have suggested to right hon. and hon. Gentlemen that their job is to consider the figures and to study the facts before they shout about the success of the wages councils.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what arrangements exist for the rescuing of apprentices left stranded by employers going out of business; and how many apprentices have been helped by such measures in recent years.

Government support is currently available through industry training organisations to help employers recruit and complete the training of apprentices who are made redundant. About 16,500 such apprentices have been helped over the past five years.

Can my hon. Friend give an assurance that the Government will do everything possible to help apprentices who, through no fault of their own, find themselves in that unfortunate position? Can he tell us by how much the adoption grants have been increased?

I assure my hon. Friend that we take the plight of redundant apprentices very seriously. The maximum figure for the adoption grant has been increased from £1,500 to £2,250.

Will the Minister tell us what he is doing for the apprentices who cannot work because pits are closed by the National Coal Board? Is he aware that in Yorkshire, where apprentices are not on strike and turn up and sign on for work, the Department of Employment classes them as unemployed, yet in Nottinghamshire they are classed as not unemployed? Can the Minister explain why, in one county apprentices benefit while the others do not, although the pits are only five miles apart, and why his Department refuses to do anything about it? Why is there such anomaly and maladministration?

As the hon. Gentleman realises, it would be better to have no industrial action in pits throughout the country. The hon. Gentleman should realise that the difficulties faced by mining apprentices would not arise if that were the case.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what progress is being made on renewal of youth training schemes.

The renewal of appropriate youth training schemes is currently being negotiated to ensure that sufficient suitable places are available to meet the needs of eligible young people in the coming year. I am satisfied that those arrangements are progressing well.

How will the Minister ensure that cheap labour schemes will be weeded out when the training schemes are renewed? What assurance can he give the House that the paramount criterion for renewing the scheme is the value to the young person of the training involved, rather than value to the employer and cheap labour?

As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State told the House earlier, this is a year of consolidation for the youth training scheme. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the quality element of training should be of paramount importance.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how long is the waiting time in the east midlands before applicants for the enterprise allowance receive their grant.

Because of the success of the scheme, the average waiting time in the east midlands, from initial inquiry to acceptance, had increased to an average of about 19 weeks. As my hon. Friend may know, I announced on 1 May that the number of places available would be increased by 60 per cent. to 1,000 a week for the next three months, and this should help to reduce waiting lists.

Although this is an excellent scheme to help the unemployed start their own business, is my hon. Friend aware that the growing waiting list has caused great frustration? For that reason, the additional funds for the scheme are welcome. What impact will they have on the waiting time?

I believe that the extra funds are already having an impact. The effect is that a further 5,000 places are being brought forward until July. However, this was an interim measure, and we continue to look closely at the possibilities for taking advantage of the scheme's popularity. I share my hon. Friend'd enthusiasm for it. I hope that neither of us will be disappointed when the decision is announced.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is his estimate of the number of young people who will finish their year of youth training scheme and will not subsequently find employment.

It is not possible at present to estimate how many youngsters will find jobs on completion of their training programme. Some 90 per cent. of those joining the youth training scheme in 1983 will not have completed their training before August this year.

Does the Minister agree that to offer a young person a place on a training programme for one year and then to cast him back on the dole queue is nothing more than an indictment on our society, and that, in reality, that is what will happen in the forthcoming period?

I certainly do not agree with what the hon. Gentleman said at the end of his question. I agree entirely that the youth training scheme is designed to prepare youngsters for the world of work. That is precisely what it is doing. If the hon. Gentleman were to come with me and visit places round the country where the scheme operates, he would find that the youngsters would say that to him as well as to me.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 5 June.

This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I shall be meeting President Reagan for discussions and giving a working dinner for him and ministerial colleagues at No. 10 Downing street.

Will the Prime Minister confirm that at the moment there are armed troops of the United States on British soil, authorised to use their arms in London? Will she always agree to any request by President Reagan? What other countries will be allowed to bring their troops here and to use their arms? Would tonight not be an ideal opportunity to discuss dual control with President Reagan, for once?

The hon. Gentleman's question was somewhat confused from beginning to end. He raised two points. First, we are, of course, ultimately responsible for the security of statesmen visiting London. We do not discuss security matters. Decisions are taken after full consultation and in the light of all the circumstances. I am advised that in this case no precedent was broken. With regard to cruise missiles, I have already frequently answered questions on dual key control and made the position perfectly clear. President Reagan made a statement and we have both looked at the control mechanisms and the control agreements for cruise missiles. The fact, as he has said, is that no missile could be fired from this soil without the agreement of the British Prime Minister.

Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity of repeating in the House her characterisation of the smear that her Government would be forced by the EEC to impose VAT on food as absolute poppycock? Will she extend that characterisation to embrace the suggestion that her Government might remove interest relief from mortgages?

Yes, gladly. We get this smear and scare about VAT on food at every election because the Opposition like to take attention away from any discussion of their own policies. With regard to mortgage interest relief, I gladly respond to my hon. Friend's invitation. Any suggestion that we would remove mortgage interest relief is absolute poppycock.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 5 June.

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

In view of the Prime Minister's scathing remarks about the miners and the events that are taking place with the picketing of mines, does she agree that the reasons for this lie at the door of the Government? Will she bring to the attention of her right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and the Cabinet, the fact that they are responsible for stopping 4 million people from going to work?

Any remarks that I have made are of total condemnation of violence and intimidation. I understand that that condemnation is echoed on the Labour Benches, at least in certain parts. With regard to the merit of the dispute, I remind the hon. Gentleman that the miners have been offered pay increases higher than those the power, gas and water workers have accepted and which are 25 per cent. above the average industrial wage. This Government have poured £2 million a day in investment into the mines so that the miners may have safer and more productive pits in which to work, there have been no compulsory redundancies, and the money supplied for voluntary redundancies is the best ever. This Government have also seen to it that those industries which would like to convert from oil to coal are subsidised to do so, and they were responding well until the strike came along. The truth is that by striking the miners are losing jobs, not protecting, them.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that Tyne and Wear county council is giving £100,000 to striking miners and their families and that my county council of Durham is giving a further £25,000? Is it not outrageous that my constituents, who are already subsidising miners in high-cost pits through taxes, should now have to support through the rates miners who are idle of their own accord?

I agree with my hon. Friend. It is not that the councils have any money to give away, because they have only the money that they take from taxpayers. As my hon. Friend said, the National Coal Board is subsidising the National Union of Mineworkers and all who work in the mining industry to the extent of £130 per person per week.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 5 June.

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

Is the Prime Minister aware of the increasing concern that American ships carrying sea-based cruise missiles will shortly be using British ports? Is she aware that this concern is based partly on the fact that such weapons are beyond verification and therefore represent a major escalation in the arms race? What assurances can she give the House that the House and the country will be given their chance to say whether ships carrying such weapons should be allowed to call at British ports?

We belong to the Western Alliance, and there is nothing unusual in ships carrying nuclear weapons calling at British ports — vessels carrying Polaris do it regularly.

On the occasion of the 40th anniversary of the Normandy landings, will my right hon. Friend pay tribute not only to those British, American and Canadian service men who lost their lives in the liberation of Europe but to those Czechs, Hungarians and Poles who fought at our side but who did not see their countries liberated?

I pay tribute to all who led the attack on the second front in Europe to free Europe. I am sure that those countries in Europe will never forget what they owe to the people whom my hon. Friend mentioned and to the whole of the British Commonwealth, all of whom made strenuous efforts to restore freedom and justice to Europe.

I warmly endorse the right hon. Lady's last remarks on the occasion of this commemoration of the marvellous victory for liberty in Europe. Does the right hon. Lady recall that at yesterday's Euro-election press conference she showed that she now depends entirely on the presidency of Chancellor Kohl to be able to obtain the £457 million due to Britain and, if that is the case, does it mean that she expects no settlement at the summit at Fontainebleau?

No, Sir. Chancellor Kohl was the chairman of the Stuttgart conference under which the rebate was agreed in the Community. I did not depend wholly upon him and I regard this as an agreement reached by all Heads of Government, which should be honoured before the end of the year.

I am sorry. Either the Prime Minister does not understand the questions repeatedly put by myself and many others about this £457 million rebate, or she is deliberately trying to evade them. Does she not recall that it is now four and a half years since she said at the Dublin summit that she was no longer prepared to play Sister Bountiful to the European Community, that it was our money, and that a permanent and just settlement must be secured? Does she not think that it is a bit feeble to be extending the deadline yet again, for the third time in a year, relying entirely on German faith and German honour—both of which I fully respect—and is this what she means by a strong voice in Europe?

A strong voice in Europe has already obtained refunds to this country of £2,000 million.

The right hon. Lady is still evading the fact that she has paid net contributions of £5,000 million. By comparison with that, the rebates are starting to look a little slim.

Then why did the right hon. Gentleman's Government not renegotiate and make provision? They did not. What the right hon. Gentleman cannot get over is that we obtained £2,000 million for this country. What the right hon. Gentleman wants to do is to withdraw from Europe, and lose £2,000 million.

Has my right hon. Friend noted the disgraceful announcement by the Government of Zimbabwe that in future journalists are to be imprisoned if they criticise the regime, unless they are able to prove the truth of their criticisms, and does she not think that Opposition Members who have not condemned that statement would spend most of their life in gaol if that were the rule here?

As my hon. and learned Friend will know, I do not comment on statements before I have seen them in full. I have not seen this in full, and therefore I shall be very careful before commenting.

Does the Prime Minister not agree that her meeting with Mr. Botha gave succour to a hated regime and credibility to every racist, and does she not now feel tainted?

No. I believe that it is right to talk to Heads of Government, although one fundamentally disagrees with their policies. I believe that that view has widespread support in the country.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 5 June.

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

Does the right hon. Lady agree with me that it would be gross hypocrisy if she were to continue to hector people to obey the rule of law if the Government at the same time refuse to acknowledge the International Labour Organisation's decision that this Government are in contravention of international law in banning trade unionism among people who are staffing GCHQ, the only country in the EEC to do such a thing, which puts us in league with Chile, Turkey and other dictatorships of which she is obviously fond?

That is not what the ILO said. I do not believe that we are in contravention of the ILO convention. What the ILO said in our view flouted convention 151, which has also been ratified by us, although not by everyone.

Will my right hon. Friend spare a moment today to think about the horrible increase in the problems of drug misuse and abuse, and particularly to consider whether it is now growing to such proportions that it is necessary to identify a specific Minister responsible for the many departmental responsibilities to tackle the problem?

I share my hon. Friend's horror at any increase in the use or abuse of drugs. They are one of the scourges of our society. I believe that police responsibilities must stay with the Home Office. Health matters are adequately catered for by Health Service Ministers.

asked the Prime Minister what are her official engagements for 5 June.

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

Is the right hon. Lady aware that the whole country will wish to honour the memory of those who took part in the D-day landings and thus helped to liberate Europe from Nazi slavery? Would it not be appropriate if all the countries that took part in the wartime alliance against Nazism started getting together again to stop the suicidal nuclear arms race?

We are trying to have more dialogue with countries across the European divide. The Western countries did not walk out of the nuclear disarmament talks—the Soviet Union did.