asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will extend the length of the youth training scheme.

This is one of a number of ways of increasing opportunities for young people which we are considering.

Will my right hon. Friend consider extending the length of the scheme, as it has been so successful? If he extended it initially to one and a half years, and later to two years, would that not be a tremendous investment in the youth of Britain?

I am grateful for the tribute that my hon. Friend has paid to the scheme, and I am encouraged by its success in many different respects. I am also encouraged by the expressions of appreciation from many hon. Members for the contribution that the scheme is making.

Is not the problem a lack of flexibility in YTS, in that it suggests the possibility of a job in all cases, whereas it might be as well to help youngsters to survive if, alas, they cannot obtain jobs thereafter?

Obviously, in different parts of the country the success rate in finding full-time employment varies. Some of the schemes, including those in the construction' industry, travel agents and hotels and catering, are outstandingly successful, with 90 per cent. or more of youngsters going into full-time work. However, we hope to keep the scheme flexible and to continue to improve it.

My right hon. Friend will be aware that the Manpower Services Commission told the Select Committee on Employment that it was worried about the status of YTS trainees, and especially about the absence of a form of contract such as is common in Germany. If my right hon. Friend extends the scheme, as we all hope he will, will he take that matter seriously into consideration?

It is important that status is clearly established. If there were proposals to extend the scheme, my hon. Friend's suggestion would add to the improvements that we are considering.

Is the Minister aware that some youngsters cannot go on the youth training scheme because of the change in board and lodging allowance? The position is that any young person who does not live at home with his or her parents and who depends entirely on the money received under the youth training scheme finds it impossible to pay for lodgings and to keep himself on the money available under the scheme. Will the right hon. Gentleman consider that matter?

We are constantly anxious to meet any such problems. In two successive years we have given what is called the Christmas undertaking that every young person aged 16 who does not go into further education or straight into a job will be guaranteed the offer of a place. We shall wish to ensure that that continues.

Is not an extension of the YTS to two years extremely necessary not only to put Britain on a par with other industrialised nations but to give us the opportunity to provide a proper blend of education and training for all youngsters up to the age of 18 before they seek work?

An extension of the scheme would bring us more into line with other member countries of the EC. Anyone who has had the opportunity to study the scheme will realise how essential it is for the scheme to help in the transition from the world of education to the world of work, and to help to give people a proper founding and training for their future work.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that even if he takes on board Labour party policy and extends the scheme to two years, that will be no answer to the fact that we are the worst trained nation in the industrial world? Does he appreciate that we need a revolution in training if we are to face our competitors on a fair and square basis? Is he aware that it is the quality as well as the quantity of the youth training scheme that we need to increase? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that if he makes the YTS compulsory at the same time as extending it, he will put a stigma on the scheme which will kill it stone dead for many young people?

My hon. Friends will have taken pleasure at that supplementary question, as some Opposition Members have never stopped trying to find ways to criticise the scheme and carp about its operation. Not only is there more joy in heaven, but there is more joy in the Government if the Opposition have repented in their opposition to the YTS. I shall be delighted, should we be able to proceed to an extension, if that has the support of the Opposition.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on wages councils.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement outlining the future for wages councils.

The Government are considering the future of wages councils.

What is the point of the Government pricing young people out of jobs—real jobs created by the market place through the operation of wages councils and employment laws generally—and then forcing the taxpayer to price those young people into what are often temporary jobs by the operation of the YTS and the young workers' scheme? Is it not time to sweep away wages councils and thereby perform a great service for young people?

The point that my hon. Friend makes about young people is most important, although I must remind him that some people, who have good contracts protecting themselves, argue for the abolition of all employment protection.

Will the Minister confirm that wages councils for adults often defend wages as low as £70 a week? Does he agree that a socially responsible Government have a duty to the most vulnerable in society? May we have a guarantee that, at least for adults, he will not remove this protective measure?

Many hon. Members on both sides of the House argue on behalf of those who are out of work. The gap between what some people get when they are unemployed and what they would get at or slightly below wages council rates might be filled by volunteers willing to work. It is important to remember the importance of trying to help those who are out of work as well as giving protection to those who are in work.

Does my hon. Friend recognise that many people in the business community would regard the abolition of wages councils as the acid test of the Government's resolve to make the economy more flexible and thereby to create more job opportunities?

I accept part of what my hon. Friend says. It is worth remembering, however, that movements in pay rates and unit labour costs throughout the economy, as well as among the lower paid, are important.

Is the Minister aware—he does not seem to be—that wages councils cater for the lowest paid workers in Britain and that, because of the reduction in the number of inspectors, many firms covered by wages councils are not being inspected? Is he further aware that of those inspected last year, the vast majority were found to be paying below the statutory minimum rates laid down by Parliament? When will the hon. Gentleman start to prosecute such firms?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that Ministers do not take decisions on prosecutions. He will also be aware, if he bothers to examine the information that is available relating to the present and previous Governments, that he is wrong to assert that over half the firms inspected are paying under the statutory minimum rates.

Is my hon. Friend aware that when I started as an engineering apprentice in 1960 I was paid the equivalent of £18 a week at today's prices, whereas the equivalent engineering apprentice now receives £50 a week? Is it any wonder that in West Germany there are far more apprentices than there are in Britain?

My hon. Friend makes the sensible point that young people look for the opportunity of gaining greater education and skill training and that many of them are willing to accept reasonable incomes if they have the prospects of improving their position and contributing more as they become worth more. The crucial point is that no employer will take on an employee unless he can see some benefit from doing so, and no employee will take a job unless he can see some benefit from taking it. Getting those two together is what really matters.

Why is it that police chiefs, judges and generals have not priced themselves out of their jobs, despite their high wages? Are those gentlemen doing the dirty work for the Tories in suppressing those who are protesting against their wages?

No, Sir.

Is my hon. Friend aware that according to the Low Pay Unit the lowest decile of those who are paid low wages earn a lower proportion of the average wage than their predecessors did 100 years ago? It would seem that wages councils have failed in their purpose. Does my hon. Friend agree that the reality is that the councils have destroyed jobs for young people and for members of the ethnic minorities and rewarded those in semi-skilled jobs at the expense of the unskilled?

Many interpretations can be drawn from the available figures and all sorts of expectations can be built on the possible reform Or abolition of the councils. The questions which face the Government, and which may in time face the House, are whether it is right to allow people to take jobs which they are willing to take at rates of pay which employers are willing to offer and the sort of protection which is essential. It is clear that many industries which are not covered by wages councils pay equivalent rates and that the council's existence may hold down as well as hold up some pay rates.

Will the Minister confirm that a recent Government report on wages councils inspections in the clothing industry revealed that in half of the workplaces visited some or all of the workers were being illegally underpaid? Does that not show that employers who pay illegal poverty wages and the Government who turn a blind eye to their actions should be condemned, and not the councils? Will the Minister guarantee that the Government will renew their international obligations on minimum rates of pay under the International Labour Organisation convention later this year? Will he also take the opportunity to condemn the report in today's edition of the Financial Times that the Government intend to remove young people from the protection of wages councils?

I think that the hon. Gentleman would do well to reread the report of the wages inspectors in the three areas that are covered. I have no intention of commenting on press speculation.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish in the Official Report the recent letter sent by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Clark) to the hon. Member for Walsall, North, about his new practice of answering written questions relating to unemployment statistics in different parts of the United Kingdom by reference to material in the Library.

Yes, Sir. I shall publish all the letters that I have sent to the hon. Member on this subject and also that sent by me to all right hon. and hon. Members on 19 October 1984. I am grateful to him for drawing attention to the new arrangements that have been introduced into the Library to enable the House to have immediate access to a wider range of unemployment information at less cost. A written answer which, coming from the same source, would give identical information, would be slower and more expensive. But if the hon. Gentleman insists, we are ready to oblige.

Is the Minister aware that we do insist? It is unacceptable that hon. Members cannot seek information from Ministers on unemployment statistics. We can see that only as a cover up for embarrassing information—[Interruption.] The Minister says that if we insist, the policy will be restored to what it was. Is that a firm pledge? Will the Minister confirm that that is the position?

Of course. I have just said that. That is the position. I do not understand the confrontational setting in which the hon. Gentleman claims to see this topic. This arrangement was introduced to speed up the service that is available to members. There is ample precedent in "Erskine May" at page 341 for reference to published sources. If it is beyond the hon. Gentleman's ingenuity or if he is too busy to walk along the corridor to the Library to read the information for himself, he will, as I have said, consume our time and taxpayers' money and get a written answer. However, it will come about three days later than if he were to go to the Library.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the new arrangements in the Library give far more detailed coverage of unemployment figures? In view of that, is it right that the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) should try to write his press releases at public expense?

That is just about it. That probably explains why the hon. Gentleman's press releases are so turgid and dreary. Were he to devote some of his notoriously high IQ to drafting more convoluted questions, he would probably get better results for his local paper.

Dear David

Thank you for sending me a copy of your letter of 4 December to Dr. Menhennet concerning the information requested in your parliamentary question on unemployment figures for the West Midlands to which I replied on 29 November.

Now that I have replied to your further question about the change in practice in answering questions on unemployment statistics (Official Report, 6 December 1984, Vol 69, Cols 259–60) there is little for me to add. I should however emphasise that the new arrangements provide a more effective means of giving Members the figures they require. In particular data should be provided more quickly and conveniently than before. I would also add that the Library is only expected to deal with the more straightforward requests for data, extending the service they were already providing. We will continue to answer Members whose quest ions pose particular problems.

As you may know, John Prescott has also written to Tom King on this matter and I enclose a copy of that correspondence.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment by how much productivity has increased in the non-manufacturing sector since 1979.

Labour productivity in all sectors of the economy fell between the second quarter of 1979 and the end of 1980. Since then productivity has increased by 12·5 per cent. for the whole economy, by nearly 28 per cent. in manufacturing industries and by 7·5 per cent. in the non-manufacturing industries.

Would my right hon. Friend care to take this opportunity of congratulating the manufacturing sector on its achievement? Would he also like to take this opportunity to remind those engaged in the non-manufacturing sector, in particular the utilities, local government and public transport, of the importance of producing better services at less cost, not only for the profitability of the manufacturing sector, but for the well-being of the country as a whole?

My hon. Friend has spotted the stark contrast between those two figures. I endorse the importance in the non-manufacturing sector, including the utilities and the other bodies to which he referred—many in the service sector, which is of great importance to the economy of the country—of a continuing level of productivity improvement.

Is the Minister aware that the non-manufacturing sector at No.10 Downing Street, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr Callaghan) left office, was costing £1·2 million to run? In the last financial year it has increased under the present Prime Minister's stewardship to £2·8 million and is now well on the way to £3 million. During the course of that stewardship she has thrown about 3 million people on to the scrap heap. How much productivity has there been at No. 10, apart from looking after Madam Dross herself?

If No. 10 has played some small part in the halving of the overseas foreign debt which the Government inherited and in achieving the improvement that we have seen in investment and productivity, whatever the figures were—and I suspect that they were not exactly as the hon. Gentleman portrayed—I would have thought that that was undoubtedly an extremely good bargain for this country.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what measures will be taken by his Department following the conclusions of the recent report on Government purchasing.

We shall ensure clear responsibilities and efficient procedures for purchasing and obtaining better value for money.

Will my hon. Friend do all in his power to simplify Government purchasing procedures so that small firms can play their part in achieving the hoped for savings of £400 million a year?

We shall do the best that we can, consistent with getting the best value for money.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he is satisfied with the level of apprenticeship in craft skills being offered by the building industry and the training that is otherwise available.

The Construction Industry Training Board is generally satisfied with the level of training in the industry. However, the board is encouraging employers to reform training arrangements so that national skill shortages are avoided.

Is it not the case that people who are trained in craft skills often find it difficult to obtain continuity of work and adequate rewards for their skills? Is there anything that my hon. Friend can do to encourage the use of craft skills, particularly in the building industry, or is it impossible that, for example, we should ever again build Westminster Hall?

I think that my hon. Friend and I would disagree on one point. As far as I am concerned, it is more important to get more people into the right sort of training. For example, thanks to the youth training scheme, in the Construction Industry Training Board area, 18,000 people last year had the first year's training, and 90 per cent. have gone on to further skills training. That has to be good for them and for the industry.

Does the Minister agree that because of system building and the virtual moratorium on public sector building the prospects of obtaining apprenticeships in the building industry today are poor? What efforts do the Government intend to make to ensure that the building industry is capable of providing apprenticeships for traditional building?

The hon. Gentleman cannot have heard my last reply, when I said that last year 90 per cent. of the 18,000 participants in the Construction Industry Training Board youth training scheme were taken on by the industry for a further year's training. That is a good record by any standards.

Would the Minister allow a young person who had completed the extra year's training to do major construction work on his own property?

That would depend.

Does my hon. Friend share the growing doubts about the role of the Construction Industry Training Board? Is it not arguable that it is absorbing more in contributions than doing good in training?

If my hon. Friend consulted widely in the construction industry he would discover that the majority of employers still have confidence in the Construction Industry Training Board.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will undertake a review of the Manpower Services Commission's operations within the county of Cumbria.

I am not aware of any need for such a review, but I would be happy to hear from the hon. Member about any particular matters.

In any decision taken nationally to increase the number of community programme places, will the Minster pay special attention to Cumbria, and to my constituency, where unemployment is over 20 per cent.? Does he accept that in a constituency where it is difficult to attract footloose industry the community programme is of special importance? In the discussions that take place annually with the Chancellor of the Exchequer before the Budget, has anything been said about the community programme for this financial year?

The hon. Gentleman and I have corresponded and we have discussed matters relating to his constituency and the community programme. I have watched carefully. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree that it is only fair for the number of places in his part of the country to reflect the total number of unemployed as a percentage of the whole.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what would be the net cost of expanding the community programme to 500,000 places, taking into account benefit savings and tax flows.

On the 1984–85 basis, it is estimated that the gross cost of mounting a 500,000 place scheme would be £2,200 million. It is likely that such a significant expansion of the scheme would require changes in the rules and would be likely to result in rather higher net costs than the present estimate of some £2,200 per unemployed person.

Does the Secretary of State agree that the deprivations and hardships of unemployment worsen and grow the longer a person is out of work? Does he also agree that the figures for the long-term unemployed are growing alarmingly from month to month, and that the figures that he has announced today show that we could take about 500,000 people off the dole queues for an amount similar to that which the Chancellor suggests he will give away in the next Budget? Should not the Secretary of State therefore insist that the money be spent on expanding the community programme to help the long-term unemployed, instead of giving it away in cuts in income tax?

The increase in the number of people in jobs is a result of the Government keeping control of inflation and public expenditure. It is important, when carrying forward any programme in which the Government have a number of measures to help in the short term, that we do not allow the costs to rise out of proportion.

Is it not important to improve training aspects in the programme so that those who leave the programme are better qualified to find work?

I have announced the proposal to introduce training into the community programme in the coming year. I am encouraged by the first results, which show that people who have been on community programme schemes have three times as good a prospect of going on into work as other long-term unemployed people. That is a tribute to the quality of the programme.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what studies his Department has made recently into methods whereby new public works schemes can give rise to new job creation.

The Government's approach to public works programmes is to consider each one on its merits in terms of rate of return to the community. It is our view that spending on Government investment schemes would be a very expensive way to create jobs.

Nevertheless, will my hon. Friend undertake to look at this again, perhaps in a joint study with the Treasury, in view of the growing evidence that there would be a very good effect on the multiplier in comparison with tax cuts?

I do not know what my hon. Friend means by "growing evidence". To take the construction industry, investment last year increased by 12 per cent. and output by 4·25 per cent., yet employment went down. I know that in my hon. Friend's early-day motion dated 17 December 1984 he referred to a large injection of capital being desirable, but he did not suggest where it should come from.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any plans to reduce the number of wages inspectors in post.

No, Sir.

Has the Minister noticed that hon. Members behind him who are quickest to respond when their own interests are affected by Government action are the first to call for the abolition of the wages councils and the removal of protection from the lowest-paid members of our society? Does the Minister feel ashamed to be spearheading a Government whose proposals are to do just that? Is there any compassion at all left in his Department?

Except for the hon. Gentleman's last question, the answer is no.

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

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.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in all this talk of victors and vanquished in the mining tragedy, the achievement of modern mines, high productivity and competitive energy prices will be the true victory for Britain and for Britain's miners, for whom Conservative Members retain, despite all that has happened, the greatest respect?

Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend that we want a prosperous coal industry. It is therefore necessary for the industry as a whole to convince the customer that it can provide a secure supply at highly competitive prices.

Is the Prime Minister aware that the miners' strike is not yet over, because the Scottish miners in pits such as Polmaise are as determined as ever not to go back until they get an assurance on the future of their pits and the reinstatement of all miners sacked during the strike? Will the Prime Minister stop demanding her full pound of flesh and insisting that miners be punished twice for the same alleged offence—first by the law courts and then by the kangaroo courts of MacGregor and Wheeler? It is they who should be sacked for vandalising the coal industry.

With certain exceptions, and the hon. Gentleman refers to one, the return to work in the coal mines has been orderly and at a high rate. The strike is very nearly over and I hope that the mines will soon get back to normal working, because that is the way to build a highly competitive industry again. I do not think that there can be an amnesty in any way for those who have committed serious criminal offences.

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

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

Has my right hon. Friend noticed that despite the appalling problems that have been created by the miners' strike there has been a great sense of unity in other sections of the nation and productivity has increased dramatically, particularly in the steel industry at Ravenscraig in Scotland? Is this not an example which the coal industry should now emulate?

I congratulate the workers at Ravenscraig on their most excellent record throughout the coal strike. Indeed, we should congratulate the steel workers as a whole, who put up production last year in spite of the coal strike. I also agree with my hon. Friend that the strike has demonstrated the enormous unity of other workers in the country, who are determined to carry on with their own jobs.

Will the Prime Minister reflect a little on the answer that she gave a moment ago in relation to the amnesty? While her Secretary of State for Energy says that it would be wrong to ask men to go back to work with those who have committed serious offences, will she take cognisance of the fact that in the Comrie colliery in Fife and Castlehill colliery and Solgirth, which are part of the Longannet complex, my men and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) are saying that they will not go back to work until the men who led the strike and who have been convicted, often of minor offences, are told that they are able to return to employment? Will she use her good offices with the NCB in Scotland to ensure that we do not have a Pontius Pilate school of management, but management that allows men to go back to work in unity and with self-respect?

Serious criminal acts have been committed during the dispute against both persons and property of working miners, and against the property of the National Coal Board. People who commit such acts must expect to face the consequences. Other matters are for the management of the NCB. The hon. Gentleman is very well aware that when normal working is restored there is a procedure through which anyone can go if he wishes to do so.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the only solution to the teachers' strike is through conciliation and arbitration, and that without the introduction of the new assessment procedure the only way that money will become available is either through higher local government rates or fewer teachers?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for putting across that point. If there is to be extra money for teachers, it could come by having fewer teachers, or it could come from elsewhere, out of the education budget, or the expenditure budget. To give more than has been offered to those teachers would in fact mean cutting other people off from jobs.

While Lord Bridge is investigating specific cases of ministerial authorisation of phone tapping, who will investigate the allegations that MI5 may have gone beyond the authorisation and made phone taps without specific ministerial authorisation? Will the Prime Minister make it clear that there has been no change in the practice of making individual assessments about phone tapping, other than offices, and that there is no blanket phone-tapping authorisation?

I hope to be studying the result of Lord Bridge's inquiry later this evening. It has arrived, but I have not in fact seen it. With regard to any other allegations, for example of unauthorised interception, I and my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary are accountable to Parliament for the work of the security service. It is for us to satisfy ourselves that it conducts its operations strictly in accordance with the terms of its directive and that its responsibility is fully discharged, as it always has been.

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

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

Will the Prime Minister reflect today on the prayer of St. Francis of Assisi, which she quoted outside 10 Downing Street on being elected Prime Minister? Does she not agree that she has stood that great prayer on its head, and that where there was faith, there is now doubt, where there was hope, there is now despair, where there was pardon, there is now injury, and where there was joy, there is now sadness? If the right hon. Lady has any compassion, which I do not believe she has, will she consider an amnesty for miners who were defending their jobs, communities and families? Will the right hon. Lady have compassion for their families and children? If she does not, she will go down to posterity as a cruel, vindictive, ruthless and uncaring hypocrite.

The worst discord that this country has seen for a very long time has been created by the leadership of the National Union of Mineworkers. It has split its own union and set family against family, brother against brother, and miner against miner. With regard to the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question, there can be no amnesty for serious criminal offences.

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

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

Will my right hon. Friend-take time today to condemn the scurrilous contents of the full page advertisement in The Times, which was inserted by the drug companies? Is it not disgraceful that those with a vested interest—[HON. MEMBERS: "Yes".]—should prey upon the fears of the sick and the elderly in this fashion?

Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend that it is disgraceful that they should prey upon the fears of elderly people, who will continue to receive the drugs that they need on the National Health Service, even though they might be in a slightly different form from that to which they have been accustomed. It is the chemical, not the brand name, which creates the cure.

In view of the fact that the rate of male unemployment in the South Wales coalfield and other similar areas is now 20 per cent. and more, will the Prime Minister tell us precisely what she is going to do to reduce unemployment in those areas?

If the right hon. Gentleman is referring particularly to closures that may come about because of the situation in the mining industry, I can tell him that a special National Coal Board enterprise company has been set up. Should it not have sufficient resources, more will be provided.

I am talking about the unemployment that already exists, not just about what will happen when the Prime Minister's axe falls upon even more mining communities. Will she tell us how she can justify, in these conditions of very high unemployment, further cuts in her own programme of job creation, training schemes and regional aid? Is it not a fact that the Prime Minister's whole record is one of wiping out jobs and closing down communities?

We shall get extra jobs when ordinary people can create more enterprise, which produces goods and services that people will buy. That is the way in which it has been done in countries that have been successful. We should have a far greater chance of reducing unemployment if right hon. and hon. Gentlemen ceased to support strikes and increased pay claims, regardless of the effect that this will have upon the jobs of others.

When — Mr. Speaker, this is the question that the whole country is asking — is this miracle going to come about? Will the Prime Minister answer that question?

It will come about when our people, instead of relying upon increased subsidies, do exactly what has happened in both Japan and the United States — set out themselves to create more small businesses.

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

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

In the light of the role played by the Trades Union Congress in the mining dispute, does my right hon. Friend recognise that a considerable number of members of trade unions, the majority of whom are moderate and reasonable, now recognise that management has a duty to manage and that discussion invariably succeeds where disruption always fails? Is not this a welcome sea change from the attitude that prevailed 10 years ago?

Yes. As my hon. Friend knows, I saw the TUC in the closing days of the strike. It played a very helpful and constructive role. I agree with my hon. Friend that since we have got rid of a lot of regulations in industry as a whole, management has recovered both the right and the duty to manage. That is something upon which we can never compromise.

Does the right hon. Lady recognise that at present management in Scotland is not managing but mismanaging? The disruption that exists in Scotland is caused by one woman, the Prime Minister, and one of her officials, Mr. Wheeler. Will the right hon. Lady kindly tell him to call off his nonsense? He declared that there would be no amnesty, even before the decision to return to work was taken.

I believe that the Opposition Front Bench agrees with me that it is right that there should be no amnesty for those who have committed serious criminal offences against miners and against the property of miners and the NCB. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition and the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) also agree with that proposition.

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

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

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, out of a total of 32 London boroughs, only seven councils supported the Labour GLC in its threat to approve an illegal budget on Thursday? Will she join the majority of Londoners in urging all Labour GLC councillors in their deliberations this afternoon on the estimates to adjust the GLC budget so that it does not exceed the limits set down by the Government?

I hope that the GLC, ILEA and all other relevant councils will make it their duty to set a legal rate, otherwise services will not be delivered and there will be chaos and confusion. Action can be taken to surcharge councillors and disqualify them. I hope that that will not happen.

Application under Standing Order No. 10, Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Order. Unless the point of order arises directly out of questions, I shall take it after the Standing Order No. 10 application.

It arises out of questions. I wonder whether you have noticed, Mr. Speaker, that questions to the Prime Minister today were proceeding quite well notwithstanding the fact that some hon. Members referred to their notes and were called upon not do so. I do not consider that to be as much a sin as the Leader of the Opposition popping up and down so often to ask his questions. This is a Back Benchers' occasion. Do you not think, Mr. Speaker, that we should try to observe Prime Minister's Question Time as a Back Bench occasion?

Order. The Chair has always given a certain licence to the Front Bench at Prime Minister's Question Time, but it remains true that every time the Front Bench gets up a Back Bencher cannot be called.