asked the Secretary of State for Employment what are the latest figures for unemployment both nationally and regionally; and if he will make a statement.

At 11 October the number of unemployed claimants in the United Kingdom was 3,225,000. I will, with permission, publish the regional figures in the Official Report.

Is the Minister aware that when all the fiddled figures are added on to those there are now more than 4 million people struggling to survive in the dole queue? Is it not obscene that, at a time when all these people are without a job, more than 350 Members of Parliament, mainly Tory, SDP and Liberal, are doing moonlighting jobs on the side? Is it not high time that, if workers can be put in legal straitjackets, a law was passed to insist that Members of Parliament have only one job apiece?

I am never quite sure what hon. Members are trying to prove by trying to argue about the figures. I have said clearly from the Dispatch Box that whether the figure is 4 million or 3,250,000, the present level of unemployment is far too high. I hope that every hon. Member will accept that, so that we can start off from the same point.

Has any study been made into, or has my right hon. Friend any knowledge of, the number of people who have been rendered unemployed by a strike, either by themselves or by other people? Is this number not significant, and should it not have publicity?

My hon. Friend will be aware that the recent disappointing figures, compared with the earlier improvement in the employment situation towards the middle of last year, have been due to two factors. One was the rise in interest rates, and I know that my hon. Friend will share my pleasure in noting that, according to the Barclay's figure, interest rates are now about 2·25 per cent. below the July level. The other factor has undoubtedly been the miners' strike. It is worth remembering that the dispute was originally about 20,000 miners' jobs and that all those who wish to work are now effectively guaranteed employment. My information as to the impact of the strike is that 10,000 people have lost their jobs in ancillary industries as a direct result of the strike and a further 20,000 have lost jobs in associated industries. That has been the effect of the miners' strike on unemployment.

Is the Minister aware that the unemployment figures include ex-miners cheated out of their rightful unemployment pay because the redundancy terms which they were persuaded to take—

Order. That is very wide of the question. There is a later question on the miners' strike. The hon. Gentleman must confine his question to unemployment nationally.

With respect, Sir, the question is about unemployment, which includes miners. Is the Minister aware that unemployed miners are being denied their rightful unemployment pay because they were persuaded to take redundancy pay, but the date of expiry of their notice was after the beginning of the strike? Is he aware that his colleague the Secretary of State for Energy has now recognised that and is putting the matter right in relation to the miners' redundancy pay scheme—

Order. That is very wide of the question.

I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman's complaint is, as he says that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy is putting the matter right. If the hon. Gentleman is concerned about unemployment and about the situation in his constituency, however, I hope he will now realise that the best way to assure future employment is to encourage his members to settle on the terms agreed so that we can begin to see much better employment prospects.

rose—

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

I shall take the point of order afterwards.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that in the past year more than 250,000 people have taken up jobs that have been created in the British economy? In view of the severe recession in the world economy, does he agree that those figures reflect very well on the Government's enterprise policies?

Yes, I am pleased to confirm that this is the only country in Europe to have a significant increase in jobs in the past year and that 250,000 more people are at work than at this time last year. If we can get an end to the present extremely damaging industrial dispute I believe that that, with the fall in interest rates, which is highly significant for the general activity level of British industry, will bring very encouraging prospects for further jobs.

Is the Secretary of State aware that in his 12 months of office he has presided over an increase in unemployment of more than 3,000 per week? Can he give an estimate of the likely level of unemployment in October 1985, in the fourth year of economic recovery, or must we ask Lord Young? Does he accept that the promised £1·5 billion cuts in income tax will produce only 25 per cent. of the jobs that public investment would produce? That being so, what advice will he give the Chancellor?

First, I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new responsibilities. He makes an unfortunate comparison because although I accept that unemployment has risen during the year in which I have had the privilege of holding this responsibility, and I regard that as very serious indeed, unemployment has not risen so fast as it did when the former leader of the Labour party, the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) was the Secretary of State for Employment. Nevertheless, I shall try to do even better in terms of employment prospects. Meanwhile, I hope that the hon. Gentleman, instead of giving unequivocal support to the miners' dispute, as he chose to do from one platform, will observe the canniness of the present leader of the Labour party and seek an end to the dispute so that there can be the prospect of more jobs.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the future of the enterprise allowance scheme.

As my right hon. Friend announced in the House on Monday 12 November — [Official Report, Vol. 67, column 445–46]—the scheme will be extended and expanded from 1 April 1985 to provide places for up to 1,250 people each week in 1985–86.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on that excellent news. May I ask for his confirmation that a very high percentage of the enterprises thus established remain active and are playing a major role in reducing unemployment?

Yes, my hon. Friend is right. Up to 75 per cent. of those receiving the allowance are still trading 18 months after start-up and thus 6 months after the allowance has stopped. In addition — and perhaps more significantly—over 50 additional jobs are created for every 100 firms supported in the first instance.

What advice can the Minister give to a constituent of mine who took voluntary redundancy from British Rail last December on the basis that the enterprise allowance would be available, but was told in April that the scheme had been terminated? He subsequently lost his redundancy money, his firm has failed, and he is seeking compensation from the Department of Employment for misinformation.

If the facts are as the hon. Gentleman has stated them, it is clear that a serious mistake was made. I assume that he has written to me about it. However, the papers have not yet reached my desk.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the greatest anomaly of all? When one member of the family receives the enterprise allowance, if another member of the family, such as the wife, then becomes unemployed, the DHSS deducts the enterprise allowance from the gross income of the family, thus rendering ineffective the whole purpose of the scheme. Will my hon. Friend bear that point in mind when considering the future of the scheme?

With respect, that is not fair. The allowance is a form of income and where incomes are aggregated those procedures apply. The DHSS is following the proper procedures.

Is the Minister aware that there are many people who apply for places on the scheme well within the 12 months during which they receive unemployment benefit, but if they have to wait to join the scheme they lose the benefit because the 12-month period is exceeded. Would it not be better if people's entitlement began on the date on which they first applied?

The hon. Gentleman draws attention to a state of affairs which, regrettably, did exist during the period when there were very long waiting lists. Thanks to the developments that my right hon. Friend has announced, the waiting lists have been reduced to three or four weeks in most parts of the country. I therefore hope that this disappointing situation will no longer apply.

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

Yes, Sir. We shall continue the full-time job release scheme on the present basis for a further year. We shall be making changes to the part-time job release scheme designed to improve its attractiveness and the help that it can give to reducing the problem of unemployment.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the job release scheme is one of the best schemes for alleviating unemployment and that too few people are involved in it? Is there not a strong case for expanding it substantially?

I understand my hon. Friend's views, which are echoed in many parts of the House, but the question of how resources are allocated within the total of over £2 billion for employment and training measures is a matter of priorities. My hon. Friend should reflect on the fact that the net cost per person taken off the register by the enterprise allowance scheme is about £650, whereas the cost of taking someone off the register through the job release scheme is £1,630. When the money is allocated, such considerations have to be borne in mind.

Is it not rightly baffling to many people that the better-off, especially in the public sector, are retiring ever earlier while poorer people cannot take advantage of the job release scheme because the age limit has been raised? Should it not be reduced?

Early retirement, at whatever level, is a matter for employee and employer. People who wish to take advantage of the job release scheme have only the last year of their working life in which to do so because we have made a judgment as to the allocation of resources under special employment measures.

Does the Minister acknowledge that job release is a popular and excellent scheme which reduces unemployment? Will he also acknowledge that the scheme was introduced by a Labour Government, who improved it three times in as many years, unlike the present Government. who earlier this week devalued the scheme by increasing the participation age to 64?

Of course the scheme is valuable and the hon. Gentleman is quite right in saying that his party changed the rules three times.

Improving it.

However, his party did not promulgate the enterprise allowance scheme, which is much more cost-effective and has the additional advantage of being job-generative.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the total number of people in the United Kingdom presently affected in their normal working routine as a consequence of the coal industry dispute.

The vast majority of the country has been completely unaffected by the miner's strike in its normal working routine. It has however undoubtedly caused real hardship in particular areas and lost a significant number of jobs—especially in companies closely associated with the coal industry.

Does the Secretary of State appreciate that in the South Wales coalfield for every one working miner there are still 200 miners on strike? Does he further appreciate that a slow drift back to work is a recipe for conflict and that there will never be a complete return to work in the mining industry unless there is a negotiated settlement? If his Department has a role to play in avoiding conflict and resolving difficulties, will he say what action he proposes to take, bearing in mind the stated willingness of the NUM to reopen negotiations? What steps does his Department intend to take to bring about the resumption of negotiations?

I am surprised that an hon. Member who represents a south Wales constituency can stand up in the House and speak about the miner's strike without commenting on the behaviour shown to the general secretary of the TUC when he tried to bring forward a few home truths to those who thought that violence was the way to respond to that situation. If the hon. Gentleman believes that negotiation is the way in which to solve the dispute, it is a great pity that we did not hear his voice a little earlier.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of my constituents who work in the paper industry are suffering because of the dispute as paper mills are having to pay more for their energy? Will he remind the House that the longer the dispute continues, the greater will be the threat to their jobs?

The unattractive feature of the leadership of the NUM, which claims to be fighting to defend jobs, is that while its members have a clear assurance from the chairman of the National Coal Board, it is endangering the jobs of many other people in other industries. I have already given the House the figures. My best estimate on the figures that are available to me is that 30,000 people in other industries have lost their jobs as a direct result of Mr. Scargill's intransigence.

Does the Secretary of State accept that the number of people who will lose their jobs permanently as a result of the rundown of the coal mining industry could be as high as three for every job that is lost in that industry? The NUM has consistently advanced that argument. Do the Secretary of State's figures agree with that estimate? What does he propose to do if the Secretary of State for Energy goes ahead and gets rid of 20,000 jobs in the industry this year?

The hon. Gentleman knows that the best prospects for jobs in the coal industry depend on an efficient industry, low-cost coal production and low-cost energy. That also affects employment throughout the country. Such a policy was supported by Opposition Members when they had responsibility for these matters, but now their diaries are consistently too full for them to reaffirm it.

Does the Secretary of State agree that the great tragedy of this dispute is that, with the reduction in the number of uneconomic pits, we could have an expanding coal industry which would benefit all those who supply the mining industry and use its products as well as the miners themselves?

I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman. I am struck by the fact that some of those most closely involved on the union side of the industry do not seem to believe in its future. A friend of mine in the American coal industry—[Interruption.]

Order. We are making very slow progress as it is.

During this dispute that man has been in Germany selling deep-mined underground coal produced in the United States, and he has done so competitively. Those orders could be for British coal and could mean jobs for British miners if only people had the courage and determination to grasp the opportunity.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is his latest estimate of the number of young people under the age of 18 years who have been unemployed for a year or longer; and what was the comparable figure five years ago.

On 11 October 1984 the number of claimants under the age of 18 years who had been unemployed for over one year was 16,830. The figure of 3,825 for October 1979 was not derived on a comparable basis.

Do the Government look upon these young people as a lost generation? When will the Minister recognise the misery and waste of mass unemployment? Is it surprising that there is such an upsurge in drug abuse and crime when many of our young people are living in communities where the vast majority have no hope of real work?

I suspect that the hon. Gentleman does not realise there there is no reason whatever why anyone under 18 should have been long-term unemployed. Why on earth did they not go on the youth training scheme? They did not do so because the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) and others told them not to, yet there was no reason whatever why they should have become long-term unemployed.

Will my hon. Friend consider making a small contribution to this important problem by negotiating with his colleague in the Department of Trade and Industry the possibility of a small revolving fund to be administered by enterprise agencies to allow suitable people under 18 to set up business on their own?

As my hon. Friend will appreciate, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State runs a successful enterprise allowance scheme which becomes available to young people at the age of 18. The community programme is also available when young people reach 18. Were it not for Labour boroughs such as Hackney, Islington, Tower Hamlets and Newham, which do not approve of the community programme, there would be places available for those young people.

Will the Minister ask the Secretary of State and the Chancellor to give the House some figures which give the real truth about youth unemployment? Will he also say why the House was misled on 30 October when 50 per cent., 60 per cent., and then 70 per cent. were quoted as the percentage of people leaving YTS this year and getting jobs? Surely misleading the House is not the sort of thing at which Ministers should become professionals?

The hon. Gentleman will, I am sure, have read the latest outturn figures from the youth training scheme. Just under 60 per cent. are going into jobs and 13 per cent. are going into training of some sort or another. Those figures are very much better than any of the outturn figures under the youth opportunities programme. If the hon. Gentleman believes everything that Youthaid says, he is not concentrating on the real facts.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many people are covered by closed shop agreements protected by law.

Very few. I am aware from press reports of only three such ballots in favour of a closed shop. They covered about 1,100 employees. From 1 November, unless a closed shop has been overwhelmingly approved in a secret ballot, there is an automatic claim for unfair dismissal.

Does this not prove that the old, anti-democratic, unrepresentative closed shop, which has made little kings out of bullies and machiavellian princes out of knaves, is now a thing of the past?

It demonstrates that unions do best for their members when their members are voluntary members.

Is the Minister aware that in New Zealand the Conservative Government introduced 26 pieces of repressive legislation against trade unions, which brought absolute chaos to New Zealand, and that they have now been kicked out and the Labour Government intend to repeal the repressive legislation? Do the British Government intend to follow a similar course?

The Government will seek to follow political democracy with trade union democracy and to give more power to union members to control their own futures and unions. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman will support that.

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

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the current level of unemployment.

At 11 October the number of unemployed claimants in the United Kingdom was 3,225,000. That figure is disappointingly high. The creation of sustainable employment depends on a healthy economy, competitive industry and a flexible labour market. Our policies are directed to those ends, and we continue to look for ways of building on what has been achieved.

Is my hon. Friend worried that employment opportunities created by the Government's excellent decision to abolish the national insurance surcharge on 1 October will be jeopardised by inflationary and irresponsible wage claims in the private sector?

That is regrettably a factor which Opposition Members never seem to consider. They wax indignant about unemployment figures but never ask themselves whether there has ever been an excessive wage claim which led to an increase in the labour force employed.

Does my hon. Friend agree that many smaller businesses have considerable potential for job creation but are deterred from taking on new labour by the existence of onerous employment legislation, the abolition of which would not cost the Government a single penny?

Certainly there is scope for examining the burden of legislation on small businesses. My hon. Friend will appreciate that we have a duty always to bear in mind considerations relating to health and safety and the maintenance of standards that would benefit the work force.

Is the Minister aware that in the London borough of Newham 1,879 young people have never had a job, and that of those, 1,016 are 18 and over? Has he the least idea what that means for morale, drug abuse and crime? What message can I give them from the Government, after five years of Tory policies? Shall I tell them that the present position is what was intended? Is it a success or a failure? Does the Minister care about the future of those young people?

If the hon. Gentleman had heard the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, he would know that there is no reason why anyone of that age in Newham should not have had either a job or training experience. The message that I recommend him to give them is to restrain those in Militant Tendency and other similar persuasions, who never cease to talk down Government initiatives, schemes and other measures in that area, and to examine and take advantage of those opportunities.

Does the Minister agree that it is a bit thick for Conservative Members, who are well-fed, well-heeled, well looked after and who, in the main, have never worked for their living, to talk about high wages putting people out of work? Is he aware that in part of Merseyside, where there is high unemployment, people earn the lowest wages in the country and that, therefore, unemployment is forcing wages down? What reply do the Government have to that?

I know nothing about the hon. Gentleman's heels, nor about how well-fed he is. I can only say that Liverpool city council, which has tried determinedly to exclude private enterprise and private capital, is drawing the fire of the community groups and the trades councils within its purview. The council must recognise that its action offers the best route to increasing unemployment in that city.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment when he next intends to meet the Trades Union Congress in order to discuss the implications for Government policy of the miners' strike; and if he will make a statement.

I have no meeting planned with the TUC to discuss the implications of the miners' strike.

Although I am sure that my right hon. Friend recognises the dilemma of the TUC general council, which feels the need to pay lip-service to Mr. Arthur Scargill, is not the reality that the council has shown by its silence and lack of action its complete disapproval of the violent methods used by Mr. Scargill? In view of the personal and political courage shown by Mr. Willis, would it not be appropriate now for the Government to extend their hand to the TUC to try to improve the relationship between them and the TUC?

I made it clear that I have no meeting planned to discuss this matter, but I meet the TUC in committees with hon. Members to discuss various matters, and I am always ready to meet the TUC on matters of common interest. The TUC has paid a heavy price for the resolution that was passed at the conference. Had the TUC led negotiations earlier, it might have been helpful. I pay tribute to the brave words of the general secretary of the TUC at that most unpleasant meeting at Aberavon.

Is the Secretary of State aware that he should meet members of the TUC, if only to discuss my constituents who are employed by private contractors to carry out work for the National Coal Board, but who have been laid off since the strike started? They received unemployment benefit until recently, when a bright boy at the Department of Employment decided that the men were affected by the strike and would benefit from it. Will he ensure that those men receive their rightful unemployment benefit?

The hon. Gentleman knows that that is not a matter for me. It is a matter for adjudicating officer concerned with such matters. If the hon. Gentleman is trying to tell the House that much hardship has been caused by the dispute and that many people have lost their jobs as a result of the NUM action, many hon. Members would agree with him 100 per cent.

Were my right hon. Friend to run into the TUC members on the proverbial Clapham omnibus, would he talk to item about secret ballots and say that if the mineworkers had had a secret ballot they would not have gone on strike, and that if the Austin Rover workers had had a secret ballot, they would not have spent two and half weeks on strike and be returning to work only now?

I was pleased to see the announcement today of the decision of some workers to return to work. It underlines more clearly than any speech could that the car park meeting and the show of hands is no longer acceptable for issues of such importance to people's livelihoods and futures, and that the importance of a proper secret ballot before industrial action cannot be overstated.

Why have those mineworkers who were declared redundant before 6 March, the first day of the strike, who have received their redundancy notices and who have played no part whatever in the strike, been denied their unemployment benefits?

As I have tried to say, under the existing rules this is a matter for the adjudicating officer, not for Ministers. I very much hope that nobody will be in that situation much longer. The number of people who have lost their jobs as a result of the dispute—now 30,000—emphasises the importance of bringing it to an end at the earliest possible moment.

When my right hon. Friend meets the TUC, will he bring to its attention the fact that the decision of Labour councillors in Fife to send vast sums of public money to the miners and the NUM will have an impact on jobs in that area, because it will increase the rates?

The House will welcome the increasing evidence of a return to work, which is widespread and not confined to Bolsover. I hope that we shall soon have a majority of miners returning to work and that the ratepayers of Fife can be protected from that quite unnecessary impost.

Is the Secretary of state aware of the speech to be made tonight by the Secretary of State for Energy calling for national unity and conciliation in the mining areas, which seems to many of us to be like Attila the Hun calling for a peace conference? Does the Secretary of State accept his responsibility on that new theme of conciliation? Will he follow the lead set by my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme), the bishops and the general secretary of the TUC in calling for a convening of the parties to the dispute, or does he simply want to sit aside, hoping that the NUM will be smashed and industrial relations soured for generations ahead?

I have never seen my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy in the guise of a wolf on the fold as, I believe, Attila came down. It is no good the hon. Gentleman standing up now and asking for a bit of negotiation and conciliation, when he has said that he backs to the hilt the leader of the NUM, who proudly states that he has not budged an inch throughout the negotiations. If the diary of his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Labour party had been a little less full so that he could have had the courage to tell the NUM and the miners the truth, we might have got an earlier settlement of this damaging dispute.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what new initiatives he plans to reduce the level of unemployment in Wolverhampton.

The Government are concerned about the level of unemployment in Wolverhampton. A substantial number of people in the area are benefiting from employment and training measures, including the enterprise allowance scheme, which we have recently extended. Sustainable employment depends on a healthy economy and competitive industry.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Secretary of State came to Wolverhampton recently and that many of his friends told him that they were disturbed by the high level of unemployment, which now stands at 16 per cent.? Will the hon. Gentleman now answer the question and tell me what initiatives he has to reduce what is an unacceptably high level of unemployment, which has been at that level now for a number of years?

With her record of interest in employment measures and opportunities, the hon. Lady will know that that requires partnership between the Government, local authorities, and, most of all—

That is available.

—the ability to create new markets and meet the markets that are available. The hon. Lady will be as aware as I am that, for example, the motor industry, for which much subcontracting is done in her area, has seen more demand for cars but fewer being supplied from Britain. It would be helpful to have her support to get people back to work to produce the cars rather than to see people going on strike.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the horrifying problems of Wolverhampton cannot be cured in isolation from those in the rest of the country, but that neither Wolverhampton nor the rest of Britain is satisfied by the Government collectively wringing their hands and talking vaguely about the need to make labour markets more flexible? Some immediate action is needed to reduce the rigidities in the labour market, such as the abolishing of the wages councils.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me his views, now that I am at the Dispatch Box rather than sitting beside him. However, it is not just the wages councils that are important, because it is also important that employers should obtain a greater return from employing people than the mere cost of doing so, and that unit labour costs should stop rising and should remain steady or fall, as happens with many of our competitors.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many working days have been lost through industrial action in 1984 to date.

It is provisionally estimated that in the first nine months of this year 15·8 million working days have been lost through stoppages of work due to industrial disputes in the United Kingdom; and that four fifths of these days have been lost as a result of the mining dispute.

Does the hon. Gentleman realise that 1984 will see twice as many working days lost through industrial action as happened in the last year of the Labour Government, in 1978? In the years subsequent to 1978 we have had three pieces of industrial relations legislation from this Government. Does the hon. Gentleman think that the number of lost working days is a sign that that legislation has failed or a sign of its success? Are not this Government concerned with causing chaos in industrial relations?

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has even convinced himself. With the exception of the mining dispute, the number of days lost has fallen. The mining dispute, however, involves an example of a union not listening to its members and not asking them before going on strike.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 20 November.

This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen.

As the miners' strike is being satisfactorily brought to a conclusion by the continued return to work, may I ask my right hon. Friend about another problem on which progress is rather less than satisfactory? Is she aware that France has failed to meet its deadline for imposing the collection of the levy on the overproduction of milk? Is she further aware that in Italy no progress whatever has been made towards implementing a quota scheme? Does that not show that there is little desire in those countries to make economies in the common agricultural policy and that, therefore, there is no case for increasing the EC's own resources?

My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has made it quite clear to the Commission that, with regard to the super levy, either all of us collect it or none of us do so. We shall not be in a position in which Britain keeps the rules while others do not. With regard to the increase in own resources and the conditions under which that increase will be put before the House, an order will be placed before the House when we are fully ready to do so.

The Prime Minister never ceases to preach to everyone about the need to obey the law, so what is she doing about the 500,000 or so companies which refuse to obey the law by filing their annual accounts with Companies house?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that those cases are followed up, and that it occasionally takes some time to file such accounts. However, the matter is not in my hands but in those of the law enforcement authority.

My right hon. Friend will be aware of the grave concern caused throughout the country by the news that £250,000 of public property has been destroyed. I refer to the NCB computer and the geological centre. She will be further aware that no single step has probably had more damaging effects on the employment prospects for those in the coal mining industry. What measures are being taken to ensure that Mr. Scargill's Visigoths are not allowed or encouraged to continue such behaviour?

That was an act of vandalism and an attempt to destroy other people's jobs by destroying the equipment with which they work and the possibility of doing very important geological research. The matter will, of course, be pursued by the police and I hope that those responsible will be brought before the courts in the ordinary way.

In view of the extraordinary outburst from the pulpit on Sunday by the chairman of the Conservative party, will the Prime Minister make it clear that she sent a full and positive reply to the church leaders' letters on Ethiopia without questioning their facts, as he sought to do? Would it not be an improvement all round if she made the hon. Gentleman a bishop, and took some bishops into her Government?

I do not tangle with bishops—I leave that to very distinguished ex-Prime Ministers, one of whom, during a maiden speech in another place a few days ago, said that

"episcopal and archiepiscopal plunges into economics are very often rather eccentric, even capricious." — [Official Report, House of Lords, 13 November 1984; Vol. 457, c. 236.]

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 20 November.

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

Is the Prime Minister aware that the Government's intention to smash the trade union movement by pursuing policies of mass unemployment, by destroying local democracy and by reducing the living standards of working people and their families will not be achieved? Is she further aware that final victory will elude her and that the trade union movement and the Labour party will emerge stronger, not weaker, than they are now?

What is reflecting badly on the trade union movement, and doing it great damage, is the NUM's refusal to hold a ballot and its persistence in using violence to extend the strike. It would be far better for everyone if the miners returned to work and business returned to normal.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 20 November.

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

During her busy day, will my right hon. Friend find time to reflect on the decision of the leadership of the NUM to seek financial assistance from Libya and the Soviet Union? Is it not astonishing that unions that believe in freedom should seek financial help from countries where there are no free trade unions?

I agree with my hon. Friend that maximum aid comes from a country with no free trade unions. I noted some time ago that the leader of the NUM condemned Solidarity and said that he disagreed with it, even though it is a union trying to establish free trade unionism in a Socialist state.

In view of the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer last week that he expects to have scope for further net reductions in taxes of about £1½ billion in next year's Budget, can the Prime Minister now give the House a categorical assurance that her Government will not extend VAT to books, periodicals and magazines or to children's footwear and clothing?

The right hon. Gentleman is using an old, customary ploy, by which I shall not be trapped, of putting forward a number of measures and asking me to deny them one by one. He knows full well that he must wait for the Budget. I shall not fall for that ploy.

If the Chancellor of the Exchequer can tell us what he expects to do with taxes next year with cuts in health, education, social services and housing, why cannot the right hon. Lady tell us what she will do about VAT?

The right hon. Genteman is well aware that at this time of the year the Government must introduce to the House the public expenditure figures for the coming year. It has always been so. He should be aware by now that the Budget is introduced in the spring, not before Christmas.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 20 November.

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

Can my right hon. Friend find time today to offer congratulations to the British Steel Corporation on the huge improvement in its production and financial performance, despite all attempts to disrupt its activities? As the BSC moves towards financial break-even, will my right hon. Friend make a point of congratulating the work force, the management, the present chairman and the past chairman—who I think was called Mr. MacGregor?

I gladly join my hon. Friend. Those who work for the British Steel Corporation know full well that to keep their jobs they have to keep their customers. They are doing that and serving them very well, in spite of all the difficulties placed upon them by a fellow trade union.

Is the Prime Minister aware that the £4,000 million which her Government have spent in the past nine months in attempting to destroy the National Union of Mineworkers could have provided a £25 a week increase for every registered person on the dole or a £4 a week tax cut for every registered insured worker? Is it not a fact that, in the face of her attack on jobs, 90 per cent. of the miners in Scotland are on strike, 97 per cent. of the miners in Yorkshire are on strike, and 99·6 per cent. of the miners in South Wales remain solid?

If the hon. Gentleman is interested in people keeping their jobs, he should stop supporting strikes.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 20 November.

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

Given the fact that the general secretary of the TUC has now come out forthrightly against violence, and bearing in mind that that violence would probably cease if the TUC and the NUM were to obey their own guidelines on peaceful picketing, has not the time now come for those guidelines to be obeyed? Should not a call be made for those guidelines to be obeyed? Can my right hon. Friend think of anyone better placed than the Leader of the Opposition to make such a call?

I think that we all appreciated the general secretary's forthright denunciation of violence. We would also all appreciate it if the TUC guidelines on picketing were henceforth to be obeyed by all trade unions that belong to the TUC.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 20 November.

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

It seems to be highly probable that the Council of Environment Ministers on 6 December will consider issuing a directive on beverage containers, which will seriously affect employment in the tinplate and aluminium industry in south Wales. Will the Prime Minister give an assurance that she will instruct her Minister to veto that directive if the Council so decides?

I do not know whether the Council of Ministers will decide in that way, but I cannot give the hon. Gentleman that assurance.

With regard to the attempt by the president of the National Union of Mineworkers to obtain aid from the Soviet Union, would not the members of that union who value freedom be wise to bear in mind that there is one form of aid which the Soviet Union is always ready to provide, and that is advice and instruction on how to disrupt and destabilise institutions in the free world?

My right hon. Friend makes his point very effectively and I agree with him.

Following the right hon. Lady's description of herself on television last night as an English Prime Minister, is she aware that many Scots will welcome the acknowledgement that she has no mandate for government north of the border? Therefore, will she ensure that legislation is introduced into this House at least to redeem the promise of her noble Friend Lord Home that a separate Scottish Government should be set up?

The United Kingdom has had many Scottish Prime Ministers and it is about time the English had a chance.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 20 November.

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

Has the Prime Minister today responded to the view of the Australian Prime Minister that we should stay in UNESCO? If she has, has she borne in mind the views of the United Kingdom commission as well as 25 human rights organisations in Britain? Will she just for once respond to the Third world and to the non-aligned nations, instead of hanging on to American coat-tails?

The many criticisms that have been made of UNESCO are abundantly justified, both as to the direction of its expenditure and its attempts from time to time to prevent freedom of speech and freedom of the press in parts of the world.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 20 November.

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

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 20 November.

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

Have all signals to and from the Conqueror been retained, other than those that were in the missing log book?

rose—

Order. There was some confusion because the two previous questioners were not present. We are on question No. 10.

asked the Prime Minister why HMS Conqueror was ordered to return to the scene of the sinking of the General Belgrano on Monday 3 May 1982.

HMS Conqueror was not ordered to return to the scene of the sinking of the General Belgrano on 3 May 1982. but was ordered to continue operations in accordance with her current rules of engagement. Early on the morning of 4 May 1982, London time, HMS Conqueror signalled her intention to return to the area where Belgrano was attacked. She was then ordered not to attack warships engaged in rescuing survivors from Belgrano.

Have all signals to and from the Conqueror been retained, in any form, other than those that were in the so-called missing log book?

The hon. Gentleman has asked a number of questions about this matter. I prefer to check precisely before giving him a specific reply.