To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the levels of unemployment in the east midlands.

In April 1988, seasonally adjusted adult unemployment in the east midlands region was 154,200, compared with 189,300 in April 1987, a fall of nearly 19 per cent. over the last 12 months.

Does my hon. Friend agree that that is good news for the east midlands and yet further evidence that the Government's economic policies are working? Can my hon. Friend tell me the figures for my constituency of Derby, North? Does he accept that one of the biggest threats to future job creation in Derbyshire, emanates from the high-spending, irresponsible policies of the Labour-controlled Derbyshire county council? Is it not the case that high rates cost jobs?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. High rates do cost jobs. The figures that I have just given show the success of the Government's economic policy in getting unemployment down. In my hon. Friend's constituency unemployment has fallen by more than 700 or 13·7 per cent. during the past 12 months.

Is the Minister aware that last week the Corah company, a leading east midlands firm with a national reputation has made 780 people redundant? I visited the firm yesterday and there was tremendous anxiety among those who have kept their jobs as well as those who will lose their jobs, about their employment prospects. There was special concern that, despite the financial position of the company, it continued to recruit workers during the last 12 months. What is the Minister prepared to do to boost the employment prospects of textile workers in the east midlands?

Obviously, one sympathises with any redundancy, but even in the textile industry there are skill shortages. As for Government support, something like £100 million of regional assistance has gone into the region since May 1979. We have inner city task forces in Nottingham and in Leicester, and the full endeavours of the Department of Employment and the Manpower Services Commission, or the Training Commission as it is now called, are available to help those who, sad to say, have lost their jobs in the redundancies that the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) mentioned.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the excellent figures are due in no small part to excellent companies such as Rolls-Royce which, with its entrepreneurial approach, has just obtained a £1 million order in the United States? Is that not an example of the Government being able to free industry really to get going and do what it should be doing?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. However, he got it slightly wrong in that, if I am correct, it was a £1 billion order rather than a £1 million order. I follow the fortunes of Rolls-Royce very carefully because it has a major plant in my constituency at Barnoldswick which is doing very well. Of course, the very important plant at Derby is in my hon. Friend's constituency.

Is the Minister aware that the closing down of the Corah knitwear plant in my constituency, referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz), is a potential tragedy for more than 700 families, because the knitwear industry is still in recession, still having slack times and still getting no help from the Government?

With the greatest respect, there is nothing I can add to the comment I made in reply to the question from the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz).

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he next intends to meet his opposite numbers in the European Economic Community Employment Council to discuss employment trends and opportunities.

I will be attending the next meeting of the Labour and Social Affairs Council on Thursday 9 June. I will take that and other opportunities to encourage the Community to stimulate market-led employment growth and to take advantage of the potential in the single European market.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Will he confrm that the single European market, starting in four years' time, will create fabulous employment opportunities going beyond the internal growth prospects of each of the member states?

Yes, indeed. The recent Cecchini report to the European Commission suggested that there may be 1·25 million to 2·25 million additional jobs. If certain other scenarios are followed, there may be as many as 5 million to 6 million, according to some estimates.

Has not the Common Market been full of promises that have never been fulfilled? Since 1973 there has been a talk of "jobs for the boys" being created, but all we have had is a huge millstone round our neck. Can the Minister tell us how the internal market will remove the £11 billion deficit in manufactured goods? Could not the £4·7 billion that the Government have paid to the Common Market since 1984 have been used to provide more jobs in our country?

The single market will improve the situation by improving competition within the Common Market and by giving us a large home market on which to draw.

Will my hon. Friend consider during his meeting what extra assistance can be given to the creation of jobs in the south-west? That area does not seem to do very well, compared with the rest of the country, in aid from the EEC for job creation.

No, but it does not do too badly in terms of jobs. From the Government's point of view, I had the pleasure yesterday of launching "Action for Jobs, South-West", which is intended to emphasise in the south-west what the Government are doing to assist in this matter.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received about the implications for care in the community of the introduction of the adult training scheme; and whether he will make a statement.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has received a number of representations from hon. Members and others on this subject. It is hoped that most community programme projects will continue into employment training, but I recognise that some may not do so. My Department's officials will be discussing this with representatives of the voluntary sector.

Is the Minister aware that there is deep anxiety among local authorities and the voluntary sector about the changes in the community programme? At its worst it could mean the loss of 88,000 places that have an input into the organisations of £436 million. In my local authority the projects under threat are health authority projects, a crime prevention project—the Conservative party claims to be the party of law and order—a drug abuse programme to help people come off heroin, which is a problem, and an unemployment centre. Will the Minister give an assurance today to organisations in my constituency and throughout the country that if finance is not found under the new programme, money will still be available for them to continue?

Obviously, any period of transition is bound to give rise to anxieties. To a large extent, we have now been able to satisfy those anxieties. We are well aware of the problems of operations such as centres run for the benefit of the unemployed. However, the important point about the new programme is that it brings training into what had previously been only community programmes. There may be many cases—for all I know, centres for the unemployed may be some of them—where, although groups may not be able to provide training in their own right, they can effectively become sub-contractors to the main scheme. To that extent, I can put the hon. Gentleman's mind at rest.

In the context of the adult training scheme, will my hon. Friend recognise the importance of courses designed to bring women back into employment after they have had their families? Will he look extremely carefully at the rules for the new scheme to ensure that such courses will not be affected but will be encouraged?

I share my hon. Friend's concern. One of the criticisms of the old community programme was that women not in receipt of benefit found that they could not get on the course and, therefore, found it that much more difficult to return to the job market.

We know this—[Interruption.]

The hon. Lady clearly does not know this. If she could contain herself for one moment, it might be welcome news to her. Special arrangements will be made for returners to be able to come back into the job market, and I hope that that will be welcomed by all hon. Members.

Does the Minister agree that there is special significance in the change of the title of the scheme to employment training, with its telling acronym of ET—it was probably conceived on another planet? I visited four schemes in my area in the past week and discovered universal hostility to it. Many groups that have contributed prodigously to care in the community, such as those that help offenders coming out of prison and the settlement of people leaving mental institutions, are hostile and feel that the new scheme will at least cut the value of their work and, in some cases, cripple it.

Even by the standards of parliamentary riposte that was a remarkably feeble jibe to make of a programme which will provide substantial opportunities for 600,000 people a year. Employment training will be very much to the benefit of every unemployed person in this country. I should like to think that if the hon. Gentleman cannot take his lead from the Government he could do so from the TUC and give at least conditional support to a programme that will be of massive benefit to his unemployed constituents.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what region of the United Kingdom has the highest number of long-term unemployed; and if he will make a statement.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the reduction in the number of long-term unemployed people over the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement.

Over the past 12 months there has been a record fall in long-term unemployment of 266,000. The region with the highest number of long-term unemployed in April 1988 was the south-east, with 206,500 people, although that is 65,700 lower than April 1987. The new employment training programme, which comes into operation in September, aims to achieve further reductions in long-term unemployment.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the fact that the region with the highest number of long-term unemployed is the south-east shows that the north-south divide is a complete and utter myth? Does he agree that those figures show that, in the booming economy of the south-east, many people are working and claiming and many are not working even though jobs are available, which gives a truer picture of the number of people who are really unemployed?

Another way of considering the number of long-term unemployed around the country is to look at percentage figures as opposed to numbers. Where my hon. Friend is unquestionably right and the Opposition characteristically wrong is that in the south-east and around the country there is an increasing number of unfilled vacancies. One of the aims of the new employment training programme is to give long-term unemployed people the skills to take up those vacancies so that long-term unemployment decreases further.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the reduction in the figure for the number of long-term unemployed is quite remarkable? Will he say how many people under 25 fall into that category and how the figure compares with five years ago?

One of the biggest falls among long-term unemployed people has been among the under-25s. In the year to April 1988, there was a fall of about 34 per cent. Long-term unemployment among the under 25s is at its lowest level for five years.

Will the Minister acknowledge—he mentioned percentages—that in all probability Northern Ireland has the highest percentage of long-term unemployed people? Will he say what hope there is for the peripheral areas of the United Kingdom when the single European market comes into force in 1992, given that the south-east now has the highest number of long-term unemployed people?

The hon. Gentleman is correct to say that Northern Ireland has the highest percentage of long-term unemployed. The general policies to combat unemployment obviously apply to Northern Ireland and we hope, through the new training programme and other such measures, to provide skills for the long-term unemployed in Northern Ireland just as everywhere else in the United Kingdom.

Will the right hon. Gentleman pledge not to overlook the real worries of the tens of thousands of textile and steel workers in all the regions of the north who lost their jobs early in 1980–81? What real jobs is he planning to provide for the men who lost their job at that time who are now aged nearly 50 and have no prospect of work? Can we have less complacency and more action?

There is no complacency about unemployment or the long-term unemployed. The hon. Gentleman should recognise that new vacancies are now becoming evident in the economy. I hope that both sides of the House will unite behind our policy to provide good training to assist people to acquire skills so that they can take those jobs that are now becoming available. To obtain consensus on that would he a giant step forward.

Does my hon. Friend agree that everyone—every employer and every college—should now be involved in a skills crusade, because unless we can produce people with skills we shall not be able to continue to achieve the 21 per cent. reduction in the number of long-term unemployed that we have achieved this year? Does he further agree that such a crusade is not helped by the Opposition continuing to rubbish every programme that is brought forward to improve adult training?

I agree with my hon. Friend. We estimate that there are over 700,000 vacancies in the economy generally. We need training to help long-term unemployed people to take those jobs and opportunities. We now have a historic opportunity to reduce long-term unemployment in Britain even further and I hope that the country can agree to take that opportunity.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many young people who are in employment are participating in the youth training scheme.

At the end of March 1988, there were 61,603.

Was not the youth training scheme orginally supposed to be part of a package of work training for all youngsters, but of those 16 to 18-year-olds in employment very few are on the YTS or obtaining proper training, while many others cannot afford to be on the YTS because of the poverty pay under that scheme? Young people are receiving next to no training whether or not they are on the scheme. Is it not the case that the Government are putting very little into the training of our youngsters?

Oh no, we are putting a great deal into that. A total of 381,000 young people are on the YTS, and that is a lot. Of course, we should like more and we want it to be a normal route between school and work for young people.

When considering the youth training programme, will my hon. Friend bear in mind that in Scotland many new jobs are emerging in leisure, recreation and tourism? We welcome the fact that, because of the strength of the economy, many English people can spend so much of their time on vacation in Scotland where the quality of life is so much better. Will he bear in mind that we must have more training schemes in leisure, recreation and tourism activities?

Yes, indeed. That is one of the expanding areas in this scheme, as in others.

Does the Minister agree that until recently he and his colleagues were boasting and bragging about the fact that the school leaving age had been raised to 18? Is it not a sad fact that youth training has largely become a programme for unemployed youngsters? Even worse than that, is he not worried that up and down the country young people are now opting to go into low-paid, dead end jobs with no training at all? Is that the way in which he envisages our work force competing with other countries in the years to come? Should not employers be forced to provide a basic minimum level of training for young people between the ages of 16 and 18?

I do not think that employers should be forced, but we want to encourage them and that is exactly what the YTS has done. That is why it has expanded over the years and why it is making a major contribution. I agree that we want as many young people as possible—if possible, all young people—to go into jobs in which they are supplied with proper training, leading, as YTS increasingly does, to qualifications which will at least set them on the right road for life.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement about employment figures in the United Kingdom and such equivalent information as he has for her European Community partners.

In the latest three-year period for which information is available—between 1983 and 1986—the increase in employment in the United Kingdom of 920,000 was greater than in the rest of the Community combined. During 1987 the trend in the United Kingdom continued, and employment rose by a record 500,000.

That further good news on the employment front is welcome to all hon. Members. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the proportion of people with jobs is considerably higher in the United Kingdom than in the rest of the European Community, and can he state how the increase in employment in the United Kingdom compares with the employment situation of our competitors, West Germany and France?

The proportion of the population of working age in employment is higher here than in any other Community country apart from Denmark. Four member countries experienced decreases in employment over the past 12 months; they were France, Spain, Portugal and Ireland. Apart from Britain, only Germany showed a substantial increase, and the German increase was no more than half as great as the increase in Britain.

Are not international comparisons of unemployment figures related to the length of the working year and the length of the working life? Given that words such as "harmonisation" are so popular these days, is it not time that we copied best European practice by introducing a 35-hour week and providing for six weeks' minimum annual leave and retirement at 60 for men who want it?

I do not know what sort of bill the hon. Gentleman has run up in a matter of 30 seconds, but I do not think that that is a very sensible proposition; I should be surprised to hear that it was the Opposition's policy. The hon. Gentleman asked where the figures came from. They are published by the statistical office of the European Communities in Luxembourg. They are comparable and they show the very good performance of the economy of this country compared with those of other countries in Europe.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that employment prospects in this country will not be improved if the Government block takeovers of British companies solely on the ground that the bidding company is controlled from overseas?

We have to consider that matter case by case, but Britain and British companies have invested in or taken over companies overseas and we must expect the same to happen here at times.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that comparable EEC figures for unemployment are based on the labour force survey? That shows a drop in unemployment of 157,000 in the United Kingdom since May 1986, yet the United Kingdom published figures claim a drop of 714,000. How does the Secretary of State explain the difference? Is not the bulk of the drop in United Kingdom unemployment explained by measures that push people off benefits and do not the figures give a very misleading account of the real level of unemployment in the United Kingdom?

The hon. Lady is typically and absolutely wrong. In her comparison with the labour force survey she omitted to say that that survey shows a lesser unemployment figure than the benefit count. In other words if we used the labour force survey to show unemployment in this country, it would show a reduced rather than an increased number.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the increase in productivity during the three months to January 1988 and over the same quarter to January 1987.

Productivity in manufacturing, as measured by output per head, increased by 1·6 per cent. in the three months to January 1988. In the three months to January 1987 it fell by 1·1 per cent.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that although the immediate prospects for British industry are extremely rosy, those prospects depend on industry's ability to contain its unit labour costs? If it does not do that competiveness will deteriorate which will mean that orders will be lost and, worst of all, jobs will be lost. What urgent advice does he have for employers and the TUC?

I certainly agree with the first part of my hon. Friend's remarks. He asked what advice I had. The watchwords for everyone concerned with pay bargaining must be realism and flexibility, but the point on this question is that improved productivity pays for real pay rises.

Does my hon. Friend agree that some of the great advances in productivity that we so much need come from the elimination of repetitive tasks by machinery, and that in that process a number of people who at present find it quite easy to work will find it increasingly difficult to hold down the jobs? As productivity changes, will my hon. Friend give an assurance that he will keep under review the medical criteria by which people are adjudged to be fit or unfit to work?

Yes, but I would also point out that that is why training is so important, particularly the employment training programme that we discussed earlier.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether there have been any changes in the treatment of disabled and mentally handicapped people under restart and the new availability for work test.

There has been no change in the treatment of disabled and mentally handicapped people under restart. People who are limited in the work they can do because of their health are only required to be available for work they are able to do.

Will the Minister clarify his answer? He failed to clarify the point that disabled people and the mentally handicapped either have to be registered for sickness benefit or they have to be available for work, like everybody else. The Minister said that the Government are interested in giving genuine training. If that is so, surely there should be a response to disabled people that relates to their disability, as the all-party Public Accounts Committee argued. What the Minister has just told us does not relate in the least to the needs of disabled people.

The restart programme is extremely positive. To give an example, about 3·4 per cent. of the total restart interviewees, or 121,000 people, have been referred as a result of the restart interviews, to disablement resettlement officers, which emphasises the positive nature of the programme.

Is the Minister aware of his Department's figures, part of which he has just quoted, which show that of the 114,000 people who attended the one-week restart courses last year, only 7 per cent. got a job? For those 7 per cent., restart was a success, but for the other 93 per cent. it was a failure. In Coventry, for example, there are still 30 unemployed workers for every vacancy registered at a jobcentre, restart or no restart.

As my right hon. Friend has said repeatedly, there are 700,000 vacancies nationally. The restart programme is positive and beneficial. About 88 per cent. of those who attend interviews are offered something positive.

But only 7 per cent. get a job.

I am sure that the Minister would not wish to mislead the House by saying that there has been no change in the eligibility criteria for disabled claimants. Will he confirm that his Department issued a circular on 17 March that described tightened eligibility criteria for disabled, mentally handicapped and disturbed claimants? Will he confirm that the circular makes it clear that unemployment benefit offices have received more claims from disabled people than they expected and that, given that they have more money to gain from claiming sickness benefit, this shows the determination of disabled people to work? Is it not a disgrace that the Minister's Department is tightening up on the availability for work tests for disabled people when it has been criticised by the Public Accounts Committee for the service that it provides for disabled people?

We are being very fair to the disabled. Both we and the Department of Health and Social Security have issued instructions to ensure that those who are eligible for alternative benefits are directed appropriately.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received regarding possible amendments to the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act.

I am not aware of any formal representations regarding amendments to the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act. My Department does from time to time receive suggestions on possible amendments to the Act from various organisations and individuals and these are naturally given due consideration.

Will the Minister confirm that the Froggat report showed that the health of non-smokers is seriously affected by people who smoke at work? Is he aware that legislation has already been introduced in Belgium, Spain, Norway, Austria and Canada? When the Minister wrote to me saying that the Government would block my Bill to outlaw smoking at work, he said that he did not believe that further legislation was necessary. Was this because the existing Health and Safety at Work etc. Act, which requires employers to provide a healthy environment, could be used to stop smoking at work, or was it because the Government are totally complacent about the health risks?

The Government certainly are not complacent about health risks, although on a personal level I can agree with the hon. Gentleman that smoking is a thoroughly beastly habit. One cannot go round legislating about smoking, however, simply because it falls into that category. The short answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is that the Government's view is that it is not necessary to introduce further legislation. If the degree of smoking at work is such that an employer, in allowing it to continue., is not providing a safe environment for people to work in, that is a matter that falls under present legislation. In other words, it is unnecessary to take any further action with regard to such an extreme case; the present law is sufficient.

Is my hon. Friend aware that in a recent report on safety on construction sites in London and the south-east the Health and Safety Commission said that there were far too many accidents and that safety standards must be improved? The commission also suggested that the laws needed to be tightened. Do the Government have plans to change the existing laws so that we get improvements in safety on construction sites in London and the south-east?

It is because the Government are very much aware of the situation on construction sites that they were completely supportive of the commission's recent blitz on accidents on construction sites. That was an extremely successful campaign, as I am sure my hon. Friend recognises. As so often, there can be a mixed picture, and at the moment fatalities at work are running at an all-time record low.

Is not the Minister concerned by the increasing numbers of people being seriously injured at work in west Yorkshire and elsewhere? What is he doing to ensure that more factory inspectors are appointed so that inspections can be carried out? What is he doing to ensure that places of work are inspected at least once a year, because there is now a mountain of evidence to show that places of work are going uninspected for years on end? What more is he doing to make sure that employers who are found to be in breach of existing legislation are fined far more heavily than at present?

The enforcement of the law on a day-to-day basis is in the hands of the Health and Safety Executive, and it is right that that should be so. The Government devote substantial resources of public money to enable it to carry out its tasks. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have noted the extra £6·7 million that has been contributed. I am afraid that in the end the campaign has to be won in the work place, among the people working there, and the employers. If it is any consolation to the hon. Gentleman, and since he is concerned about the number of inspectors, I can tell him that the number of inspectors engaged in relation to those whom it is their duty to inspect has remained pretty constant in recent years.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that a number of industries complain that the safety restrictions imposed upon them are more severe than those imposed on competitive industries in Germany, Switzerland, Austria and other European countries, thereby making it more difficult to reach the levels of productivity achieved in other parts of Europe?

I have never accepted that there is a trade-off between a proper safety standard and commercial viability. I can agree with my hon. Friend to the extent that when we frame and maintain safety legislation we have to make absolutely certain that it fulfils its task and that it is not unnecessary.

When will the Minister accept that the £6·7 million increase to which he referred is wholly inadequate for the Health and Safety Executive to carry out its enormously important work? I refer not just to the need for additional inspectors but to coping with the new responsibilities that the Government have put on it, including the work under the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 on agricultural pesticides, the full impact of which the HSE has yet to feel.

The hon. Gentleman knows that one can always make out a case for spending more money. However, the line has to be drawn somewhere. He is being unreasonably dismissive of a sum of money that was welcomed by the chairman of the commission.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement about his visit to the London Centre for European Business Information.

I visited the London Centre for European Business Information in December. The centre holds information on a wide range of European matters which small businesses need if they are to take advantage of the challenges and opportunities of the European single market. The centre is located in the London branch of the small firms service, and the whole service can therefore draw on its information base.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is absolutely vital for small and large businesses to seize in full the opportunity presented by the single European market from 1992? Will he do all that he can to ensure that all business information centres do what they can to prepare small businesses for that challenge?

Yes, indeed. The matter is important. Of course, small businesses are likely to have more difficulty in getting the information that they need. That makes it important for us all to do our best to publicise the information centres. Perhaps I can start by explaining that the address is 2 Ebury bridge road, SW1, and it can be contacted on Freephone Enterprise.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many urban programme areas have applied for development funding for employer-school compacts; and if he will make a statement.

The Training Commission has invited applications for development funding by 30 June. Over 40 compact proposals are being developed by employers, education authorities, and other interested parties in urban programme areas. I hope to be able to announce which partnerships have been chosen for development funding at the end of July.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the main benefits of compact schemes are, partly, the better understanding that grows between employers and teachers, and the raising of standards among school pupils? Will he take note of the report that shows that, whereas in London, all too often the rate of school attendance falls to one in three, in those east London schools where the compact has been experimented with, the rate of attendance has risen to four in five?

Yes. It is still early days for the east London compact. The results are promising. The scheme is the result of the Boston compact, which pioneered the concept. We certainly hope that this will result in a major expansion of compacts around the country.

I wonder whether the Secretary of State recognises that employers in London are concerned about the effect on their arrangements of the break-up of the Inner London education authority, bearing in mind the way in which its careers information in particular aided and enabled the compact programme to go ahead. What discussions is he having with the Secretary of State for Education and Science to ensure that something is done to enable London schools and authorities to co-operate so that the scheme can continue?

We would certainly want to see a continuation of the great careers service in London. The east London compact is already running. We shall certainly look at any proposals for an extension and for financing it.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that at present too many pupils leave school without a serious work ethic? How will the scheme improve that?

Fundamentally, it will improve it, because the whole aim of it is to come to an agreement between companies and schools, so that, provided the pupil meets attendance and academic requirements, he will be guaranteed a job afterwards.

Does the Secretary of State agree that the compact deserves maximum encouragement, that there is no magic in the figure of 12, and that, provided that bids are genuine, legitimate and well-researched, the Government might consider supporting and funding more than 12?

I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman said. It is a recently announced pilot, as part of the inner city initiative. There has been a tremendous response to it. We want to get the pilot schemes started, but we shall certainly look at what the hon. Gentleman said and the proposals that he has just made.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what resources his Department devoted to the recent clampdown on fraudulent claims for unemployment benefit in the west midlands; and if he will make a statement.

The two recent fraud investigations concerned private hir care and taxi drivers in the west midlands and an exercise in Coventry that examined claimants who had failed to collect their Girocheques, despite being advised to do so. A total of 18 fraud staff were employed by my Department on the two exercises, at a cost in salaries and expenses of £54,000. The net benefit savings that accrued from these exercises amounted to £510,000.

How many benefit claims were withdrawn as a result of the investigations? Will my right hon. Friend tell me how much money was saved nationally as the result of the investigations in 1987–88?

Yes, Sir. The amount of money saved as a result of fraud investigations has increased from £11 million in 1984–85 to £54·6 million in 1987–88. The number who have withdrawn claims as a result of such investigations has increased to 80,000 in the current year.

If the investigation of fraudulent unemployment benefit claims has been so successful and has saved taxpayers millions of pounds, why does not the Secretary of State try to persuade the Government to mount a drive against fraudulent tax claims and save taxpayers hundreds of millions of pounds?

We want to see both investigative activities taking place. I do not think that anything that the hon. Gentleman says should detract from the seriousness of the fraud that is being perpetrated here. We are not talking about people who are confused about their social security entitlement; we are talking about people who are deliberately defrauding the system. I think that it is about time that the Opposition supported this action.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 7 June.

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

I hope that my right hon. Friend will find time today to send the congratulations of the House to Mr. Reagan and Mr. Gorbachev on their successful summit meeting in Moscow. Will she acknowledge the tributes that have been paid to the part that she, as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, has played in bringing about this historic meeting of understanding and warm friendship, which augurs so well for disarmament and world peace?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I have already congratulated President Reagan at the Guildhall, which was a very successful occasion with a quite brilliant speech by the President, and I have of course already sent a message of congratulation to Secretary-General Gorbachev. I believe that the outlook for East-West relations is better than it has been for many a long year, and that that is so because we are strong in two directions in the West, first in defence and secondly in freedom under the law and human relations. I believe that this country's voice is heard because we have been strong in both defence and freedom under the law.

While we are on the subject of human relations and freedom, has the Prime Minister seen the report on the young homeless called "No Way Home"? Does she not agree that the problems of the growing number of homeless young people on the streets of London, living in destitution and in moral and physical danger, require urgent action by the Government? Will she therefore change the new social security regulations to ensure that such young people can receive money in advance to obtain lodgings?

It is true that a number of young people are leaving home who would not have done so in previous circumstances. We are having to provide more housing units than we should otherwise have done—and having to provide them when those young people already have a home to live in, belonging to their parents. The Government are indeed doing a great deal to tackle homelessness. The total support for housing is very much larger. We made £5 million available last year through the estates action initiative. Our mixed funding housing association initiative, with grants ranging from 50 per cent. to 75 per cent. of scheme costs, will help as well. We also have a hostels initiative, with over 14,700 places approved since April 1981 to benefit young single homeless and others.

That answer can only mean that the Prime Minister is willing to see huge numbers of young people at risk from crime, prostitution and even hunger. Does not she realise that in London alone there are 50,000 young, homeless people without secure accommodation, that the hostels are packed, and that there are 1 million fewer places to rent than there were at the beginning of the decade? Is she willing to see a new generation of street people increasing, or will she answer the first question I asked and change the regulations to revert to the original position so that these young people can get money, lodgings, jobs and look after themselves?

No, Mr. Speaker. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman can have listened to what I said. There is a hostels initiative to have places approved for these young people and to benefit the young single homeless and others. We made it much easier for council tenants to sub-let, which they used not to be able to do, and to introduce shorthold tenancies. We have increased this year the programme of grants to voluntary bodies concerned with homelessness. Those are three positive steps. There is a number of young people who choose voluntarily to leave home; I do not think that we can be expected, no matter how many there are, to provide units for them.

The charities in this area, as in many others, are marvellous but it is neither fair nor realistic to ask them to do the job the Government should be doing. Will the Prime Minister answer the fundamental question? Will she revert to the original arrangements, which enabled young people to get money for lodgings? Does not she realise that if they have no home they have no job, and that if they have no job they have no home and they have no money? Is she willing to see those numbers increasing?

I have answered twice in the negative to the right hon. Gentleman's fundamental question. I point out to him that there are now 1·6 million more housing units than there were eight years ago.

Will my right hon. Friend agree that the Opposition's policies on defence are clearly divided——

Order. The hon. Gentleman must ask a question for which the Prime Minister has responsibility.

In her busy day will my right hon. Friend consider that the Opposition's policies on defence——

Order. I cannot allow the hon. Gentleman to continue along that line.

Is the Prime Minister at all concerned about the huge explosion in domestic credit that has taken place in recent months? If so, what will she do about it?

I think that an increase in personal credit is all right provided it is balanced on the other side by an increase in financial assets willingly held. That is the case. It has been so balanced.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that thousands of schoolchildren are this week sitting their written examinations for GCSE? Will she make sure that the A-level examination remains a genuine test of learning skills, discipline at work, and intellectual ability?

The GCSE examinations are in their early years. Doubtless we shall learn a good deal from the way in which they are working. It is vital that children have the chance to get this qualification. It is a true test of what they do, both in their general work and with external moderation. With regard to A-levels, there is a report out, which I believe my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will deal with in reply to a written question today. It is absolutely vital that we continue to regard the deep study of some single subject as important during the years from 16 to 18, particularly for people going to university.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 7 June.

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

Will the Prime Minister take time off from her duties to tell us why she asked for a private valuation of Richmond yard? Does she think that she received value for money at 26 times what it would have cost the Property Services Agency to carry out this valuation?

The hon. Member has asked my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment about this. He has replied to the hon. Gentleman. A copy of the letter has been placed in the Library. He has pointed out that this is the first of the office blocks to be built in Whitehall. It was absolutely vital that we get an accurate estimate, by a commercial enterprise, of the amount of rent that it would fetch in the open market. I think that was done.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the widespread public concern felt throughout the country about recent attacks on police officers by affluent young people who have had far too much to drink? Does she not agree that this House should give every support to the police and that one of the best ways of giving that support is to ensure that we go on increasing police manpower throughout every force? Does she also agree that that should be the target of the Government throughout this Parliament?

As my hon. Friend is aware, we have substantially increased police manpower and pay. They also have very good equipment. I agree with my hon. Friend that the police are entitled to look to the ordinary citizenry for help on all occasions. They are entitled to look to schools and families to teach discipline and they are entitled to expect all of us to point out to those young people that they are responsible for their own activities, and no one else.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 7 June.

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago, knowing that I shall have no difficulty in hearing his supplementary question.

Is the Prime Minister aware that Mr. Reagan and Mr. Gorbachev have met on numerous occasions and have agreed one important principle—the total elimination of nuclear weapons? Does she agree with them?

They have not agreed on the total elimination of nuclear weapons. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, there might one day come a time when that is possible. I must say that I doubt it, for reasons that he knows full well. What they have done—and I hope it will meet with acclaim—is to sign the first agreement to reduce nuclear weapons. However, I think they have done more than that. They have by their meetings—also supported by the West—brought about new hope in East-West relations and new hope for the future.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 7 June.

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

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the INF agreement and the resultant reduction in nuclear arms would probably not have occurred if one side had entered into the negotiations committed to the one-sided abolition of nuclear weapons? Does my right hon. Friend not agree that the apparent statement made by the Leader of the Opposition on Sunday bears a remarkable resemblance to the unilateral policy of the Labour party in the past?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. There would have been no agreement on reductions in nuclear weapons if one side had already said that they were going to give them up totally and utterly unilaterally. In those circumstances we should not have made the progress that we have made now.

rose—[interruption]

Order. Such interruptions mean that other hon. Members cannot be called.

Is the right hon. Lady aware that while all the people of this country are absolutely delighted at the atmosphere that developed at the summit meeting and at the possibilities of future reductions in nuclear arms, some of us are somewhat nauseated by the sycophantic attitude that she adopts towards President Reagan and the United States? When she considers human rights, does she also take into consideration the human rights of the people of Nicaragua, or of other states in south America and elsewhere? Will she stop having double standards in relation to human rights?

With regard to the first part of what the hon. Gentleman said, yes, I did say thank you on behalf of the United Kingdom for everything that the United States does to uphold our basic freedoms. It is a great pity that the hon. Gentleman cannot do the same.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 7 June.

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

Does my right hon. Friend agree that Britain's victory in the Falkland Islands represented a tremendous achievement by our armed forces? Will she take the time today to consider why British television companies spend millions of pounds—[Interruption.]—putting the heroism of our troops in a bad light and mixing fact with fiction?

My hon. Friend makes his own point extremely well. Whatever the policy of the broadcasting authorities, I believe that the whole country was behind that campaign, applauded its military brilliance and is totally indebted to all the people who took part in it and all who supported it.