asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the level of youth unemployment at the latest available date.

On 10 January 1985, 197,678 claimants under 18 years of age were unemployed in the United Kingdom.

Are those not alarming figures? It is all very well to talk about training, but training for what? Will the Minister bear in mind that in careers offices throughout Wales there are only 200 notified vacancies? In this International Year of Youth, does he not feel that youngsters deserve a better deal?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees with the document that the Labour party has produced today, especially the passage that states:

"For young people, Labour's aim is a high quality two-year programme of education and training. The Youth Training Scheme must be recast to meet the needs of all 16 and 17-year-olds".

Does my hon. Friend agree that as well as the introduction of measures by the Department of Employment for the employment of youth, there is a need for him to liaise with the Department of Education and Science to ensure that school leavers are properly equipped with all the necessary skills to enable them to take their place in employment?

I agree with my hon. Friend. That is why we have taken the initiative of introducing a pilot scheme of vocational education. It is sad that many Labour-controlled education authorities are not willing to participate in the scheme. They do not see the need to bridge the gap between education and work.

The Government regularly claim that low wages will provide the answer to youth unemployment. If so, why is the lowest rate of unemployment in the south-east, the region which has the highest wage levels?

Presumably the hon. Gentleman is aware of the agreement between the Electrical, Electronic, Telecommunication and Plumbing Union and the employers, which resulted in a significant reduction in the level of apprentices' wages. As a result, the number of apprentices trebled. Surely that speaks for itself.

Will my hon. Friend tell the House what response he has had so far from employers to the excellent extension of the youth training scheme to two years? Will he also confirm that in future the scheme will be biased more towards securing jobs at the end of the day?

The employers' response so far has been encouraging, as was demonstrated by what the CBI had to say after my right hon. Friend's announcement. I am sure that all employers realise that to invest in a two-year training scheme is in their interests as much as it is in the interests of the trainees.

In the light of those dreadful figures for youth unemployment, surely the Minister must join his right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), who seems to know that the Government are pursuing a Luddite theory in linking low wages with youth employment. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Fatchett) has observed that youth unemployment is lowest in the south-east, where wages are higher than elsewhere. When will the Minister give up theories that fly in the face of common sense, sound economics and the lessons of history and start to do something to create real jobs for young people?

It seems that the hon. Gentleman was not listening to his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition when he was speaking this morning. The right hon. Gentleman, when launching the Labour party's new document, said that there was no easy answer to these problems. The Government's answer is a soundly based economy that will win back jobs on a competitive basis.

asked the Secretary of Stale for Employment what recent representations he has received about the number of factory inspectors in post.

There have been nine representations since 1 January. Six have been from representatives of trade unions.

Will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that, to achieve improved health and safety at work, more direct action is needed by the factory inspector at the place of work? The problems involved in the storage and production of chemicals, which are covered by the hazards regulations which were passed a few weeks ago, will require more inspection, especially in conurbations such as Sheffield. There was a major fire in Sheffield, and the factory inspectors expressed disquiet about the ability to control such hazards.

The whole aim of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and the activities of the executive are to build in safety rather than to try to bolt it on afterwards. The regulations for the storage of chemicals are very much in the mind of the Health and Safety Executive. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman discovered a good deal more helpful information during his visit with the area director to the Brightside fire site.

Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating the factory inspectors who were sent to Leicester to investigate the so-called sweat shops and who gave Leicester a clean bill of health?

My hon. Friend will recognise that interpretations of the report will vary. The important issue is that not only factory inspectors but management and safety representatives should continue with their assault on unsafe conditions and try to ensure that occupational safety and health are continuously improved.

I would understand and accept the Minister's point, provided that was happening. Is he aware that, because of the Government's cuts, there are nowhere near sufficient inspectors in industry? It is high time the hon. Gentleman woke up and did the job that he was elected to do.

I am always grateful for the encouragement of hon. Members. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should re-read the Health and Safety Commission's plan of work.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he is satisfied with the operation of the Employment Acts 1980 and 1982 and the Trade Union Act 1984.

It is already clear that the Employment Acts 1980 and 1982 and the Trade Union Act 1984 together represent a significant improvement in rights of union members both in protecting them against the abuse of closed shop power and in ensuring that their views are taken into account before being required to take industrial action.

Has the legislation been framed to deal with ballot rigging? Will the legislation deal with allegations of ballot rigging in the Transport and General Workers Union?

The election took place before the provisions of the 1984 Act are due to come into effect. That will happen on 1 October 1985. The first change is that, with effect from July last year, we require the setting up of a new register by 1 October to keep an accurate and correct register of members. A presumption in favour of postal voting will also apply. Those provisions will clearly help.

Does the Secretary of State agree that, rather than anti-trade union Acts, measures to strengthen the trade unions are required, especially to protect them from companies such as Exclusive Cleaning and Maintenance Ltd. at UKAEA, Risley where 130 women cleaners have gone on strike because their wages have been reduced by 21p an hour, from £25 to £22·50 a week, despite the fact that the firm's profits have increased by 32 per cent.? Will he advise his colleague the Secretary of State for the Environment to sack this anti-trade union firm from its cleaning contract for the House of Commons and the House of Lords? Will the right hon. Gentleman do so, despite the fact that this firm contributes to the Conservative party?

I fail to understand how the hon. Member could describe as anti-trade union provisions that give greater democracy to union members. I am reinforced in that view by the MORI poll carried out for "Union World" on Channel 4, which found that 75 per cent. of union members supported secret ballots before strikes were held and 70 per cent. wanted secret ballots for union elections. Those are precisely our provisions, and I am glad that they have the overwhelming support of union members.

In view of what my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Mr. Knox) said about possible ballot rigging in recent Transport and General Workers Union elections, should not the TUC satisfy itself that everything was done correctly in those elections?

Without wishing at this stage to enter into the details of those union elections, clearly the stories that have emerged, the allegations that have been made and the disciplinary action already taken leading to the dismissal of union officers in Bristol give rise to serious anxiety. It is precisely because it is important that union elections carry credibility that we put through our provisions in the Trade Union Act. They will prove overwhelmingly to be to the good of unions' reputations in the future.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that he and his colleagues rejected proposals from the Opposition and Conservative Benches for the introduction of secret postal ballots in the 1984 Act? Do not the TGWU irregularities confirm the evidence that we presented to the Committee and to the House at that time? Will he therefore reconsider the Government's position and introduce secret postal ballots as the norm for trade union elections?

The hon. Gentleman's memory fails him. He will recall that the changes that we subsequently made required that, so far as reasonably practicable, everyone entitled to vote in an election must have a voting paper sent to him by post at his proper address and be given a convenient opportunity to vote by post. My understanding is that it is likely that the TGWU will be changing its future arrangements for the election of its national executive committee because of the need to conform with the new requirements.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that those Acts were put on the statute book to redress the imbalance brought about by the Acts put on the statute book by the Labour Government, who gave powers to trade union barons and leaders and removed those powers from the members? The Conservative Government put the power back where it belongs—with the membership—and made the leadership accountable.

I agree with what my hon. Friend says. I notice that Opposition Members are fond of criticising the trade union legislation. I want to hear from them whether they propose at some future stage—if they ever have the chance—to take away from union members the right to have a vote and a say before they are called upon to take industrial action.

When will the Secretary of State realise that penal laws and sanctions against trade unions cannot make employees stay at work if they feel strongly over an issue, as we saw yesterday at the Mount Pleasant sorting office? Is he aware that, just as previously when anti-union legislation has been passed by a Tory-dominated House of Commons, this law will be repealed like the rest of them?

The hon. Gentleman shows by that question just how much he is out of step with the general stream of union thinking. My understanding is that in the postal dispute to which he referred, the union membership will invite its members to vote in a proper ballot. I hope that the whole House will welcome that development.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that whilst the 1984 Act was a valuable contribution to employment law, the time is now ripe for further action, and that the Government should issue a Green Paper about the possibility of making strikes illegal and making binding arbitration agreements legally enforceable in essential services, such as teaching, health care, gas, electricity and water? That would have considerable public support.

I note what my hon. Friend says. That is not what we put before the country at the election. We said that we would consult about essential services to ensure that they were governed by adequate procedure agreements, breach of which could lead to loss of immunity. I am considering that matter in the light of lessons learnt in the recent miners' dispute.

May I give the Secretary of State and the House an assurance that the next Labour Government will repeal every scrap of Tory anti-trade union legislation? Is the Secretary of State aware that there is mounting suspicion that some Ministers, in particular the Prime Minister, are urging industrialists in general and chairmen of nationalised industries in particular to use Tory industrial relations legislation to create industrial disputes so that they can take on the unions? Surely, employment Ministers should recognise that co-operation, not confrontation, is what is necessary to put right Britain's economic problems?

Obviously, we listen carefully to that statement from the Opposition Front Bench, made with the full authority of the Labour party. I think we now see that in future union members are to be denied secret ballots — [Interruption.]—and are not to be allowed to have a say before they are told by their union leaders whether they have to strike. We now see the party of the ballot riggers in full cry.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Dirty slander.

Order. We often hear things in the Chamber that we do not like.

On a point of order, arising from Question Time, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for the Secretary of State for Employment to make a slanderous statement about the "party of ballot riggers" and is it the kind of conduct, that you expect from Ministers at the Dispatch Box?

I say to the hon. Gentleman and to the whole House that moderation in language is the essence of our debates.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to expand the operations of the community programme.

I have asked the Manpower Services Commission to expand the community programme by a further 100,000 places by June next year. At that rate it will then be providing some 300,000 places on the programme in a full year.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply and assure him that it will be warmly welcomed in the west of Scotland. What will be the geographical disposition of the extra places? If there is a surplus of unfilled vacancies in parts of England, will my right hon. Friend be prepared to allocate them to other parts of the United Kingdom where there is unfilled demand?

I am aware of the point that my hon. Friend makes. I can confirm that, because I have written a letter to the MSC asking it to consider ways in which the programme could be expanded. We shall be giving consideration to just those points, and to the fairest method of allocation of those additional places. I am sure that the whole House supports the expansion of the community programme. There may be differences about the extent to which it can be expanded, but it is widely welcomed, and we are anxious to see how effective we can make it in helping the long-term unemployed.

Is the Secretary of State aware that I have been a consistent advocate of the community programme in the northern region, particularly Cumbria, over the past few years? Will he assure me that the county of Cumbria, particularly west Cumbria, which includes my constituency, will receive a substantial increase in the number of community places?

I am aware that the hon. Gentleman has taken as close an interest as any hon. Member in the programme. His criticism has been that he wants more places; it has not been of the programme itself. He will not expect me to reply in detail to the points that he made. We are not yet able to say what the exact allocation will be, but I take note of the points that he raises.

Does the Secretary of State accept that nobody will believe that the Government intend to expand the community programe unless they withdraw the change in the rules that deliberately excludes married women from the community programme? Does he agree that that is simply massaging the figures? Does not the House agree that, as the Equal Opportunities Commission suggests, it is illegal?

Inadvertently, the hon. Lady was not correct in what she said. Of course, the scheme is limited to benefit recipients. The hon. Lady may say that that may tend to disadvantage married women, but it does not exclude married women per se from the scheme, as the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) will tell her. The difficulty is that there are not as many places as people would like on the community programme. My hon. Friend the Minister of State and I had to try to find a determinant of greatest need. That was how we determined benefit recipients in this case.

The expansion of this excellent programme is most welcome, but will my right hon. Friend consider allowing more flexibility in the period for which people may work in it and the length of time for which elderly workers have to be unemployed before they qualify for a place?

We do not propose any major changes in the rules at this stage, but I note the points raised by my hon. Friend. We have already announced two developments which I hope will be helpful. We are anxious that the programme should be expanded in the most effective way so that it will genuinely help the long-term unemployed.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that restricting the period of employment to one year bears excessively heavily on voluntary bodies which use the programme to continue their project administration? Will he consider widening the rules so that such bodies can keep people in employment and continue their management projects?

I note that point, which has been raised with me before. I understand that exceptions have been made in certain cases, but we will certainly consider the matter again.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether, following the reorganisation of skillcentres, more training will be provided locally where the skills are needed.

Yes, Sir. For example, we plan that in Lincolnshire the number of people being trained will more than double next year.

I welcome that news, but does my hon. Friend accept that it is important to make good training available where people live and work and that effective training is an essential arm in the battle against unemployment? In organising this substantial expansion, will he consult locally to ensure that training really meets local needs?

I assure my hon. Friend that the greatly increased number of places that will be available for adult training and retraining will involve local consultation with industrialists and trade unions. I am delighted to see from the Labour party document that the Opposition also want a big expansion. Their problem is that that great expansion cannot be achieved without the reorganisation of the skillcentre network.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Select Committee on Employment has been pursuing an extended inquiry into skill shortages and has found that the Confederation of British Industry is not playing its part in providing funding and skills training compared with the position in Germany and America? When will the Government put pressure on the CBI to spend some money on providing the skills that it needs?

I have made it clear, not just to the CBI but to all employers, that it is principally their duty to provide funding for training. I shall continue to reinforce that message. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman joins me in that.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the chambers of commerce have an important part to play in the provision of training? Does he further agree that the Kirklees and Wakefield chamber of commerce is to be commended on the fact that it has its own training company which has provided no fewer than 800 places in that area? Should not other chambers of commerce be encouraged to do likewise?

I am aware that that particular chamber of commerce plays a significant part in new training schemes, as do others throughout the country. That achievement certainly deserves congratulation and encouragement.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that in the reorganisation each skillcentre will be dealt with on merit? If so, should not the Millbrook annex which serves my constituency, come off his hit list, first, because it is full, secondly, because it offers today's rather than yesterday's skills, and, thirdly, because it is extremely well supported by local industry?

My hon. Friend and others came to see me about this matter. As my hon. Friend knows, officials of the Manpower Services Commission and the Skillcentre Training Agency are discussing with local employers the position with regard to that particular annex.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any plans to extend the scope of the job release scheme.

As I announced to the House on 15 March, changes to the part-time job release scheme will be introduced from 29 April to make it more attractive to both employers and employees. The rules will be more flexible and a grant of £840 will be payable to an employer supporting a successful application for part-time job release.

Does the Minister not agree that increasing the age of eligibility for men from 62 to 64 was a grave mistake, in view of the Government's insistence that unemployment should not be the only option for young people and the fact that they are presiding over record dole queues? Would it not be better to allow men aged 62 and over to take early release so that jobs could be made available for young people who hitherto have not had a chance under the Government?

All our special measures are governed by judgments about priorities and about where the emphasis should best be placed. That is why we have introduced and improved the part-time scheme, which covers the very age groups to which the hon. Gentleman rightly considers we should give consideration.

Will my hon. Friend keep this matter carefully under review? Many of my hon. Friends believe that improvement of the scheme goes very well with expansion of the community programme and the YTS, as it will ultimately help young people to get jobs.

I appreciate my hon. Friend's concern. Reducing the age makes it less easy to monitor the replacement condition, which is one of the most important aspects of the scheme if the taxpayer is to get good value.

As this incompetent Government have increased unemployment by 73 per cent., will the Minister consider extending the job release scheme to the entire Tory Cabinet?

I shall not be drawn on the question of reshuffles. However, I believe that not many members of the Cabinet fulfil the age criteria for the scheme.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the average growth in real income for a single person on 60 per cent. average national income for each of the last five years for which information is available.

For a single adult on 60 per cent. of the average national gross weekly earnings of all adult male employees, real take-home earnings, that is real earnings after deducting tax and national insurance, have increased by 5 per cent. over the past five financial years.

I hope that the Minister takes no comfort from those figures. In Wales, some 34 per cent. of households have an income that is 60 per cent. or less than the Welsh average. Given that Wales has one of the highest levels of unemployment—20 per cent.—are not claims that only wage moderation will produce more jobs not only pious but offensive and divisive?

The hon. Gentleman will agree that there is the greatest moral case for lifting people's incomes by getting them into work. Secondly, he will also agree that if we can avoid increasing nominal gross earnings by six times the rate of real income increase from employment, we shall find ourselves with more jobs rather than fewer, because the figures show that earnings have risen six times faster than real take-home pay.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the current level of employment; and if he will make a statement.

The employed labour force in Great Britain increased by 342,000 between September 1983 and September 1984 to 23,494,000.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that greater attention should be paid to the number of people who are in work and the increase in their numbers as well as to the number of those who, unfortunately, cannot get work?

It is true that, contrary to the experience of the previous three years, in the past year we have seen an encouraging improvement in the number of people in work. Our ambition now — reinforced by the measures announced in the Budget — will be to see that rate accelerating in the year ahead. I am somewhat encouraged by the measures that we have announced and the further measures that we are taking. This is the only major industrial country in western Europe in which the number of people at work increased last year.

The Secretary of State asks us to take encouragement from the number of those in work and to concentrate on those figures. Does he realise that chart 5 on page 7 of the employment paper which he published last week contains the employment figures over the years and shows that the best period for civilian employment was between 1974 and 1979? Those are the very years in which Labour was said not to be working. Will the right hon. Gentleman now give us an apology, or perhaps ask for his money back from Saatchi and Saatchi?

I think that the right hon. Gentleman has just warmly endorsed our policy of putting the facts before the nation. There are important facts to be understood about both employment and unemployment in this country.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that we can win more jobs only if Britain wins a greater share of world trade? That means British industry and British commerce being more competitive.

I certainly endorse what my hon. Friend has said. However, I believe that we are winning the argument. I was pleased to hear even the Leader of the Opposition say today that of course jobs depend on customers. If we are getting that message across, even to the slowest of Opposition minds, we are at last making progress.

Will the Secretary of State concede that since the Conservative party came to power there has been a record number of bankruptcies? Will he now take some lessons from his senior colleagues, and from the right hon. Gentleman who spoke after the Budget statement, who made it crystal clear that unless the Government changed their policies there would be no hope for the unemployed? Will he learn this lesson from his colleagues?

I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was referring to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If so, it should be noted that although the Budget did not receive universal acclaim, I cannot recall any other Budget that was followed so quickly by two reductions in interest rates and by the sharpest improvement in the value of our currency to succeed any Budget.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that as the new technologies will get rid of as many—if not more — jobs as they create, we should take an imaginative look at the way in which we can make more jobs available? It is time that we thought, for example, about reducing the retirement age of some workers and doing away with large-scale overtime such as occurs in the Post Office, and which is the cause of the present dispute.

I note what my hon. Friend says, and his point about overtime is very relevant. In the current dispute, it would be interesting to know whether those who profess such concern about unemployment are prepared to adopt a more sensible approach to levels of overtime and to give more encouragement to part-time working.

May I make it clear to the Secretary of State that many of us think it absolutely contemptible that he could produce a White Paper on employment without making a statement to the House about it. In the interests of truth, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm the latest figures produced by the Central Statistical Office, which show that during the last five years of the Labour Government there was an increase in jobs of 315,000, which compares with a loss of 1·8 million jobs during the five years of a Tory Administration? Does he accept that for every new job created by the Labour Government, six jobs have been lost by this Tory Administration? That shows that it is a deliberate part of this Government's policy to create mass unemployment.

The hon. Gentleman asked about making a statement to the House. I should make the situation clear, because no discourtesy was in any way intended. I have just checked the record. There have been 20 White Papers in the past year: five have been accompanied by statements and 15 have been published without it being thought necessary to make a parliamentary statement, although there may have been debates and discussions on them. I confess that when I was a Back Bencher I was one of the considerable number of hon. Members who preferred to have a chance to read a White Paper before jumping to instant comment. I make that quite clear. I thought that the announcement of the Opposition's new campaign would herald a rather more intelligent discussion of the unemployment problem in this country. The hon. Gentleman knows that we have lost a very substantial number of jobs and that I have discussed those losses on more occasions than I care to recall. I hope that he can raise the standard of debate, because it does no service to the unemployed if we debate unemployment in abusive terms of that kind.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he is taking to monitor the operation of section 1 of the Employment Act 1982 requiring public limited companies to include employee involvement statements in their annual reports.

The Department has been analysing reports from a large number of companies. I shall report the outcome to the House. Some reports seen so far are disappointing, but many bear out recent research evidence that employee involvement arrangements in companies are varied and widespread.

In view of the mixed reaction so far to the Government's analysis, will the Minister tell the House what steps the Government propose to take to ensure that companies comply with the terms of the Act, and whether they propose to make a statement on employee involvement?

The hon. Gentleman will have to wait until the first analysis is published by the Government. Other institutions are also carrying out analyses. However, I can help the hon. Gentleman, and the companies, by saying that the aim of section 1 is to make sure that employees systematically get information that is of concern to them, that they or their representatives are consulted on a regular basis, that employee involvement is encouraged by employee share schemes or by other means and to achieve a common awareness on the part of all employees of the financial and economic factors affecting the performance of the company. Any company that believes it does not need such involvement needs to think again.

If the Minister accepts the principle that industrial democracy is necessary for this country, and if it is recognised that section 1 of the Act is hopelessly inadequate, do the Government intend to continue to block the draft fifth directive of the European Community?

The hon. and learned Gentleman will know that the Government are opposed in principle to inflexible prescriptive legislation on employee involvement. We are very much in favour of employee involvement and workplace participation, but we believe that it can be better achieved by means of voluntary, varied arrangements.

May I remind the House that the amendment to this Act was forced upon the Government by an alliance Member of the House of Lords? Our impression is that the Government's heart is not in this matter, in that they are merely making inquiries and are not demanding that companies fulfil the legislation that was passed by this House.

The whole House acknowledges, I believe, the debt that it owes to Lord Rochester for pushing this forward and will also acknowledge that the Government have taken it on board. My role, and my keen interest, is to foster employee involvement so that companies prosper, employees share in that prosperity and more people who at present are out of work come into work.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many people are currently unemployed in Lambeth or on youth training or similar schemes.

On 14 February there were 25,458 unemployed claimants in the borough of Lambeth. Nine hundred and eighty young people are currently receiving training under the youth training scheme and some 1,300 more people are benefiting from other employment measures.

Does the Minister realise what a strain unemployment at that level throws on a community? Can he tell us when the Government's and the Prime Minister's economic and social policies will have reached such a high degree of success that they will be able to restore unemployment to the figure of 14,000 at which it stood at the time of the Brixton riots and the Scarman inquiry?

I think the hon. Gentleman would be better advised to address that question to the Lambeth borough council, which deliberately does not wish to participate in the community programme that has been provided for all the long-term unemployed in Lambeth.

As somebody who until comparatively recently lived in Lambeth, may I point out to my hon. Friend that had it not been for the constant and rapid rate increases in Lambeth a great many of the enterprises which could be providing jobs would still be there?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. During the course of the last two years the rates have more than doubled in Lambeth. That is bound to have an effect on businesses coming into that borough and therefore is bound to have a bad effect on job opportunities for those who live in the borough.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any new plans to increase the number of wages inspectors.

No, Sir.

Will the adoption of either of the two options in the consultative paper on wages councils result in a reduction in the number of wages inspectors employed?

The hon. Gentleman and the House will do better to wait until the consultation period is over and the Government announce their intention.

When my hon. Friend considers the future of wages councils, will he bear in mind that it is not just younger workers, but older workers, who want the opportunity to enter the job market free of all restrictions?

I think the House will accept that, whatever decision is taken, in the end there will be a conflict of interest between those out of work who might be offered and be able to accept employment and those in employment who want as much protection as they can reasonably have.

Will the Minister admit that since 1979 the Government have deliberately and significantly cut the number of wages inspectors to encourage employers to pay illegally low rates as part of their strategy of pretending to create jobs while attacking the lowest paid people in Britain, showing that they respect only the laws that they favour?

No, Sir.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 2 April.

This morning I had meetings wth 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 attend a dinner given by Her Majesty the Queen.

During the course of her busy day, will the Prime Minister take the opportunity to rebut the argument proposed by many of her hon. Friends that wages councils should be abolished so that the unemployed can be priced back into work at the expense of some of the lowest wage earners in the land? Does the Prime Minister accept that that argument is immoral and impudent as well as Luddite?

No, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Gentleman will perhaps be aware that the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development in its report on employment outlook in September 1984 said:

"Increases in relative youth wages appear to have reduced their employment in a number of countries."

Has my right hon. Friend read the report in the Daily Telegraph to the effect that in its attempt to indoctrinate our children ILEA's aparatchiks are ordering the removal from school libraries of books such as "Robinson Crusoe", which is imperialist and "Jane Eyre" which is sexist? In deploring that witch hunt, will my right hon. Friend agree that girls helping their mums and boys helping their dads is as natural as pictures showing Socialists in opposition and Tories in government?

Yes, Sir.

At the so-called rates summit at Chequers last Sunday did the Prime Minister and her colleagues give their attention to the Audit Commission's report, the views of the Tory-controlled Association of County Councils or the British Chambers of Commerce, all of whom conclude that the biggest single factor accounting for the doubling in the rates burden in the period that she has been in office is her systematic and continuous series of cuts in the rate support grant?

The right hon. Gentleman forgets that the rate support grant also comes from taxes levied on people and businesses, and businesses are hit both ways. Therefore, the important thing is to hold a severe restraint on public expenditure.

The Prime Minister's answer makes it clear that last weekend's affair at Chequers had much more to do with trying to ease political pressures on her Government from irate Tories in Scotland and the forthcoming county council elections than with easing burdens of taxation of any kind on the families and businesses of Britain. Will she now, with all that performance, promise to abolish the rates again? If she does so, who will believe her, especially when she has ratted comprehensively on those undertakings twice in the past 11 years?

Last week's seminar on rates—[Interruption.]

Order. I ask the House to hear the Prime Minister.

Last week's seminar on rates was to review the work of the review of local government finance announced last October by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. With regard to the 1974 election, which, as the right hon. Gentleman reminds me, this party lost and his party won, may I point out a promise in the 1974 Labour manifesto, to the effect that prescription charges would be abolished, a promise which the Labour Government never fulfilled.

Despite the claim of the Opposition, will my right hon. Friend accept that her determination to reform the rating system will have massive support throughout the country, particularly if this leads to an ending of the inequality whereby many on low incomes have to pay and many on high incomes do not pay at all?

Yes, the rating system is an inequitable system. It will take a great step to reform it, and it will be very complicated, but we hope to bring forward proposals to do just that.

Has the Prime Minister read reports this morning that the Westinghouse corporation in America is claiming to have the contract for the Sizewell reactor in the bag? Does she agree that that rather prejudices the report of the inspector, and will she give the House an assurance that the Government are not prejudging the issue in any way?

We had this question some months ago when the Central Electricity Generating Board informed the Sizewell inquiry, last year, that it had placed the contract for the primary circuit for Sizewell B with Westinghouse. This contract involves a firm commitment for the design phase only. If the right hon. Gentleman recalls my reply then, I said that it was necessary to do that to keep open the possibility of developing Sizewell, should planning permission be given. In fact, the CEGB estimates that 93 per cent. of the total cost of Sizewell B will be placed in the United Kingdom, should planning permission be given.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 2 April.

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

Is the Prime Minister aware that in the east midlands since she came to power there have been 2,080 bankruptcies? Why is it, if she is prepared not to lift a finger for them, that she, together with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Bank of England, can bail out Johnston Matthey Bankers to the tune of £75 million of taxpayers' money? Is there one law for the bankers and another for the rest? Will she give a guarantee that the report of the inquiry into this squalid deal will be published, or will there be a cover-up for the bankers and an amnesty?

I hope that Johnston Matthey will eventually be returned to the private sector. In the meantime, I remind the hon. Gentleman that he supported a strike designed to put many people out of work and many firms into bankruptcy.

In considering the future of the rating system, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the wise words of the Layfield committee, that whoever is responsible for spending money should also be responsible for raising it so that the amount of expenditure is subject to democratic control?

Yes, Mr. Speaker. The fact is that the rating system is not a true democratic system, as most of the electorate do not pay rates and therefore there is not proper accountability.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 2 April.

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

When will the Prime Minister stop answering like a latter-day Marie Antoinette? [Interruption.] When will she realise that the game is up—[Interruption.]—and that her reliance on blind market forces has resulted in an overturn of the opinion polls, the details of which, I trust, she has seen today? Is it not a fact that the jingoism of the Falklands has worn off and that the realities of economic life have now brought into play some powerful figures, who are opposing her, on the Benches behind her? Is she aware that the postmen are lined up against her—[Interruption.]—as are the teachers—

Order. I trust that the hon. Member will be brief.

I have had only one minute so far, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, but the hon. Member has such long pauses.

Is the right hon. Lady aware that a vote for the Conservative party is clearly a vote for industrial action, because the policies that the Government are pursuing are driving people to extremes, so that inevitably the fight back will come?

The hon. Gentleman talks of industrial action. He will recall that those who were recently called on to take industrial action did not have the chance to cast a vote in a ballot under Socialism. As for his remarks about opinion polls, I remind him that we are about 8 per cent. better than we were in 1981. If that continues until 1988, the game will be up for the hon. Gentleman not for me.

Does my right hon. Friend share the view that was expressed by the Governor of the Bank of England to a Committee of this House last night that lower interest rates are not a high priority? Or does she share the view of the CBI, of many on the Tory Back Benches, and others, that lower interest rates have a key role to play in investment decisions?

Yes, Sir. The Governor of the Bank of England, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and all Members of Her Majesty's Government agree that interest rates have a key role to play.

The Governor is not in the Government.

I specified the Governor of the Bank of England separately. [Interruption.] I am sorry that that remark should cause such hilarity on the rather silly Opposition Benches. My hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Cockeram) will be aware that no chances must be taken with inflation. Interest rates will be held at whatever level is needed to maintain monetary conditions that will continue to bring inflation down.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 2 April.

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

Is the right hon. Lady aware that a big lobby is taking place today about the Transport Bill and the effect that it may have on bus workers and bus services in general? Is she aware of the deep apprehension that exists among the members of my union, the Transport and General Workers Union, about their pensions, wages and conditions of service as a result of this crazy Bill? Will she please go into Central Lobby and try to allay their fears?

The Transport Bill is an excellent measure. [Interruption.] In the past, subsidies have gone up enormously while the number of passengers and services have gone down. We hope that services will go up, as they have in the pilot scheme that we have run in several areas.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 2 April.

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

Bearing in mind the tremendous impetus that my right hon. Friend has given to industry and employment through the Budget and the encouragement that she has given to industry and domestic ratepayers with the announced intention of the reform of the rating system, may I ask her to give a categorical assurance that the manufacturing base of this country is vital to the Government and that she will do everything in her power to ensure that its present position is not just maintained, but is expanded?

The manufacturing base is vital to this country. My hon. Friend will have seen the CBI survey, which has just been released. The CBI expects growth to rise to 4 per cent. in 1985. It expects manufacturing output to rise a further 3·75 per cent. this year; it expects manufacturing investment to grow by a further 13·5 per cent. in 1985; and it expects further growth in the very high volume of exports that we had in 1984. That was good news and has silenced even the Opposition.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 2 April.

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

The Prime Minister made many references in the House in October to her support for the NACODS agreement that was then drawn up. Will she now ensure that the NACODS agreement is carried out by the person whom she appointed to the chairmanship of the National Coal Board? At least then it will have the agreement that was negotiated in October last year.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy yesterday made it perfectly clear that the National Coal Board stands by the NA CODS agreement and looks forward to further discussions on it.

On a point of order arising out of Question Time, Mr. Speaker. Is it possible for the Prime Minister to put the record straight and to say that the 1974 commitment was to phase out prescription charges, and in fact 3 million—

Order. The hon. Gentleman is now seeking to do what the whole House is against — to prolong Question Time by raising points of order.