To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement about the current level of unemployment.

Unemployment in the United Kingdom, measured on the consistent seasonally adjusted series, was 2,175,000 in April 1991. It remains the case that there are now 1·3 million more jobs in Britain than in 1979 and over 3 million more jobs than in 1983. Job prospects will again improve following the resumption of economic growth.

The Minister's statement will not offer any hope to the quarter more people in my constituency who have become unemployed since last year. Does he agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that such levels of unemployment are a price well worth paying for the faint or, should I say, vague signs of recovery that only his right hon. Friend discerns in the economy?

The point made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor was that it is essential to overcome inflation if we are to restore competitiveness to our economy and create the conditions in which jobs can once again grow. If the hon. Gentleman is as concerned about unemployment as he claims to be, will he talk to his colleagues on the Opposition Front Bench and get them to abandon their job destruction package, which will destroy so many jobs in Britain?

Would not the greatest threat to jobs be to let inflation go unchecked or to impose a national minimum wage or, worse still, to do both'? Is not that precisely what would result from the wild promises made repeatedly by the Opposition?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Opposition cling to that absurd policy which is denounced on both sides of the House and which would undoubtedly destroy jobs on a devastating scale; yet they claim to be concerned about the fate of the unemployed.

With an estimated 5,500 compulsory or voluntary liquidations in the first quarter of this year in England and Wales, can the Secretary of State give us some idea how many jobs have been lost in small businesses this year? As banks are allegedly charging interest rates well above the base rate, what advice does the Minister with responsibility for small businesses give to the banks?

The hon. Gentleman will recognise that one would need to take net figures for job creation if one were considering small businesses separately. The latest figures that we have show that during last year over 800 more businesses a week were starting up than were going out of business. It is typical of Opposition Members that they are keen to talk about businesses closing down, but they consistently fail to recognise the new businesses that are starting up and being created every day in Britain.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the minimum wages policy which exists, perhaps in name only, throughout the European Community and America is allowed to exist only because the levels of wages under it are so low and that the entry of the East Germans, whose attempt to raise wages artificially has created enormous unemployment, shows that if the Opposition were to try to impose their policy it would undoubtedly create enormous unemployment and dislocation in the labour market?

I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me if I take this opportunity of correcting a fabrication that is being put about by the Opposition. It certainly is not the case that a statutory minimum wage exists within the EC. That is far from the truth. A statutory minimum wage exists in only four countries in the Community. In those countries, the points made by my hon. Friend are absolutely right: the minimum wage is honoured more in the breach than in the observance. If Labour Members are interested in reducing unemployment, they would do well to recognise that in socialist France and Spain, which have a statutory minimum wage policy, unemployment is far higher than in this country.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that this country has not only the fastest rising unemployment of any nation in Europe and in the western world, but falling output and investment and it is also cutting training for the unemployed? When will that unique combination of economic failure and political indifference end? When will the Government start to restore the training budget for the unemployed by introducing the work experience programme that they need and taking responsibility for the unemployment that they are creating?

The hon. Gentleman knows that only a short time ago I announced an increase of £120 million in resources for employment training. It is beyond dispute—the hon. Gentleman consistently fails to face up to this—that had Labour been in office over the past few years, unemployment would be much higher than it is today. Were Labour to gain office again in the future, unemployment would be very much higher than it is today. That is why the British people will never make the mistake of electing Labour to government.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that employment in Portsmouth is much better than it was at the time of the last general election and that the policies of private enterprise are the best to carry forward employment prospects? Will my right hon. and learned Friend keep emphasising that Labour's job-destroying policies are the last thing that the people of Portsmouth want and that every previous Labour Government have left office with higher unemployment than they inherited?

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. It is true that every Labour Government has left behind higher unemployment than when they took office. My hon. Friend's comments about the fall in unemployment in Portsmouth since the last general election apply across the whole country.[Interruption.]

rose—

Order. Let us move into calmer waters.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people were employed in training agencies and how many were engaged in full-time courses on 1 February in the area served by Rotherham training and enterprise councils; how many people are now so employed; and what is the change in the number of full-time training places since February.

On 1 February 1991, there were 2,977 people in training in the area served by Rotherham training and enterprise council. On 30 April 1991, there were 2,392 people in training. The number of people employed by training providers is a matter for the providers themselves.

A moment, ago the Secretary of State used the word "devastating". Does the Minister accept that areas that have been economically devastated during the past decade, such as South Yorkshire, should benefit from improved and more meaningful training, rather than suffer the cuts and curbs that have been inflicted on them in recent months? Does the Minister accept that we must prepare for the day when we have an intelligent Government who will encourage and revive industrial investment?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we must do everything that we can to help unemployed people. That may involve training, but also other measures, such as helping them to find work through building their confidence and motivation, and so on. The Government are providing a wide range of opportunities, which are leading to 100,000 people being placed in work every month.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the measures that he has taken to implement his proposals for training credits for 16 to 19-year-olds.

The first 11 pilot schemes started in April and are offering training credits to around 45,000 young people—about 10 per cent. of the 16 and 17-year-olds leaving full-time education this year. The White Paper presented to the House on 20 May set out our aim that within the lifetime of the next Parliament, every 16 and 17-year-old leaving full-time education will have the offer of a place on a training scheme. I shall shortly be issuing a prospectus inviting bids from TECs to run a second round of schemes to operate from April 1993.

When my right hon. and learned Friend visits west Lancashire and Skelmersdale on Friday, will he point out to the employers whom he will meet that unemployment in west Lancashire is 37୰5 per cent. lower than it was at the last general election? Will he point out also the advantages of his training credit scheme, the flexibility that it offers 16 and 17-year-olds, and the overall improvement in skills that it will offer to the work force in my constituency and in the north-west of England?

I look forward greatly to visiting my hon. Friend's constituency on Friday. I shall certainly take the opportunity of drawing the attention of employers there to everything that he said—although I expect them to know all about it already, as they are probably far too sensible to be taken in by the constant misrepresentations of the Labour party.

Will the Secretary of State visit Bradford, which suffers from soaring unemployment and has been known for years as "low-pay city"? Will he take my advice and refrain from lecturing the unemployed about the inequities of the minimum wage? What they would like is an explanation of why the right hon. and learned Gentleman has cut the city's training budget by £2 million, why training workshops stand idle and why training providers have been made redundant. That is what the unemployed want to hear; they do not want third-rate lectures about the minimum wage.

I have paid many enjoyable visits to Bradford in the past and look forward to visiting it again soon. Bradford has a particularly effective training and enterprise council, which is addressing its training needs in a particularly effective way. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will want to associate himself fully with its excellent work.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that this year nearly 60 per cent. of 16-year-olds are staying on at school or going to college, which is what they should be doing if we are to catch up with our international competitors? For the minority of youngsters who still leave school at the earliest possible opportunity, my right hon. and learned Friend's training credits proposals are flexible and sensible and will enable those young people to make proper choices about the training that they take up.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her support. I entirely agree with her comments.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the latest steps that he has taken to improve the employment prospects of disabled people.

My Department has continued to develop the wide range of mainstream and specialist services that can help people with disabilities to get and keep employment. From this April, we have given unemployed people with disabilities priority access to four of our main employment and training programmes. In April, we also announced changes to improve the effectiveness of our specialist disability services and our local and national advisory bodies.

Notwithstanding those steps, is the Minister aware that disabled people suffer from serious discrimination in the jobs market, although they are entitled to the same protection under the law as has been enjoyed by ethnic minorities and women for the past 15 years? The United States has introduced wide-ranging and effective anti-discrimination legislation; when will we follow suit?

We have attempted to deal with that problem through, for example, the quota system, which has been in place for some 40 years but has not proved particularly effective.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the increased opportunities that are being given to training and enterprise councils for training the disabled. Is he aware that the main colleges that train people with disabilities for industry—colleges such as St. Loyes in Exeter—rely increasingly on TECs to provide the necessary input? Will he give his full support to the pilot scheme that has enabled some regional TECs to come together to ensure that that input is provided?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is very important for TECs and colleges—and, Indeed, others representing the interests of disabled people—to work closely together. It is interesting that 11 per cent. of the total spend on employment training carried out by the TECs goes to people with disabilities.

Can my hon. Friend confirm that nowadays every disabled 16 and 17-year-old youngster has an opportunity to take up a training place? Can he also confirm that such opportunities were not available to disabled youngsters when Labour was last in power?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Disabled young people in the age group to which he referred benefit from the youth training guarantee, which was not available when the Labour party was in office. Furthermore, youth training was not available then, either. Only 6,000 young people had training places in 1979, compared with hundreds of thousands today.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people under the age of 25 years are currently unemployed; and if he will make a statement.

In April 1991 there were 662,078 unemployed claimants under 25. That compares with 1,025,939 in April 1987 and 1,286,182 in January 1985. Latest comparable figures from the European Commission show that United Kingdom unemployment among the under-25s, at 12·3 per cent., is lower than the European Community average of 16·4 per cent.

Is not it true these days that many young people leave school with no job, no hope and no future? The reasons are obvious. In my constituency, for example, Ferranti is closing Bellesk house, Ranks Hovis McDougall is closing the Caledonia mills, and SAI, under Government pressure, is closing its fertiliser plant. That is a disgrace. Would not it be more appropriate if the Government got on their bike and allowed a socialist Government to take over? That is what is being demanded from outside.

I shall leave the hon. Gentleman to decide whether a socialist Government is on offer to the country. He may wish to discuss that with his hon. Friends.

As white-collar unemployment. not least among the under-25s, appears to be rising, arguably faster than unemployment in other sectors of the economy, will my hon. Friend reconsider some of the training programmes and initiatives—especially, perhaps, some of the advertising by his Department to aid the jobless? There are clear signs that the advertisements seem rather more clearly directed at those seeking jobs in manufacturing industry, whereas the fastest rise in unemployment is in evidence in the service sector, not least in London and the south-east.

I regret that my hon. Friend has got that impression. We have tried to take great care to ensure that advertising by the Department covers the full spread of activities. The answer to my hon. Friend's reasonable request is that the network of training and enterprise councils is almost complete throughout the land and that we are giving TECs the flexibility to identify local training needs in their communities and to tailor training programmes appropriately. Both the Secretary of State and the Department give that aspect great emphasis and my recent contact with TECs has given me enormous confidence that they can deliver a sensitively tailored local package of training for each area. I hope that the TEC in my hon. Friend's area is doing the same—I am sure that it is.

Why do young people continue to bear the brunt of the Government's incompetence and mismanagement of the economy? Will the Minister tell the House why in the rest of Europe unemployment among the under-25s has been rising at 1 per cent. over the past year, whereas in Britain there has been a spectacular 32 per cent. increase? Will the party of mass unemployment tell us now when it will take that issue seriously, or does it once again agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who said that unemployment was a price well worth paying?

Let us take as an agreed starting point the figure that I gave in my original answer, which was that unemployment among the under-25s in this country is 12·3 per cent. I must tell the hon. Gentleman that, so far from having 12·3 per cent., socialist Spain—a country with which he will no doubt feel an affinity—has 29·9 per cent. unemployment among the under-25s. In Italy, which was run by a coalition Government when I last looked, the figure is 29·4 per cent. In France, a country often cited by the Opposition—at least when it suits them—the figure is 18·7 per cent. Our record may not be perfect, but the record of the continental countries is a jolly sight worse.

My hon. Friend is far too young to remember what it was like when there was last a Labour Government, but can he remind us from his records what was the usual practice for the majority of 16 and 17-year-olds when the previous Labour Government were in power and what is now on offer for them?

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. I am glad that he reminded me of what happened under the last Labour Government—although I shall have to take his word for it, for reasons that he gave. The Labour Government abandoned young people to the dole queue, whereas this Government have introduced positive and imaginative schemes to ensure that no 16, 17 and 18-year-old need be unemployed except from his own choice. That shows more clearly than anything the difference between this Government and the Opposition in terms of attitudes and policies.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many training places are available under (a) training and enterprise councils, (b) other Government programmes and (c) local authority programmes; and how many were available under Government and local authority programmes in 1989 and 1990 in the United Kingdom.

The information is not available in the form requested. In March 1991, 547,000 people were in training provided through TECs and local enterprise companies. The corresponding figures for March 1990 and March 1989 were 554,000 and 553,000 respectively.

I am sorry that the Minister cannot give me the information in the form in which I requested it. Nevertheless, his reply shows that there has been a reduction in training places. Has there been a massive reduction in TEC-provided training places for the disabled? That has certainly happened with Mid Glamorgan TEC and I have the impression that the disabled have generally been forgotten by the TECs.

I assure the hon. Gentleman that that is not the case. I suspect that he may be confusing training providers with those who benefit from training. It is true that there have been particular difficulties in Mid Glamorgan, arising from the fact that many voluntary providers of training places have failed to achieve approved training organisation status, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that the needs of the disabled are fully taken into account by the TECs.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that one of the most important questions to be taken into account in considering training places is the number of people available for them? Is not it true that we face a substantial decline in the number of young people of school-leaving age and just above, added to which there has been a welcome but substantial increase in the number of young people staying on at school and undertaking further education, and that that is a perfectly understandable reason why there should be less need to have so many training places available for people in that age group?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We maintain a guarantee of a youth training place to every young school leaver aged 16 or 17 who is unemployed and we shall continue to honour that guarantee.

Can the Secretary of State tell us the name of a single chairman of a training and enterprise council or of a single member of a TEC board who supports the cuts that he made in his Department's training budget? At a time when trainers are being made redundant right across the country, why is he sabotaging the TEC movement?

The hon. Gentleman knows very well that the TEC movement is going from strength to strength and is far from being sabotaged. Members of TEC boards would take the hon. Gentleman's criticisms very ill indeed. He knows, as Chairman of the Employment Select Committee, that, as a result of surveys that we carried out, we carefully considered the provision needed. We have adjusted the balance of training places and other provision, and this year we are providing up to 100,000 extra opportunities for unemployed people in job clubs and under the job interview guarantee scheme.

When evaluating the more than 500,000 training places that are available today, will my right hon. and learned Friend recall how many such training places were available in 1979 under the Labour Government?

I can give my hon. Friend the figures. When the Labour party left office in 1979, 6,000 young people were receiving training; the comparable figure today is 350,000

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps are being taken by his Department to encourage training initiatives for people with disabilities.

Training and enterprise councils and local enterprise companies in Scotland are required to set out in their business plans how they intend to provide training for people with special needs, including those with disabilities. These plans form the basis of their contract. From April this year, people with disabilities are being given higher priority than before by being included in the aim group for employment training.

Will the Secretary of State meet the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation, which will provide him with concrete evidence of how young disabled people are being denied their training rights? Will he inform the training and enterprise councils that they have a contractual responsibility to deal with these matters, and that they should meet it? Will he discourage his ministerial colleague from complaining about the quota system as Departments have an appalling record, and his own is no exception?

I will not answer the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question because the Government's position on the quota was explained fully a few moments ago by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State. My hon. Friend or I would be happy to meet the organisation to which the hon. Gentleman referred. We are happy to discuss these matters with it, and I can confirm that training and enterprise councils are contractually bound to make available training places for people with special needs, including people with disabilities.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the Government introduced the legislation that ensures that all 16 and 17-year-olds, including disabled youngsters, are entitled to training, and that that legislation did not exist under the Labour Government? It is humbug to pretend otherwise.

My hon. Friend is right. There was no guarantee for young people, disabled or otherwise, when the Labour party was in office. It is no use Opposition Members parroting from sedentary positions matters relating to unemployment at that time, because we know very well that Ministers in the previous Labour Government wanted to introduce schemes such as we have introduced but did not have the resources to do so because of the abject failure of their economic policy.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give the unemployment figures for Eccles for (a) April 1990 and (b) April 1991.

On the unadjusted basis, there were 3,609 unemployed claimants in the Eccles parliamentary constituency in April 1991, compared with 2,919 in April 1990.

May I remind the Minister that every time the Government change the method by which they calculate unemployment and knock hundreds of people off the register, it does not alter the reality that the people who have been knocked off the register are still unemployed? Furthermore, will he recognise that we do not have a minimum wage in Eccles, in the travel-to-work area of Salford or in the north-west, but we have a growing number of unemployed people, particularly among those under 25? Does he think that that is more likely to be explained by a lack of investment and a lack of training than by anything else?

As the hon. Lady referred to the minimum wage, she must say whether it would help to improve employment prospects in Eccles.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many women now have equal pay with men.

The information is not available. Between 1970 and 1990 the differential between men's and women's full-time average hourly earnings narrowed significantly. This demonstrates that the labour market, reinforced by equal pay legislation, is working to the advantage of women.

Is the Minister aware that when Labour introduced equal pay legislation in 1974, every Tory said that it would cost I million women's jobs and that it would decimate the retail industry and catering? It did not. Is he aware that the minimum wage of £3·40 an hour proposed by Labour would not either? McDonald's would sell just as many hamburgers after the minimum wage is introduced as it does now. The only difference would be that McDonald's employees would receive a damned good pay rise, but there would be the same number of jobs.

I am sure that the progress that has been made towards equal pay for men and women has occurred because of the operation of the labour market and of demographics rather than legislative intervention. Intervention in the form of a minimum wage as proposed by the hon. Gentleman would certainly reduce the availability of jobs, which would be especially damaging to the interests of women and of disabled workers.

Does the Minister recognise that women do not wish to be patronised by the Labour party and that the Labour party's commitment to women and to minimum wage levels would better be demonstrated if it gave women minimal opportunity in the trade union movement?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right.

Does the Minister agree with the assessment of the Equal Opportunities Commission that our present equal pay laws are a paradise for lawyers, but hell for women? Will the Government continue with their present line of hypocrisy and incompetence when dealing with equal pay? Most of the gains were made in the early days of the equal pay legislation under the previous Labour Government. Do the Government intend to respond positively to the Equal Opportunities Commission's demand for tougher laws on equal pay and if so, will they do so soon?

I have discussed these issues with the Equal Opportunities Commission. It is difficult to find a way around the problem of establishing in law what is equal value for equal pay and of applying it in particular cases. It requires extensive advice from experts, which draws out the proceedings. I must say that we have succeeded in improving the position of women workers. We have the second highest proportion of women at work in the European Community and there are more women working in Britain—about 12 million—than in any other country in the European Community. That suggests that we have been doing a good job for women.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received on the White Paper "Education and Training for the 21st Century"; and if he will make a statement.

The White Paper has had a very positive reception. Training and enterprise councils and local education authorities have welcomed our proposals and are keen to contribute to the delivery of education and the development of their responsibilities in this area.

Is not it correct that training credits will give our young people choice and incentives in training rather than the incentive to stay on the dole offered by the Opposition? The Opposition's policies would reduce the number of jobs, reduce choice and reduce the incentives to train.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He is clear about the difference between the parties on that subject. I wish that the same could be said for the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) who, when questioning me on the White Paper, said that he would see how the training credits progressed, although he knew perfectly well that training credits were entirely inconsistent with the policy of compulsion pursued by the Opposition.

Is not it clear that despite the very expensive public relations launch of the White Paper, it contained no figures on the cost of introducing the measures proposed? Does not that make it clear that the Government, who have already made cuts in training at a time of rising unemployment, have neither the political nor the economic will to ensure that this country secures the best educated and best trained work force in western Europe? The Government need to consider not their White Paper, but their record. If trainers do that, they will realise that they have no future to look forward to.

The hon. Gentleman could not be more wrong. When the White Paper was introduced, I gave the additional cost of the training credit proposal—of £14 million and £35 million—in the first two years of its operation. The hon. Gentleman simply does not know what he is talking about. I had hoped that he would rise to clarify the confusion that exists in the mind of his hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) on these matters.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that those who opposed the technical and vocational education initiative, who fought against youth training and who opposed the introduction of the youth training scheme are utterly discredited on any question of education and training? Will he give the Labour party one last chance to come into the 20th century and to recognise the contribution that all those schemes have made to training for young people?

I am not optimistic that the Labour party would take that opportunity. The Labour party has opposed tooth and nail every training initiative that the Government have introduced over the past 12 years. Labour has no credentials to talk about training.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the unemployment figures for 1979–80 and 1989–90.

On the consistent seasonally adjusted basis, United Kingdom unemployment averaged 1,072,500 in the financial year 1979–80 compared with 1,702,200 in 1989–90.

Does not the Secretary of State feel ashamed of himself? Is he aware that a Secretary of State not far from him is on his way, according to the newspapers? The whole House will agree that it is time he went.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman, who has long experience of these matters and who has a particular contribution to make, will at least have a word with his right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench and tell them how damaging their proposals for a minimum wage would be. The hon. Gentleman knows that Barbara Castle pointed out in 1969 how devastating such proposals would be. Why cannot he have a word with his hon. Friends and get them to see sense?

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what measures he is taking to increase the role of training and enterprise councils in strengthening the ties between employers and education.

Training and enterprise councils already have a major role in strengthening local ties between employers and education. The White Paper "Education and Training for the 21st Century" creates new opportunities to extend those ties through the extension of training credits, the expansion of compacts and involvement in the careers service, in partnership with local education authorities.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend join me in sending good wishes to the Canterbury Industrial Consultative Council whose representatives are having lunch today in the House of Commons and several of whose members are active with the new Kent training and enterprise council? Does he agree that the TECs provide the opportunity to bring training closer to the marketplace and to ensure that training in each county is exactly the training needed by local employers and by local industry?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The Kent TEC is one of the 11 pilot schemes for the training credit and that is having a revolutionary effect on the attitude of young people in our county and in other counties.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the current level of unemployment in the United Kingdom and the north-west region of England.

In April 1991, the seasonally adjusted level of unemployment in the United Kingdom was 2,175,100, compared with 275,300 in the north-west region.

Will the huge further increase in unemployment to be announced later this week demonstrate that the Government's economic strategy is working and that unemployment is a worthwhile price to pay to get inflation down?

The hon. Gentleman might be interested to know that unemployment in his constituency of St. Helens is 34 per cent. lower than it was at the time of the last election.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has received any representations from the Fabian Society concerning proposals for a national minimum wage.

I have not received any representations from the Fabian Society but I have a copy of its recent pamphlet "Making a Minimum Wage Work". The Fabians quote an independent estimate that the Labour party's policy for a national minimum wage could destroy up to 880,000 jobs.

As it is now well known that a policy of minimum wages is likely to destroy jobs in their hundreds of thousands, will my right hon. and learned Friend take steps to abolish the remainder of the wages councils, which do nothing to protect employment and everything to destroy jobs?

I have already made it clear that wages councils do not have a permanent place in our system. As to the minimum wage, I want to be fair to the Labour party. I am prepared to make it this offer. If it does not accept our estimates of how many jobs a minimum wage would cost, it can let me have its estimate of how many jobs it would cost. I am prepared to have its estimates examined by my Department's officials. We will publish the results and let the country know them so that everyone knows just how devastatingly damaging the Labour party's proposals would be.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 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.

Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the England cricket team on the marvelous win in Yorkshire yesterday? Does he equally welcome the sharp fall in wage increases announced yesterday and in producer prices announced today? Does not that demonstrate that his Government's policies against inflation have what it takes to build a long and successful innings while the whole country knows that under Labour the economy would be for ever trapped leg before wicket?

There are some dangerous metaphors there. I certainly welcome the producer price figures. They are extremely good. The fall in the underlying, as well as the headline, rate of inflation is very welcome news indeed. It shows clearly that we are now well on target for the Budget forecast of a 4 per cent. inflation rate this autumn. It is also encouraging that wage bargaining is beginning to reflect falling inflation and the realities of exchange rate mechanism membership. That is very good indeed for industries' competitiveness. On the first part of my hon. Friend's question, I am happy to congratulate the England team, but, in doing so, I remind him and everyone that the West Indies is a formidable side and there is a long way to go yet.

Will the Prime Minister now be asking his right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) to step down as President of the Bruges group?

That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher).

Is it not apparent from today's events and yesterday's events that what we are seeing is not Britain at the heart of Europe but deep division at the heart of the Conservative party? [Interruption.]

Order.

Is it not the Prime Minister's duty to clear up the confusion in the ranks of his own Government, which can do nothing but damage Britain's interests?

I am not quite sure what the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) might think about the degree of unity that the right hon. Gentleman suggests is on his Benches. We are negotiating in the intergovernmental conferences on exactly the same basis as that on which we first started. The position on economic and monetary union has not changed in any way. I have set out repeatedly the circumstances and conditions under which we are negotiating.

Can the Prime Minister tell us why 11 finance Ministers and a couple of Commissioners in a meeting yesterday with the Chancellor got entirely the wrong end of the stick?

I can say categorically to the right hon. Gentleman, as I did a moment ago, that there is no change whatever in our negotiating position on Europe. I have repeatedly set that out over recent months.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 June.

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

In welcoming the current ministerial visit to the Lebanon and in recognising the help that the Syiian and Iranian Governments are providing on the hostage problem, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he recognises an additional ingredient in the conundrum, namely, the holding by the Israeli Government of Sheikh Obeid and other Lebanese hostages? Will he please make known on behalf of his Government to Mr. Shamir that that ingredient is a problem, and that we expect the Israelis to be as helpful as possible in resolving it?

I agree with my hon. Friend, and can tell him that the Prime Minister of Israel is aware of my views on that matter. It is wrong for any country to take and hold hostages, and I have communicated that view to Israel on more than one occasion. Our objective is to see the release as soon as possible of all hostages, and we count on any Government with influence to use it for the return of hostages. They should be back with their families where they belong.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 June.

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

How will the Prime Minister respond to the demand from those of his supporters who say that he should veto a single currency here and now? Will he back a single currency when it comes before this Parliament for decision, or is he scared to say?

There is no veto as such. There is a requirement that treaty changes can come into effect only if agreed by all member states and by their Parliaments. I have repeatedly said that we will not agree to any treaty on EMU which does not safeguard the interests of this country. I am happy to reiterate that.

Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to welcome the visit to the House of Britain's first astronaut, Helen Sharman? Does he agree that her courage and professionalism is a matter of national pride? Will he take this opportunity to urge British industry and science to join with the Government in the careful and continued look at further opportunities for international space collaboration?

I look forward to meeting Miss Sharman shortly and to congratulating her on her courage and on her remarkable achievement. I happily agree with my hon. Friend's other comments.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 June.

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

Is the Prime Minister aware that there are some creatures who, when removed from their settled natural habitat, can turn dangerously unpredictable in their behaviour [Interruption.]

Order.

Since allowing them to wander freely abroad has caused some difficulty—[Interruption.]

Order. Interruptions take up a great deal of time.

—has the right hon. Gentleman any proposals to extend the requirements for muzzles and leashes to the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher)?

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, every hon. Member has the right and the duty to speak their mind, and that is entirely proper.

She never said that.

That is entirely proper, and it is a freedom which I propose to exercise myself.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 June.

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

Now that Mr. James Baker's middle east peace mission has fallen into serious trouble, and given that the United Kingdom was the first sponsor of United Nations' resolution 242, would not this be a good moment for the United Kingdom and its European Community partners to start playing a far more positive role in the search for a lasting peace settlement to the Arab-Israeli dispute?

My hon. Friend makes an important point. We have played an important role in that process for many years, and it is right that, in the forthcoming peace conference, the European Community should play a leading role. I welcome the recent Israeli agreement that the European Community presidency should participate in the conference that will be held soon. That is a welcome advance.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 June.

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

If the Prime Minister is so confident about the Government's proposal on health service trusts, why is it that the Mersey regional health authority is keeping its expensively produced business plans for the second wave of opt-outs a secret? It will not even release them to Members of Parliament. Why can we not have all this information out in the open, have a proper debate on the subject and then a ballot? Let us find out what the people of Merseyside think.

I believe that there will be many opportunities for Mersey debates in the weeks to come and I look forward to those with great relish. Every reform of the health service has been controversial, but, in due course, each has proved to be irreversible and in the interests of the health service. Our recently introduced changes will follow the same course.

Will my right hon. Friend intervene in the local government review to look at a local authority in Britain where people wait eight weeks to have their bins emptied, where thousands of council houses lie empty and where kids have to run the gauntlet of a picket line to get to school? My right hon. Friend will know that this is not fiction; it is Labour Liverpool under so-called moderate Labour control. If this is how the Labour party runs a city, how will it run a country?

I strongly suspect that the whole country will have observed how Liverpool has been run and drawn appropriate conclusions from that about how a Labour Government would work on a larger scale. Whether the Labour council is far left or moderate, it has done that great city no favours, just as a Labour Government would do this country no favours.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 June.

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

Will the Prime Minister give some serious consideration to the plight of two brave but unfortunate young men in my constituency, Walter and Ian Baird, of the same family, who are 21 and 16-years-old and who have contracted AIDS through blood transfusion? Although a settlement of over £45,000 for the pair of them was agreed over two months ago, they have yet to be paid. Why is it that 10 per cent. of the payment seems to be held up in Scotland?

If the hon. Gentleman will give me precise details of the cases that he has in mind, I shall be happy to examine them and respond to them.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 June.

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

Will my right hon. Friend make sure that there are enough funds in the English Heritage budget to ensure that a certain building in the Walworth road is preserved, so that my children and grandchildren can not only read about the demise of socialism but can go and see where the last of the Bolsheviks are working, led by a leader who was a co-producer and director of a play called "Promises, promises"?

My hon. Friend makes his point as only he can.

Will the Prime Minister confirm that he is as determined to strengthen and enlarge the European Community as he is to prevent the emergence of a united states of Europe? Will he tell the European Community that positively negotiating and participating in those negotiations does not in any way surrender a final decision on the overall package to protect the best interests of this country, and that while the devil, as always, is in the detail, so can be the benefits, and that it will probably be December before we can make an overall decision on the package that is negotiated?

The right hon. Gentleman is entirely correct in his latter point and I strongly support his remarks about a wider Europe, which I believe should involve not only the EFTA states hut, in due course, the eastern European states. I agree with him that negotiations on the two conferences are of vital importance to the future of this country. Whatever decisions are made may have a profound effect on our trade and well-being. I have set out often enough to the House that the economic case for monetary union has not been made, that we cannot accept the imposition of a single currency and that any proposed changes to the treaty of Rome—a move to a single currency—would require a separate decision by the United Kingdom Government and Parliament—[Interruption.] If Opposition Members do not wish to hear about the important negotiating position of the Government, that is a matter for them. Against that background, I shall negotiate with our European partners for what I believe to be right for this country. It will then be for this House to decide at the conclusion of those negotiations whether it is content to accept them.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that, a week or two ago, a number of Opposition Members raised points of order suggesting that questions concerning national health service hospital trusts could not be tabled in the Table Office. At that time I expressed concern about that. The immediate response from the Table Office to me was that that was inaccurate. Since then, I have written to the Principal Clerk of the Table Office, who has replied to me saying, and I quote—

Order. We do not quote in the Chamber correspondence that we have had with Officers of the House.

I accept that, Mr. Speaker, so to paraphrase the reply that I received, he confirms that the tabling of questions about NHS trusts is entirely in order and that there has been no question—[Interruption.]—of them not being in order. My point of order is to ask you what can be done to stop entirely bogus and inaccurate points of order being raised by Opposition Members for purely party political reasons. Is it not clearly an abuse of this House—

Order. I think I can help the hon. Member. It is not just the correspondence that he has had with the Clerk. The Leader of the House himself confirmed it, so I do not know what is the reason for his point of order for me.

I was asking you, Mr. Speaker—

Order. The incident took place a few weeks ago, and it was cleared up absolutely by the Leader of the House.

I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for pointing that out. Following those points of order, I received a letter from a constituent saying that it was disgraceful that questions about NHS trusts could not be tabled and answered in the House. In other words, Opposition Members successfully communicated to people outside—[Interruption.]—inaccurate information through points of order.

Order. The hon. Member is robust enough to reply to his constituent in straight terms to put the records straight.

rose—

Order. I remind the House that we sat until 3 o'clock this morning and are likely to have to do the same again tonight. It is all very well for hon. Members to raise points of order at this time, it being prime time from their point of view, but it takes time away from other hon. Members later in the evening.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

I hope that it is very brief.

The point of order concerns the accuracy of Hansard. Early-day motion No. 934 concerns the deplorable behaviour of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), but the record shows that it is signed by 11 hon. Members, including one member of the Labour Whips Office. Although I fully accept that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollock (Mr. Dunnachie) is entitled to sign that excellent motion—we must all be grateful to him for doing so—the difficulty is that, of the 11 signatories, only seven are printed. If one member of the Labour party is prepared to sign it, it would be useful to know which other members would be prepared to do so. If all the names were printed, we could find out how many members of the Labour party agree with the motion. We could also discover which members are so careless that they do not even know what they are signing.

Again, I do not know quite what the hon. Gentleman's point of order is for me. Perhaps he was a Minister when the rules regarding the printing of names on early-day motions were changed. It was done to save costs and time, but the names are available in the Table Office, if required.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I draw your attention to a practice whereby Ministers refer parliamentary questions to be answered by the chief executive of executive agencies? That ensures that the answers do not appear in Hansard, thereby denying the right of hon. Members to read those answers in Hansard. It also denies members of the public who read Hansard in public libraries throughout the country the right to see answers to questions that have been tabled by hon. Members. Such a practice is a serious erosion of parliamentary democracy and I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on what you can do about it.

That is old hat, too. [HON. MEMBERS: "No".] Well, it has been going on for the best part of a year, and if the hon. Gentleman objects to it—I understand his feelings—he should draw the matter to the attention of the Leader of the House at Business Questions. I cannot deal with the matter.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Well, I hope that it is legitimate.

Naturally, Mr. Speaker. As you know, a by-election is pending. I seek your guidance on the rules of the House about the moving of the writ for the by-election. It has become plain over the past few days in Liverpool, Walton that the Labour party has been split in two. I seek your guidance on which of the warring factions of the Labour party should seek to move the writ for the by-election: the real or the genuine Labour party.

I have been in the House for long enough —a little longer than the hon. Gentleman—to know that there are divisions on both sides of the House. They are not a matter for me. I consider that every hon. Member in his own right should be able to put the views of his constituents. I could not adjudicate on such a matter.

Let us have some entertainment.

Well, the television cameras will soon be switched off.

Further to the point of order of my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion), Mr. Speaker. The decision about questions being transferred to the chief executives of executive agencies is taken politically by the Government. We were informed by letter—we were not asked. It has given rise to a practice that denies to the House rights that it previously had, without debate in the Chamber or changes to Standing Orders. You, Mr. Speaker, could rule on this matter, or at least consider it, and direct Ministers to answer questions when they are put. We do not care whether the chief executive writes to the Minister to give him the answer, as long as it is printed in Hansard so that we can all read it.

I understand that point, but I do not have any more to say about it than I have already said to the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion). The matter should be taken up with the Leader of the House, perhaps most usefully through the usual channels, of which the hon. Gentleman was once a part.