asked the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has now received in response to the consultative paper on wages councils.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what recent representations he has had about the possible abolition of wages councils.

I have received a number of representations this year on the future of the wages councils system, the majority advocating either abolition or major reform.

Has the Secretary of State seen the survey published yesterday in Manchester, which shows that 43 per cent. of companies visited by wages inspectors were illegally underpaying some or all of their workers? Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect the statement by Winston Churchill when wages councils were first set up, pointing out the benefits of a wages protection system, and saying:

"without such a system the good employer would be undercut by the bad and the bad employer would be undercut by the worst"?

The hon. Gentleman knows that I have invited responses to the consultation paper that I issued. I take that to be his response, and I shall take it into account together with the other representations on the matter.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that when people are put out of work by the activities of wages councils, that is difficult to defend?

There is evidence of jobs being lost through the operation of wages councils, but the other important point is that is it generally agreed that the abolition of wages councils could lead to the creation of a significant number of jobs. That is the advice of the economic adviser to the Leader of the Opposition. He puts a lower figure on it than some, but concedes that it is likely to lead to more jobs.

Are not the conditions for the low paid even more difficult now than they were 70 years ago when the regulations were first introduced? Surely, where there is a large amount of unemployment, the pressures on people at the lower end of the market will be ever more difficult to cope with. Is it not important to maintain some protection to make sure that people are not exploited by the high amount of unemployment?

I note the hon. Gentleman's comments, precisely because I wish to expose all the arguments for and against the existence and reform of wages councils in relation to the consultation paper that I issued. I shall take careful note of the representations that I receive.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it could be most unwise to abolish wages councils if the unemployed could draw more money on the dole than they were likely to earn if pay were deregulated? Will he therefore give an undertaking to the House, before abolishing wages councils, that he will do something about the so-called "Why work?" syndrome, which at the moment detracts discourages people from trying to earn low pay?

I accept my hon. Friend's point that in certain circumstances the present system acts as a disincentive to employment. It is precisely for that reason that we sought, for example, to tackle the problem of national insurance contributions and make changes in that respect, as well as in tax thresholds, which can help in those areas. However, my hon. Friend will know that that is one other illustration of the way in which the circumstances are substantially different from what they were in 1909.

As the Secretary of State knows, his Department has commissioned some major research from a group of Cambridge economists and researchers. One of its main conclusions was that the wages councils had had no significant effect on employment. Why has the Department not published that major report? When will it be published to inform the present public debate?

I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman asks that question, because the report was made available to him and to other members of the Select Committee some time ago and it is about to be published generally. We intend that the document will be published, if not this week, next week.

In considering this most important matter, will my right hon. Friend pay particular attention to redefining the term "adult skill", to open up the market to young adults?

I understand my hon. Friend's point. One of the distinctions that is it interesting to draw is between the more simple form in which the wages councils were set up under the initial concept and the more complex way in which they are formed now. That is one of the many reasons why so many people support reform.

Is not aiming their guns at the poorest paid in the country a sign of the abject poverty of the Government's approach to reducing the total of 4 million unemployed?

Differing figures are put on the possible increase in employment as a result of such a move, but they could not be ignored by any responsible Government determined to use every effective approach to help solve the biggest problem that we face.

I draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to early-day motion 580 calling for the abolition of the wages councils. Is he aware that it is sponsored by the chairmen of the major Back Bench committees on finance, employment, trade and industry, small businesses and European affairs?

I am aware of my hon. Friend's close interest in this matter and of the early-day motion. We are in the consultation period at the moment, which will close at the end of the month. We shall then give the earliest possible announcement of our decision.

Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that the attitude of most Tory Members who call for the abolition of wages councils, particularly those such as his hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend), results from the expectation that wages in those sectors will fall, even though the people covered by wages councils' awards are among the lowest paid in the country? Does that not sum up the present mean and savage attitude of the Tory party towards ordinary hard-working people?

There is a much more fundamental problem, which the hon. Gentleman must be prepared to address. In certain instances it can be demonstrated that wages councils keep down rather than put up wages, and I shall be happy to explain that point to the hon. Gentleman. In other sectors there is no doubt that it has led to the loss of jobs and job opportunities. The House must consider carefully whether it can stand aside from reform or abolition if that would lead to a substantial increase in jobs.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many people, including school leavers, are now unemployed in Lambeth; and how many of them are black.

On 11 April 1985 the number of unemployed claimants, including school leavers, in the London borough of Lambeth was 25,986. A breakdown of unemployment by ethnic origin at local level is not available.

That figure, which is an increase on last month's, is disgraceful. Can the Under-Secretary recall the Minister telling us last month that one of the reasons for the loss of job opportunities in Lambeth was high rates? Bearing in mind that rate capping will lead to the loss of 1,500 to 2,000 jobs, is he calculating that there will be a net gain in jobs as a result of rate capping?

The hon. Gentleman represents a constituency in which the council has doubled the rates over the past two years, so he would do better to stay off that subject. As he knows, over the past year both vacancies and placings have risen by as much as 18 per cent. in his constituency.

Is my hon. Friend aware that in Lambeth during the past 10 years the number of members of the chamber of commerce has fallen by more than half, in direct proportion to the increase in rates?

My hon. Friend's figures show the decline in the number of small businesses and the fact that employment now depends on the public corporate sector and on the service industries.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what are the current numbers of people who have been unemployed for over 12 months.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what are the numbers of people under the age of 25 years who have been unemployed for over 12 months.

On 10 January 1985 a total of 1,316,000 claimants had been unemployed for more than one year in the United Kingdom. The number of claimants under 25 years of age who had been unemployed for more than one year was 365,000.

Does the Minister understand, or care, that those 1·3 million people are suffering the most brutal effects of the Government's deliberate high unemployment policy? They suffer real poverty, because the Government insist that they should live on short-term benefits and will not pay the long-term rate of supplementary benefit. We know from studies that they suffer a high incidence of family break-up, mental illness and suicide. Do the Government suggest that their recent paltry expansion of the community programme is an adequate response to their needs, when it will offer part-time, temporary work at low wages, and then throw the vast bulk of those people back into unemployment? They want real, permanent jobs.

The considerable expansion of the community programme by 100,000 places has been widely welcomed. The hon. Lady must face the fact that our policy is to match needs and resources. The proportion by which that is done is a matter for debate, but the Government's approach to the problem was recently endorsed by our partners at the economic summit. Their unemployment is increasing faster than ours.

Since a disturbing proportion of the long-term unemployed have been out of work for more than three years—the estimate is about 430,000 do my hon. Friend and the Department intend to make special new efforts to direct programmes to their needs, especially is the area of training and re-training?

We shall consider all possibilities. My hon. Friend published an interesting pamphlet on the subject. However, it is impossible to escape the fact-that resources are limited and that the Government already spend £2 billion on training and employment measures. If my hon. Friend believes that that total should be increased, he has only to make representations to us.

Does the Minister agree that one of the worst scandals is the number of young people who are long-term unemployed? Is he aware that 1·3 million 18 to 25-year-olds are on the scrap heap, that a quarter of those have been unemployed for 12 months, and that nearly half of them have not had jobs since they left school? When will the Government change their policy and give youngsters some hope and the opportunity of making a positive contribution to society by having real jobs?

I understand the hon. Lady's indignation, but I must tell her that the figures from her constituency show that the overall percentage of young unemployed has fallen during the past year, as has the number of youngsters aged under 18 in long-term unemployment.

Is not one of the significant aspects of the community programme and other cost-effective programmes, such as the voluntary projects programme, that once people get into work in such programmes their chances of moving to mainstream employment are much better? Therefore, will my hon. Friend encourage further programmes of work in the community, such as helping the frail elderly, so that people may move from such useful employment back into mainstream work?

My hon. and learned Friend is entirely right. The scope and complexity of the schemes are being expanded. More than 61 per cent. of participants are aged under 25, and 34 per cent. are aged under 21.

Given that the Government are fond of claiming that part of the problem of increasing unemployment is people pricing themselves out of work, will the Minister comment on a recent inquiry, sponsored by the Highlands and Islands Development Board, which showed that average earnings in my part of Scotland were between 5 and 10 per cent. below the national average? As unemployment has more than doubled there, where does that leave the Government's economic theory?

It is natural that wages should vary from one region to another. The Government have no responsibility for regional variations in wage levels.

Does my hon. Friend agree that one way not to help the unemployed is to indulge in knocking our own products? Will my hon. Friend join me in condemning the Opposition's attitude of throwing into doubt BL's future as a result of scurrilous rumour-mongering that 5,000 jobs in my constituency are at risk, simply because BL will not receive the money for which it has not actually asked?

My hon. Friend has highlighted the key factor in reducing the total number of unemployed, which is that British goods should be of the right quality and at the right price to expand production.

Will the Under-Secretary of State come to Bootle to meet the long-term unemployed? Bearing in mind that 30 per cent. of active males in Bootle are unemployed, will he explain to them why, in an area where wages are lower than anywhere else in Britain, and where the metropolitan district council has set the lowest rates in the country, unemployment is still increasing?

The reasons have been highlighted in earlier questions. Real jobs will not exist if British manufacturers do not produce the goods to fill their order books.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement about the Genesis programme for training workshops launched by the Manpower Services Commission.

The Genesis programme seeks to explore the potential for job creation and revenue generation in training workshops and information technology centres.

Does my hon. Friend agree that giving training workshops a more commercial approach in this way has great implications for YTS generally? Will he attend the launch of this scheme today? Will he also expand funding for it in the future, because that would be a great way of producing new jobs?

I agree with my hon. Friend that this is precisely the enterprise ethic that we want to encourage in both information technology centres and training workshops. My hon. Friend will be glad to hear that I shall attend the launch later today.

Does Genesis receive support from the European Community social fund? In the light of the most recent changes in the allocation rules and the fact that Britian will lose, will the Minister come forward with additional moneys from other sources to compensate for the loss of individual schemes?

As the hon. Gentleman will realise, the premise of his question is incorrect. We are pointing out to the European Community social fund that its rules have not changed and neither have ours. Therefore, there is no loss at this stage on which the hon. Gentleman can base his premise. The Genesis programme is funded by YTS money and, therefore, it does not receive money from the European Community social fund on the margin.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will introduce legislation to require that elections for trade union officers take place only by independently supervised ballots.

The provisions of part 1 of the Trade Union Act 1984 on trade union elections come into effect on 1 October 1985. The legislation will for the first time introduce stringent safeguards concerning, for example, secrecy, freedom from intimidation and malpractice.

If, as with the Transport and General Workers Union affair, it becomes clear—even within the largest trade unions—that the trade union movement cannot be trusted to conduct fair and independent elections, will my hon. Friend concede that our legislation might have to go further? Will he ensure that those elections take place under independent supervision?

I think my hon. Friend will accept that independent supervision would virtually rule out workplace ballots, which have a record of far higher participation than postal ballots. I think that every hon. Member would agree that it is up to the trade unions to ensure that their election procedures develop the trust and confidence that their members expect and that trade union leaders need if they are to carry any credibility.

Is not this response in relation to ballots for trade union officers a bit thick, coming as it does from the Tory Benches? Is the Under-Secretary of State aware that a fair amount of fiddling in the election of Conservative university students has gone on, especially at Durham, not many years ago?

The answer to the hon. Gentleman's first question is no. I do not have enough information to comment on his second question.

Would my hon. Friend be somewhat worried if people voting in workplace ballots were being handed so-called branch recommendations telling them to vote for candidates which did not mention the fact that they were all members of the Communist party, as has been happening this week in the Civil and Public Services Association elections? Does that not prove the need for independently supervised secret postal ballots?

It demonstrates the need for moderates to get themselves organised and put up for election. The interesting point about the election to which my hon. Friend referred is that there were three slates of candidates. It will be interesting to see who won.

Given the Minister's and his party's touching, if bogus, concern for democracy, when will he legislate for or promote the introduction of democracy into the Tory party for the election of its chairman or leader, or for the election of newspaper editors?

Order. The question relates to trade union officers. I do not believe that any of the people mentioned by the hon. Member are trade union officers.

Does my hon. Friend recall that the statement made by the hon. Member——

rose——

Order. The hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) has been here long enough and is ingenious enough to get his question in order. None of the officers whom he mentioned has anything to do with trade unions.

Consider the——

Order.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the legislation which comes into force on 1 October is some of the legislation that the hon. Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans), supported by the deputy leader of the Labour party, said would be repealed following the election of a Labour Government? Does he not think that that is a ridiculous state of affairs?

Yes, Sir. The Opposition are likely to discover that they will have to change their tune. The evidence shows that almost without exception trade union members want the chance to take part in free and fair elections held without malpractice and intimidation, and with a fair choice of candidates.

Does the Minister believe in mass ballots, or, If they take place without independent supervision and scrutiny, that they can ever be above suspicion?

The hon. Gentleman might consult some of the other members of the alliance, who cheerfully voted against such proposals when they were first put forward. We need to strike the right balance between improved participation and ensuring that election procedures are not just fiddle-proof but incompetence-proof.

Is my hon. Friend aware that I have seen the membership cards of many members of the Transport and General Workers Union in my constituency which were stamped "GS" last June to show that they had voted in the ballot for a new general secretary, although they had never seen a ballot paper or signed or voted? That is something that must be tackled. Will my hon. Friend throw the matter straight back to those members of the Labour party who ask "Where is the evidence"?

The hon. Gentleman should take it to the TGWU if that is his attitude.

I have done that.

If I may answer, rather than the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), it is because of such queries that the TGWU has decided to re-run the ballot. My hon. Friend should advise his constituents to take up the matter with TGWU headquarters. I know that Moss Evans wants to investigate any such complaints.

Does the Minister understand that the next Labour Government will have every justification for repealing the laws on trade union ballots and bringing them into line with doctors, lawyers and those sponsored members of the Liberal party and the SDP who are backed by £188,000 from the British School of Motoring?

No, Sir. It is important to ask ordinary trade union members their views and the procedures that they want. Those unions which have procedures which are above reproach are those which have the greatest support of their members.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what are the present numbers of people unemployed; and what were the figures for the same month in 1979.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what are the current numbers of people unemployed; and if he will make a statement.

On April 1985 the total number of unemployed claimants in the United Kingdom was 3,273,000. The estimate for the same month in 1979 was 1,261,000.

Do not those record jobless figures make a mockery of the Government's claim that the economy is recovering? Is the Minister aware that youth unemployment in parts of my constituency is now over 50 per cent.? When will he realise that words about caring, without action to back them up, merely add the insult of insincerity to the injury of mass unemployment?

The hon. Gentleman will note that the figures appear the very day after the best forecast from the CBI for many years. There is a startling improvement in optimism in industry, an indication that the loss of jobs in manufacturing may be coming to an end, and there are encouraging figures for the creation of new jobs. We still face very real difficulties, especially in areas such as that represented by the hon. Gentleman. However, we need to see both the employment and the unemployment figures in perspective.

Does the Secretary of State not realise that we cannot feed unemployed families on forecasts? They need money from a job. As the figures which the Secretary of State has announced today show a trebling of unemployment during the past six years, does he still hold to the assertion that we are in the fifth successive year of economic growth? What effect on the long-term unemployed does he expect from the proposal to abolish the wages councils? How does lowering the wages of women and youths in hairdressing and other retail trades—wages of £60 or £70 a week—help the nearly 5 million people who cannot get a job in this country?

On the latter point, the hon. Gentleman will have heard the exchanges and will know that there is general agreement that abolition or reform of wages councils could lead to the creation of a significant number of new jobs. The issue that must be decided is whether that is an appropriate way to proceed, which is why we are holding consultations on that matter.

While accepting that the sneers of the Opposition at the number of new jobs being created are inevitable and predictable, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend has noted that they appear to be running a campaign implying that part-time employment is not only undesirable but anti-social? Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in a modern family, part-time jobs fulfil many people's aspirations? Will he do his best to ensure that, at least in his Department, part-time employment is regarded as a thoroughly proper, sensible and normal attribution of the figures and the information that he provides to the House?

I certainly accept my hon. Friend's comment. It is true that there have been 600,000 more jobs during the past two years, a significant number of which are part-time. However, that conceals and overlooks the fact that there has also been a substantial increase in self-employment. It is clear that there has been an increase in full-time jobs for men as well as for women.

How does the Secretary of State explain the April unemployment figures running at record levels and in defiance of seasonal trends? Does he not know that 40 years after the ending of the second world war, certainly for most people in Scotland, it would be far better if the initials VE stood for victory in employment rather than victory in Europe?

I do not think that there is one hon. Member who does not wish to see a significant improvement in the unemployment problem at the earliest possible moment. We are doing better in that respect than, for example, the Socialist Governments of France and Italy, and I hear that in mind when I hear the easy solutions put forward by the Opposition. I accept that we must do better. All our efforts and some of the changes announced in the Budget are directed precisely towards trying to improve the position.

Does my right hon. Friend realise that last week there were 1,000 advertised vacancies in the Thames Valley jobcentre, yet in my constituency there were only 18? What is he doing to improve the flow of information between jobcentres throughout the country, and then to assist people to relocate?

I recognise that there are undoubtedly parts of the country where the greatest problems now are skill shortages and the number of vacancies, whereas in other parts, such as my hon. Friend's constituency, the position is far from that. We are taking steps to improve the information flow so that people have the best opportunity of going where there is employment. However, we obviously want to see an improvement in employment throughout the country, which is the real solution to the problem.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that 25 per cent. of those unemployed in Coatbridge, in my constituency, have been without work for two or more years and are desperately seeking jobs? Will he discourage his colleagues from referring to the "Why work?" syndrome and accept that that phrase is grossly offensive and adds insult to injury?

That is apposite to what I said when replying to the supplementary question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt), that there are considerable variations in the employment situation in different parts of the country. It is fair to point out that the greatest number of long-term unemployed in Britain are in London and the south-east. That raises problems, bearing in mind the number of vacancies that exist in the area, about whether there are real disincentives to work involved in the "Why work?" syndrome.

Will my right hon. Friend remind Opposition Members of the increase in the number of people of working age in the last five years and the significant contribution that that increase has made to the unemployment problem?

My hon. Friend is correct to cite that point. Something under 1 million has been the increase in the population of working age. It is clear from the figures that in the last year alone the increase in the labour force was 480,000. We created about 340,000 more jobs, but because the figure for the increase in working population was greater, we continued to have the rise in unemployment.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) was not how many claimants there were for unemployment benefit but how many people were unemployed? When will the right hon. Gentleman admit that there are about 4 million people now looking for jobs?

The hon. and learned Gentleman knows—because we have discussed this subject in another forum—that the latest academic study of which l am aware demonstrates that one can, on a perfectly sound basis, argue that the present level of unemployment is between 1·7 million and 4·1 million, depending on what assumptions one uses. If the hon. and learned Gentleman is saying that unemployment is too high, he need not waste his breath, because I agree with him, and all our efforts are directed towards its reduction.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that in 1979 we inherited rampant inflation and rampant trade unionism, that only by conquering those twin evils have we created an additional 600,000 jobs and that if we were to surrender to those evils, as the Labour party would wish, the results would be disastrous for employment?

Successive industries during the 1960s and 1970s completely lost their competitive edge because they were over-manned and unable to compete in world markets. It has been a major challenge to fight back from that situation. The latest forecast—I make no apology for quoting again the CBI survey—is the most optimistic for a decade in many important respects.

In the pursuit of truth, will the Minister recognise that the figure that he has announced from the Dispatch Box is the highest recorded level of unemployment for 40 years, and even for this century? Does he accept the estimate made by the unemployment unit under Professor Sinfield, that the figures, because of the new way in which they are collated, underestimate the real total by 400,000? In view of the massive unemployment that six years of Tory policies have created, will the right hon. Gentleman consider joining the Secretary of State for Energy in asking for a change in Government policies?

My answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, dealing with the figures, is the same as that which I gave to his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner)—[Interruption.]—in deciding whether they should or should not be plus 400,000. Far more important than arguing about the precise statistic is to accept that it is too high.

Is it a record——

If the hon. Gentleman keeps shouting his first question when I am trying to answer his second, he is not likely to get answers to either.

Is it a record? Twister.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many people are in community programme places in Staffordshire.

On 29 March, the latest date for which figures are available, there were 2,550 people working on the community programme in Staffordshire.

Does my hon. Friend agree that although community programme places are very welcome, they are no substitute for real jobs? When does he expect an upsurge of real jobs in Staffordshire?

I am glad that my hon. Friend believes that the community programme is worth while, and I am sure that he welcomes the near doubling of the number of places to be made available in Staffordshire. He will also be aware that about 100,000 people were placed in jobs in Staffordshire during the past year. That is an increase of 8 per cent., which cannot be bad.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what are the current numbers of women registered unemployed; and what were the numbers for April 1979.

On 11 April 1985 the number of women claiming unemployment benefit was 1,002,000 compared with an estimated total of 328,000 in April 1979.

Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House whether he believes that women have absolutely the same right to work as men, including women who have small children and are married to men who are in work? Do women also have an absolute equal right to join training schemes in the bogus Government programmes?

Yes, of course I agree with the hon. Lady. Women account for 40 per cent. of the civilian work force, but on a majority of our training schemes, inluding YTS and TVEI, they represent over 40 per cent. of the participants.

While considering the number of women who are unemployed, will my hon. Friend also consider the number of women who are employed today, and especially the vast increase in the number of married women who are employed?

My hon. Friend is entirely right. During the six years around which the hon. Lady couched her question, the number of women in employment has stayed steady at well over 9 million. In the past year the number of women in full-time jobs increased by 14,000 and of those in part-time work by nearly 200,000.

Is the Minister aware that in my constituency employment among women has trebled? Is he also aware that at the last general election there was a Labour majority in the constituency of 3,500, whereas on last Thursday's results it would have been 11,500? Does that trend not show that massive unemployment is pending for Conservative Members? What will the Minister do about that?

Doubtless the hon. Gentleman will use that question in whichever column he is currently writing for the national newspapers. Whatever it may be in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, the national unemployment rate for women is some 2·5 per cent. below that for men.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is a matter not of rights but of obligations? These days, when Mrs. Average takes her son to get a job, it is she who gets the job rather than him. Does not that situation reflect a lack of flexibility and of skill, and the high cost of employing young people today?

Certainly there are many occupations in which the special skills and dedication that they can contribute make women preferable as employees.

Does the Minister not understand that women who are seeking work as of right are being pushed into part-time jobs because only part-time jobs are available? In changing the rules for the community programme, which virtually exclude women, and in cutting the number of public sector jobs, which also affects women, are not the Government reducing women's chances of employment? Is it not a disgrace that, of all the women unemployed in Europe, 40 per cent. live in this country?

I do not think that the hon. Lady is right about part-time employment. Many women prefer part-time employment and contribute to a valuable sector in the economy. As for benefit entitlement on the community programme, the hon. Lady knows that the decision was based on proper priorities. Places should be restricted to those receiving benefit.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the Government's programme for the retraining and employment of the long-term unemployed.

The opportunities for all long-term unemployed people are set out in the White Paper "Employment-The Challenge for the Nation". More than 375,000 long-term unemployed people a year will be helped by our expanded community programme and the other employment and training measures.

Did the Minister not hear the admission by his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Employment earlier that more than 1,300,000 people have been unemployed for more than 12 months? Will not the community programme cater for less than a third of those people, and will not full-time training decline as a result of the closure of skillcentres such as those at Castle Bromwich and Redditch? Are not the Government unable to cope with unemployment and skill shortages on the scale that they have created?

I am sure the hon. Gentleman realises that the number of adults being trained will be doubled and that the number of long-term unemployed on the community programme will be virtually doubled. That is a positive response, which I hope he welcomes.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 7 May.

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.

What explanation has the Prime Minister for last Thursday's unemployment figures, for the speech of her right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and for the massive thumbs down given to her by alliance voters? Will she again be offering the excuse that she was out of the country?

I notice that the alliance party does not seek a majority; it seeks to hold a balance, so that it has a veto—hardly a democratic course of action, if I might say so. I notice also that the hon. Gentleman referred to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy. With regard to unemployment, my right hon. Friend said:

"To obtain growth, we must obtain the right relationship between pay and investment and productivity. An inflationary wage round unlinked with productivity would do immense damage to Britain's economic opportunity."

In the light of my right hon. Friend's recently expressed concern, shared by the President of the United States, about the alarming growth of international drug traffic, will she assure the House that she will give the highest priority to means of defeating the threat of having diverted to this country and other European countries a flood of cocaine from a saturated American market?

I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend. When we had that discussion on drugs, it was clear that almost every country was deeply concerned about the effects on young people and deeply concerned to ensure that we could do more to trap drug traffickers and to dissuade young people from taking drugs. We all agreed to set up an expert committee to see what further could be done. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services and the Treasury are all concerned. We are determined to do as much as we can to rid this country and others in Europe of this vicious trade.

As someone who told us on Sunday that she wants to get rid of class divisions, is the Prime Minister aware that there are 2,054,000 more people unemployed, 2·1 million more people on supplementary benefit and 140,000 more people having to claim family income supplement than there were on the day when she became Prime Minister six years ago? In view of that, can the right hon. Lady tell us what independence she thinks those millions of people enjoy while she dreams her idle dreams of a classless society?

May I also point out that there are 1·8 million more owner-occupiers since 1979, a policy which was fought tooth and nail by the Labour party? There has been a dramatic extension of share ownership, as shown by the 1·7 million people who now hold shares in British Telecom. There has been a dramatic increase in the number of employee share schemes, an increase in the number of assisted places in schools, and we have dramatically extended the rights of trade union members to a secret ballot, which not only would the right hon. Gentleman never have insisted upon, but which he did everything to fight.

I hear what the Prime Minister says about share ownership and much else. Does she agree with the view expressed by the Secretary of State for Energy last Friday that people are more than consumers, and on that basis will she now, even at this late hour, reverse her policies of change in the welfare state, which will so greatly disadvantage so many people? Why does she not actively work, if she is interested in independence, to stop unemployment policies which have brought more people into state dependence in six years than ever before?

I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman referred to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy. I notice that my right hon. Friend said:

"The Labour party, whilst frequently interested in the economic discontentment, appear to be totally unwilling to give the worker the higher status and the higher privilege he seeks."

"They are against workers in council houses becoming owner-occupiers, they are against workers having freedom of choice for their children in education. To them it appears that workers are but fragments of a block vote at a Labour party conference and not people whose responsibility and freedoms need to be in their own hands rather than in the hands of a socialist politician or the bureaucrat."

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 7 May.

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

If, during her busy day, my right hon. Friend can find a moment to look at last week's county council elections, will she reflect on the fact that in Berkshire, where we had experienced a hung council, which led to a Lib-Lab pact and a rate increase of over 27 per cent., there was a major swing to the Conservatives and we regained control?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing out that when there is a Lib-Lab pact there are high rates, high tax and high spending policies. I think that that fact augurs well for the next local elections.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Friday 7 May.

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

Is the Prime Minister aware that, of the world's leading 11 advanced industrial countries, eight have a lower rate of unemployment than we have, and that every one of these 11 countries is showing lower increases in inflation than we are? Indeed, we are the only one that has an increase, whereas the others are going down. Does this not add up to the fact that her ex-Cabinet Ministers, her Cabinet Ministers, her Back Benchers and the electorate are saying no to her economic policies because Britain is not working?

Some of those countries—all of them, I think, apart from United States and Japan—are afflicted with unemployment; some of them, as the hon. Gentleman has indicated, higher than we have. Some of the others have learnt some of the lessons, in that their unit labour costs are going down just at a time when unit labour costs are rising in this country. That has its effect on unemployment. I might point out to the hon. Gentleman that the proportion of the population of working age in work is higher here—66 per cent.—than in West Germany, higher than in France, higher than in Italy and equal to that in the United States.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 7 May.

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

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the May day holiday is a total flop in terms of British tourism? Will she consider helping our most successful industry by amalgamating the Spring bank holiday and the May day bank holiday to make one worthwhile west country break?

We went out to consultations on just such a scheme in 1982 but opinion was very divided and there was clearly no case at that moment for changing the present arrangements.

Does the Prime Minister agree that one of the lessons of last Thursday's elections was that people do not like absolute power exercised—[Interruption.]

Order. I am trying to help Back Benchers to get to their questions.

Does the Prime Minister recognise that one of the lessons of last Thursday was that people do not like absolute power exercised by minorities, that they do not like ideology and dogmatism and that they are becoming increasingly fed up with the the Prime Minister's own hectoring style? Far from—[Interruption.] If we always have to make ourselves heard above a hubbub [Interruption.]

Order. All Members have to make themselves heard.

Does the Prime Minister realise that, having lost 750,000 votes at the last election, she now exercises power with the support of a minority of the population of this country?

As for the right hon. Gentleman's comments about a hectoring style, he has become the arch example of that very thing. I can think of no better description of the style that he has adopted. As for seeking power, the right hon. Gentleman is seeking almost absolute power on a smaller minority.

Will my right hon. Friend take time today to consider the fact that in the past few days there has been hard evidence that industry and employment in Norwich have been adversely affected by the long drawn-out and futile miners' strike? Does she agree that in those circumstances it is hyprocisy for the Opposition to pose as the protectors of jobs?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Yes, employment was adversely affected, not only in the mining industry but among all the suppliers to the industry and many people are now out of a job as a result of that strike when they would otherwise have been in a job today. My hon. Friend is right. Strikes destroy jobs.

Is the Prime Minister aware that the Foreign Office has been keeping files on Klaus Barbie and Dr. Mengele and has refused to release those files? In this week of VE celebrations, does the right hon. Lady agree that it would be appropriate to instruct the Foreign Office to release those files? What is it hiding?

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we release files whenever we can to assist either in trials or in commissions of inquiry. That would be our policy, but there are occasions when for very good reasons we cannot do so.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 7 May.

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

Following the events of last Friday, what assurance can my right hon. Friend give the House that the Government will allow enough time for the passage of the Unborn Children (Protection) Bill promoted by the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell)?

I understand my hon. Friend's concern about that Bill. I know that the Bill arouses strong feelings in the House, and I also feel strongly about it, but it has been the practice that the Government do not give Government time for private Members' Bills. Therefore, I cannot offer my hon. Friend any great comfort. My hon. Friend will doubtless also consult my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal, but I cannot give him any hope that he will get a different answer.

Will the Prime Minister tell the House whether there would he a place for Tory wets in her version of a classless society?

For a good climate one needs drys and wets.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 7 May.

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

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there will be great disappointment that the early negotiations to reduce trade barriers were blocked last week by the French? Will she assure British industry that she will continue to press on our major trading partners the urgent need to deal with this grave problem, which was highlighted by the visit to Japan of our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry?

The only one difference of opinion on trade between France and the other countries was not that France was anxious to keep protectionism—she agrees that we must do everything possible to reduce protectionism—but that she was not prepared to put her name to fixing a date for a new round of GATT. The rest of us felt that we should give a lead. France put her name to all other aspects of the communiqué about reducing protectionism.