To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what measures he will introduce to improve employment training.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what measures he is taking to increase the level of employment training; and if he will make a statement.

I announced in November additional flexibilities to enable training and enterprise councils to increase the effectiveness of employment training. I am announcing today that an extra £120 million will be made available to training and enterprise councils in England and Wales and to Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise in Scotland to ensure that employment training can continue to play its full part in helping unemployed people back to work.

That announcement does not compensate for the fact that since 1988 £1 billion has been taken out of the training bill. Is it not a national disgrace that quality training, which is one of the cornerstones of the improvements that we might expect to see in the British economy, has been greatly damaged by the fact that so much funding for training has been removed? Is the Secretary of State aware that we are going through a catastrophic time for training and that after the present crisis the British economy will be seriously damaged due to the lack of investment in training not just in the past year or two but for the past 10 years?

One thing is absolutely clear about these additional resources. In the debate on the autumn statement, the shadow Chancellor reaffirmed that training would not be one of the two immediate priorities for a Labour Government—so what we are devoting to employment training is at least £120 million more than the Labour party would make available.

Can the Secretary of State explain how the sale of 51 skillcentres, accompanied by a gift from the Government of £70 million, has improved the availability of training in this country when the activity of the three insider dealers who bought most of the skillcentres has been concerned principally with sacking instructors, selling off freehold sites and selling the valuable machinery and equipment used by the skillcentres to train people? When will the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain what value this audacious taxpayers rip-off is to the people who want employment training?

The hon. Gentleman persists in making entirely unfounded allegations about the sale of skillcentres. The skillcentres were making a substantial loss. It is clear that they can now provide training much more effectively in the private sector, and that is exactly what they are doing.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend not find it bizarre to be accused by Labour Members of underfunding employment training when that and every other major training initiative introduced by the Government has been attacked and opposed by them from the beginning? Does he agree that it would be more appropriate for them to support employment training instead of trying to supplant our training schemes by calling for the reintroduction of a training levy on employers, bearing in mind how that failed to produce the goods in years gone by?

I agree with my hon. Friend. Nothing remotely comparable with employment training was available when Labour Members were last in office. They have consistently opposed every training initiative that we have introduced, which makes their claim to be the guardians of training entirely laughable.

As there is a shortage of people trained in electronics and electronic engineering, will my right hon. and learned Friend ask the training and enterprise councils to make training in that sector of industry a priority, especially as they now have welcome new money?

My hon. Friend will appreciate that the essence of training and enterprise councils is that they should be able to tailor training programmes to local circumstances in order to equip local people with the skills that they need to fill local jobs. I am sure that, in carrying out that remit, the councils will bear in mind the needs of the sector to which my hon. Friend refers.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that the £120 million that he has announced is less than a third of the amount that he is cutting from the Department of Employment budget for next year alone? Will he guarantee to save the thousands of training places at risk, the training providers who are going out of business and the training programmes that are being closed? If he will not give that guarantee, are we not justified in saying that the Government, having created unemployment, are now abandoning the unemployed?

Why does the hon. Gentleman not recognise that his colleague the shadow Chancellor has made it plain that training is not one of the two priorities on which the Opposition would immediately increase spending if they were ever to form a Government? Until we get a commitment about that from the shadow Chancellor, Opposition complaints about funding are entirely unjustified.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that the welcome improvement in training that he has worked out during his period of office is none the less deficient for those with special training needs, many of whose training schemes will be imperilled by the new system of organisation? Has he any word of comfort for those people?

I announced some months ago that for the first time those with disabilities would be included in the aim group, which has a high priority in employment training. Those with disabilities now have a higher priority in training than ever before.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what information he has on the number of job losses in the period 1 June 1990 to 1 February 1991 in (a) the Yorkshire and Humberside region and (b) for the rest of the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

During the seven months June to December 1990, it is provisionally estimated that there were 8,000 confirmed redundancies in the Yorkshire and Humberside region and 62,500 in Great Britain. The estimates are based on the number of redundancies confirmed as having occurred following receipt of a notification under the Employment Protection Act 1975.

Those figures show that the Government's policy of high interest rates is crippling output and investment and creating unemployment throughout the country. In the Yorkshire and Humberside region over the past few months, bankruptcies have been increasing monthly. There have been more unemployment and more redundancies than ever before, all because of the Government's high interest rates and unified business rate policies. When will the Minister's colleague the Secretary of State create facilities to increase employment and not create further unemployment?

I am disappointed but not surprised that the hon. Gentleman should talk his region down. His region has been one of the more robust during this period of economic difficulty. I remind the hon. Gentleman that when he was elected to the House in 1983 there were 3,139 unemployed people in his constituency. The figure is now 2,261. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be grateful for the fact that his constituency has seen such a dramatic fall in unemployment since he was elected. In the Yorkshire and Humberside region, unemployment is down by nearly 100,000 since 1987.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, because of recent investment and productivity improvements, Yorkshire firms are in a much better position to take advantage of the economic upturn when it takes place than they were in the last recession 10 years ago? Does my hon. Friend not find it rather sickening that Opposition Members talk about unemployment only when it is going up and not when it is coming down?

Yes. Typically, my hon. Friend has pointed to the strength and dynamism of his region and is rightly showing a pride in the performance of his constituents and the firms in his constituency. What a contrast that is with Opposition Members.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people are unemployed at present and how many people were unemployed 12 months ago.

In January 1991 unemployment in the United Kingdom on the seasonally adjusted, consistent, basis was 1,888,500 compared with 1,615,800 a year earlier.

Does the Secretary of State expect unemployment to increase next year at the same rate as during the past year? As the Government have surrendered their freedom to assist industry by reducing interest rates as a result of their membership of the exchange rate mechanism, will the Government now consider assisting employment figures in the kingdom by reducing the taxation burden on business?

The key to the long-term performance of the United Kingdom economy is the rooting out of inflation from that economy. Our membership of the ERM has an important part to play in reinforcing anti-inflationary disciplines. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will recognise that unemployment in his constituency, which was 4,206 at the last election, is now down by nearly 1,000 to 3,306.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that unemployment would be considerably higher if it were not for tourism, for which he has departmental responsibility? In view of the growth in tourism since 1979 and the present crisis, will he look sympathetically at the possibility of increasing the British Tourist Authority's budget so that unemployment figures do not rise in that growth sector?

I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of the tourist industry, which has made a conspicuous contribution to the reduction in unemployment that we have seen in recent years. My noble Friend the Minister with responsibility for tourism is making an announcement today which will enable the British Tourist Authority and the English Tourist Board to make more funds available for an advertising campaign which will help them to ensure that the industry continues to play an important part in reducing unemployment in Britain.

Is not the present explosion in unemployment the final proof of the Government's failure? Is it not true that in each of the 11 years the Government have been in office unemployment has been higher than it was under Labour? As the economy requires at least 2 per cent. growth to remain stable, and as unemployment is a lagging indicator, is it not true that unemployment will rise for as far ahead as we can see? 'Will the Secretary of State have the grace to admit in plain English that that is a major failure on the part of the Government?

If the hon. Gentleman is making comparisons between what has happened under this Government and what happened under the Labour Government, he should give credit for the fact that there are some 2 million more jobs in Britain now than there were in 1979, that we have one of the lowest rates of unemployment in Europe, and that more than half the people who become unemployed leave unemployment within three months.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many training and enterprise councils are now operational.

Excellent progress is being made in setting up training and enterprise councils. All 82 TECs in England and Wales are now in place, with 51 fully operational. By the summer, the full network will be up and running—a full two years ahead of schedule.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the enterprise function of the TECs is of great importance and will aid the creation and survival of many small firms in future? But does not he find it regrettable that the Opposition are silent on the TECs' enterprise role?

My hon. Friend is right. The TECs' enterprise role is crucial. They attach enormous importance to it. All we hear from the Opposition is that they attach importance to the enterprise role of local authorities.

Is the Secretary of State aware that since the introduction of the TECs in the northern region many schemes have been cut by between 40 and 50 per cent. and some schemes have had to finish? Is it not a disgrace that many of the trainees who have been made redundant and are now on the scrapheap are the less able ones? When will the right hon. and learned Gentleman do something about it?

Trainees have not been put on the scrap heap and the hon. Gentleman should not make allegations of that sort. The interests of trainees are being safeguarded and alternative arrangements made when it is necessary for providers to cease operating. Training and enterprise councils ensure that effective training is provided, which sometimes means that existing providers are no longer able to carry on.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement about the progress of the training credit pilots.

I was delighted to present the first training credits to young people in Suffolk on 14 February. In the coming months some 45,000 young school leavers throughout the pilot areas will have the opportunity to use training credits to obtain approved training of their choice.

Are not training credits an innovative and extremely individual approach towards training and very welcome because of that? Do they not mark an enormous contrast with the tired and outdated policies rewrapped by the Labour party which depend, as ever, on compulsion and coercion?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Labour party has learnt nothing. Its reaction is always the same—reach for a quango, impose a new tax and introduce a dose of compulsion.

Does the Minister not realise that training credit money is coming out of other money for training, which has been so savagely cut that many people—certainly those served by the Durham TEC—will lose any chance of training and that the opportunity to link training with employers is diminishing due to rising unemployment? In areas such as north-west Durham the position is critical. It is estimated that the cuts will mean up to 1,000 more people unemployed by the end of March. Can the Minister tell us how the additional money that he has announced today will save the opportunities for those people to continue in training?

The hon. Lady is entirely wrong about the funding of training credits, which included a substantial element of new money. I am sure that she will find that the additional £120 million that I announced today will go a long way towards increasing the resources that the Durham training and enterprise council will have available to meet the training needs of the county.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend recall how the Labour party objected when the Government introduced the requirement for young people to report for training if they wished to claim income support—in other words, income support was to be reduced if they did not train? Is he therefore disturbed by the present proposals that the youth training scheme should be abolished?

I never know quite what to make of the various suggestions that come from the Labour party about their proposals. Yesterday a new document was produced, which represented yet another change in their proposals. It is such a moving picture that I find it quite bewildering.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the number of people registered at the Bermondsey unemployment benefit office for each month from January 1990 until February 1991, inclusive.

The information requested for January 1990 to January 1991 can be obtained from the NOMIS—national on-line manpower information system—database in the House of Commons Library. February 1991 figures will be available on 14 March.

The Minister must be too embarrassed to give the figures. Does he concede that there was a 21 per cent. increase in unemployment in the past six months in one of the four docklands constituencies, that there was a 25 per cent. increase in female unemployment, that there is one job vacancy in the local office for every 40 people unemployed and that that is the clearest evidence of the growing recession which is sweeping the south-east, let alone the rest of the country? In a part of the world where the housing service is grossly overstretched, where the health service is pushed to its limits and where the social services cannot cope, is it a sign of success when the Government now tell people that they will lose their jobs as well? Is that a successful economic record?

The hon. Gentleman is entitled to put that sort of interpretation upon what is happening if he so wishes, but I should have thought that it would be more realistic to point out that since he was elected in 1983 unemployment has dropped dramatically in his constituency, there are 100,000 fewer unemployed in London than in 1987 and unemployment in this country is lower than the average in the European Community, which I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman supports with great fervour. I might also mention the large number of imaginative programmes that my Department is making available to the hon. Gentleman's constituents and others to help them over a difficult period if they should lose their jobs. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has already pointed out, more than a quarter of those who lose their jobs come off the register within the first month, more than half leave it within three months and two thirds of those who lose their jobs are off the register within six months. That is a much more positive way of looking at it.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any plans to replace the training undertaken at the Perivale skillcentre; and if he will make a statement.

The Perivale skill centre ceased to provide training in mid-1989 because there was ample alternative provision in the west London area. I am satisfied that the position is unchanged and that training is available, as required, under my Department's schemes.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the nearest skillcentre to Perivale is now in Twickenham, which is a long way from Ealing, where skill training has been provided for many years? Does he realise that there are many manufacturing jobs in Ealing, and that training is urgently required—on the spot, in Ealing?

I shall look into what my hon. Friend has said. West London is, however, served by ample public transport networks and there are many providers of training in the west London area. There are 11 major providers of employment training there, with 1,055 trainees contracted locally, and a further 95 with national providers. There are no fewer than 57 major providers of youth training in the area, with some 2,700 young people receiving it. That, surely, is a considerable concentration of effort in west London.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the total number of young people undergoing training on Government programmes in (a) 1978 and (b) 1990.

In 1978 there were about 6,000 young people on Government training programmes, and in November 1990 there were about 350,000.

I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. Will he remind hon. Members, especially Opposition Members, that the youth training scheme introduced by the Government, which guarantees training for every 16 and 17-year-old who needs it, has been an outstanding success and has helped many young people in Norwich? Will he confirm that extra money will be available in the coming year?

The figures that I gave in my earlier answer speak for themselves—there has been a vast increase in youth training under the present Government. I will, however, give a few more figures. Since 1983, 2·7 million young people have benefited from YTS and YT. Currently some 350,000 are receiving training, of whom 88 per cent. then go into jobs, further education or further training. According to the latest figures, 67 per cent. of those who complete the course acquire vocational qualifications. That is a considerable achievement on the part of the Government.

What advice would the Minister give Jason Hanson, a 17-year-old in my constituency who has become so desperate that he has written to the local press saying, "I have been made redundant twice and I am only 17"? The reason for those redundancies is the high interest rate imposed by the Government. Jason has tried to get on to a Government training scheme, but has been turned down because of his age; he is also unable to draw any income.

I am, of course, concerned about the individual case that the hon. Lady has raised, but the young man to whom she refers falls fairly within the guarantee of places on youth training that the Government offer.

Does my hon. Friend agree that far too many young people are still being put off youth training by Labour party propaganda? Will he take this opportunity to ensure that all young people are made well aware of what they will be missing if they do not grab the opportunity offered by this successful programme?

My hon. Friend is quite right. We must repeatedly draw attention to the availability and advantages of YT. My hon. Friend is also absolutely right about the Opposition's attitude. They like to talk big about their commitment to training, but when they were in power they were useless at it, with only 6,000 on Government training programmes. No doubt it is that bad record that lies behind the continuing refusal of Opposition spokesmen to give any commitment to funding priorities for training, as compared with increases in consumption expenditure.

If the new training scheme is as successful as the Minister claims, will he explain to the House why he is prepared to preside over cuts that will reduce the amount of money spent per trainee and reduce the overall budget by more than £130 million over the next two years?

The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the Government are increasing expenditure on YT in the coming year by £38 million over the plan. We are the first Government in British history to provide a guarantee of training to any young person under the age of 18 who is not in full-time education or in work. With the training credits scheme, which is now being piloted, we shall be extending those facilities to young people who are in jobs.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement about trends in unemployment in Barnet since 1983.

In June 1983 unemployment in the Barnet local authority district was 9,477; in June 1987, when my hon. Friend was elected to this House it was 9,633; but in January 1991 it was down to 7,144.

Does my hon. Friend agree that that dramatic improvement is due to the fact that, since 1983, there has been an increase of 500,000 in the number of people in jobs in Greater London? Does he agree that that illustrates how the social market economy creates jobs? Does he further agree that minimum wage legislation would destroy all those jobs?

Yes. I add to what my hon. Friend has rightly said by pointing out that there are now 100,000 fewer people out of work in Greater London than there were in 1987. My hon. Friend is right to point out that some of the proposals that we believe may be emanating from the Opposition Benches—although we can never he quite sure—such as a minimum wage, levies, taxes and compulsion, would all conspire to increase the level of unemployment. The Opposition would be disgraced if they admitted to that.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on current levels of unemployment and the projections of future unemployment made by economic forecasters.

In January 1991 the level of unemployment, seasonally adjusted, in the United Kingdom was 1,888,500. In line with the practice of previous Governments, we do not forecast the level of unemployment.

Will the Secretary of State admit that unemployment is rising rapidly—particularly in the south-east, where people face the tragedy of losing their job and then losing their house, which is a terrible experience for any family? Is the Secretary of State aware that many people in this country still have not recovered from the enormous growth in unemployment in the early 1980s? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman now apologise for the incompetence of his Government which has damaged the British economy and so many people's lives so badly?

I should have thought that the hon. Lady would point out that, in her constituency of Birmingham, Ladywood, unemployment was 10,319 when she was elected in June 1983; it was 8,892 in June 1987; last month it had come down to 5,940.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that, in 1983, unemployment in my constituency was 16 per cent. whereas today it is 4·6 per cent. and that the number of jobs becoming available is increasing?

My hon. Friend's experience is characteristic of what has happened to the United Kingdom economy: we have 2 million more jobs now than when Labour left office in 1979.

Does the Secretary of State agree that the £120 million announced for the unemployed is woefully inadequate when measured against the forecast of 2·5 million unemployed this year—the fastest rising unemployment rate in Europe—and a cut of £360 million in the ET budget? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman intend to introduce a temporary work programme for the unemployed?

It is no use Opposition spokesmen coming to the Dispatch Box and complaining about funding for training when the shadow Chancellor consistently refuses to make training one of the two immediate priorities on which Labour would increase spending. Opposition Members should have a word with the shadow Chancellor.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Points of order take up time. I have not heard anything out of order. What is it?

There have been five questions about unemployment. In the answers to four of those, Ministers gave figures. Why were no figures at all given in reply to the question about inner London? Is that in order?

I am not responsible for the answers that are given.

The Secretary of State is now to be informed for the third time that the sector of the unemployed who need urgent help are those with special needs. He must be aware that training and enterprise councils are reducing the numbers of places for such people as a result of substantial cuts in their funding. Will he now reply to the question that was put to him from the Labour Front Bench by stating that the funds lost as a result of those cuts will be restored following the announcement that he made today?

I repeat that, as a result of their inclusion in the aim group, people with disabilities have higher priority for employment training than they have ever had. I hope very much that the additional £120 million that I announced today will help training and enterprise councils to make more provision for those with special needs.

Many unemployed people are hopeful that they will gain places in training schemes, or will secure jobs, as a result of attendance at the very successful Government-sponsored job clubs. Those who attend these clubs testify to their success. Will the Secretary of State consider providing, in addition to the benefits that are already available, assistance with the travelling expenses of those attending interviews?

I shall certainly consider my hon. Friend's request. She is quite right to draw attention to the success of job clubs. We plan to create up to 100,000 extra opportunities in job clubs and through the job interview guarantee scheme next year.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has made any recent comparison of facilities available and the percentage of people trained in the United Kingdom and in Germany and France.

I visited France last month, and Germany last year, to look at their training arrangements. Despite the differences in approach, which make accurate statistical comparisons difficult, I found general agreement that successful competition in the 1990s will depend on employers' improving significantly the level of skill in their labour force.

Does the Secretary of State recognise that Britain has an annual trading deficit of £15 billion to £16 billion and that many shrewd economic observers put this down to poor training facilities and the lack of skilled people? In these circumstances, and despite the sweetener that he has handed out today, is it not the economics of the lunatic asylum to contemplate the provision of £500 million for training over the next two years?

If the hon. Gentleman is so concerned about the funding of our training programme, I am surprised that he did not welcome the very substantial additional funds that I announced today. We have in place the right training framework to ensure that our people will have the skills they need to compete effectively in the markets of the 1990s, and there is abundant evidence that our policies are working extremely effectively.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that even more facilities for employment training would be required if we were to adopt the Labour party's policies and introduce statutory minimum wages and impose restrictions on part-time workers?

My hon. Friend is, of course, entirely right. The policies of the Labour party would lead to a very substantial loss of jobs. Labour Members show no recognition of the fact that there is no point in talking about training if one is not prepared to have adequate differentials to reward those who acquire the skills that training makes possible.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the latest figures for unemployment in the United Kingdom and what were the figures for June 1979.

The level of unemployment in the United Kingdom on the seasonally adjusted, consistent, basis was 1,888,500 in January 1991 compared with 1,067,500 in June 1979.

After more than 11 years, the Government have managed to push up their fiddled employment figures by more than 800,000. The chances are that, in the course of this year, unemployment will worsen. In the past few months, we have seen a further demonstration that it is possible to organise a war economy. Why, then, do not the Government use the same expertise to get rid of the dole queue?

Why does not the hon. Gentleman recognise that 2 million more people are in work now than in 1979 when his party last left office? This country has more people in work than ever before and one of the lowest unemployment rates in the whole of the European Community.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, if one wants to increase employment, one should not increase the cost of labour to employers? Therefore, are not proposals to impose a compulsory training tax or a statutory minimum wage fatuously inappropriate and potentially destructive?

My hon. Friend is entirely right. The statutory minimum wage proposal alone would destroy 750,000 jobs and the Opposition's policies would combine to ensure that unemployment rose to record levels.

Is the Secretary of State aware that, in Scotland, every time we hear an announcement that unemployment is rising we call it the Tory fiddlers' rally, because we do not believe the figures. Just last week, there were savage cuts in training—[Interruption.]—so much so that it was like the new Secretary of State sending the bride to the wedding without her wedding dress. That is the extent of the problem that the Government have created. There is a lack of funding, to ensure that people can find jobs—[Interruption.]

Order. Did the Secretary of State hear that?

I think, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. Gentleman was telling us how exceptionally well the Scottish economy is doing, and I entirely agree with him.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the number of working days lost because of industrial disputes in the six months to (a) December 1978 and (b) December 1990.

There were 6 million working days lost in the six months to December 1978; in the six months to December 1990, just 300,000 days were lost. That is less than one twentieth of the 1978 figure.

Does my hon. Friend detect a link between the sharp reduction in the number of strikes and the Government's industrial relations reforms? Does he recall that the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) called ballots an irrelevant effrontery? Do not the consequences since that time prove that his verdict is entirely wrong?

Yes, my hon. Friend is right to say that the Government's steady but consistent policy of reform of industrial relations has brought the trade unions into a proper relationship with their members and society at large. A vital by-product of that process is the dramatic fall in industrial strikes, which has been a major factor in attracting inward investment to this country and in increasing employment.

Will the Minister confirm that, every year since 1978, the number of days lost through injury and health problems at work has vastly dominated losses in every other sphere? Why are there ministerial tantrums when the issue of industrial disputes is raised, but complacency and inaction when people are injured or die at work?

I am disappointed that the hon. Gentleman should criticise the excellent work of the independent

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many mill and company closures and redundancies have been notified to his Department in each of the last six months by the textile and clothing industry and the paper and board industry; and if he will make a statement.

As the reply consists of a table of figures, I shall, with permission, arrange for the information to be printed in the Official Report.

Does my hon. Friend accept that the textile and clothing and the paper and board industries are vital to many regions of this country, are essential to this country's economy, that many people are employed in them and that they have made many investments? Will he use the best expertise of his Department to ensure that other Departments of State, particularly the Treasury, realise that high interest rates are killing those industries, which are not operating on a level playing field? Those industries are essential if this country is to play its part in the future of the European Community and the world at large.

I agree that those industries are important. I shall draw my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of my right hon. and hon. Friends in the relevant Departments.

The textile and clothing and paper and board industries are of great importance to us in Northern Ireland. Will the Minister seek the co-operation of his Government colleagues to ensure that, in future GATT negotiations, as much protection as possible will be afforded to our textile and clothing industry in Northern Ireland and throughout the United Kingdom?

We all understand in the House that the only sure basis on which industry can succeed is to be competitive. That is why it is Government policy to phase out the protection arrangements in the textile industry, although we shall do so over a long period. That is a matter for the Department of Trade and Industry. The GATT negotiations are about to resume and they will provide an opportunity to further pursue such matters.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 26 February.

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

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that there can be no ceasefire in the Gulf war until all relevant United Nations resolutions have been fully implemented, prisoners of war and Kuwaiti hostages held in Iraq have been released and all Iraqi troops have laid down their arms?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, but unfortunately the conditions that he so succinctly set out have not yet been met. As my hon. Friend will know, Saddam Hussein spoke again this morning, but without giving any indication whatsoever that Iraq will comply with all the Security Council resolutions. Instead, this morning Saddam Hussein reiterated his untrue claim that Kuwait was part of Iraq and threatened implicitly to return. He must know that meeting the Security Council resolutions is an essential step, and he must publicly and explicitly do so.

May I take this opportunity strongly to commend our forces for the bravery and professionalism that they are showing in the liberation of Kuwait? Does the Prime Minister share my view that Saddam Hussein could halt the war instantly if he were personally to announce his complete compliance with all relevant United Nations resolutions and, in addition, immediately release all the prisoners of war and civilians he is holding against their will in both Kuwait and Iraq?

The right hon. Gentleman is entirely right and I agree with him without reservation. He will know that, even this morning, Saddam Hussein said—I shall quote him because there was an implicit threat in what he said:

"the Gates of Constantinople were not opened before the Muslims in the first struggling attempt."

As Saddam Hussein, like the devil, is the father of lies, would my right hon. Friend ensure that all in authority take not the slightest notice of what he says, but only of what he does?

I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. There have been many occasions in recent months when Saddam Hussein expressly told untruths. At one stage, his Foreign Minister was negotiating on one tack while he was speaking and acting on another. We simply cannot and do not trust him.

Does the Prime Minister agree that, despite today's welcome news, there is still much hard and potentially costly work to be done before Kuwait is made secure? He is entirely right to say that the safety of our troops and the long-term security of Kuwait mean that any Iraqi troops who wish to return home may do so, but only after they have surrendered their weapons. If they do so, will he say that, once Kuwait is at last liberated, secure and free from threat, Desert Storm will end?

The right hon. Gentleman is quite right. Those are the circumstances in which Desert Storm can end. He is right to emphasise yet again the safety and security of our troops. Frankly, I do not believe that either they or world opinion would forgive us if, at this stage of the conflict, we permitted the Iraqis to withdraw with their weapons, perhaps with risk to our troops and the risk that they would return later.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 26 February.

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

Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government have established 12 regional technology centres to aid technology transfer? Can he also confirm that under this Government, the number of science parks has increased from two to 39 with 22 more planned and that spending on civil research and development is higher, as a percentage of the gross national product, in this country than in Japan or in the United States? Does he agree that calls for the establishment of such policies, when they are already in train, merely demonstrates that those who call for them show muddle and ignorance, which dominate Labour party thinking?

I cannot immediately imagine to what document my hon. Friend is referring. If, perchance, he is referring to the document on industrial and manufacturing matters that was released yesterday by the Labour party, he is a little unkind. There were some good ideas in that document. Unfortunately, the good ideas are already being implemented and the bad ideas are being recycled.

Does the Prime Minister agree with the Secretary of State for the Environment who wants to do away with the poll tax or with the Minister of State for the Environment who has gone on record in the Ribble Valley by-election as saying that he wishes to keep it?

The next Member of Parliament for Ribble Valley, who I hope will soon be on the Conservative Benches, will be here in time to hear the result of our review of the community charge.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 26 February.

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

Does my right hon. Friend agree that an industrial policy that is based on the creation of quangos, subsidies and inadequately costed tax breaks is, as the Financial Times called it this morning, a "recipe for … economic distortion"?

I agree with my hon. Friend, but, again, I fear that he is being too charitable. He has forgotten the reinvention of the son of National Enterprise Board, an enterprise which took money away from viable businesses to pick winners which, alas, went bust.

What emphasis will the Government put on reparations from Iraq and to what extent will they be demanded? Moreover, what is the attitude of other Governments in the coalition?

The attitude is set out in the Security Council's resolutions. All Governments in the coalition subscribe to them and that remains the position.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 26 February.

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

This House has been powerfully united against the terrorism practised by Saddam Hussein in Kuwait. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is important that the House is also united against the evil acts of terrorism in this country and that it supports all measures, including the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989? Will he have a word with the Leader of the Opposition to encourage him to be more robust on the issue?

No one doubts the commitment of the whole House to deal effectively with terrorism and not to give way to it. In my judgment, the widest possible support for the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act would be a welcome event and would help to that end.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 26 February.

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

I know that the Prime Minister is involved in many important duties. However, will he understand one thing? The real enemy is at home; the enemy is the capitalist system and the Tory Government. They are responsible for the problems of the British people.

It is a rum occasion when I have to take lessons in dogma from the hon. Gentleman.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 26 February.

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

As a successful end to the hostilities in the Gulf is happily within reach, will my right hon. Friend now ensure that the allies will combat, with the same vigour and single-mindedness of purpose, the premeditated ecological vandalism perpetrated by Saddam Hussein? It places at risk the worldwide environment from acid deposition, from accelerated global warming and from desertification, and it also pollutes and poisons the waters of the Gulf.

My hon. Friend is right and he touches on an important point. The United Kingdom has already made a substantial contribution to help to deal with the pollution caused by the Iraqis in recent weeks. I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. An international effort will be needed and we will be part of that.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 26 February.

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

As it is clear that some of the right hon. Gentleman's Social Security Ministers want to continue the freeze on child benefit and that some do not, will he tell us which ones he will back? Will he pledge now to make good the four-year cut in child benefit or will people have to rely on his one-off, occasional piecemeal statements at the Dispatch Box for their basic benefits?

The hon. Gentleman knows very well that there are occasions when we make statements on public expenditure matters such as child benefit. This is not one of them.

When accounts are rendered for the Gulf war, will the Prime Minister seek to obtain an explanation of the extraordinary behaviour of the Soviet Union in recent days? Will he make it plain to the Soviet Government that they can play ball either with the west or with Iraq, but not with both?

I shall have the opportunity to discuss all those matters with Mr. Gorbachev early next week.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 26 February.

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

Is the Prime Minister aware that hundreds of young Scots, half of them aged under 18, pass through London's night shelters every year and that research has shown that on average each of those youngsters has less than £2? Why does the Prime Minister continue to deny to the 16 and 17-year-olds among them the right to benefit? Is the fate of those youngsters who have been thrown on to the streets and are vulnerable to drugs and prostitution a matter of complete indifference to the Prime Minister and his Government?

The hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong, as he knows. We have provided unprecedented training opportunities for young people of that age. There is no necessity whatsoever for any of them to be sleeping rough on the streets of London.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 26 February.

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

Does my right hon. Friend agree that just as the world recognises the strength and discipline of our armed forces, so it should recognise the strength and discipline of our economy? Is not our pound sterling as strong as Chobham armour?

I agree. My hon. Friend will know that there has been a remarkable series of events in recent months and he will also know that sterling has remained remarkably stable despite those events.

During his visit to Northern Ireland last week, did anyone raise with the Prime Minister the security value of fixed military checkpoints? Did anyone point out that over the past 20 years nothing of security value has been found at such checkpoints, and that they have become security risks providing targets in the form of the young soldiers and policemen who man them? Is the Prime Minister considering reviewing the use of such checkpoints?

I discussed a raft of security matters during my meetings in Northern Ireland last week. However, the hon. Gentleman is aware that it would be unwise to discuss them.