asked the Secretary of State for Employment how he proposes to finance the second year of the youth training scheme.

We are making some £925 million in 1986–87 and some £1,100 million in 1987–88 available for the new youth training scheme. Employers will also be contributing to its costs.

What steps does the Secretary of State propose to take to bridge the gap between the current estimated cost of the one-year programme — £781 million — and the £925 million to which he has just referred? Has he received a commitment from the employers, or is this another case of robbing Peter to pay Paul, to the detriment of the trainees?

If the hon. Gentleman looks at the figures, he will find that the £925 million is only part of the cost for part of the year. The academic year overlaps the financial year. The hon. Gentleman knows that the proposals are the unanimous recommendation of the Manpower Services Commission, comprising the Confederation of British Industry, the Trades Union Congress and independent local education authority interests. I am pleased to support them and keen that they should be introduced at the earliest possible opportunity.

Is it not a fact that for the first time in the history of this country all youngsters under the age of 18 now have the opportunity to continue in full-time education, to take a job or to enter a training scheme that is relevant and flexible enough to suit their needs? This is something of which we ought to be proud and which my right hon. Friend ought to be saying from the Dispatch Box.

I try to say it on every possible occasion. This is a remarkable achievement, but we are not resting on our laurels. After the success of the one-year scheme we are introducing the two-year scheme. I hope that it will become a permanent feature and improve the training opportunities and work experience of every youngster who wants to take part in the scheme.

Is the Secretary of State aware that I have received complaints that 17-year-olds are being refused places on youth training schemes until all 16-year-olds have been catered for? Is that not foolish when young people have decided to take a further year of education to increase their 0-levels so that they will be better equipped for the YTS? Is this a Government directive or a matter for local decision?

They are not being refused places, but 16-year-olds have always been given priority. When we introduced the scheme we guaranteed a place upon it for every 16-year-old, but our ambition was to help as many 17-year-olds as we could. We have fulfilled the guarantee for both the 16-year-olds and the 17-year-olds. There may be a slight blemish in this respect. If the right hon. Gentleman has heard of problems, I hope that he will let us know so that there will be the minimum delay before 17-year-olds are provided with an opportunity to participate in the scheme.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that in many cases the one-year scheme has proved to be very successful and that it does not appear to be necessary to have a two-year scheme? For example, in Stockport it is prophesied that over 80 per cent. of those who are on this year's scheme will have a permanent job at the end of it.

The figures for the number of entrants to the youth training scheme going on to full-time jobs are encouraging in many parts of the country. My hon. Friend will recognise that there is wide support among employers and those involved in training for the concept of a two-year scheme, which we are keen to see. I am glad that we have the support of hon. Members, I hope in all parts of the House, and certainly we have the unanimous support of the Manpower Services Commission.

The right hon. Gentleman knows that he will have the support of Labour Members if he moves towards a two-year quality training scheme. Is he not misleading the House, however, when the facts show that the present budgeting allows for only a one and a half year scheme, 30,000 places cut from the mode B provision and a reduction from 26 weeks off-the-job training, as recommended, to 20 weeks? That is not compatible with a quality two-year scheme.

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is already seeking to chip away from what is a determined effort to introduce a quality two-year scheme — [Interruption.] Waving a cutting from a newspaper does not demonstrably prove any argument. I assure the hon. Gentleman that it is our determination to introduce a quality scheme. We want to give the best possible opportunity to young people. We believe that the scheme, as brought forward unanimously by the MSC, contains within it the right framework to achieve that objective.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has any estimate of the number of jobs created as a result of grants from the European Community.

Well over a million people a year are taking part in training or job creation schemes supported by the European social fund. More than 150,000 jobs were created or preserved with help from the European regional development fund between 1975 and 1983. Others were created through infrastructure projects.

Given that the Government say that they want to encourage individual effort and that 70 per cent. of social fund money goes to the MSC, will the Minister take steps to ensure that the voluntary bodies promoting employment and training get a better share of the money?

I will do the best I can.

As every pound that we receive from the Common Market costs the British taxpayer £1·42, could we not create 42 per cent. more jobs if we did not go through the absurd nonsense of wholesaling cash through Brussels and getting less back?

Given my limited breadth of vision, I can only tell my hon. Friend that with this assistance we are able to do more than we would without it.

Is it not a fact that £20 million has been lost to Britain from the EEC budget because money that was allocated for job creation out of the regional and social funds, which could have been spent at any time up to the end of 1984, was not spent? Has that been due to bureaucratic bungling in Brussels, in Whitehall, or in both?

It would be helpful if the hon. Lady would write to me with details of the £20 million to which she is referring — [Interruption.] There are a number of reasons why certain things happen, as she will know from her experience. For example, the Commission takes decisions with which we sometimes do not agree. In some cases it is a question of people with allocations not fully taking them up. There may be other points concerned with the case that the hon. Lady has in mind. That is why I said that it would be helpful if she would send me details. I can then give her a full response.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the taxes levied by the EEC destroy jobs?

Most public revenues have that effect.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the total number of people unemployed, those who have been unemployed for more than one year, those who have been unemployed for more than than two years, respectively, at the latest available date.

On 11 April 1985 there were 3,273,000 unemployed claimants in the United Kingdom. Of those, 1,334,000 had been unemployed for more than one year and 790,000 for over two years. Since April the total number of unemployed claimants has fallen by 94,000.

Is the Minister aware that if the recent welcome rate of reduction in the number of unemployed is maintained, it will take to the end of the century before the number of unemployed reaches the total when the Labour Government left office? In those circumstances, will he say whether he is one of those who believe that the presentation of policies is wrong, rather than the policies themselves?

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman welcomes the fall of 94,000. However, I do not agree that it will take until the end of the century to achieve that level of unemployment with a reduction of 94,000 every two months.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the community programme is a significant help to the long-term unemployed? What is being done to put in place the increase announced in the Budget?

As my hon. Friend points out, we are increasing the community programme by 100,000 places. That process has already started. In June, 5,000 places were filled; by the end of the year 50,000 places will have been filled; and by next June the whole 100,000 places will have been filled.

The Minister must not try to kid the people in my constituency about unemployment falling, because there are now 8,225 unemployed, which is 690 more than last year. A disappointing reply was given to my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) about the £20 million that has been thrown down the drain. How many people does the Minister think could have got jobs out of that money if it had been claimed and spent on job creation?

I appreciate that the part of the country that the hon. Gentleman represents has a difficult unemployment problem. I was in that area yesterday and met many people involved in the job club in the Durham jobcentre, and 80 per cent. of those involved in it were finding jobs. Therefore, it is possible to find employment in the north-east.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that there is a higher proportion of longer-term unemployed in the south than in the north? Can he explain this strange phenomenon and what can be done to prevent it from continuing?

I can confirm that there is a higher number of long-term unemployed in the south than in the north.

Will the Minister acknowledge that mass unemployment, particularly mass long-term unemployment, was a significant factor in the defeat of the Tory candidate in the Brecon and Radnor by-election? Is it not time that the Government recognised that the people no longer accept their fairy stories about economic success and new jobs being just around the corner? Does he accept that a majority want positive Government action to reduce unemployment, through an increase in public investment rather than tax cuts?

I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman chose to remind the House of the Brecon and Radnor by-election, for which the Leader of the Opposition had claimed a great victory. What happened to the Labour candidate? He did not win.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what information he has as to the net change in employment in the European Economic Community and the United States of America, respectively, over the past 10 years.

Information for all countries is available only for years up to 1983. My latest estimate is that in the 10 years to 1983, employment in the European Community decreased by about 1 million, a fall of 1 per cent. In the same period, employment in the United States increased by nearly 16 million, a growth of 19 per cent.

Is my hon. Friend aware of any place, apart from El Salvador and possibly Tibet, with a more dismal record of job creation than the EEC? Would it not be better for the unemployed if the Government were to encourage more trade contact with the growth areas of the world instead of with Europe, which is clearly in structural decline?

It is better if trade contacts develop naturally rather than in an artificial atmosphere of Government encouragement. The shift of emphasis from employment in manufacturing to employment in services cannot be reflected in our trading relations with the European Community until the Community relaxes some of its restrictions on the freedom of operation in the service sector.

Would the Common Market more effectively create jobs if the Government objective in completing the internal market, which the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) is resisting, were carried through?

In the last two years, jobs have increased at a faster rate in this country than in Italy, Germany or France.

Does my hon. Friend agree that we would have a better chance of increasing the number of jobs in the European Community if we removed barriers to business in Europe and had an integrated market by 1992, because we wish to remove from business not only burdens but barriers?

My hon. Friend is right. The barriers exist principally in the service sector, which is the largest growth sector in the United Kingdom. The meeting of the European Council in Milan issued a statement on this subject, saying that it was looking at the position and was preparing a detailed report on current inadequacies as a result of the growth of employment in the Community compared with its major industrialised competitors. The report also covers new strategies that could be implemented to remedy the situation.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what are the current numbers unemployed; and what this is as a proportion of the work force.

On 13 June 1985 the number of unemployed claimants in the United Kingdom was 3,179,000, representing an unemployment rate of 13·1 per cent.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the figures that he has just produced are a disgrace to his Government? Is he also aware that he and his Government are massaging the figures by taking people off the register? When will he do a real job as Secretary of State for Employment and get more investment in industry to create the jobs which the unemployed need so desperately? Do something about it.

The hon. Gentleman calls for more investment in industry, but every hon. Member knows that part of the problem that we face results directly from increased investment in industry, which has created a significant proportion of the increase in unemployment. I wholly repudiate suggestions that the figures that I published last week are not accurate. I have published—[Interruption.] I notice that Labour Members are ready enough to accept the figures when it suits them and that they take pleasure in the figures when unemployment goes up, but they seem to resent it bitterly when unemployment goes down.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there has been a welcome improvement in the number of engineering jobs on offer in the west midlands? However, is he also aware that some jobcentre employees are actively discouraging men over 50, or even over 45, from applying for those jobs, on the ground that they are too old? Will he ask them to desist from that practice forthwith, and, even more important, will he make representations to the CBI to get it to encourage men of maturity as well as men with skills?

I am very concerned about what my hon. Friend says, because it is standard practice that jobcentres are required and encouraged to request employers not to impose such age restrictions. I certainly note what my bon. Friend says. If there are further illustrations of the point that he makes, I should like to hear of them.

Having been to Birmingham today, why did the Secretary of State not take the train a little further north to Liverpool and, during his travels, read the report of Liverpool's city planning officer, which shows that since the Government have been in power 65,000 jobs have gone from the Liverpool area, including 40,000 in manufacturing industry? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the report suggests that by the time the Government leave office 100,000 people will be unemployed in Liverpool? The Secretary of State cannot blame that on Liverpool city council. When will he do something about it?

I am interested in the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question. If he thinks that the present administration in Liverpool city hall is a positive encouragement to investors and companies to locate in Liverpool, he has a funny idea of the conditions that are necessary for the creation of work and the chances to tackle the serious problems in Liverpool, about which I know as much as any Minister.

Will my right hon. Friend remind the House that 65 per cent. of our work force is in work, which is a higher proportion than that in France, Germany or other OECD countries? Does he agree that that is a major coup for the Government?

In the year from January 1984 to January 1985, for which I have the figures, unemployment rose by 140,000 — which is a matter of great concern — while under the Socialist Government in France it rose by 250,000. During the past two years, employment in Germany fell, whereas employment in the United Kingdom increased by 2·6 per cent. I take no comfort from the fact that the United Kingdom is doing better than other countries in Europe. All hon. Members know that we need to create more jobs if we are to make the dent that we need to make in unemployment.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment when he intends to reply to the report of the Employment Committee on the reinstatement of National Coal Board employees dismissed during and since the mining dispute.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the Government's response to the recommendations of the Employment Committee's report on the dismissal of National Coal Board employees.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the Government's response to the recommendations of the Employment Committee's report on the dismissal of National Coal Board employees.

I have read the report of the Select Committee on Employment. The Government are quite clear that reinstatement of the dismissed miners is entirely a matter for the National Coal Board, which is continuing to review all dismissal cases area by area and in the light of industrial tribunal findings. I understand that the NCB has made it clear that there can be no question of re-employing men who have engaged in serious violence against NCB personnel or property. The Government fully support that view.

How worried is the Secretary of State about the threats to the unity of the mining industry from the different practices carried out by different NCB areas, paralleled, alas, by the fragmentation of the National Union of Mineworkers? To what extent is he interested in assisting the mining industry by encouraging the chairman of the NCB to have a policy which does not treat people differently in different areas?

I know that the chairman and the board take that point seriously. Nobody should underestimate the appalling difficulties and serious nature of the problems with which they must deal. I know that in the remarkable circumstances surrounding the appalling dispute they have been anxious to deal with the problem as fairly as possible.

Is the Secretary of State worried about the evidence given in the report? Some men who were found guilty and returned to work early have kept their jobs, while others who were found not guilty but who did not return to work have lost theirs. Should there not be a right of appeal outside the NCB — a right based on natural justice — and should not the Secretary of State tell the NCB that?

The right hon. Gentleman knows that the matter must be the responsibility of the management of the NCB. It must deal with the problem and the dismissed miners, who have the normal procedures open to them.

Does the Minister recollect that the cardinal principle of good industrial relations is that, after a dispute, the watchwords should be conciliation and reconciliation? Does he agree that it is outrageous that not one miner in Scotland has been reinstated — not even miners who stood trial and were acquitted? Bearing in mind some of the Secretary of State's distinguished predecessors, such as the late Lord Monckton, who was Minister of Labour, does he agree that it would be a good idea to put pressure on the NCB to adopt the modest proposals of the Select Committee on Employment and institute a proper overall review procedure?

A cardinal principle of all good industrial relations is always to hold a ballot before taking industrial action. I hope that that will now be firmly established. If there had been a ballot, many of these unfortunate circumstances might have been avoided. The NCB has made it clear that it is continuing to review the cases. It has reinstated significant numbers of miners, and it has looked at the cases in the light of industrial tribunal findings. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will find my answer helpful.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind before he replies to the Select Committee's report that the report was not about the unfair dismissal of miners, for which there is recourse to an industrial tribunal, but about allegations of unfair reinstatement of miners, for which there is no recourse to any tribunal?

I am somewhat surprised at my hon. Friend's question because I have here a report entitled, "The Dismissal of National Coal Board Employees".

Is the Secretary of State aware that the Select Committee report did not consider the merits of the coal strike or violence—it in no way condoned violence — but the quite separate issue of evidence of the manifest unfairness of and glaring inconsistencies in the NCB's treatment of its dismissed employees? Is he aware that in Scotland there have been representations from chief constables and leaders of all the Churches on this matter? Is he further aware that, under repeated questioning, Mr. MacGregor refused to say that he would reinstate those miners whose cases had been upheld by industrial tribunals? In those circumstances, does he agree that the proposal for a review conducted along the lines of the ACAS code, under which each man's case could be represented, is modest? Should he not take heed of that rather than allow this wound to fester?

I note what the hon. Gentleman says. The report did not deal with that. I think that I am not the only right hon. or hon. Member who found it unbelievable that the Select Committee could report on this matter without once considering the appalling violence and intimidation that affected people who were not given any opportunity to say whether they wished to work. That was a grave omission.

Does my right hon. Friend agree with half of the ordinary members of the Select Committee, who believe that it is wiser to leave reinstatement to the NCB area by area? Does he further agree that the sense of that was well demonstrated by the young man found not guilty of murdering a taxi driver nevertheless now asking for reinstatement, although he was clearly considerably engaged in the discussions about that action?

I have already said that these must be matters for the NCB. It has made quite clear the basis on which it will deal with such matters. It is not right to try to suggest that this is some ordinary dispute or incident. We recognise the difficult circumstances that existed. This is the right method by which to proceed. I note that rather more than 400 miners have been reinstated under the procedures operated by the NCB.

In view of his office, does the right hon. Gentleman feel obliged to say whether he supports the system under which a person can face trial, be found not guilty but then be found guilty by a MacGregor kangaroo court?

There are times when people are dismissed although charges may not be preferred against them. It all depends on what basis the case was made. I can perfectly well understand that there might be circumstances under which people are acquitted of certain charges but are still dismissed on other grounds.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the working miners of Leicester found the Select Committee report shattering and disappointing? Does he appreciate the feelings of those brave working miners, who saw property demolished, miners being intimidated and violence on the picket line? They find it incredible and unacceptable that miners should now be considered for reinstatement. That is not the way in which to run the country.

The working miners of Leicestershire were not alone in holding that view about the report. The Select Committee system works best when reports are unanimous. This report is clearly not unanimous, as the Committee was bitterly divided. It was not the most successful report of the Employment Select Committee.

Is it not deplorable that the Secretary of State can have a view about a Select Committee's recommendation on procedures for the review of dismissal arising out of an industrial dispute and not give his attitude towards the principle? Since the Secretary of State has made a statement that he is considering new legislation to deal with victimisation by the trade unions of those people involved in industrial disputes, is he prepared to consider victimisation by the employers and ensure that all employers abide by the recommendations of ACAS dealing with unfair dismissal?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, that is already law, and there is access to industrial tribunals.

Why will the Secretary of State not pay any attention to the questions that have been raised about the Scottish situation, where there is to be no review, where there is to be no reinstatement and where Scottish miners, some of whom have not been convicted of any offence, seem to have been singled out for discriminating treatment? Does not the Scottish situation require his immediate intervention?

My understanding is that the individual cases in Scotland are being reviewed on the same basis as elsewhere.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received concerning the proposed two-year youth training scheme.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will make a statement on progress in setting up the second year of the youth training scheme.

My right hon. Friend announced on 1 July that he had approved the broad framework of the Manpower Services Commission's proposals for a two-year youth training scheme. These were drawn up after extensive consultations with employers, trade unions, local authorities, education interests and others.

In these consultations, has the Minister outlined what steps are to be taken to ensure that the training element in this two-year scheme will be improved, and has he given guarantees that those youth trainees completing a two-year youth training scheme will be offered a job?

As far as the quality of the training is concerned, 20 weeks is the minimum for the two-year scheme. As to the certification, we are working on that so that they have a certificate at the end. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there can be no guarantee of a job at the end of the scheme, but certainly it enhances the job prospects of all the 16 and 17-year-olds who go on it.

The second year youth training scheme will be the greatest help to school leavers seeking a job. However, is my hon. Friend aware that in Germany the two-year scheme costs £3,600 per trainee, the bulk of which is met by the employer? In sharp contrast, our scheme will cost £3,800 per trainee, most of which will be met by the Government. Does he agree that this shows not only the Government's commitment to training but also that we can expect employers to invest far more in training in the future?

I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that the German example of employers making a major contribution is something to be followed, and we have reason to believe that in this country the employers will be making a significant contribution to the two-year youth training scheme.

Is it not the case that the YTS is simply a front for cheap labour and a means of keeping down wages in order to establish a new-style Hong Kong in this country? That is the reality of the situation and why so many youngsters in the country realise what the Government are up to. It is a simple con.

The answers to the hon. Gentleman's first three questions are no, no and no. So far as the trainees are concerned, he may be aware that some 84 per cent. think that the scheme is worth while or very worth while, so again he is wrong.

Can my hon. Friend tell the House how many places on the two-year YTS are likely to be made available by the armed forces, and if critics of that form of sponsorship criticise it as being voluntary national service by the back door, can he see anything particularly wrong with that?

My hon. Friend asks how many places there will be in the armed services scheme. It will be of the order of 2,200. It is a totally voluntary scheme, and he may be interested to know that in the year 1984–85 3,400 youngsters applied to go on the scheme.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he is satisfied with the current level of apprenticeships.

The numbers entering traditional apprenticeships are becoming increasingly irrelevant as a measure of the real level of skills training being undertaken by industry arising out of the reform and modernisation of existing arrangements and the substantial provision of initial skills training under the youth training scheme.

Given the Secretary of State's criticism in The Times this morning of the fact that this country spends seven times less than the United States and 14 times less than West Germany on provision for training, does the Minister agree that it is time that we introduced the West German system of statutory apprenticeships, which are the best quality training that can be given? When he describes apprenticeships as irrelevant, does he believe that people who commission someone to work in their homes will be as satisfied with someone from the YTS—worthwhile as some of those schemes may be — as they would be if they had a proper apprentice?

The hon. Gentleman referred to a proper apprentice. The whole nature of training has gone through a major sea change which reflects the transition from manufacturing to service industries and from heavy to high-tech industries. The Government have more than doubled expenditure on training since they took office. Government grants are available to help employers with apprentice training but all the money provided has not been taken up.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the best way to encourage more apprentices is to encourage more companies to remodel their apprenticeship schemes to incorporate YTS, as has already been successfully done by the electrical contracting industry?

Yes, Mr. Speaker. One of the features of the electrical contracting industry's scheme is that it negotiated a completely revised wage structure, which reduced pay from £43 to £27. As a result, first-year apprenticeships have trebled.

With regard to the level of apprenticeships, is the Minister aware that one of the 204 miners sacked in my constituency was a Coal Board apprentice? He was sacked without having the opportunity to put his case to his employer. Does the Minister support employers sacking people without giving them the chance of a fair hearing?

I am aware that the House does not like this type of answer, but clearly with such a case the hon. Gentleman must put the argument in writing.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many trade unions have now applied to the certification officer for reimbursement of the cost of ballots, under the provisions of section 1 of the Employment Act 1980; and what has been the total amount paid to trade unions under this section.

Thirty-two trade unions have applied to the certification officer under the provisions of section 1 of the Employment Act 1980 for reimbursement of costs incurred in holding secret ballots. Payments made total about £1·4 million.

Does my hon. Friend agree that what he has just said irrefutably demonstrates the wisdom underlying the 1980 measure and provides further evidence of the Government's success in reforming previous employment legislation?

Yes, Sir. In particular, it deals with those people who are unwilling to come out and say openly that they oppose secret and democratic ballots, but argue against them on the ground of cost. They have no argument on the ground of costs and they had better come clean and say whether they believe in secret ballots.

Is the Minister aware that the latest ballot conducted by the General Municipal, Boilermakers and Allied Trades Union cost £250,000, and that the result, whether the vote was taken at the work place or by secret ballot, showed a 9:1 ratio in favour of maintaining a political fund? Is that not an adequate answer to the scurrilous charge made by the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) during a previous Question Time about an unfair ballot?

I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman wants or expects me to become involved in a spat which he may have in the House with other political parties. At some convenient moment, will he say whether he believes in ballots and whether he draws the same conclusion as I did—that if one spends £250,000 giving a one-sided argument one may obtain a one-sided result? One of the important issues that people should consider is whether they believe that their trade union fulfils its purpose by being associated with one political party and whether the trade union leadership is willing to accept that it has members who support different parties and who may change their allegiance. Trade unions would be better advised to pay more attention to such people.

Is my hon. Friend aware that in a ballot on the future of the political donation, ballot papers were sent to my constituents who had not been members of the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers for four years? Does that not show that there is a need for ballots to be properly organised, otherwise people who are not members of a union can take part in elections for officers and decisions on the political levy?

My hon. Friend makes a sensible point. Even with full postal ballots there are difficulties. Mailing lists can get out of date. For example, I recently received a letter addressed to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) who in 1968 held the job that I now have.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what comparisons he has made with other members of the European Community with regard to the progress towards equal pay for women.

All member states of the European Community are required by article 119 of the Treaty of Rome and the equal pay directive to provide equal pay for men and women doing equal work.

When does the Minister intend to amend the Equal Pay Act so that women in this country have a primary right to receive equal pay for work of equal value?

I do not know where the hon. Gentleman has been for the past two years. We have complied with the ruling of the European Court of Justice and introduced those provisions by an order which makes that a requirement on employers. If an employee feels that an employer is not complying with the provisions, we have set up tribunal machinery to ensure compliance with the European Court of Justice ruling.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 9 July.

This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House I shall be having further meetings later today.

Does the reported decision of the Secretary of State for the Environment to scrap the present system of constraints on local authority finance through penalties and targets denote the first part of the Government's U-turn in response to their failure to hold the seat in the Brecon and Radnor by-election? What further concessions are likely as the Government go further down the slope towards electoral disaster?

No final decisions have yet been taken on the rate support grant settlement for 1986–87. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that on 16 January 1985 my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment said:

"I should like to be able to abandon targets and holdback"

"Much depends on the level of local authority spending in the coming year". — [Official Report, 16 January 1985; Vol. 71, c. 338.]

In the context of President Reagan's timely reminder yesterday that the campaign against terrorism worldwide must be indivisible, is my right hon. Friend aware of any event which throws a more glaring light on the squalid and contemptible character of political opportunism than the appearance on a public platform in the centre of London, with a representative of an organisation with objectives and methods indistinguishable from those of the IRA, of a member of the Privy Council, the Leader of the Opposition? Can my right hon. Friend do anything to ensure that the authority and prestige of the Privy Council are not illegitimately transferred in that way?

My hon. Friend has made his point very cogently and I am glad that he has brought the matter to more public attention.

Does the Prime Minister endorse the judgment of her Chancellor that ours is the most successful economy in western Europe, or have her civil servants had the opportunity during her busy day to explain to her the phoney nature of the statistics on which that claim was based?

My right hon. Friend the Chancellor was endeavouring to point out the fact that no other country in Europe has such a good record as Britain in the creation of new jobs in the past year.

It is clear that the Prime Minister has not read what the Chancellor said. He said that we had the best growth rate in western Europe, but the statistics, which I assume were available to him, show that only one EEC country had a worse growth rate than ours. Does the Prime Minister endorse or repudiate the Chancellor's manipulation of the figures?

May I point out to the right hon. Gentleman that we have also presided over record output, record standard of living, record investment and record overseas assets.

I simply ask the Prime Minister to answer the question that I have now asked her on three occasions: are the allegations that I make about the record catastrophes over which she has presided true or false?

I do not influence the right hon. Gentleman's questions. He must not influence my answers. [Interruption.] We have record output, record standard of living, record investment and record overseas assets. I only regret that the Leader of the Opposition is not here so that I can say it to him.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that lower taxes achieved as a result of the privatisation programme would be valuable and welcome, but that the only way to secure for the longer term a low-taxation economy, with all its benefits for employment, is to hold absolutely firm against the pressures for raising public expenditure, and to reduce public expenditure as a proportion of gross domestic product?

Yes, Sir. I believe that most people would prefer more net take-home pay. The only way to achieve that is to reduce taxation or increase growth in the economy. Both need room to be made for private enterprise and growth in the private sector.

Does the Prime Minister recall telling us last Tuesday how glad she would be to welcome here the Conservative candidate for Brecon and Radnor as the new Member of Parliament? As in her newspaper interview yesterday she dismissed with contempt some of her colleagues as flexi-toys, have not they been proved right in suggesting that she is out of touch with the electorate? How would she describe the people of Brecon, now that they have spoken for Britain?

I congratulate the winner of the Brecon and Radnor by-election on his victory. I note that the tenure of those in seats won by Liberal and Social Democratic candidates in by-elections tends to be rather short, as my hon. Friends the Members for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Macfarlane), for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Watson), for Crosby (Mr. Thornton) and for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Malins) will testify.

Has my right hon. Friend yet had time to reflect upon the demand from the Director General of the Confederation of British Industry for an immediate 2 per cent. cut in the base rate? What reply would she give to him, bearing in mind the fact that many of the world's economic indicators, including oil, continue to present a confusing picture, and our own inflation rate still requires a firm hand?

I think that my hon. Friend found the reply in his last few words. Our own inflation rate still requires a very firm hand. As my hon. Friend is well aware, it is not possible to say anything about the interest rate from this Dispatch Box other than that one does not wish it to be high for a moment longer than the inflation rate requires.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 9 July.

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

Does the Prime Minister recall that, in the 1970s, many hon. Members on both sides of the House tried to take the lid off the Crown Agents scandal? Is she aware that another City scandal, relating to Johnson Matthey Bankers, has not been properly dealt with in the House by the Chancellor of the Exchequer or by herself? Is she further aware that yesterday 135 hon. Members tried to table a motion which would have enabled the House to debate the matter during our proceedings on the Finance Bill today? Why does she not do the decent thing and tell the Governor of the Bank of England to publish the Price Waterhouse report, so that we can know the truth about this sordid affair? Or is the real truth that some of those City crooks are a little too close to home for comfort?

The hon. Gentleman is well aware that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made a full statement to the House and was questioned on it. I have nothing further to add to that statement.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 9 July.

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

When will the Government stop giving the impression in the country that public expenditure is being reduced when the facts show that public expenditure is inexorably increasing? Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the Fowler review produces substantial savings in social security, which can be used to take the low-paid completely out of tax?

As my hon. Friend is aware, the Chancellor's policy is to restrain total public expenditure, but within that total to carry out our pledges on priorities. My hon. Friend will be aware of what those pledges were: defence, law and order, the Health Service and pension provision. Those have been fully honoured within the total restrained public expenditure, and it is still our policy to endeavour to make further reductions in direct taxation. Had the Labour Government's rate of taxation held, people would be paying £6 billion more in income tax than they are now.

Does the Prime Minister now believe in the middle way? If she does, will she define it?

I believe in the right way. It is the way in which we are going.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 9 July.

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

Will my right hon. Friend take time today to reflect on the meeting yesterday with the Chiefs of Defence Staff, contrasting the Conservative party's united policy on nuclear deterrence with the divided policies of the SDP and the Liberal party? Will she acknowledge that although middle-of-the-road policies may be all right for some, driving all over the road is dangerous for everyone, and that the more help the Liberal party can get from the British School of Motoring, the better?

I do not know the policies of the Liberal party or the SDP on nuclear deterrence. They seem to be at sixes and sevens. The Conservative party is the only one that has a firm policy. The Government's policy is that of a firm independent nuclear deterrent, the firm defence of everything in which we believe and honourable and loyal membership of the NATO Alliance.

Is the Prime Minister aware that, following Brecon and Radnor, many Labour supporters would welcome the appointment of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry as chairman of the Conservative party? Is she further aware that Labour supporters could hardly ask for more than she and the Secretary of State being principally responsible for putting across the Government's message?

Labour supporters have nothing to boast about at present.

On economic management, is not the reality that we need all the instruments of economic demand management, including lower interest rates, lower taxes and more capital spending on public and private account to create new jobs?

I would dearly like to have more capital spending, but not more total spending. My hon. Friend will be aware that if we want more capital spending, we must have less current spending, unless we put a higher burden of taxation on the working population. We are not entitled to put a higher burden of taxation on the 40 per cent. of pensioners who pay income tax, or on the 41 per cent. of those who pay income tax but who earn below average male earnings. My hon. Friend will find that we are following the right overall policy.

Is the right hon. Lady aware that, although reductions in income tax for the lower paid will be generally welcomed, it is grossly offensive to the bulk of wage and salary earners to presume that their first priority is a reduction in income tax? Most people are not so greedy and selfish as to have that as their main aim. They would prefer action by the Government to put the unemployed back to work.

I believe that most people think that they are entitled to a larger share of their hard-won earnings in their own pockets. If the right hon. Gentleman takes a different view, perhaps he will say how much tax he would levy on those many people who would prefer to have their taxation reduced.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 9 July.

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

Is the Prime Minister aware that during the first five years of her Government the crime rate increased by nearly 40 per cent.—about double the rate during the five years under the last Labour Government? Despite all her talk about pledges on law and order, more money for the police, and so on, is it not a fact that the criminals have never had it so good?

I believe that we have never had a more effective police force or one with higher morale and greater efficiency. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would join in congratulating the police on their excellent record.