To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment has been made of the cost to British employers of immediate implementation of all provisions of the European Commission's social action programme.

It is not possible to estimate the cost of implementation of all the social action programme as only half the proposals have so far been published. However, it is estimated that the implementation of the directives on working time, part-time work and pregnant women would alone cost United Kingdom employers at least £3·5 billion.

I am sure that the House would wish to join me in congratulating my right hon. and learned Friend on his 50th birthday which he celebrated on Sunday. He is wearing considerably better than many of us. While my right hon. and learned Friend is reflecting on that milestone in his life and on future policy, will he tell us whether under these proposals nearly 2 million of our low-paid citizens would be forced to pay national insurance contributions? Would not that be a retrograde step and is it not surprising that Labour would support such a policy?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind wishes. One might have thought it surprising for Labour to support a measure that would place such a burden on those on low pay, but nothing about Labour's attitude to those on low incomes or low pay any longer surprises me. Later today we shall debate some of Labour's proposals which would wreak havoc on those on low incomes and low pay, and would lead to the destruction of hundreds of thousands of jobs.

Is the Secretary of State aware that many men in my constituency who are celebrating their 50th birthday are not anywhere near being in the same happy circumstances as the right hon. and learned Gentleman because his policies have put many of them out of jobs? Is he further aware that of all the post-war holders of his office he has the worst record on unemployment? Did that fact help him to celebrate his 50th birthday?

The original question is about the social action programme. The hon. Gentleman should appreciate that that programme, which is fully supported by his party, would add to the ranks of the unemployed. If the hon. Gentleman is seriously concerned about the plight of the unemployed, which I am sure he is, as am I, he should start persuading his right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench to stop pursuing policies which would gratuitously make unemployment worse.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the European Commission has introduced the social action programme under the provisions of article 100A with a view to making it possible for the programme to be enacted by a qualified majority only? Does he agree that article 100A is not the appropriate article? What steps is he taking to challenge the European Commission on that point?

Not all the proposals in the social action programme are being brought forward under article 100A, but my hon. Friend is right to say that some are, and they are being introduced on the most tenuous basis. I make it quite clear in the Social Affairs Council of Ministers that that is the case. If necessary, at the end of the day we shall not hesitate to take these matters to the European Court of Justice.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the only figure that he has quoted today that has any credibility is that of his 50th birthday, and even that we shall check? Is he aware also that, as with the minimum wage, the figures that he has quoted about the cost of the social action programme are completely bogus? Why is it that the Government stand alone within the Community in setting their face steadfastly against any progress being made for employees at their places of work? Why are they so determined to undermine the conditions of Britons only? Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman realise that the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) is no longer Prime Minister?

The hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong. It never ceases to amaze me that the Labour party clings to such myths. Why does not the hon. Gentleman try to ascertain what really happens at the Council of Ministers, including what happened at its last meeting? We were not isolated. We were not alone. Other member states are finding it increasingly difficult to sign up for directives. They are becoming increasingly aware of the problems that will be posed for them. They are frequently grateful to the United Kingdom Government for the constructive role that we consistently play in the Council's deliberations.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what further measures he will take to increase the number of executive job clubs; and if he will make a statement.

On 19 June my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment announced a further 40,000 places this year in job clubs. My right hon. and learned Friend has asked the Employment Service to take the needs of unemployed white-collar workers and executives into account when it puts this extra provision into effect.

That is, indeed, good news. The evidence from the Southampton executive job club, which serves my constituency, is that it is doing well. Perhaps my hon. Friend will tell us a little more about the national picture. How many people will be able to enrol in job clubs and how many have done so? What is the percentage of placements back in employment? Has the Department undertaken any research to judge the cost-effectiveness of executive job clubs compared with Professional and Executive Recruitment, PER, which they replaced?

My hon. Friend is right about the success of the Southampton executive job club. There was a 68 per cent. positive outcome in that job club during 1990–91. Overall, there are more than 1,000 job clubs with 156,000 people making use of them. Of those who have gone through the clubs, 16 per cent. have gone into professional and managerial jobs. There are 30 executive clubs throughout the country and they are proving to be extremely successful. We shall, obviously, monitor the progress of the clubs. We are conducting research to see how and in what way we should expand the provision. As I have said, the clubs seem to have been extremely successful.

What emergency action is the Department of Employment taking to give advice and help to the staff of BICC, the Bank of Credit and Commerce International, who face redundancy and great uncertainty about their future? What other help and advice is being given to safeguard the employment of those employed by small businesses who are dependent on the bank?

The hon. Gentleman seems to have his initials wrong. Obviously, it is extremely serious when something takes place of the sort to which he has referred. He is right to draw attention to the full range of facilities that are operated by the Employment Service, which can help many people who find themselves in difficulties with employment. The hon. Gentleman's advice, that they should make use of the service, should be taken.

Will my hon. Friend join me in welcoming the fact that a new job club is shortly to be opened in Chelmsford? Does he agree—[Interruption.]—that job clubs have an extremely good record on successfully helping people back into jobs?

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his positive attitude to job clubs. I noticed that it attracted some derision from Opposition Members. They should reflect on the considerable help that has been given to people through job clubs. Before they laugh and sneer at the clubs, they should consider the serious contribution that job clubs are making.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will introduce legislation to ensure that all employees have a right to a written statement of terms and conditions within 13 weeks of commencement of employment.

Employees already have such a right under current employment protection legislation.

Is the Minister aware that citizens advice bureaux throughout Britain have evidence that not only are employers ignoring the requirement to give a written statement of terms and conditions, but some are deliberately not meeting that requirement? Is it not time for those who are employed for 16 hours a week also to have such a written statement?

If, as the hon. Gentleman alleges, there is widespread breaching of the requirement, employees should go to industrial tribunals which are well equipped to deal with such problems. I hope that citizens advice bureaux are giving the correct advice in that regard. The hon. Gentleman may be aware that there is an EC directive covering that point which, regrettably, has not yet been passed because the European Parliament could not give an opinion. However, it is almost certain that that directive will become EC law in the foreseeable future. It will make certain changes, including the one that the hon. Gentleman suggested.

Is my hon. Friend aware that 151 Members of the House are sponsored by trade unions? Does that make them delegates rather than representatives and are they entitled to a written contract of employment?

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point which I shall consider and take due account of.

But what about the 250 Tory Members of Parliament who are lining their pockets with directorships, 62 of whom are Lloyd's names and wanted to be bailed out by the taxpayer? What about their terms and conditions? At the next general election the Tories had better set up a training agency to search for jobs for all those Tory Members who will lose their seats, because they will need one.

I am impressed with the hon. Gentleman's care and concern for the categories of people whom he has just mentioned. Any people who find themselves in difficult circumstances should go to him because, obviously, he is anxious to help them.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many Government training places for young people were available in (a) 1978–79 and (b) the last year for which he has figures.

In 1978–79 there were on average about 7,000 young people receiving training in the youth opportunities programme compared with more than 300,000 now in youth training.

Those figures clearly show a real commitment to training. Does my hon. Friend recall that when we first gave young people a guarantee that at 16 they could have a job, a place in higher education or a place on a training scheme, the Opposition wanted young people to continue to have the option of voluntary idleness? Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Opposition and the trade unions have consistently blocked every move that the Government have ever made to provide for our young people? Will he further confirm that they have never given the kind of guarantees or brought forward the initiatives that have come from the Government Front Bench?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We saw an exhibition of that in the Opposition's sneering during an answer to a question about job clubs a few minutes ago. The Government have substantially increased expenditure on youth training, with positive results. Of those who complete youth training, 89 per cent. go into jobs, further education or further training, and 67 per cent. of them obtain vocational qualifications. It is time to stop knocking youth training and it would be useful if the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) took this opportunity to condemn yesterday's vote at the Transport and General Workers Union to boycott youth training.

Does the Under-Secretary of State realise that he loses all credibility when he sounds so complacent? Does he realise that yesterday the British Printing Industries Federation pulled out of youth training and that two clearing banks and many large companies, such as Mothercare, have pulled out? There is now a crisis in youth training. As I told the Minister two months ago, hundreds of young people are leaving school in the London borough of Newham and the east end of London without jobs and without youth training places. As everyone, including the local training and enterprise councils, says, we need more cash now. What will the Under-Secretary of State do about it?

Everyone agrees that the local character of the training and enterprise councils is one of their great strengths, but clearly that constitutes some problems for training providers that are organised on a national basis, of which there are some 140. That is why the Department installed the training national providers unit which has been helping to broker the relations between the national providers and the TECs. Only 5 per cent. of the national providers, 10 out of 140, have failed to establish a new relationship with the TECs, but they are all continuing with their training. We regret losing them, but the benefits that come from the localisation of the TECs are considerable.

I welcome those figures, which show that there has been truly spectacular progress. Does my hon. Friend accept, however, that a problem is beginning to develop? Some young people are unable to obtain training, simply because they cannot find placements. The problem is especially bad in my constituency, St. Ives in west Cornwall, where young people cannot find employers to give them training. Will my hon. Friend consult the TECs about that problem, which, I fear, will worsen over the next few months?

My hon. Friend is right, as, indeed, was the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton). We are firmly committed to the YT guarantee, although we do not yet know how many school leavers there will be or how many people will enter the programme. Placements will, obviously, be affected by the current economic situation. We are, however, keeping the position under review and we are already in contact with the TECs.

Was not the Under-Secretary of State's response to my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) remarkably complacent? When large organisations, such as the British Printing Industries Federation, the Midland bank and Mothercare, are pulling out of YT schemes, should not the Government do more than simply express concern, as the hon. Gentleman did? He washed his hands of the problem. Is it not time for action and for the Under-Secretary of State to recognise the difficulties to which those employers have drawn attention? Does he appreciate that it is impossible for them to negotiate with the 82 TECs? Or is he happy to allow YT to wither on the vine as a result of the cuts that have already been made in the budget?

That was quite a routine. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to accuse anyone of complacency, he should take account of the complacency that he is exhibiting in the face of yesterday's vote by the Transport and General Workers Union, and of his failure to take the opportunity that I offered him to dissociate himself from it. The Government are now spending £844 million on youth training. In 1979, when Labour was last in power, it spent £7·4 million. Labour Members are in no position to lecture us.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the reason for the small number of training places that were available in the late 1970s was because industry had been subjected to so many years of Labour Government? The Government of those days sought to support restrictive practices, to restrict prices and interfere with company management. Does my hon. Friend agree that the worst news on earth for any trainee would be news of the return of a Labour Government?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Indeed, the position was even worse than he suggested: the Labour Government paid no attention whatever to the need for youth training.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is his estimate of the number of places available per parliamentary constituency through his employment action programme.

Training and enterprise councils and local enterprise companies in Scotland will shortly be invited to submit proposals to deliver employment action in their local areas. As parliamentary constituency boundaries and TEC and LEC boundaries are not the same, it will not be possible to say what the distribution of employment action places will be within parliamentary constituencies.

I thought that the Secretary of State would shy away from answering my question. Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that in my constituency and, indeed, throughout the country many projects exist that could benefit from an employment action programme? Many more places are needed, however, and those involved in the programme need to be paid the rate for the job, instead of being used as slave labour.

The hon. Gentleman may care to reflect on the utter inconsistency of the two points that he has made. If the scheme were introduced with those involved being paid the rate for the job, it would be possible to provide roughly one third of the number of places that we shall provide next year.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend take this opportunity to support the moves being made through the programme to combat agism? Does he agree that, given the current demographic changes, it is important to look for opportunities to employ the over-50s, as well as to carry out the necessary work for the youth training scheme?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Jobcentres and the Employment Service generally are playing a full part in countering the difficulties that those who are over 50 experience in finding jobs. I now have a personal interest in that matter. The private sector is becoming increasingly aware of the importance of its role and it is taking its responsibilities increasingly seriously.

Why is it that, when faced with 965,000 people unemployed for over 26 weeks, the Government can find in this financial year 30,000 places only? Why is it, when faced with a bill for £16·4 billion to support the unemployed, the Government can provide only £110 million to get the unemployed back to work? Is the Secretary of State happy with that or will he continue to be the apologist for poverty pay in Britain?

The hon. Gentleman knows, or should know, full well that in this financial year we will provide through our various programmes help for an additional 190,000 people, over and above the 650,000 we are already helping. Next year we shall help a quarter of a million people in addition to those 650,000 whom we would be helping anyway—that is a total of 900,000 people. We will not take any lectures on the funding of these programmes from the Labour party when we know that none of these matters comes within the two immediate spending priorities that are the only things to which the shadow Chief Secretary will commit herself and her party.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the progress of negotiations over the EC's draft directives on employment.

Steady progress is being made on certain aspects of the European Commission's social action programme, particularly in the areas of health and safety, and free movement of workers. However, many member states continue to have major difficulties with the substance and proposed legal base of other proposals, notably in the area of employee rights.

Can my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that there is a growing awareness among the Governments of the European Community member states that the implications of several of the draft directives, including those on working time and part-time work, need to be studied extremely carefully before any approval can be given? Does he think it strange that the only part of Europe where there appears to be a continuing willingness to sign up to anything and everything is the Opposition Front Bench?

My hon. Friend is entirely right, but, of course, what he describes is entirely typical of the Labour party's blind attitude to such matters. It is significant that neither of the draft directives that my hon. Friend mentioned was even discussed at the last meeting of the Social Affairs Council.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that no EC directive on employment contains a clause that would allow the sacking of a nurse or doctor who spoke up for a patient rather than in support of management cuts? Will he now take the opportunity to condemn the sacking of Graham Pink, a nurse who spoke out for patient care rather than for cuts in hospital services?

I am afraid that I am not familiar with the facts and circumstances of that particular case. It is only a person as irresponsible as someone sitting on the Labour Benches who would expect anyone to comment on the circumstances of a particular case without having full knowledge of them. It was a Conservative Government who first introduced the right for workers to take a complaint for unfair dismissal to an industrial tribunal, so we shall not take any lectures from the Labour party on that matter either.

Can my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the social action programme could threaten 100,000 jobs in this country?

I fear that my hon. Friend's estimate is a considerable underestimate. The damage that the social action programme would do to employment would be much graver than my hon. Friend suggests, but, of course, that matter is regarded as of no consequence by the employment vandals on the Labour Benches.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the average rate of unemployment in the EC; and if he will make a statement.

Using the latest available internationally comparable unemployment rates, the average rate of unemployment in the European Community was 8·7 per cent. in May 1991.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the only large European Community countries that have a statutory national minimum wage, which the Labour party seems to want, are France and Spain, which both have higher unemployment than us?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is part of the evidence of the job destruction effects of a minimum wage policy. The only people who doubt those effects are Opposition spokesmen, who display an attitude of blithe unconcern about the obvious consequence of the policy that they are following. Unemployment in Britain is below the EC average.

Is not it remarkable that after 12 years of Tory Administration the economy of this great prosperous industrial nation is so fragile that, on the Government's admission, it cannot sustain the basic human right of a minimum wage?

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. Perhaps he might like to reflect on the implications of a 15·4 per cent. unemployment rate in Spain.

As my hon. Friend is responsible for tourism, does he agree that a minimum wage, such as in Spain, would profoundly damage the tourism industry? Could not it lead to the unemployment and empty hotels that are evident throughout Benidorm?

The connection between minimum wages and the loss of employment opportunities is palpable, obvious and has been demonstrated. Opposition Members should recognise that.

Is the Minister trying to contend that unemployment in Britain is not high and rising? As the recession is likely to last longer than the Government predicted, is he now prepared to put some weight behind measures designed to ensure that people get work by seeing that more effort is made to rebuild schools and hospitals and to insulate homes?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the employment action programme that was announced a couple of weeks ago by my right hon. and learned Friend and which will provide such opportunities. Unemployment in Britain is below the European Community average. It is rising higher because we are at a different stage in the economic cycle, but last month's unemployment increase was the lowest since January, which gives some reason for hope.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what recent representations he has received about the effect of the end of the dock labour scheme; and if he will make a statement.

None, Sir. The complete absence of such representations is further proof that the fears of damage to the economy, increasing industrial problems and general dislocation in ports that were expressed vociferously by the Opposition during the passage of the Dock Work Act 1989 were without substance or foundation.

May I commend to my hon. Friend a paper produced for Aims of Industry entitled "The End of the Dock Labour Scheme—An Interim Appraisal", which contains clear and irrefutable evidence that the abolition of the scheme has been of much benefit to workers in the ports industry and to the nation as a whole? Does not my hon. Friend find it bizarre that, in the face of that compelling evidence, the Labour party refuses to deny that if it took office it would reintroduce the scheme?

My hon. Friend, whose knowledge of the matter is great, is absolutely right. The publication to which he refers shows that new life has been breathed into several ports since the disappearance of the dock labour scheme. Many areas, communities and people can look forward to a happier future thanks to the measures that were introduced so courageously by, among others, my hon. Friend. It is remarkable that no Labour Members—official spokesmen or otherwise—have sought to distance themselves from the deplorable dock labour scheme, which cost so many jobs. I invite them to do so today.

Is not there something wrong with the Minister's records? To my knowledge, dockers in Leith have protested strongly about the ending of the dock labour scheme, which benefited employers and employees. What has gone wrong with the information that the hon. Gentleman collates? Not only Leith dockers but the labour movement are complaining about the ending of the dock labour scheme. Its restoration may not be official Labour policy, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that one person in particular—me—will argue for that restoration to be included in the Labour party manifesto.

I am delighted that a Labour Member has now said unequivocally that he at least wants a return to the old scheme. If Leith has a certain reputation in the House for eccentricity, that is perhaps understandable, but there are few who would agree with the hon. Gentleman, because all the evidence, from Hull, Liverpool and nearly all the great ports of the country, is that since the abolition of the scheme, with the willing support of dock workers, we have witnessed a revival of activity in the ports, which are offering a new level of service and efficiency and are bringing customers back. I hope that any of the hon. Gentleman's constituents who take the view that he described will think again and if they look positively at the opportunities facing Leith and them, they will see a revival of their opportunities.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is his latest estimate of the cost and effect on unemployment of introducing a minimum wage; and if he is reconsidering his policy on this matter.

A national legal minimum wage set at two thirds of median male hourly rate, as proposed by the Labour party, could cost up to 2 million jobs—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—if higher-paid workers were successful in fully restoring pay differentials. That policy makes economic nonsense. My policy is to continue to point out at every opportunity the devastating consequences—[HON. MEMBERS: "Wrong."]—which that minimum wage proposal would bring about.

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that reply. No doubt the country will be shocked by the information contained in it. Has he any useful advice about the minimum wage to offer to the Leader of the Opposition, who will tomorrow be addressing the conference of the Transport and General Workers Union?

It was interesting to see the extent to which Labour Members were keen to disavow what is official Labour party policy and is stated in clear words in all Labour's policy documents. Perhaps it is not too late for the Leader of the Opposition to realise the absurdity of his policy and to abandon it when he talks tomorrow to the Transport and General Workers Union.

Does the Secretary of State appreciate how distasteful it is to listen to Conservative Members, most of whom have outside jobs which more than double their parliamentary salaries, continually seeking to block any improvement in the wages and conditions of millions of British workers who suffer some of the lowest wages in the European Community?

That kind of sneer will not help to resolve the issue of how we can best improve wages and conditions. We can best help to do that by paying family credit to those on low pay, rather than substituting for low pay no pay, which is the policy of the Labour party.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of experience in the United States, which introduced a minimum wage law in 1947, since when unemployment among the ethnic minorities and especially black unskilled people has continued to rise, so much so that many American states have abandoned the minimum wage law and introduced a right to work law?

My hon. Friend is entirely right. Every independent study has demonstrated that the policy would cost jobs. The only point on which they disagree is how many jobs would be lost. When will the Labour party see sense and abandon its absurd policy?

When will Conservative Members admit that they are talking nonsense about Labour's policy? They have doubled unemployment and are now presiding over the fastest rise in unemployment in Europe—[Interruption.]—and do not know what to do about it. The most interesting point about the Major Government is that while they pour scorn on, and deride the notion of, protection for some of the poorest paid in our society— often women, many of them working in conditions of great hardship for £3·40 an hour—they will not lift a finger when the chairmen of privatised industries pay themselves an extra £80,000 or £90,000 a year. That is the true face of Majorism.

The simple answer is that we protect those on low pay through family credit. The Opposition would simply destroy their jobs.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on progress with industrial and vocational training.

Progress has been substantial. Employers have been put in the lead of training locally and at industry level and are more committed than ever to raising the levels of skills in the work force. Employer training has increased by 85 per cent. over the past six years. Major reforms of education and youth training are raising the attainment of young people. Good progress is being made on the reform of vocational qualifications.

Will my right hon. and learned 1Friend confirm that the evidence from the latest survey carried out by the Confederation of British Industry is that private industry is maintaining its commitment to training? In view of the representations made to me by Somerset training and enterprise council which I have communicated to him, will he confirm that the Government will maintain their commitment to provide the resources necessary to deliver the youth training guarantee?

I am happy to give my hon. Friend that confirmation. We shall continue to work in partnership with the training and enterprise councils to provide training of ever-higher quality.

When we are receiving reports from around the country that youth training and employment training have waiting lists because so many people are trying to get on them, when, even after last month's announcement, funds for training are being cut—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question!"]—and when the Department of Employment's review—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question!"]—

Order. I trust that the hon. Gentleman will ask a question. That would help.

When the Department's own review says that the relationship between TECs and the Government cannot be sustained as a result of funding cuts, why does not the Secretary of State take responsibility for the crisis in training which the Government have caused and about which they are doing nothing?

What the hon. Gentleman should be considering is yesterday's vote by his trade union—the Transport and General Workers Union—to boycott youth training, employment training and the training and enterprise councils. In view of his utter failure to dissuade even his own trade union from boycotting and turning its back on training, will the hon. Gentleman and the Leader of the Opposition, both of whom are sponsored by the Transport and General Workers Union, today undertake not to accept a penny more of tainted money from that union until it abandons its boycott of training?

Can my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the latest CBI survey shows that three quarters of firms expect to maintain or increase their investment in training? How does that compare with the proposals for a tax on employment to pay for training— would not that cost more jobs and is not it typical of all the policies of that lot on the Opposition Benches?

My hon. Friend is entirely right. It is still the knee-jerk reaction of the Opposition to pull for compulsion at every turn. Their policies on this issue would be as disastrous as the training levy boards of the past.

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement about training opportunities for (a) those with special needs and (b) women returnees.

Training and enterprise councils are required to set out in their business plans how they intend to offer suitable training to people with special needs and those returning to the labour market. Those plans form the basis of their contract with my Department and a substantial proportion of the £1·7 billion spent through TECs on employment training and youth training go to people with special needs and to women returners.

Does the Minister accept that the gap between what the Government say in the House about training and what is happening throughout the country is incredible? In west Wales, for example, the number of training weeks has been cut by 43,000, or 21 per cent., including 38 places for special needs trainees. The number of courses for part-time training has been chopped all over Neath, depriving particularly women returnees of much-needed opportunities. Those women cannot take up full-time courses because of child care responsibilities. Is not it time the Government admitted that their training programme is an absolute disgrace and a shambles?

We need no lectures from the Labour party. We are spending two and a half times as much in real terms on training, vocational education and enterprise as was spent when the Labour party was last in office. Every time Labour Members make a statement about these matters, their expenditure commitments are qualified by references to "resources allowing".

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 July.

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.

The Prime Minister must be aware of the 253 per cent. pay increase of the chief executive of Yorkshire Electricity—yet another in a long line of outrageous pay increases to the chiefs of former publicly owned industries. Is not it true that the right hon. Gentleman refuses to do anything about those pay rises because of his friends and former colleagues on the boards of those companies, who are stuffing their pockets with money as fast as it can be snatched from the long-suffering consumer?

The hon. Gentleman gives a prize example of Labour humbug. The Labour party's policy document "Opportunity Britain" states:

"British industry now needs a long term commitment from Government … but not in the form of second guessing industry".

May I remind my right hon. Friend that, so far this year, his Government have supported the creation of 4,500 new jobs in Wales and nearly £352 million of investment for the Principality? Every announcement of such good news has been greeted contemptuously by Labour Members. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the tactics of the luddite left are the surest, fastest way of undermining investor confidence?

I agree with my hon. Friend. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales has just returned from the United States with a significant package of job-creating projects, promising more than 500 new jobs. I should have thought that the Opposition would welcome that.

When the Prime Minister meets the Heads of Government of the G7 major industrialized nations next week, will he explain to them how he managed to get an oil-rich country like Britain to the bottom of the employment, growth and investment leagues?

The right hon. Gentleman should look at what has happened over the past 10 years, when our growth has far outstripped that of almost every other industrial nation. Over the decade as a whole, we have one of the best job creation records of any nation.

The Prime Minister chooses to speak of the past. Will he therefore recognise that, for the past three years, we have been at the bottom of those employment, growth and investment leagues and that, according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, with his policies we will be in that position again next year? Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that this is the first time that any country has been at the bottom for four consecutive years? As the right hon. Gentleman has been a Treasury Minister or the Prime Minister over the whole period, does he agree that he should accept unique responsibility for this unique failure?

The right hon. Gentleman should have read on in the OECD report, where it was made clear that lower inflation is the essential condition for sustained growth. Everybody recognises that except the right hon. Gentleman. Indeed, only last week at the National Economic Development Council, trade unionists such as Mr. Jordan, Mr. Edmonds and Mr. Willis all supported the steps to reduce inflation. Only the right hon. Gentleman does not know where prosperity begins.

By pushing the economy into deep recession, the Prime Minister can, of course, reduce inflation. Does he think that, under his policies, he will be higher placed on the growth, employment and investment leagues next year? Does he recognise that, if he is not, he is just laying the seeds for further inflation?

We are absolutely refusing to take action now that may lay the seeds for future inflation. We are determined to ensure that we not only get inflation down but keep it down. Unlike the right hon. Gentleman, we shall not take the easy option now at the risk of problems later.

Has my right hon. Friend read the reports of the conference of the Transport and General Workers Union—the union which, incidentally, sponsors the Leader of the Opposition—

Order. This must be related to the Government's responsibilities.

Has he read about its calls for the scrapping of all trade union laws, with the consequent return of Mr. Ron Todd's secondary strikes and flying pickets? Is not he thankful that in framing industrial laws, his party conferences have not been tainted by the block votes of the trade union ballots?

It is perfectly clear that Labour Members are sensitive about their relationship with the trade unions. They are right to be, because their idea of democracy is demonstrated every year when the leader of the Transport and General Workers Union visits the Labour party conference—one man, 1 million votes, and the right hon. Gentleman does as he is told.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 July.

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

When the Prime Minister takes time off from his engagements, will he do what the Home Secretary so conspicuously failed to do yesterday and accept total and unconditional responsibility for the appalling lapse in security that allowed two alleged terrorists to escape from Brixton gaol? Does not he realise what an enormous propaganda coup the Government have given the IRA?

Everyone shares the concern at the lapse in security yesterday which resulted in two prisoners escaping. That is a matter of genuine regret, not least by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. Those problems have occurred before under previous Governments, but only this Government have taken action to tighten security, improve the conditions of prison staff and provide new and proper prison places.

Does my right hon. Friend agree not only that a minimum wage would be damaging but that a minimum wage based on median wages would be the worst of all, because it would continue to ratchet upwards as the median moved upwards? That would lead to a catastrophic rise in wages, destruction of jobs and a policy that could have been dreamt up only by a shadow Cabinet controlled by 18 trade union-sponsored Members out of 20.

My hon. Friend is entirely right. It is now generally understood by everyone except those on the Opposition Front Bench that a minimum wage policy would devastate British industry and create a substantial amount of unemployment.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 July.

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

As the Prime Minister says that he believes in the creation of a classless society, will he assure the House that he will not recommend the creation of any hereditary peerages?

The subject of honours is not a matter that I am required to answer in front of the House and I do not propose to do so.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 July.

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

Does my right hon. Friend share my concern about the admission by Iraq that it has been developing a nuclear weapon? Does he agree that any responsible political party in this country should give a firm pledge not to give up nuclear weapons as long as other countries still have them and countries such as Iraq are developing them?

I agree with my hon. Friend and can certainly give him the assurance that he seeks. Iraq has now admitted to having a secret uranium enrichment programme. That is a clear violation of the nuclear safeguards agreement and of Iraq's non-proliferation treaty obligations. As I said some time ago at the Scottish conference in Perth, we shall ensure by whatever means it takes that Iraq can never again build up a capacity to threaten its neighbours with nuclear, biological or chemical weapons.

Leaving aside for a moment the question of how the Bank of Credit and Commerce International got into its present position, will the Prime Minister assure the House that he personally understands the scale of the tragedy that is befalling BCCI investors? Is he aware that in some communities in Britain, up to 30 per cent. of traders are account holders in BCCI? Will he look at the rules governing compensation, which many regard as incapable of meeting the needs of those innocent people whose livelihoods are being destroyed?

I do, of course, understand the depth of tragedy that the apparent collapse of BCCI may mean. As yet, we are not sure what the outcome of the Serious Fraud Office investigation, the Bank of England investigation or other matters will be. The deposit protection fund was explicitly set up to protect small depositors, particularly those people with whom the right hon. Gentleman is most concerned, and it will apply in these circumstances.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 July.

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

Has my right hon. Friend had time to read the private Member's Bill that would give the National Audit Office power to cost Opposition policies? If the Bill becomes law, will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the National Audit Office will be given sufficient staff to carry out that important task because it is a big job—commitments are added week by week and speech by speech by Labour spokesmen—or is it a task which would be beyond anybody?

I welcome my hon. Friend's tongue-in-cheek suggestion, but I fear that he suggests a little too much. Only last Friday, the Labour party explained that its regional assemblies would be funded by block grant from Westminster. As usual, no price tag was attached and we may yet have to determine what that price tag is. As many hon. Members may have seen on "Panorama" last night, a member of the Labour party, Professor Rowthorne, summed up the matter adequately. Asked about Labour's spending plans, he said:

"Frankly I think they don't add up. If you take their whole list of spending plans and say where's the money for this going to come from I think the answer is—I have no idea."

Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to reassure the people of Wales by condemning the ludicrous suggestion that the Royal Welch Fusiliers could ever be merged with the Cheshire regiment, or that the oldest and one of the finest regiments in Wales could ever be disbanded?

We have very great concern for the regimental structure, which is more than the Opposition have shown during the past few years. Final decisions on "Options for Change" will take account of all relevant factors. Those decisions have not yet been made. When they are, my right hon. Friend and I shall be here to answer for them.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 July.

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

When my right hon. Friend met the leaders of the trade unions yesterday, did he feel that his position was significantly enhanced by the fact that those same trade unions do not wield 90 per cent. of the votes at his party's conference and do not provide 70 per cent. of the funding for his party and that 18 of his Cabinet Ministers are not sponsored by trade unions?

Yes, I agree that that gives me a degree of freedom not open to everyone else. There is no doubt that Conservative employment laws have brought about a record on industrial relations which is currently the envy of the whole of Europe. We had fewer strikes last year than at any time since the war. In contrast, Labour's strikers' charter gives the unions exactly what they want and no one can doubt their ambitions. As Ron Todd said—I shall read this slowly so that hon. Members can listen:

"We do not want to go back to 1979—things weren't that good even then."

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 July.

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

As hostilities are being renewed, with accusations and counter-accusations by former Cabinet Ministers, is there any truth in the rumour floating round Westminster that a small EC peace-keeping mission is to come over here to try to restore some peace in the Prime Minister's party?

No, Sir.

With the leave of the House, I shall put together the 10 questions on the motions relating to Statutory Instruments.